Maglev BAL - DC w. Extension to NYC

Organizers line up big names to push new high-speed rail line linking D.C. to N.Y. - The Washington Post

The Northeast Maglev, the 25-employee company founded in 2010, is looking to develop a high-speed magnetic levitation system that would bring passengers from Washington to Baltimore in 15 minutes and to New York in 60 minutes, at speeds of 311 miles an hour.

The project's home page: TNEM | The Northeast Maglev
It will be using JR Central's maglev technology, but I couldn't find further details. That's what will be used in the upcoming Chuo Shinkansen line.

Although it will be stopping at NYC - DC Northeast Corridor stops, there is nothing on some important additional issues.

The right-of-way will be a big problem. It must be *very* straight, otherwise the trains won't be able to travel at full speed. Acquiring it in a built-up area like the NEC seems like it will be *very* difficult, even if one decides to use viaducts for much of the route. Tunnels may avoid it outright, but they are even more expensive than viaducts.

How will the project be financed? US investors are not exactly accustomed to financing high-speed-rail projects, let alone HSR projects with unproven technologies. Investors from elsewhere may be more willing to cough up the necessary money, especially investors from nations with lots of HSR lines. Government money? It would be too much for the states along the way, and the Federal Government would have a problem with blowing a lot of money on a project that benefits only one small part of the nation. At least not without similar big spending elsewhere. Even worse is the attitude that certain politicians are likely to have, as is evidenced by the recent government shutdown.

If the maglev route in central Japan is any indication, any route through densely populated areas will be in tunnel- the only places where there are viaducts are in the less populated valley areas between the mountains. Tunneling also provides for a straight route.

I think that this might be viable(in the far future, like, 2060+) only because we don't currently have a dedicated ROW HSR yet.

Any kind of Europe/shinkansen style HSR would require dedicated, separated ROW, which would be exuberantly expensive. If maglevs become popular once the Chūō Shinkansen opens, as HSR did when the Tōkaidō Shinkansen started operating, we might see dedicated maglev lines start being built in Europe and China. Once that process starts, will it be worth it to build a dedicated HSR line? For the amount of money you would be putting into shinkansen-style dedicated line HSR, would it be worth it for a system that was just blown out of the water by maglev? What I'm trying to say is, I think maglevs will start coming into existence in Europe before we start working on a dedicated BOS/NYC-DC HSR, and if we do start working on a separate set of tracks for HSR, it wouldn't be that much further of a leap to a maglev system, would it?

This is all riding on whether or not the Chūō Shinkansen is a success, though. If it flounders, I don't think we will be seeing any new serious attempts at maglev technology for a long time, considering both the German attempt and the Japanese attempt will have failed. (Building one short line in Shanghai and then going out of business is not a success!)

As for the tunnels, I believe that the major issue with open-air maglev rails, is that the noise can be pretty bad. What does interest me, though, is that (if the line was to be build predominately underground on tunnels) the shorter and mountainous Air Line from New Haven-Boston could become viable, further reducing the travel time, even if this far-fetched proposal only spans from DC to NYC.

canobiecrazy wrote: As for the tunnels, I believe that the major issue with open-air maglev rails, is that the noise can be pretty bad.

Energy consumption is very high, too. People forget that it takes a LOT of power to go 350mph at sea level. Actually, the resistance of wheels on rail is negligible, even at that speed. The big factor is wind resistance.

Of course, proposals like hyperloop just fall flat, since they replace wind resistance with pumping losses...

