By the end of the 21st century, which of these 2 will dominate (HSR) high speed rail travel?

conventional as in wheels on rails

or

Maglev (magnetic levitation)

I'm throwing my vote in for conventional HSR. :)

I'd love to see maglev but unless it gets a lot cheaper...i dont think so.

Conventional.
MAGLEV in 22nd century!!
:D

I think we'll be sticking around with conventional for a while, I don't think we're ready for maglev just yet. We're about to see the convential bullet trains going up to 227 mph in newer generation.

most likely conventional. if maglev gets cheaper it will surely rule the world

I remember one of the arguments in favor of maglevs was that they have the potential to actually be cheaper. Because there is no wear and tear due to friction the maintenance cost is cheaper and therefore the long term costs can actually be cheaper. I think the Shanghai maglev pretty much "derailed" that idea. :)

With the advent of nano-tech: lighter materials, stronger motors, and more perfectly aligned rails can be used for conventional HSR. At some point wheels on rails technology will hit a speed limit now matter how light weight the materials or how strong the motor may be but I'm curious as to how fast can a regular train be pushed using 21st century technology. :)

I guess all that money Germany and Japan spent on maglev research is going to go down the drain.

I guess that someone will develop technology that allows to use maglev (or similar) technology on conventional track. The main problem with maglev is that it demands whole new infrastructure, which is very expensive and makes conventional rail infrastructure useless and obsolete. Also traditional rail has its limitations, one of which is contact between pantograph and cable. On a train going some 300 mph (500 km/h) there is continuous sparkling because it's impossible to press the pantograph against the cable strong enough. Getting rid of this problem (sending energy to train e.g. by guided microwave beam) is one of obstacles in development of faster conventional rail. Maglev doesn't have such limitations and I wouldn't be astonished when, due to future cheap energy (termonuclear, cold fusion, other), it would be able to travel at subsonic (Ma 0,9 or some 950 km/h - 600 mph) speed, winning passengers from planes. What about the noise? Even today it is possible to generate anti-wave that would cut the noise to zero.
Future is amazing :)

Neither. First, I don't think there will be only one technology - different parts of the world will be domintated by different technologies. It probably will be the same even within a geographical area.

But I think most likely we will see a hybrid system. Conventional rail is reaching it's limits. It suffers froma bit of complexity, it also lacks some of the surety of staying on track that other systems have. As lawsuits and liability increase, these things will become more important. Likewise I see that current Maglev is rather complex and requies a lot of overhead power and technology. What I expect to develop is a hybrid system - vehicles that run on some sort of track, but which may be driven by linear motors. I see quite a lot of potential in teh Seraphim motor, in particular.

from now to 40 years Conventional still, then both will coexist more or less equal, then later for the next half of the century Maglev will rule.

........

Also traditional rail has its limitations, one of which is contact between pantograph and cable. On a train going some 300 mph (500 km/h) there is continuous sparkling because it's impossible to press the pantograph against the cable strong enough. Getting rid of this problem (sending energy to train e.g. by guided microwave beam) is one of obstacles in development of faster conventional rail.

........Microwave beam? Never heard of that idea before. I have heard about the pantograph/ catenary line problem though. A pantograph pushes up against the catenary line/overhead cable. This causes a "wave pattern". Normally this isn't a problem but at high speeds the wave can be large enough to cause the cable to rise up and lose contact with the pantograph. One solution is to increase the tension in the overhead cable....which was one of the modifications done to the TGV before it went on it's infamous speed test.

There is a low tech solution of course. Instead of using an overhead cable...an overhead rigid beam can be used instead. A rigid beam would not create a wave and "jump" the pantograph no matter how fast the train goes. I would also assume there would be less friction since a rigid beam would not deflect from being pushed up against by the pantograph and it's shape and position can be perfectly aligned.

just an idea?

Even if we can get maglev running routinely on an economical basis, it will always be limited since it can only have few stops. The only reason to build a maglev is speed but you can't get the thing up to 250 MPH in the short distance between urban transit stops without treating the passengers like drivers of drag racers. It is being very actively pursued in the Baltimore-DC area as a city connector, but with only 1 stop between cities at the BWI airport, even that stop is enough to slow the thing down enough that with reasonable acceleration and deceleration, the trip becomes about 30 minutes, which is only 25 minutes shorter than mundane MARC trains with about an estimated triple the cost. Why does that make sense? Why not spend the billions making the MARC trains run a little faster, further reducing the difference?

Agree that conventional will still be the cost effective option for another 30-40 years. Undoubtedly, new tech. advances will decrease the cost of Maglev but it really is too prohibitive for many tight govt. budgets and construction times seem to be much longer.

Safety wise TGV and the Shin. network have shown that conventional HSR is very safe. The interesting issue for coneventional rail may well be fuel source if oil prices stay high and alternative fuel sources start to become more price competative. Peru has just launched a fully gas powered loco service this week.

...and Germany experiments with rapeseed oil instead of diesel for some 15 years. I don't know the results yet...

maybe Hydrogen cells in every substation in the next 20 years.

The major drawback of maglevs seems to be that they are not compatible with conventional rail (passengers always have to transfer). This was the main reason that the plans for a Hamburg-Berlin maglev have been abandoned.

So I agree, maglev will not take over before the 22 century.

Conventional ofcourse. Maglev os just too expensive. There was initial optimism, but we failed to materialise it. Maglevs will still be built - one or two isolated ones here and there, to continue testing and improving economic feasibility. The wise thing will be to actually continue with conventional rails, but to increase their speeds to atleast 240 km/h + in all places to provide fast and affordabled transportation for all.

So I agree, maglev will not take over before the 22 century.

