Reaction to Richard Guadagno's Comments Regarding
Essential Requirements & Setting the Record Straight Regarding His
MegaRail Misconceptions
by Kirston Henderson, MegaRail
Transportation Systems, Inc.
6/19/00
I was happy to hear that Mr. Guadagno agrees with some of my conclusions regarding system
requirements. I regret that he apparently believes that I took them from something that he
had written sometime in the past. Had I known of his writings, I would have referenced his
set of requirements and expanded upon them. I had developed the set of requirements about
thirty years ago when I began my efforts to devise a solution that would be practical.
Mr. Guadagno obviously has strong disagreement with some of the requirements listed in my
paper. While he is welcome to his views, I am convinced that he is hopelessly wrong in his
conclusions on these requirements.
Mr. Guadagno is clearly a purest with the purest of objectives for saving mankind from
disaster. Unfortunately, I believe that the chances of accomplishing his objective
probably range somewhere between slim and none!
It is important to point out that the separate heavy rail MegaRail concept disparaged by Mr. Guadagno was
developed in response to a desire of state transportation department officials to provide
such a capability. This separate capability is envisioned as being used to supplement
current, heavily used and saturated conventional railroad lines. The heavy cargo MegaRail
lines would be built over current railroad rights of way in teaming arrangements between
MegaRail, State Transportation Departments, and the Railroads. Far fewer miles of
heavy-duty line would be built than the MegaRails designed for automobiles, passenger
vehicles and high-speed cargo. Transportation officials in one state are showing a
significant level of interest in the heavy cargo concept.
Mr. Guadagno appears to believe (1) that it is somehow improper for commercial companies
to earn a profit for their shareholders and (2) that only the Federal Government is
capable of developing or implementing any innovative solution to our transportation
problems. He further appears to consider that any attempt to develop a system that will
pay for itself and earn a profit from operations is not to be desired. I submit that if we
wait for governments to solve our problems, we will never see them solved until they reach
a crisis level involving possible national survival. At this point, I see little evidence
of any broad public or government support for any major effort on the part of the Federal
Government to make major investments in such a project.
Profit making companies have a pretty good record in solving problems and can easily solve
the transportation problems. I don't remember any government inventing the automobile,
airplane, steamship, or railroad or launching a successful effort to produce any of the
above. The Federal Government does deserve credit for assisting those profit-making
companies in building the railroads. Of course, the Federal Government benefited greatly
from the rapid construction of railroads. It was a worthwhile partnership for both the
government and the railroad companies. The progress would have been far slower without the
land grants. Because the cost per mile of railroads has always been rather high, it might
have been difficult for railroads to recover their investment from operating revenue
without the large construction subsidy provided by the government. Other than this example
of government-private industry cooperation, I would hesitate to give the government much
credit for the developments that he cited.
As a good example of current systems that are not economically viable, light rail systems
have clearly demonstrated an inability to pay their way in recent years. They typically
end up as a considerable burden to taxpayers. The same set of economics has also made it
difficult to fund high-speed rail systems except in those cases in which a national
government has provided massive subsidies. As taxpayers, we really can't bear much more of
this sort of approach to transportation.
With regard to "exotic" technologies, one can wait forever for the impossible
and never get anything. If we are to solve our serious problems on a timely basis, we must
exploit the technologies that are available now. I suspect that there are several people
advocating systems that require technology developments that have been waiting a long time
for the full technology and funding to implement their dreams. I further suspect that they
are not likely to realize their impossible dreams. I also doubt that many investors are
lining up to fund their proposed developments.
Mr. Guadagno takes strong exception to my requirement that massive earth moving projects
must be avoided and seems convinced that such are essential to provide useful
transportation. The stated requirement was based upon recognition of the simple economic
fact that if the project becomes too expensive, it will not be afforded and can not really
be accomplished. Massive earth moving projects tend to be expensive and thus can make it
difficult to fund projects involving massive earth moving.
