The news last week that the U.S. government would distribute $90 million in grants for maglev planning studies excited those who see the technology as the future of transportation. Rather than relying on steel rails, maglev trains float down the line about a half an inch above the track surface, kept aloft by powerful electromagnets. They consume less energy and move faster than normal trains because they are not affected by ground friction; their rights-of-way, meanwhile, cost about the same to build.
Though researchers have been exploring the concept for decades, maglev is a relatively new technology; the first floating train didn’t open to passengers until 1979, when Hamburg exhibited a short 50 mph line for six months. In 1984, a slow maglev train in Birmingham, England commenced operations between the airport and a nearby rail station, but it was shut down after a decade of unreliability.
It was only in 2004 that maglev’s true potential entered into the public consciousness with the start of 270 mph train operation of a 19-mile line linking Shanghai’s business district and airport. Built by German company Transrapid, the train covers the distance in just over seven minutes, achieving high acceleration rates that conventional trains can’t match. Though it has struggled to attract riders because of its inconvenient station locations and high ticket prices, the line stands as powerful real-world example of maglev’s potential: it has been 99.98% dependable while consuming 40% less power than an equivalent rail system. It can also handle sharper curves and higher gradients than its steel-on-steel peers.
Despite its numerous advantages, maglev faces long odds just about everywhere. Germany advanced a proposal for a Berlin-Hamburg line, and then a project from Munich to its airport, but both corridors were canceled after the government refused to commit the necessary funds. Even an extension of the Shanghai project to Hangzhou has been permanently suspended due to community resistance and unfounded fears of radiation. Worst for the technology’s reputation was a high-profile crash that killed 23 people at Transrapid’s Emsland test facility in 2006.
But maglev’s principal disadvantage remains the fact that it is incompatible with existing rail lines, unlike traditional high-speed rail. This means higher costs and more community opposition in sensitive urban areas, where fast track-based trains can slow down and use legacy tracks. Those obstacles may be impossible to overcome for all but the few projects built in places where there are no existing rail lines and where the approach into downtown is direct.
Even so, maglev continues to command interest around the world. Here’s a review of the most compelling proposals.
Tokyo-to-Osaka: Chuo Shinkansen
Executives at the Central Japan Railway Company have a huge ambition: to connect Tokyo and Osaka in one hour with a new 300 mph maglev system. The line would relieve the overcrowded Tokaido Shinkansen conventional high-speed train and reduce travel times by more than 50%. The first phase of the project could open by 2025 between Tokyo and Nagoya, but this segment alone would cost more than $50 billion to build.
Japan certainly have the technological know-how to make the project happen. The nation has been working on maglev since 1962 and in late 2003 sped a train to 361 mph along a specially-build track, setting a new, and still unbeaten, record. The system under consideration does not produce enough levitating power to keep a train in the air at low speeds—so engineers have incorporated retractable wheels for “take off” and “landing,” just like airplanes. [Pic]
London-to-Glasgow: UK Ultraspeed
Unlike its counterparts in on the European mainland, the British government has done little to expand and improve its train system in recent decades apart from completing a link to the Channel Tunnel and France. Maglev buffs, however, have a plan for a 500 mile line between London and Glasgow that would connect the cities in just two hours and thirty minutes and bring all of the country’s biggest cities within easy commuting distance of one another.
The project would use the same German technology as the Shanghai equipment, called electromagnetic suspension, which allows trains to levitate even when they’re sitting still.
Any hopes for a U.K. maglev, however, were likely scuttled earlier this year when it became apparent that a conventional high-speed rail system had gained the support of politicians on both the left and right. [Image: HowStuffWorks]
Pittsburg-to-Greensburg, PA: The Pennsylvania Project
This proposal has received some $50 million in planning funds from the U.S. government over the past ten years, but it’s sometimes hard to understand why. The 54-mile corridor would connect Pittsburgh Airport, downtown Pittsburgh, Monroeville, and Greensburg in 35 minutes. The latter two cities have a combined population of around 50,000—bringing into question whether this project would be an underused boondoggle.
But the Pennsylvania Project could be the keystone of something much more significant: a connection between New York and Chicago, running through Philadelphia and Cleveland. Prospects for that line, however, are so low that they’re hardly even worth mentioning. [Image]
LA-to-Las Vegas: California Nevada Super Speed Train
After President Obama announced the government’s historic investment in high-speed rail earlier this year, Republican Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal went on record in opposition, arguing that it would be spent on the development of this “Disney-gambling” train between Anaheim and Las Vegas. Since then, Republicans have continued to focus on this 270-mile project, whose $12 billion cost they point to as a perfect example of reckless government spending.
But advocates for the project, mostly from Nevada, claim that the line would be economically beneficial and improve the conditions on congested I-15. As a first step, they have asked Washington for almost $2 billion to build a 35-mile route between Sin City and Primm, on the California border. But the project is in direct competition with a traditional high-speed rail line called Desert Xpress that has garnered the support of influential Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). [Pic]
Baltimore-Washington Maglev
Proponents of a link between these two cities see it as the core of a much longer corridor eventually linking Boston with Charlotte, dramatically speeding up commutes between the major cities of the East Coast. This 40-mile project was estimated in 2002 to cost about $4 billion to construct and would allow people to get from Union Station in Washington to downtown Baltimore in just 20 minutes.
