Maglev On the Drawing Boards

longacre sends along a Popular Mechanics article on the growing interest in magnetic levitation trains in the US. It's unclear how many will actually get built here, at $100 million per track mile. (In recent years we've discussed maglev projects in China and Germany.) The article has a map of many proposed transportation projects in the US, some of them maglev, and a video of a General Atomics maglev prototype in action. On a related note, an anonymous reader recommends this article on a proposed maglev wind-power turbine, said to offer the promise of replacing 1,000 conventional wind turbines.

Comments

How much is that in ...

[Ihlosi]

It's unclear how many will actually get built here, at $100 million per track mile. ... "years of war in country X/Y/Z" per track mile ?

Geez. As if finding money to throw around was ever a problem for politicians. And building a coast-to-coast maglev line would be a much less dangerous waste of money than some other, er, projects.

Re:How much is that in ...

[hjf]

days of war in country X/Y/Z" per track mile ?

there, fixed it for you

Re:How much is that in ...

[rho]

I've seen numbers anywhere from 5 to 12 billion dollars a week. It's hard to calculate exactly because there's a mess of hidden costs--medical and the like.

Re:How much is that in ...

[AvitarX]

With the aging equipment and copious amounts of private labor the cost is about $700,000/year for each soldier and support.

(based on spending requests), (200,000,000 total/year). The cost of the war in Iraq and Afganistan combined is 3,000,000,000/week (triple your estimate), with 80% of that being for Iraq.

My source is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/28/AR2007082801984.html?hpid=topnews and based on bills the white house wants passed.

Re:How much is that in ...

[david.given]

The official Pentagon figures are 6.8 billion dollars a month, or approximately 9 million dollars an hour. Which means that one hundred million dollars would pay for slightly more than eleven hours worth of war.

Re:How much is that in ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Flip the equation around and it gets even better.

March '03 to March '08 is 60 months. That's $408 billion invested into war in Iraq.
At $0.1 billion per track mile, America could have paid for 4080 miles of maglev rail infrastructure. Even at double the cost, that's still over 2000 miles.

According to Google maps, Boston to Miami is 1500 miles. And Chicago to Washington is 700 miles.

Why get so fancy?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

The Japanese, who probably ride more miles of rail than any other country in the world, rely on plain old rails. Even the famous Bullet Trains run on rails.

Sometimes it feels like Americans are trying to put the cart before the horse when they don't even have anything to put on the cart.

Re:Why get so fancy?

[bsane]

Exactly...

How is maglev better anyway? So you reduce your rolling friction to zero, what do you save? 1% of total operating power? You'd spend a lot more if your using electromagnets to keep the 'lev' action going...

On the subject of maglev windmills- I fail to see any real savings here. Windmills are hard to turn because they're doing work (ie creating power with a generator), the actual friction involved is very low.

If you want a train/subway, just build the damn thing. Same goes for windmills.

Re:Why get so fancy?

[jo42]

How can there be a growing interest in maglev trains when there is an overall decreasing interest in travel by train?

Re:Why get so fancy?

[Smidge204]

The advantage is speed. A maglev train is essentially a plane without wings, so speeds of 300+MPH are not unreasonable right now. In theory, though, a Maglev can reach the 500+MPH of a commercial jet.

Of course, the French TVG is also about that fast, so that advantage no longer really holds much weight until the technology improves. Maglev right now is pretty much a "bright shiny thing" to make the public all doe-eyed so they don't mind the pork as much. (Much like the "Hydrogen Economy")

You might not have noticed, but America is a pretty big country. If you want to cross it, you have three options: Plane (~500MPH), Train (~80MPH) or car/bus (~60MPH). Assuming you're not making the trip for the scenery, the choice is pretty much a no-brainer.

A fast train, ~300MPH, would make trans-continental travel easier. Even if it took twice as long, it would still be same-day travel and I'd prefer to take a high speed train than an aircraft (unless I *had* to get there in 6 hours). If a viable Maglev train could cover the distance at the same speed as the jet, though, then there is no advantage to flying at all.
=Smidge=

Re:Why get so fancy?

[jfruhlinger]

You might not have noticed, but America is a pretty big country....

