Thoroughly Debunking Maglev Myths

[ontheBNSF]

1. It is more expensive than rail technology

In some cases Maglev can be more expensive than rail but in other it isn't. There is no inherent high cost in Maglev technology. The transrapid is expensive for the simple reason that it is older technology, but newer technologies can offer lower costs. The UK Ultraspeed project costs around 29 billion dollars where as the HS2 project costs around 44 billion dollars. The Maglev 2000 technology can be built for around 13 million dollars a mile. The Orlando Maglev was originally going to be built (until it was rejected) for around 20 million dollars a mile, which is very comparable to the cost of a light rail system or in many cases a lot less. Maglev also achieves operational savings through lower labor cost achieved by less maintenance and through vehicle automation. More over the cost of rail projects is often incredibly unpredictable and changing.

http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/dispelling-myths-blow.pdf

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Summer03/maglev2.html

http://www.maglev2000.com/works/how-08.html

http://www.wnyc.org/story/283384-orlando-maglev-plan-gets-tentative-approval/

2. It consumes more energy

Studies comparing a Transrapid vehicle and a similar ICE 3 vehicle showed that the Transrapid consumed less energy at higher speeds and more at lower speeds. Comparisons of other Maglev systems to rail have shown greater energy efficiency with the maglev. Most of the energy of a maglev is not lost to lifting the train but to aerodynamic drag which can be solved with evacuated tubes. More over maglev can save energy through a lack of rail and catenary friction, which both consume large amounts of energy and constant maintenance of rail systems also consume large amounts of energy.

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/ph240/ilonidis2/

http://www.transrapid.de/cgi-tdb/en/basics.prg?a_no=47

http://lme.epfl.ch/webdav/site/lme/shared/import/migration/Herzberg.pdf

http://www.swissmetro.ch/en/content/sustainability

3. Maglev is High Tech Futurism and Not a Practical Solution

I could very well argue that those who want to build rail systems or want to create modern steam engines as alternative to internal combustion engines only want to do it for the purpose of nostalgia and are "foamers" who don't want practical solutions. I could argue that electric cars are incapable of being practical. At the end of the day making statements and insults doesn't make the case for your side better.

4. Maglev is Another Train

This argument is made by pro-car and pro-aviation people who dislike both rail and maglev, but this argument is itself a non sequitor. Trains are simply a vehicle configuration and Maglev is a guideway technology. Trains are not a bad vehicle configuration but more over there are maglev system that use pods, maglev system which use airplane like vehicles, and maglev systems.

5. Maglev can't be used for freight

Actually it can. 

http://www.transportation.northwestern.edu/docs/2007/2007.03.28.Tanger.Presentation.pdf
http://www.maglev2000.com/apps/apps-02.html

6. Maglev can't be used with existing infrastructure

In many cases it is simply not desirable to use existing infrastructure because it is in both a state of decay and the existing infrastructure was designed for previous needs and not today's needs. The large majority of American rail infrastructure is woefully outdated (being built in the 19th century) and will need replacement at some point. Building HSR in the US will require both new ROW and new dedicated tracks. It is really only desirable to use existing infrastructure for HSR when a system is dedicated towards passenger service (like in the case of the TGV). That said some maglev system can be built along existing trackage and ROW and the Maglev 2000 can adapt existing trackage to be used with maglev if it is truly desirable to do so.

http://larouchepac.com/node/14730

http://www.maglev2000.com/apps/apps-09.html

http://www.transrapid.de/pdf/tri_engl.pdf

[overall]

Since you appear to be knowledgeable in this technology, I'm curious as to peak power demand of a transrapid maglev in KW and the reactive power demand in KVAR. Would a maglev system be fed commercial power at various points along the line? What happens to the train if the system loses power suddenly?

Thanks

George

[schlimm]

If that is so why did the Chinese reverse their original decision on Maglev on the line from Shanghai to Hangzhou?  They have the money.

Why did the Germans decide against building additional Maglev lines beyond the test line.  They pioneered the concept.

[Murphy Siding]

      Will there be any Mag-Lev trains running into Cleveland Station any time soon?  If so, will there be a Trainfinder there, to help folks find their trains on the Rapid Transit?

[ndbprr]

So now all we need to do is replace current railroads with maglev after we buy up or take the real estate by eminent domain. Replace all the rolling stock. Displace millions of people and who is going to pay for it? Shouldn't cost more then two or three trillion dollars and where will that come from?

[desertdog]

ndbprr

So now all we need to do is replace current railroads with maglev after we buy up or take the real estate by eminent domain. Replace all the rolling stock. Displace millions of people and who is going to pay for it? Shouldn't cost more then two or three trillion dollars and where will that come from?

We can sell bonds to the Chinese?

John Timm

[Kyle]

The railroads would have to replace everything. The problem is that the railroads have so much rolling stock, locomotives, parts, rails, and even if you would phase them out, the railroads would become unreliable because the old equipment would break, ad the railroad would buy new equipment.  We would also have to old narrow gauge and standard gauge problem were to get from one place to another the freight would have to be transferred between different cars.  Railroads would also need new corridors because you have to rip up the rails, and then build the maglev system to build it in existing corridors, which means corridors closed for years, and no freight moving.  Maglevs aren't practical!  RAILROADS WONT SWITCH!!!