I guess it's much too long period for prophecies. Just look: in 1900 there was no plane with own engine, only early gliders. Before 2000 there were planes capable of:
- flying around the globe without stop
- reaching 5 times the speed of sound and more
- taking several hundred people on board
- flying on the edge of atmosphere

And the problem is, that development is even faster. I mean that there's way bigger difference between 1990 and 2000 than between 1790 and 1800. And finally, most probable is that we even don't have bloody idea of technology for transportation in 50 years. It may be either sth we don't expect (teleport - maybe not the best example) or sth we don't suspect (existing technology with new use).

here's an ambitious project

http://www.swissmetro.com/

A partial vacuum maglev....as if a regular maglev wasn't crazy enough. The plan is to construct a train that will hopefully reach 700km/hr. In all honesty this project seems like its in the "pie in the sky" stage of development right now. I doubt they have even stuck a shovel in the ground yet. :)

I'm curious why not use a vacuum tunnel conventional HSR? Granted it may not be as "exotic" but the cost would also not be as "exotic". Beyond a certain speed the primary frictional force is air resistance not wheel friction.

And how exactly are you going to create this vacumn tunnel? And what about all the stresses on the vehicle itself - remember that a vacum means there is going to be a HUGE difference in pressure between the inside of the vehicle and the outside. More so than an aircraft. It also means pressurizing the vehicle itself, meaning much more complicated construction.

I believe that they do try and reduce the air pressure in transit tunnels where they can, but in reality it's pretty hard to reduce the pressure by much, especially when it is so difficult to seal it up.

And what about all the stresses on the vehicle itself - remember that a vacum means there is going to be a HUGE difference in pressure between the inside of the vehicle and the outside. More so than an aircraft. This is a common mistake.
Difference is not HUGE, but equal only 1 Atm (I don't know psi). 1 Atm is what air is making at sea level. Vacum=0 Atm. In the space there is the same difference, which is almost nothing compare to what is working on submarine. 1 Atm is the pressure of 10m height of water. If you are going to dive 100m below sea level in a sea or ocean then you will get 10 Atm+1 Atm from the air above = 11 Atm.
Titanic is more then 2000m under the Atlantic Ocean.

Conventional. I think if you need to go faster just buy a plane ticket.

Conventional (especialy HSR) will dominate all around the world.
But there will probabilly be some Maglev between City centers and Airports or between residential area and working area.

Only big countries with long distances between makor cities like USA, Canada, Russia, China, Mexico, Australia, Brasil,... should build real maglev network.

Switzerland may build a Magnetic Subway Network called "Swissmetro"...but when ?

And how exactly are you going to create this vacumn tunnel? .......my mistake...It's not going to be a full vacuum but a partial one. The air pressure will be equivalent to atmospheric pressure at 15,000 meters elevation. *taken from website*

One problem with a vacuum tunnel system is heat. For an above ground system this is not a problem because the wind will carry the heat away...but if you're in a vacuum that obviously can't happen.

A radiator or some type of air conditioning system can not be used b/c its a vacuum remember. :)

I read somewhere that the English "chunnel" uses a liquid cooling system to keep the rails cool. The ocean water provides enough of a temperature difference to act as a coolent.

Even if we can get maglev running routinely on an economical basis, it will always be limited since it can only have few stops. The only reason to build a maglev is speed but you can't get the thing up to 250 MPH in the short distance between urban transit stops without treating the passengers like drivers of drag racers. It is being very actively pursued in the Baltimore-DC area as a city connector, but with only 1 stop between cities at the BWI airport, even that stop is enough to slow the thing down enough that with reasonable acceleration and deceleration, the trip becomes about 30 minutes, which is only 25 minutes shorter than mundane MARC trains with about an estimated triple the cost. Why does that make sense? Why not spend the billions making the MARC trains run a little faster, further reducing the difference?
I disagree, strongly. I think that there is actually a potential for a strong presence of urban transit maglev in the denser asian cities. The thing about maglev is that it is very light on maintenance to the point where it is almost non-existent. You would have to do some track work every decade. This is vastly superior to the system where every stretch of track needs inspection every 72 hours or so. This is what shuts the system down every night. Maintenance is the only reason. Maglev allows a quiet ride around the clock and if automated is probably a super-cheap and profit heavy operation. Have a triple or quad-tracked line and run paired express local stops within the city for combined urban tramlike stops and cross-town services. I see very high potential for urban maglev. It has advantages that go beyond its speed. The speed has been given too much attention, it is the maintenance factor that is its biggest merit.
Nagoya is already implementing the technology into its subway.

Japan already has an urban maglev line - the Tobu Kyuryo Line, also known as the linimo. Britain had one, but it need so few parts that when it came time to replace the vehicles they had long ago stopped making parts for it.

...........
I think that there is actually a potential for a strong presence of urban transit maglev in the denser asian cities. The thing about maglev is that it is very light on maintenance to the point where it is almost non-existent. You would have to do some track work every decade.
.............I think maglevs do have cheaper maintenance but not to the point that you mentioned. True a maglev train may not be in physical contact with the rails but there is still a tremendous amount of force that acts on the rails as the train floats above.

The electromagnetic forces pushing and pulling on the rails as the train rides above will eventually knock the rails out of alignment. I'm quite sure there must be some scheduled maintenance that involves "re-aligning" the rails. At least for a maglev this can be done without changing out any parts.

here's an interesting article that has relevance to "re-aligning" the rails :)


Shanghai maglev track sinks slightly

http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/13/content_322922.htm

There is no significant force in the vertical direction since the Shanghai route is pretty flat. As such the "sinking" of the maglev track in Shanghai is just a sign for bad enigneering on part of the track builders, it has nothing to do with the maglev itself.