With 27,000 estimated daily passengers, Baltimore sees this project as a catalyst for the revival of its urban core. BWI Airport’s attractiveness to the region’s travelers would expand once it is just 10 minutes from each city’s downtown. Amtrak, which already runs the popular and profitable Acela train on the corridor, taking just 30 minutes to complete the journey, likely doesn’t find this project very appealing. [Image]
Switzerland: Swissmetro
If the other maglev projects described here seem a little fantastical, a system proposed for Switzerland is downright pie-in-the-sky. The Swissmetro would connect all of the country’s major cities with a vacuum tunnel buried hundreds of feet under the Alps.
By sucking the air out from the underground tubes, the line could eliminate friction almost entirely—making it possible to make the 60-mile journey between Zurich and Bern in just 12 minutes at up to 350 mph.
There’s one big problem, though: where do you find the $60 billion needed to build the thing?
SEE ALSO:
The Infrastructurist Chart: How Do The World’s Most Ambitious High Speed Rail Projects Measure Up?
September 24th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I live in Greensburg and yes, it’s a boondoggle. If I had to guess, I’d say that the impetus behind this project is the King of Pork; Congressman John Murtha. (Father of the ‘Airport from Nowhere’ (http://www.flyjohnstownairport.com/ , http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27286.html) just east of us in Johnstown.)
Right now, there is a much more sensible option on the table to begin a commuter rail service on existing freight lines, taking advantage of existing passenger stations still standing in Greensburg and Latrobe. Considering the populations and distances involved (Not to mention the number of municipalities that a brand new track would have to pass through and the fact that the Mon Valley is basically one, giant superfund site), this is all that could ever be reasonably justified.
A Downtown Pittsburgh-airport link would make some sense. The Pittsburgh airport is terribly inconvenient to the downtown. (Google says 22 minutes. I seriously doubt that anyone has ever made the trip that rapidly when there’s any kind of traffic.)
Another project going on in this corner of PA is the California University Maglev. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_643714.html
This one, at least, touts itself as a demonstration project, not something truly practical. Still though, one has to wonder if the money could be better used elsewhere.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Bobby Jindal’ “Disney-gambling” train was formerly heavily promoted by Don Young (R-AK) when he was the powerful chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Given Young’s ties to the Oil Industry, the LA-TO-LAS VEGAS Maglev proposal is more objectively viewed politically as an attempt to delay, sidetrack and derail other Maglev proposals such as the Pittsburgh or Baltimore-Washington projects which were actually anounced as “finalists” back in January 2001.
From an engineering perspective, the Pittsburgh project remains the best proposal to demonstrate the unique advantages of Transrapid Maglev over traditional grade-level rail systems. This includes construction of the route along difficult, hilly terrain and existing urban infrastructure, as well as operation during more difficult, seasonal weather conditions.
As a side note, the Atlanta-Chattanooga proposal merits attention due to it’s potential to help balance passenger travel between two major metro airports, one currently underutilized and the other severely overcongested with expansion constraints.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:18 am
The assertion that maglevs consume less energy, as well as the assertion that they travel faster than steel railed trains, are not borne out by reality.
The truth is that energy consumption at equivalent speeds is much higher for maglevs than steel railed trains. And while the JR Maglev beats out the TGV by a whopping 6kph, it doesn’t do so economically…and as such, the fastest train with regular service that actually lets normal people on the train is a conventional steel wheeled TGV.
September 24th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Do you have any references, Danny?
I’d love to see a maglev built, but as long as there are only two companies that own the technology, there is a system lock and a certain restriction on innovation. Train right of ways are basically open source, and the manufacturers have learned to work together in order to survive. With Transrapid, JR, Inductrack, and even ol’-fashioned monorails, you have to buy the whole system from one company.
It likely raises the cost and flexibility of a system.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I don’t like that Bobby Jindal, is there no one in Louisiana that can run this guy out of the place?
Anyway the Maglev, I am a huge fan of maglev. How I’ve come to view it though is the next progression after HSR for intercity travel. Something that gets built when you gave an established service and then want to enhance the travel times and comforts even more.
A few point to consider with regard to Maglev and its viability.
September 24th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
where does Switzerland get the money? I’m sure they have $60 B in their banks from all the semi-legitmate wealth kept there.
haha but really, we in America have a lot of catching up to do with regular HSR. let’s leave maglev for the pros huh?
September 24th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Ugh the kid grabbed the mouse and went running and clicking down the hall way….
Right so A few points to consider with regard to Maglev and its viability.
Cost:
The United States Federal Railroad Administration 2003 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a proposed Baltimore-Washington Maglev project gives an estimated 2008 capital costs of $ 4.361 billion for 39.1 miles, or $ 111.5 million per mile ($ 69.3 million per km). The Maryland Transit Authority (MTA) conducted their own EIS, and put the price-tag at $ 4.9 billion dollars for construction, and $ 53 million a year for operations. The EIS follows:
http://www.bwmaglev.com/deis_vol1/pdfs/exec_summary/summary.pdf
This might be seen as the biggest con to be honest.
Energy Consumption:
Transrapid compares their Maglev system to the ICE trains in Germany. Their figures are done at various speeds as follows in watt-hours per seat Kilometer
@ 200 km/h (125 mph) - ICE - 29 Wh / Transrapid - 22 Wh
@ 300 km/h (185 mph) - ICE - 51 Wh / Transrapid - 34 Wh
@ 400 km/h (250 mph) - ICE - Can’t do it / Transrapid - 52 Wh
The give the following example of energy consumed per seat for a distance of 300 km with three intermediate stops, depending on maximum speed:
200 km/h: 32 Wh/km 1,1 l gasoline/100 km
300 km/h: 47 Wh/km 1,6 l gasoline/100 km
400 km/h: 66 Wh/km 2,2 l gasoline/100 km
They cites CO2 figures as well.
http://www.transrapid.de/cgi-tdb/en/basics.prg?session=9be8fa13451ed8b9&a_no=47
This on the other hand is a great pro.