OK, I guess I'll be the first to ask the obvious question of where, exactly, will the money come from? I've read the link provided (thank you) where the group introduces themselves to the public and I saw the links that ask for my support, but I saw no mention of money or how it's all going to be paid for. I have an old link, still good, that talks about JR Central and their ability to take on their Maglev project,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-0 ... train.html

(no subscription required). Amtrak is no JR Central. Are there other articles that talk about funding sources? I realize all this talk about money is boring, and it's great to dream about the future, but I would be happy to see new train sets or cars along the NEC. I think these are more realistic options that just might happen in my lifetime.

mbhoward wrote:OK, I guess I'll be the first to ask the obvious question of where, exactly, will the money come from? I've read the link provided (thank you) where the group introduces themselves to the public and I saw the links that ask for my support, but I saw no mention of money or how it's all going to be paid for. I have an old link, still good, that talks about JR Central and their ability to take on their Maglev project,

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-0 ... train.html

(no subscription required). Amtrak is no JR Central. Are there other articles that talk about funding sources? I realize all this talk about money is boring, and it's great to dream about the future, but I would be happy to see new train sets or cars along the NEC. I think these are more realistic options that just might happen in my lifetime.

They are running out of capacity in Japan. Which is why they where examining alternatives. The NEC has plenty of capacity once you get away from Manhattan. The upgrades needed, between NY and DC anyway and get almost the same time savings, are lot cheaper and could be in place sooner. Tunnels under the Hudson which have to be built for NJTransit anyway. Constant tension catenary which has to be done for NJTransit, SEPTA and MARC anyway. And most of the things that need to be done to make the existing NEC faster and more reliabl have to be done anyway.
If it's going to take 15 minutes to get from DC to Baltimore it's going to take longer than 45 to get to New York. Once you add the stops on the "local" the time savings are less. And if you have high frequencies on super express that takes an hour it gets real expensive to have high frequencies on the "local".
... I smell a scam to attract some money that will disappear into consulting fees.

I cannot see a rational investor putting a cent into this.

SouthernRailway wrote:I cannot see a rational investor putting a cent into this.

Rational investors generally won't invest in new technologies that aren't already proven or look (to an investor's eye) similar to something already proven.

That's why major research and development is always promoted and funded by a government. E.g., alternate power sources (wind, nuclear, fusion), high-performance computer technology, the Internet, electric cars, SST, etc. For that matter, railroads were originally promoted and subsidized (indirectly) by the government. Rational investors are reluctant to invest in something which may prove to be a complete dud, or, if successful, may end up not really benefiting its investors, and in any case won't pay off until decades later.

This isn't to say whether MagLev is -- or is not -- something that is worth putting anybody's money into.

amm in ny wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:I cannot see a rational investor putting a cent into this.

Rational investors generally won't invest in new technologies that aren't already proven or look (to an investor's eye) similar to something already proven.

But the ten people running the website don't have to attract rational investors. All they have to do is find someone with a few million to burn and they can make a tidy living for a few years.

Nasadowsk wrote:

canobiecrazy wrote:As for the tunnels, I believe that the major issue with open-air maglev rails, is that the noise can be pretty bad.

Energy consumption is very high, too. People forget that it takes a LOT of power to go 350 mph at sea level. Actually, the resistance of wheels on rail is negligible, even at that speed. The big factor is wind resistance.

Of course, proposals like hyperloop just fall flat, since they replace wind resistance with pumping losses...

I've seen claims that maglev power consumption is 400 kJ per passenger mile at 300 mph. Usually from universities and advocacy websites though.

The claims of 225 mph average speed are so pretty, too. Where's the NYC terminus supposed to be?

Near-fantasy threads like this one are the principal reason why I devote only a small fraction of the time I once did to railroad.net.

Don't get me wrong; I was around for the days when Trains published its "Who Shot the Passenger Train?" issue; when the NEC project was just getting under way, and I hope to be around long enough to ride at least some of what's just beginning to develop along the West Coast. But ideas such as this one, spawned by people who simply have no concept of the limits of an emerging economy in which the United States is no longer the dominant player, are doomed to be brought down to earth pretty quickly.

Five to ten years ago, this forum was a place where people who possessed a knowledge of the actual capabilities of a rail industry still in recovery -- people like our late friend Mr. Reasor (a/k/a Nellie Bly) -- participated regularly, one could get a realistic picture of what could, and could not, be obtained within a sensible time frame. Regrettably, this is no longer true.

