Forums

Adron Hall

Was there something else to actually reply to?

   Obviously, I didn't think so, but not for the same reasons, entirely.   The first point keeping in mind is that similar things are given different names because they do different things.  Some monorails are "transit".   Others are "tourist attractions".  Some are "both."  The equipment might be the same, but the business model - and the pricing- isn't.  The Seattle Center monorail isn't a "profitable transit system" for three reasons.  First, unlike other systems, it never had to pay for its right-of-way, and I have yet to see anything that suggests that the current fare-box intake can handle infrastructure costs.  Next, it isn't a system.  Systems are interwoven complexes of sub-systems.  This thing is a two-stop straight line going from where nobody works to where nobody lives.  Very different from the usual transit model.  which brings up the third point: it isn't, for the overwhelming bulk of the users, a transit system...and many of those who do use it as such don't pay, (or, at least, didn't once.  Dunno.)

    Next, by the standard used, there are hundreds of profitable public transit systems in the Seattle area, although that's as in in "open to the paying public" not "publicly owned".  If the Center monorail counts as a "public transit system", so does the Grey Line airport shuttle.

   Finally, many of the benefits claimed for "monorails" here are specious.

  First, Alweg systems are not particularly efficient in and of themselves.  They can be efficient, because they are very light weight, but steel wheels will, all else equal, always beat rubber.They are unsafe, however, compared to heavy or light rail, in the sense that they can't take a hit.  All of the claimed advantages flow from that light weight much more than from the design.  If you allowed more creativity in passenger protection, or controlled the system more closely, a steel tired version could be made on the same light infrastructure, for a 10-30 % increases in rolling efficiency

   Which brings up the better aesthetics.  Light rail has to build heavy because of safety requirements, some real, and some outdated, and some universally applied even though the conditions that called for them have changed.  At the time cities demanded strong steel streetcars, taking a hit from a freight at medium speed was a real risk in many cities.  Ain't so anymore, and our safety regulators have never caught up.  Nor have we asked them to, since car-builders like overbuilding just fine, as do politicians.  It's more money flowing through.

   Finally, monorails are rotten at switching, which is one reason why an all-monorail system looks suspicious.  Having said that, some kinda light elevated structure like Alwegs makes a lot of sense in some areas.  I have no idea if Austin is really one of them, I'm not as familiar with it as I am with some other cities, but for a lot of older central business districts, the advantages are obvious.  If the Seattle Monorail people had decided to make an integrated system that used a lot of monorails, as opposed to deifying them, they might have got a system built.

Right, Adron.  And there are about 44 systems worldwide that are proving it.  Elevated monorail is perfect in urban settings.  No matter which factor is looked at, safety, noise, flexibility, construction costs, O&M costs, monorail wins hands down.  I invite anyone interested to check out monorails.org.  (Note the plural.)

Intercity is another matter.  This is where Amtrak should be looking to build Maglev.  I cannot imagine that people are actually considering a dual-track train rather than a Maglev train between LA and Las Vegas.  What does sand do to rails and metal wheels when it is squeezed between them with thousands of pounds of pressure?  What happens to machinery when sand gets caught in the grease that is designed to lubricate the system?   BNSF has almost of century of maintenance records, yet I have heard of no one consulting them for this information.

By contrast, the maglev has almost no moving parts.  The doors, perhaps.  The rest of the equipment can be adequately shielded against sand and the high desert temperatures the line will encounter. 

Maglev may cost more initially in construction costs and because it's a new technology.  This initial cost will be offset quickly by its vastly lower O&M costs.   It is still the CHEAPEST form of transporatation available per passenger mile, whether in the desert or elsewhere.  Whereas a dual-track train struggles to achieve 300 mph, the Japanese maglev set the record at 342 mph and beat the Chinese record of 312 mph, both fully loaded.  They easily handle the 300 mph that the dual-track struggled to achieve.  LA to New York?  Take a plane.  But for shorter distances, say 1200 miles, that would be a 4 hour trip on maglev, city center to city center.

Personally, I would not ride a train at 300 mph that was simply riding atop the track and was not girpping it as maglev does.  Maglev cannot derail.

Finally as to cost, this is the era, finally, when people take as valid the claims of the RR companies that they needed to drop passenger service because they were losing money on it.  Now, just becasue government is geting involved does not mean that we can afford the same foolish wastefulness we've "enjoyed" over these last 40 years in good economic times.  "Light Rail" O&M will drive every one of these subsidy-ridden ventures into bankruptcy once they become old enough to have parts and infrastructure wear out. 