Just on these 2 points tho, pertaining to the USA in particular and the economic situation we are in, I think the cost is the biggest hurdle to overcome.
Rather spend the money on an established technology getting more bang for your buck so to speak and then advance this tech through R & D, than do it now at the enormous costs and running the risks of the Chinese system that only has 20% ridership and at that rate won’t recoup the cost over the life of the system.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
TGV should not be described as “conventional steel wheel,” Danny,
It may have evolved from “conventional steel wheel”, but it’s state-of-the-art performance requires significant upgrade of the track and complete segragation from true “conventional” traffic. Furthermore, it is hindered by significant maintenance requirements for both the track and the mechancial suspension. The non-contact Maglev propulsion greatly reduces physical wear and tear, leading to lower operating/maintenance costs.
September 24th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Assuming the industry agrees on an open standard, I think MagLev might be a serious option in North America. The thing about MagLev is that you know it won’t be watered down speed-wise, whereas “high-speed rail” could still end up looking like Acela or worse. Seeing as there’s no high-speed rail yet, now would be the time to start a MagLev network, if the technology actually makes sense.
So the costs may be slightly more than regular high-speed rail. Are they higher than the cost of interstate expansion and airport expansion? And are those multi-billion dollar interstates recouping their costs? Infrastructure projects are about more than direct costs and benefits.
September 24th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
sean, if you want to travel to Pittsburgh or Latrobe from Greensburg using existing stations and freight lines, Amtrak already provides such service on its Pennsylvanian route. They have a train that leaves every morning around 7~8 AM. Latrobe is about a 10 minute trip, Pittsburgh is around 45.
Only problem is, you’ll have to wait until the next morning to catch a return train to Greensburg.
Taking Amtrak on the old freight lines at 35~40 mph isn’t very popular with commuters. Maybe it was back in the ’40s when my Mom used to ride that train, but nowadays, it’s a little bit out-of-date.
September 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Michael D:
The first TGV Line - TGV Sud-Est cost $ 4 million per km, the newest TGV Méditerranée with seven long viaducts (17.155 km) and one long tunnel (12.768 km) still cost only $15 million per km.
http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr40/pdf/f22_ard.pdf
Comparing this to the Maglev costs of $ 60 million per km for the extension to the existing line. The figure is from the CEO of American Maglev from 2003. It would be more now I would assume
http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/08/18/d30818110369.htm
In the same breath it should be said that construction costs should be taken on a per project basis because no two projects are the same. From one project to another construction techniques improve, cost saving measures can be put in place and the whole process can be made to run more efficient in so doing saving money.
Regardless, Maglev would still require a greater investment because a entirely new elevated track is needed. I don’t disagree that it could be a great system to implement, the timing just isn’t right.
HSR is established technology, thats cheaper and that we know works from the implementation of these systems world wide.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Maglev’s high construction costs become more competitive in areas where difficult terrain or existing infrastructure increases the cost of grade-level alternatives. The elevated track’s smaller “footprint” combined with maglev’s ability to travel steeper grades can be more economical than bulldozing a ground level right-of-way.
High Speed Rail is great for the flat, wide open plains.
Maglev becomes competitive in hill country and/or congested urban areas.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
HSR can run on elevated tracks as well. In Taiwan 73% of the system is either on a viaduct or going over a bridge because of the geography through which it passes.
I see your point with regard to the 6% grade difference that the exists though the Maglev does have the advantage that it can go up steeper inclines.
September 24th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings about Maglev, lets clear it up.
Top speed in daily usages is maximum 320kph (199mph) for TGV. In test runs with highly specialized TGV trains with double the power, bigger wheels, diffrent gearbox, higher voltage, special prepared tracks they achieved 574kph (357mph) to a cost of around 30 million €. Just braking distance was 80km (50miles)
I Shanghai on their maglevtrack they daily run at 431kph (278kph) (world record for daily service) which is very short with only 30km (19 miles), average speed is 251kph (156 mph) which is close to world record on much longer tracks. During test they have achieved 501kph (311mph), with a longer track that would be possible to go much higher.
Maglev has an advantage that it can climb 10% slopes compared to high speed trains 3,5%. Curve radius is also smaller, for 300kmp 1,6km is needed, for 500kph 4,4km is needed. Compare that to the 7 km curve radius the French build their lines with. This gives an big advantage meaning less tunnels and bridges and therefore less cost.
Also, because maglev has no friction there is no wear on the track. In Germany they have to change the rail after only 6-7 years on the Cologne-Frankfurt conventional high-speed track because of high wear from the ICE-trains.
From Sweden,
Fredrik Larsson
September 24th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
There are two incorrect points in the article:
- Maglev does not consume less energy than rail. The comparison Deacon quoted from the Transrapid homepage is unfair, since it compares the very luxury ICE with the high density seating in the Transrapid, making the per-seat consumption looking better (nice trick to sell a product, isn´t it…)
If you compare both ICE and Transrapid with the same seating comfort, you get nearly the same energy consumption at the same speed. Needless to say that higher speed (the only advantage of maglev) means much higher consumption!
- Investment costs of maglev are much higher than high speed rail, as all studies carried out in Germany have shown. The Munich Airport Link (23 miles) was first estimated at $ 2.5bn, but after cost calculation had doubled to a whopping $ 5.5bn and thousands of citizens went on street to protest against this waste of money, the project was abandoned.
I think this may be the main reason why maglev has been so unsuccessful: It looks fantastic - until you see the real prize tag.
