Comments on: Japan Debuts New Maglev Train

By: Jakub

Jakub — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 08:51:00 +0000

The technology from Japan is not the best solution for US. If I compare it with German Transrapid, it has several disadvantages. Japan Maglev is using superconductivity, which, on one side, saves the energy, but it requires the coils to be freezed and that would be to complicated if the magnets would be along the whole vehicle. That’s why there are just electomagnets placed like the bogies (front and end of each car only) and they must be much stronger. It also uses rubber wheels for the speeds up to 80 km/h, wich lowers the advantage of non contact travel. If you look at the train, it is quite small and not much more comfortable than a plane. The track, on the contrary, is very large and requires great amount of space. The german Transrapid is different. It doesn’t use superconductivity, but the magnets are placed all along the vehicle, so they can be much smaller and the magnetic field is than not much stronger, than in regular wheel-on-rail engine. The wehicle is wider, than the guidway, which is wide as a bigger car or so, so the construction costs are much lower. The train has much bigger inner space. But it is designed for lower speed, because it is not so aerodynamicaly designed, as Japanese MLU.

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 03:18:00 +0000

Yeah, I was going more for the fast branch approach – Take a 300+MPH train between major transportation hubs, have those terminate at the airport. Use the 200+MPH TGV to get to neighboring major cities as well as the city center itself, then use local rail for major transportation routes in the city and buses/bikes for everything else…

If you add many stops to the first two, the top speed doesn’t end up mattering because you spend all your time accelerating/decelerating. By minimizing those stops you make it more practical in terms of time. Then use local (can still be relatively fast, 60MPH minimum, 100MPH achievable) for the convenince factor you speak of…

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 02:53:00 +0000

Something that I came to appreciate with Europe’s trains is that they generally stop right in town. I was often able to stay a short walk from the terminal.

The airport is often a ways out of town, adding more travel time to both ends of a trip.

We might need cheap long term parking and a quick shuttle for those who can’t get to the terminal by public transportation from their house. Or for large cities there might be a couple of stops before the train gets back up to speed. In-town and long term parking terminals.

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Mon, 24 Jun 2013 02:47:00 +0000

I see it being a loop – San Fransisco, San Jose, LA (or San Diego, but not both), Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta, Philidelphia (or NYC, not both) and Chicago.

Then From LA you have a High Speed Rail (TGV equivalent) between LA-San Diego, Dallas-Houston-San Antonio-Austin, Philidelphia-NYC-Boston-DC-etc… (Not as familiar with all the local large cities)

Then around the individual cities you have relatively rapid (60+ MPH) Transportation rail from metroplexes to major commerce areas, or along other major routes (really, any highway that needs to be more than 3 lanes each way could probably support a line)

Cap it off by having Electric buses and bike-sharing programs at the ends stops.

Also, for infrastructure purposes, the MagLev lines should stop at the city’s airport as we already have parking infrastructure, bus routes, etc. going to these locations. Plus, they could add to convenience by paring them with the TGV at these locations. Instead of catching connecting flights, you could take a larger (and therefore more efficient) flight to a major hub and then the TGV to your final destination. Use the local rail/buses to get around and bikes to get to your exact destination…

All of this should be equipped with automated monitoring systems to minimize running and maintenance costs. Sure, it will have a large up front investment, but it will enable the next few centuries of sustainable, rapid, an economic mass transit.

/end rant

Edit: This is actually modeled off of the internet infrastructure. It works rather well from most objective metrics.

By: KrzysioMlynarz

KrzysioMlynarz — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 03:25:00 +0000

Second-generation superconducting maglev is designed to be able to carry heavy freight — any kind that currently travels by rail — as well as transport truck ferries or car ferries, at the full 500 km/h (300 mi/h) design speed, whether on raised monorail (most of the route) or flat, planar guideways (slower segments, usually off the main route) including along existing rail track.

The business model is based on carrying freight, unlike other maglevs and HSR. Unlike passenger-and light freight-only maglev or HSR, heavy freight and truck ferries are projected to provide high revenue at even low carriage rates. They calculate that this would pay back initial capital costs on a typical route in around five years, and freight revenues would help underwrite the costs of passenger transport without subsidies — meaning tickets cheaper than otherwise possible.

By: KrzysioMlynarz

KrzysioMlynarz — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 03:20:00 +0000

http://www.magneticglide.com

Their older site:

http://maglev2000.com

Here, they have a page devoted to describing what they call “MERRI” (Maglev Emplacement on Rail Road Infrastructure):

http://maglev2000.com/apps/apps-09.html

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 03:15:00 +0000

Thanks for that info.

Can you give us some idea as to what these guideway panels are like?

Sounds like we might be able to build HSR now, like the one starting up in CA this summer, and run superfast maglev on the same route.

By: KrzysioMlynarz

KrzysioMlynarz — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 03:09:00 +0000

Second generation superconducting maglev, which was developed by the same two American engineers/physicists who invented the superconducting maglev that Japan tested and developed, is designed so it can use existing railway track quite easily by laying down cheap guideway panels on either side of existing track. That way it doesn’t need special separate guideway structures everywhere: where it’s practical or desirable, it can travel along existing rail tracks or even roadways.