People laugh at monorail and say that you only find them in amusement parks.  Well, so too do you find choo-choo trains.  There is a reason Disney chose monorail for it's parks, and part of that reason was economy.  They figured out way back when that monorail was safer (no lawsuits), and far cheaper to operate.  And as to noise?  There's a monorail running through the lobby of the Hotel at Disney World, with people sleeping above.  Can you run the Salt Lake City TRAX through a hotel lobby?  The Chicago "L?" 

I've heard one transit engineer admit that there's a whole lot more money for them in light rail than there is in monorail. 

I rest my case.

I know Jacksonville, Florida has one - people mover or something.  I lived there and the system wasn't used very much, but just on the measure of costs it is really really cheap.  Probably from the simple fact that they can take out the most expensive element - the human driver.  Which in turn also generally makes them safer (statistically speaking).

I'm by no means a hard core monorail advocate, as there are reasons for differing systems, but they definitely have their place.

I am an advocate of honest economic activity (i.e. systems that at least cover operational costs) and in this day and age, passenger transport by rail of any sort, is extremely dishonest.  Rightfully so, being that our funding mechanisms (at least in the USA) are distorted by political pandering and such and have no basis on reality, let alone market or physical demands of systems.

It is interesting these other bits of information that have been brought up though.  I appreciate the additional follow up.

I also now, in addition to "lobbying" efforts that light rail is simply more ready "out of the box" to be laid down in most cities than other types of networks.  In the US especially.  We have rail builders, LRV builders, and every necessary part right here in the USA now - unlike most of the other types of systems (monorail, maglev, etc) which have very little builders ready to take up the effort.  There are some, but they aren't fully capitalized as the light rail people are.

As much as I loathe the modern company for what I believe to be their distortions and deceptions (vis: The Orange County Study), Parsons Brinkerhoff had been grandfathered into the Las Vegas monorail and so gained their monorail experience.  It's no small matter to have such a company with monorail experience.  Since there is so much less engineering to be done on a monorail project, I'm not holding my breath to see them out recommending it.  Ah, but the Cubs did win the Pennant once, so I should never say never. 

Adron Hall

I know Jacksonville, Florida has one - people mover or something.  I lived there and the system wasn't used very much, but just on the measure of costs it is really really cheap.  Probably from the simple fact that they can take out the most expensive element - the human driver.  Which in turn also generally makes them safer (statistically speaking).

    And makes them far less politically sellable.

Adron Hall

I'm by no means a hard core monorail advocate, as there are reasons for differing systems, but they definitely have their place.

    Notice, though, that Monorailism sometimes takes on a religious tint, with the political lines drawn between heathens and True Believers.  You probably followed the Seattle debacle somewhat, being nearby, you may have noticed that some of the Faithful avoided contagious from linkage with other systems.

Adron Hall

 

I am an advocate of honest economic activity (i.e. systems that at least cover operational costs)and in this day and age, passenger transport by rail of any sort, is extremely dishonest.  Rightfully so, being that our funding mechanisms (at least in the USA) are distorted by political pandering and such and have no basis on reality, let alone market or physical demands of systems.

   A couple of points.  "Honest economic activity?"  Why is, for an example, a capital-intensive system with low, covered operating costs more "honest?"  Not only is the word needlessly loaded (implying that other systems must be...what?  Dishonest?  Crooked?)', but it seems a less than useful standard, and one that has led to trouble in the past.  Taking on a high capital load which was then drawn down by defered maintenance is exactly how some systems, public and private, got into trouble.  The old PE was an exceptionally "honest" system by this standard.

   You also qualify "passenger transport" with "by rail" as "extremely dishonest."  Why single rail out?  They're -all- bent as corkscrews.  Air?  City Bus systems?  Hell, you can even make a real case that the negative externalities of private cars provide, in effect, a subsidy.  (I'm not sure I buy that completely, but I don't see it is derisible, either.)

Adron Hall

I also now, in addition to "lobbying" efforts that light rail is simply more ready "out of the box" to be laid down in most cities than other types of networks.  In the US especially.  We have rail builders, LRV builders, and every necessary part right here in the USA now - unlike most of the other types of systems (monorail, maglev, etc) which have very little builders ready to take up the effort.  There are some, but they aren't fully capitalized as the light rail people are.

    Obviously, I have no excess love for ALWEG systems, but they ain't bad, either, and the design is modular, and makes good use of off-the-shelf commercial parts - something that has eluded yer average trolley builder since the PCC died.  These things are ready out of the box, even more so since diesel-electric hybrids are making their way quickly into the vocational and utility truck market.