September 24th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Senator Harry Reid does not support Maglev as you state, but instead has publicly thrown his support to the Desert Xpress, a steel on steel high speed train currently used in Europe and China.
In addition, Germany, the only builder of Maglev, has shut down all manufacturing of Maglev and China has announced recently that any extension of the 19 mile Maglev to downtown Shanghai will be done with steel on steel technology and not Maglev because of the “high costs of building and mantenance associated with Maglev.”
In other words, Maglev is dead!
It is not being built anywhere in the world. It is too costly to build and highly inefficient to run. And the United States and the Department of Transportation hasn’t even certified Maglev for use in the US.
Further, Maglev folks haven’t as much as started an Environmental Impact Statement and that alone will take about 3-4 years.
To now think that the US government would give $2billion of a $40billion project to start maglev from Las Vegas to Primm., Nevada just 40 miles away, is ridiculous.
September 24th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Deacon:
In your link, the person claiming the $60 million / km figure for Transrapid happens to be a Transrapid competitor, who says he can build it for $10 million / km. I’d take both figures with a grain of salt. Transrapid’s own estimate for the Shanghai-Hangzhou line averages to $30 million / km (via Wikipedia). Over half of that is probably just the guideway. So perhaps MagLev is twice as expensive in construction cost — for the first lines. It’s worth finding out what the predicted lifetime difference in operating costs is.
Anyway, I don’t really have any issues with high-speed rail, just with the politics. If HSR is really the better thing to do, then supporters should advocate for strong safeguards to be put in place to ensure that it is not watered down. It won’t be much of a network if portions are at 150 mph, others at 60 mph, and some are stuck on a siding being passed by a freight. Imagine stretches of interstate with traffic lights.
September 24th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
It is not being built anywhere in the world.
Dude. Did you even read the post? It *is* being built — in Japan.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:25 am
@ nosmoking,
Japan is not yet building a maglev line. There is a company (JR Tokai) which plans to construct it and finance it privately. But in the last decades I´ve seen hundreds of maglev projects being celebrated as the great break-trough, and finally being burried due to astronomic costs. I would be skeptic until I see the line under construction. We must not forget that the japanese maglev plans were announced before the economic crisis, and I wonder wich bank will give them a $ 44bn loan…
Maglev may find some niche markets in the future, but it seems not to be an option for high speed rail networks.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:29 am
nosmoking-
*Could* be built in Japan. The project is still in the organizational phase, and despite the headline, the linked article makes clear that there is still a lot of concern about the cost and demand estimates.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:38 am
But maglev in Japan is completely different. The track construction is twice as expensive as the German one. But it is cheaper to run, because it uses superconductivity - cooled coils. It’s track is bigger and the trains are more aerodymamic, but with less space inside.
The maintenance is much lower for maglev, because it has no friction. In HSR you have to lathe the wheelsets, change the tracks every 5-6 years, maintain pantographs and troleys. Ones you build the guideway the maintenance is minimal.
And about that seat-kilometre svindle:
Transrapid is bigger inside so there are more seats. I have seen ICE 3 interior and there is not any visible diference in space between seats in 2nd class.
September 25th, 2009 at 9:48 am
All the maglev projects seem to have a lot of ideas but not much might… and their failings discredit the full potential of such a mode. Personally, I’d love to see maglev implemented in some areas. However, when I focused in on the Baltimore-Washington corridor & tried to lay it out myself: I found two critical issues.
1 - Right-of-way is virtually nonexistent. We’ve built up within it. To some degree it might fit down some of the high-tension power line corridors, but once you enter into Baltimore or DC: your right-of-way disappears and requires either extensive property takes or extensive tunneling.
2 - Baltimore & Washington are too close together. You’re better off with improving regional/commuter rail to make them higher speed than you are investing in maglev or *high*-speed rail. When I laid out a maglev alignment, I ultimately found myself unable to justify a Baltimore station… Philly and DC link directly together without a stop in between, otherwise the maglev doesn’t get up to its optimum speed before it’s already at its next stop.
http://philatransport.blogspot.com/2009/07/national-passenger-rail-1st-draft.html
To address some comments I’ve seen reiterated on other blogs:
- The right-of-way demands of maglev are vastly different from even high speed rail. To recognise the much-much-higher speed capabilities: horizontal curvature must be virtually straight and vertical curvature must be essentially flat. Current rail lines curve all over the place and could *not* serve maglev in its ideal form… indeed, any attempt to do just that will likely drive up cost whilst vastly reducing benefits.
- Some appear to interpret maglev as sharing trackage with conventional rail. There won’t be other trains using maglev to fill in intermediate stops… maglev is a completely different mode from rail. While it functions the same: a conventional train cannot operate on maglev just as maglev cannot operate on conventional rail.
September 25th, 2009 at 10:17 am
[...] Maglevs, a green mode of transport that might be getting less quixotic (Infrastructuralist) [...]
September 25th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Chris states “Further, Maglev folks haven’t as much as started an Environmental Impact Statement and that alone will take about 3-4 years. ” Actually 3 of the U.S. maglev projects have begun the EIS process. Drafts have been submitted to the US DOT FRA. See the fra.dot.gov webpage.
Central Japan Railway is operating the Series N700, the most efficient, lightweight trainsets in the world, between Tokyo, Nagoya and Osaka. Yet this railroad has committed to building the Tokaido shinkansen bypass between Tokyo and Nagoya using the maglev system which they developed, tested up to 581 km/h, and presumably know what it can do. If maglev has no advantage over rail, Chris please explain why the most savvy and profitable passenger railroad in the world is about to invest $50 billion of its own money in a maglev line. TGV does not reveal service disruption and costs imposed by maintenance as a result of operating steel wheel on steel rail at speeds over 300 km/h.
