6 ms·

The technology has existed for so long but never really went anywhere. After half a century there are 30km in Shanghai, that’s all. Maybe it will work out bett

by arrrg 13y ago

The technology has existed for so long but never really went anywhere. After half a century there are 30km in Shanghai, that’s all. Maybe it will work out better in the future. The biggest problem I see is that the gains of this technology would be rather small anywhere with conventional high-speed rail or existing infrastructure that can be upgraded to that. With Maglev everything needs to be built from scratch. That’s just not very attractive for any place that has consistently expanded its rail network ever since the height of the industrial revolution. And for what? A 180km/h faster train? I personally very much want that, sure, but is it worth it for anyone building it? I’m pretty sure I know the answer in Western Europe (though I can always hope that maglev has a future there), I’m not so sure when it comes to the US.

meddlepal 13y ago
If the NEC could do 200MPH consistently Boston-NYC-DC ... that would be huge. Boston to NYC in 1 hour and Boston to DC in 2 hours would be amazing and would be far faster than airport or vehicle travel.
- ericd 13y ago
  If this was reasonably priced, it would increase travel between those cities by a large amount.
- willholloway 13y ago
  I ride the North East Corridor rails often and have clocked the Acela at 130 MPH via GPS going into Boston, and the Northeast Regional hits 115 MPH in spots from Eastern CT to NYC. The route is just too winding for those speeds in so many places and you end up going 60MPH for much of the trip. The best views going north are past the Connecticut river, rolling through Niantic, to New London and the small coastal villages like Mystic, and heading south the rail bridge that runs next to the Triborough gives you a fantastic panorama of Manhattan's east side. I love the train.
  - ddrmaxgt37 13y ago
    Very sad since IIRC Acela was supposed to have its own high speed rail but runs on existing track due to budget
  - tcas 13y ago
    I've clocked Acela at just below 150mph on my GPS in between Providence and Boston. As I understand it, they would like to go faster in other sections, but the track / catenary isn't able to sustain that speed on most of the journey. Still way better than flying for BOS<->NYC or NYC<->WAS. It's a shame that the ticket prices are 2x what the regional is though. Never heard about having dedicated rails. It would be nice, since the FRC requires any train that travels on track shared by freight to be basically built like a tank, which makes them much more expensive to make an operate.
  - Brian-Puccio 13y ago
    > and heading south the rail bridge that runs next to the Triborough gives you a fantastic panorama of Manhattan's east side. For anyone else interested, that's the Hell Gate Bridge[0]. It's odd, I'm in the generation that will always think of the Triborough as the Triborough, not the RFK, the same way others still think Interboro, not Jackie Robinson. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Gate_Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Gate_Bridge
- seszett 13y ago
  You don't need maglev for that, though, high-speed rail can reach those speeds. And a big advantage of rail is that the trains can just run on conventional track and progressively go faster while portions of the track are converted to high-speed, while maglev needs a complete run of maglev track before it starts being usable.
  - zhte415 13y ago
    High speed rail is often implemented using dedicated track wherever possible - either brand new or upgraded and restricted to other traffic types: A closely sitting and smooth train wheel gets damaged pretty quickly traveling on track that is accustomed to freight traffic. That now-damaged wheel then goes on to damage the polished high speed track, which then further damages other trains' wheels in a vicious circle. China's new high speed train network, for example, is almost all dedicated track (a large part newly constructed routes) with existing track used only where there are space constraints (for example, a city centre station).
