OT: Build nukes to power these:

Page 1 of 2  
http://www.wimp.com/maglevtrain /
500 kph... holy shiat!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

LOVE TO, but not in earthquake territory, please.
If it weren't for traffic, I'd love to drive 300mph on freeways. My trips down to the bay area would only take a couple hours with the slowdowns in the mountains.
-- Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Notice there is no pantograph.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess there is some kind of induction transfer of power. Not sure I get all of this threadlet ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Maglev's are power hungry beasts, but when a track is powered by a nuclear station, it is clean to operate.... and fast, competing with air transport on medium distances. Initial capital outlay is heavy, but there are very few parts that can/will wear out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Induction motor, same as on your tablesaw, but with one winding opened up and laid out flat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <05b98030-a2e3-44ce-b34e-6cae5ffc9cb1

Yep.
That train is the Japanese JR-Maglev.
I'm not impressed by this maglev crap. Here's what a real train can do.
<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJfDWtbioEM
.
That's on a regular section of track, with regular rolling stock that's in daily service. They took two cars out, added an engine, tightened the catenary, and swept the track before the run. Other than that all they did was put the hammer down.
Note that it was riding smoothly and still accelerating strongly.
None of these fancy trains address the real obstacle to high speed rail in the US though, which is that somebody has to pay for the track. Running on track that is shared with freight lines Amtrak is barely cost competitive with airlines now. If Amtrak had to pay for dedicated track in addition to the other costs they incur now it would cost so much more to take the train that nobody would ride it.
And maglev track is going to cost a lot more per mile than TGV track.
Oh, and there's the matter of that Japanese maglev depending on helium, yet another nonrenewable resource.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course if there was a similar subsidy for tracks as for airports and air traffic control, the price of the track would be covered.
High speed rail is most effective for middle distances (2-4 hrs travel time) in denser populated areas. The real problem in the US then is that you have to raze homes to get a right of way that is straight enough for high speed. In US suburbia there isn't enough open space to do that. While Europe is overall more densely populated than the US, there really is more open space between towns in Europe than there is in the US. Also, the tolerances for tracks would have to be tightened to get to really high speed rail.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fact: In the "NorthEast Corridor" Amtrak _does_ own the tracks, and all the rest ff the physical infrastructure. For trips that both start and end in the NEC, Amtrak carries more passengers than _all_ the airlines, =combined=. Virtually all the trains in the NEC show an operating profit. The premium higher-speed service ("Acela") is profitable enough that it covers all of the associated 'overhead' costs, as welL, and then some.

Maglev is simply _not_ economical. Without regard to the horrendous initial outlay, The operating cost is extremely high. It takes *lots* of watts to run a maglev, even at medium speeds. At high speeds, its even worse. Maglev _is_ capable of higher speeds than is practical with wheels-on-rails, but that is, essentially, it's -only- advantage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote in

Another fact is the rather deplorable condition of the tracks, overhead wires, signals and powerstations, as well as the traffic control on the heavily overused NEC tracks. A reason I used to be glad of having the option to commute into NY via Hoboken, definitely one of the reasons I am happy to be retired ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <t7CdnWx2h8fFE5jTnZ2dnUVZ_v-

So?
Amtrak didn't pay for that track though, they got it more or less for free--the deal was that Conrail gave Amtrak the track and Conrail didn't have to pay trackage on it for 10 years.
Would Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor still be profitable if they were paying interest on purchase of the rights of way and construction of the track? At 1976 Northeast Corridor land prices?
As for carrying more passengers than the airlines, you can't take the plane from Windsor to Windsor Locks. According to Amtrak 250,000 riders a day ride 4.9 million passenger miles in the Northeast Corridor. That makes the average trip 19.6 miles. Airlines don't serve 20 mile routes. Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor isn't competing with the airlines, they're competing with buses and taxicabs and bicycles and cars.
Sorry, but Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor is not any kind of evidence that any kind of rail can compete with airlines.

It takes "lots of watts" to run any kind of high speed electric train. In point of fact the Transrapid draws about 5 megawatts, 500 kw or so of which is for levitation. The TGV at full power draws about 9 megawatts to achieve similar performance (configured for record runs with two engines, the TGV draws more like 18). Apparently the energy cost to levitate is more than outweighed by the elimination of rolling friction.
While I agree that maglev is a nonstarter (and so do the Germans and the British and the Chinese--the only folks who look likely to put one in service on more than a trial basis are the Japanese) it's not because of the power consumption.

The fastest demonstrated maglev went 3 mph faster than than the TGV. And the TGV did it on track that is in daily service, not a special closed test track.
On the other hand, a Maglev does't beat the track to death at that speed, or so the advocates claim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I don't believe that the airlines collectively (and hence the people who fly, public and private) pay for all the costs of airports and air traffic control. So that argument is moot (my opinion).