September 25th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I don’t think that either right-of-way or acceleration to speed is the problem with the Baltimore-Washington proposal.
Amtrak already provides passenger service from Washington-Union Station to Baltimore-Penn Station/BWI on 12 daily trains in each direction. And both cities already have established light-rail/subway systems providing connections for local commuters.
So although Maglev would provide state-of the-art service to Baltimore-Washington, that incremental benefit is not sufficient to displace the passenger rail infrastructure that they already have.
In my opinion, there are better opportunities available for Maglev in the United States than Baltimore-Washington.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
No one mentioned until yet the technical advantage of the Transrapid train. On 3-6-1998 a german high speed train (ICE) had a terrible accident nearby a german village called Eschede. 101 people where killed due to a technical malefunction (one steel wheel broke). This is just impossible for a Transrapid train. I was lucky to had a ride with the Transrapid in 2007. If you feel the tremendous acceleration, that is a big advantage for tracks with many railwaystations in between. Together with less maintenance ultra speed and climb 10% slopes compared to high speed trains 3,5%. and curve radius is also smaller and last but not least less noisy!
Do we still want to invest in a almost 200 years old iron rail or do we choose the future technology?
Greetings from the Netherlands
September 25th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Derailment “just impossible for a Transrapid maglev train”!! Don’t be so sure. Just because the bogies wrap around the guideway does not mean they can’t be broken. A vehicle traveling 500 km/h has enough energy to ascend 1 km above the earth. Given the right circumstances this is enough to wrench loose any attachment.
September 25th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Pittsburgh to the airport is actually a pretty good test project. The terrain is diverse, with hills/rivers, urban and rural settings - and the city needs mass transit to the airport. It is a relatively low cost test of Maglev through all possible settings. If it works in Pittsburgh it will work anywhere. While it certainly won’t provide the same ridership as the others, it can be done more cheaply and quickly - thus providing a better testing facility for the technology.
Going from Pittsburgh to Greensburg is a bad idea - nobody lives in Greensburg. Better to go directly to Harrisburg and connect to the Keystone Corridor from there.
September 25th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
@Herr Flick
Maglev also had its horrible accident with 23 fatalities:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,438657,00.html
There is no 100% safe technology! Just imagine what happens with Transrapid when the guideway is interrputed by an earthquake or ground subsidence. In these cases derailment can be helpful, as the Shinkansen derailment (Oct 2004) or the Eurostar derailment at full speed (june 2000) have proven: In both cases nobody was even injured.
btw, cars and airplanes are also more than 100 years old. But would you really call an Boeing Dreamliner “old iron” (sorry, “old plastic”
?
September 26th, 2009 at 12:18 am
Willie Green Says: “I don’t think that either right-of-way or acceleration to speed is the problem with the Baltimore-Washington proposal.”
You’re right about that. By itself the Baltimore-Washington makes no sense except as a maglev demonstration. The intent was that Wash-Balt would be the starter for a system running from Washington to New York and Boston, which makes sense.
As a result of parochialism, the current design meanders along several routes making it more circuitous than existing rail lines or highways. It is notable for what it avoids. The average speed is about 185 km/h (on a bee line basis) using expensive 500 km/h technology. At this rate the trip from Washington to New York City would require nearly 2 hours, which is only 15 minutes faster than what Amtrak’s Acela can do today.
September 26th, 2009 at 10:02 am
J Harding Says: “By itself the Baltimore-Washington makes no sense except as a maglev demonstration.”
In my opinion, it doesn’t even make sense as a maglev demonstration, except for the close proximity to political decisionmakers in Washington DC.
The Pittsburgh project is a much better demonstration of maglev capabilites due to the challenging terrain and seasonal climate change. However, local passenger revenue would be modest, only reaching full potential when and if the route is expanded to reach another major metro area. (Cleveland? Harrisburg? Philadelphia?)
Although not mentioned in this article, I believe that the Atlanta-Chattanooga proposal may have the best financial justification for maglev deployment based on potential passenger volume and expansion limitations of Atlanta airport. However, I don’t think they’re as far along in the planning process as the other US proposals.
September 26th, 2009 at 11:49 am
The Pittsburgh Maglev Development Project has already convincingly demonstrated that its maglev, as designed, is totally unsuitable for hilly terrain (for an eye-opener, see the layout in Fig. ES-3 in the draft EIS http://www.portauthority.org/PAAC/Portals/Capital/DEIS/DEISFrame.asp
[which Chris above claims has not even been started]).
The average speed between the airport and Greensburg is 112 km/h, something that could be done by a bus on a grade separated road. The route follows a meandering river and existing rights-of-way that were probably designed in the 1800’s for wagons.
On the other hand Japan’s Chuo maglev line which travels through real mountains will average 435 km/h by virtue of employing tunnels over 80% of the route.
I have examined the through highway and air traffic between Atlanta and Chatanooga and it does not begin to justify additional capacity. It would make a lot more sense to free up ATL by reducing its time and energy wasting hub operations. (Anecdotally, I know someone who had to fly via ATL on a Delta Airlines trip between Los Angeles and Eugene Oregon.)
September 26th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I don’t see much wrong with the Pittsburgh alignment. The eastern portion of the city is highly urbanized. They most likely picked this alignment to avoid high site acquisition costs. What is wrong with following the easiest path?
The route from downtown to the airport is pretty direct and would require a number of bridges at minimum.
Also 112km/hr is probably at least twice as fast as a bus would take you to Monroeville or Greensburg. From experience I can tell you that it takes between 1-1.5 hours to go from the airport to Greenbsurg depending on traffic. The Maglev could do that in 30 minutes.
