Fwd: [UM] [CA] "Future of high-tech transport is within reach" sdut 12/22 (MagLev'08, CHSRA, m v. m)
Jerry Schneider
diverse than Maglev concepts, making "getting behind one" much more difficult.
--------------------------------------------
>SAN DIEGO_ ".. Last week, I dropped in on “Maglev 2008,” an
>international conference hosted this year by General Atomics and the
>UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.,
>a keynote speaker, informed the audience at the Manchester Grand Hyatt
>that he'd long ago drunk the magnetic-levitation-flavored Kool-Aid.
>“It's a unique opportunity for transportation in a crowded, complex
>society,” he said. “We ought to be developing maglev and using it.
>Right now, it's a unique period in our nation's history.” .. I asked
>Michael Simon, General Atomics'director of commercial development for
>electromagnetic systems, why maglev wasn't part of Proposition 1A, the
>$10 billion bond for high-speed rail in California approved by voters
>last month. .. The high-speed system has been kidnapped by state
>bureaucrats and engineering firms with vested interests in heavy
>steel- wheel trains, not the low-maintenance, magnetically levitated trains
>of the future, he said. .. “The maglev community is fractured,” Simon
>said. “We're Balkanized to a great degree. Each maglev constituency
>says, 'We should unify behind one project my project.' .. - Logan Jenkins
>
>http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/dec/22/1m22jenkins194958-future-high-tech-transport-withi/
>
>Future of high-tech transport is within reach
>
>by Logan Jenkins, San Diego Union-Tribune, Dec 22
>
>The problem with the future is the past.
>
>Nothing demonstrates the point better than transportation, the moving
>of people and cargo from place to place.
>
>Mind you, I'm no engineer. The last powered vehicle whose inner
>workings I've ever really understood was the “Diving Sub,” a 1950s
>bathtub toy submarine that ran on baking powder.
>
>But even I know in my bones that layers upon layers of archaic
>technology act like money-sucking weeds, choking the quantum-leaping
>innovation required to make the urban future acceptably efficient,
>healthful and attractive.
>
>As I was typing that last paragraph, the Sprinter pulled into the
>Escondido terminal, which is a soft sand wedge from my office window.
>The metal brakes squealed, like fingernails on an old-fashioned
>blackboard.
>
>Not yet a year old, the diesel-powered commuter rail strikes me as
>another last-century layer, another weed to whack. Last week, I
>dropped in on “Maglev 2008,” an international conference hosted this
>year by General Atomics and the UC San Diego Jacobs School of
>Engineering.
>
>Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a keynote speaker, informed the audience at
>the Manchester Grand Hyatt that he'd long ago
>drunk the magnetic- levitation-flavored Kool-Aid.
>
>“It's a unique opportunity for transportation in a crowded, complex
>society,” he said. “We ought to be developing maglev and using it.
>Right now, it's a unique period in our nation's history.”
>
>Specter was referring, of course, to the huge spending spree promised
>by President-elect Barack Obama. To goose the economy, billions (if
>not trillions) will be invested in neglected infrastructure. If Obama
>is as forward-thinking as many hope, maglev will receive a
>multibillion-dollar infusion.
>
>Specter, soon to be the ranking Republican on the Senate
>Appropriations Committee, pledged to grease the skids for maglev in
>Congress. But the clout will have to come from Obama.
>
>Following Specter's remarks, Jack Wagner, the auditor general of
>Pennsylvania, served up hot red meat to the 200 attendees representing
>16 countries:
>
>“I have been a big believer in magnetic levitation since I learned
>about it 20 years ago,” Wagner said. “I firmly believe in my heart
>that it is the next new form of transportation in the world. What was
>the last form? It was the jet engine, which evolved about 50 years
>ago. We have that same opportunity again to develop a new form of
>transportation. We're interested in congestion, air pollution,
>problems that we have not solved. We're moving more people and more
>cargo with old technology buses, tractor-trailers, steel-wheel
>vehicles. We continue to use a system associated with fossil fuels. It
>goes on and on. The time has come for change.” At the registration
>desk, I met Michael Simon, General Atomics'director of commercial
>development for electromagnetic systems.
>
>The company has developed maglev launchers for airplanes on carriers.
>Most recently, the San Diego-based defense contractor teamed up with
>Sandy Shapery, San Diego's tireless maglev champion, to move huge
>cargo containers at the Port of Long Beach. On Thursday, conference
>attendees toured General Atomics' 400-foot test track for a maglev
>cargo conveyor, the only full-scale example in the country.
>
>I asked Simon why maglev wasn't part of Proposition 1A, the $10
>billion bond for high-speed rail in California approved by voters last
>month.
>
>“We talked about that last night,” Simon sighed.
>
>The high-speed system has been kidnapped by state bureaucrats and
>engineering firms with vested interests in heavy steel-wheel trains,
>not the low-maintenance, magnetically levitated trains of the future,
>he said.
>
>Simon noted that people younger than 30 voted in huge numbers for
>Proposition 1A, which narrowly won passage. “It's especially ironic
>and unfortunate that forward-leaning technology wasn't selected,” he
>said. “I'd think you'd want to reward those younger voters by giving
>them something you know they'd prefer.”
>
>Still, Simon holds out hope that as the federal government and private
>investors come in to partner with the state on
>the $40 billion, 800- mile project, high-speed
>maglev technology will be incorporated.
>
>What's needed in the United States, Simon said, is a large commercial
>maglev application that will break the ice that's been cracked in
>Germany, Japan and China.
>
>“The maglev community is fractured,” Simon said. “We're Balkanized to
>a great degree. Each maglev constituency says, 'We should unify behind
>one project my project.' We need a catalyst, whether it's a Sandy
>Shapery or a (General Atomics), to create a bandwagon effect.”
>
>Four years ago, I first wrote about Shapery, a hotel developer who was
>pitching a high-speed maglev line connecting Southern California's
>airports. Since then, he's dialed the vision back somewhat, cognizant
>that the past can't be jettisoned.
>
>He's hoping, for example, to introduce linear motors to San Diego's
>trolleys, improving efficiency and scrapping ugly overhead wires.
>
>The future of mass transit is way behind schedule, but if you crane
>your neck, you can almost see it gliding around the bend.
>
>Logan Jenkins: (760) 737-7555; logan....@uniontrib.com
>
>
>Reader Comments (13):
>
> 1• larry2372 - December 22, 2008 at 11:20 a.m.
>
>You make some good points. Speaking for myself, a 20-year member of
>the maglev community, it really does appear that an opportunity is
>coming with the new administration's expected infrastructure
>investments. But we have to organize and act as one large community,
>not as the fractured, many-headed creature you (accurately) refer to;
>that's a recipe for failure.
> Laurence E. (Larry) Blow
> www.maglevtransport.com
>
> 2• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 1:29 a.m.
>The difference between Maglev and 'heavy steel wheel' technology is
>that Maglev has never been used for large scale transportation system.
>But high speed trains are used by millions of people everyday in Japan
>and Europe.
>
>I'm glad Prop 1A didnt include MAGLEV even though its 'cooler looking'
>or whatever. I understand that in theory MAGLEV has the capacity to be
>faster, smoother and nicer than steel wheel technology. But the same
>can be said about a lot of developmental technology. High speed rail
>today would be 3 times more effective as a network of trains for
>California than any MAGLEV network we could make.
>
>MAGLEV only has the one 18 mile airport run in Shanghai. HSR operates
>on a massive scale in over 8 countries with tens of thousands of miles
>of dedicated high speed tracks. Take Spain for example which had the
>worst infrastructure in Western Europe 20 years ago, now they have
>this HSR system to boast about:
>( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmIxT3PQL... )
>
>MAGLEV is still a pipe dream, the HSR proposal currently on the table
>in California has the potential to bring California into the 21st
>century. Thats not just a slogan its a real boost the efficiency of
>the economy.
>
> 3• johnharding - December 23, 2008 at 11:30 a.m.
>Correction-High Speed Rail brought us into the 20th century, in fact
>way back in 1964 with the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has become the
>most profitable rail line in the world. So profitable in fact that its
>operator, Central Japan Railway, has committed to use its profits to
>build a superconducting maglev line between Tokyo and Nagoya at its
>own expense without government funding, a system developed and tested
>by CJR itself (hardly a pipe dream). So why would an operating company
>invest in this new technology, when its 20th century technology is
>doing so well? The 1964 system is worn out with over 301 trains per
>day. Maintenance of high speed rail is a major problem, which not only
>is expensive but interferes with operations (Maglev has no contact
>with its guideway, and imparts minimal vibration to its
>infrastructure- bridges, embankments, power supply, etc. and thus no
>wear). But speed is the major factor. With a cruise speed of 311 mph,
>it can halve travel time, and maintain its market share of 85%
>relative to air travel. Can steel wheel on rail do that?
>
> 4• larry2372 - December 23, 2008 at 1:59 p.m.
>I know that, in practice, maglev has the capacity to be faster,
>quieter, smoother, safer, less environmentally intrusive and generally
>nicer than steel wheel technology, especially when route planning
>calls for mixed use by HSR on non-high-speed tracks.
>
>But I do not understand the comment that ..."the same [things] can be
>said about a lot of developmental technology." That's news to me.
>Please enlighten us and name a few of these technologies.
>
>One project is deeply involved in the HSR vs. maglev debate. The UK
>Ultraspeed project has developed a business case
><http://www.500kmh.com/UKU_London-North_B>
>that lays out the main issues in some detail for United Kingdom
>decision-makers to consider. California could learn a few things from
>following this debate.
>
> 5• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 2:07 p.m.
>Yes HSR can, the record for high speed rail and MAGLEV is basically
>the same.
>(HSR:<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw4zn-qw1>...
>VS MAGLEV:
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUVD1rSFp>...)
>The 311 is the record top speed not the regular cruising speed. 220
>miles per hour for the CAHSR system would take well over 50% of the
>air travel market from the LA/SD to SF route, one of the busiest in
>the world.
>
>But my point is that for California, we need proven technology! You
>just argued my point for me. The Tokaido line is the most profitable
>line in the world, THATS WHAT CALIFORNIA NEEDS! A proven and reliable
>line from North to South California. The no vibration means no wear
>and no maintenance is extremely wishful thinking. I would love MAGLEV
>to be developed but it is not ready for use for an entire network.
>Plus there are plans for the CAHSR system to share tracks on the SF
>peninsula with regular trains where there is no space to make
>dedicated tracks, which is too bad but is needed to make this project
>happen. MAGLEV would be 4 times more expensive to build and HSR is
>expensive enough.
>
> 6• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 2:24 p.m.
>Larry - MAGLEV has the POTENTIAL to be better but TODAY it is NOT!
>
>My point was that many technologies have the potential to be more
>efficient and just better in general than what we have today. If
>technological advancement is 'news to you' than you need to get your
>head out of the ground.
>
>To name a few technologies: Solar panels (Currently too expensive for
>mass use, but with a little development should be in use everywhere),
>Passenger aircraft (Specifically the blended wing design which is far
>more effecient than the current technology but not ready for actual
>use) quantum computer chip technology (Projected to be in public use
>by 2020, will dwarf current chip designs capabilities, but today are
>not developed enough to be used for today's demands.) If you want some
>more let me know.
>
>Larry MAGLEV will be great, but you havent explained why California
>should adopt such a technology when there are so many unknowns. HSR is
>ready to use today, MAGLEV is not ready.
>
> 7• johnharding - December 23, 2008 at 4:09 p.m.
>ChulaFrank - Perhaps the reason that you think maglev is a "pipe
>dream" is that you have not kept up to date. You assert that "311
>(mph) is the record top speed (for maglev) not the regular cruising
>speed". Maglev achieved a record speed of 581 km/h (361 mph) at the
>Yamanashi test track back in 2003. Planned cruise speed for the maglev
>Tokaido Shinkansen Bypass is indeed 311 mph (500 km/h). As I explained
>earlier, the big problem with high speed rail is maintenance cost,
>which grows exponentially with speed. No HSR operator has plans to run
>at speeds above 350 km/h. Central Japan Railway has the least massive
>rolling stock, and yet its experience shows that rail speeds above 300
>km/h are impractical.
>
>Reasons advanced for excluding maglev by the California High Speed
>Rail Authority are nonsensical. Maglev is proven technology; the SF
>Peninsula commute route is not suitable for HSR and is at capacity.
>Furthermore average speed on the planned LA-SF route is woefully
>inadequate to compete with air travel, especially with 5 airports in
>LA and 3 in SF.
>
> 8• larry2372 - December 23, 2008 at 7:54 p.m.
>Thanks, ChulaFrank, for expanding on your point about more efficient
>and just better technologies. I misunderstood your intent.
>
>On the other anti-maglev points, though, especially the capital cost,
>it's apparent someone's feeding you bad information. Lots of cost
>studies point toward maglev and HSR (as well as light rail and
>highways, too) having similar construction costs. One short reference
>is at <http://www.maglevinc.com/datasheets/cost> ..., another more
>detailed one is at <http://republicans.transportation.house> .... and a
>really detailed reference is athttp://www.scag.ca.gov/Maglev/pdf/ 7_Magl...
>
>In summary, I think maglev's a good idea, even for California. There's
>no reason not to look into it as far as I'm concerned, even though to
>true CAHSR believers it's heresy just to say the word maglev out loud.
>
> 9• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 9:56 p.m.
>John Harding -
>
>Your first point about cruising speeds: In the youtube link I provided
>for maglev it shows the 581km test run you speak of, so I definitely
>knew about that. Its great that the planned cruise speed would be
>500km, but until I see that on a larger scale than a 40km test track I
>just wont be a 'true maglev believer' i suppose. CAHSR does plan to
>run at 350km, and average cruising speeds of 280km have been achieved
>already on a large scale of other networks. In other words PROVEN.