Amtrak acquired this by act of Congress, IIRC. No interest payments necessary.

Not totally correct. I live near NYC in Jersey, worked in NYC (now retired). If I had to travel for work to Boston, Washington DC or in between, I would take the train (Acela preferred). We also did for a while when traveling privately to visit family near Boston,but the train switching and delays got to me, and now we're traveling faster and more cheaply by car (faster being the more important factor).
The huge successes of cheap bus travel also demonstrate a need for travelling other than by plane on routes that take around 4-6 hours by car. Why skulk around airports for 3 hours total if the flight is less than 1 to 1 1/2 hour?

See above - not true under admittedly limited conditions
<snip> TGV and similar trains are a very good way to travel in my experiences in Europe, but not especially cheap. With my broken leg the trip Rotterdam to Paris was just fine, on a par with first class on AirFrance/Delta Paris to EWR (except the food was MUCH better <grin>).
For longer distances (>500 miles) RyanAir and similar are very effective. Again, IMNSHO.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wanna guess on the value of that "10 years of trackage rights" that Conrail didn't pay? Including all the deferred maintenance (that Conrail hadn't done) needed to bring the tracks back 'up to spec' -- even for freight use. Don't forget the taxes they didn't have to pay. Conrail got rid of a sh*tload of liabilities by dumping that track on Amtrak.
Hint: _BY_LAW_, Conrail could not dispose of an asset for _less_ than 'fair market value'. Hint: _BY_LAW_, Amtrak could could not buy things at a price materially _above_ 'fair market value'.
The 'price paid' in transaction _was_ "fair market value" -- under the accepted definition of "where a _willing_ seller finds a _willing_ buyer".

"male bovine excrement" applies.
Fact: The _entire_ Amtrak system carries less than 80,000 passengers/day (28+ million riders a _year). Your claim"250,000 riders a day" is over THREE TIMES the entire Amtrak ridership.
"Figures don't lie, but liars can figure" would seem to apply.
That 250,000/day number includes all the 'commuter rail' services (_not_ part of Amtrak) that use the NEC tracks (for a fee). That commuter rail service makes up well over 210,000 of that 250,000 trips. Needless to say, these commuter rail trips *are* relatively short -- *especially* if you only count the _part_ of the trip that *is* on Amtrak NEC rails.
ACTUAL "AMTRAK TRAINS" DATA:
Amtrak NEC trains carried over 11 million (an average of about thirty thousand riders a day, less than _1/8_ of what you claim) passengers in 2010, with an average trip length of over _160_miles_. That _is_ in the range that airlines serve in the NEC.
_ALL_ the top-volume city-pairs for NEC trains have directly competing air service. ('Route 128' and 'Back Bay' are both in the Boston Metro area, serviced by Logan International)
'Acela' service, alone, carried over 3.1 million passengers in 2010, with an _average_ trip length of *189 miles*. (over 85% of these trips were more than 100 miles, and over 57% were more than 200 miles.)
The top city pairs were: NYC -- Wash. D.C. 225 miles Boston -- NYC 231 miles NYC -- Philadelphia 91 miles Philadelphia -- D.C. 134 miles NYC -- Rte 128 (boston) 220 miles NYC -- Providence, RI 188 miles NYC -- Back Bay (boston) 230 miles NYC -- Wilmington DE 117 miles Newark -- Wash. D.C. 215 miles
Northeast corridor non-Acela service carried 7.8 million passengers in 2010 with an average trip distance of *154 miles*. (almost 2/3 of these trips were over 100 miles, and more than 1/3 were over 200 miles).
Combined, that's an total of just over 11 million riders a year, with an average trip length of *164 miles*.
In 2010, over 7.5 million Amtrak NEC trips were over 100 miles, with over 3 million of them over 200 miles. This _is_ in the range for air flights in NEC territory.

Your statistics were bogus, and your conclusion is similarly flawed. The fact remains that Amtrak _does_ carry a majority of the local traffic in the NEC, and between major city pairs there, cities where there is 'parallel' air service.
Further, if you look in Europe, you can find multiple major city pairs where TGV type trains have taken _so_much_ of the traffic away from the airlines that the airlines have _discontinued_service_ on those routes. _NO_ airline flies between those cities any more. Rail is the now the _only_ alternative to driving on those routes.
Quality, -frequent-, passenger rail service, can and *does* compete very successfully with air service. Virtually everybody in the transportation industry recognizes that this _is_ a *fact*.
The 'big problem' in _most_ of the U.S. -- basically anywhere except the East and West coasts -- is that the population density is not high enough to support 'frequent' service of any type.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article <f-GdnSik1pC-
bonomi.com says...