[vsmith]

One reason Maglevs can be frighteningly expensive is that while the base infrastructure may be arguably comperable to HSTs, all the computerized control and safety equipment adds and the actual magnets and power systems are very complicated and expensive.

Personally I doubt Maglevs will ever go far...its much easier to work an HST system into already existing ROWs and infrastructure systems.

[cacole]

The thing that makes Maglev prohibitively expensive is the need for a dedicated guideway and the cost of acquiring right-of-way for it.  Too many NIMBY and BANANA types along proposed routes who can drag land acquisition through the courts for years on end.

[chutton01]

But of course, since nation-wide Maglevs transport systems, just like sustained Nuclear Fusion power generation, are (always) a mere 2 decades into the future.

In other news, one of the first commercial Maglev systems built, a people mover at Birmingham UK airport, was replaced by A CABLE CAR system a decade ago (AirRail Link)  .

[Firelock76]

Besides, how you gonna run steam excursions on MagLev lines?  I mean, let's keep it practical here!

[zugmann]

 

Firelock76

Besides, how you gonna run steam excursions on MagLev lines?  I mean, let's keep it practical here!

That's be some awesome Steampunk.

[erikem]

To expand a bit on what Caole wrote, the guideway will be very expensive as it has to be built within an accurate alignment and has to be maintained to that alignment. The latter may be the more difficult to overcome as the earth's surface moves a bit in many places (e.g. fault lines shifting, settling from changes in groundwater, etc). With a traditional railroad, the ballast provides a mean to make adjustments when the earth's surface does a little dance.

On other advantage of conventional rail is that it is far easier to get external power to the vehicle.

Another disadvantage of maglev (and very high speed rail) is air resistance - airplanes get around this by flying in lower density air. With another factor of two improvement in specific energy over currently available, though still experimental, Li-S batteries, short range electric airliners will become technically feasible. With careful design of the props, these airliners should be quiet. (FWIW, Li-S batteries are good for 450w-hr/kg)

- Erik

[ontheBNSF]

ndbprr

So now all we need to do is replace current railroads with maglev after we buy up or take the real estate by eminent domain. Replace all the rolling stock. Displace millions of people and who is going to pay for it? Shouldn't cost more then two or three trillion dollars and where will that come from?

That is what one calls a strawman.

[ontheBNSF]

overall

Since you appear to be knowledgeable in this technology, I'm curious as to peak power demand of a transrapid maglev in KW and the reactive power demand in KVAR. Would a maglev system be fed commercial power at various points along the line? What happens to the train if the system loses power suddenly?

Thanks

George

http://www.maglev2000.com/works/how-08.html#Question7

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=229580

Maglev's have different ways of dealing with it.

[ontheBNSF]

chutton01

But of course, since nation-wide Maglevs transport systems, just like sustained Nuclear Fusion power generation, are (always) a mere 2 decades into the future.

In other news, one of the first commercial Maglev systems built, a people mover at Birmingham UK airport, was replaced by A CABLE CAR system a decade ago (AirRail Link)  .

Well nuclear fusion both Hot Fusion and LENR has made some legitimate advancements in recent years and I think people are wrong to insult it. Maglev is ready today and is not in development more.

[ontheBNSF]

schlimm

If that is so why did the Chinese reverse their original decision on Maglev on the line from Shanghai to Hangzhou?  They have the money.

Why did the Germans decide against building additional Maglev lines beyond the test line.  They pioneered the concept.

In the case of China they decided against building more transrapid lines, but they are still using maglev for other uses. They are developing a 620mph maglev.  As for Germany, the Transrapid is outdated and expensive technology.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/china-developing-600-mph-airless-maglev-high-speed-train/

http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90781/90879/6595888.html

[ontheBNSF]

As for the comments about cost, I provided solid examples of Maglev costing less money in terms of capital and operational cost.

[BaltACD]

ontheBNSF

As for the comments about cost, I provided solid examples of Maglev costing less money in terms of capital and operational cost.

Utopia traditionally has cost less than reality.

[schlimm]

Back to Fantasyland where anything you dream goes, regardless of facts.

[ontheBNSF]

schlimm

Back to Fantasyland where anything you dream goes, regardless of facts.

I am the only who has actually provided any facts. All you have done is throw out insults.

[ontheBNSF]

BaltACD

ontheBNSF

As for the comments about cost, I provided solid examples of Maglev costing less money in terms of capital and operational cost.

Utopia traditionally has cost less than reality.

Nostalgia works a lot better than actual transportation solutions.

[zugmann]

ontheBNSF

ndbprr

So now all we need to do is replace current railroads with maglev after we buy up or take the real estate by eminent domain. Replace all the rolling stock. Displace millions of people and who is going to pay for it? Shouldn't cost more then two or three trillion dollars and where will that come from?

