I would be surprised if the French TGV can go into tunnels at those speeds, or maintain them safely 24-7. Also, the 100 years figure is one I completely made up based on what I’ve seen from conventional trains, I have no idea how long maglev track actually lasts.
Also, the scmaglev is advertised to be able to hold up to 728 people in the 12 car configuration, and can probably reach high frequencies similar to the rest of the shincansen system.
Speed matters for people to actually want to use trains, and maglevs are supposed to be both much faster and even more comfortable than conventional rail. They are a proven technology by this point.
Yes, it’s not cheap, but it has the ability to significantly improve rail service in the northeast, and as the richest country in the world surely we should be able to afford that.
The other argument I’ve seen is that we have to go through all of the trouble and lawsuits around obtaining a new right of way anyways, even for normal high speed rail, so we may as well put the best technology available there.
At least they alleviated the capacity problem of the system. But since you are talking about the USA, you have high quality rail treansport almost everywhere in the EU but the USA dismantled their own railway system and essentially reduced it to a trailing exhibition. Why should now a new system that is even more expensive, succeed, while the old system, which was real world tested for 200 years, was defunded and dismantled?
In my opinion, the real issue in the USA are the politics. As you said, speed and comfort is important for people who actually want to go somewhere, but driving a train where you just board it and set off is faster and more comfortable than a car, and at least more comfortable than an aeroplane. Again, the USA have destroyed what they had previously. Why should a new system fix this social problem? Because it is a social and not a technological problem, look at the EU. Also the company wanted to open commercially in 2030, they still lack the environmental feasibility study. Let’s just call that date optimistic.
Genuinely, I want to be wrong about this, but the signs are there.
I would be surprised if the French TGV can go into tunnels at those speeds, or maintain them safely 24-7. Also, the 100 years figure is one I completely made up based on what I’ve seen from conventional trains, I have no idea how long maglev track actually lasts.
Also, the scmaglev is advertised to be able to hold up to 728 people in the 12 car configuration, and can probably reach high frequencies similar to the rest of the shincansen system.
Speed matters for people to actually want to use trains, and maglevs are supposed to be both much faster and even more comfortable than conventional rail. They are a proven technology by this point.
Yes, it’s not cheap, but it has the ability to significantly improve rail service in the northeast, and as the richest country in the world surely we should be able to afford that.
The other argument I’ve seen is that we have to go through all of the trouble and lawsuits around obtaining a new right of way anyways, even for normal high speed rail, so we may as well put the best technology available there.
At least they alleviated the capacity problem of the system. But since you are talking about the USA, you have high quality rail treansport almost everywhere in the EU but the USA dismantled their own railway system and essentially reduced it to a trailing exhibition. Why should now a new system that is even more expensive, succeed, while the old system, which was real world tested for 200 years, was defunded and dismantled?
In my opinion, the real issue in the USA are the politics. As you said, speed and comfort is important for people who actually want to go somewhere, but driving a train where you just board it and set off is faster and more comfortable than a car, and at least more comfortable than an aeroplane. Again, the USA have destroyed what they had previously. Why should a new system fix this social problem? Because it is a social and not a technological problem, look at the EU. Also the company wanted to open commercially in 2030, they still lack the environmental feasibility study. Let’s just call that date optimistic.
Genuinely, I want to be wrong about this, but the signs are there.
I agree that it’s a political problem, but I think that a modernized rail system would be well-used if it were available.
I would be shocked if they actually start building the northeast maglev. Happy, but shocked.