MAGLEV Munich (Muenchen) Germany Project Kaput.

I have not read this study, nor do I plan to, as I'm not interested in railway development in Europe (only to the extent that it affects U.S. development). Thanks, anyway.

There is a broader picture here. That picture is that the United States has a railway system which does not function as well as it's european counterpart for a variety of reasons, none of which I plan to address.
With Maglev, this is a system which is still in it's basic design phase and has not been fine tuned to the point of being acceptible as a competitor to other modes of transportation. Having said that, most (if not all) good things appear primitive at initial stages. I maintain that this technology would by far out-perform any type of system if given a chance.

European railways have fast, efficient trains, which, in my opinion, would not match the Maglev of the future, but are nonetheless more efficient than transportation currently in the U.S. Therefore, I can understand a certain under-enthusiasm towards Mag-lev from the prospective of most european designers. In the U.S., we currently have one so-called high-speed run - Acela. I maintain that if a commitment was made towards refining Mag-lev, that the result could initially bring a trans-continental high-speed train route from New York to San Francisco, which would out-perform all rail travel, be more efficient, and directly compete with the airline and trucking industry (in the future) creating a domino effect of faster, safer, more comfortable, and more efficient rail travel in the U.S. that would be the envy of the world.

villager wrote:Add in the fact that vacuum tube HSR costs nearly 4 times as much as conventional TGV construction, and is unlikely to be much faster, and it quickly becomes a "what's the point" technology.

Vacuum tube maglev is capable of any desired speed. The main constraint is how much acceleration is considered comfortable. Even at only 3 mph/sec, a vacuum tube maglev can reach a speed of about 465 mph in only 10 miles, and 1000 mph in about 50 miles. If it decelerates at the same rate, it can cover 100 miles between stations in under 12 minutes. This means even over fairly short distances it can do way better than HSR, although to be fair there will be some time at each stop going through an airlock. For that reason HSR may still be better suited to travel with stops spaced closer than perhaps 100 to 150 miles. Vacuum tube maglev can do way better than air over any distance while using way less energy. Things get really interesting when you look at intercontinental distances. Using the same 3 mph/sec acceleration/deceleration, the 2500 miles between the US coasts can be covered in about 58 minutes (maximum speed will be around 5200 mph). Even if you want to limit speed to only 3000 mph to save energy the journey can be made in only 67 minutes. If even one such trunk line were built in the US, as 3rdrail points out the domino effect it would have on connecting transportation would be astounding.

Vacuum tube maglev is NOT the answer to replace HSR, but rather to supplement it. All it takes are a few trunk lines connecting major cities along continents, and a few transoceanic lines. In the context of a national transportation system, it wouldn't be terribly expensive to build, either. Even at $100 million per mile, you can go coast-to-coast for $250 billion. This is but a small fraction of the GDP, or put another way, a one-time expense of under $1000 per capita. Not a huge amount of money by any standards. As a nation we've spent far more money on things of far less benefit to the average person.

Transportation is the lifeblood of the nation. Right now with the exception of a few large cities like New York, our transportation system is practically third world. It can easily surpass European standards with a relatively paltry investment. Given how large the US is, it's always amazed me that we really have no decent long distance transportation options. Car is too slow and depends upon a person operating and buying his own transportation (something many can't afford or are physically unable to do). Planes are uncomfortable, airports inconvenient for non-drivers, and aren't that fast either once one considers trips to airports, security delays, and congestion. Passenger rail is stuck at 1960s or worse speeds for the most part, and trains serve too few places and often are too infrequent. Lots of reasons are given for the lack of competitiveness of the US economy lately but I'll put the poor transportation system as the number one reason. People spend money on cars that could be spend on other goods if they had other travel options. People spend untold hours in traffic (lost productivity). I don't even want to get into how much accidents and pollution cost the economy. The future is going to be subways, light rail, conventional rail, HRS, and vacuum-tube maglev. Instead we've spent most of our transportation dollars on cars and planes. At best personal transportation will be relegated to small vehicles used as shuttles to stations or grocery getters. It was never really suited for long distances anyway. Planes will in time no longer be viable due to high fuel prices and issues of noise and pollution. The former is already starting to have some effect. As an old-saying goes, if you don't plan for the future and accept what is changing it'll come back and bite you in the behind. Those who bet the horse and buggy would never be replaced by the auto lost big time. Those who are willing to bet our national future on auto and air travel will similarly lose big.