Also traditional rail has its limitations, one of which is contact between pantograph and cable. On a train going some 300 mph (500 km/h) there is continuous sparkling because it's impossible to press the pantograph against the cable strong enough. Getting rid of this problem (sending energy to train e.g. by guided microwave beam) is one of obstacles in development of faster conventional rail.
The major one is poor energetic renderings in comparison with maglev (still excellent in comparison with all other ground transportations).
Also : limitations in slope and acceleration.
Maglev could be interesting in urban transportation if it becomes much cheaper.

Maglev doesn't have such limitations and I wouldn't be astonished when, due to future cheap energy (termonuclear, cold fusion, other), it would be able to travel at subsonic (Ma 0,9 or some 950 km/h - 600 mph) speed, winning passengers from planes.
You can expect the energy price to explode and remain very high for at least 3 decades (then, technological uncertainties are big, especially on solar energy).
Anyway, there is no real need to travel faster than 500km/h nowadays.

What about the noise? Even today it is possible to generate anti-wave that would cut the noise to zero.
What you can do is design the track and the train so that the noise diffraction point up in the sky. That works allready for commercial airplanes.
Future is amazing :)

Also : limitations in slope and acceleration.
Rather deceleration. Then the only problem to bare is the human body which is unwilling to cope with some lateral g's :)
Maglev could be interesting in urban transportation if it becomes much cheaper.
But what would be really interesting is non-friction technology use on conventional track without expensive modifications. [/quote]


You can expect the energy price to explode and remain very high for at least 3 decades (then, technological uncertainties are big, especially on solar energy).
Let's see about hydrogen to helium fusion. The reactor was just activated, we need to wait for the results.
Anyway, there is no real need to travel faster than 500km/h nowadays.
So why do people choose planes on some distances? If I had a choice of traveling for the same price at the same distance for 4 hours or for 2 hours, I choose 2 hours, unless I'm on vacation and sightseeing ;)

still conventional.

Japan's Maglev (world's fastest: 581 kph. manned run) / Shinkansen Fastech series (405 - 360 kph) or TGV....There's not so difference between them.
In case of slow version of Maglev like one in Shanghai made by Germany (only 430 kph max speed), conventional trains are by far much better.

Maglev of course.

Let's see about hydrogen to helium fusion. The reactor was just activated, we need to wait for the results.

The problem being the high temperatures required for fusion to occur. There have been plenty of fusion reactor tests, but all of them have sucked more energy than they've produced.

East Japan Railway's FASTECH

http://photos.eluniversal.com.mx/web_img/fotogaleria/240605trenAP2.jpghttp://images2.sina.com/english/p/1/2005/0607/U8P6T1D33868F8DT20050607034815.jpg
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/img/20050309i517-1-A20050310001032610M.jpghttp://www.jreast.co.jp/e/development/theme/comfortable/img/img_01_1.jpg ..................................http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/development/theme/comfortable/img/img_01_2.jpg

average speed: 360km/h

Maglev is perfect for shortdistance travel because of it's fast acceleration. Conventional will (sadly but true) be replaced by Aircraft and Roadtraffic.

Airplane or Inductrack

Maglev is perfect for shortdistance travel because of it's fast acceleration. Conventional will (sadly but true) be replaced by Aircraft and Roadtraffic.

For short distances, Maglev isn't very good because it won't be able to reach its top speed before it has to start slowing down for the stop.

Only big countries with long distances between makor cities like USA, Canada, Russia, China, Mexico, Australia, Brasil,... should build real maglev network.
The problem is the cost of construction - between Sydney and Melbourne (~900km) there are only two cities with populations above 100,000. A lot of the people on this forum want the government to invest money on improving track alignments to support higher speeds though - Sydney to Melbourne is (was?) the third busiest route in the world for air travel.

as maglevs still have mostly prototyp charakter, they are much too expansive.
Therefore its important, that some intericity lines will be built, so that the price drops....

I still hope for Shanghai-Hangzhou, its the perfect distance, for how far maglev development is right now...

heres the new maglev for munich....

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,708240,00.jpg

who voted "Horse drawn rail cars"? :D

Maglev but much later on in the century, I wish the east of Australia was conneted by maglev would be so convenient. (Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane) Haave you people heard of that vacuum maglev thing, I saw it on discovery channel, it can travel at 8000km/hr + they say it has no limit. They was used in the vision of the transatlantic tunnel.

Maglev is still too pricey to be used for mass transit. Its like travelling in an Airbus as opposed to a Concorde (pay a thousand versus pay ten thousand).

If the costs of building Maglevs can be brought down, it has a lot of potential.

I guess it's much too long period for prophecies. Just look: in 1900 there was no plane with own engine, only early gliders. Before 2000 there were planes capable of:
- flying around the globe without stop
- reaching 5 times the speed of sound and more
- taking several hundred people on board
- flying on the edge of atmosphere

And the problem is, that development is even faster. I mean that there's way bigger difference between 1990 and 2000 than between 1790 and 1800. And finally, most probable is that we even don't have bloody idea of technology for transportation in 50 years. It may be either sth we don't expect (teleport - maybe not the best example) or sth we don't suspect (existing technology with new use).
I agree, 100 years is a long period of time. But the difference between aviation around 1900 and maglev now is that the skies were completely empty but maglev has to share its space with other means of transportation.

Maybe China with its not-so-democratic attitude can manage to make space for a huge maglev network in the 21st century. And plagiarism can make the technology much cheaper.

East Japan Railway's FASTECH

http://photos.eluniversal.com.mx/web_img/fotogaleria/240605trenAP2.jpghttp://images2.sina.com/english/p/1/2005/0607/U8P6T1D33868F8DT20050607034815.jpg
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/img/20050309i517-1-A20050310001032610M.jpghttp://www.jreast.co.jp/e/development/theme/comfortable/img/img_01_1.jpg ..................................http://www.jreast.co.jp/e/development/theme/comfortable/img/img_01_2.jpg

average speed: 360km/h

No, not average - top operating speed will be 360, average will be more like 250 (if even that).