>Maintenance costs I dont really know about but I'll assume your correct.
>
>Your second point about competing with air travel ignores the facts of
>reality. A flight is measured not in airspeed but in the time it takes
>to check in, go through security, wait until boarding, fly, than
>baggage claim. Even a train traveling at 200mph from LA to SF will
>beat an air traveler going the same route. On top of that the majority
>of travelers arriving at airports take an additional ride into the
>center of the city, where as the train will already be downtown. So
>just because the train doesnt go 500km doesnt mean that it is not
>competitive with air travel.
>
>Larry-
>
>Thanks for those studies. I would just like to point out that they are
>all written by maglev enthusiasts and pro-maglev lobbyists. The same
>can be said about HSR and the CAHSR business plan. But I wouldnt cite
>the CAHSR business plan as fact. I hope you understand my point here.
>
>Also the studies cited are DC to Baltimore, LAX to Ontario airport..
>these are not longer than 50 miles each. But my MAIN argument is that
>on such a large scale as CAHSR is proposing there is no precedent for
>a working Maglev NETWORK. Not a shuttle service but a SYSTEM NETWORK,
>you know with different branches and express trains and local service
>trains for central valley etc..
>
>My question is that if Maglev is so competitive with steel wheel
>technology and is better in as many aspects as you claim why are there
>not more examples of Maglev around the world? Especially in comparison
>to the huge number of miles of HSR in the world
>
>I would love to have a debate about MAGLEV for california and I am
>kinda sad I missed the Maglev 2008 conference last week because I
>didnt know about it.
>
> 10• johnharding - December 24, 2008 at 8:15 a.m.
>Probably the reason that maglev is not as widely deployed as high
>speed rail is that it has been around since 1964 while maglev has been
>developed recently. Also it is a "disruptive technology" which tends
>to obsolete the current transportation system, triggering resistance.
>Even the shinkansen was somewhat disruptive to Japan since it uses
>different gauge. Hence it was bitterly opposed by interests which
>benefited from the old technology. Of course we can wait to deploy
>maglev until other countries have long enjoyed its benefits, as the
>U.S. has done with high HSR.
>
>Don't think for a minute that high speed rail will get away without
>the delays "security" imposes on airline travelers. Even Amtrak, which
>has a insignificant role in transportation, has begun inconveniencing
>customers by demanding identification and appearance in person to buy
>tickets. (See the Amtrak website or ask Larry who had this experience
>at Union Station in DC.) If HSR in CA attracts the patronage that its
>advocates claim, it will become an irresistible target for the
>security institution. Also regarding the extra time to get to your
>final destination, be mindful that LA and SF are are highly
>distributed metropolises. With 5 airports in LA and 3 in SF it will be
>difficult for a linear system like rail to provide more convenient
>access.
>
>I am not convinced that maglev would be able to compete with air in
>the California corridor (the second busiest air corridor in the world,
>second only to Los Angeles-Las Vegas), because of the long distance
>and the cost imposed by difficult terrain and the necessity to resist
>earthquakes (problems faced equally by HSR). However not to have even
>considered maglev seriously is a serious shortcoming of the CHSRA
>analysis.
>
> 11• Robetphou - December 24, 2008 at 9:07 a.m.
>Every time I happen to do a "goggle" search on maglev and it pulls up
>a recent article, the comment section invariably includes comments
>from Larry and John. Larry, as in Larry Blow who has a long history of
>being paid from the Maglev coffers to promote Maglev and John, as in
>Dr. John Harding formally of the Federal Railroad Adminsitration where
>he oversaw the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars on various
>Maglev schemes and promotions.
>They both make such reasonable cases for tapping the taxpayer that it
>is hard to believe we aren't swimming in Maglev systems by now. Their
>willingness to point out the drawbacks of any system other than Maglev
>would be believable if they would only do one thing. To go on record
>with a cost per mile of the Maglev guideway. Not an estimate, not some
>manipulation of cost/benefit and consumer surplus accounting but an
>actual, verifieable cost number.
>General Atomics can charge 800 dollars a head and hold their
>conferences of self promotion but they are only preaching to the
>choir. 800 dollars will admittedly keep out the rift raffe and avoid
>dealing with alternative ideas that actually have a chance of
>affordability but until the press actually exposes these events we may
>be doomed to more of these non-news news events.
>John, Larry, Have a Merry Christmas - Maybe next year you get a new
>train.
>Robert Pulliam
>Tubular Rail Inc.
>Houston TX
>tubularrail.com
>
> 12• johnharding - December 24, 2008 at 9:54 a.m.
>Cost is one thing, practicality is another. Bob Pulliam's concept is
>shown here: <http://tubularrail.com/pages/2/index.htm> ...
>Look, no guideway! No wonder it's cheap, but would it work? Bob was
>given an opportunity to present his concept to technical experts at
>the Volpe Transportation Center. They deal with unconventional systems
>every day, but they agreed "No Way". Judge for yourself.
>
> 13• RobetphouDecember 24, 2008 at 10:34 a.m.
>Come on John, practicality---moving containers with Maglev, maybe even
>containers full of imported electronic equipment. Walk into an MRI
>with your credit cards and see if they still work after they are
>exposed to the field.
>
>Yes John, Six years ago you and I went to Boston and talked to the
>boys at Volpe. Six years is a long time and if you remember you flew,
>I took the train. As an employee of the Federal Railroad
>Administration you were not alowed to take the train (Acela). Perhaps
>if you had been able to it you wouldn't still be pitching Maglev. But
>speaking of Volpe, maybe its time for a rematch, we found the
>University level engineering help that Volpe wouldn't give and not
>only does TR work, its even cheaper (your word) than you think.
>Interested in setting it up, maybe bring in all technologies?
>
>John, could you do me a favor and tell me something about the
>unconventional systems they "deal" with at Volpe. Perhaps name a
>couple. I do know they looked at a simulation of Maglev on the New
>York State Thurway route and found it wasn't viable.
>
>And John, you still haven't said how much Maglev will cost. That is
>the core of practicality. But since you brought up Tubular Rail, try
>this link to the Discovery Show video which will be broadcast in
>January. <http://www.prtstrategies.com/files/Tubul>...
>Also here is a link to the new website
><www.tubularrail.com/>
>Always good talking to you,
>Robert
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
eph
tend to back their own horse in the race and it does seem strange that
there isn't ONE answer. Maybe one day we'll get a jaw-dropping -
"that's it!" - but we haven't seen that yet. When we consider the
many different situations that require transit/transportation
solutions, maybe it isn't surprising there isn't a single answer. On
the other hand, many solutions have a large number of similar
characteristics. I've suggested to many on the list collaboration
might bring about a best solution, but everyone seems to be determined
to do it their way. PAT may be eclipsed by automated cars if it takes
too long to get a foothold in the market. People already use the
argument that we don't need PAT because self driving cars are "just
beyond that hill". It might be an interesting thought experiment to
see what a collection of best ideas from everyone on this list would
look like. Set aside pride, patents and prejudice and just design the
best system possible for delivery in one year.
F.
On Dec 24, 7:40 pm, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
> Are PRT and Dualmode Balkanized too? Both feature concepts that are far more
> diverse than Maglev concepts, making "getting behind one" much more difficult.
> --------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> >SAN DIEGO_ ".. Last week, I dropped in on “Maglev 2008,” an
> >international conference hosted this year by General Atomics and the
> >UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.,
> >a keynote speaker, informed the audience at the Manchester Grand Hyatt
> >that he'd long ago drunk the magnetic-levitation-flavored Kool-Aid.
> >“It's a unique opportunity for transportation in a crowded, complex
> >society,” he said. “We ought to be developing maglev and using it.
> >Right now, it's a unique period in our nation's history.” .. I asked
> >Michael Simon, General Atomics'director of commercial development for
> >electromagnetic systems, why maglev wasn't part of Proposition 1A, the
> >$10 billion bond for high-speed rail in California approved by voters
> >last month. .. The high-speed system has been kidnapped by state
> >bureaucrats and engineering firms with vested interests in heavy
> >steel- wheel trains, not the low-maintenance, magnetically levitated trains
> >of the future, he said. .. “The maglev community is fractured,” Simon
> >said. “We're Balkanized to a great degree. Each maglev constituency
> >says, 'We should unify behind one project my project.' .. - Logan Jenkins
>
Jay Andress
rober...@aol.com
Jay, if you will go to the article inself and look to the post section you can speak directly to two of the biggest proponents, John Harding and Larry Blow. I am sure they will be interested in your thoughts.
Robert Pulliam
Tubular Rail Inc.
Houston TX
Listen to 350+ music, sports, & news radio stations including songs for the holidays FREE while you browse. Start Listening Now!
Jerry Roane
"not the low-maintenance, ..." Where is the data? I need maintenance records! I need proof. Solid state is different from flexural vibration under extreme forces of a super heavy maglev monster. I can see maglev like Skytran but I cannot see the value of a monster collective maglev with a Cd of .2 plus .1 for each following car with a humongous frontal area. How many miles do these guys think a steel wheel will roll before it gets welded back up to size and the put on a precision lathe to grind it back to the starting spec? What maintenance costs? I need receipts for a light weight wheeled vehicle repairs. How many millions of miles will it take to wear a steel wheel rolling on aluminum? That whole lobby (paid liar) world of big money passing from rich guy to government campaign slush fund makes me ill. It should involve jail time but the legal system is corrupt or the buyers of government would already be in jail. At some level of corruption the whole nation will dissolve. If you want peace you must have justice. (pearl)
John Harding is now a paid hack for the maglev 311 mph lobby. His pay check disqualifies him for any valid comment on anything to do with trains. I think his pay check today influenced his decisions when he was supposed to be working for the US tax payer at US DOT/railroads. He used to think 180 miles per hour was crazy-talk and now he is paid to say 131 mph faster than 180 mph is the minimum required to be viable to the public. What a low self-esteem he must have to be so purchased like Kunta Kinte (Roots). Like Volupe is some great brain trust of the elite minds of the world. Hang in there Robert Pulliam. John Harding is a bitter old man.
If metal is flexed each time the massively heavy and low energy performing train goes over a section of a multi billion dollar magtrack won't it fatigue fracture and break the entire length of the hundreds of miles of train-magtrack? A few wheels being reconditioned is nothing compared to replacement of all the flexing steel in a heavy maglev unless someone can show us receipts of costs by an independent auditor.
Using John Harding's logic written to me back when he was the "expert" at US Dot it takes 5 times the power to go 311 mph over 180 mph so it is not realistic to go that fast. Or some such bullshit. He needs to pick his logic and remain true to it. Either vehicles that go faster than 179 miles per hour are valid or they are not. John Harding which is it today? Pull the paycheck stub from your rear pocket and tell everyone what is says on the top left corner.
Jerry Roane
rober...@aol.com
thanks for the morale boost. when I first got to know J Harding it was through Gil Carmichael who had hired John to head up the maglev program when Sen Monyhan had put the initial 3 million into the FRA, money by the way that the FRA had never requested. At the time I meet John in 2001/02 Tubular Rail wasn't too much past the back of the envelope stage and we were looking for any help we could get. Government agencies, it turns out, are not where you go for early assistance. At any rate the research I had to do alone the way made me realize how pointless it is to pursue maglev; because rolling friction at high speed is such a minor component of energy consumption and it decreases percentage wise with further increases in speed that one has to wonder what can possibly be the justification for these projected expenditures. Give the technology credit for the wow factor but it is time maglev stopped sucking up all the oxengen in the room and freed up research and development funds for new blood. Unfortuneately, they are good at getting the press's attention and through the press, the politicians.
I hope you will post your comments on the San Diego article's comments section as Harding and Blow are monitoring it, if not here.
Robert P
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.co
Sent: Thu, 25 Dec=2 02008 9:31 pm
Subject: [t-i] Re: Fwd: [UM] [CA] "Future of high-tech transport is within reach" sdut 12/22 (MagLev'08, CHSRA, m v. m)
>ano ther last-century layer, another weed to whack. Last week, I
>dropped in on "Maglev 2008," an international conference hosted this
>year by General Atomics and the UC San Diego Jacobs School of
>Engineering.
>
>Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a keynote speaker, informed the audience at
>the Manchester Grand Hyatt that he'd long ago
>drunk the magnetic- levitation-flavored Kool-Aid.
>
>"It's a unique opportunity for transportation in a crowded, complex
>society," he said. "We ought to be developing maglev and using it.
>Right now, it's a unique period in our nation's history."
>
>Specter was referring, of course, to the huge spending spree promised
>by President-elect Barack Obama. To goose the economy, billions (if
>not trillions) will be invested in neglected infrastructure. If Obama
>is as forward-thinking as many hope, maglev will receive a
>multibillion-dollar infusion.
>
>Specter, soon to be the ranking Republican on the Senate
>Appropriations Committee, pledged to grease the skids for maglev in
>Congress. But the clout will have to come from Obama.
>
>Following Specter's remarks, Jack Wagner, the auditor general of
>Pennsylvania, served up hot red meat to the 200 attendees representing
>16 countries:
>
>"I have been a big believer in magnetic levitation since I learned
>about it 20 years ago," Wagner said. "I firmly believe in my heart
>that it is the next new for m of transportation in the world. What was
>the last form? It was the jet engine, which evolved about 50 years
>ago. We have that same opportunity again to develop a new form of
>transportation. We're interested in congestion, air pollution,
>problems that we have not solved. We're moving more people and more
>cargo with old technology buses, tractor-trailers, steel-wheel
>vehicles. We continue to use a system associated with fossil fuels. It
>goes on and on. The time has come for change." At the registration
>desk, I met Michael Simon, General Atomics'director of commercial
>development for electromagnetic systems.