Sounds to me like vacuum-tube HSR is supposed to be the answer to the problem of SST over land masses, i.e. the sonic boom. No atmosphere, no shockwave. (Remember Braniff's Concorde?)

Those who bet the horse and buggy would never be replaced by the auto lost big time

If you made that bet in Amish country or on Mackinac Island, you'd be able to collect.

I believe we are way of track from topic.

jtr1962 wrote: Vacuum tube maglev is capable of any desired speed.

Yes, and teleporting is even faster, but neither exist, and making them exist will be incredibly expensive, and that's the part you're missing.

If one looks carefully at the differences in rail service here and on the continent, you will see that the differences in quality, speed, and reliability are almost all due to political and economic factors, not technological ones.

Maglev in the US faces all the challenges of true TGV-style HSR in the US, namely acquiring lots and lots of property through eminent domain, and then adds another layer of complexity in terms of non-standard technology, lack of competition to bid for systems construction, and virtually no track record other than 1 commercial operation in Asia where land use planning and private property rights are completely different.

For decisionmakers, especially those in our congress which is comparatively short-term oriented, (no change in fuel economy requirements for 20 years) even if the political will existed to build HSR (and it doesn't right now), they would do serious cost:benefit analysis and focus on SWOSR HSR and throw maglev and vacuum tubes out the window. While it may not matter to those of us on a rail enthusiast website, cost is most certainly an issue to those who would fund such projects. This is why there will never be a maglev system in the USA in the next 50 years, or maybe ever.

Villager - That kind of pessimism has historically occured at the advent of every single successful "new fangled" invention. It's "boiler-plate". Just exchange words like "automobile", "airplane", or "railroad" where you have "Mag-lev", and you will have a historical document replica from the past - way past.

villager wrote:Yes, and teleporting is even faster, but neither exist, and making them exist will be incredibly expensive, and that's the part you're missing.

I wasn't missing anything. I was simply stating that anyone comparing vacuum tube maglev (which I agree doesn't exist yet) with conventional HSR, and stating that there isn't a speed advantage, is wrong. That's the whole point of taking the air out in the first place. And on another note, I wonder if SWOSR would be capable of much higher speeds in a similar environment. Right now the big problem limiting speed (besides power) seems to be electrical pickup. The train can't catch up with the standing wave creating in the catenary. However, using a linear motor as a maglev does neatly gets around this problem. After that the real limitation running is a vacuum tube would be how fast the wheels and bearings can turn. I don't know the answer to that. I don't think anyone does.

If one looks carefully at the differences in rail service here and on the continent, you will see that the differences in quality, speed, and reliability are almost all due to political and economic factors, not technological ones.

Agreed.

Maglev in the US faces all the challenges of true TGV-style HSR in the US, namely acquiring lots and lots of property through eminent domain, and then adds another layer of complexity in terms of non-standard technology, lack of competition to bid for systems construction, and virtually no track record other than 1 commercial operation in Asia where land use planning and private property rights are completely different.

True, although the eminent domain problem isn't a huge issue except along the coasts. And where it is, you can just run in tunnels for a few tens of miles near major cities as the French and Japanese do. More expensive, but you avoid tying up things for years in court. As a bonus, you get immunity from the weather and also greater ease of securing the ROW. One thing being overlooked is once an HSR system is in place, you can use a lot of land formerly devoted to airports for other things, so you may actually end up with more usable land in population centers.