So you're saying that it cost Amtrak just as much to not pay anything as it would have for them to have bought the rights of way and laid the track from scratch?

Except that Conrail did not sell the track and Amtrak did not buy it.
It was not "disposal of an asset" it was a government mandated transfer.

So you're saying that "Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) is the busiest railroad in North America, with more than 2,200 trains operating over some portion of the Washington-Boston route each day. More than a quarter of a million riders use the NEC on every weekday, generating more than 4.9 million daily passenger miles " is a lie? If so take it up with Amtrak, it's cut and pasted directly from their web site.

So let's see, how many people drive cars between those city pairs?

So what? The US is not Europe.

It does? So how is it that the TGV needs government subsidies?

So why build fancy high speed trains all over the US?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I am saying *YOU*LIED*, whether intentionally or not, in your 'interpretation' of those numbers. Either you didn't read carefully, or didn't care about accuracy, or _deliberately_ distorted what you read.
To be precise, when you claimed the 'average Amtrak trip' was a mere 19+ miles, you were GROSSLY in error.
In reality, _Amtrak_ carries about 30,000 passengers a day in the NEC, with an average trip distance of over 164 miles.
Note: "250,000 riders a day" is OVER THREE TIMES the _entire_ national rider ship on Amtrak.
Yes, there _are_ 250,000 riders/day on the NEC. Nearly 90% of them are on various short-distance "commuter rail" systems many of which run on Amtrak rail for only a _small_ portion of their travel. Consider the LIRR, which uses Amtrak rails _only_ in the immediate vicinity of NYC Penn station.
A partial list of the commuter rail agencies, operating over 20 different routes, that contribute that 88% of the 'over 250,000 riders/day': New Jersey Transit (7 lines, connecting to NYC) MARC (1 line, connecting to Wash D.C.) MTBA (4 lines, connecting to Boston) Metro-North (3 lines, Connecticut) SEPTA (5 lines, connecting to Philadelphia) Shore Line East (1 line, Connecticut)
You either "don't know" the actual facts, "don't care" about the accuracy of what you claim, or deliberately falsify numbers to attempt to support your fallacious claims.

Far less than those who fly or take the train -- for all the above-listed city pairs, with possible exceptions of NYC-Wilmington, and NYC-Philly.

BFD. You wanted 'evidence' that rail can compete with air. There is _LOTS_ of such evidence in Europe.

_SOME_ TVG routes do. A number do not. Routes that have killed the competing airline service did it without any subsidies.
Why do _automobiles_ *everywhere* need government subsidies?
Why do _airplanes *everywhere* need government subsidies?
Why has passenger airline service, over the entire _lifetime_ of such service not made a profit? Government bail-outs, subsidies, and gov't 'assumption of liabilities, plus bankruptcy write-offs, _matches_ the total lifetime profits for the entire U.S. passenger industry. EVERY penny of profits ever paid out to passenger airline shareholders has come out of the government's pockets, in one way or another.

Nice strawman attempt.
FACT: *nobody* rational is proposing 'high speed' trains "all over the US". In fact, I've never heard *anybody*, "rational. or otherwise, propose a high speed train from Albuquerque to Salt lake, for example. Or, from Spokane to Fargo.
FACT: 'higher speed' rail _is_ being proposed for _A_FEW__SELECTED_ markets where there _is_ potential traffic levels to make it feasible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article
snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com says...

OK, I quoted Amtrak, cut and pasted from their site, and you say I lied.
<plonk>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:53:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

Huh? WTH are you on about, Toy? Are you drinking again?
-- "Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the latent spark. If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?" --John Adams
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I will try to speak m o r e s l o w l y next time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy

I had never before heard of the secondary definition of a pantograph as applied to a train. So sue me.
I'm still trying to figure out what you want to draw at a larger size when you have a perfectly good computer and Vectric Aspire.
-- "Human nature itself is evermore an advocate for liberty. There is also in human nature a resentment of injury, and indignation against wrong. A love of truth and a veneration of virtue. These amiable passions, are the latent spark. If the people are capable of understanding, seeing and feeling the differences between true and false, right and wrong, virtue and vice, to what better principle can the friends of mankind apply than to the sense of this difference?" --John Adams
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That Aspire software is some powerful. Looks so simple and basic on the face of it, but those waters run real deep. Every time I learn a new rule, command, tool, I am amazed at how flawlessly it executes everything. I can't wait for the 5-axis version...and Shopbot has a 5 axis machine now...under 40 grand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.