|Home | Events | Information | Overview | Projects | Goals | Accomplishments | Donate|
I'll work with you more, after the holidays. What I'm interested in most will be the true operating cost, after the system is built, and looking at a 50 year period for example. We both know, when you are selling a product, you point out your good features, leave out the bad features, and may not put in all the support personnel. A heavy rail system grade separated and a MagLev system grade separated would be a good comparison, provided we look at similar seating (and hopefully standing - if allowed on MagLev) capacity. I would say the initial construction cost for a completely elevated system for both would be about the same.
There are intangible benefits that you can not put a cost too, but is also figure into the equation.
If articles are up on your website, and stay for a long period of time, like a minimum of a couple of years, I can put up links to those pages, or maybe some of the more important pages.
I'd look forward to working with you after the holidays. And Ill try to dig up some numbers regarding annual operating costs for you.
Another paper, created by a respected German consultant, is attached
that compares German HSR with Transrapid maglev and includes required
support personnel on page 99 (Figure 8).
I agree that a heavy-rail system that is grade-separated and a MagLev system, grade-separated, would be a good comparison, provided we look at similar seating capacity (and standing thats allowed on MagLev, but we normally compared only seated capacities). I have attached a technical comparison between European HSR and Transrapid that touches on some of the points you raise. It also discounts the Vukan Vuchic analysis for 2002, if you look on page 20 (begins bottom right).
I would also say the initial construction cost for a completely elevated system for both would be about the same, but theres one factor we should consider: the different alignment details for steel-wheel and maglev. Maglev might be able to cut corners and climb grades so much more often and better than rail the alignment could be significantly shorter, saving cost. This is almost never done in comparisons between the two technologies, but it is touched on in the attached TRB paper. (Click here 1.0M PDF)
Laurence E. Blow