>
>The company has developed maglev launchers for airplanes on carriers.
>Most recently, the San Diego-based defense contractor teamed up with
>Sandy Shapery, San Diego's tireless maglev champion, to move huge
>cargo containers at the Port of Long Beach. On Thursday, conference
>attendees toured General Atomics' 400-foot test track for a maglev
>cargo conveyor, the only full-scale example in the country.
>
>I asked Simon why maglev wasn't part of Proposition 1A, the $10
>billion bond for high-speed rail in California approved by voters last
>month.
>
>"We talked about that last night," Simon sighed.
>
>The high-speed system has been kidnapped by state bureaucrats and
>engineering firms with vested interests in heavy steel-wheel trains,
>not the low-maintenance, magnetically=2 0levitated trains of the future,
>can be said about a lot of develop mental technology. High speed rail
>today would be 3 times more effective as a network of trains for
>California than any MAGLEV network we could make.
>
>MAGLEV only has the one 18 mile airport run in Shanghai. HSR operates
>on a massive scale in over 8 countries with tens of thousands of miles
>of dedicated high speed tracks. Take Spain for example which had the
>worst infrastructure in Western Europe 20 years ago, now they have
>this HSR system to boast about:
>( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmIxT3PQL... )
>
>MAGLEV is still a pipe dream, the HSR proposal currently on the table
>in California has the potential to bring California into the 21st
>century. Thats not just a slogan its a real boost the efficiency of
>the economy.
>
> 3• johnharding - December 23, 2008 at 11:30 a.m.
>Correction-High Speed Rail brought us into the 20th century, in fact
>way back in 1964 with the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has become the
>most profitable rail line in the world. So profitable in fact that its
>operator, Central Japan Railway, has committed to use its profits to
>build a superconducting maglev line between Tokyo and Nagoya at its
>own expense without government funding, a system developed and tested
>by CJR itself (hardly a pipe dream). So why would an operating company
>invest in this new technology, when its2020th century technology is
>doing so well? The 1964 system is worn out with over 301 trains per
>day. Maintenance of high speed rail is a major problem, which not only
>is expensive but interferes with operations (Maglev has no contact
>with its guideway, and imparts minimal vibration to its
>infrastructure- bridges, embankments, power supply, etc. and thus no
>wear). But speed is the major factor. With a cruise speed of 311 mph,
>it can halve travel time, and maintain its market share of 85%
>relative to air travel. Can steel wheel on rail do that?
>
> 4• larry2372 - December 23, 2008 at 1:59 p.m.
>I know that, in practice, maglev has the capacity to be faster,
>quieter, smoother, safer, less environmentally intrusive and generally
>nicer than steel wheel technology, especially when route planning
>calls for mixed use by HSR on non-high-speed tracks.
>
>But I do not understand the comment that ..."the same [things] can be
>said about a lot of developmental technology." That's news to me.
>Please enlighten us and name a few of these technologies.
>
>One project is deeply involved in the HSR vs. maglev debate. The UK
>Ultraspeed project has developed a business case
><http://www.500kmh.com/UKU_London-North_B>
>that lays out the main issues in some detail for United Kingdom
>decision-makers to consider. California c ould learn a few things from
>is at <http://www.maglevinc.com/datasheets/cost> ..., another more< br> >detailed one is at <http://republicans.transportation.house> .... and a
>kinda sad I missed the20Maglev 2008 conference last week because I
>didnt know about it.
>
> 10• johnharding - December 24, 2008 at 8:15 a.m.
>Probably the reason that maglev is not as widely deployed as high
>speed rail is that it has been around since 1964 while maglev has been
>developed recently. Also it is a "disruptive technology" which tends
>to obsolete the current transportation system, triggering resistance.
>Even the shinkansen was somewhat disruptive to Japan since it uses
>different gauge. Hence it was bitterly opposed by interests which
>benefited from the old technology. Of course we can wait to deploy
>maglev until other countries have long enjoyed its benefits, as the
>U.S. has done with high HSR.
>
>Don't think for a minute that high speed rail will get away without
>the delays "security" imposes on airline travelers. Even Amtrak, which
>has a insignificant role in transportation, has begun inconveniencing
>customers by demanding identification and appearance in person to buy
>tickets. (See the Amtrak website or ask Larry who had this experience
>at Union Station in DC.) If HSR in CA attracts the patronage that its
>advocates claim, it will become an irresistible target for the
>security institution. Also regarding the extra time to get to your
>final destination, be mindful that LA and SF are are highly
>distributed metropolises. With 5 airports in LA and 3 in SF it will be
> ;difficult for a linear system like rail to provide more convenient
>access.
>
>I am not convinced that maglev would be able to compete with air in
>the California corridor (the second busiest air corridor in the world,
>second only to Los Angeles-Las Vegas), because of the long distance
>and the cost imposed by difficult terrain and the necessity to resist
>earthquakes (problems faced equally by HSR). However not to have even
>considered maglev seriously is a serious shortcoming of the CHSRA
>analysis.
>
> 11• Robetphou - December 24, 2008 at 9:07 a.m.
>Every time I happen to do a "goggle" search on maglev and it pulls up
>a recent article, the comment section invariably includes comments
>from Larry and John. Larry, as in Larry Blow who has a long history of
>being paid from the Maglev coffers to promote Maglev and John, as in
>Dr. John Harding formally of the Federal Railroad Adminsitration where
>he oversaw the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars on various
>Maglev schemes and promotions.
>They both make such reasonable cases for tapping the taxpayer that it
>is hard to believe we aren't swimming in Maglev systems by now. Their
>willingness to point out the drawbacks of any system other than Maglev
>would be believable if they would only do one thing. To go on record
>with a cost per mile of the Maglev guideway. Not an estimate, not some
>manipulatio n of cost/benefit and consumer surplus accounting but an
>actual, verifieable cost number.
>General Atomics can charge 800 dollars a head and hold their
>conferences of self promotion but they are only preaching to the
>choir. 800 dollars will admittedly keep out the rift raffe and avoid
>dealing with alternative ideas that actually have a chance of
>affordability but until the press actually exposes these events we may
>be doomed to more of these non-news news events.
>John, Larry, Have a Merry Christmas - Maybe next year you get a new
>train.
>Robert Pulliam
>Tubular Rail Inc.
>Houston TX
>tubularrail.com
>
> 12• johnharding - December 24, 2008 at 9:54 a.m.
>Cost is one thing, practicality is another. Bob Pulliam's concept is
>shown here: <http://tubularrail.com/pages/2/index.htm> ...
>Look, no guideway! No wonder it's cheap, but would it work? Bob was
>given an opportunity to present his concept to technical experts at
>the Volpe Transportation Center. They deal with unconventional systems
>every day, but they agreed "No Way". Judge for yourself.
>
> 13• RobetphouDecember 24, 2008 at 10:34 a.m.
>Come on John, practicality---moving containers with Maglev, maybe even
>containers full of imported electronic equipment. Walk into an MRI
>with your credit car ds and see if they still work after they are
Kirston Henderson
>
> Are PRT and Dualmode Balkanized too? Both feature concepts that are far more
> diverse than Maglev concepts, making "getting behind one" much more difficult.
> --------------------------------------------
Of course they are and what else should we expect? Are we going to say
that Fort, GM, Chrysler, and Toyota are Balkanized? This term Balkanized is
being thrown around as if it was something bad. What do the people who are
complaining want, one Federally designed system? If we had such, it would
likely be next to worthless. We need to let the marketplace sort it out and
determine which systems best meet the real needs of the population.
Also bear in mind that many of the companies have several million dollars
or equivalent invested in developing their designs. If you stand back and
take a clear look, you will find that it would be virtually impossible to
someway combine the best of each design and come up with the ultimate
solution the way CEETI proposed a while back.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
john.m...@comcast.net
-------------- Original message --------------
From: rober...@aol.com
Jerry R.
thanks for the morale boost. when I first got to know J Harding it was through Gil Carmichael who had hired John to head up the maglev program when Sen Monyhan had put the initial 3 million into the FRA, money by the way that the FRA had never requested. At the time I meet John in 2001/02 Tubular Rail wasn't too much past the back of the envelope stage and we were looking for any help we could get. Government agencies, it turns out, are not where you go for early assistance. At any rate the research I had to do alone the way made me realize how pointless it is to pursue maglev; because rolling friction at high speed is such a minor component of energy consumption and it decreases percentage wise with further increases in speed that one has to wonder what can p ossibly be the justification for these projected expenditures. Give the technology credit for the wow factor but it is time maglev stopped sucking up all the oxengen in the room and freed up research and development funds for new blood. Unfortuneately, they are good at getting the press's attention and through the press, the politicians.
I hope you will post your comments on the San Diego article's comments section as Harding and Blow are monitoring it, if not here.
Robert P
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.co
Sent: Thu, 25 Dec=2 02008 9:31 pm
Subject: [t-i] Re: Fwd: [UM] [CA] "Future of high-tech transport is within reach" sdut 12/22 (MagLev'08, CHSRA, m v. m)
Jerry S.
"not the low-maintenance, ..." Where is the data? I need maintenance records! I need proof. Solid state is different from flexural vibration under extreme forces of a super heavy maglev monster. I can see maglev like Skytran but I cannot see the value of a monster collective maglev with a Cd of .2 plus .1 for each following car with a humongous frontal area. How many miles do these guys think a steel wheel will roll before it gets welded back up to size and the put on a precision lathe to grind it back to the starting spec? What maintenance costs? I need receipts for a light weight wheeled vehicle repairs. How many millions of miles will it take to wear a steel wheel rolling on aluminum? That whole lobby (paid liar) world of big money passing from rich guy to government campaign slush fund makes me ill. It should involve jail time but the legal system is corrupt or the buyers of government would already be in jail. At some level of corruption the whole nation will dissolve. If you want peace you must have justice. (pearl)
John Harding is now a paid hack for the maglev 311 mph lobby. His pay check disqualifies him for any valid comment on anything to do with trains. I think his pay check today influenced his decisions when he was supposed to be working for the US tax payer at US DOT/railroads. He used to think 180 miles per hour was crazy-talk and now he is paid to say 131 mph faster than 180 mph is the minimum required to be viable to the public. What a low self-esteem he must have to be so purchased like Kunta Kinte (Roots). Like Volupe is some great brain trust of the elite minds of the world. Hang in there Robert Pulliam. John Harding is a bitter old man.
If metal is flexed each time the massively heavy and low energy performing train goes over a section of a multi billion dollar magtrack won't it fatigue fracture and break the entire length of the hundreds of miles of train-magtrack? A few wheels being reconditioned is nothing compared to replacement of all the flexing steel in a heavy maglev unless someone can show us receipts of costs by an independent auditor.
Using John Harding's logic written to me back when he was the "expert" at US Dot it takes 5 times the power to go 311 mph over 180 mph so it is not realistic to go that fast. Or some such bullshit. He needs to pick his logic and remain true to it. Either vehicles that go faster than 179 miles per hour are valid or they are not. John Harding which is it today? Pull the paycheck stub from your rear pocket and tell everyone what is says on the top left corner.
Jerry Roane
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 6:40 PM, Jerry Schneider <j...@peak.org> wrote:
Are PRT and Dualmode Balkanized too? Both feature concepts that are far more
diverse than Maglev concepts, making "getting behind one" much more difficult.
--------------------------------------------
>SAN DIEGO_ ".. Last week, I dropped in on "Maglev 2008," an
>international conference hosted this year by General Atomics and the
>UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.,
>a keynote speaker, informed the audience at the Manchester Grand Hyatt
>that he'd long ago drunk the magnetic-levitation-flavored Kool-Aid.
>"It's a unique opportunity for transportation in a crowded, complex
>society," he said. "We ought to be developing maglev and using it.
>Right now, it's a unique period in our nation's history." .. I asked
>Michael Simon, General Atomics'di rector of commercial development for
>electromagnetic systems, why maglev wasn't part of Proposition 1A, the
>$10 billion bond for high-speed rail in California approved by voters
>last month. .. The high-speed system has been kidnapped by state
>bureaucrats and engineering firms with vested interests in heavy
>steel- wheel trains, not the low-maintenance, magnetically levitated trai ns
>of the future, he said. .. "The maglev community is fractured," Simon
>said. "We're Balkanized to a great degree. Each maglev constituency
>says, 'We should unify behind one project my project.' .. - Logan Jenkins
>
>http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/dec/22/1m22jenkins194958-future-high-tech-transport-withi/
>
>Future of high-tech transport is within reach
>
>by Logan Jen kins, San Diego Union-Tribune, Dec 22
>
>The problem with the future is the past.
>
>Nothing demonstrates the point better than transportation, the moving
>of people and cargo from place to place.
>
>Mind you, I'm no engineer. The last powered vehicle whose inner
>workings I've ever really understood was the "Diving Sub," a 1950s
>bathtub toy submarine that ran on baking powder.
>
>But even I know in my bones that layers upon layers of archaic
>technology act like money-sucking weeds, choking the quantum-leaping
>innovation required to make the urban future acceptably efficient,
>healthful and attractive.
>
>As I was typing that last paragraph, the Sprinter pulled into the
>Escondido terminal, which is a soft sand wedge from my office window.
>The metal brakes squealed, like fingernails on an old-fashioned
>blackboard.
>
>Not yet a year old, the diesel-power ed commuter rail strikes me as
>ano ther last-century layer, another weed to whack. Last week, I
>dropped in on "Maglev 2008," an international conference hosted this
>year by General Atomics and the UC San Diego Jacobs School of
>Engineering.