    Somebody shows you a line or loop route through a build-up cbd, where the street isn't alreaky oveloaded, these things really can make sense.  They show you a park or other linear open areas that connects two traffic areas, same thing again.  When used appropriately, this is a workable system, right now, out-of-the-box.

    It's worth noting, though, that much of the reason for this isn't inherent to the design, it's just because it escapes some of the sillier regulatory requirements.  "Light rail" could do about as well, if you could engineer the system to eliminate the chance of high or medium speed collisions, and design accordingly.  It shouldn't bee that changing the name of a system changes the design requirements, but that's how it is here.

Can you substantiate where you came up with this?

"Maglev may cost more initially in construction costs and because it's a new technology.  This initial cost will be offset quickly by its vastly lower O&M costs.   It is still the CHEAPEST form of transporatation available per passenger mile, whether in the desert or elsewhere.  Whereas a dual-track train struggles to achieve 300 mph, the Japanese maglev set the record at 342 mph and beat the Chinese record of 312 mph, both fully loaded.  They easily handle the 300 mph that the dual-track struggled to achieve.  LA to New York?  Take a plane.  But for shorter distances, say 1200 miles, that would be a 4 hour trip on maglev, city center to city center."

Having previously worked with a company that made superconducting magnets for large scale linear accelerators, I really cannot see this being cost effective from a energy or cost of operations standpoint.   This is precisely why the Supersonic Transport (SST) died -- way too energy inefficient.   Further the amount of energy it takes to go increasingly faster is pretty much asymptotic; precisely why a car get better mileage at say 45 then it does at 70mph.    The power that the French needed to set the rail speed record was tremendous!   A great engineering feat indeed but from a energy efficiency standpoint, not very efficient..   Speed and energy efficiency are interrelated .   Perhaps avoiding the SST model is wise and building more workable cost effective solutions are best for the near term.

Incidentally the Maglev systems that do exist are more of less show pieces or short demonstrators.   It is very difficult to beat steel wheel on steel rail energy efficiencies.

Are you more interested in new technology or standards for light rail transit?  

One good source  on the infrwastructure side is TCRP Report 57  Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit published by the Transportation Research Board.  

An interesting website is Light Rail Now www.lighrailnow.org .

This past April there was also a APTA/TRB Joint Light Rail Conference held  in Los Angeles where a number of papers were presented by suppliers on the latest developments in their equipment designs and technology ranging from new light rail cars to measurement and maintenance  solution.    The theme of the conference was Growth and Renewal.   Papers should be available from the TRB or APTA.

There is a technology, not new but proven in revenue service, that can be built on a lightweight guideway with a much more attractive visual and physical footprint.    The technology is the HSST Urban Maglev.  The load for this light fast metro is evenly distributed along the guideway allowing it to be built on a monobeam guideway lighter than a monorail.  A small penalty in power for levitation is more than offset by savings in maintenance of the rail and bogies. 

This technology will eventually be further developed, probably first in China where they have a similar urban maglev now supported by the Chinese government.  Korea is also developing a similar maglev with government support. 

The benefit of quiet, light, attractive fast metro must overcome the tendency for authorities and established engineering consultants to build the same thing they have been doing forever.  I am amazed at this forum where people are suggesting building massive bridges to steam standards, and freight rail standards because they last for a long time or because it is easier to get capital money than operating and maintenance budgets.  Light rail doesn't have to include wheel squeal and parapet walls with sound barriers on 30' wide elevated bridges

See www.honolulumaglev.com.  This was a near perfect solution for the Honolulu Transit project, but the need for a massive constuction project has taken over the politics and shut out competing technologies.  Full disclosure, I have worked for the Japanese developers of this technology.

Frank Latino

Independent Consultant

latinofrank@hotmail.com

860 872 3495

This is off-topic for LRT; but I have some comments on maglev.

While not an engineer, I am suspicious as well of the energy efficiency claim for maglev, especially with adding the "lev" part.   I have never seen a comparison of energy consumption for maglev and hsr to maintain a set speed, say 300 mph, given comparable drag and taking into account rail rolling and journal resistances. 

Hsr consumes an obscene amount of power to accelerate quickly to a cruising speed; and I assume this is equally true for maglev; but maglev may have an advantage in not carrying as much of the propulsion system and its weight on board.  That said, the embedded propulsion system in the maglev guideway is more costly.

Much has be made of the somewhat delicate stability of the flanged wheel at high speeds and the problem of parts coming loose; but I wonder what would happen if some maglev part broke free and got jammed between the vehicle and guideway.

The other point is that most rail travel links a chain of large and small cities.  Hsr can provide some degree of local transportation between end-points to the extent that it may no longer reach or sustain a high speed, but affords an attractive service nonetheless in supplementing faster express and non-stop services.  I have not seen a proposal for such a maglev system. 