True, but a significant portion of intra-US trips take place within the northeast, the most densely populated part of the country. Washington-Boston is 450 miles; New York-Chicago is 800 miles. There's also a lot of intra-West Coast travel -- LA-San Francisco (400 miles), LA-Phoenix (375), San Francisco-Seattle (800 miles).

One of my pet peeves is that many Americans, when told about how Europeans are much more likely to travel by train, reflexively point out how big America is. It's true, but when Europeans travel from, say, Madrid to Warsaw, they fly. It's the sub-1000-mile trips on which trains can be competitive with both air and car travel if they're upgraded to high-speed standards -- something that can be done far more cheaply and easily than building a maglev. And with trains being far less polluting per passenger than either cars or planes, and air travel being an increasingly unpleasant experience, it's high time to invest in upgrading rail corridors.

Re:Why get so fancy?

[tetrahedrassface]

Actually, Amtrak ridership has Increased over the last 6 years.

I hope it continues to increase. There is currently a bill that will give Amtrak a much needed funding increase. Before all the trolls start saying that rail is wasteful consider carefully that any road in the U.S is subsidized heavily. Amtrak has done an amazing turnaround over the last 8 years despite the airline and road construction lobbyists trying to kill it. If Amtrak had even a small amount of the funding that airlines and interstates have recieved during this period we could all have an economical and comfortable travel alternative. I hope they build one or more of the Maglevs simply because I live in Chattanooga (Choo-Choo). We don't even have passenger rail service and haven't since 1970. As anyone who has been to Europe, or ridden on a well managed Amtrak line can attest to, rail is comfortable and fun. For me riding the rails is not as much just getting there, but enjoying the ride.

It is a sad state when a supposed first world country like the U.S tries to kill travel alternative like rail. When all the planes were grounded after 9/11 the trains kept rolling. When gas goes to 4.00/gallon they will be rolling. That is reason enough to support passenger rail. Oh, if anyone with Amtrak happens to read Slashdot, why the hell does a city like Chattanooga, Tn which was once one the largest rail capitals in the world, not even have a passenger service? That is a disgrace. We want rail service and we want it badly. Norfolk Southern and CSX also lobby against passenger travel because they want the mainlines all to themselves for frieght. Be it maglev or diesel electric passenger service Chattanooga should have an alternative to driving or flying. We didn't get the song Chattanooga Choo Choo for just any old reason.

Build it, and they will come. With flying becoming even more of a hassle, and fuel prices on an ever higher trajectory passenger traffic rail will continue to increase. On a train you can go to the dining car and have room to stretch out, have wifi and a nice cocktail. Chattanooga not having passenger service is the greatest single disgrace our city has at this time. It is part of our heritage. It truly is heartbreaking, so Amtrak, build it or at least open one line to Atlanta. The future is bright for rail folks. One way or the other the economics are starting to make sense again.

Re:Why get so fancy?

[Firethorn]

You'd still have to worry about security though. At least a plane at altitude is very hard to shoot down. So unless you manage to plant a terrorist or bomb on the plane it's safe until landing approach.

With the train you could place a bomb of sufficient size anywhere along the tracks set to detonate at the right time to take out the train. Not saying this can't be solved, but we do have to be careful.

Still, I think that it'd be an excellent idea, especially if you relax baggage restrictions as compared to a plane as well.

I could see it going like this:
I'll pick a presumably high volume route, NYC to LAX.
Cost: About the same.

Seating: Well, almost all of us should be familiar with airline seating. Not being huge(fat or otherwise), I'm OK with economy seating, but it doesn't recline as much as I'd like. With a train though, they could more easily give 'first class' seats to everybody. In addition, I'd imagine seeing the return of the sleeper and dining cars. Imagine, rather than having 3 choices of meal that are all pretty terrible, having an actual menu. And after your dinner you retire to a sleeper car and get a good night's sleep while you travel. Wake up, have a nice breakfast and read the paper until you arrive. Advantage: Train, as long as they're smart.

Duration: NYC to LAX is 7 to 8 hours, with one stop. At 300mph, a train would be able to make a straightline distance in ~8 hours, nonstop. Assuming some stops, and the fact that a straightline track between the two locations is rather unlikely, I'll guess it'd be more along the line of 12-16 hours. Advantage: Plane, barely. Overnight train with sleeper cars (and waiting private showers at the train station) would beat it in convenience.