Maglev but much later on in the century, I wish the east of Australia was conneted by maglev would be so convenient. (Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, Brisbane) Haave you people heard of that vacuum maglev thing, I saw it on discovery channel, it can travel at 8000km/hr + they say it has no limit. They was used in the vision of the transatlantic tunnel.
8000 kph? What distance would be required to bring a train safely to a halt from this speed? 100 km or more? I think the TGV requires 8 km to slow from 300 kph to 0 under emergency braking. The need for such a minimum safe distance between trains would necessitate such a big headway that the number of trains per hour would be quite small, meaning that the carrying capacity of the system would be quite small, unless it used huge trains that could carry many thousands of passengers each. A recent article in a British railway magazine said that the U.K. should not build high speed lines but should instead invest available funding on increasing the capacity of existing lines due to the surge in passenger numbers in recent years. This can be done by adding extra tracks to separate fast and slow services, upgrading signalling (e.g. ETRMS) to allow shorter headways, grade separation of junctions to reduce or avoid conflicting train movements, longer platforms and longer trains.

I think in the early 22th Century Maglev Trains will start to replace the Standard Rail Systems for good in the developed Countries. As someone already said this is viewed very far into the Future so it is difficult to predict, but I think that due to the Advancements in Science Maglev Trains will operate just as cost-efficient as today's HSR Trains.

By then, I think new Power Sources (Fusion), new Construction Materials that are better and cost less (Nanotechnology) and new Computer Equipement (Quantum or Organic Computers) make is possible to invest in a large Maglev Network.

What the Maglev would need is one of these Acceleration Compensators from Star Trek, I don't know if that is actually possible but imagine it would be. :D

in 10 years, they want to build a maglev tram line in Dresden.
Dresden is the centre for high temperature supre conductive research in Germany.
And this is how it should look like:


http://www.supratrans.de/images/outlook/bahn.jpg

http://www.ifw-dresden.de/offers/downloads/videos/supratrans2.wmv

(Attention, 50 mb!!)

http://www.supratrans.de/download/flyer_engl.pdf

If you guys think where we were in the beginning of the 20th cetury, then it's not very hard to believe that MAGLEV(or smth similar to it) will replace conventional trains for the end of the 21st century... It's just that so many things can happen with 90 years.

Interesting Vdeo, thanks!

If you guys think where we were in the beginning of the 20th cetury, then it's not very hard to believe that MAGLEV(or smth similar to it) will replace conventional trains for the end of the 21st century... It's just that so many things can happen with 90 years.

Right, like we'll run out of oil. But the laws of physics won't change, and the cost-benefit of maglev will not significantly change.

I vote for maglev. I think the technology has a lot of potential if the service were economical. I do not know much about the technical aspects of maglev nor the economic feasibility of the technology. However, the potential for maglev could create a situation in which there is no longer a need for airplanes. They might even be less economical than maglev transit. There's a lot of technologies outside of direct maglev technologies that need to be improved in order for something like this to happen. Tunneling technology for one, but many others. So my vote is maglev.

What the Maglev would need is one of these Acceleration Compensators from Star Trek, I don't know if that is actually possible but imagine it would be. :D
I think you mean the "inertial dampeners", which prevent the Enterprise and everyone on board from being squashed to the size of a neutron when they make the jump to warp speed. Pure science fiction.

However, the potential for maglev could create a situation in which there is no longer a need for airplanes.
How would we cross oceans e.g. London-New York, LA-Sydney? By maglev through tunnels? Pretty damn expensive, and once again in the realms of fantasy.

Conventional (especialy HSR) will dominate all around the world.
But there will probabilly be some Maglev between City centers and Airports or between residential area and working area.

Only big countries with long distances between makor cities like USA, Canada, Russia, China, Mexico, Australia, Brasil,... should build real maglev network.

Switzerland may build a Magnetic Subway Network called "Swissmetro"...but when ?

As far as I know, Russia isn't interested in maglev, they will use conventional HSR.

[…]

heres the new maglev for munich....

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,708240,00.jpg

If it will ever be build…

Microwave beam? Never heard of that idea before. I have heard about the pantograph/ catenary line problem though. A pantograph pushes up against the catenary line/overhead cable. This causes a "wave pattern". Normally this isn't a problem but at high speeds the wave can be large enough to cause the cable to rise up and lose contact with the pantograph. One solution is to increase the tension in the overhead cable....which was one of the modifications done to the TGV before it went on it's infamous speed test.

There is a low tech solution of course. Instead of using an overhead cable...an overhead rigid beam can be used instead. A rigid beam would not create a wave and "jump" the pantograph no matter how fast the train goes. I would also assume there would be less friction since a rigid beam would not deflect from being pushed up against by the pantograph and it's shape and position can be perfectly aligned.

just an idea?

Another idea is to use a live rail.

The major drawback of maglevs seems to be that they are not compatible with conventional rail (passengers always have to transfer). This was the main reason that the plans for a Hamburg-Berlin maglev have been abandoned.

[…]

Right, that's a very big problem and it will be the reason why the maglevs will have no chance in countries with a high density railway net.

We can decently imagine that oil will be a lot more expensive in 50 years than nowadays. I believe that then we will have cars being powered by something else than oil, but I believe airplane will still work with combustion. As such, we can imagine air travel being more expensive in 50 years and, depending on the oil prices, we can imagine that some world regions which wouldn't have already invested in a high speed rail network may consider to build a maglev network at that time.