For decisionmakers, especially those in our congress which is comparatively short-term oriented, (no change in fuel economy requirements for 20 years) even if the political will existed to build HSR (and it doesn't right now), they would do serious cost:benefit analysis and focus on SWOSR HSR and throw maglev and vacuum tubes out the window. While it may not matter to those of us on a rail enthusiast website, cost is most certainly an issue to those who would fund such projects. This is why there will never be a maglev system in the USA in the next 50 years, or maybe ever.

I'll be more than happy to see a SWOSR HSR system in the US rivaling the Interstate Highway system. So long as it's fast, efficient, and zero emissions I'm OK with it whether it's SWOSR or magnets. Such a system would be a viable alternative to flying, even between coasts, and certainly over much shorter distance. If we ever build an ultra high-speed maglev trunk line(s) that would just be the icing on the cake.

Because of a bunch of demographic and geopolitical factors I'd say the political will may exist to build an HSR system in the not too distant future. People want alternatives to crowded highways and cattle-car like air travel. It's mainly a bunch of special interests keeping the status quo, but it can't continue forever. I'll also add that the majority of people in the US have never really used train travel regularly so their opinions on it are biased. Once one or two small scale HSR systems are put into place every major and minor city will want one. Witness the popularity of Acela, even though it's expensive and not exactly HSR.

I'll just tag onto JTR's insightful post here as regards to his/her last two lines in the post above. Every technological advance raises the bar a degree or two higher. We have seen the evolution from omnibusses to horsecars to trolleys. I believe that the potential for Mag-lev, particularly vacuum tube Mag-lev, is revolutionary- that it will be as transportation changing as the advent of the trolley. From Virginian beginnings, the use of the trolley spread like wild fire throughout the country, once introduced. Persons saw and experienced, first hand, what it offered and wanted it "yesterday". Political and economic forces became accomodating. Let's be honest. Who among us does not have at least a slight amount of anxiety at the prospect of riding on riveted aluminum 30,000 feet in the air ? If you could relax on ground level on an overnight Pullman, or between having lunch in Times Square and dinner at Fisherman's Wharf, or even theoretically in the time that it would take you to read the newspaper, wouldn't these scenarios create such a social/political dynamic as to become positively and agressively mandated as trolleys were ? What about the effect on commercial shipping whereby goods could be shipped as quickly ? What about responses to crisis, important governmental meetings, and the delivery of vaccines and sick and injured persons requiring specialized treatment in other parts of the country? (Specialized "super hospitals" could be built above a single Mag-lev trunk line, served by Mag-lev ambulances.) Mag-lev terminals could be built unobtrusively directly underneath target locations on one or two trunks, saving additional travel time now necessary from most American airports. And, another extremely satisfying personal off-shoot: Wouldn't it be great to see "railways" once again reign dominant over the trucking and aviation industry, regaining their original supremacy, railfans ??!!

DutchRailnut wrote:I believe we are way of track from topic.

Well, why don't you apply to be a moderator instead of whining about it. Then you can make this place as sad and sorry as the Amtrak forum.

Maybe I should, because it seems moderator can't keep people like you in tune.

DutchRailnut wrote:Maybe I should, because it seems moderator can't keep people like you in tune.

He seems more in tune that you Jaap.

Most of the rest of the discussion here is just a slight offshoot of the original topic. Yes, a new proposed maglev line linking Munich to the local airport was found to be not economically viable. Not surprising as the same job could be done for less money by conventional rail. The discussion about when and where maglev might be viable, and for what reasons, I think follows naturally from the original topic. I also happen to think it's a very interesting discussion.

3rdrail wrote:Let's be honest. Who among us does not have at least a slight amount of anxiety at the prospect of riding on riveted aluminum 30,000 feet in the air?