Baggage: Train should be able to relax baggage limits quite a bit. Advantage Train

Given that NYC to LAX would be about a worst case scenario, I could see high speed rail from NYC to Miami, Alaska to California, and at least a couple cross continent passing through places like Dallas, Denver, and Chicago. For one thing if used it'd take a lot of pressure off our airport runways.

Heck, get it good enough and to enough places I could see running cargo over them as well as people - if it's cheaper than air, UPS, Fedex and all them will jump on. Get some trucks off the road.

Though in the article, looking at the map, I can see that we're probably in need of some standardization - it doesn't help cross country travel by rail if they're all incompatible.

Re:Why get so fancy?

[FinestLittleSpace]

In your small bubble maybe. In the UK and europe the demand is growing massively.

Re:Why get so fancy?

[vadim_t]

You'd still have to worry about security though. At least a plane at altitude is very hard to shoot down. So unless you manage to plant a terrorist or bomb on the plane it's safe until landing approach.

With the train you could place a bomb of sufficient size anywhere along the tracks set to detonate at the right time to take out the train. Not saying this can't be solved, but we do have to be careful.

Can we drop this terrorism bullshit already? It's very tiring.

I say this as somebody who daily used the train that got blown up in Madrid (though wasn't on it at that time), had a classmate die there, and a friend who was in it, but wasn't hurt. I don't give a damn about the terrorists. I still use that same train.

Re:Why get so fancy?

[WindBourne]

Not sure where you get the energy costs being similar.See the energy costs in the PM article. The interesting thing is that the Maglev uses less energy than the high speed rail, yet is more than 50% faster.
In addition, the Japanese have a number of different models including a Maglev, and a number of monorails. Japan is increasingly moving to monorails (which are rail based), and away from the standard twin rail system. Why? Because the twin rail system is dirt cheap to build on land, but a small earthquake will send the train off the track (yes, they do get derailed). In addition, the twin tracks cost a great deal more once it is elevated. In fact, it is one of the most expensive options that you have (equivalent to maglev's costs ). Not only does the train have to be built strong to survive truck crashes (hint; that almost always means heavy), but you have to have the track support itself. It adds costs. Of course, the maglev is next to nothing on maintenance compared to twin rails. Finally, Maglev IS cheaper to run than a twin rail, esp because it is elevated and can be automated, is lighter trains, etc.

Long term, maglevs/monorails ARE the way to go.

Re:Why get so fancy?

[hattig]

That's where Maglev should excel - connecting nearby cities.

It will work as long as the stations on the Maglev route are integrated with both local public transport and accessibility for cars with reasonable rate car parks. All too often these things are done in a vacuum, thus being too awkward for people to care to use them. If you can drive, park, and get on the maglev, it will work. That's why airports have been successful, and why trains haven't succeeded so well. Hell, in the UK they can't even get the buses interconnecting with the train station in many locations, resulting in two bus changes in an 8 mile journey just to get onto the train - and they wonder why there is so much congestion on the road even when fuel is over £1 a litre.

A successful Maglev station will have (in my opinion with not too much thought, I welcome additions and amendments):

1) A big bus terminal, interconnecting with the local airport, city and residential areas
2) A local rail station, interconnecting with local rail systems (if applicable for the area)
3) A huge car park on site.
4) A vast remote car park (near highways) with free park and ride bus scheme.
5) A service that runs at least every half hour.

Let's not forget that the fares for the Maglev itself have to be reasonable, as they have to compete with car travel (even though the Maglev will have advantages that are worth a surcharge).

Re:Why get so fancy?

[LynnwoodRooster]

One of the big stumbling blocks to long, high-speed rail out here in the West of the US are all these bumps we have called mountains... There's several mountain chains that run parallel with the West coast, and those seriously impact the ability of rail to maintain speed.

Additionally, these mountains tend to have pretty steep pitches, meaning that low-enough grades for rail transport are few and far between.

Out East, where the density of population is higher and the land considerably flatter, trains can maintain speed. It can make sense in that case. But here, where a lot of the daily flights are literally one-day business trips, spending 6 hours each way on a train between Seattle and San Francisco turns a one-day trip into at least a 3 day affair.

Re:Why get so fancy?

[jsiren]

I'm not a big fan of maglev. I do recognize that it's a great technology and a nice bit of engineering, but I'm not convinced of its practicality in most cases. The French TGV and the German ICE run at ~200 mph (~300 to 320 km/h). That's fast enough to beat flying over distances of up to 800 miles, depending on airport delays. The dedicated high-speed steel rail lines are much cheaper to construct (by a factor of 10) and operate than maglev.

At 200 mph average speed (possible with dedicated lines, few stops and slightly over 200 mph cruising speed, no big deal) a New York to Los Angeles trip would take something like 13 to 14 hours; increasing the speed to 300 mph would drop the time to something like 9 hours.

If there were a transcontinental 300 mph line available, then 9 hours would certainly beat most flights, with airport delays factored in. However, there's more to the issue. First, a maglev train would be extremely vulnerable to any signalling or trackage faults, and any problem would cause the entire line to stand still, whereas steel rail lines could (and would, and should) be connected to the rest of the rail network, making it easier to route around problems. The trip would take longer, but you'd get there, even if the high-speed line was in pieces.

This brings us to the issue of connections. People don't live at international airports, despite TSA's efforts, and they don't live at rail stations, at least those who could afford to use the trains. So connections are needed. Steel wheel trains could carry on using the existing infrastructure (as the French TGV trains do, sometimes far away from the actual high-speed lines), to where it's convenient for people to get on and off, possibly including airports so existing air connections could be utilized. With maglev, there are two choices: extend the line ($$$$$$$$$), or change trains.

Finally, 300 mph has been reached on steel rails. What I'd like to know is which is more energy efficient (kW per passenger seat at 480 km/h) in 300 mph operation: maglev or steel? Because to my knowledge, at that kind of speed most of the resistance comes from displacing air...

Re:Why get so fancy?

[jsiren]

(...) I'd imagine seeing the return of the sleeper and dining cars. Imagine, rather than having 3 choices of meal that are all pretty terrible, having an actual menu. And after your dinner you retire to a sleeper car and get a good night's sleep while you travel. Wake up, have a nice breakfast and read the paper until you arrive. Advantage: Train, as long as they're smart.

Duration: NYC to LAX is 7 to 8 hours, with one stop. At 300mph, a train would be able to make a straightline distance in ~8 hours, nonstop. Assuming some stops, and the fact that a straightline track between the two locations is rather unlikely, I'll guess it'd be more along the line of 12-16 hours. Advantage: Plane, barely. Overnight train with sleeper cars (and waiting private showers at the train station) would beat it in convenience.

I am not a transportation engineer, but based on what I know about TGV construction costs, I guess a NYC-Chicago-LAX conventional high speed line (estimating a length of 5000 km or 3125 miles), built for 220 mph (350 km/h) operation could be built at a price of perhaps $75 billion (the price of 750 miles of maglev line). At an average speed of 200 mph (320 km/h), the trip would take about 16 hours. If the trains consisted mostly of sleepers, with showers (no problem these days), and had a decent dining car, and had a no-additional-cost onboard Internet access, this might even catch on.

Should such a line be built, it would be put to good use if besides the transcontinental trains there were also other high-speed trains running shorter distances with more frequent stops, providing intercity service along the line. Also, there's no need to stay on the dedicated lines: there's already a passenger corridor down the east coast, for example. High-speed trains would only require a dedicated line where continuous high-speed running is required. Existing city stations could be used, so departure an arrival would be downtown.

Now, I do admit that having a long stretch of dedicated high-speed track sounds like the job for maglev, but it's easily forgotten that transportation is a network. Different modes of transport are linked together. The dilemma is that people generally dislike transfers and prefer direct connections. A new rail line that's incompatible with the existing lines (such as a maglev line) would not enable direct connections, except for a minority of trips.

The only question is who would do this? Richard Branson?

Too expensive?

[eebra82]

It's unclear how many will actually get built here, at $100 million per track mile. The problem is that this technology is still a bit away from being fully completed. And $100 million per track mile is very optimistic considering the Japanese Linimo HSST cost some $100 million per kilometer, or rougly 0.62 miles. I mention this particular maglev construction because it could be similar to what the US is looking for - a low speed version that works perfectly within cities. Still, anything faster than that is also extremely expensive.

Maybe this technology is still 20 years away from being feasible at all. Why not spend money on regular trains and install extra isolated windows in cities at only a fraction of the cost?

Re:Too expensive?

[chrysrobyn]

And $100 million per track mile is very optimistic considering the Japanese Linimo HSST cost some $100 million per kilometer, or rougly 0.62 miles.

I've had a fascination with maglevs since Popular Mechanics did an article in the early 1990s or late 1980s. Finally, I made it to the World Fair in Aichi in 2005 and saw the Linmo ("Linear Motor"). Actually, I rode it. It was awesome. Not the "awesome" that kids use when they do well on a test, but the "awesome" from waiting for something and then unexpectedly being able to do it after 15 years. The ride was smooth as silk (vertically speaking); the starts and stops were a little sudden, and there seemed to be discrete speed steps. With that said, I have a hard time imagining that $100 million was spent wisely. A rail car could have done the same job for far less. If moving a person costs (installation) + (operating expenses), a maglev has to move a whole lot of people at lower (operating expenses) to make up for the phenomenal (installation).

Between the maglev and the walking robots from Honda playing Louisiana style jazz, the whole hot, crowded, noisy, expensive trip was well worth it.

Need track upgrades, but not this

[tjstork]

The US Rail system needs a track upgrade. The east coast is going from horrible to better, but beyond the great divide, track conditions are apalling. Seems to me the best way to go would be to get more track certified for 120-150mph runs in the northeast corridor, and that would take the demand off of congested airports, and would certainly be more fuel economical.

How do you even spend that much?

[jcr]

A hundred million bucks a mile? Do they have to coat the trains with moon rocks?

-jcr

Re:Maglevs are just techno-posing

[dave420]

Most European cities would shit a brick if you suggested putting in an elevated monorail. Underground is far more expensive, but far more desirable, as it doesn't spoil the view that has taken hundreds of years to evolve.

A monorail is far from ideal.

Re:math

[dave420]

According to this page, when I looked at it, the US could have built 4,722.5 miles of maglev track for the cost of the war in Iraq. That's nearly twice the distance between NY and LA, as the crow flies.

To the ****** commenting on price

[SmallFurryCreature]

Google for the cost of highway construction and one of the gems you find is this http://www-pam.usc.edu/volume2/v2i1a3s2.html link.

Read it and weep. 100 million per mile? Most costly project was 1 billion per mile and plenty of other projects are higher as well.

Now google a bit further and you find more "reasonable" costs of 20 million per mile being quoted but it makes it bloody clear that roads are very expensive indeed.

Yes sometimes they are cheap at a 1-3 million per mile, if the highway is simple and the conditions are ideal. This is however rarely the case. If you follow these kinds of projects you will also know that there are always complicating factors. For instance the straight road sections might be cheap, but the points where they connect to the rest of the road network, that is where the money really starts to bleed away. As for when you need a bridge or a tunnel. Just forget it.

Also offcourse not all highways are the same. One going through open desert vs one going through a city has huge extra costs in the form of safety, sound reduction and landcosts.

A further thing you might want to ask, how costly is maintenance, and what is the capacity of this network? It is less hassle to replace tradiotional rails then it is too resurface a road. How long is this 100 million per mile going to last you before more millions are needed to maintain it?

Then there is the question of what you get for it, if this 100 million dollar per mile track means you don['t have to construct/upgrade 10 road systems per say 20 million dollar per mile, then you are actually saving money.

But please slashdotters, next time you feel like posting about how costly something is, do a bit of research first. Although I really wish reporters would do it as well.

Germany

[thefirelane]

As someone living in Munich... I can tell you the German Maglev train is going nowhere. Everyone is opposed to it, except one politician who wants it as his 'swan song'.

They can either put in a Maglev for 1.2 billion euro for a 10 minute trip, or build a normal express S-bahn for 1 million for a 20 minute trip.

Maglev really makes no sense at all, but what do I know, maybe its more of a Shelbyville thing

Well...

[NickCatal]

If Shelbyville and North Haverbrook can afford it we can too!

I feel a song coming up...

[Anonymous Coward]

- I hear those things are awfully loud...

- It glides as softly as a cloud.

- Is there a chance the track could bend?

- Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

- What about us brain-dead slobs?

- You'll be given cushy jobs.

- Were you sent here by the devil?

- No, good sir, I'm on the level.

- The ring came off my pudding can.

- Take my pen knife, my good man.

I swear it's Springfield's only choice...
Throw up your hands and raise your voice!

- Monorail!

- What's it called?

- Monorail!

- Once again...

- Monorail!

- But Main Street's still all cracked and broken...

- Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!

Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!

Monorail!

Mono... D'oh!

Re:math

[Lost Penguin]

"Seriously, what couldn't we have done with that money?"
Get an honest answer from the Republican party and the oil lobbyists about why we invaded Iraq.

Re:How do you even spend that much?

[eebra82]

A hundred million bucks a mile? Do they have to coat the trains with moon rocks? They build jet fighters, melt them and use it for tracks. Apparently, John Woo is involved in this project too.

I know its popular to blame the war for everything

[Shivetya]

but here is the real issue.

How many votes per mile of track can a Congressman buy?

Answer that instead.

The amount of money just wasted in earmarks alone could solve a multitude of problems, from medical care, rehabilitation for our vets, maglev, NASA, and more. You name it, we have the money for it.

The problem is, not all of the above garner vote buying opportunities.

The real reason the Iraq war annoys Congressmen is that it deprives them of money they could have used in directed vote buying campaigns. Instead of a monument to a living Congressman (read: new pool in your neighborhood or library - etc) it went overseas and is lost to them. Now it does garner votes in a negative way but Congressmen prefer postive vote buying expenditures.

Now the problem I see with the maglev tower is, who is going to want it in their backyard? It looks more palatable than a windfarm but its so damn tall that that the land area may be moot versus the "sight pollution". Of course we already have giant cooling towers but this thing looks larger.

We really need a new Mahattan project for our generation - one that frees us of fossil fuel generated power. Of course our next problem will be heat pollution - all that power does have a side effect (green power or not)

Amtrak and NJ transit

[zerofoo]

can't seem to make money on the current economies of rail travel. Even at the lowest estimates ($5 million a track mile) I doubt either of these rail systems could make this technology profitable.

Public transportation all over the world requires government funding. Here in the US we seem to think that private companies and capitalism are the answer for everything. Unfortunately for us, this system usually enriches a select few people, provides goods and services that are mediocre at best, and cost quite a bit of money for the users of those goods and services.

The Northeast is particularly bad. Years ago, my wife was commuting to North Jersey - for the cost of her monthly train pass, (nj transit and path) and her monthly parking pass - she could have bought a nice BMW. (Instead she drove a VW Jetta to the train station).

If these companies can't make the current economics work with that kind of revenue, maglev has no hope of ever becoming a reality.

-ted

Free 747s for everybody would be cheaper.

[Joce640k]

A fleet of state funded 747s would get everybody there quicker/cheaper.

Plus, what about all the new power cables and power stations it would need. A project this big would cause a worldwide shortage of copper (which would push the "price per mile" through the roof).

America is simply too big for this sort of project. Building vast stretches of maglev track doesn't add up.

Re:Free 747s for everybody would be cheaper.

[norton_I]

Copper is a better conductor than gold.

Freeways cost as much per mile

[bussdriver]

I talked to a MN state employee who told me it was easily over 100 million per mile for new freeway and in the downtown its over a billion per mile. This was about 5 years ago during a discussion about the lack of funding for bridge repair and how we were 10 years behind on funding and it would take a disaster before the idiots fixed it. (fyi: MN was the state who's downtown bridge collapsed earlier this year; which will likely cost over 300 million to build without lightrail support.)

One also has to keep in mind that costs are hard to compare because of math differences: LANES (quotes are often for 1 lane), contractors, unions, graft, bridges, maintenance, quality/type, CO2, and often buying the LAND is left out... that could be the most expensive part too.

Some googles:
Light Rail biased
Extremely car biased; almost crazy
AK State Estimated Costs, excluding land