As such, it's possible that countries such as China or the United States may consider building a maglev network if it actually becomes more competitive than air travel. However, the high speed rail technology will also improve, and I don't believe Europe, which is currently building a very extensive high speed network, will have any reason to build a maglev network. Same goes for Japan.

For this, it would require the maglev technology to make the high speed rail technology completely obsolete. Considering how expensive it is to build such an infrastructure, it would really need maglev to be 3 times less expensive to maintain and 3 times faster than HSR. I don't see this coming.

How would we cross oceans e.g. London-New York, LA-Sydney? By maglev through tunnels? Pretty damn expensive, and once again in the realms of fantasy.

Indeed. This would probably be a 22nd century idea, but who knows what technology will be invented and how the economics of the world will look like.

in 10 years, they want to build a maglev tram line in Dresden.
Dresden is the centre for high temperature supre conductive research in Germany.
And this is how it should look like:


http://www.supratrans.de/images/outlook/bahn.jpg

http://www.ifw-dresden.de/offers/downloads/videos/supratrans2.wmv

(Attention, 50 mb!!)

http://www.supratrans.de/download/flyer_engl.pdf
MAGLEV tramway?
:sly:
Do you think we will see a "MAGLEV metro" soon?
:?

well, if the technology works out and is cheap enough, why not put it in a tunnel?

The maglev in Munich will run in a 5 km long tunnel into the downtown area,to the main station.

This line will be built with german subway standarts, when it comes to fire protection ....

The world is reaching a point where R&D outpaces political understanding and consensus. Perhaps several modes will be found beyond maglev technology within the next 90 years or so, but the development and experience will be very limited.

Thus, conventional HSR will dominate the 21st century. California, of all places, is still struggling to build one.

Conventional wheels and steel rails have a 200+ year history of research and development. We can still rely on them fairly well, and even surprisingly at higher speeds too, as the recent TGV records show us.

i hope and i think maglev

Maglev technology wil be a NO NO until they can manage to squeese it into the "2 horse backsides" standard of all times ...


I don't see a maglev system replacing the CapeGauge/MetreGauge and UIC.gauge (1435mm) that everyone uses to pull freight traffic nowadays ... but it they manage to squeese maglev technology into the "dedicated" HSL ... it can have a future.

It was decided that I practiced medicine between Tokyo - Osaka in 2025.
General budget 10,000,000,000,000 yen

Conventional wheel and rail is nearly at it's potential speed limit using steel.
On the other hand maglev is still at it's infancy stage with vast head room for improvement with new discoveries in high temperature super conductive material.
The recent discovery by JR-Hitachi joint research developed material using ＭｇＢ２ that sustains super conductive magnetic field of 0.05 Tesla at temprature using freezing machinery instead of cost prohibitive liquid Helium. A coil made with this material was able to lift 630 Kg.
Future goals are set to develop material that can be mass producted which can create a 1~2 Tesla magnetic field at temprature obtainable using freezing machinery.

The potential commercial speed of super conductive maglev trains are set at 500Km presently, but with stronger superconductive magnets that sustain their abilities at higher temprature, the speed can easily be hiked up to 7~800Km.
The production cost of guide lines(tracks) will also be reduce significantly with introduction of these new magnets since less guide coils will be needed to be installed.

Beside Japan already has HSTs so maglev is the natural next step.

Maglev.. it's the only way to go. In America, we should have had maglev.. big time. The technology is not new. And the SSC (The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) would have given us a tremendous boost in superconductors of energy.

And.. a maglev in a vacuum.. that would be faster than flying, (excepting over ocean travel) - plus, the weather wouldn't bother the maglev, in it's vacuum 'tube' - which might zip along at mach 3 or more..

The SSC was planned to be built mostly in Waxahachie, Texas, would have been the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator complex. Its planned ring circumference is 87.1 km (54 miles) with an energy of 20 TeV per beam, potentially enough energy to create a Higgs boson, a particle predicted by the Standard Model but not yet detected. The project's director was Roy Schwitters, a physicist at the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard University. The project was canceled in 1993. The politics.. backward looking 'conservative' types.. the same bunch that buried the Apollo moon program.

America is now (and for many, many years) has been a backward country. The future belongs to..? Probably China.

Conventional, We will see alot more maglevs but hell, it'll still be a while before locomotives become obsolete, if ever. Imagine, Maglev freight trains :D

Maglev

I believe conventional would remain the dominating trend for the next 60-70 years at least. Not because it's superior but because it'll probably take the majority next century for the majority of countries in the world to catch up to the latest in currently conventional technology.

The Japans and Germanys of Maglev will pop out during this time. But one can fully expect the same, if not longer, developmental lag between the early adopters and the general Mass. IE. Japan vs. USA vs. the Republic of Congo.

I believe in 2100 Maglev will be wide spread but there still will be conventional rail.
I just read the whole thread to get an idea of how people think about maglev all over the world and I am impressed by how little people actually know about maglev.
The times when maglev was more expensive than conventional high speed rail are history. Why are there so many people telling those old stories about maglev being more expensive than high speed rail? Just inform yourself! The latest developments of german companies like Max-Bögl ensure that maglev is about the same price conventional rail is. In Mountainious terrain maglev is cheaper than conventional rail at the moment. In future (given a significant market share for both) there won´t be a big difference in track price for maglev or rail since it´s both nearly the same. Both need a very precise doubletrack and some kind of energy supply like long stator or overhead wire.

The difference between both systems is that maglev experiences far less wear and tear, is faster, more comfortable and less noisy than rail at the same price. So in the end it does more at lower price and this is why maglev is the future.

Given these facts it was a huge mistake of the Germans to invest in conventional high speed rail. These investments have to amortise themselves and are incompatible to maglev which damns the germans to stick to rail for the next decades even though there is a german-developed better alternative.

