Train To Nowhere?

I wouldn't say it's a 'Train to Nowhere'. Rather, it's on the fast track to ever-increasing debt:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006256.html

The case for maglev is weak except for point to point links like airport shuttles. The limits of wheel on rail have not yet been reached, even in Europe and the trains can use existing terminals and trackage where necessary.

Maglev is a marginal technical improvement to the very most efficient aspect of the whole train on rail design. Unless there should be a tremendous reductions in costs (meaning another technical revolution of which the maglev would become a minor aspect) I don't believe that the concept can really "take off".

http://www.trensquebec.qc.ca/ If you load this page, wait for the video to appear in the upper right corner. This concept appears to be much more flexible, adaptable and while it would be slower than a tgv, fast accelerations and deceleration would mean equivalent travel time where stops are present. The nicer aspect is that it does not need extensive rights of way and can easily cross natural as well as man made obstacles.

Ah yes! I forget about monorails. Of all the modes of surface transportation, the monorail appears to be the most economical mode to implement. It doesn't require much land. It can be run along almost all right-of-ways, like RR trackage or highways. There is a monorail system that has been operating in Germany for close to 90(?) years. The monorail system in Seattle was built for the world's fair and is still operating. It has been paid for in full in it's first year of operation. The designer and builder of the monorail offered to build one in Los Angeles at no cost to the city, but they turned down the offer. I believe it had something to do with the politics of the city, energy interests, unions, etc.

Thanks for the monorail comments ! I would like to stress though that the video pictured within the link in my previous post is not your run off the mill monorail :

1) Being suspended from above, the track remains snow free ! (they are covered).

2) Also, while the tracks of a regular train can run along highways right of ways, the investment cost to cross any obstacle is nonetheless extremely high, be it a river, an existing road, another railway track. Not so with this suspended monorail shuttle which can indiferently cross river, ponds, highways, anything.... + it can penetrate to the heart of any city without having to tear down anything !!!

3) The shuttle aspect is also really important as it is NOT a suspended train : Only one lightweight shuttle at any time between any two pylones means that the infrastructure can remain relatively light.

Thanks again !

I think there would have to be a good justification for adopting maglev over high speed rail. I don't know what the cost-per-mile between maglev and high speed rail would be, but guessing; I would say; maglev would be costly in regard to construction, operation and maintenance. In hilly country, maglev might have an advantage over high speed rail. How would either system operate in heavy snow areas? High speed rail could at least slow down and snow could be plowed, but could the same be true of maglev? I think there is a need for high speed rail where it can be effective, but no need for a super speed system.

The speed of trains isn't what keeps Americans from riding them; it is the convenience of automobiles and air planes. The US is probably the last place on earth that high speed rail would ever be appreciated. Nearly all US citizens own automobiles that run on a well designed and safe interstate system thus Americans have little desire to restrict themselves to transit schedules, or to travel in boxes full of "criminals" like we see in our movies.

In older countries like Italy or Greece where roads were originally built for ox carts rather than cars, improved public transit options are far more likely to result in positive payback rather than turn into bottomless pits of taxpayer subsidies like AmTrak has been since it was created in the 70s.

"The convenience of automobiles and air planes". Hum... I am all with you concerning the convenience of the automobile.

For the longer stretches, such as those typically served by feeder airlines, the high speed train, or rather suspended monorail shuttles, could provide much more "convenience" : Departure and arrival from the heart of towns, less extensive security measures, absence of weather delays, consequent travel time competitive or even much less that air planes, much more flexible schedules...

For me if the drive is less than 8 hours I take my personal vehicle rather than spend 3 hours dealing with the air port and the auto rental. If the trip is over 8, then a plane is the way to go, so the only place for the train is say 5-8 hour trips.

So for these mid-range trips perhaps a high-speed train could get me there in 4 hours instead of six, but then I still have to acquire a car when I get there, so I might as well just drive.