The reason I said it is because there are alternatives which are significantly cheaper and more effective. Maglev is expensive, shit ROI and massive downsides over conventional high-speed rail, namely system complexity and maintenance. Short version: expensive AF.
Edit: I’ve made another comment below. Also the French TGV has proven it can go 575 kilometers per hour, why not make regular trains even faster? It would be cheaper, would achieve the same thing and keeps the benefits of regular trains. There are always multiple approaches to the same problem, and the flashiest solution is seldom the best.
I’m well aware that rail/wheel tech works well. However
It would be cheaper
is not true. High speed rail is precision engineering and what you gain from the reduced complexity of not having magnets on the rails is lost by the required precision to make trains as fast as you claim them to be. The cost for a Transrapid line was claimed to be pretty much on par with an ICE line, with trains carrying fewer people but on a higher frequency, so even that would have evened out. The advantage you claim, which is compatibility to existing rail networks, can be regarded as a disadvantage, too, as high speed trains suddenly compete for the same limited resource as all other trains in the network and are sometimes travelling quite slowly as they utilise the same, old rails because the pain of using the old network isn’t big enough to make people build new high speed infrastructure. Add to that the issue of too many stops that are added for political reasons and high speed trains suddenly become less and less of a competitive player when it comes to international traffic. If there was another network that would simply be incompatible to existing ones, a lot of these issues wouldn’t even arise. A Transrapid just wouldn’t stop in Erkelenz, Züssow or Altenbeken and no overly confident mayor could even suggest it, simply because there wouldn’t be the infrastructure. And that would be a good thing.
Also, the speed comparison is not that simple. You’re comparing wheeled trains that took decades to evolve with the first generation of maglev trains and as far as I see, that’s also the highest speed recorded, which isn’t what they’re allowed to do during regular operations. I highly doubt that there’s no room for improvement to get faster for maglevs.
All that said, I’m well aware that “the train has passed”. Europe uses wheels and I’m fine with that. I don’t want to sound overly negative and I’m happy for every cm of rail that’s built. It’s just that high speed rail needs to up its game a bit if they want to compete with planes. Right now, they’re still too slow. Next week I’ll be in Italy for a conference… High speed trains would have taken 4 to 5 times as much time, so I ended up getting a plane ticket booked. That’s a pity and had we built a maglev infrastructure 20 years ago, maybe it would have been better by now.
The reason I said it is because there are alternatives which are significantly cheaper and more effective. Maglev is expensive, shit ROI and massive downsides over conventional high-speed rail, namely system complexity and maintenance. Short version: expensive AF.
Edit: I’ve made another comment below. Also the French TGV has proven it can go 575 kilometers per hour, why not make regular trains even faster? It would be cheaper, would achieve the same thing and keeps the benefits of regular trains. There are always multiple approaches to the same problem, and the flashiest solution is seldom the best.
I’m well aware that rail/wheel tech works well. However
is not true. High speed rail is precision engineering and what you gain from the reduced complexity of not having magnets on the rails is lost by the required precision to make trains as fast as you claim them to be. The cost for a Transrapid line was claimed to be pretty much on par with an ICE line, with trains carrying fewer people but on a higher frequency, so even that would have evened out. The advantage you claim, which is compatibility to existing rail networks, can be regarded as a disadvantage, too, as high speed trains suddenly compete for the same limited resource as all other trains in the network and are sometimes travelling quite slowly as they utilise the same, old rails because the pain of using the old network isn’t big enough to make people build new high speed infrastructure. Add to that the issue of too many stops that are added for political reasons and high speed trains suddenly become less and less of a competitive player when it comes to international traffic. If there was another network that would simply be incompatible to existing ones, a lot of these issues wouldn’t even arise. A Transrapid just wouldn’t stop in Erkelenz, Züssow or Altenbeken and no overly confident mayor could even suggest it, simply because there wouldn’t be the infrastructure. And that would be a good thing.
Also, the speed comparison is not that simple. You’re comparing wheeled trains that took decades to evolve with the first generation of maglev trains and as far as I see, that’s also the highest speed recorded, which isn’t what they’re allowed to do during regular operations. I highly doubt that there’s no room for improvement to get faster for maglevs.
All that said, I’m well aware that “the train has passed”. Europe uses wheels and I’m fine with that. I don’t want to sound overly negative and I’m happy for every cm of rail that’s built. It’s just that high speed rail needs to up its game a bit if they want to compete with planes. Right now, they’re still too slow. Next week I’ll be in Italy for a conference… High speed trains would have taken 4 to 5 times as much time, so I ended up getting a plane ticket booked. That’s a pity and had we built a maglev infrastructure 20 years ago, maybe it would have been better by now.
That’s an interesting take on it. Thanks. :)