For a variety of reasons I won't even consider the prospect of sitting in a howling aluminum tube 5 or 6 miles up for a few hours just to get from point A to point B. Anxiety has little to do with it. I'm a realist. While the odds may be very low that the aircraft I'm in has an accident, the odds of surviving it are against me. At least when going via other modes like auto or rail, chances are very good I'll not only survive, but come out of it without any permanent injuries. And HSR overall has even smaller chances of an accident than air. The passenger fatality rate is as close to zero as anything in the real world will ever get. Maglev will likely be even safer.

If you could relax on ground level on an overnight Pullman, or between having lunch in Times Square and dinner at Fisherman's Wharf, or even theoretically in the time that it would take you to read the newspaper, wouldn't these scenarios create such a social/political dynamic as to become positively and agressively mandated as trolleys were?

Indeed they would. If you can travel from NYC to SF or LA in not much more than an hour, and for minimal cost in energy and money, then suddenly you'll have a lot more day trippers who'll spend their tourist dollars. Count me as one of those. The prospect of spending 3 days each way on a train, and then having to rent a hotel each night for as long as I'm there, pretty much turns me off to the idea of seeing the left coast. I may one day do it using our present transportation system, but it'll be a once in a lifetime thing, not something I might want to do every year. On the other hand, if I could hop a maglev there, tour for the day, come home, sleep in my own bed, and do the same thing next day, or any other day I might want to, it opens up a whole new world of travel possibilities. If the fare can be made reasonable (perhaps even under $100 round trip due to the very low energy costs) then it becomes more cost effective to just come home each day rather than sleep in a hotel. And time-wise it would be no worse that a lot of commutes some people do each day. For closer cities like Chicage which might be only 30 minutes away, day tripping makes even more sense. So yes, it'll open up a whole new dynamic for lots of people, and make travelers out of many like myself for whom travel is presently a chore due to limited, slow, uncomfortable choices.

What about the effect on commercial shipping whereby goods could be shipped as quickly?

Hmm, shall we send it by same-day Transmag Express from NY to LA? Now that's an interesting possibility.

What about responses to crisis, important governmental meetings, and the delivery of vaccines and sick and injured persons requiring specialized treatment in other parts of the country? (Specialized "super hospitals" could be built above a single Mag-lev trunk line, served by Mag-lev ambulances.) Mag-lev terminals could be built unobtrusively directly underneath target locations on one or two trunks, saving additional travel time now necessary from most American airports. And, another extremely satisfying personal off-shoot: Wouldn't it be great to see "railways" once again reign dominant over the trucking and aviation industry, regaining their original supremacy, railfans ??!!

Indeed. I'd love to see railways of any type regain their dominance over trucking and aviation. Not just from a raifan perspective, but also because from a practical standpoint they've made more sense in many instances.

Nice picture BTW. Wasn't that from the transoceanic maglev special of The Discovery Channel? It looks very familiar.

No, I just whipped out a few crayons and drew that out really quickly. Actually, it's from a forum - "Klan Rur Forum", which I believe is an industrial based forum. I have no idea where the drawing originally came from. My guess is that it's probably made the rounds, and very likely could have come from The Discovery Channel as you suggested. The forum discusses and displays among other things: "a submerged oceanic tunnel and supersonic train. Cost - 88 billion - 175 billion. A neutrally buoyant vacuum tunnel submerged 150 to 300 feet beneath the Atlantic's surface and anchored to the seafloor, through which zips a magnetically levitated train at up to 4,000 MPH." (That's Boston to London in under an hour, folks !)
This is the website from which I got into the Klan Rur Forum : http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... n%26sa%3DN

I bet the costs are a minimum of ten times that, or maybe per 100 miles.

A 220 mph train using technologies that exist today and not 50 years from now could get you across country in less than 20 hours. With fuel going to the moon let alone the stratosphere, we might and likely will be resetting our expectations on travel and a time like that for LA to NYC really won't be considered so bad.