User profile

Surmoka

@Rafael: you're right about the need for an integrated high-speed network.
But you're wrong about the technology: build the network using the far superior maglev technology and then your soo-loved old-style rail will become isolated.

For those not familiar with what this 300mph Maglev train exactly is, take a look at these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8nazrmtu...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJvq-DMez...

This technology is not cheap to build but due to its superior track alignment capabilities and low maintenance and operating costs, the maglev financially surpasses regular high-speed rail in only about 5 years. And that's not considering its value as a tourist attraction and as a compelling display of the true, enterprising American spirit.

@rafael: conventional HSR technology has absolutely no advantages over Maglev regarding passenger transport.
You can't change it, all you can do is face it.

Oh here is our rafael, spreading his wannabe-decisions as if they were unalterable circumstances out of human scope.
How low profile.

@Patty: just about everything you write is wrong, even it it has glimpses of truth in it.

1. Maglev in Germany: any person knowing the infrastructure in Germany knows why they don't have maglev and any person citing it as an argument against maglev doesn't know anything about German infrastructure. They have an extended railway network like almost no other country in the world, and most cities are already connected by high-speed rail connections. In this environment a completely incompatible system is a no-go. This is a no brainer. But this is not Maglev's fault.

2. Maglev in China: since it's significantly cheaper to operate and maintain than any other transport system, your argument about it being a financial disaster is nonsense. They didn't extend their maglev line YET because of political reasons: they are putting pressure on Germany and literally blackmailing them into selling the technology to China. The Chinese have tried to steal it for years but to no avail.

3. Capital costs: you're obviously no transportation expert. No sane person working on this field judges the viability of a transport connection by its capital costs. As a starting point, you have to assess its full lifetime costs where maglev already wins over HSR in about 5 years on flat terrain whereas on challenging terrain it wins right from the start. And it's the secondary benefits that matter. If the endpoints are worth connecting to boost economic growth, capital costs practically sink into irrelevance. It all comes down to the viability of a transport corridor. The maglev's biggest advantage is that it can turn not-so-viable transport corridors into winning ones just by sheer speed.

@lvice: I'm (unfortunately) not working for maglev. I'm a railway engineer with enthusiasm towards maglev. That's because I've seen it, I've ridden it, I've been there, and I know it from the inside out as well as conventional rail technology. And the only aspect where maglev is not superior to regular rail is freight carrying capability. In other fields the competition doesn't even need to start.

By the way, you're trying to dismiss me because of your supposition of where I work. What is meaningless is your argumentation as long as you try to counter me instead of what I say.