From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: rec.railroad,sci.environment
Subject: _Scientific American_ profiles Maglev Trains
Date: 30 Jul 92 01:40:15 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	In the most recent issue of _Scientific American_, there is an
article on magnetic-levitation vehicles.

	It featured the curiosity of one maglev inventor who bristled
at the idea of lumping maglevs in with trains (!). Well, both have
special tracks, don't they?

	It also featured another inventor having gotten the idea while
getting stuck in a traffic jam on the Throgs Neck Bridge on the way
from NYC to Boston, taking 4 hours to go 3 miles.

	The article seemed skeptical of maglev possibilities, claiming
that a maglev ride resembled a roller-coaster with the accelerations
necessary to make turns. However, that difficulty can be avoided by
making the maglev track as straight as possible, instead of trying to
follow the curves that many highways have. However, that would mean
going off the highways' rights-of-ways in many cases.

	There are those who ask if a maglev going at 250 mph or more
is necessary when upgraded rail technology, such as that of the French
TGV, might be able to do it. But even that might approach its limits
before too long -- when a short TGV train reached 320 mph on a test
run, its wheels were dancing on the rails and there were sparks coming
from the catenary. This is faster than every maglev every operated,
except for a Japanese prototype.

	But, maglevs appear to be good at climbing hills and fast
starts and stops, which may make them good for kinds of service
difficult with conventional trains -- the closest one comes is with
multiple-unit systems that are common on subway trains. This might
make a maglev good for service in California and nearby areas, where
there are LOTS of mountains.

	Currently, the closest maglev to commercial service is the one
planned for Orlando, FL, which is simply the German Transrapid design.

	There is a TGV line planned for Texas, that is only missing
the $7 billion for its construction. It should open in 1998 or 1999,
if all goes well. As Joseph Vranich reports in _Supertrains_, the
plans for it are starting to make the head of one airline start
running scared.

	Here in the US, there appears to be a distinct lack of
leadership at the top -- maglev programs were killed by the OMB in the
mid 1970's. The decline of US passenger rail is all too well known to
rail buffs; only now is Amtrak starting to recover. Currently, only 1%
of American intercity travelers go by rail, however that could change
with more widespread and efficient intercity rail. A taste of what
could happen can be see in the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak
carries more NYC-Washington passengers than any airline.

	A lot of the leadership has been at the state and regional
level; the California Department of Transportation has invested at
least as much in new Amtrak service than the Federal Government. The
Texas TGV is a Texas initiative (of course!). The Orlando maglev was
sponsored by the Governor of Florida. An initiative to improve
Amtrak's New York State service was sponsored by NY Governor Mario
Cuomo, and some Northeast governors have sought to improve Northeast
Corridor service.

	The _SciAm_ article pointed out some studies which stated that
high-speed trains would cover all costs if priced at airline ticket
prices only on some heavily traveled corridors, like LA-San Francisco.
I doubt that these studies took into account the "Gravy Plane" of
subsidies that the airline industry lives off of, as documented by
Joseph Vranich.
Xref: sparky rec.railroad:6068 sci.environment:10335 alt.activism:13761