That is what one calls a strawman.

Maybe, but that still doesn't answer the question. 

A few decades ago monorails were going to be everywhere.  Nothing but pipe dreams.

[narig01]

The reason light rail can go 30 million a mile is the build happens in built up urban areas. The costs add up very quickly when you have to relocate utilities, repave streets, and build structure to accommodate existing infrastructure. With steel rail on open Terrain the cost comes down considerably. With MagLev you are still paying for a lot of reinforced concrete.
MagLev is not another train that is why it tends to be very expensive compared to rail.

Existing infrastructure is what we have today. The parts that see the heaviest useage are the parts that get the most investment of money, research and resources. In particular the main lines of every Class I railway in this country. Literally Billions of dollars are spent keeping these lines in the best of shape. And that money spent keeping those rails in the best shape pays in the dividend of absolutely reliable and trouble free service.

One of the charts shows the energy cost at higher speeds that MagLev is better user of energy at higher speed. That chart shows a "extrapolated " number not a real number. It compares a German DB ICE train. The reason that it can not be used is ICE can not go that fast. If an electric train set is balanced for a higher speed the energy useage will not go up that fast.

MagLevs disadvantages are the same as monorail systems. Further when you are talking about aircraft speeds and start competing with airlines you run into the same problems in costs that railroads had when trying to compete heading with trucking. Namely that railroads have a lot of fixed infrastructure. Trucks and airlines can change routes a lot cheaper because they do jot have to pay directly for unused infrastructure. When passengers change destination desires an airline can change airports without having to abandon huge cost(yes airport facilities cost but a lot less then the whole airport) .

Rgds IGN

[Norm48327]

ontheBNSF

Nostalgia works a lot better than actual transportation solutions.

No nostalgia involved; just reality. If you read the history books you'll find similar dreams that sounded good but didn't last. Examples would be streetcars, inter-urbans, and local passenger trains. The latter only thrived in major metropolitan areas. Many went by the wayside for lack of demand.

That said, new technology is worth investigating, but cost is the driving factor. If it costs more than we can afford is it feasable?  The answer is in your wallet.

[BaltACD]

Money talks!  BS walks.

[schlimm]

ontheBNSF

schlimm

Back to Fantasyland where anything you dream goes, regardless of facts.

I am the only who has actually provided any facts. All you have done is throw out insults.

I gave real world questions of:  1. why the Chinese abandoned building a maglev line from Shanghai to Hangzhou; and 2. why the Germans, who had pioneered maglev, abandoned plans to build any more lines.  You gave no answers.  As to your facts, you only cited several think pieces, which are simply opinions of a highly speculative nature.   Many other posters also raised serious questions, which you seem incapable of responding to with anything more than facile and inaccurate retorts.  I can only conclude that once again you are posting about your obsession with futuristc schemes such as maglev, much akin to the vacuum tube line proposed earlier.

[ontheBNSF]

schlimm

ontheBNSF

schlimm

Back to Fantasyland where anything you dream goes, regardless of facts.

I am the only who has actually provided any facts. All you have done is throw out insults.

I gave real world questions of:  1. why the Chinese abandoned building a maglev line from Shanghai to Hangzhou; and 2. why the Germans, who had pioneered maglev, abandoned plans to build any more lines.  You gave no answers.  As to your facts, you only cited several think pieces, which are simply opinions of a highly speculative nature.   Many other posters also raised serious questions, which you seem incapable of responding to with anything more than facile and inaccurate retorts.  I can only conclude that once again you are posting about your obsession with futuristc schemes such as maglev, much akin to the vacuum tube line proposed earlier.

I actually responded about the Chinese, they are still using maglev and will have a super high speed maglev by 2015. You seem to completely ignore it. In the case of Germany, it is hard to say why they abandoned the technology probably a combination of factors.

[ontheBNSF]

Norm48327

ontheBNSF

Nostalgia works a lot better than actual transportation solutions.

No nostalgia involved; just reality. If you read the history books you'll find similar dreams that sounded good but didn't last. Examples would be streetcars, inter-urbans, and local passenger trains. The latter only thrived in major metropolitan areas. Many went by the wayside for lack of demand.

That said, new technology is worth investigating, but cost is the driving factor. If it costs more than we can afford is it feasable?  The answer is in your wallet.

Actually there is quite a lot of nostalgia involved, in that railfans will often try to implement rail projects not necessarily out of practicality but out of simple desire to have trains built. Never mind the many failures of rail projects both domestically and abroad. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another. Definitely nostalgia involved. Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated.

[Murphy Siding]

ontheBNSF

 

.................. Railfans propose solutions which would only work in certain parts of the US (corridors) and that most people won't ever use these but will indefinitely have to pay for in one way or another....... Never mind the fact that costs of rail projects always seem to be underestimated and always change the minute come time to actually build it and ridership always seems to be greatly over estimated.

  Oh please- tell us more about these Mag-Lev projects that would run outside of the corridors where all the riders are, will come in under budget, and will have more riders than they thought possible?