Thoroughly Debunking Maglev Myths

[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.

[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!!!

[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

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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