I just can lough on the Californians who are on the best way to do the same mistake some 30 years after Germany by backing a TGV-style High-Speed-Rail-net. :bash: The French are doing a pretty good job in marketing their outdated TGV-style-system whereas the Germans do nearly no marketing for Transrapid (in fact the advertise hsr). The Californians haven´t invested into high speed rail in the past, there is no single reason why they should invest in an outdated technology. Like UK they should directly jump to maglev. Maglev is exactly the same investment in California but the ride is faster, more reliable and cheaper due to lower maintenance cost. Think for yourself instead of believing marketing of foreign coutries who only follow their own economic interest. I just can´t believe how california can run into this high speed rail trap. It is such a great country, so many future orientated thinkin people and they just tap in to the trap just because Germany and France did so and now have an interest in growing hsr-market to lower prices of their own systems at home. :ohno:
A maglev between LA and San Francisco would be a wise decision. Maglev perfectly fits into that case but people there seem not to know that, they just don´t care...

No worries, Japan will get Chuo Shinkansen maglev. The construction is already (quietly) on and JR-Central is getting not-so-showy but important practical things (human resource management, talks with local government, tunnel boring tests) rolling. Because they are not at all "showy", such news don't get translated into English.

There will be more maglevs in the future, of course but people can not honestly believe that the world will be all maglevs in 90 years... think of all the conventional track that exists, all over the world. What would we do with all that? What would we do with all the locomotives, freight cars and coaches that still exist? Scrap every single one of them?? I think it would be cool if Maglev freight trains were developed but at the same time I think that would be a while.


Some parts of the world still use steam engines, and most of the world still uses locomotive hauled trains, even the countries that use HSR still have locomotive hauled trains.

It would be a very sad day if locomotives became obsolete.

^^ I think we are talking about high speed rail here. In hope that for HSR, maglev technology will become popular in the next 50 years but considering freight trains, I think it'll never happen.

....maglev 100%, thats for sure....

here you can see pictures of the latest Transrapid Generation.....


These are NOT renderings, but pictures of a real train.

The Transrapid 09 already reached 400 kmh on its Test-Track in the Emsland.
Its capable of "driving" up to 500 kmh in everyday service

http://www.transrapid.de/pics/Bilder_Fotogalerie/DSC1390k.jpg

http://www.transrapid.de/pics/Bilder_Fotogalerie/DSC1301k.jpg

http://www.transrapid.de/pics/Bilder_Fotogalerie/DSC1475k_Fauna.jpg

http://www.transrapid.de/pics/Bilder_Fotogalerie/DSC1197k.jpg

These are great pictures!

@ rebasepoiss
There is already plans for freight maglevs. China is currently building a maglev system for transportation of coal:
http://www.drives.co.uk/fullstory.asp?id=2593

And Port of Longbeach is considering a freight maglev (probably based on Transrapid) for moving containers from the port to a truck station:
http://www.polb.com/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=558&targetid=1

Using maglev for freight transport the air gap can be much lower than in case of high speed maglevs so an optimised freight maglev doesn´t consume more energy than a conventional freight rail.

I think we´ll have conventional rail for many more decades but it will coexist with maglev which will grow its market share by time.

sweet deal

it doesn't get much more badass than a maglev freight train, imagine how big and fast they could get

Japan is making maglev lines right now for rapid transit.

Conventional - wheels on rails

A key advantage of Mag-lev is that it is able to accelerate much more quickly than conventional rail. Even if they go the same speed as conventional rail, they can in effect reach their destination faster and are more versatile. Remember, the average speed of Conventional rail is reduced a LOT whenever it has to slow down as it takes forever to speed up.

Acceleration is a big deal.
Speed is a big deal.
Efficiency is a big deal.
Aesthetics can be a big deal.
Noise is a big deal (in urban areas)

Mag-lev all the way. This is not to say that HSR will die, but new installations will likely be Mag-lev in the later half of of the century.

does anyone have any idea how much a typical transrapid train weighs in comparison to conventional trains? thanks

i honestly think that maglev will become popular where the population density and the configuration of settlements becomes extreme

- japan maglev will connect 30 M people (Tokyo area) with 15 M people (Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe area) and in between are 5 M people (at Nagoya) = thats 50 M people on a 550 km route... connect 50 M people in just an hour, that is why its gonna be worth it
but elsewhere in japan, they will stick to conventional rail
- in china, there are many possibilities, for example connecting 20 M people (in Beijing) with ~40 M people (in the Yellow river delta) in just 2 hrs: this will be feasible when china is richer and it will definitely be needed to provide additional capacity when the new traditional HSL reaches its limits. after all, there are multi-million agglomerations along that line ~every 100km :o
- in brazil, where Rio and Sao could be connected within the hour


so yes, maglev will eventually catch on but it will never take over HSR, just like there is still a need for streetcars and s-bahns, even though we have HSR now, they are both needed

India seems to have a big chance as well for nation-wide Maglev HS"R" network.

China's first low- to medium-speed magnetic levitation (maglev) train with full proprietary intellectual property rights began to run tests on June 15.

The train came off the production line and underwent debugging at CNR Tangshan Railway Vehicle Company. It marks that China has acquired the industrial manufacturing capacity to produce low- to medium-speed maglev trains.

Maglev train overcomes gravity by electromagnetic force which enables the train to suspend over the track, and is driven by Linear motors.

Compared with wheel-rail trains, the maglev train produces less noise and vibration. It has more flexible conditions and a lower construction cost to lay the railway line, and is easier to implement and maintain.

By People's Daily Online

Seem like china is getting serious about low speed maglevs...

Does anybody have pictures?

here we go

http://english.people.com.cn/mediafile/200906/16/P200906161705262038662512.jpg

looks..uhm...cheap.