It's still a pleasure to visit here from time to time and keep an eye on that portion of the industry where reasonable expectations are still calling the shots. But most of the fantasies proposed in what have become the most active threads are due for a painful date with economic reality.

Yeah, I agree with 2nd trick op. Maglev is not energy-cost-effective. If you've got a right-of-way like that, you can fly efficiently in a U-shaped channel. Yes, the air is dense, but you can have a much longer and skinnier vessel so you're pushing aside a much smaller amount of air than an airplane. And it can run on wheels just like a train until you get up to flying speed.

But of course we don't have a right-of-way like that on the eastern seaboard. Can't do maglev, can't do HSR, can't do this either.

I've found some estimates of maglev energy consumption: Maglev Energy Budget, referring to Transrapid und Eisenbahn : Wettbewerb zweier Spurführungs-systeme oder gegenseitige Ergänzung? = Transrapid and railway : Two guidance systems in competition or complementing each other ?Transrapid et chemin de fer : Compétition entre deux systèmes guidés ou complémentarité mutuelle ?

Google Translate translates the German title into "Transrapid and Railway: Competition of two tracking systems or complementarity?"
Seems like the appropriate English phrase is "guideway systems".

The numbers:
Col 1: Speed, km/h
Energy consumption: watt-hours / m^2(usable area) / km(track)
Col 2: ICE3 high-speed train
Col 3: Transrapid maglev train
150 24 27
200 28 31
250 33 35
300 40 41
330 46 45
350 50* 47
400 - 56
430 - 64

* = extrapolated
So if we are to believe that estimate, maglev trains and conventional high-speed trains are neck-and-neck in energy consumption.

The Transrapid and Chuo Shinkansen systems work differently, and I don't know how much of a difference that will make.

Transrapid = attraction maglev, with the train's electromagnets underneath the track's electromagnets, pulling the train upward.
Chuo Shinkansen = repulsion maglev, with the train's electromagnets generating eddy currents with their magnetic fields as it travels.

Unlike the Transrapid system, the Chuo system does not require a continual input of electricity to stay levitated, only to keep it in motion. So the Chuo system may be more energy-efficient. But if the trains' drag is dominated by air drag, then it won't be much different.

Here's a radical thought:

Instead of spending a lot of money on yet another passenger rail option for the Northeast, how about adding some operational hubs for the rest of the country?

Hub and spoke schemes that work for 600mph airplanes come up wanting for 60mph trains, especially when there is only one true hub city for the center of the country.

Minneapolis, Memphis, Omaha, Kansas City, Denver all used to be rail hubs. A trip from Minneapolis to Denver requires an 800-mile detour to the hub of Chicago.
Omaha-Kansas should be a short-haul intercity route. It too, requires a trip to Chicago.

Long-distance train travel over the bulk of this country is set up to fail because of lack of a rational net. All these cities are still hub cities for air travel. I think the failure of long-distance passenger trains is more due to the operating network than to the trains themselves.

Les

Desertdweller wrote:Here's a radical thought:

Instead of spending a lot of money on yet another passenger rail option for the Northeast, how about adding some operational hubs for the rest of the country?

Hub and spoke schemes that work for 600mph airplanes come up wanting for 60mph trains, especially when there is only one true hub city for the center of the country.

Minneapolis, Memphis, Omaha, Kansas City, Denver all used to be rail hubs. A trip from Minneapolis to Denver requires an 800-mile detour to the hub of Chicago.
Omaha-Kansas should be a short-haul intercity route. It too, requires a trip to Chicago.

Long-distance train travel over the bulk of this country is set up to fail because of lack of a rational net. All these cities are still hub cities for air travel. I think the failure of long-distance passenger trains is more due to the operating network than to the trains themselves.

Les

An integrated passenger transportation scheme would have the rail hubs exist at major airline hubs. High(er) speed radial train hubs would handle short to medium haul passengers, and the airlines fed by the trains the medium to long haul. The rail/air hubs would facilitate changing rail-rail or rail-air dependent on the destination.