September 26th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Well Mr. Harding, I can only assume that you must be unfamiliar with Pittsburgh’s topography. Sure, the proposed route follows existing rights-of-way along much of the route. This certainly helps avoid the prohibitive expense of acquiring new rights-of-way in a densely developed urban region, while minimizing the cost of demolishing existing infrastructure. And although a good portion of the route follows the river up the Allegheny Valley, traveling from the river to the valley, or from the valley to the Monroeville/Greensburgh area involves climbing hilly terrain exceeding steel wheel on rail capabilities.
Heck, even horse drawn wagons could negotiate steeper grades than conventional trains, depending on how heavy the wagon was loaded and how many horses were hitched to the team.
Incidently, tunnelling is another excessive construction cost that Pittsburgh Maglev avoids. The fastest highway route from Pittsburgh Airport, to Downtown, to Monroeville and on to Greensburg involves going through two tunnels: the Fort Pitt tunnels and and Squirrel Hill tunnels. Total travel distance is the about the same, and the trip takes a little over an hour, depending on traffic congestion.
So I don’t know where you would put your “grade separated” busway without massive reconstruction of the current highway infrastructure. Unless, of course, you put buses on their own elevated guideway, just like Maglev. That starts to sound a lot like the “Skybus” proposal that Pittsburgh had for local commuters back in the ’60s. It even had it’s own tunnel (refurbished the old Wabash RR tunnel through Mt. Washington, as I recall). But that was strictly a proposal for local commuters. Not something capable of expanding across the state.
I bet that Japan’s Chuo maglev line will also travel quite a bit slower when making multiple stops in an urban area. Same as the Pittsburgh Maglev will have a much higher average speed when it travels through the “real mountains” that are east of Greensburg, when it is extended to Harrisburg and Philadelphia.
September 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I am quite familiar with Pittsburgh and its hills (however from my window I am looking at a two mile high real mountain, San Jacinto, which happens to have a 13 mile tunnel conveying Colorado River water through it).
Maglev is reputed to climb 10% grades and tilt up to 12 degrees on curves. Pittsburgh maglev does none of this. Rather than climb the hills or tunnel through them, the project snakes around them, slowing and lengthening the trip because of curves. How can you justify maglev when it takes 30 minutes for a passenger to get from PIT to Greensburg, only 62 km away as the crow flies? Perhaps the first time or two passengers will appreciate the scenic detour up the Allegheny River, but this gets tiresome and time consuming. This was supposed to be a demonstration of maglev’s performance in rugged terrain and extreme climate, but all it proves is that the designers have failed to take advantage of maglev’s capabilities. At the current rate the trip across the Alleghenies to Philadelphia will take several hours. The fact that tunnels are unaffordable speaks to the fact that there is not enough traffic to justify maglev. Fortunately there is adequate air service.
September 27th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Well like I said before, the construction costs of tunneling a 37-mile beeline route from Pitt Airport to Greensburg are prohibitive. And I doubt if looking at a two-mile-high “real” mountain outside my window will change my view regarding the maglev proposal in Pittsburgh.
Granted, there are other locations in the world where tunneling may be a necessity. But I think it’s ludicrous to insist that all transportation routes must follow the shortest distance between two points despite the construction cost.
September 27th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Willie, you miss my point which is that it makes no sense to deploy an expensive technology like Transrapid, which is designed for 500 km/h speeds, when all you can manage is an average speed of 112 km/h (direct basis). It makes about as much sense as operating a jet plane between PIT and Greensburg.
Regarding the contention that rail cannot operate on steep grades, this is true of locomotive hauled trains, but not true of EMUs where all wheels are powered, to wit- In Pittsburgh no less– Route 52-Arlington has a grade of 10%, routinely negotiated by modern Siemens and CAF articulated interurban-type railcars. And-”Transportation engineer and transit industry veteran Edson L. Tennyson, PE (a technical consultant to the Light Rail Now Project) recounts that Pittsburgh’s Route 21-Fineview streetcar line had 12 percent grades. Ed, who notes that he worked for Pittsburgh’s transit company between1947-1949, emphasizes that – despite Pittsburgh’s somewhat daunting climate conditions – the Route 21 streetcar ‘ran if anything else ran.’”
September 27th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Oh, I don’t miss your “point” at all.
Frankly, I consider your assertions regarding the speed of Pittsburgh’s maglev as compared to Japan’s Chuo maglev line to be an apples-to-oranges analysis, with “facts” deliberately selected for favor one technology over the other.
As an engineer, I typically disdain politically biased analyses, but encounter them all the time on the Internet. But so far, I haven’t determined the nature of your political agenda… whether you’re opposed to mass transit systems in general, or merely lobbying to have federal funding diverted to Southern California instead of Pittsburgh… or perhaps somewhere in between.
For instance, I’m not sure why you’re clouding the issue by comparing Maglev to Pittsburgh’s local light-rail system. Yes the modern Siemens trolleys can climb 10~12 grades, same as the old PCCs I rode when I was a kid. They top out at 65 mph max (not much better than PCC’s 50 mph), but max speed is seldom achieved or even necessary due to the frequency of local stops. Average speed for a trip encompassing several stops is much lower. Such a system is totally unsuitable for longer journeys, such as that which Maglev is intended to address.
Similarly, emphasizing Pittsburgh Maglev’s low average speed within the Pittsburgh urban area is disingenuous due to the frequent stops it makes in this area. There is no doubt that higher average speeds will be achieved when the system is expanded across the state for those segments of the trip where stops are less frequent. And yes the 500 kph max speed will be utilized to achieve those higher average speeds.