>
>Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a keynote speaker, informed the audience at
>the Manchester Grand Hyatt that he'd long ago
>drunk the magnetic- levitation-flavored Kool-Aid.
>
>"It's a unique opportunity for transportation in a crowded, complex
>society," he said. "We ought to be developing maglev and using it.
>Right now, it's a unique period in our nation's history."
>
>Specter was referring, of course, to the huge spending spree promised
>by President-elect Barack Obama. To goose the economy, billions (if
>not trillions) will be invested in neglected infrastructure. If Obama
>is as forward-thinking as many hope, maglev will rece ive a
>multibillion-dollar infusion.
>
>Specter, soon to be the ranking Republican on the Senate
>Appropriations Committee, pledged to grease the skids for maglev in
>Congress. But the clout will have to come from Obama.
>
>Following Specter's remarks, Jack Wagner, the auditor general of
>Pennsylvania, served up hot red meat to the 200 attendees representing
>16 countries:
>
>"I have been a big believer in magnetic levitation since I learned
>about it 20 years ago," Wagner said. "I firmly believe in my heart
>that it is the next new for m of transportation in the world. What was
>the last form? It was the jet engine, which evolved about 50 years
>ago. We have that same opportunity again to develop a new form of
>transportation. We're interested in congestion, air pollution,
>problems that we have not solved. We're moving more people and more
>cargo with old technology b uses, tractor-trailers, steel-wheel
>vehicles. We continue to use a system associated with fossil fuels. It
>goes on and on. The time has come for change." At the registration
>desk, I met Michael Simon, General Atomics'director of commercial
>development for electromagnetic systems.
>
>The company has developed maglev launchers for airplanes on carriers.
>Most recently, the San Diego-based defense contractor teamed up with
>Sandy Shapery, San Diego's tireless maglev champion, to move huge
>cargo containers at the Port of Long Beach. On Thursday, conference
>attendees toured General Atomics' 400-foot test track for a maglev
>cargo conveyor, the only full-scale example in the country.
>
>I asked Simon why maglev wasn't part of Proposition 1A, the $10
>billion bond for high-speed rail in California approved by voters last
>month.
>
>"We talked about that last night," Sim on sighed.
>
>The high-speed system has been kidnapped by state bureaucrats and
>engineering firms with vested interests in heavy steel-wheel trains,
>not the low-maintenance, magnetically=2 0levitated trains of the future,
>he said.
>
>Simon noted that people younger than 30 voted in huge numbers for
>Proposition 1A, which narrowly won passage. "It's especially ironic
>and unfortunate that forward-leaning technology wasn't selected," he
>said. "I'd think you'd want to reward those younger voters by giving
>them something you know they'd prefer."
>
>Still, Simon holds out hope that as the federal government and private
>investors come in to partner with the state on
>the $40 billion, 800- mile project, high-speed
>maglev technology will be incorporated.
>
>What's needed in the United States, Simon said, is a large commercial
>maglev application that will break the ice t hat's been cracked in
>Germany, Japan and China.
>
>"The maglev community is fractured," Simon said. "We're Balkanized to
>a great degree. Each maglev constituency says, 'We should unify behind
>one project my project.' We need a catalyst, whether it's a Sandy
>Shapery or a (General Atomics), to create a bandwagon effect."
>
>Four years ago, I first wrote about Shapery, a hotel developer who was
>pitching a high-speed maglev line connecting Southern California's
>airports. Since then, he's dialed the vision back somewhat, cognizant
>that the past can't be jettisoned.
>
>He's hoping, for example, to introduce linear motors to San Diego's
>trolleys, improving efficiency and scrapping ugly overhead wire s.
>
>The future of mass transit is way behind schedule, but if you crane
>your neck, you can almost see it gliding around the bend.
>
>Logan Jenkins: (760) 737-7555; logan....@uniontrib.com
>
>
>Reader Comments (13):
>
> 1• larry2372 - December 22, 2008 at 11:20 a.m.
>
>You make some good points. Speaking for myself, a 20-year member of
>the maglev community, it really does appear that an opportunity is
>coming with the new administration's expected infrastructure
>investments. But we have to organize and act as one large community,
>not as the fractured, many-headed creature you (accurately) refer to;
>that's a recipe for failure.
> Laurence E. (Larry) Blow
> www.maglevtransport.com
>
> 2• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 1:29 a.m.
>The difference between Maglev and 'heavy steel wheel' technology is
>that Maglev has never been used for large scale transportation syste m.
>But high speed trains are used by millions of people everyday in Japan
>and Europe.
>
>I'm glad Prop 1A didnt include MAGLEV even though its 'cooler looking'
>or whatever. I understand that in theory MAGLEV has the capacity to be
>faster, smoother and nicer than steel wheel technology. But the same
>can be said about a lot of develop mental technology. High speed rail
>today would be 3 times more effective as a network of trains for
>California than any MAGLEV network we could make.
>
>MAGLEV only has the one 18 mile airport run in Shanghai. HSR operates
>on a massive scale in over 8 countries with tens of thousands of miles
>of dedicated high speed tracks. Take Spain for example which had the
>worst infrastructure in Western Europe 20 years ago, now they have
>this HSR system to boast about:
>
>MAGLEV is still a pipe dream, the HSR proposal currently on the table
>in California has the potential to bring California into the 21st
>century. Thats not just a slogan its a real boost the efficiency of
>the economy.
>
> 3• johnharding - December 23, 2008 at 11:30 a.m.
>Correction-High Speed Rail brought us into the 20th century, in fact
>way back in 1964 with the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has become the
>most profitable rail line in the world. So profitable in fact that its
>operator, Central Japan Railway, has committed to use its profits to
>build a superconducting maglev line between Tokyo and Nagoya at its
>own expense without government funding, a system developed and tested
>by CJR itself (hardly a pipe dream). So why would an operating company
>invest in this new technology, when its2020th century technology is
>doing so well? The 1 964 system is worn out with over 301 trains per
>day. Maintenance of high speed rail is a major problem, which not only
>is expensive but interferes with operations (Maglev has no contact
>with its guideway, and imparts minimal vibration to its
>infrastructure- bridges, embankments, power supply, etc. and thus no
>wear). But speed is the major factor. With a cruise speed of 311 mph,
>it can halve travel time, and maintain its market share of 85%
>relative to air travel. Can steel wheel on rail do that?
>
> 4• larry2372 - December 23, 2008 at 1:59 p.m.
>I know that, in practice, maglev has the capacity to be faster,
>quieter, smoother, safer, less environmentally intrusive and generally
>nicer than steel wheel technology, especially when route planning
>calls for mixed use by HSR on non-high-speed tracks.
>
>But I do not understand the comment that ..."the same [things] can be
>said about a lot of developmental technology." That's news to me.
>Please enlighten us and name a few of these technologies.
>
>One project is deeply involved in the HSR vs. maglev debate. The UK
>Ultraspeed project has developed a business case
><http://www.500kmh.com/UKU_London-North_B>
>that lays out the main issues in some detail for United Kingdom
>decision-makers to consider. California c ould learn a few things from
>following this debate.
>
> 5• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 2:07 p.m.
>Yes HSR can, the record for high speed rail and MAGLEV is basically
>the same.
>(HSR:<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw4zn-qw1>...
>VS MAGLEV:
>The 311 is the record top speed not the regular cruising speed. 220
>miles per hour for the CAHSR system would take well over 50% of the
>air travel market from the LA/SD to SF route, one of the busiest in
>the world.
>
>But my point is that for California, we need proven technology! You
>just argued my point for me. The Tokaido line is the most profitable
>line in the world, THATS WHAT CALIFORNIA NEEDS! A proven and reliable
>line from North to South California. The no vibration means no wear
>and no maintenance is extremely wishful thinking. I would love MAGLEV
>to be developed but it is not ready for use for an entire network.
>Plus there are plans for the CAHSR system to share tracks on the SF
>peninsula with regular trains where there is no space to make
>dedicated tracks, which is too bad but is needed to make this project
>happen. MAGLEV would be 4 time s more expensive to build and HSR is
>expensive enough.
>
> 6• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 2:24 p.m.
>Larry - MAGLEV has the POTENTIAL to be better but TODAY it is NOT!
>
>My point was that many technologies have the potential to be more
>efficient and just better in general than what we have today. If
>technological advancement is 'news to you' than you need to get your
>head out of the ground.
>
>To name a few technologies: Solar panels (Currently too expensive for
>mass use, but with a little development should be in use everywhere),
>Passenger aircraft (Specifically the blended wing design which is far
>more effecient than the current technology but not ready for actual
>use) quantum computer chip technology (Projected to be in public use
>by 2020, will dwarf current chip designs capabilities, but today are
>not developed enough to be used for today' s demands.) If you want some
>more let me know.
>
>Larry MAGLEV will be great, but you havent explained why California
>should adopt such a technology when there are so many unknowns. HSR is
>ready to use today, MAGLEV is not ready.
>
> 7• johnharding - December 23, 2008 at 4:09 p.m.
>ChulaFrank - Perhaps the reason that you think maglev is a "pipe
>dream" is that you have not kept up to date. You assert that "311
>(mph) is the record top speed (for maglev) not the regular cruising
>speed". Maglev achieved a record speed of 581 km/h (361 mph) at the
>Yamanashi test track back in 2003. Planned cruise speed for the maglev
>Tokaido Shinkansen Bypass is indeed 311 mph (500 km/h). As I explained
>earlier, the big problem with high speed rail is maintenance cost,
>which grows exponentially with speed. No HSR operator has plans to run
>at speeds above 350 km/h. Central Japan Rail way has the least massive
>rolling stock, and yet its experience shows that rail speeds above 300
>km/h are impractical.
>
>Reasons advanced for excluding maglev by the California High Speed
>Rail Authority are nonsensical. Maglev is proven technology; the SF
>Peninsula commute route is not suitable for HSR and is at capacity.
>Furthermore average speed on the planned LA-SF route is woefully
>inadequate to compete with air travel, especially with 5 airports in
>LA and 3 in SF.
>
> 8• larry2372 - December 23, 2008 at 7:54 p.m.
>Thanks, ChulaFrank, for expanding on your point about more efficient
>and just better technologies. I misunderstood your intent.
>
>On the other anti-maglev points, though, especially the capital cost,
>it's apparent someone's feeding you bad information. Lots of cost
>studies point toward maglev and HSR (as well as light rail and
>highwa ys, too) having similar construction costs. One short reference
>is at <http://www.maglevinc.com/datasheets/cost> ..., another more< br> >detailed one is at <http://republicans.transportation.house> .... and a
>really detailed reference is athttp://www.scag.ca.gov/Maglev/pdf/ 7_Magl...
>
>In summary, I think maglev's a good idea, even for California. There's
>no reason not to look into it as far as I'm concerned, even though to
>true CAHSR believers it's heresy just to say the word maglev out loud.
>
> 9• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 9:56 p.m.
>John Harding -
>
>Your first point about cruising speeds: In the youtube link I provided
>for maglev it shows the 581km test run yo u speak of, so I definitely
>knew about that. Its great that the planned cruise speed would be
>500km, but until I see that on a larger scale than a 40km test track I
>just wont be a 'true maglev believer' i suppose. CAHSR does plan to
>run at 350km, and average cruising speeds of 280km have been achieved
>already on a large scale of other networks. In other words PROVEN.
>Maintenance costs I dont really know about but I'll assume your correct.
>
>Your second point about competing with air travel ignores the facts of
>reality. A flight is measured not in airspeed but in the time it takes
>to check in, go through security, wait until boarding, fly, than
>baggage claim. Even a train traveling at 200mph from LA to SF will
>beat an air traveler going the same route. On top of that the majority
>of travelers arriving at airports take an additional ride into the
>center of the city, where as the train wil l already be downtown. So
>just because the train doesnt go 500km doesnt mean that it is not
>competitive with air travel.
>
>Larry-
>
>Thanks for those studies. I would just like to point out that they are
>all written by maglev enthusiasts and pro-maglev lobbyists. The same
>can be said about HSR and the CAHSR business plan. But I wouldnt cite
>the CAHSR business plan as fact. I hope you understand my point here.
>
>Also the studies cited are DC to Baltimore, LAX to Ontario airport..
>these are not longer than 50 miles each. But my MAIN argument is that
>on such a large scale as CAHSR is proposing there is no precedent for
>a working Maglev NETWORK. Not a shuttle service but a SYSTEM NETWORK,
>you know with different branches and express trains and local service
>trains for central valley etc..
>
>My question is that if Maglev is so competitive with steel wheel
>techn ology and is better in as many aspects as you claim why are there
>not more examples of Maglev around the world? Especially in comparison
>to the huge number of miles of HSR in the world
>
>I would love to have a debate about MAGLEV for california and I am
>kinda sad I missed the20Maglev 2008 conference last week because I
>didnt know about it.
>
> 10• johnharding - December 24, 2008 at 8:15 a.m.
>Probably the reason that maglev is not as widely deployed as high
>speed rail is that it has been around since 1964 while maglev has been
>developed recently. Also it is a "disruptive technology" which tends
>to obsolete the current transportation system, triggering resistance.
>Even the shinkansen was somewhat disruptive to Japan since it uses
>different gauge. Hence it was bitterly opposed by interests which
>benefited from the old technology. Of course we can wait to deploy
>m aglev until other countries have long enjoyed its benefits, as the
>U.S. has done with high HSR.