A key advantage of Mag-lev is that it is able to accelerate much more quickly than conventional rail. Even if they go the same speed as conventional rail, they can in effect reach their destination faster and are more versatile. Remember, the average speed of Conventional rail is reduced a LOT whenever it has to slow down as it takes forever to speed up.

Acceleration is a big deal.
Speed is a big deal.
Efficiency is a big deal.
Aesthetics can be a big deal.
Noise is a big deal (in urban areas)

Mag-lev all the way. This is not to say that HSR will die, but new installations will likely be Mag-lev in the later half of of the century.

Acording to some sources the "conventional HSR" can be equiped with maglev traction in the future for use in HSR dedicated tracks ... here goes the world domination. :lol:

Some key news came out today....
JR Central submitted an official report to Mitsuo Horiuchi, the chairman of the maglev proponent lobbyists of the ruling LDP on the exact route of Maglev Chuo Shinkansen with reference to the associated cost (three possible routes are in consideration) and negotiations with local governments (esp. Nagano prefecture) are expected to follow. JR Central also released the likely layout of a station (4 platforms, big power converter underground etc....)
http://www.minyu-net.com/newspack/2009061801000291.html
http://www.genkihoriuchi.jp/result/index.html
(both in Japanese)

Not long ago, JR Central took in more-than-ever-before 1030 graduates, mainly from engineering background in this time of recession and explicitly stated that this is to prepare for Chuo Shinkansen
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/atmoney/news/20090220-OYT1T00839.htm (Japanese)

here we go

http://english.people.com.cn/mediafile/200906/16/P200906161705262038662512.jpg

looks..uhm...cheap.


they're all cheap, relatively, 23 people died in a crash a couple years ago in Germany because of the trains cheap construction, it hit a track maintinence machine at 125 mph and the front car more or less exploded, destroying it and the machine.... hopefully they'll do some design revisions to make these things safer because that was extremely bad publicity for transrapid.

ehm a colision with 125mph will always kill everyone aboard, no matter how save you build the vehicle.

That's not entirely true,

A. It didn't even hit another train and B. Take even a light trainset like the TGV for instance, a while back, one hit an asphalt paving machine that weight 80 tons at about 135 kmh and miraculously not one person died. Also take the train in Czech republic a year ago that ran into a collapsed bridge at high speed, sadly there were 7 deaths but it could have been much worse. A similar incident happened with the ICE train in Germany where it hit a bridge, less than 23 people were killed.

That's not entirely true,

A. It didn't even hit another train and B. Take even a light trainset like the TGV for instance, a while back, one hit an asphalt paving machine that weight 80 tons at about 135 kmh and miraculously not one person died. Also take the train in Czech republic a year ago that ran into a collapsed bridge at high speed, sadly there were 7 deaths but it could have been much worse. A similar incident happened with the ICE train in Germany where it hit a bridge, less than 23 people were killed.

Would the ICE incident have been recently or at Eschede?

Safety belts on trains = save everyone on board.


:lol:

Maglev.. it's the only way to go. In America, we should have had maglev.. big time. The technology is not new. And the SSC (The Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) would have given us a tremendous boost in superconductors of energy.

And.. a maglev in a vacuum.. that would be faster than flying, (excepting over ocean travel) - plus, the weather wouldn't bother the maglev, in it's vacuum 'tube' - which might zip along at mach 3 or more..

The SSC was planned to be built mostly in Waxahachie, Texas, would have been the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator complex. Its planned ring circumference is 87.1 km (54 miles) with an energy of 20 TeV per beam, potentially enough energy to create a Higgs boson, a particle predicted by the Standard Model but not yet detected. The project's director was Roy Schwitters, a physicist at the University of Texas at Austin and Harvard University. The project was canceled in 1993. The politics.. backward looking 'conservative' types.. the same bunch that buried the Apollo moon program.

America is now (and for many, many years) has been a backward country. The future belongs to..? Probably China.

USA is in no position to spend trillions of dollars on a maglev network, the Obama administration is currently very busy bankrupting the country. USA is on a crash course heading into becomming a banana republic, sooner than later...

someone should invent inertial dampening and artificial gravity first

they're all cheap, relatively, 23 people died in a crash a couple years ago in Germany because of the trains cheap construction, it hit a track maintinence machine at 125 mph and the front car more or less exploded, destroying it and the machine.... hopefully they'll do some design revisions to make these things safer because that was extremely bad publicity for transrapid.

The accident was clearly not the fault of the technology. Read the background and you will see. If you override the security systems (which you have to have the possibility on a test track) its no wonder that they don't work.

In regular use this accident could not have happened.

Transrapid is definitely not some "cheap" design.

its a cheap thing to criticize maglev based on 1 accident, every technology has had plenty

well, maybe not teleportation...yet

its a cheap thing to criticize maglev based on 1 accident, every technology has had plenty

well, maybe not teleportation...yet

I guess you haven't seen "the fly".:lol:

By the way, is anyone aware of what lies BEYOND maglev technology?

http://www.daedalusal4.utvinternet.co.uk/DaedalusaL4_files/image063.jpg

Mass Driver

Anything of this scale will require a superconductor, and JR-Maglev is damn close to it.

So, Chuo Shinkansen might get Yamanashi -> Mt.Fuji summit -> (Earth orbit) route:nuts: Oh well, maybe in the 22nd century, to launch their Gundams.

zQ5kKLI9tqg

Conventional - wheels on rails

Safety
@ Jay
You are wrong about the ICE hitting a bridge. In this accident over 100 people died and the whole train was completely destroyed. Even people in the last vehicle of 14(!) died.

Now compare this to the Transrapid accident: Only people in the first vehicle died! The other vehicles still stood on the track and didn´t derail and people could escape. I think the pictures make things clearer:

ICE crash:
http://www.culture.hu-berlin.de/sg/archiv/pics/bilder_eschede/eschede1.jpg

All vehicles are derailed and destroyed.


