niiiiiiiice =) Environmentally friendly, fast.... what's not to like? ..which is why you'll likely never see it in North America.. especially .ca which is ripping up train tracks to ensure we use trucks on the highways as the main method of transportation
That's an exciting video. The good news is that California voters passed Proposition 1-A two weeks ago, which will fund nearly $10 billion for developing a high speed rail system from San Diego to Sacramento and the Bay Area. And the annoying news is that the plan apparently calls only for "steel wheels on steel rails" for the technology (http://tinyurl.com/5mmcqk), not even mentioning MagLev. Wonder why? -John Bear, who once rode the first commercial MagLev train (very short track) in Birmingham, England, now replaced by "steel wheels on steel rails."
Magnetic is good for light passenger transport, but is it capable of transporting heavy industrial loads? Just curious...
Could this be the future of... what? I don't see rail, even Japanese-style high-speed rail, challenging aircraft for long-distance passenger transport. That idea's more practical in smaller European-scale countries where distances are shorter. I do think that rail is a viable part of the commuter-transportation mix. (I've ridden the SF peninsula commuter trains for decades.) But rail isn't going to come near to replacing the automobile until suburban and exurban settlement patterns change dramatically. It's going to be generations before millions of people are moved and resettled into higher density housing located nearer rail lines. And when that happens, high speed rail isn't going to be the solution on lines that pass through residential neighborhoods and call for lots of stops. High-speed rail might have some viability in certain areas. I can see it working on shorter European-scale routes like NY to Philadelphia and for similar shorter intercity trips all along the Northeastern urban corridor. It might be viable on the LA-San Diego route in California as well. But I think that the dream of high-speed passenger rail the length of California will probably turn out to be a fantasy boondoggle. There will be big environmental impacts with these things screaming at full speed through small towns without stopping, with all the new track and grade separations that calls for. It's going to be costly (just think of the incredible pricetag on extending BART less than ten miles from Fremont to San Jose, then scale it up). Trips will take much longer than aircraft flying the same 300-500 mile routes, so prices would have to be kept low to make it attractive to riders, suggesting that it would require eternal subsidies. Magnetic levitation isn't a new idea and it isn't a panacea. I remember reading excited articles about it in magazines like 'Popular Mechanics' when I was a kid in the 1960's. Engineering and cost constraints have always made it impractical compared with more conventional forms of rail. Maybe that's finally changed, but I doubt it.
I have researched this topic extensively. Whats interesting is that in the future, once a practical way of linking high speed rail lines is possible it may actually replace air travel for long distance. One researcher stated that in 50 to 100 years we may see undersea tunnels linking continents. A pipe dream perhaps. But if you were to ask someone 100 years ago if the internet was possible or if satellite communications would be possible what would they tell you?
Gin: But if you were to ask someone 100 years ago... John: I don't know how to think about the future of transportation. When the 747 was introduced in 1970, Boeing expected to sell 400 of them over the next few years, and then supersonic would be ready. And now, 37 years later, it is still the workhorse of the airlines, and the supersonic has come and gone. I go between San Francisco and Los Angeles 2 or 3 times a year. Train, door to door, takes 10-11 hours and has been as much as 4 hours late. Plane, door to door, takes about 4 hours. Car, door to door, takes about 6 hours. A 300-mph bullet train could be about 2 hours, and the fare projections the advocates of prop 1-A were using said $58. I'd do that.
Good point. At this date and time its not practical to rely on high speed rail since it is not universal. But in the future who knows? I am also concerned about safety. If in the future the skys will be cluttered with aircraft than it create more risks. High speed rail is, for the most part very safe. I see a day when we will have rails linking all major cities across the globe.
