Slashdot Mirror
Money Problems May Derail First U.S. MagLev Train
PSaltyDS writes "The Virginian Pilot is reporting on the trials and tribulations of what was supposed to be the first MagLev train in regular use in the U.S. The MagLev Project was to cover a portion of the Old Dominion University campus, and start service in 2002, but after $14 million spent, it has yet to carry a single passenger. In the article, several engineering types seem to say the same thing, something like 'A great idea that is just too hard to do without an unlimited budget.' Is a maglev train an impractical fantasy like the personal flying car?"
Don't the Japanese already have one? What do the Japanese have that the US does not, to allow them to create a MagLev?
Well I know from Amtrak as i rode it for 4 years while dating my wife. And the problem is not trains themselves.. Amtrak problem is Amtrak. the NEC (north east corridor) Is extremely busy and would be close to self sustaining, but any money it makes is used to subsidize the running of otherwise dead rail lines elsewhere. In NYS the train from NY to albany, montreal, and buffalo are nearly always full. So the passengers are there.
But when you get an organization like amtrak, that launches a supposedly 'high speed' service (acela) that is only 15 minutes faster than the normal train on the same route and costs you twice as much to ride, and cost several millions to build, and was late on its maiden voyage (i think it even broke down). Well This is not a problem with train being obsolete, its a problem with the operator, the operator in this case is Amtrak.
I have about a millions seething hate stories about Amtrak. remind me to tell you one some time.
Agreed 100% on Amtrak. I think the problem is a combination of Amtrak being Amtrak, and the lack of governmental support for Amtrak. The fucking Acela is capable of operating at 125+ MPH, but the state of Connecticut apparently limits its speed legally to 75 MPH. Mind you, this is also Amtrak's fault for not working together with government to sort all this shit out and come up with a technically AND legally sound solution before blowing billions in government subsidized and private capital on stupid projects like this.
When deciding if something in imparactical, you have to look at what need it is filling.
Perhaps THIS is of a MagLev is impractical?
Also, what was the end cost of those systems?
Just because they exost, doesn't make them practical.
OTOH, perhaps it was a mismanagement of funds.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There are significant differences between the *operating* speed of a MagLev and of a conventional train.
A MagLev can run at 581 kph as its top speed and its intended operating speed is 500 kph. This is partly because of its acceleration rate and partly due to the infrastructure. It is also much much quieter allowing it to be run closer to commercial/residential buildings.
The TGV has the current top record for a conventional train at a speed of 515 kph. However, it operates at a max of 220 kph. The JR Central line in Japan operates at about 270 kph.
Now, I'm not sayinng that running a short track MagLev was the brightest thing in the world, but for a long run (San Francisco to LA for instance), it can easily outpace a plane after you take into account the thirty minutes you have to wait to get on and off.
Plus, no one is going to crash a MagLev into a building.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
The Birmingham airport maglev (1984-1995) was more ambitious. And it was so expensive to maintain that it was replaced with a cable-driven system.
The only maglev system being proposed that makes any economic sense is the link from Orlando Airport to Disney World. Disney wants to build that so that their customers bypass all other attractions and go directly to Disney property.
Ok, so I forced myself to read the entire article, not easy, its a collection of confused finger pointing, and poor journalistic sound bites, sole intent to fill a news article. Zero Meaningful Content..
:
To summarize
They are concerned about how the project was managed.
Concerned that the investment may not get repaid.
There are problems with the control system (not the magnetic levittation system itself note)
The assets are apparently a series of patents. Thats odd really, considering this is a tewenty year old technology.
The board and the university may have screwed up, they didn't put appropriate bonds in place, so now they are all nervous as to who gets blamed.
A board member now blames the technology, saying that others (Japan) could not make it work. This is incorrect.
Another guy refused to invest because of problems with the company (not the technology).
Maglev trains are described as "floats on a cushion of air". Duh. Fine journalism.
FRA has issued a stop work order, as usual asleep at the wheel. Way way way too late IMHO.
Overall, they all completely mismanaged this, tried to invent new stuff that doesn't work, and now need another two million dollar handout to get out of the hole they dug for us, the victim taxpayers.
Oh, and in the process they tarnish the reputation of a transportation technology we actually need.
Thanks for nothing ODU and FRA guys. Do us a favor, go fire yourselves.
There is no god; get over it already! Never exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage.
We don't even have enough users to keep our regular rail lines going without massive government bailouts.
May we never see th
Buses as transportation suck and continue to do so as they have the same speed limitations as a car.
The problem with trains in america is that innovation in train transport died in about the 50's or 60's. I mean look at amtrak trains, they are not different in any fundamental respect to what you could get in the 50's or 60's, that included interior comfort and appointment (this has quite possibly declined over the years), and speed has stayed the same. What happened of course is that airlines had rapid growth in the 50's and even more in the 60's with the introduction of passenger jets and so trains lost out on speed. Also cars were finally consistantly fast enough, and actually comfortable enough for lengthy trips, as well as the introduction of the interstate highway system making car travel fast, (at a huge cost). Before that to travel long distances meant some drivinguncomfortable cars, on often pretty poor quality roads.
Americans just lost interest in trains about that time, the money disappeared and the american rail system got stuck in the sixties. Now you just have to look around the world to see that rail transport is alive and well and a very viable form of transport, just none of the technology was developed or is used in the US.
The referenced link is for TEST TRAINS that do not carry regular passengers. Where is there a MagLev anywhere in the world providing passenger service? This is exactly why I compared it with the personal flying car. We've all seen the Moller SkyCar. It can be done in small experimental scales, but is it too impractical/expensive/dangerous for regular service? On the economic viability especially, what added VALUE does a MagLev have over a wheeled train that makes it worth the high cost?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
MagLev wouldn't suffer speed limits. The reason??? Maglev is always elevated. There is no risk of collisions with cars and tractor-trailers.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Actually, I've done San Fran to Minneapolis, Minneapolis to Baltimore (twice) and about 14 trips Minneapolis to Chicago by Amtrak and it seemed like most seats were full. And most of the trips were pleasant experiences. A restaurant, sightseeing car and a sleeper is my way to see the U.S. pass by. And I like _walking_ to a hotel in the center of downtown instead if being stuck in some butt-ugly hotel park surrounding the airport.
Before you knock Amtrak outside the NW corridor, you know what? THEY DON'T OWN THE TRACKS!! High speed trains -- you've got to be kidding. The _track_ is so bad between Minneapolis and Chicago, several times we've gone about 25 mph for stretches of miles at a time. Woo Hoo! We ain't becomin' no 3rd world country.
Amtrak problem is Amtrak.
Its a bit more complicated than that. Amtrack was in financial trouble, so the gvt bailed them out. Unfortunatly, the senators who passed this bailout insisted that Amtrack still offer services through their home states - places where they don't make any money. So they're stuck in a vicious cycle - they need to become profitable, except they're forced to maintain all these unprofitable routes. I don't see the situation improving until Amtrack figures a way off the goverment dole, or they get bought out by some other company.
Amtrak problem is Amtrak.
Don't blame Amtrak. This is a political mess yet Amtrak takes the blame. Congress mandates that Amtrak act like a lean business yet provide the benefits of a government service. They are required to do things like operate unprofitable routes/timetables, etc. They are in the same long-term no win situation that the Post Office has been put in. When it's a political mess, ultimately, the blame lies with the People for either being 1) too apathetic or 2) too selfish (what? the goverment should pay for X but don't you dare tax me to pay for it).
You're completely missing the reasons that trains don't take off in the US. Part of it is subsidies to the auto industry which keep that really affordable, and part of it is the American 'We Love Cars' mindset, but you don't seem to get how hard a full train-system is to get working in the US. It can work in big cities, which usually have pretty good public transportation (although not near as good as many places).
The issue is, too many Americans live in other areas and are too widely spaced. You can't put a nice stopping place within walking distance of very many people.
Where I live right now is considered near campus, and I'm three miles distant. Most people at my school commute twenty-minutes every day from a wide area. There is no single place that a train-station could go that would make it even slightly useable.
As such, you end up with people needing cars to drive to the train station, at which point they might as well just drive wherever they want to go.
Also, the US already has an excellent road system in place, and that only needs maitenance. The roads in the US have coverage like nothing most people would believe.
Inside of the the continental US, you cannot get 15 miles from a road, period. There is no location, anywhere outside of Alaska, which is 15 miles from a road in the USA. Putting down that much in the way of train tracks isn't even slightly possible.
And, as trains cannot solve all the problems, they are generally unused in the US.
Actually, the problems are more severe. I wish I had the article detailing the financial situation of Amtrak. Unfortunately, I don't have it around anymore.
Passenger rail is not a profitable business.
Amtrak has 2 types of service:
-NEC (NorthEast Corridor) style service, ferrying people back and forth
-Luxury service, with all amenities included.
The first is not profitable. Amtrak pays for all the rail in the NEC, and although it makes money on each individual train, once fixed costs such as rail costs are calculated in, the NEC loses money.
The second is profitable. Because Amtrak charges ~$2k for a bed car and since they rent the rails from freight companies, they can actually make money on the travel across the country.
Unfortunately, the public thinks that the NEC is the profit center and the 'dead rail lines' are the part sucking the profit. The actual situation is reversed.
The problem is that passenger rail is inherently inefficient. Instead of paying constant upkeep for rails, and having to pay all the land taxes to keep those rails going, air travel only has to pay for a select few airports, and then pay for the airplanes flying to and from those airports.
In the United States, the only profitable rail service is intracity passenger and general freight. Touring or luxury travel is only profitable because it uses lines which are maintained for general freight. Unfortunately, Amtrak is not allowed to carry more than 6 freight cars, for fear of competition with freight rail. So to provide nationwide passenger rail, Amtrak is constantly operating in a market which cannot support them.
In addition, freight trains and passenger trains put on the same rails is inherently bad. Since most long-distance rails only have 1 rail line, Amtrak trains must wait to pass freight trains, and head-on trains must divert to allow others to pass. This delays passenger lines, creating headaches for passengers.
This country really needs to decide whether or not it wants to provide rail travel. Rail travel has some benefits over air travel, such as environmental or security benefits. If this country wants rail-travel for these reasons, it needs to provide dedicated-rail, high-speed rail travel for populated areas at a loss of capital. But we must realize that the market does not currently support it, and that no nationwide passenger rail service can be self-supporting.
-=Lothsahn=-
Don't be ridiculous. The Big Dig alone costs more than all of Amtrak.
We spend just over $500 million a year on Amtrak. Sounds like a lot, until you note that we spend $32 billion a year on highways and $14 billion on aviation (not counting the $15 billion bailout we just gave the airlines in 2001).
In the 30 years from 1971 to 2001, we spent $30 billion on rail, but we also spent $1.89 trillion on highways and aviation in that period.
Sure, Amtrak is a piece of shit, but so are the airlines and so is the Big Dig, and they waste a lot more money every year.
Woah there. I'm not a big fan of the train, but it does polute less per passanger mile. A train may have a diesel engine burning 4 gallons of fuel per mile (I have no idea what the true number is, so don't do math based on this) but if there are 100 cars to the train, and 20 people in each car, you need to divide that out. Compare a bunch of cars with 4 people in it getting 30 mpg, and the train already is looking better, then remember that most cars have just one person in them.
American cities are just plain built differently from others around the world. Quite simply, we've got more (desirable) land per capita than anywhere else, and Americans have the freedom (both social and economic) to go whereever we want to get a piece of land and build our own house on it. It's that little thing called "the American dream," y'know? Our cities are more spread out than others, especially when you get out of the Northeast (not coincidentally, the NE Corridor is the only place Amtrak makes money).
The places in America that *do* have working mass transit have high population density -- not as much so as Japan, but nearly on a par with European cities. High population density means there are enough people within walking distance of a train station to support it. That means the train company doesn't have to build and staff a parking lot, and the potential passengers won't have to decide whether to turn into the train station parking lot or just continue to their destinations in their car. More people using the train ==> more service, at more convenient times.
It's a vicious cycle. I like trains, but if it takes me 3 hours to go from Richmond suburb to Washington suburb by train (presuming I make the commuter train transfer just right in DC) vs. 1h45 to go door-to-door by car, hell, I'd drive even if the gas cost me $40 each way (like taking the train would) instead of the $8 it currently does.
Insightful my eye! Amtrak is run by the government. The problem isn't lack of government support, but he government support to begin with!
ge tit inot the private sector where it will have an incentive to make *people* happy, instead of just making a legislator happy by saying he brought jobs via Amtrak.
Only then will you see Amtrak be responsive, productive, and viable.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
as an Alumnus of ODU (Computer Science) I have been interested in this project. It has really no practical reasons.. and it more of a research project. The track covers half the campus and was supposed to start years ago now.
Reasons I have heard for its demise is that Technical issues have cropped up. One of them is that the track itself is not "level" enough. The others are more in the range of mismanagement.
Frankly it looks like a nice series of archways throughout the campus, and yet.. I can see no reason to build a small one.
The articles in the Virginian Pilot on this(www.pilotonline.com) failure all seem to state that there will be no money until the Company really assures that they can pay it back. Something on the order of 7 million is already being considered lost or unrecoverable.
Me.. A simple bus would be easier to cost, and maintain and probably faster.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!