Gentle Folk, allow me to introduce . . . .
Posted by Heading Out on October 26, 2005 - 3:16pm
For some decades now it has been cheaper and more effective to put transportation underground in cities than trying to drive through roads through them. Putting the tunnels a bit deeper does not change the tunneling operation itself that much, but puts the tunnel into more stable rock. The idea of Planetran was sustained for a long time by the thought of putting the corridor up the East coast from Boston to Washington. Having the train operate at high speed, and from down-town locations, and in a weather-independent location where security could be better ensured has some advantages.
Evacuating the air removes the air resistance that makes normal transportation more expensive at higher speeds (energy wise). Thus it is possible to develop a technical solution that will significantly change and reduce the need for oil.
And to those who say that this is still fiction, I am indebted to Greko, who points out that it will first become a reality in Switzerland While the idea is still developing, it is known as the Swissmetro, and has many features of the Planetran that I described.
The basic idea of Swissmetro is simple: lack of public acceptance, environmental pollution and the settlement structure of Switzerland all mean that a high-speed railway is more likely to be realised underground than on the surface. Along the main railway axes, such as between Basel and Lugano, Basel and Zurich or Geneva and St. Gallen, an underground magnetic levitation railway could travel at top speeds of up to 500 km/h. These high speeds could be achieved by a partial vacuum in the tunnels, which would be built at a depth of between 40 and 400 metres. This kind of futuristic transport is still pie in the sky, but commencing operation in 2030 may nevertheless be realistic.A quick Google scan brought up a site that shows that the concept is being taken further. That article was written in 2003. There is now a company that is promoting the concept, which appears to have considerable public support.Several NRP 41 studies investigated the potential, and the consequences, of Swissmetro. For example, a survey of today's rail and road users on the planned main line from Geneva to St. Gallen determined the potential demand.An ingenious interview technique called the "Stated Preference Method" was used, which- despite the uncertainties inherent in all predictions - is increasingly being used internationally. The results show that if Swissmetro were implemented, it would attract some 24,000 passengers between Geneva and Lausanne and approx. 34,000 passengers between Bern and Zurich per day and in each direction. Around 60 per cent would transfer from the railways,25 per cent from road travel, and approx. 15 per cent would be new passengers.Conventional rail travel would decrease by about half on some routes.
The demand for the super-fast underground magnetic levitation railway will be particularly sensitive to variations in timetables and fares. For example, a 10 per cent fare reduction for Swissmetro would result in an increase in passenger volume of 3.1 per cent, whereas a 10 per cent increase in travelling time would lead to a reduction in passenger volume of 3.4 per cent.
It is also interesting to note a paper on the need for image management of the project. As Schueler notes
Swissmetro will function as an example of a young, futuristic project, which tries to obtain space. However, every step outside its paper form meets resistance, simply because space is already occupied. Since the 1970s, civil engineer Rodolphe Nieth is determined to lead his concept of an underground high-speed train connecting all major cities in Switzerland to actualisation. An extended network of tunnels will enable Swissmetro to glide with approximately 500 kilometres per hour 50-100 meters under the surface. The preferred metaphor, to make the technology understandable, is 'an aircraft without wings and engines'. There are no wheels, bogies or engines inside the vehicle, so it indeed resembles an aeroplane flying through thin air. Swissmetro rises high hopes, but is simultaneously heavily debated. Swissmetro has the task to reduce the obduracy of the existing (world)order. The intensity of the battle fluctuates constantly, which result in a shifting representation of the Swissmetro system as well.
Swissmetro S.A. has focused its promotion strategy mainly on two themes, namely speed and underground. Both notions are marketable, because they cover areas that seem to be unoccupied yet. Swissmetro pretends to easily penetrate these spaces. In this paper I will mainly focus on the cultural connotations surrounding the underground to bring to bear how difficult it can be for a project to find the right tools to generate an imagery and language to make identification with the project possible.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Other than it was first proposed that way, and it might help in the event of nuclear war, why do this whole thing underground where the tunneling expenses are so high, the material that needs to be sealed is wildly variable (rock formations and fractures), and water pressure must be fought back while pulling a vacuum? Maintenance and construction are very problematic underground. And who wants to be underground on the quake-prone west coast, moving at 400 MPH?
Why not just run this thing on pylons above ground? That way you are piecing together sections of tubes designed to hold lower pressure? If you're going to do it, at least do it in a practical and common sense fashion.
But the expense is so phenomenal compared to standard rail construction - why do this at all? Why do we need to be able to go from NY to LA in an hour? I would think our productivity is good enough, thanks, and we really don't need this at all.
The sub-surface location makes a lot of sense in mountainous terrain (since it is the shortest distance and does not involve traffic grades) - and Switzerland is a logical site for that reason. It also makes sense in highly urbanized locations such as the US East Coast and parts of Europe. It would not probably be as good an idea across the midwest, but there are debatable points on both sides of that issue.
I for one would be more than happy to forego the super high speed concept and go with a more conventional modern high-speed underground rail system, say something with a speed of about 200 mph, along the lines of the European and Japanese bullet-type trains. Getting the political committment and accumulating the huge capital investment for any major high-speed rail infrastructure will be tough enough as it is.
It's helpful to point out problems, but no one listens until you propose solutions.
Since the intent is to provide information, you can make up your own minds, but be aware that work has been done on concrete liners that will provide the necessary vacuum seal; underground is remarkably free from earthquake damage (ask the coal miners who did not know that there was an earthquake until they came to the surface and found that the city of Tongchan had been destroyed); and one of the nice things about the underground is that once you have established a condition - whether vaccum or as a cold storage plant - it takes very little energy to maintain the condition. We will see how the Swissmetro goes, but perhaps in 10 years or so, I suspect that one or two of our readers may owe me a beer! (In the meantime shhhhhh!)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wrpupus24.htm
this says 20400.
Is the EIA up to something? 1 day difference can make an average difference of 300,000 barrels over 28 days. That doesnt make sense.
Any ideas anyone?
[ Parent | Reply to This ]
I understand that running in a vacuum will reduce wind resistance, but to do that we've got to keep vacuum pumps running 24/7. And the magnetic levitation--isn't that based on electromagnets? It seems to me that the energy needed to pump and levitate would offset most or all of the friction savings, not to mention the huge energy use to tunnel.
I think it's cool, and I'd ride it. But it's not the technology to save us from the crash ...
But unfortunately for it to pay-off energetically we would need another source of primary energy. The situaition is that by conservation and efficiency you can only solve the problem in the short run, but at some (very soon to come) point the investments in both of them do not pay-off energetically - we will reach "peak conservation", and probably after that "peak efficiency".
Finally - if I wanted to discuss real solutions I'd start discussing breeder reactors. Doable, feasible, available. Now.
I understand that this thing is entirely possible.
But WHY do we need this?
It is a huge expenditure, and only benefits those cities with enough legislative clout to get a train-stop put in. Otherwise, it only benefits LA and NY, and contrary to what these fine people may think, there are other places people live very effectively.
I think that, while it may be a really cool beans thing in terms of tech, it is a very poor use of our energy and money when the rest of the country has only a bare-bones rail system or none at all.
I suspect that, following the success in Europe it will start to be adopted here in the highly densly populated areas of the East Coast Corridor and gradualy spread outwards.
The big problem left to solve is that of digging the holes fast enough and with a low enough energy cost, and there is some work on that which might be promizing.