MAGLEV (was: Japan Wants In)

The "Father of HSR", Japan, 'wants in' to the potential US market for HSR systems, reports The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/busin ... train.html

Brief passage:

• TSURU, Japan — The experimental MLX01 maglev is the world’s fastest train. But it is confined to a 12-mile track. And like the train itself, its technology has been trapped in Japan.
  
  Related
  Times Topic: High-Speed RailNow, though, Japan wants to begin exporting its expertise in high-speed rail.
  
  On Tuesday, the Central Japan Railway Company took the visiting United States transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, on a test run — a 312-mile-an-hour tryout for the lucrative economic stimulus contracts that the United States plans to award to update and expand its rail network.
  
  “Very fast,” Mr. LaHood said after stepping off the maglev at a track nestled here in mountains west of Tokyo. “We’re right at the start of an opportunity for America to be connected with high-speed, intercity rail,” he said.
  
  The overseas push is a big turnabout for Japan, which long jealously protected its prized bullet train technology. But lately Japan has been forced to rethink that, prompted by a declining market for passenger and freight traffic at home, as well as a flurry of overseas opportunities.

To a far greater extent than any other Asian economy, Japan is confronted with a 'zero growth' environment. Their population is 'zero growth' which means demographers look ahead and see zero to negative growth for their economy (Europe, as well as Asian Russia, is NEGATIVE growth population; i.e. loss). Therefore, while previously protective of their technology and their 45+ years of institutional experience, Japan wishes to enter the export market for HSR.

I think procuring any rolling stock which requites a bespoke infrastructure would be a mistake as any service will need alternative routes and will by its nature be way more expensive both in installation and maintenance, requiring some specialist equipment and maybe skills to maintain.

There is a massive potential in just going with improved conventional railway technology and I think it would be difficult to support a business case for anything else both in the short and long term benefits.

Buy great trains by all means, try to get them built in the US even, but the majority of jobs etc will be generated in building and maintaining the infrastructure on which they will run and this should be kept in house as much as possible for all the reasons LaHood states.

I think procuring any rolling stock which requites a bespoke infrastructure would be a mistake as any service will need alternative routes and will by its nature be way more expensive both in installation and maintenance, requiring some specialist equipment and maybe skills to maintain.

A mistake when the route is to share track with much slower diesel commuter trains and track punishing super heavy freight trains, which is the normal environment in the U.S. outside of the NEC. This pretty much restricts HSR stock to running at 79mph or maybe a little higher, possibly even with PTC installed, and hardly "high speed". You have to remember the rail infrastructure is much better in the U.K. and Europe, not to mention lighter rolling stock and shorter freight trains. If true HSR (above 140mph) lines are desired, ideally you need complete grade separation and no track sharing with other types of trains. In this case "bespoke" or specialized rollling stock is fine, or even preferable as it is specifically tailored to the operating conditions.

There is a massive potential in just going with improved conventional railway technology

Certainly, when the conditions do not warrant true high speed rail, but rather upgrades allowing running 79~90 mph, for example. You still have to worry about those mile long drag freights though- either you get rid of them, or force time separation of operation- propositions the freight rr's probably will take a dim view of.

*note above refers to conventional steel wheel on rail technology. As for maglev, I share your sentiments.

Don't mind me; I'm hijacking Mssr. Norman's original thread on Maglev for a recent article:

EarthTechling.com

It referenced the Japanese proposal...

American Maglev Trains Still Stuck At The Station

The seemingly magical magnetic-levitation (maglev) train, cruising at ultra-high speeds a few inches above the track rather than on it, is capable of hitting 250 to 300 mph because there’s no friction. They use electro- and permanent magnets to induce currents in the guideway, creating an air cushion that the cars ride on. The technology is expensive, and high costs have killed some maglev projects (including a Berlin to Munich line in 2008), but this train of tomorrow has long since moved past the experimental stage.

But the rail innovation that was invented by Americans, strangely, has taken off just about everywhere but in the U.S., where there’s nothing but test tracks and ambitious plans.

The Central Japan Railway, for instance, recently showed off a maglev train capable of more than 310 mph that’s designed to link Tokyo’s central Shinagawa Station with Nagoya circa 2027. A conventional bullet train now takes 90 minutes to run the route, but the maglev will do the trip in 40.

...