    - seszett 13y ago
      French TGV runs on a significative amount of non-highspeed track though, and it seems to work good enough (about the same speed as China's HSR, and it has been working for decades).
      - zhte415 13y ago
        I understand the TGV uses weight limitation and careful scheduling to mitigate the cost of other traffic (both wear-and-tear and scheduling), and as in the case of China also has sections of line that are unavoidably mixed, but used, as cost effective alternatives are not attractive. And I think that's the crux: a trade-off between cost and benefit. A new high-speed line is still margins cheaper than a maglev, though that's not to say I'd not like to see maglevs.
rayiner 13y ago
The northeast is as dense as western Europe.
- Tuna-Fish 13y ago
  The density isn't really the issue, it's that high-speed rolling stock is simply too good for the massive investment to replace it to be worth it. In the US, the railway system was developed for freight primarily, and is not suitable for high-speed rail. So, if you want faster trains, you have to lay new track regardless. In that situation, maglev is not necessarily a terrible choice.
- danielsiders 13y ago
  Or even the Taiheiyo belt in Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiheiy%C5%8D_Belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiheiy%C5%8D_Belt
- bpicolo 13y ago
  And yet nowhere close to as dense as Japan.
biot 13y ago
Quite a long time... I rode the maglev train at the Japan pavilion at Expo '86. It was so smooth you almost couldn't tell you were moving.
melling 13y ago
"And for what? A 180km/h faster train?" Going an extra 110mph(180km/h) would be a huge win. It greatly extends the distance where a train wins over a jet. Also consider, for instance, in the NYC area, you could live 100 miles away from Manhattan and easily commute to work. That means you could live in downtown Philly and work in Manhattan, 30 minutes away. The world becomes a lot smaller.
- cafard 13y ago
  It seems to me that you would need to exercise a fair bit of eminent domain, and there you might find that the world is indeed smaller. The article mentions Washington to Baltimore as the first segment to be built. The existing rail lines pass over a number of level crossings, and pass under some bridge spans that are fairly snug for the existing track. And the mile or two before you get to Baltimore's Penn Station are in tunnel. I doubt the tunnel has much width to spare--how much would it cost in 2014 to widen a couple of miles of tunnel under a densely built city?
  - bazzargh 13y ago
    You could get a ballpark figure by looking at Crossrail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail 73 miles of track, 40 stations, 26 miles of tunnel under London. £16bn ($27bn-ish). So, for your project, I'd handwave at $1-5bn.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > Going an extra 110mph(180km/h) would be a huge win. It greatly extends the distance where a train wins over a jet. Not really, because jets will go much more places that your single maglev line ever will. That's the problem with hi-tech trains. They are extremely costly to deploy in terms of infrastructure, they go over land that could be used for other purposes, and because of the large investment required they only go in very few places. Jets win everywhere else.
  - melling 13y ago
    "Jets win everywhere else." Of course they don't. Getting to an airport 60-90 minutes before a flight that's only 60-90 minutes doesn't make much sense
tunesmith 13y ago
I don't think the appetite for train travel is a linear thing. For instance here in the Seattle/Portland corridor, the train trip is both slower than by car, and more expensive than the car's gas bill. If it were consistently faster and/or cheaper, I can't help but think that the demand would spike dramatically.

