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
    2
    ·
    1 year 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
      4
      ·
      1 year 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.

    • JillyB@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Japan is in the late stages of developing a maglev section of the Shinkansen. It has liquid helium cooling for semiconductors and lots of considerations to make sure the cabin and surroundings aren’t exposed to very strong magnetic fields. It’s just more expensive to do all that.

      After Japan rolls this out and works out the kinks, it might get cheaper since a lot of they’ve done a lot of the development.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year 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.