They were invented decades ago.

They have fewer moving parts than wheelbois.

They require less maintenance.

There’s obviously some bottleneck in expanding maglev technology, but what is it?

  • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Is the claim about “10-20 times the cost” true? The internet says Shanghai maglev cost $1.33 billion for 30.5 km, i.e. less than $44 million/km. Compare https://transitcosts.com/new-data/ or https://transitcosts.com/high-speed-rail-preliminary-data-analysis/

    Secondly, if it is true, why would it be true? Why would it be more expensive to build something with fewer moving parts?

    Supersonic passeenger jets require more energy. Maglev trains require less energy.

    • FiskFisk33@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      all the other complex and important factors aside, air restistance is a formula of speed squared. Meaning for example if you bump speed up by 40% you double air resistance, and therefore double the energy cost of transport.

    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Maglev requires superconductors to work. They must be cooled to just a few degrees above absolute zero (typically ~ -270 celsius) and if they ever warm up beyond their critical temperature, catastrophic failure is the result. (this is called quenching which can destroy the superconductor permanently) So not only can you only drive maglev trains (which are expensive themselves) on maglev track and can only drive mag lev trains on maglev track, its far more expensive to build and maintain superconducting infrastructure than it is to lay down some steel rails. Maglev trains are used because the only friction that they experience is from air resistance. Theyre much faster than normal trains but it takes a lot of energy to keep the superconductor that makes them work cool, costs a lot more to build and requires a lot of electricity to get them up to speed. (They can use regenerative braking to recover much of this but its still an energy intensive process)

        • xkforce@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          If you subsidize anything enough it can be cheap for people to buy. That doesnt mean that its actually cheap to build and maintain. And the reason why temperatures are kept far below the critical temperature is due to the critical magnetic field and critical current decreasing as temperature increases even below the critical temperature

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Maglev’s top speed record is just 5% faster than conventional train speed record. Thus if Maglev is more than 5% more expensive, then it doesn’t make any sense to build them.

      • flux@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Speed records aren’t usually representative of regular use top speeds, are they?

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          Well, if we look at actual maglev deployments in the real world, then they are much slower than conventional trains. All of them top out at 160kph, while conventional trains going below 200kph don’t even count as high speed. There’s only one Maglev line in the world which actually goes fast. So if we want to talk about regular speed representation, maglevs are slow and useless.