In response to Mr. Guadagnošs comments regarding his perception of a limited capability
of MegaRail to handle steep grades, it is necessary to point out that MegaRail is able to
handle far greater grades than normal highways because all MegaRail traction surfaces are
completely protected from weather elements. However, MegaRail lines using steep grades
must operate at a lower speed in order to avoid a requirement for excessive motor sizes.
(His InTranSys appears to
have the same limitation.)
Mr. Guadagno disparages the use of rubber tires on MegaRail vehicles and visualizes
excessive heat build up, energy waste, and tire wear as insurmountable problems. It is
worth noting at this point that most current passenger and freight movement is aboard
vehicles with rubber tires. Furthermore, the tires of these vehicles are forced to suffer
the effects of rough pavement, potholes, etc. that create rather rapid tire wear and
damage. Mr. Guadagno is correct in noting that a considerable amount of heat is generated
in the flexing of rubber tires. However, if relatively stiff tires are used, the heating
effects can be significantly reduced. If the tires are designed to operate primarily on
absolutely smooth steel rails, the tires can be designed for far less flexure and heat
generation. Operation of the tires on smooth surfaces instead of the rough surfaces of
conventional roads can also result in greatly increased tire life. It is important to note
here that if we are to have a practical dualmode electric automobile that is not required
to have a costly separate set of load bearing wheels and propulsion system, the use of
rubber tires is probably a practical necessity.
With regard to MegaRail construction material, Mr. Guadagno appears to be seriously
misinformed. All MegaRail structural elements are of conventional, low-cost structural
steel. They are not of the far more expensive and scarce stainless steel as claimed by Mr.
Guadagno. As shown on the Rail Design section of the MegaRail
web page, only a very thin outside covering of stainless steel is used to protect the
structural elements and avoid the eyesore of rusting hulks that would require frequent
cleaning and painting. Other less costly covering materials have been considered, but the
long life and low maintenance of stainless steel has led to its selection.
Mr. Guadagno has also jumped to and published a grossly incorrect conclusion with regard
to MegaRail construction cost. To set the record straight on this matter, typical MegaRail
system installed costs are expected to range between three and four million dollars per
mile. The rail has been designed for low material and labor cost in order to make it
affordable. I don't know how Mr. Guadagno's InTranSys is projected to cost
because I have seen no cost estimates for this project. From my limited knowledge of this
system design, I would expect it to be quite expensive to build and would likely require a
prohibitive portion of the Federal budget to implement on any wide scale basis. It would
be interesting to see some cost estimates for InTranSys.
For some reason, Mr. Guadagno seems to believe that MegaRails will be far larger and more
light blocking than described in our publications. He insists that the height and width of
the rail structure would have to be greatly increased. I don't know what sort of
structural analysis led to his conclusions, but it obviously does not agree with our own.
He appears to believe that the elevated rail described for MegaRail would collapse or sag
under loads. I suppose that we could invite him to come to Fort Worth this fall and watch
the first prototype MegaRail collapse and dump the automobile ferry and automobile in a
twisted heap of junk! We would be happy to find a safe place for him to stand while he
watches the show. We will also have to find him a shady place to protect him from our hot
Texas sun. Unlike his InTranSys guideway, I fear that the MegaRails will not offer much
shade.
Mr. Guadagno further implies that MegaRail Transportation Systems is another greedy robber
baron intent upon earning undeserved profits at the expense of the environment. MegaRail
and its shareholders are offended by his implications.
I want to assure both Mr. Guadagno and everyone else that MegaRail is working very hard to
provide a transportation system that is the most environmentally friendly system that the
world has ever seen. It may not fully satisfy Mr. Guadangno, but it appears to satisfy
most other environmentalists who have seen it. Because of its very low impact on the
environment, MegaRail is not expected to have much difficulty in meeting even the most
stringent environmental concerns. MegaRail does not inject anything of consequence into
the atmosphere, seriously impact drainage, take up major sections of land or present noisy
eyesores for the surrounding area. We are more than happy to have MegaRail compared to any
other solution to our traffic problems.
Last modified: June 19, 2000