By: KrzysioMlynarz

KrzysioMlynarz — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 03:06:00 +0000

Whether a maglev route requires separate track infrastructure all the way depends on the particular maglev technology. The German maglev used in Shanghai and the Japanese superconducting maglev are both completely incompatible with existing rail. However, the two American inventors of the Japanese system, James Powell and Gordon Danby, have developed a second generation of superconducting maglev that is able to switch seamlessly between raised narrow monorail track and low-cost guideway panels laid down on the outsides of existing rail. It can use ordinary rail track (with these panels on the outer edges) inside cities or wherever else it is practical or desirable to do so (permanently or temporarily) instead of raised guideways.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:46:00 +0000

I don’t know if maglev can be installed at at a reasonable cost, but if it could compete financially against long distance air travel I see its use as a long distance “express” rather than than the city to city service provided by European HSR.

A line from the US East Coast to the West Coast. Very limited stops so that maximum speed can be maintained. Maybe no more than one stop every 500 miles. Or run coast to coast express runs with no stops and other trains doing ‘distant city’ non-stop runs. Reach max speed and stay there until reaching destination.

Same sort of idea on other continents.

By: JamesWimberley

JamesWimberley — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:25:00 +0000

For reference, steel-rail high-speed trains generally run in Europe at 300 km/hr (186 mph). The newest French lines, like the LGV-Est, are designed for 350 km/hr (217 mph) and the next generation of rolling stock will run at that speed, but no faster. That was the track used for the showing-off speed record, with a special test train and repairs to the damaged track afterwards.
For European distances, and no more than 150 km between stops, a lot of the time is slowing down for stations. The time saving end-to-end from maglev would not be great.

The French rule of thumb is that passengers will switch en masse from air to rail if the time from city centre to city centre is less than 3 hours. The first instalment of the LGV Atlantique (Paris to Tours) was built to get the time from Paris to Bordeaux down to exactly 3 hours. In other words, the benefits from going below 3 hours are not that great.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 03:05:00 +0000

Cars/trucks, airplanes and trains.

How about explaining to us why you think it takes more energy per passenger/freight mile to fly or drive than to move by rail?

By: Others

Others — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:19:00 +0000

If maglev is delusion then maglev system that used vacuum tubes could be super delusion.

Railways compete with all 3 modes of transport and if by chance all cars were electric or if electric planes become reality, then the rail will lose on the cost front. Better to strengthen conventional rails with high and low speed, mass and light transit that puts the rails to maximum use.

By: arne-nl

arne-nl — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:15:00 +0000

“Maglev trains are also referred to more commonly as bullet trains.”

The conventional Shinkansen high speed train has been nicknamed ‘bullet train’ for as long as I can remember.

By: Edward Kerr

Edward Kerr — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 11:28:00 +0000

Bob,
Quit making sense. In a world where we have hundreds of bridges close to failing and water systems that are in poor shape and a general infrastructure in decline with little to nothing being done unless there is a disaster, to expect our “austerity minded” politicians to even consider a high speed maglev transportation system is akin to delusion. {don’t even talk about their resistance to building the alternative energy infrastructure that we NEED}

Having said that I think that a maglev system that used vacuum tubes could provide speeds of over 1200 mph with a “crash quotient” far lower than air travel (possibly 0). My only question is: will I still get groped/fondled at the station?

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 04:17:00 +0000

Thanks for that information, Others. I didn’t realize Japan had so much unelectrified rail, although I assume the vast majority of passenger miles are done on electrified track.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 02:26:00 +0000

Most US infrastructure was built after cars and airplanes were in use. Much was built post WWII when the US was enjoying great economic conditions and is was relatively easy for people to afford a car.

Lots of Europe and Asia surface routes pre-date the 20th century and just aren’t designed for cars. Both maintained larger amounts of mass transit, often because affording cars for most people was not an option.

Going forward the US will develop more mass transportation, we already are. But at the same time the move to electric cars will mean that we will likely continue having high personal car ownership compared to many parts of the world. Oil will go away. The economics of electricity assure that happening.

By: Others

Others — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:44:00 +0000

Among the 4 modes of transport, Railways is the only mode which can run easily on electricity with overhead catenary or 3rd line.

What if more and more trains of all types are introduced to combat the pollution, reduce congestion and move people and freight faster. This will also need line doubling where ever single track is there. Next step would be to electrify the line.

I guess the 1,200 km route between Shanghai and Beijing is covered in just few hours. China is investing on railways in a very large scale having known the trouble of America being addicted to Oil with road transport.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:28:00 +0000

” So why not we keep pushing the speed of trains faster and faster using conventional rails and also run other trains on it during off-peak hours and holidays.”

If we can get HSR fast enough to take traffic away from airplanes then that’s “good enough”.

If maglev can go significantly faster and/or operate on significantly less energy then it might make sense to build some of that as well.

Of course fastest doesn’t always win out. There was the Concord….

By: Mohan Raj

Mohan Raj — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 01:09:00 +0000

The French hold the World Record for Fastest Train in Conventional Rails at 574 km/h. That’s just 26 km short of 1/2 the speed of sound.

And the Chinese keep increasing the speed of their high speed trains and now they are already hitting 350 km/h. So why not we keep pushing the speed of trains faster and faster using conventional rails and also run other trains on it during off-peak hours and holidays.

As for Japan’s electrification, still 1/3 of their cape gauge are not electrified as of 2005. May be much of it would have been converted because of high oil prices in the last 8 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport_in_Japan

Another interesting topic on World’s gauges. The standard gauge dominates 60% of the World’s gauge followed by Russian Broad gauge @ 17 % and Cape gauge @ 9%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge