They were invented decades ago.
They have fewer moving parts than wheelbois.
They require less maintenance.
There’s obviously some bottleneck in expanding maglev technology, but what is it?
If you introduce a new rail type into your rail network you can’t use your existing fleet of trains on that section reducing the ROI on that train engine or carriage. Also, any train you purchase for the new rail type will only ever work on that system lowering their profitability in the long term.
A million times this. Mag-lev only works for either super dense routes where the added cost as you describe can be displaced by the immense value add of shorter and generally more comfortable travel. Or in nations that can force through decisions from the top down, such that cost becomes almost a non-factor like China. Rail in general across the western world is a weird mix of nationalized and privately owned companies and operators, such that introducing mag-lev with the intent to replace conventional rail would require compensation to the private companies who have invested billions in the current infrastructure else they simply won’t be part of the new one, with all the issues that entail.
From an environmental standpoint it’s also really hard to see an ROI in scrapping something that works in favor of mining, constructing and spending intense amounts of energy in all forms to build something better but only moderately so. The biggest improvement is moving from trucks to (electric) train for freight, going from electric train to mag-lev is only slightly better so the ROI just won’t be there.
Also the fact that ‘less moving parts’ doesn’t mean lower complexity or maintenance cost. Train wheels are a very robust and efficienct mechanism and most train designs are not being limited by them.
Very robust because they have 300 years of research, innovation, materials science and manufacturing in them. Making them incredibly stellar, well understood, damn near perfect technology for what they do.
There are some concepts for hybrid maglev-rail tracks that would at least solve the first point, similar to how rail was electrified over time. It would still be very expensive though.
Recent demonstration https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQOEP7_euXQ
woah this is awesome!
maglevs need classical wheel systems anyway because there might be a power outage, so simply having wheels that are compatible with the local rail system is a brilliant idea.
add in a tiny propulsion system so they can use the normal tracks at low speed without the help of the maglev tracks and you can sort of blend the two systems together in critical locations like switches and train stations.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=CQOEP7_euXQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Not to defend capitalism in general, but it’s really good at answering these sort of “is it worth the cost?” aquestions. The whole point is to allocate scarce resources efficiently; the problem is that it assumes nobody is a scumbag and all the costs are accounted for.
The current, dominant form of capitalism isn’t and doesn’t, though. It maximizes short-term profits and ignores all other medium and long-term costs. The efficient allocation of scarce resources doesn’t happen when inefficient allocation yields greater short-term profit. The stock market ensures that high short-term yields with lower total returns will be favored over the inverse. In particular, it emphasizes competition over cooperation, which is more resource wasteful for the gestalt.
It isn’t. Most decision makers of capitalism are very unaware of science. You’d know this if you work in research. The ideas that see light of day do so not because they’re good in any quantifiable sense. It is because they convince the capitalists. This can be affected by so many things that aren’t merit or even cost based.
Some things make sense from a cost perspective, but not a profitability perspective. Profit isn’t just about cost. There’s margins, competition, longevity, etc. Something can be of moderate costs, but if the margins are too low or it is too long term or a project, it is of low value to capitalists.
I’m really struggling to understand what you’re getting at here.
Whether or not a decision maker is aware of science, their products will still be subject to the laws of physics.
Some things make sense from a cost perspective, but not a profitability perspective.
For example?
What kind of benefits are there to maglev trains that are not cost related?
They’re faster and more comfortable than traditional rail. They could help to reduce air and vehicle travel
They’re not that faster. Conventional train speed record is 574.8 km/h, Maglev record is 603 km/h. Maglev price doesn’t justify diminishing returns.
Then it’s good that we don’t have them, isn’t it? Kool_Newt’s post implies that it’s due to a failing of capitalism, but this sounds like a win to me. I’d rather my money go towards food and housing than a faster or more comfortable experience doing something I rarely need.
Better acceleration, steeper inclines, tighter curves at same speed, better ride quality and less wear. As someone has mentioned below, normal trains could go a lot faster than they do in practice, because the ride quality, wear and wind resistance get atrocious, and the tracks need to be exceptionally straight. Making a maglev go fast is more feasible, though you still have the wind resistance issue obviously.
Where are all the maglev trains in non-capitalist countries? Sooner or later, in any system, someone has to do a cost benefit analysis and decide whether it’s worth it. It’s not just about profitability. There are plenty of situations in the US where something is unprofitable but still funded because the benefit is worth it.
It’s basically evolution. It’s not that we don’t get the best things, it’s that when something evolves traits that require more energy than they are worth, they inevitably die out. I’m reminded of the film The Man in the White Suit.
It’d be nice to always have the “best” things, but the “energy” to support them has to come from somewhere.
But unfortunately the mechanism that is dictating which traits are carried through and which are left to die out, is capitalism. Not just that, but short sighted capitalism.
I’m not saying maglev is the be all and end all, I’m just saying that this “evolution” is sort of (extremely) fucked.
True. Similarly, unfortunately the mechanism that is dictating which traits are carried through is natural selection. Maybe this metaverse thing has some benefits after all 😆.
The way I see it is, if you have a set of entities all acting in their own best interest, the way they engage with each other is called “capitalism”. If a subset of those entities band together to act in the interest of their communal group, the mechanism within the group might be “communism”, but how that group interacts with other entities/groups is still capitalism.
It’s no coincidence that China, a communist state, is one of the strongest players in the wider capitalist economy. And even if the CCP was 100% benevolent toward everyone, they would still only be able to justify spending that makes sense at the global level. This is why they’ve opted to no longer buy our “recyclables” as raw materials. Sure it would be nice to always recycle stuff, but it was polluting their rivers, costing them more in healthcare.
At the end of the day, capitalism IS economic natural selection. So I view a government that embraces unchecked capitalism as a government that does nothing.
I think our best chance is if people to view a maglev train (and the benefits it offers) more like going to the moon: it’s inspirational. It gives people something to look at and say “look how far we’ve come” both figuratively and literally. It’s not impossible to fund, we just need to all value it so much that we’re all willing to divert funds from other places where they probably make more sense, i.e. act in a common interest. But we can’t even do that for healthcare so…
- construction is Hella pricey
- there are few maglev manufacturers, allowing vendor locking and exacerbating the first point
- they must be built grade-separate, which can complicate route planning
- they are incompatible with existing rail tech, which results in having to build new, expensive infrastructure for 100% of your route, further exacerbating the first point
- their switches are slow, limiting capacity
Ultimately, their competition is regular trains, which are simpler, more tolerant to buying from multiple manufacturers, still significantly more efficient and faster than anything roadborne, able to switch over the course of seconds instead of minutes, able to interoperate with different tiers of intensity and speed, able to be built at grade, cheaper and having the better part of two hundred years of technological refinement behind it. Ultimately, maglev has specific, niche advantages that make it a hard sell for any system that already has regular rail.
They can’t cross any other tracks/roads. I.e. everything else must go above/below it.
On one side, it can mean this. And for lighter railway construction, such as trams, light rail and rural regional trains, this can be optional. Plus it makes yards and depots easier to build, just slap a few concrete plates for a few crossings and the staff will find their way around. This is not possible with some maglev technologies
On another, it can also mean that the infrastructure is built directly on the ground. Being able to do so is extremely useful, since you don’t need to build (as many) bridges or tunnels to have rail going somewhere. Again, for some maglev technologies, this is not an option.
A lot of these arguments apply to high speed train. In France a completely separate line was build between Paris and Marseille for the TGV To reach its peak speed without being delayed by lines that stop at every station.
The problem is investment and shitty companies holding these technologies IMO.
To compare our bullet points for maglev and high speed & conventional rail:
- there’s a big step in price between “a railway line built to millimetre precision” and “a completely new type of infrastructure that may or may not need superconductors to work”
- there are way more manufacturers for components of high speed rail. For rolling stock there 4 in Europe alone, plus more in Japan, South Korea and China. As for signalling, it depends on the underlying tech. And if we follow the current European tech standard, that encompasses a standard… That is made by multiple manufacturers, and where their systems are operationally compatible.
- for one, high speed rail is still rail, so building at grade & laying them on the ground is trivial compared to maglev systems. While some maglev technologies must be built like a bit of a monorail, which must be built elevated everywhere. And if we step outside of high speed rail, and point to rail in general, the mere existence of level crossings and street running disproves the fact it can only be built grade-separate. Sure, level crossings for HSR are a reason for the planning engineer to get fired, but for rail in general, it can happen.
- this depends on what is already there. Most high speed trains use standard gauge, and those that don’t, use broad gauge, and for that, only the Russian Sapsan comes to mind. If your country has standard gauge track, you can use the existing railway lines into town, disproving your point. And as for signalling, you can fit a train with multiple train protection systems, and many places are instead working towards using high speed signalling for general use, since the tech that makes high speed trains go BRR is the same tech that allows regular trains to run closer together. Finally, electrically, many countries use the same power on the wires on their high speed network as their general network.
- I’ve seen footage of a set of switch points with a diverging speed of 160 km/h, and it needs 9 switch motors to work. Proper high speed switches need even more, last time I checked the adopted standard was diverging speeds of 220 km/h. However, these motors all work in parallel, so the difference in switching time is negligible compared to a more basic type for general use. And these points work by bending one rail a little bit out of the way, bending another rail into place, and for high speed, pushing the frog (image for clarity) to the other side. This all unlike maglev, where you need to invasively rearrange the whole track, the replacement of which is probably several metres away.
High speed rail has enough compatibilities with regular rail to make sense.
To append, some examples of high speed systems with multiple manufacturers.
🇪🇺🇬🇧: Eurostar has, for the Channel Tunnel, two types of train built by two manufacturers. The old type by Alstom, the new type by Siemens.
🇪🇸: Just AVE has three different builders. The S-101 by Alstom, the S-102 by Talgo and the S-103 by Siemens. The S-102 is also used by Avlo, while OuiGo used Euroduplex sets by Alstom, and Iryo uses ETR 1000 sets built by Hitachi Italy.
🇮🇹: The ETR 500 is built by a consortium of manufacturers, several of which have been absorbed by others. The ETR 1000 has been built by a chain of builders due to mergers n stuff. And the NTV units are built by Alstom.
🇯🇵: Pretty much every major manufacturer of rolling stock has built at least some Shinkansen units. You’ll find trains by Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and others all over the network.
🇨🇳: The first generations of CHSR trains were all imported designs, derived from others, both Shinkansen and European types. This allowed them to kickstart a domestic rolling stock industry for later generations of train.
🇨🇭: Once we lower our standards of speed a touch, SBB uses two types, one by Alstom built in Italy, one by Stadler built domestically. And trains from neighbouring networks ride into particular areas, each of which has their own builders.
The same reason supersonic passenger jets are rare.
The extra speed comes with a massive increase in costs.
Travel 30% faster than high speed rail for 10-20 times the cost.
Is the claim about “10-20 times the cost” true? The internet says Shanghai maglev cost $1.33 billion for 30.5 km, i.e. less than $44 million/km. Compare https://transitcosts.com/new-data/ or https://transitcosts.com/high-speed-rail-preliminary-data-analysis/
Secondly, if it is true, why would it be true? Why would it be more expensive to build something with fewer moving parts?
Supersonic passeenger jets require more energy. Maglev trains require less energy.
all the other complex and important factors aside, air restistance is a formula of speed squared. Meaning for example if you bump speed up by 40% you double air resistance, and therefore double the energy cost of transport.
Isn’t that only applicable for identical trains? For sake argument, if you had two identical trains designed with poor aerodynamics, one at 100mph and one at 140mph then you can double the energy cost. But if you take two different trains with one designed to be more aerodynamic, at the same speed they wouldn’t have the same energy cost as the second has a better profile?
Plus theres less friction from needing to be on a rail.
So I think saying its double the cost of transport is too simplistic to be meaningful in this discussion
Maglev requires superconductors to work. They must be cooled to just a few degrees above absolute zero (typically ~ -270 celsius) and if they ever warm up beyond their critical temperature, catastrophic failure is the result. (this is called quenching which can destroy the superconductor permanently) So not only can you only drive maglev trains (which are expensive themselves) on maglev track and can only drive mag lev trains on maglev track, its far more expensive to build and maintain superconducting infrastructure than it is to lay down some steel rails. Maglev trains are used because the only friction that they experience is from air resistance. Theyre much faster than normal trains but it takes a lot of energy to keep the superconductor that makes them work cool, costs a lot more to build and requires a lot of electricity to get them up to speed. (They can use regenerative braking to recover much of this but its still an energy intensive process)
fwiw LN superconductors that operate at much higher temperatures are already being built https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2021/01/superconducting-maglev-train-unveiled-in-china/
Also, China manages to charge only $8/ticket for the shanghai maglev, so evidently it can be done cost effectively.
Japan is in the late stages of developing a maglev section of the Shinkansen. It has liquid helium cooling for semiconductors and lots of considerations to make sure the cabin and surroundings aren’t exposed to very strong magnetic fields. It’s just more expensive to do all that.
After Japan rolls this out and works out the kinks, it might get cheaper since a lot of they’ve done a lot of the development.
Maglev’s top speed record is just 5% faster than conventional train speed record. Thus if Maglev is more than 5% more expensive, then it doesn’t make any sense to build them.
Speed records aren’t usually representative of regular use top speeds, are they?
They’re super expensive. Few people are willing to pay the massive amount extra for the slight dectease in travel time. Investors also know that.
Look at HS2 in Britain and how people are against the cost for higher speed options, or California HSR. I’m all for it, it should absolutely be done, but getting taxpayers to see 10 years into the future is difficult.
Brits are opposing HS2 simply because they are NIMBYies and oppose everything.
Not entirely accurate. There’s a lot of support for HS2 in the North as it would greatly improve the infrastructure - but it’s increasingly obvious that HS2 will only be built out as far as is politically beneficial for the government so the project will deliver high speed rail in the south then be abandoned due to massive costs.
South England will reap the benefits (again) paid for by the tax money of all.
That’s because HS2 is a totally flawed, Ill thought out, over budget and badly managed boondoggle - just like everything in the UK rail system since the Beeching cuts in the 60’s. If it was properly run, well thought out - and actually made a significant difference in time (not approximately 15 minutes from Piccadilly to Euston), we’d support it.
I agree with all of that, but the thing is that faster journey times shouldn’t be the main selling point of HS2 in the first place; it’ll relieve capacity of the groaningly overused West Coast Mainline, allowing more freight and cheaper short journeys.
If it’s properly managed.
Which it won’t be.