>
>Don't think for a minute that high speed rail will get away without
>the delays "security" imposes on airline travelers. Even Amtrak, which
>has a insignificant role in transportation, has begun inconveniencing
>customers by demanding identification and appearance in person to buy
>tickets. (See the Amtrak website or ask Larry who had this experience
>at Union Station in DC.) If HSR in CA attracts the patronage that its
>advocates claim, it will become an irresistible target for the
>security institution. Also regarding the extra time to get to your
>final destination, be mindful that LA and SF are are highly
>distributed metropolises. With 5 airports in LA and 3 in SF it will be
> ;difficult for a linear system like rail to provide more convenient
>access.
>
>I am not convinced that magle v would be able to compete with air in
>the California corridor (the second busiest air corridor in the world,
>second only to Los Angeles-Las Vegas), because of the long distance
>and the cost imposed by difficult terrain and the necessity to resist
>earthquakes (problems faced equally by HSR). However not to have even
>considered maglev seriously is a serious shortcoming of the CHSRA
>analysis.
>
> 11• Robetphou - December 24, 2008 at 9:07 a.m.
>Every time I happen to do a "goggle" search on maglev and it pulls up
>a recent article, the comment section invariably includes comments
>from Larry and John. Larry, as in Larry Blow who has a long history of
>being paid from the Maglev coffers to promote Maglev and John, as in
>Dr. John Harding formally of the Federal Railroad Adminsitration where
>he oversaw the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars on various
>Maglev schemes an d promotions.
>They both make such reasonable cases for tapping the taxpayer that it
>is hard to believe we aren't swimming in Maglev systems by now. Their
>willingness to point out the drawbacks of any system other than Maglev
>would be believable if they would only do one thing. To go on record
>with a cost per mile of the Maglev guideway. Not an estimate, not some
>manipulatio n of cost/benefit and consumer surplus accounting but an
>actual, verifieable cost number.
>General Atomics can charge 800 dollars a head and hold their
>conferences of self promotion but they are only preaching to the
>choir. 800 dollars will admittedly keep out the rift raffe and avoid
>dealing with alternative ideas that actually have a chance of
>affordability but until the press actually exposes these events we may
>be doomed to more of these non-news news events.
>John, Larry, Have a Merry Christmas - Maybe next year you get a new
>train.
>Robert Pulliam
>Tubular Rail Inc.
>Houston TX
>tubularrail.com
>
> 12• johnharding - December 24, 2008 at 9:54 a.m.
>Cost is one thing, practicality is another. Bob Pulliam's concept is
>shown here: <http://tubularrail.com/pages/2/index.htm> ...
>Look, no guideway! No wonder it's cheap, but would it work? Bob was
>given an opportunity to present his concept to technical experts at
>the Volpe Transportation Center. They deal with unconventional systems
>every day, but they agreed "No Way". Judge for yourself.
>
> 13• RobetphouDecember 24, 2008 at 10:34 a.m.
>Come on John, practicality---moving containers with Maglev, maybe even
>containers full of imported electronic equipment. Walk into an MRI
>with your credit car ds and see if they still work after they are
>exposed to the field.
>
>Yes John, Six years ago you and I went to Boston and talked to the
>boys at Volpe. Six years is a long time and if you remember you flew,
>I took the train. As an employee of the Federal Railroad
>Administration you were not alowed to take the train (Acela). Perhaps
>if you had been able to it you wouldn't still be pitching Maglev. But
>speaking of Volpe, maybe its time for a rematch, we found the
>University level engineering help that Volpe wouldn't give and not
>only does TR work, its even cheaper (your word) than you think.
>Interested in setting it up, maybe bring in all technologies?
>
>John, could you do me a favor and tell me something about the
>unconventional systems they "deal" with at Volpe. Perhaps name a
>couple. I do know they looked at a simulation of Maglev on the New
>York State Thur way route and found it wasn't viable.
>
>And John, you still haven't said how much Maglev will cost. That is
>the core of practicality. But since you brought up Tubular Rail, try
>this link to the Discovery Show video which will be broadcast in
>January. <http://www.prtstrategies.com/files/Tubul>...
>Also here is a link to the new website
><www.tubularrail.com/>
>Always good talking to yo u,
>Robert
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans
Kirston Henderson
Jerry R.
thanks for the morale boost. when I first got to know J Harding it was through Gil Carmichael who had hired John to head up the maglev program when Sen Monyhan had put the initial 3 million into the FRA, money by the way that the FRA had never requested. At the time I meet John in 2001/02 Tubular Rail wasn't too much past the back of the envelope stage and we were looking for any help we could get. Government agencies, it turns out, are not where you go for early assistance. At any rate the research I had to do alone the way made me realize how pointless it is to pursue maglev; because rolling friction at high speed is such a minor component of energy consumption and it decreases percentage wise with further increases in speed that one has to wonder what can possibly be the justification for these projected expenditures. Give the technology credit for the wow factor but it is time maglev stopped sucking up all the oxengen in the room and freed up research and development funds for new blood. Unfortuneately, they are good at getting the press's attention and through the press, the politicians.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
rober...@aol.com
Here you go, Larry Blow is at it again, now he is going to blow (pun intended) through the Cajon Pass at 300 mph. Wonder what Union Pacific and BNSF are going to say about that and the ROW Larry will need. Oh well, that's what he gets paid for.
rp
Sent: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 9:31 pm
Subject: [t-i] Re: Fwd: [UM] [CA] "Future of high-tech transport is within reach" sdut 12/22 (MagLev'08, CHSRA, m v. m)
"not the low-maintenance, ..." Where is the data? I need maintenance records! I need proof. Solid state is different from flexural vibration under extreme forces of a super heavy maglev monster. I can see maglev like Skytran but I cannot see the value of a monster collective maglev with a Cd of .2 plus .1 for each following car with a humongous frontal area. How many miles do these guys think a steel wheel will roll before it gets welded back up to size and the put on a precision lathe to grind it back to the starting spec? What maintenance costs? I need receipts for a light weight wheeled vehicle repairs. How many millions of miles will it take to wear a steel wheel rolling on aluminum? That=2 0whole lobby (paid liar) world of big money passing from rich guy to government campaign slush fund makes me ill. It should involve jail time but the legal system is corrupt or the buyers of government would already be in jail. At some level of corruption the whole nation will dissolve. If you want peace you must have justice. (pearl)
>Spec ter, soon to be the ranking Republican on the Senate
>Appropriations Committee, pledged to grease the skids for maglev in
>Congress. But the clout will have to come from Obama.
>
>Following Specter's remarks, Jack Wagner, the auditor general of
>Pennsylvania, served up hot red meat to the 200 attendees representing
>16 countries:
>
>"I have been a big believer in magnetic levitation since I learned
>about it 20 years ago," Wagner said. "I firmly believe in my heart
>that it is the next new form of transportation in the world. What was
>the last form? It was the jet engine, which evolved about 50 years
>ago. We have that same opportunity again to develop a new form of
>transportation. We're interested in congestion, air pollution,
>problems that we have not solved. We're moving more people and more
>cargo with old technology buses, tractor-trailers, steel-wheel
>vehicles. We continue to use a system associated with fossil fuels. It
>goes on and on. The time has come for change." At the registration
>desk, I met Michael Simon, General Atomics'director of commercial
>development for electromagnetic systems.
>
>The company has developed maglev launchers for airplanes on carriers.
>Most recently, the San Diego-based defense contractor teamed up with
>Sandy Shapery, San Diego's tireless maglev champion, to move huge
>cargo containers at the Port of Long Beach. On Thursday, conference
& gt;attendees toured General Atomics' 400-foot test track for a maglev
>cargo conveyor, the only full-scale example in the country.
>
>I asked Simon why maglev wasn't part of Proposition 1A, the $10
>billion bond for high-speed rail in California approved by voters last
>month.
>
>"We talked about that last night," Simon sighed.
>
>The high-speed system has been kidnapped by state bureaucrats and
>engineering firms with vested interests in heavy steel-wheel trains,
>not the low-maintenance, magnetically levitated trains of the future,
>he said.
>
>Simon noted that people younger than 30 voted in huge numbers for
>Proposition 1A, which narrowly won passage. "It's especially ironic
>and unfortunate that forward-leaning technology wasn't selected," he
>said. "I'd think you'd want to reward those younger voters by giving
>them something you know they'd prefer."
>
>Still, Simon holds out hope that as the federal government and private
>investors come in to partner with the state on
>the $40 billion, 800- mile project, high-speed
>maglev technology will be incorporated.
>
>What's needed in the United States, Simon said, is a large commercial
>maglev application that will break the ice that's been cracked in
>Germany, Japan and China.
>
>"The maglev community is fractured," Simon said. "We're Balkanized to
>a great degree. Each maglev constituency says, 'We should unify behind
>one=2 0project my project.' We need a catalyst, whether it's a Sandy
>Shapery or a (General Atomics), to create a bandwagon effect."
>
>Four years ago, I first wrote about Shapery, a hotel developer who was
>pitching a high-speed maglev line connecting Southern California's
>airports. Since then, he's dialed the vision back somewhat, cognizant
>that the past can't be jettisoned.
>
>He's hoping, for example, to introduce linear motors to San Diego's
>trolleys, improving efficiency and scrapping ugly overhead wires.
>
>The future of mass transit is way behind schedule, but if you crane
>your neck, you can almost see it gliding around the bend.
>
>Logan Jenkins: (760) 737-7555; logan....@uniontrib.com
>
>
>Reader Comments (13):
>
> 1• larry2372 - December 22, 2008 at 11:20 a.m.
>
>You make some good points. Speaking for myself, a 20-year member of
>the maglev community, it really does appear that an opportunity is
>coming with the new administration's expected infrastructure
>investments. But we have to organize and act as one large community,
>not as the fractured, many-headed creature you (accurately) refer to;
>that's a recipe for failure.
> Laurence E. (Larry) Blow
> www.maglevtransport.com
>
> 2• ChulaFrank - Decem ber 23, 2008 at 1:29 a.m.
>The difference between Maglev and 'heavy steel wheel' technology is
>that Maglev has never been used for large scale transportation system.
>But high speed trains are used by millions of people everyday in Japan
>and Europe.
>
>I'm glad Prop 1A didnt include MAGLEV even though its 'cooler looking'
>or whatever. I understand that in theory MAGLEV has the capacity to be
>faster, smoother and nicer than steel wheel technology. But the same
>can be said about a lot of developmental technology. High speed rail
>today would be 3 times more effective as a network of trains for
>California than any MAGLEV network we could make.
>
>MAGLEV only has the one 18 mile airport run in Shanghai. HSR operates
>on a massive scale in over 8 countries with tens of thousands of miles
>of dedicated high speed tracks. Take Spain for example which had the
>worst infrastructure in Western Europe 20 years ago, now they have
>this HSR system to boast about:
>( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmIxT3PQL... )
>
>MAGLEV is still a pipe dream, the HSR proposal currently on the table
>in California has the potential to bring California into the 21st
>century. Thats not just a slogan its a real boost the efficiency of
>the economy.
>
> 3• johnharding - December 23, 2008 at 11:30 a.m.
>Correction-High=2 0Speed Rail brought us into the 20th century, in fact
>way back in 1964 with the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has become the
>most profitable rail line in the world. So profitable in fact that its
>operator, Central Japan Railway, has committed to use its profits to
>build a superconducting maglev line between Tokyo and Nagoya at its
>own expense without government funding, a system developed and tested
>by CJR itself (hardly a pipe dream). So why would an operating company
>invest in this new technology, when its 20th century technology is
>doing so well? The 1964 system is worn out with over 301 trains per
>day. Maintenance of high speed rail is a major problem, which not only
>is expensive but interferes with operations (Maglev has no contact
>with its guideway, and imparts minimal vibration to its
>infrastructure- bridges, embankments, power supply, etc. and thus no
>wear). But speed is the major factor. With a cruise speed of 311 mph,
>it can halve travel time, and maintain its market share of 85%
>relative to air travel. Can steel wheel on rail do that?
>
> 4• larry2372 - December 23, 2008 at 1:59 p.m.
>I know that, in practice, maglev has the capacity to be faster,
>quieter, smoother, safer, less environmentally intrusive and generally
>nicer than steel wheel technology, especially when route planning
>calls for mixed use by HSR on non-high-speed tracks.
>
>But I do20not understand the comment that ..."the same [things] can be
>said about a lot of developmental technology." That's news to me.
>Please enlighten us and name a few of these technologies.
>
>One project is deeply involved in the HSR vs. maglev debate. The UK
>Ultraspeed project has developed a business case
><http://www.500kmh.com/UKU_London-North_B>
>that lays out the main issues in some detail for United Kingdom
>decision-makers to consider. California could learn a few things from
>following this debate.
>
> 5• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 2:07 p.m.
>Yes HSR can, the record for high speed rail and MAGLEV is basically
>the same.
>(HSR:<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw4zn-qw1>...
>VS MAGLEV:
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUVD1rSFp>...)
>The 311 is the record top speed not the regular cruising speed. 220
>miles per hour for the CAHSR system would take well over 50% of the
>air travel market from the LA/SD to SF route, one of the busiest in
>the world.
>
>But my point is that for California, we need proven technology! You
>just argued my point for me. The Tokaido line is the most profitable
>line in the world, THATS WHAT CALIFORNIA NEEDS! A proven and reliable
>line from North to20South California. The no vibration means no wear
>and no maintenance is extremely wishful thinking. I would love MAGLEV
>to be developed but it is not ready for use for an entire network.
>Plus there are plans for the CAHSR system to share tracks on the SF
>peninsula with regular trains where there is no space to make
>dedicated tracks, which is too bad but is needed to make this project
>happen. MAGLEV would be 4 times more expensive to build and HSR is
>expensive enough.
>
> 6• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 2:24 p.m.
>Larry - MAGLEV has the POTENTIAL to be better but TODAY it is NOT!
>
>My point was that many technologies have the potential to be more
>efficient and just better in general than what we have today. If
>technological advancement is 'news to you' than you need to get your
>head out of the ground.
>
>To name a few technologies: Solar panels (Currently too expensive for
>mass use, but with a little development should be in use everywhere),
>Passenger aircraft (Specifically the blended wing design which is far
>more effecient than the current technology but not ready for actual
>use) quantum computer chip technology (Projected to be in public use
>by 2020, will dwarf current chip designs capabilities, but today are
>not developed enough to be used for today's demands.) If you want some
>more let me know.
>
>Larry MAGLE V will be great, but you havent explained why California
>just wont be a 'true maglev believer' i sup pose. CAHSR does plan to
>run at 350km, and average cruising speeds of 280km have been achieved
>already on a large scale of other networks. In other words PROVEN.
>Maintenance costs I dont really know about but I'll assume your correct.
>
>Your second point about competing with air travel ignores the facts of
>reality. A flight is measured not in airspeed but in the time it takes
>to check in, go through security, wait until boarding, fly, than
>baggage claim. Even a train traveling at 200mph from LA to SF will
>beat an air traveler going the same route. On top of that the majority
>of travelers arriving at airports take an additional ride into the
>center of the city, where as the train will already be downtown. So
>just because the train doesnt go 500km doesnt mean that it is not
>competitive with air travel.
>
>Larry-
>
>Thanks for those studies. I would just like to point out that they are
>all written by maglev enthusiasts and pro-maglev lobbyists. The same
>can be said about HSR and the CAHSR business plan. But I wouldnt cite
>the CAHSR business plan as fact. I hope you understand my point here.
>
>Also the studies cited are DC to Baltimore, LAX to Ontario airport..
>these are not longer than 50 miles each. But my MAIN argument is that
>on such a large scale as CAHSR is proposing there is no precedent for
>a working Maglev NETWORK. Not a shuttle=2 0service but a SYSTEM NETWORK,
>you know with different branches and express trains and local service
>trains for central valley etc..
>
>My question is that if Maglev is so competitive with steel wheel
>technology and is better in as many aspects as you claim why are there
>not more examples of Maglev around the world? Especially in comparison
>to the huge number of miles of HSR in the world
>
>I would love to have a debate about MAGLEV for california and I am
>kinda sad I missed the Maglev 2008 conference last week because I
>didnt know about it.
>
> 10• johnharding - December 24, 2008 at 8:15 a.m.
>Probably the reason that maglev is not as widely deployed as high
>speed rail is that it has been around since 1964 while maglev has been
>developed recently. Also it is a "disruptive technology" which tends
>to obsolete the current transportation system, triggering resistance.
>Even the shinkansen was somewhat disruptive to Japan since it uses
>different gauge. Hence it was bitterly opposed by interests which
>benefited from the old technology. Of course we can wait to deploy
>maglev until other countries have long enjoyed its benefits, as the
>U.S. has done with high HSR.
>
>Don't think for a minute that high speed rail will get away without
>the delays "security" imposes on airline travelers. Even Amtrak, which
>has a insignificant role in transporta tion, has begun inconveniencing
>customers by demanding identification and appearance in person to buy
>tickets. (See the Amtrak website or ask Larry who had this experience
>at Union Station in DC.) If HSR in CA attracts the patronage that its
>advocates claim, it will become an irresistible target for the
>security institution. Also regarding the extra time to get to your
>final destination, be mindful that LA and SF are are highly
>distributed metropolises. With 5 airports in LA and 3 in SF it will be
>difficult for a linear system like rail to provide more convenient
>access.
>
>I am not convinced that maglev would be able to compete with air in
>the California corridor (the second busiest air corridor in the world,
>second only to Los Angeles-Las Vegas), because of the long distance
>and the cost imposed by difficult terrain and the necessity to resist
>earthquakes (problems faced equally by HSR). However not to have even
>considered maglev seriously is a serious shortcoming of the CHSRA
>analysis.
>
> 11• Robetphou - December 24, 2008 at 9:07 a.m.
>Every time I happen to do a "goggle" search on maglev and it pulls up
>a recent article, the comment section invariably includes comments
>from Larry and John. Larry, as in Larry Blow who has a long history of
>being paid from the Maglev coffers to promote Maglev and John, as in
>Dr. John Harding formally of20the Federal Railroad Adminsitration where
>he oversaw the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars on various
>Maglev schemes and promotions.
>They both make such reasonable cases for tapping the taxpayer that it
>is hard to believe we aren't swimming in Maglev systems by now. Their
>willingness to point out the drawbacks of any system other than Maglev
>would be believable if they would only do one thing. To go on record
>with a cost per mile of the Maglev guideway. Not an estimate, not some
>manipulation of cost/benefit and consumer surplus accounting but an
>actual, verifieable cost number.
>General Atomics can charge 800 dollars a head and hold their
>conferences of self promotion but they are only preaching to the
>choir. 800 dollars will admittedly keep out the rift raffe and avoid
>dealing with alternative ideas that actually have a chance of
>affordability but until the press actually exposes these events we may
>be doomed to more of these non-news news events.
>John, Larry, Have a Merry Christmas - Maybe next year you get a new
>train.
>Robert Pulliam
>Tubular Rail Inc.
>Houston TX
>tubularrail.com
>
> 12• johnharding - December 24, 2008 at 9:54 a.m.
>Cost is one thing, practicality is another. Bob Pulliam's concept is
>shown here: <http://tubularrail.com/pages/2/ index.htm> ...
>Look, no guideway! No wonder it's cheap, but would it work? Bob was
>given an opportunity to present his concept to technical experts at
>the Volpe Transportation Center. They deal with unconventional systems
>every day, but they agreed "No Way". Judge for yourself.
>
> 13• RobetphouDecember 24, 2008 at 10:34 a.m.
>Come on John, practicality---moving containers with Maglev, maybe even
>containers full of imported electronic equipment. Walk into an MRI
>with your credit cards and see if they still work after they are
>exposed to the field.
>
>Yes John, Six years ago you and I went to Boston and talked to the
>boys at Volpe. Six years is a long time and if you remember you flew,
>I took the train. As an employee of the Federal Railroad
>Administration you were not alowed to take the train (Acela). Perhaps
>if you had been able to it you wouldn't still be pitching Maglev. But
>speaking of Volpe, maybe its time for a rematch, we found the
>University level engineering help that Volpe wouldn't give and not
>only does TR work, its even cheaper (your word) than you think.
>Interested in setting it up, maybe bring in all technologies?
>
>John, could you do me a favor and tell me something about the
>unconventional systems they "deal" with at Volpe. Perhaps name a
>couple. I do know they looked at a simulation of Maglev on the New
>Yor k State Thurway route and found it wasn't viable.
Tad Winiecki
in evacuated tubes you can have vast improvements in speed and
efficiency. See www.et3.com.
God bless you
Tad Winiecki
Higherway Transport Research
"Suburb to suburb quicker"
http://higherway.us
Evacuated Tube Transport licensee
http://www.et3.com
rober...@aol.com
sorry, here is the link to Blow's comment.
-----Original Message-----
From: rober...@aol.com
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 11:52 pm
Subject: [t-i] Re: Fwd: [UM] [CA] "Future of high-tech transport is within reach" sdut 12/22 (MagLev'08, CHSRA, m v. m)
Here you go, Larry Blow is at it again, now he is going to blow (pun intended) through the Cajon Pass at 300 mph. Wonder what Union Pacific and BNSF are going to say about that and the ROW Larry will need. Oh well, that's what he gets paid for.
rp
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com>
To: transport-...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 9:31 pm
Subject: [t-i] Re: Fwd: [UM] [CA] "Future of high-tech transport is within reach" sdut 12/22 (MagLev'08, CHSRA, m v. m)
"not the low-maintenance, ..." Where is the data? I need maintenance records! I need proof. Solid state is different from flexural vibration under extreme forces of a super heavy maglev monster. I can see maglev like Skytran but I cannot see the value of a monster collective maglev with a Cd of .2 plus .1 for each following car with a humongous frontal area. How many miles do these guys think a steel wheel will roll before it gets welded back up to size and the put on a precision lathe to grind it back to the starting spec? What maintenance costs? I need receipts for a light weight wheeled vehicle repairs. How many millions of miles will it take to wear a steel wheel rolling on aluminum? That=2 0whole lobby (paid liar) world of big money passing from rich guy to government campaign slush fund makes me ill. It should involve jail time but the legal system is corrupt or the buyers of government would already be in jail. At some level of corruption the whole nation will dissolve. If you want peace you must have justice. (pearl)
If metal is flexed each time the massively heavy and low energy performing train goes over a section of a multi billion dollar magtrack won't it fatigue fracture and break the entire length of the hundreds of miles of train-magtrack? A few wheels being reconditioned is nothing compared to replacement of all the flexing steel in a heavy maglev unless someone can show us receipts of costs by an independent auditor.
Using John Harding's logic written to me back when he was the "expert" at US Dot it takes 5 times the power to go 311 mph over 180 mph so it is not realistic to go that fast. Or some such bullshit. He needs to pick his logic and remain true to it. Either vehicles that go faster than 179 miles per hour are valid or they are not. John Harding which is it today? Pull the paycheck stub from your rear pocket and tell everyone what is says on the top left corner.
Jerry Roane
Are PRT and Dualmode Balkanized too? Both feature concepts that are far more
diverse than Maglev concepts, making "getting behind one" much more difficult.
--------------------------------------------
>SAN DIEGO_ ".. Last week, I dropped in on "Maglev 2008," an
>international conference hosted this year by General Atomics and the
>UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.,
>a keynote speaker, informed the audience at the Manchester Grand Hyatt
>that he'd long ago drunk the magnetic-levitation-flavored Kool-Aid.
>"It's a unique opportunity for transportation in a crowded, complex
>society," he said. "We ought to be developing maglev and using it.
>Right now, it's a unique period in our nation's history." .. I asked
>Michael Simon, General Atomics'director of commercial development for
>electromagnetic systems, why maglev wasn't part of Proposition 1A, the
>$10 billion bond for high-speed rail in California approved by voters
>last month. .. The high-speed system has been kidnapped by state
>bureaucrats and engineering firms with vested interests in heavy
>steel- wheel trains, not the low-maintenance, magnetically levitated trains
>of the future, he said. .. "The maglev community is fractured," Simon
>said. "We're Balkanized to a great degree. Each maglev constituency
>says, 'We should unify behind one project my p roject.' .. - Logan Jenkins
>
>http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2008/dec/22/1m22jenkins194958-future-high-tech-transport-withi/
>
>Future of high-tech transport is within reach
>
>by Logan Jenkins, San Diego Union-Tribune, Dec 22
>
>The problem with the future is the past.
>
>Nothing demonstrates the point better than transportation, the moving
>of people and cargo from place to place.
>
>Mind you, I'm no engineer. The last powered vehicle whose inner
>workings I've ever really understood was the "Diving Sub," a 1950s
>bathtub toy submarine that ran on baking powder.
>
>But even I know in my bones that layers upon layers of archaic
>technology act like money-sucking weeds, choking the quantum-leaping
>innovation required to make the urban future acceptably efficient,
>healthful and attractive.
>
>As I was typing that last paragraph, the Sprinter pulled into the
>Escondido terminal, which is a soft sand wedge from my office window.
>The metal brakes squealed, like fingernails on an old-fashioned
>blackboard.
>
>Not yet a year old, the diesel-powered commuter rail strikes me as
>another last-century layer, another weed to whack. Last week, I
>dropped in on "Maglev 2008," an international conference hosted this
>year by General Atomics and the UC San Diego Jacobs School=2 0of
>Engineering.
>
>Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a keynote speaker, informed the audience at
>the Manchester Grand Hyatt that he'd long ago
>drunk the magnetic- levitation-flavored Kool-Aid.
>
>"It's a unique opportunity for transportation in a crowded, complex
>society," he said. "We ought to be developing maglev and using it.
>Right now, it's a unique period in our nation's history."
>
>Specter was referring, of course, to the huge spending spree promised
>by President-elect Barack Obama. To goose the economy, billions (if
>not trillions) will be invested in neglected infrastructure. If Obama
>is as forward-thinking as many hope, maglev will receive a
>multibillion-dollar infusion.
>
>Spec ter, soon to be the ranking Republican on the Senate
>Appropriations Committee, pledged to grease the skids for maglev in
>Congress. But the clout will have to come from Obama.
>
>Following Specter's remarks, Jack Wagner, the auditor general of
>Pennsylvania, served up hot red meat to the 200 attendees representing
>16 countries:
>
>"I have been a big believer in magnetic levitation since I learned
>about it 20 years ago," Wagner said. "I firmly believe in my heart
>that it is the next new form of transportation in the world. What was
>the last form? It was the jet engine, which evolved about 50 years
>ago. We have that same opportunity again to develop a new form of
>transporta tion. We're interested in congestion, air pollution,
>MAGLEV only has the20one 18 mile airport run in Shanghai. HSR operates
>on a massive scale in over 8 countries with tens of thousands of miles
>of dedicated high speed tracks. Take Spain for example which had the
>worst infrastructure in Western Europe 20 years ago, now they have
>this HSR system to boast about:
>( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmIxT3PQL... )
>
>MAGLEV is still a pipe dream, the HSR proposal currently on the table
>in California has the potential to bring California into the 21st
>century. Thats not just a slogan its a real boost the efficiency of
>the economy.
>
> 3• johnharding - December 23, 2008 at 11:30 a.m.
