Maglev trains are a bigger deal.

1) The tech’s more advanced so they are more cost effective, or

2) The quietness is more highly valued, including and especially for the surrounding neighborhoods, or

3) _____________________________________________________ .

Your ideas please. :)
 
1) The tech’s more advanced so they are more cost effective, or

2) The quietness is more highly valued, including and especially for the surrounding neighborhoods, or

3) _____________________________________________________ .

Your ideas please. :)
In the future they probably will be widely used, but the tech to make them useful falls into 2 categories:
  1. The track itself being cheaper (it being much more expensive than the trains themselves)
  2. The right-of-way being easier and cheaper to obtain (since high speeds demands shallower curves and thus more limited paths where it can go)
The first one was largely solved by Inductrack and then the design of the Hyperloop proposals, and the second one is hopefully being solved by the Boring Company or some other improvement in tunneling (which bypasses the right-of-way problem entirely). Alternately, the second solution could come from government policy more favorable to gaining rights of way for maglevs.

Either this would go in the future history category, or the solutions to both problems would have to come earlier than OTL (which is about 2000 for the first problem and sometime after the time of writing for the second).
 
Had the Germans gone ahead with the proposed Transrapid network and connected the big cities it would have been a great boon to the technology. It would definitely have seen greater deployment and development outside of Germany and the single track in Shanghai, maybe even a European wide project to cut down on regional flights in favor of green super high speed maglev rail.
 
. . (since high speeds demands shallower curves and thus more limited paths where it can go) . .
Or, we’re just curvier at the beginning and end, giving ourselves a long straightaway in the middle.

And/or we accept lower speeds and go with the benefit of much less noise.
 
. . . development outside of Germany and the single track in Shanghai, maybe even a European wide project to cut down on regional flights in favor of green super high speed maglev rail.
Germany had an Maglev accident in 2006 in which 20+ persons were killed, which was attributed to “human error.”

And then at the end of the day, I still want the green technology to be close in cost to the regular technology, or I’m going to say it’s not ready for prime time.

PS When I hear “human error,” I think we should ask, did we build a system which leans in that direction?

PPS Was Emsland crash.
 
Last edited:
Plus, 11 persons were injured.

“ . . The two men had given the all-clear for the high-speed Transrapid train to start a test run on September 22, 2006, forgetting that the maintenance vehicle was still on the tracks near Lathen, . .”

“ . . The supervisors were accused of failing to lay down procedures for the use of a blocking system to prevent a train from entering a section of track when there is another vehicle on it. . ”
This second part is more like it, talking about something which is similar to lockout-tagout procedure for electrical equipment.

I’m also pretty familiar with the theory of “system accident” in which layer after layer is added, and basically complexity itself causes the accident. But lockout-tagout is tried and true.
 
Last edited:
Or, we’re just curvier at the beginning and end, giving ourselves a long straightaway in the middle.

And/or we accept lower speeds and go with the benefit of much less noise.
The long straightaway in the middle is what most designs do, but since even maglev routes are between closer and larger cities, the middle section is still occupied by suburbs and roads, before accounting for terain.

As for lower speeds and just having less noise, that provides no benefit. High-speed rail is already very quiet, with little (if any) more noise than a maglev would produce at that speed. In particular, most EDS maglevs run on wheels at lower speed anyway.

It’s something of a white elephant. Maglev just isn’t very good. Hyper loop will never work. Neither have any real advantages over traditional high speed rail.
No, maglevs and vactrains have the advantage of being able to run at speeds faster than any normal train, and still using less energy than an airliner. That has been the entire rationale for their development so far, and so long as traditional high speed rail can't go that fast and airliners can't be that efficient, they will have potential.
 

Devvy

Donor
I can see the advantages of Maglev, but whichever you turn you end up with the fundamental "issue" that every town and city already has standard rail connections aplenty, which offers access to the city centre without the problem of tunnelling or bulldozing buildings.

The only way I can really see maglev taking off more, is if Transrapid is selected early on in Germany to implement high speed "rail", and to remove fast trains from the network entirely. It'd be horrendously expensive, as you'd need to build a large amount quickly to provide enough usage given the lack of interconnection, but given Germany's early green movements, I can't say I think that is exactly likely.

There's perhaps possibilities in the rest of the world, but by the time much of the world starts on high speed rail in the 1990s, maglev is already on the backburner and you have a multitude of global suppliers available for "normal" high speed rail across Japan and Europe.
 

Around 1990, they hit the threshold of demonstrating superconductivity at the relatively high temperature of liquid nitrogen. And that was supposed to be the threshold which made the whole thing economically viable. But some of these early “high temp” superconducting alloys were brittle, and perhaps expensive in their own right.

So, the verdict is not yet (least as far as I understand).

Nitrogen becomes liquid at -196 °C (-320 °F).
 
Last edited:
Know what works?
Monorail.
All the cool cities have them
The story of the Olympics! Sold on promises of prestige and trade and economic development. City and really nation left with empty stadiums and un-usable housing.

Bent Flyvbjerg has written— Beware the Mega-Project
 
. . . maglevs and vactrains have the advantage of being able to run at speeds faster than any normal train, and still using less energy than an airliner. . .
And in different timelines, maybe either or both really hit a sweet spot in the middle and make a real run to become the norm.
 
Last edited:

Around 1990, they hit the threshold of demonstrating superconductivity at the relatively high temperature of liquid nitrogen. And that was supposed to be the threshold which made the whole thing economically viable. But some of these early “high temp” superconducting alloys were brittle, and perhaps expensive in their own right.

So, the verdict is not yet (least as far as I understand).

Nitrogen becomes liquid at -196 °C (-320 °F).
On paper that looks true, but I checked and the trains (which are the ones with superconductors) aren't a big factor in the cost of maglevs. First off, only the Japanese maglevs use superconductors, so other designs probably use less, and even in the Japanese designs the cost of a train is less than the cost of 1 km of track, before factoring in tunnels. So the main fraction of cost is the track and the right-of-way (or tunneling to avoid it), making these the critical costs to be reduced before a maglev is viable. If those are reduced earlier, the cost of the trains or liquid nitrogen wouldn't make the trains much more expensive than a normal train.
I can see the advantages of Maglev, but whichever you turn you end up with the fundamental "issue" that every town and city already has standard rail connections aplenty, which offers access to the city centre without the problem of tunnelling or bulldozing buildings.

The only way I can really see maglev taking off more, is if Transrapid is selected early on in Germany to implement high speed "rail", and to remove fast trains from the network entirely. It'd be horrendously expensive, as you'd need to build a large amount quickly to provide enough usage given the lack of interconnection, but given Germany's early green movements, I can't say I think that is exactly likely.

There's perhaps possibilities in the rest of the world, but by the time much of the world starts on high speed rail in the 1990s, maglev is already on the backburner and you have a multitude of global suppliers available for "normal" high speed rail across Japan and Europe.
The main potential would be to compete with aircraft over longer distances than high-speed rail can. There aren't too many distances this long in Europe, so it may be more limited there, but elsewhere there are routes where this applies, even when high-speed rail exists on shorter routes.
 

Devvy

Donor
On paper that looks true, but I checked and the trains (which are the ones with superconductors) aren't a big factor in the cost of maglevs. First off, only the Japanese maglevs use superconductors, so other designs probably use less, and even in the Japanese designs the cost of a train is less than the cost of 1 km of track, before factoring in tunnels. So the main fraction of cost is the track and the right-of-way (or tunneling to avoid it), making these the critical costs to be reduced before a maglev is viable. If those are reduced earlier, the cost of the trains or liquid nitrogen wouldn't make the trains much more expensive than a normal train.

The main potential would be to compete with aircraft over longer distances than high-speed rail can. There aren't too many distances this long in Europe, so it may be more limited there, but elsewhere there are routes where this applies, even when high-speed rail exists on shorter routes.
You still run up against the issues I mentioned above. Why spend all the money on maglev tracks, and the amount of routes required to create network effect, when you have existing rail tracks running through every town and city? For instance, Hamburg-Berlin isn't going to manage the numbers by itself (which was a route mooted for Transrapid); you'd need something more like Dortmund-Dusseldorf-Bonn-Frankfurt-Stuttgart-Munich to create the level of usage and overlapping journeys which justifies the expenditure. But that is a huge expenditure and gamble on the technology.

And by the time that investment might be warranted - in the 1990s when the maglev technology is more mature and ready for development - there is little point in deploying it. High speed rail is a very mature technology by then with plenty of hands-on experience and global suppliers, and can use existing tracks to access city centre stations and new fast tracks through the countryside. Shinkansen and TGV are leading the way, and already pushing on 300km/h in the 1990s using proven reliable and time-tested technology.

Outside of Europe, where you really need more of a network than a sole city-pair link to create the numbers and usage, the only other viable place is in the US. Maybe LA to Vegas? Or the Texas Triangle? Either way, the bureaucratic obstacles are massive there. Hell, even Japan hasn't rolled out their maglev line yet, and Tokyo-Osaka is only one of the busiest city pairs in the world.
 
Last edited:
Top