Re: More on Bishop Austrans

[Robert Yee <yee_robert@bah.com>]

I agree in principle with all said. But don't forget the German Maglev, operational
(in terms of very high speeds) so it is good to see those willing to "push the
envelope". But yes we must never lose $ight of the reality.

Richo wrote:

> The system was given good PR but is still fundamentally flawed like all
> wacko proposals for guided public transport besides conventional rail
>
> The economics of new rail projects always hinges on the ability of project
> to absorb massive fixed costs (while the economics of existing rail
> infrastructure assumes the fixed costs are already sunk, and most costs are
> variable costs)
>
> the only way this system could reduce the fixed costs of rail transport
> would be flimsy infrastructure - like that thing that was built at
> Katoomba - not the rope railway but the other thing. So long as a ground
> corridor is needed, it costs. Or you could have a monorail like Sydney. They
> haven't exactly been the success they were touted to be
>
> Conventional rail may be 1820s technology but examples in Europe demonstrate
> that it still works in 1999 at design speeds far greater than the 1820s
> engineers had in mind. These hovering and levitating things sound like a
> good idea but still haven't "got off the ground" so to speak. Even the flash
> new one in Japan seems to be stuck - and if it was going to work anywhere -
> it would be Japan.
>
> Rather than the ACT mucking around - and sums in the order of $2-3 million
> being spoken of just for testing - why not spend money on systems that work.
> The ACT govt are hypocrites (aren't they all) if they aren't even prepared
> to consider light rail linking the town centres - what use is this system
> going to be.
>