>Correction-High=2 0Speed Rail brought us into the 20th century, in fact
>way back in 1964 with the Tokaido Shinkansen, which has become the
>most profitable rail line in the world. So profitable in fact that its
>operator, Central Japan Railway, has committed to use its profits to
>build a superconducting maglev line between Tokyo and Nagoya at its
>own expense without government funding, a system developed and tested
>by CJR itself (hardly a pipe dream). So why would an operating company
>invest in this new technology, when its 20th century technology is
>doing so well? The 1964 system is worn out with over 301 trains per
>day. Maintenance of high speed rail is a major problem, which not only
>is=2 0expensive but interferes with operations (Maglev has no contact
>with its guideway, and imparts minimal vibration to its
>infrastructure- bridges, embankments, power supply, etc. and thus no
>wear). But speed is the major factor. With a cruise speed of 311 mph,
>it can halve travel time, and maintain its market share of 85%
>relative to air travel. Can steel wheel on rail do that?
>
> 4• larry2372 - December 23, 2008 at 1:59 p.m.
>I know that, in practice, maglev has the capacity to be faster,
>quieter, smoother, safer, less environmentally intrusive and generally
>nicer than steel wheel technology, especially when route planning
>calls for mixed use by HSR on non-high-speed tracks.
>
>But I do20not understand the comment that ..."the same [things] can be
>said about a lot of developmental technology." That's news to me.
>Please enlighten us and name a few of these technologies.
>
>One project is deeply involved in the HSR vs. maglev debate. The UK
>Ultraspeed project has developed a business case
><http://www.500kmh.com/UKU_London-North_B>
>that lays out the main issues in some detail for United Kingdom
>decision-makers to consider. California could learn a few things from
>following this debate.
>
> 5• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 2:07 p.m.
>Yes HSR can, the record for high speed rail a nd MAGLEV is basically
>the same.
>(HSR:<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw4zn-qw1>...
>VS MAGLEV:
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUVD1rSFp>...)
>The 311 is the record top speed not the regular cruising speed. 220
>miles per hour for the CAHSR system would take well over 50% of the
>air travel market from the LA/SD to SF route, one of the busiest in
>the world.
>
>But my point is that for California, we need proven technology! You
>just argued my point for me. The Tokaido line is the most profitable
>line in the world, THATS WHAT CALIFORNIA NEEDS! A proven and reliable
>line from North to20South California. The no vibration means no wear
>and no maintenance is extremely wishful thinking. I would love MAGLEV
>to be developed but it is not ready for use for an entire network.
>Plus there are plans for the CAHSR system to share tracks on the SF
>peninsula with regular trains where there is no space to make
>dedicated tracks, which is too bad but is needed to make this project
>happen. MAGLEV would be 4 times more expensive to build and HSR is
>expensive enough.
>
> 6• ChulaFrank - December 23, 2008 at 2:24 p.m.
>Larry - MAGLEV has the POTENTIAL to be better but TODAY it is NOT!
>
>My point was that many technologies have the20potential to be more
>efficient and just better in general than what we have today. If
>technological advancement is 'news to you' than you need to get your
>head out of the ground.
>
>To name a few technologies: Solar panels (Currently too expensive for
>mass use, but with a little development should be in use everywhere),
>Passenger aircraft (Specifically the blended wing design which is far
>more effecient than the current technology but not ready for actual
>use) quantum computer chip technology (Projected to be in public use
>by 2020, will dwarf current chip designs capabilities, but today are
>not developed enough to be used for today's demands.) If you want some
>more let me know.
>
>Larry MAGLE V will be great, but you havent explained why California
>should adopt such a technology when there are so many unknowns. HSR is
>ready to use today, MAGLEV is not ready.
>
> 7• johnharding - December 23, 2008 at 4:09 p.m.
>ChulaFrank - Perhaps the reason that you think maglev is a "pipe
>dream" is that you have not kept up to date. You assert that "311
>(mph) is the record top speed (for maglev) not the regular cruising
>speed". Maglev achieved a record speed of 581 km/h (361 mph) at the
>Yamanashi test track back in 2003. Planned cruise speed for the maglev
>Tokaido Shinkansen Bypass is indeed 311 mph (500 km/h). As I explained
>earlier, the big=2 0problem with high speed rail is maintenance cost,
>center of the ci ty, where as the train will already be downtown. So
>the Californi a corridor (the second busiest air corridor in the world,
>second only to Los Angeles-Las Vegas), because of the long distance
>and the cost imposed by difficult terrain and the necessity to resist
>earthquakes (problems faced equally by HSR). However not to have even
>considered maglev seriously is a serious shortcoming of the CHSRA
>analysis.
>
> 11• Robetphou - December 24, 2008 at 9:07 a.m.
>Every time I happen to do a "goggle" search on maglev and it pulls up
>a recent article, the comment section invariably includes comments
>from Larry and John. Larry, as in Larry Blow who has a long history of
>being paid from the Maglev coffers to promote Maglev and John, as in
>Dr. John Harding formally of20the Federal Railroad Adminsitration where
>he oversaw the spending of millions of taxpayer dollars on various
>Maglev schemes and promotions.
>They both make such reasonable cases for tapping the taxpayer that it
>is hard to believe we aren't swimming in Maglev systems by now. Their
>willingness to point out the drawbacks of any system other than Maglev
>would be believable if they would only do one thing. To go on record
>with a cost per mile of the Maglev guideway. Not an estimate, not some
>manipulation of cost/benefit and consumer surplus accounting but an
>actual, verifieable cost number.
>General Atomics can charge 800 dollars a head and hold their
>conferences of self20promotion but they are only preaching to the
>choir. 800 dollars will admittedly keep out the rift raffe and avoid
>dealing with alternative ideas that actually have a chance of
>affordability but until the press actually exposes these events we may
>be doomed to more of these non-news news events.
>John, Larry, Have a Merry Christmas - Maybe next year you get a new
>train.
>Robert Pulliam
>Tubular Rail Inc.
>Houston TX
>tubularrail.com
>
> 12• johnharding - December 24, 2008 at 9:54 a.m.
>Cost is one thing, practicality is another. Bob Pulliam's concept is
>shown here: <http://tubularrail.com/pages/2/ index.htm> ...
>Look, no guideway! No wonder it's cheap, but would it work? Bob was
>given an opportunity to present his concept to technical experts at
>the Volpe Transportation Center. They deal with unconventional systems
>every day, but they agreed "No Way". Judge for yourself.
>
> 13• RobetphouDecember 24, 2008 at 10:34 a.m.
>Come on John, practicality---moving containers with Maglev, maybe even
>containers full of imported electronic equipment. Walk into an MRI
>with your credit cards and see if they still work after they are
>exposed to the field.
>
>Yes John, Six years ago you and I went to Boston and talked to the
>boys at Volpe . Six years is a long time and if you remember you flew,
>I took the train. As an employee of the Federal Railroad
>Administration you were not alowed to take the train (Acela). Perhaps
>if you had been able to it you wouldn't still be pitching Maglev. But
>speaking of Volpe, maybe its time for a rematch, we found the
>University level engineering help that Volpe wouldn't give and not
>only does TR work, its even cheaper (your word) than you think.
>Interested in setting it up, maybe bring in all technologies?
>
>John, could you do me a favor and tell me something about the
>unconventional systems they "deal" with at Volpe. Perhaps name a
>couple. I do know they looked at a simulation of Maglev on the New
>Yor k State Thurway route and found it wasn't viable.
>
>And John, you still haven't said how much Maglev will cost. That is
>the core of practicality. But since you brought up Tubular Rail, try
>this link to the Discovery Show video which will be broadcast in
>January. <http://www.prtstrategies.com/files/Tubul>...
>Also here is a link to the new website
><www.tubularrail.com/>
>Always good talking to you,
>Robert
- Jerry Schneider -
Innovative Transportation Technologies
rober...@aol.com
evacuated tubes aside, people I have spoken to that have riden the Shanghai system state that the ride is quite noisy. Any body have knowledge of the noise, both for the passenger and the passed by?
rp
Evacuated=2 0Tube Transport licensee http://www.et3.com
eph
installing transit systems. Why? Because cities (around here anyway)
must pay for O&M out of their yearly budget whereas Capital cost comes
from Federal, Provincial and Municipal. So they see Capital cost as
somewhere between free and 33% of the actual capital cost. Of course
this thinking makes no sense in the real world to taxpayers, but it
makes sense to politicians and they are the ones who make the final
decisions on new transit systems. So in this sense, a Capital heavy
but (promised) O&M lite maglev system makes sense in a very warped
way.
Maybe some PAT systems should put more expense in capital for even
slight decreases in O&M costs?
F.
On Dec 25, 11:27 pm, Kirston Henderson
<kirston.hender...@megarail.com> wrote:
Jerry Roane
Excellent point and something for others to consider. Thinking in this way rolling operating costs into capital costs could be a very effective marketing tool for each of us. I always used to wonder about why people are so enamored with warranties. The overhead of providing a warranty is far greater than any amount ever paid to a mechanic or for replacement parts but warranties continue to be sold. Even consumer watch magazines rail on how stupid it is to invest in a warranty yet many electronic outlet stores based their profit model on up selling warranties on electronic equipment that is in the throw away range for imported goods. Why would a consumer still buy these warranties even with all the warnings of what bad values they are and knowing that when they go to collect on the warranty the company may be gone or worse yet knowing that the claims adjuster will be there to screw you over at every turn? The emotional cost of dealing with a person who's job it is to not fix your broken equipment is far greater to me than throwing the equipment in the trash and buying another one somewhere else. That adds to this problem as many will just take the loss. Now that I have described my version of warranties this is something that we could offer to the city as a way to roll some operating cost into the capital cost. Just propose the pricing structure that way. Include a warranty that includes "maintenance" items and services that are used up in the operation of the system. This goes counter to intuition where low initial cost would seem to be a good thing but rather low operating cost with a much higher initial capital cost may be a model to consider depending on the customer instead of the customer's customer.
Jerry Roane
Kirston Henderson
> Tad,
> evacuated tubes aside, people I have spoken to that have riden the Shanghai
> system state that the ride is quite noisy. Any body have knowledge of the
> noise, both for the passenger and the passed by?
There as a published FRA report a while back that provided the results
of noise measurements made by an FRA contractor of noise levels near a
German Transrapid train and an ordinary railroad train. Their conclusion
was that the Transrapid made more noise. I believe that the noise produced
by the maglev trains is created by the pulsing of the linear motors used to
propel the train.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Kirston Henderson
> Low operating and maintenance cost is VERY attractive to cities
> installing transit systems. Why? Because cities (around here anyway)
> must pay for O&M out of their yearly budget whereas Capital cost comes
> from Federal, Provincial and Municipal. So they see Capital cost as
> somewhere between free and 33% of the actual capital cost. Of course
> this thinking makes no sense in the real world to taxpayers, but it
> makes sense to politicians and they are the ones who make the final
> decisions on new transit systems. So in this sense, a Capital heavy
> but (promised) O&M lite maglev system makes sense in a very warped
> way.
>
> Maybe some PAT systems should put more expense in capital for even
> slight decreases in O&M costs?
I believe that your above arguments about low O&M cost do make sense in
the twisted thinking of many local transit organizations.
In line with the above thinking, in our own marketing, we stress that
the O&M costs for our systems are much lower than competing systems for the
following reasons:
1. Our use of all stainless-steel guideways essentially eliminates any
guideway maintenance.
2. Our uses of permanent-magnet wheelmotors in our vehicles also reduces
maintenance because there is very little to wear out other than wheel
bearings that will require replacement after after many miles. This
maintenance is probably lower than that of linear motors with their large
number of coils and electronic control units all along the guideway.
3. Although we use rubber tires, tire life is expected to be more a result
of tire aging rather than wear because the tires always operate on a smooth
steel traction surface.
In view of the above, we probably beat the various maglev systems in the
O&M category. As far as I know, all of those systems use ordinary steel
that rusts and will require expensive painting.
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®
Walter Brewer
costs. Local sales tax goes about 50/50 to opd and capital.
Walt Brewer
From: "eph" <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2008 10:51 AM
Subject: [t-i] Re: Maglev Magic Factor
Jack Slade
"F" : I suggest there is a way to evaluate systems, but it will take a little work on your part. Here is what you do:
Make a list of all the things you don't like about every existing transportation method that you know.
Make a separate list for each system, and number them.
When you evaluate something new, go back to your lists and look for the answer to this question:
HOW MANY PROBLEMS (dislikes) are eliminated by this new system? Give it a score, on the basis of one point for every dislike eliminated.
Jack Slade
P.S. I would be interested in seeing your lists, to compare to the ones I made. Don't be surprised if they are very much alike.
|
From: eph <rhaps...@yahoo.com> |
eph
I have done this exercise and continue to do it as I understand more
about the finer points of transportation and about different systems
and ideas but I have a particular context which is the city of Ottawa.
So given that (as I see it) Ottawa needs a system that has these major
characteristics:
- Will run on an arterial network (the evolution of the existing BRT
system) and will sprout smaller feeder loops from there as required.
- 80 km/h speed (at least) because we have satellite cities accross a
green belt.
Typically what happens is that these "requirements" are challenged so
that each provider's system can be shoehorned into acceptance. This
is unproductive. I have come up with different designs and posted
them to the list in the past but without a provider (or group of
providers) willing to back a design, what's the point?
P.S. Do you like a particular system? I can't find your entry in the
member survey.
F.
On Dec 26, 1:45 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> "F" : I suggest there is a way to evaluate systems, but it will take a little work on your part. Here is what you do:
>
> Make a list of all the things you don't like about every existing transportation method that you know.