It also concluded that commercial American maglev is unlikely to happen “without significant federal government investment,” and that’s not in the cards with the current anti-train atmosphere in Washington. High-speed rail, despite enthusiastic support from the Obama administration (with or without maglev—just electrifying the rails is a big hurdle), has become a political football, with some states even returning already appropriated funds for high-speed corridors. In 2003, for instance, Florida Governor Jeb Bush rejected legislature-approved funding for Florida. Governor Rick Scott turned away $2 billion in 2011 that would have helped run a line between Tampa and Orlando.

...

In 2011, the Japanese government offered to help fund a maglev train between Washington and New York, which seems kind of humiliating (though welcome). Of course, there’s the possibility that we’d then spend billions on Japanese-built trains for the line. That Bos-Wash Corridor train would take an hour, instead of the current four.

Gilbert baby ! I have a question which you are uniquely able to answer (if you wish). Generally speaking, how would American railroad executives either in railroad companies or railroad engineering and construction companies take this injection of Oriental installation ? Would it be taken as an affront or would it be gladly accepted as expert, proven advice ? (or somewhere in the middle ?) It occurs to me that this component must be added to the equation as a serious lack of back-up support, say perhaps in the construction or maintenance phase would almost assuredly doom such a HSR system.

HSR works in Japan for many reasons. Just about all their cities are coastal, and all of them are major seaports. So most of the local national freight is moved by ships, with fast freight moved by planes. I'm not going to suggest no freight is moved by rail, but certain little is. While many large US cities are coastal as well, and most of them have seaports, there's many cities that aren't on the coast. Most of the local and national freight in the US is moved by rail, certainly not by ships. Mostly international freight is moved by ships. So the freight environment is vastly different between the two countries, and so are their railroads. Until just recently, Japan's railroads were owned and operated by the government, in the US most intercity railroads have been and are still owned and operated by private corporations. Even the famed NEC was owned by private corporations until the early 1970s, about 40 years ago. Japan doesn't have much level land available for building new airports or runways as the US. Their air traffic capacity is more limited than the US. Just look at Denver and Dallas as examples where brand new extremely large airports were built on cheap flat land just a little further out from the city's central business districts. Japan doesn't have as much open land available near their major cities.

I'm sure freight traffic will eventual displace all passenger traffic completely off the US intercity railroads. When that happens, the US will start looking and considering building additional rail lines for passenger trains. Maybe at that time MAGLEV will be seriously considered. Maybe building a few more large airports will be seriously considered as well.

Until just recently, Japan's railroads were owned and operated by the government, in the US most intercity railroads have been and are still owned and operated by private corporations.

A minor quibble, but often made by people outside Japan- yes, the mainline railway JR Group was once a government corporation, one that cobbled together from a number of both private and government-built railways. However, that ignores the tremendous numbers of private railways, mainly interurban, but at least one intercity (Kintetsu); that have always been private, for profit enterprises (many once hauled freight also). America's experience is nothing unique.

Japan's JR Tokai L0 Series Shinkansen Mag-Lev Train - Business Insider -- has several pictures and some video
New maglev Shinkansen to run underground for 86% of initial route - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
Linear Shinkansen details given - The Japan News

This line, the Chuo Shinkansen, will go between Tokyo and Nagoya, at least initially. Its length will be 286 km / 178 mi, with 246 km / 153 mi, 86% of it, in tunnels. The stations in Tokyo and Nagoya will be 40m and 30 m deep, and will be near the existing Tokaido Shinkansen stations. Construction should start next year, and it should be done in 2027. Trains in it will travel about 500 km/h / 310 mph, and should take 40 minutes to make the trip

The cost for Tokyo - Nagoya will be about 5 trillion yen or $50 billion. Adding in Nagoya-Osaka will give a total cost of about 9 trillion yen or $90 billion. They are expecting to get it to Osaka by 2045.

Environmental assessment published for Tokyo – Nagoya maglev | International Railway Journal has some more tidbits on the project. It will have intermediate stations at Sagamihara (Kanagawa prefecture), Kofu (Yamanashi prefecture), Iida (Nagano prefecture), and Nakatsugawa (Aichi prefecture), its minimum track radius of curvature will be 8 km / 5 mi, its maximum track gradient 4%, and its track-center separation 5.8 m / 19 ft.

86% of it in tunnels is an important statistic that shouldn't be overlooked.
While Japan has a mountainous landscape, some of the tunneling is to mitigate noise from the fast trains. Which means tunneling for the same reason will be needed in America as well, even on our relatively flat prairies where tunneling wouldn't be needed for slower trains.
Another important statistic was 5 mile radii curves. The physics behind fast trains taking curves hasn't changed, the faster the train the wider the curves.