by arrrg 13y ago

meddlepal 13y ago

If the NEC could do 200MPH consistently Boston-NYC-DC ... that would be huge. Boston to NYC in 1 hour and Boston to DC in 2 hours would be amazing and would be far faster than airport or vehicle travel.

ericd 13y ago
If this was reasonably priced, it would increase travel between those cities by a large amount.
willholloway 13y ago
I ride the North East Corridor rails often and have clocked the Acela at 130 MPH via GPS going into Boston, and the Northeast Regional hits 115 MPH in spots from Eastern CT to NYC. The route is just too winding for those speeds in so many places and you end up going 60MPH for much of the trip. The best views going north are past the Connecticut river, rolling through Niantic, to New London and the small coastal villages like Mystic, and heading south the rail bridge that runs next to the Triborough gives you a fantastic panorama of Manhattan's east side. I love the train.
- ddrmaxgt37 13y ago
  Very sad since IIRC Acela was supposed to have its own high speed rail but runs on existing track due to budget
- tcas 13y ago
  I've clocked Acela at just below 150mph on my GPS in between Providence and Boston. As I understand it, they would like to go faster in other sections, but the track / catenary isn't able to sustain that speed on most of the journey. Still way better than flying for BOS<->NYC or NYC<->WAS. It's a shame that the ticket prices are 2x what the regional is though. Never heard about having dedicated rails. It would be nice, since the FRC requires any train that travels on track shared by freight to be basically built like a tank, which makes them much more expensive to make an operate.
- Brian-Puccio 13y ago
  > and heading south the rail bridge that runs next to the Triborough gives you a fantastic panorama of Manhattan's east side. For anyone else interested, that's the Hell Gate Bridge[0]. It's odd, I'm in the generation that will always think of the Triborough as the Triborough, not the RFK, the same way others still think Interboro, not Jackie Robinson. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Gate_Bridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_Gate_Bridge
seszett 13y ago
You don't need maglev for that, though, high-speed rail can reach those speeds. And a big advantage of rail is that the trains can just run on conventional track and progressively go faster while portions of the track are converted to high-speed, while maglev needs a complete run of maglev track before it starts being usable.
- zhte415 13y ago
  High speed rail is often implemented using dedicated track wherever possible - either brand new or upgraded and restricted to other traffic types: A closely sitting and smooth train wheel gets damaged pretty quickly traveling on track that is accustomed to freight traffic. That now-damaged wheel then goes on to damage the polished high speed track, which then further damages other trains' wheels in a vicious circle. China's new high speed train network, for example, is almost all dedicated track (a large part newly constructed routes) with existing track used only where there are space constraints (for example, a city centre station).
  - seszett 13y ago
    French TGV runs on a significative amount of non-highspeed track though, and it seems to work good enough (about the same speed as China's HSR, and it has been working for decades).
    - zhte415 13y ago
      I understand the TGV uses weight limitation and careful scheduling to mitigate the cost of other traffic (both wear-and-tear and scheduling), and as in the case of China also has sections of line that are unavoidably mixed, but used, as cost effective alternatives are not attractive. And I think that's the crux: a trade-off between cost and benefit. A new high-speed line is still margins cheaper than a maglev, though that's not to say I'd not like to see maglevs.

rayiner 13y ago

The northeast is as dense as western Europe.

Tuna-Fish 13y ago
The density isn't really the issue, it's that high-speed rolling stock is simply too good for the massive investment to replace it to be worth it. In the US, the railway system was developed for freight primarily, and is not suitable for high-speed rail. So, if you want faster trains, you have to lay new track regardless. In that situation, maglev is not necessarily a terrible choice.
danielsiders 13y ago
Or even the Taiheiyo belt in Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiheiy%C5%8D_Belt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiheiy%C5%8D_Belt
bpicolo 13y ago
And yet nowhere close to as dense as Japan.

biot 13y ago

Quite a long time... I rode the maglev train at the Japan pavilion at Expo '86. It was so smooth you almost couldn't tell you were moving.

melling 13y ago

"And for what? A 180km/h faster train?" Going an extra 110mph(180km/h) would be a huge win. It greatly extends the distance where a train wins over a jet. Also consider, for instance, in the NYC area, you could live 100 miles away from Manhattan and easily commute to work. That means you could live in downtown Philly and work in Manhattan, 30 minutes away. The world becomes a lot smaller.

cafard 13y ago
It seems to me that you would need to exercise a fair bit of eminent domain, and there you might find that the world is indeed smaller. The article mentions Washington to Baltimore as the first segment to be built. The existing rail lines pass over a number of level crossings, and pass under some bridge spans that are fairly snug for the existing track. And the mile or two before you get to Baltimore's Penn Station are in tunnel. I doubt the tunnel has much width to spare--how much would it cost in 2014 to widen a couple of miles of tunnel under a densely built city?
- bazzargh 13y ago
  You could get a ballpark figure by looking at Crossrail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail 73 miles of track, 40 stations, 26 miles of tunnel under London. £16bn ($27bn-ish). So, for your project, I'd handwave at $1-5bn.
ekianjo 13y ago
> Going an extra 110mph(180km/h) would be a huge win. It greatly extends the distance where a train wins over a jet. Not really, because jets will go much more places that your single maglev line ever will. That's the problem with hi-tech trains. They are extremely costly to deploy in terms of infrastructure, they go over land that could be used for other purposes, and because of the large investment required they only go in very few places. Jets win everywhere else.
- melling 13y ago
  "Jets win everywhere else." Of course they don't. Getting to an airport 60-90 minutes before a flight that's only 60-90 minutes doesn't make much sense

tunesmith 13y ago

I don't think the appetite for train travel is a linear thing. For instance here in the Seattle/Portland corridor, the train trip is both slower than by car, and more expensive than the car's gas bill. If it were consistently faster and/or cheaper, I can't help but think that the demand would spike dramatically.