>
> Make a separate list for each system, and number them.
>
> When you evaluate something new, go back to your lists and look for the answer to this question:
> HOW MANY PROBLEMS (dislikes) are eliminated by this new system? Give it a score, on the basis of one point for every dislike eliminated.
>
> Jack Slade
>
> P.S. I would be interested in seeing your lists, to compare to the ones I made. Don't be surprised if they are very much alike.
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jack Slade
I think you are saying that you have made a list of 'REQUIREMENTS'' , which is not the same as Dislikes. Requirements are just your opinion, or somebody else's.
For Example : Ottawa needs a system that will run on an Arterial: THAT IS JUST AN OPINION. May I ask why it must run on an arterial? Perhaps it is because they are mostly Civil Servants, and therefore they DESERVE to walk farther?
No, I did not do the member survey. I was busy, and your anti-elevated ideas are so different from mine that I did not consider it worthwhile....yet you will end up with elevated LRT, or something similiar, wich is ten times more obtrusive and expensive. Is that why it will HAVE to be overhead the arterials, to hide it by putting it farther away?
Jack Slade |
eph
work and what won't. Elevated structures along arterials are probably
acceptable but a network of elevated structures along side roads,
probably not. Thing is, the arterials have already been dug out and
trenches are already there for the BRT.
The LRT system we will be getting will likely not increase ridership,
lower operating costs or increase property values along the ROW. I
think the LRT system will be a "billion dollar boondoggle" as Andrew
Haydon stated. $5 Billion dollars will be wasted on a choo-choo train
to satisfy the ego of a Mayor.
As for "being far away from people", you have to look at it as a
comparison to what the competition is. You either get train service
at 30 minute intervals "farther away" or you get a waiting vehicle
with PAT farther away with the possibility of extending it closer in
certain areas in the future with PAT. PAT is a clear winner, even if
an arterial system pales in comparison to a network system. The
network aspect of PRT is an easy target for the competition, whereas
an arterial based PAT system isn't. It's no wonder LRT advocates
spend so much time trying to discredit PAT, it's a clearly superior
product.
F.
On Dec 27, 1:16 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I think you are saying that you have made a list of 'REQUIREMENTS'' , which is not the same as Dislikes. Requirements are just your opinion, or somebody else's.
>
> For Example : Ottawa needs a system that will run on an Arterial: THAT IS JUST AN OPINION. May I ask why it must run on an arterial? Perhaps it is because they are mostly Civil Servants, and therefore they DESERVE to walk farther?
>
> No, I did not do the member survey. I was busy, and your anti-elevated ideas are so different from mine that I did not consider it worthwhile....yet you will end up with elevated LRT, or something similiar, wich is ten times more obtrusive and expensive. Is that why it will HAVE to be overhead the arterials, to hide it by putting it farther away?
>
> Jack Slade
>
Jack Slade
I am not talking about a list referring to FUTURE systems. I asked you to list your dislikes about EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, and then evaluate future systems by looking at how many dislikes on your lists would be cured.
Obviously you are not willing to do this. Your mind is already made up, or what?
Jack |
eph
Transit models (based on user data) tell us what people in general
like and dislike - walking, waiting, long travel time. comfort. cost
etc...
Future systems must obviously minimize dislikes and maximize likes but
with different weights attached to them. This is close to a black art
I would imagine as predicting the future usually is. Ultimately, the
choice of transit system becomes comparative - what's available, how
much does it cost to buy, to operate and maintain and will ridership
increase, will the community in general benefit, etc...?
Getting mad at me will not make me agree with you.
F.
On Dec 27, 5:14 pm, Jack Slade <skytrek_...@rogers.com> wrote:
> I am not talking about a list referring to FUTURE systems. I asked you to list your dislikes about EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, and then evaluate future systems by looking at how many dislikes on your lists would be cured.
>
> Obviously you are not willing to do this. Your mind is already made up, or what?
>
> Jack
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ian Ford
Requirements are the "why" and design is the "how". When requirements
are properly separated from design, there is an incentive for design
innovation. When they are intermingled, innovation is impossible.
Your "requirements" for Ottawa are really design parameters in my book,
and if they were adopted as law, the law would preclude innovation.
Doing engineering from requirements makes sense for components -
hardware and software. This is because when you build a system from
components, there are absolute requirements imposed by other components,
and you generally need to pick the cheapest component that meets all
requirements absolutely, as driven by the design of the whole system.
For public policy, however, there are no absolute minimums, and you are
not choosing components that interoperate, so there are really no
requirements. I advocate for public policy to proceed from goals
instead, and you choose the policy or expenditure that reaches farthest
towards the goal at the least cost.
To illustrate what I mean by goals and requirements: A requirement might
be "emits under XX kg of CO2-equivalent per hour": a simple test reveals
whether the requirement is met. A goal might be "climate stabilization":
it can be projected but only in context. Transit system A might emit
more CO2 than system B but also contribute more towards climate
stabilization - for example, by carrying more passengers.
> So given that (as I see it) Ottawa needs a system that has these major
> characteristics:
> - Will run on an arterial network (the evolution of the existing BRT
> system) and will sprout smaller feeder loops from there as required.
> - 80 km/h speed (at least) because we have satellite cities accross a
> green belt.
>
> Typically what happens is that these "requirements" are challenged so
> that each provider's system can be shoehorned into acceptance. This
> is unproductive. I have come up with different designs and posted
> them to the list in the past but without a provider (or group of
> providers) willing to back a design, what's the point?
--
Ian Ford i...@ianford.com 505.246.8490
Jack Slade
If you don't know what you don't like about existing systems that you have used, how can you form an opinion about what might be better?
Jack Slade |
Jerry Roane
This is more nit picking than anything but if you exchange least cost with greatest value then I think it would be more correct. Value allows for not always least cost components to form a better value system. As for Ottowa -- We are not looking at it because we gave up our patent rights by not paying a large fee. We don't see value to us building a system in Canada.
Jerry Roane
Jerry Schneider
>snip --------------------
>For public policy, however, there are no absolute minimums, and you are
>not choosing components that interoperate, so there are really no
>requirements. I advocate for public policy to proceed from goals
>instead, and you choose the policy or expenditure that reaches farthest
>towards the goal at the least cost.
I generally agree except that there would need to be multiple goals and
that requires a multi-goal evaluation method. System A might surpass
System B on goals 1, 5 and 9 but System B might do better on 2,3, and 7.
Suppose they are tied on the rest of the goals. Which system is to be
preferred?
That is where the selection problem becomes quite sticky.
Ian Ford
independently, and elected officials should be the ones determining the
priorities among several goals. For a planning process to be democratic,
there should be one main decision point which is decided by well
informed elected leaders; govt staff and experts should work
transparently and rigidly conforming to a planning procedure, not making
decisions along the way.
The way it is done today, usually, is that back room deals and political
threats lead to a "preferred option", which is sold at public input
meetings, and by the time it gets to any legitimate democratic
authority, they only have a yes/no vote on that one idea.
The way it should be is that the elected leaders get a packet of many
ideas, along with realistic projections of how closely EACH of those
ideas meet EACH of many goals (which would have been set by that same
body), so that they can choose what they think are the most important
goals, debate the options, and come to a compromise choice of ideas.
eph
It would be nice if each idea was evaluated by each city official as
you describe. This sort of explains why (at least for Ottawa) an
arterial system with adequate speed is needed/required, not because
it's the best solution necessarily, but because it fits into the rigid
framework and narrow thinking the governing bodies use to make
decisions. We had some politicians either draw up their own plans for
a transit system, realising that what was presented didn't explore all
possibilities and one went as far as to have an external engineering
firm create a new design (even these were still in the context of LRT)
and they were all quickly dismissed and rejected by the majority of
council without proper consideration. It's frigtening to watch them
(mis)manage our money. It's not difficult to imagine how much scutiny
an idea that departs further from the norm will get - zero
consideration.
F.
Walter Brewer
with better transportation and what to call it.
I repeat my comments of December 26 below, and a follow on:
In "brief" (sic), we have to take a national view now and circumstances now
put it in the stimulus plan. That's a plus IF done properly. On national
issues like military strategic weapons and space we already do multiple goal
analysis and decision making. Urban transportation is nearly as complex. As
apparently also in Canada, the vast majority of local officials are simply
not qualified. The national overview should not force a single solution down
cities' throats, but the cost/benefit options should be made available. Like
private leaders they must be held accountable for results from options
chosen. Again the MagLev infatuation illustrates how something useful in
limited circumstances gets to be a major answer to all prayers, and can be a
show stopper to more useful progress. I don't know how to do the awakening.
ATRA has limited clout. TRB/ITS etc, ought to do more than tinker with minor
improvements. Perhaps our new Secretary?
Regarding widely encompassing names for things. Dennis' "Automated
Transportation Network" has virtue though in the biggest sense there is
still going to be much that is not automated. "Transit" is to often used
instead of "transportation" Unfortunately in the USA with USDOT's two
separate, and poorly coordinated transit and road branches, new concepts get
immediately slotted in the transit side with little appreciation for the
meaning and performance potential. "Tram" as commented before is widely used
for other partial providers. Just as autos have brand names, they have their
purpose about as they have evolved for the "PRT" field.
I know a lot of this is repetition on my part. But we have a major national
problem, and we are not standing up to it as well as obviously in my belief
we can.
Walt Brewer
"Dennis;
Comments on this, and picking up on last few days from Jerry S, Badger, and
others.
I agree with you if analogous at the hardware stage for a one size fits all
national surface transportation system similar to the Interstate Highway 50
years ago.
But considering magnitude of funds being considered, and calendar time the
stimulus investment will have to last awhile meeting the "Change" slogan
that it must be useful. All the more reason to look closely and quickly on a
national scale. And I don't mean to chose THE mode or even EACH system
within multiple modes that fit a variety of requirements. We should be able
to evaluate what is known and what generic cost effective principles of
design/development/operation fit best to steer the effort.
The shovel needs a handle to point it in the right direction. So far it's
just a blade. In many major commitments, take space, we "bet" $ billions on
our ability to analyze and commit on far more complex and technical
substance.
I don't mean a completely inflexible master plan. Even though there is not
time for the normal market place to sort things out, there is room for
competition in ideas and projections. In other major situations, we have
been willing to hedge bets with concurrency keeping the good and discarding
the poor without loss in schedule.
For surface transportation at least, if Obama means real change, this
approach is much different from the politicized activity going on that Jerry
summarized; mostly without numerical comparison to judge by. As noted even
Sec Peters admitted to such a year ago before crisis struck.
Thus I believe the real change would be for a major real world, not just
academic, effort to be set up with real goals and schedules. I keep saying
USDOT has been moribund. Now is time for the wake up call. Green projects
can have their day in court, in this case emphasizing efficient use rather
than generation of power for example.
For the Kirstons "keep government out of the way" faction, there is plenty
of opportunity for private orgs at all levels to compete; both for the
analytical phase and the hardware implementation.
Otherwise its more and more trains and buses, and riders complaining about
the service and amount of fare subsidization.
Badger's last sentence is starting to build the dam to divert effort in the
right knowledgeable direction. But the structure is probably bigger than he
thinks. If Badger already has done some, kick in with the rest of us".
And further in response to one comment:
"It isn't just technical and design. It includes equally the interaction
with what works best with users/communities.
So let the stimulus pay for full scale experiments in a variety of
communities using what appears to be the best design match.
Some intellectual shoveling is needed to make those judgment as well as
possible. There will be mistakes. There are cases where duplication will
help.
A six month effort with the country's best brains can evolve such. And bring
attention to "green" efforts on the user side of energy/pollution as well as
the supply side being emphasized by smart growers, environmentalists etc.
Meanwhile there are some short term replacement of buses with hybrids, etc,
as well as the road/bridge upgrades to get the ball rolling immediately.
But we should stop the landslide that would just pour more into already
overbuilt mass transit just because we know how to build buses and trains.
And ignore that in most cases it doesn't match most traveler needs.
This is not unlike the missile gap of the '50's I keep referring to. Noone
was really sure what would work best. In the race to a survivable ICBM to
eliminate aircraft vulnerability, it took awhile to realize the ICBM bases
were vulnerable too. We spent $ billions on liquid fuel missiles because
they have better technical performance. But then found operations were very
complex and solids took over instead. Luckily the left over liquids were
valuable to start space explorations.
The nation just has to take a best bet approach at full scale and work from
there. That's not the same as one size fits all.
I'm as much a supporter of market place sorting as even Kirston. But a
different train is leaving the station! Let's send it to the right
destination. The political love affair with MagLev shows the risks if we
don't do an objective nationwide evaluation.
I see the PRT/GRT/LRT ("L" for large), as a progression with travel distance
the main parameter. PRT out ~25 to 50 miles. GRT 40 to 150. Like San Diego
to LA. LRT sometimes in those ranges if development density is high enough,
but mostly major intercity. (HST only major intercity.)"
----- Original Message -----
From: "eph" <rhaps...@yahoo.com>
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Kirston Henderson
> Again the MagLev infatuation illustrates how something useful in
> limited circumstances gets to be a major answer to all prayers, and can be a
> show stopper to more useful progress. I don't know how to do the awakening.
So true! When unformed people such as most politicians make the
decisions, we usually get things that may do part of the job, but then only
at great cost.
> Regarding widely encompassing names for things. Dennis' "Automated
> Transportation Network" has virtue though in the biggest sense there is
> still going to be much that is not automated.
As far as I am concerned, our initial systems will start operations in a
manually-operated mode and will continue in that state only until we
fully-develop and fully-test our fully automated control software. Then,
the system will be "automated."
Kirston Henderson
MegaRail®