BTW, what is the max speed that the maglev attains along the Pitt Airport - Greensburg route? I’m sure that it’s much higher than the lower average speed that you cite.
In fact, I would like to see precisely how you arrive at that 112 kph “fact” that you cite. (”direct basis” sounds authoritive, but doesn’t mean much to me) I would prefer to see time and distance traveled for each of the three segments of the route, plus the time allowed for passengers to embark/disembark at the two included stops. From that information, it would be easier to compute the average transit time for the whole route.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:22 am
The other thing to consider with the Pittsburgh project is that it is a logical conclusion for the western portion of the Keystone Corridor. The current train ride from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg takes 6.5 hours - a trip that is twice as long as a car. HSR from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh on the existing lines is almost impossible, so new lines need to be built.
If the Keystone Corridor is ever to be completed it will require new lines that have the ability to make steep climbs and decents. Maglev is the optimal technology for this portion of the system.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Of course, the Tokaido shinkansen bypass is an express system designed to get people the 290 kms from Tokyo to Nagoya in just 40 minutes. On the other hand the proposed Pittsburgh-Harrisburg maglev will waste time picking up folks in Greater Pittsburgh. Even without local stops, the line is so constrained by curves that it will add many minutes to a a long distance trip. A much lower cost feeder system can do this much more effectively.
Direct simply means not round-about, or “as the crow flies”, as I stated earlier, I found the latitude and longitude of PIT and central Greensburg, and determined the true distance separating the two locations. It is 62 km according to the “How Far Is It” application on the Internet. This is the measure airlines use to compute passenger miles, and for a person wishing to get to the airport from Greensburg is all that matters for comparison purposes. The Pittsburgh maglev project has designed a convoluted route which wastes the speed and energy efficiency of maglev. Even using straight line segments between the 4 locations to be served by Pittsburgh maglev results in a pathetically slow average speed of 135 km/h, assuming the 30 minute end to end trip described in the DEIS. This for a system designed to go 500 km/h!
I am a maglev advocate. My bias is to see high speed maglev used appropriately, but the Pittsburgh project, as designed, does nothing to advance the cause of maglev. Perhaps Pittsburgh should stick to manufacturing the technology designed overseas and ship the components to locations where advantage will be taken of maglev’s great potential.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Unlike the airlines, maglev is not confined to flying like a crow. Passenger convenience and ridership are enhanced by providing capability for multiple stops along the way without drastic loss of time or efficiency.
An airplane could fly pretty quick from PIT to Greensburg, but not while picking-up or dropping off passengers Downtown or in Monroeville along the way. And actually, the plane couldn’t land in Greensburg either because, despite being the Westmoreland County seat, Greensburg doesn’t have an airport. But if you extend the line a mere 7 miles east, then you’ve connected Maglev to Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Latrobe, increasing the utility of that airport while alleviating PIT-International of some of the burden of inefficient short-hop commuters.
Extend the line another 30 miles east to the next population center, and Maglev will interface with Johnstown-Cambria County Airport.
It’s 107 miles “as the crow flies” from Johnstown to Harrisburg International Airport. But that’s trough some pretty mountainous and sparsely populated terrain. None of the mountains are 10,000+ feet, of course. But I doubt if even Maglev could get through them without having to tunnel through somewhere.
Fortunately, it would be pretty easy for Maglev to head NE, following the contour of the terrain. Altoona and the famous “horseshoe curve” is only 30 miles from Johnstown. I bet Maglev can shoot through their much faster than the old freight trains!
Continue NE another 34 miles and service can be provided to State College. Then it’s a pretty easy 62 miles SE to Harrisburg International airport.
Athough that route is about 20 miles more circuitous than “as the crow flies, it avoids tunnelling. And it also earns extra ridership super bonus points for tapping into the huge student/academic transient community at Penn State. LOL! Penn State may have to double their football stadium capacity (again) if they get Maglev service, but I doubt that they’d mind doing that.
And Maglev’s 300 mph capabilities will make good time through those longer, 30 mile and 60 mile segments in Central Pennsylvania. So the overall average speed will also be much higher than just the shorter 10-12 mile segments from Pittsburgh to Greensburg.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Willie Green Says: “Unlike the airlines, maglev is not confined to flying like a crow. Passenger convenience and ridership are enhanced by providing capability for multiple stops along the way without drastic loss of time or efficiency.”
If I am not mistaken, the proposed maglev line does not serve either downtown Monroeville or Greensburg, but rather a site off on the periphery, access to which will require an automobile. No doubt the same will be true of Altoona, Johnstown and State College because the guiding principle has been to minimize capital cost regardless of the low term impact on trip time, energy or ridership. Following the 1800’s indirect route of the Pennsylvania RR through Appalachia and its cities which have largely died as a result of the Interstates makes no sense to me.
October 1st, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Monroeville never had a “downtown” as far as I know. Way back when, it was merely a stagecoach stop that had a couple blacksmith shops, an inn for travellers and maybe a couple general stores for the local farmers. But it didn’t even merit being called a “village”. But it’s location at the junction of roads that became the Pa Turnpike (I-76) and US Route 22, and evolved into what’s best described as a suburban commercial center, with numerous shopping strips/malls, hotels, motels, restaurants, car dealers, office buildings, etc. etc. So basically it has all the commercial infrastructue and services on the East side of Pittsburgh that a passenger would find/expect around the airport on the West side of Pittsburgh. It’s a good location for the Maglev stop.
