Digital Revolution
Pathologists are traditionally seen as being detached from everyday clinical practice, which explains why we were so pleasantly surprised when we came across the interesting article “A Better Lens on Disease,” by Mike May. Even before the digital revolution, pathologists had developed rudimentary ways (mainly photographs) to capture histological images and submit them to one another for a second opinion. Nowadays such a procedure is adopted usefully at small hospitals in developing countries to refer unusual or difficult cases to internationally recognized European or U.S. pathology departments.
The crucial role of histology in driving targeted therapies (both in cancer and in other diseases) calls for global efforts to ensure consistent histological assessments, and circulating images is fundamental to establishing solid diagnostic criteria. Pathology laboratories have basically changed very little in the past 100 years, and we welcome the digital revolution: it will make it easier for pathologists to conduct a worldwide discussion of their diagnoses and will result in more consistent diagnostic assessments. But the digitized lens is just a tool. It still takes the eyes of a well-trained pathologist to provide the biological rationale for 21st-century personalized therapies.
Matteo Fassan and Massimo Rugge
Department of Medical Diagnostic Sciences and Special Therapies
University of Padua, Italy
Really High-Speed?
In “Revolutionary Rail,” Stuart F. Brown writes that maglev is “the only way fast trains could pass through much of the western U.S.’s jagged terrain.” But existing rail lines do go through these areas, and so could high-speed lines. A grade of 3 percent should not be thought of as a maximum for high-speed rail: the French TGV and German ICE high-speed trains have maximum grades higher than the 3 percent mentioned in the article. Long tunnels such as in the European Alps are also possible. Moreover, in discussing a Los Angeles to Las Vegas high-speed line, the article states that any high-speed line would have to scale grades of up to 7 percent. There are many route options where much lower maximum grades could be used. Furthermore, snow and ice can be more of a problem with maglev than conventional rail because maglev does not have contact pressure between wheel and rail that can cut through accumulated snow and ice.
Louis T. Cerny
Railroad consultant
Gaithersburg, Md.
Brown typically stresses the technological wonders of high-speed rail and blames the backwardness of the U.S. on “passenger trains [not having been] a federal priority for quite some time.” But there is a far more fundamental reason: with few exceptions, the population density of the U.S. is far lower than that of the regions of the world where high-speed rail has been successful. For example, the very successful Shinkansen lines of Japan connect points in a country with a population of 127 million. California, with about the same land area, has about one third as many people. On the other hand, such lines do attract dense populations. As a “refugee” from the Boston-Washington corridor, I’m not sure I want to see its density re-created on the West Coast.
Lawrence S. Lerner
Professor Emeritus
College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics
California State University, Long Beach
The proposed half-billion-dollar “high-speed” rail link between Cincinnati and Cleveland should be covered in the Anti Gravity column. The system will require substantial subsidies, have an average speed of 39 (no typo!) miles per hour, offer poor frequency of service, and serve only a very limited number of cities. There is virtually no chance to increase speeds substantially without building completely new dedicated tracks. Buses today, operating without subsidy, offer dramatically shorter travel times, comparable fares, twice the frequency of service, and service to more communities. [Editors’ note: The proposal is for a project that would cost $400 million, not quite half a billion.]
John Day
Columbus, Ohio
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentLike it or not, steel wheels running on steel rails is 19th century technology which is only economic in an unsubsidised way taking long trains of relatively durable goods and commodities long distances with few stops and little or no transferrance to road transport at either end. Since the development of the pnuematic tyre ( tire in the US )it has just been a question of time before it's inherent limitations show up in the economics. Energy use comparisons that appear to favour it over road freight haulage are not comparing like with like as trains do not have to compete with other traffic on the same route and no matter how long you make them convey less passengers or freight than a road over a reasonable period ( measured in hours ). This is down to the safe interval between road vehicles being down to a few seconds whereas trains require minutes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProbably the best development for medium range fast transport would be evacuated tube transport ( ETT ) and though not yet even at the prototype stage, promises to be more energy efficient, environmentally benign, and cheaper to build and run ( once development matures ) than present day alternatives.
Please explain how ETT, the limitations of which we have discussed before, can ameliorate a high-percentage grade route?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, you mention ETT - which can be done WITH steel rails & wheels or without. Either would be prohibitively expensive.
@ scots engineer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry mate you're wrong. High speed rail has been proved to be more energy, time, and cost efficient over long distances than automobiles or aircraft. Perhaps the fact that rail technology appears not to have changed (though it has, considerably) is proof in itself that it is a lasting success.
Also, how do you know ETT is better than modern day alternatives, if no prototype has been built yet? The proponents may say so, but as an engineer in the mass transit industry (I've been working on California High Speed Rail recently) I can promise you that such plans are routinely under-costed to make them look politically attractive.
davidh1 - As an engineer (I presume someone working in systems design rather than a train driver), I'm surprised to see your blanket statement that "High speed rail has been proved to be more energy, time, and cost efficient over long distances than automobiles or aircraft." Surely any such analysis must account for local variables, including potential populations served, correct?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi davidh1 - It's horses for courses. I don't deny that for some distances trains are more energy efficient than automobiles, or aircraft, but they are often not the natural competitor. Buses are not seen as "cool" but often supply a cheaper service than trains and are only slower because they don't get preference on the highway. When you increase the speed the energy consumption goes up, and as cars are limited to certain relatively modest speeds by law, the only competitor , so far , is short haul aircraft. A lot of the energy they use goes into gaining altitude, only some of which is recovered when descending. I don't know where the break even point is, but I suspect that high speed rail going from coast to coast in the US would be little better, if as energy efficient, as modern wide bodied jet airliners. This is down to three things, the thinness of the air at altitudes above 30,000 feet, the coldness of that air ( often below minus 40 makes the engines more thermally efficient), and much of the air that is disturbed does the useful purpose of opposing gravity, whereas with a high speed train only some can be used to increase downforce for improved traction, the rest has to be dissapated in wider cuttings, bridge and tunnel entrances.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi candide - In Britain the steepest gradient on the rail system is just under 4% ( as far as I have been able to discover ). The suspension system for the vehicles in an ETT would only require an additional force of that order of amount to handle that type of gradient.There is no reason in principle why steeper gradients could not be tackled. Since the primary aim is speed , the construction will want to avoid sharp changes in direction, and that includes changes of gradient. When tunnelling is required the diameter of tunnel needed for an ETT will be much less than for high speed rail, and therefor cheaper.When one sees pictures and movies of high speed rail lines in Europe, one is struct by the width of the ground track taken up.Pity and householder near one of these tracks for the suddenness and volume of the sound of one of these trains passing.
See? Reread these comments. If *six* people can't agree on any point; How do you expect 535 Congressional members to get it solved?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe U.S. is a very big place. With relatively little population density. IE cars and roads. Lots of little loads travel to a plethora of destinations.
NO TRAIN design can do that.
Oh, about the little population density; outside the New York - Washington, LA, Dallas-Fort-Worth, and like. Most square miles in the U.S. are like Indiana. South Dakota. Texas. Have you ever been in New Mexico?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHigh speed trains will never be economical in Tucumcari. Even our old slow trains now skip most of the communities *they* built. Why? Nobody there wants a train.
Trains leave you with an intractable problem: How do you drive from the station to you *real* destination?
Matter Transporters are the solution. But, I don't think they're in the prototype stage either.
I read the comment about the cost,Has any project in the U.S.come in on or under budget in the last 40 years?Not quite a billion,when it is done it will be more than,and just like the Big Dig it will be a huge mess, falling apart after just a year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this