Guess what, I am a taxpayer and you can’t tell me what I “really don’t” want. Do you think i have come here from the stone age to not know that infrastructure and services cost money?
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 estimated cost of construction of the maglev line in Japan is a bit less than 10% of the yearly U.S. military budget. The Northeast Corridor is about 10% longer, so let’s round that to 11%. And I would be surprised if that infrastructure would not be used at least partially 100 years after construction.
Keep in mind that the proposal is to buy the technology from the SCMaglev people, which is something IIRC they indicated they were supportive of doing.
I am staunchly anti-maglev for different reasons. Firstly, it’s incompatible with other systems. Building it is expensive as hell because of the awkward way you have to build the rails of magnets which the train will then glide upon. Since every centimetre of the train needs magnets to be floating above the rails, the trains themselves are incredibly short and expensive for their capacity. Short version, you need a lot more trains, which are significantly more expensive for the same capacity of a normal train. A hundred years sounds impressive, but for example, a railway tunnel with conventional rails has only the drive wire and the rails, which will need to be exchanged in the future. The tunnel itself can be easily used for hundreds of years most states calculate with 200 though. Speed isn’t everything, capacity is. The Austrian railjet only drives 230 km/h because you don’t need to make the train airtight, meaning for 2 million (2008 money) plus two eurosprinters (5 mil a pop, todays money) you get 500 meters of railjet, which can transport approximately 1,400 people. Also, the railjet can just be separated into two 250m trainsets and the go into two completely different directions. All of these are benefits that Maglev hasn’t got. It’s more expensive and can do less. But it does go fast, admittedly. But at what cost is this speed gained? And is it really the most important thing if 250 people can reach something twice as fast as a contemporary high-speed train? Also, the French TGV has proven it can go 575 km/h, So even in that regard, if you were to reduce it to the engines in the front and the back in a single passenger car, you basically have Maglev, but for a fraction of the price.
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.
As a taxpayer you really don’t.
Guess what, I am a taxpayer and you can’t tell me what I “really don’t” want. Do you think i have come here from the stone age to not know that infrastructure and services cost money?
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. :)
The estimated cost of construction of the maglev line in Japan is a bit less than 10% of the yearly U.S. military budget. The Northeast Corridor is about 10% longer, so let’s round that to 11%. And I would be surprised if that infrastructure would not be used at least partially 100 years after construction.
Keep in mind that the proposal is to buy the technology from the SCMaglev people, which is something IIRC they indicated they were supportive of doing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Maglev
It’s currently stuck in an indefinitely paused environmental review as far as I can tell, due to no one caring about it I guess
I am staunchly anti-maglev for different reasons. Firstly, it’s incompatible with other systems. Building it is expensive as hell because of the awkward way you have to build the rails of magnets which the train will then glide upon. Since every centimetre of the train needs magnets to be floating above the rails, the trains themselves are incredibly short and expensive for their capacity. Short version, you need a lot more trains, which are significantly more expensive for the same capacity of a normal train. A hundred years sounds impressive, but for example, a railway tunnel with conventional rails has only the drive wire and the rails, which will need to be exchanged in the future. The tunnel itself can be easily used for hundreds of years most states calculate with 200 though. Speed isn’t everything, capacity is. The Austrian railjet only drives 230 km/h because you don’t need to make the train airtight, meaning for 2 million (2008 money) plus two eurosprinters (5 mil a pop, todays money) you get 500 meters of railjet, which can transport approximately 1,400 people. Also, the railjet can just be separated into two 250m trainsets and the go into two completely different directions. All of these are benefits that Maglev hasn’t got. It’s more expensive and can do less. But it does go fast, admittedly. But at what cost is this speed gained? And is it really the most important thing if 250 people can reach something twice as fast as a contemporary high-speed train? Also, the French TGV has proven it can go 575 km/h, So even in that regard, if you were to reduce it to the engines in the front and the back in a single passenger car, you basically have Maglev, but for a fraction of the price.
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.