The city-to-city 300-mph maglev competes for the 4% share of intercity air travel whereas conventional and high speed rail can target the 95% share of intercity auto travel between multiple markets.

Then there is the problem of compatibility.  Hsr can utilize mixed service trackage to reach urban centers or outlying destinations which allows some flexibility in infrastructure utilization.  Maglev requires dedicated space and easements.

It's not new, but I was impressed with the simplicity of the Pullman "Palomino" linear induction motor powered people mover.  The test track was 2' guage mine track laid on the bare ground with 6" channels torch-cut and bolted with clips to the wood crossties.  The most complicated part was the 3-phase "3rd-rail" pick-up.  Forward and backward buttons controlled acceleration and braking.  A fiberglass cabin sat four passengers.  This could be built almost anywhere; but the 3rd rail is problematic.  Maybe battery power could be used instead of a third rail to get around a subdivision, a park, or a town.

Harvey,

The engineering concerns about Maglev energy usage for lift have been asked and answered already, with Maglev still the cheapest transit mode per passenger mile.  Yes, the construction costs are greater, but given the very low maintenance costs of maglev versus the very high costs of maintenance for dual-track rail, any financial disparity is quickly made up in Maglev's O&M costs. 

HSR strains to maintain 150+ mph and remain SAFE.  Maglev handles 300 - 310 mph with ease.  You will find a group of dedicated enthusiasts, most of whom are engineers, at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/UrbanMaglev/ .  You can find numerous posts as to the costs associated with the "lift" portion, and the group is very amenable to answering questions.  Also, be sure to check out both monorail and maglev at www.monorails.org  . 

I am puzzled, however by your statement, "The city-to-city 300-mph maglev competes for the 4% share of intercity air travel whereas conventional and high speed rail can target the 95% share of intercity auto travel between multiple markets."  I see no difference between rail and the servicing abilities of maglev for intercity travel.  Are you perhaps thinking of commuter rail, where the distance to the next community might be 5 miles?  There are maglev applications for that too.

Considering that a ride from Dallas to Chicago becomes a safe and pleasant 3 hour trip on Maglev, city center to city center, the only application that Maglev might not be well suited for would be cross-continent - New York to Los Angeles.  Those 3000 miles would take 10 hours on Maglev!  Goodness!  But SO much cheaper and greener than flying.  Put Maglev into a vacuum tube (yes, still very Buck Rogers) and that trip would be about an hour and a half. 

Your question as to parts breaking loose, and what would happen to Maglev -- sadly we already know.   When there was a service vehicle on the Maglev test track in Germany, the Maglev consist crashed into it at very high speed and killed several people.  However, the train never left the beam -- it did not "derail," to use the common term.  It cannot fall off the beam.  It is important to note that this being a test track, it did not have the safety redundancies you would find in a commercial operation. 

LEST WE FORGET, any traffic planner can tell you that the faster you can move cars off the expressway, the more cars are able to use it.  Thus they search for the fastest SAFE speed at which vehicles can or should travel, tempered of course by the local government's desire for traffic ticket revenue.  That applies to Maglev in this sense --  as soon as the passenger consist has cleared, you can sent out  loads of freight.  All the vehicles are automated, so there is very small personnel cost associated with either passengers or freight. 

Note that the Port of Long Beach and nearby communities are looking at Maglev for their freight operations.  Yes, it can handle heavy loads too, but not so much that we would not need heavy rail for those major load hauls.  It can also handle grades that are impossible for dual-track rail without a lot of terrain engineering.

Check out the web site for Advance Track Products or ATP.  This may be what your looking for.

Astntom,

Maglev technology seem great transportation option but the amount of energy necessary to move at high speeds increases exponentially as you go faster.   In fact the stripped down train the French assembled for conventional high speed rail is a classic example.   The locomotive power they required was mind boggling.   Speed is expensive from a system complexity and energy usage perspective.   This is one thing that help to kill the SST, besides noise,  in favor of slower jets, was that that it and future designs would be energy hogs -- the Concorde was so bad that when it landed it was almost on fumes.  

I am not sure there is a payback on Maglev.   You could never install enough infrastructure to compete with airlines and frankly the superconducting magnets are a manufacturing and plumbing nightmare.  Just visit a super collider, like the RHIC at Brookhaven National Lab, and you'll get an understanding.

I think China is really about as far ahead as it makes practical sense with their high speed rail  work.

What would be interesting is know how may kilowatts per mile or kilometer, and likewise the amount kilowatts per passenger for that distance.