Although Greensburg has a traditional “downtown”, I haven’t been there in almost 30 years. But “Toll 66″ (built back in the early ’90s) is essentially a Pa Turnpike spur built as a bypass of downtown Greensburg where “Business 66″ travels. So it’s easy to envision how similar traveler amenities have sprouted up in “suburban” Greensburg around the toll road interchange, making it a more desirable Maglev stop than downtown Greensburg.
Yes, you are quite right about stops in the other towns. Although many still have traditional “downtowns” that remain vibrant (in a small town sort of way), it is better to locate the Maglev stops on the outskirts of these communities, where more commercial amenities such as hotels, motels, restaurants, car dealerships/rentals, etc. etc. have sprouted up. It is more convenient for travelers and doesn’t destroy the downtown ambience of the smaller communities.
Of course, with larger metro-cities, like Pittsburgh, Harrisburg or Philadelphia, a downtown station may be desirable, and Maglev can accomodate that, if necessary.
October 1st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Oh, Maglev doesn’t follow the 1800s route of the Pa RR. That truly does meander too much. But Maglev will provide service to some of the communities that the Pa RR used to service… primarily the ones that have survived and remain commercially vibrant population centers. So it is to be expected that some segments of Maglev would crisscross with the old Pa RR route, although Maglev’s capability on steeper grades allows it to take a much less “meandering” direction when convenient to do so.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I’m afraid I have to agree with Harding, much though I would rather disagree with a Maglev advocate.
The Pittsburgh maglev project is a piece of junk in design terms. There’s no point in doing Maglev unless it’s going to be *FAST* — if you’re going only 125 mph much of the conventional high speed rail is more efficient (and incidentally, can traverse fairly severe grades). Unfortunately, rather than designing a route where the maglev can really get up to speed, they appear to have designed a slowpokey milk train. If you’re going to do that, use steel wheels. Please.
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:35 am
Nathananael, the assertion that Pittsburgh Maglev only goes 125 mph is simply untrue. But since you admit to opposing Maglev in general, it’s not surprising that you’d be spreading such disinformation.
October 4th, 2009 at 1:08 am
Although thrill seekers might appreciate the 500 km/h (311 mph) capability of maglev, the traveler wanting to get somewhere is concerned with trip time. The trip time for a traveler who wishes to get from PIT to Monroeville is variously reported as 30 to 35 minutes. However PIT and Monroeville are only 62 km (38 miles) apart as the crow flies. Hence average speed betweeen endpoints is a pathetic 106 to 124 km/h (66-77 mph), something a bus could do. Although this may represent an improvement over trip times by road today, if the intention is to expand the route to Harrisburg and Philadelphia, continuing to follow such convoluted trajectory (including going by way of State College) must be avoided, otherwise through passengers will opt to take the airplane or highway, leaving maglev as a White Elephant.
October 7th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
The more I look into the details of what was accomplished with the Federal funds that I helped provide to the Pittsburgh maglev project, the more dismayed I become at the outcome.
Willie Green Says:October 1st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
“Oh, Maglev doesn’t follow the 1800s route of the Pa RR. That truly does meander too much.” Indeed, rather than follow the existing, very circuitous, 31 mile Amtrak route from downtown Pittsburgh to Greensburg, the maglev route follows the Allegheny R. for a while and manages to wander 37 miles before getting to Greensburg- the argument being that maglev can go 300 mph so it doesn’t matter adding all that extra distance. The problem is that no passenger system can go fast with the curves that come with that amount of circuity.
Correction- In my last post I mistakenly referred to Monroeville when I intended Greensburg.
October 10th, 2009 at 11:25 am
[...] Look Who’s Building Floating Trains… Trains that levitate on magnetic tracks have been the future of transportation for decades–but with one operating successfully in China now (at speeds of nearly 300 mph) and lots of ambitious proposals on the table around the world, has maglev’s moment finally arrived? We survey the 6 most promising projects. …Read the full story on TreeHugger [...]
October 13th, 2009 at 3:34 am
just wondered that you guys talked almost about speed, technical support for its speed, location to build (especially Pittsburg… that is so far from my real life), cost,…blar blar blar…
just a simple question…
I am living in Shanghai, just next to the meglev station (Longyang Road).
“Is it safe enough for dairy living nearby??”
How about its radiation?? I amazingly found that 50% of the surrounding area of the station can not use cellphone!! (within 300 meters far from station).
October 14th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Mr. Shanghai, if you are concerned about radiation, perhaps it would be prudent to stop using a cellphone anywhere, not just in the vicinity of maglev. There is no evidence that low frequency magnetic fields produce any significant effect on health, but there is increasing evidence that high frequency electromagnetic radiation from cellphones does.
October 15th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
If the swiss can suck the air out, the Japanese already are planning to spend $50 billion, so why not suck the air out also, most of the line will be under mountains anyway. Have doors that open and shut…that maglev may be able to go up to 500 mph with no air…Tokyo to Osaka in 40 minutes may be very possible for not much more money.
October 16th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
It is by no means true that aero drag in a tunnel is proportional to the air pressure, as it is for an airplane. It is important to note that in order to make a substantial difference in the aero drag on a vehicle moving through a narrow tunnel, a high vacuum is required, to the point that if a window or door fails, everyone aboard will die within minutes. It is not at all like the same problem with a plane at 40 or 50 thousand feet altitude, where supplying oxygen and rapidly diving to lower altitude can preserve life. Also the cost of producing and maintaining such a high vacuum is substantial, greatly affecting both capital and operating cost.
November 16th, 2009 at 7:01 am
[...] Siemens also owns Transrapid, which makes the high-speed maglev trains used in Shanghai. We covered the history and possible future of maglev technology back in [...]