Transrapid crash:
http://www.welt.de/multimedia/archive/00561/Lathen_Zug_von_oben_561532g.jpg
First vehicle is damaged, following are ok. The train only had 3 sections.

I know that crashing a bridge is harder than crashing a steel truck but from what I know (and I know much in this case:cheers:) transrapid is a very advanced and anything but crapy system. They put in extremly much redundancy like in the aircraft industry. The vehicle it self and the signaling system of Transrapid are safer than anything we know from rail. A conventional train has no redundancy. If one single wheel derails (like in the ICE accident above) the whole train is potentially dead. In case of Transrapid, the train even doesn´t have to stop if a single levitation system fails because others can do it´s job.

And yes they took some conclusions of the Transrapid accident. Older designs have seats up to the first meters of the vehicle. The new design has a crash zone in the front without seats which can absorb extremely much energy.



Here is a video of the new chinese urban maglev: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgGVS663utg

Yes it is cheap and it looks cheap but that is what makes it competitive! This is a very good design considering its working principal. (from a western perspective some better look would be good and there is some more tests to be done but thats only a question of time). It perfectly fits into the needs of public urban transportation because the design is cheaper than lightrail to build and causes far less maintenance cost. The train is also less noisy and can do better climbing and accelerating. This kind of train is what we´ll see first when maglev is being spread. Cost, noise, comfort, speed, in all these points this little maglev is better than light rail. It´ll take a long time until people accept this and believe the facts, especially due to those boneheaded rail romantics who spread wrong information about maglev as much as they can but from an pragmatic engineering perspective things are clear. Reality often isn´t that clear and pragmatic...

Both Maglev and Conventional rail are sustainable. For the 21st Century, conventional rail should dominate, but sometime after the 22nd century, Maglev rail is the way to go. Maglev is rare today and it is prohibitively expensive.

Interesting comparison of the crashes.

Conventional rail is more realistic. I only wish for MagLev.

Great poll.

Seem like china is getting serious about low speed maglevs...

Does anybody have pictures?

See
http://maglev.cn:8080/train/webArticle.do?id=88
http://maglev.cn:8080/train/webArticle.do?id=90

Also http://maglev.cn:8080/train/webArticle.do?id=88

The only problem I see with maglev is that it's an entirely new network that doesn't integrate with the existing rail network. That is, it has to be built from scratch; direct connections are either all maglev or not maglev at all; it cannot make use of existing stations (without extensive rebuilding); if a maglev line is blocked for any reason, trains cannot use existing network to bypass the blockage...

A blockage happened this summer when a freight train derailed at Toijala, a major Finnish crossing station, taking the northern station entrance out of service, thereby blocking the entire western main line some 160 km (100 miles) north of the capital. The double track line was completely blocked for a day, until one track was cleared through the station. During that time trains were diverted to the eastern main line, a detour of several hundred kilometers, causing a few hours' delay at worst. However, trains were able to run throughout the ordeal.

Check out the following news articles

http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/03/news/international/china_high_speed_bullet_train.fortune/ (with video)

"A single province, Guangdong, was thought at the end of 2008 to have more than 20 million unemployed workers, many of whom appeared intent on heading back home to poorer, rural provinces with nothing much to do. Little focuses minds in Beijing more than the prospect of huge numbers of idle young men. It conjures up images of social instability that could conceivably strip the Communist Party of its primary source of legitimacy: economic growth and the improving living standards it has been providing for nearly 30 years. Beijing, in other words, had a lot riding on the bet that a massive boost to infrastructure spending could ameliorate the downturn."

"a nationwide high-speed passenger rail network that, once completed, will be the largest, fastest, and most technologically sophisticated in the world."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/05/tgv-high-speed-rail-in-france

"Speaking in London last year, Guillaume Pepy, president of the SNCF (the French national rail authority) said that not building a four-track railway had been a mistake."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/05/high-speed-rail-japan

"More than 150 million people a year use the bullet train service between Tokyo and Osaka – the most popular route – while Japan Airlines (JAL) flew 3.9 million people from Tokyo to Osaka, Kobe and nearby Kansai International airports in the same period."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/05/high-speed-rail-spain-travel

"Portet is one of hundreds of thousands of travellers who have migrated from the world's busiest air shuttle, linking Madrid and Barcelona, to what is now Spain's most popular train, the high-speed AVE. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/05/high-speed-rail-grounds-city-planes

"From December the journey time between Cologne and Paris will be reduced to three hours and 15 minutes, thanks to the international high-speed Thalys train. Never before will it have been possible – either by car or by plane – to travel so swiftly between the Rhine and the Seine."

The main issue with Maglev is that its just too late. Everything is on normal rail now, unless they are going to relay all the track to maglev it aint gonna work!

The main issue with Maglev is that its just too late. Everything is on normal rail now, unless they are going to relay all the track to maglev it aint gonna work!

Yes, there are huge conventional rail networks all over the world, but if you want high speed trains, most of the old track is useless anyways. Those high speed trains like the 300kph euroshuttle from london to paris run on it's own dedicated track for most of the jurney. And the track is kind of high tech too, every rail is welded together and then fixed onto concrete. Sure, the euroshuttle can run on old tracks at lower speed, but high speeds trains like this isn't sutible for local commuter services. you can't run at 300kph on old twisting tracks, you have to lay new track...

Maglev, just like conventional high speed trains runs on dedicated track, and mostly connect big cities(like Paris-London or Berlin-Munich) so if you want a new high speed service between two cities, you still need to build a new track. The maglev will be alot more expensive but it'll be faster too :)

Yes, there are huge conventional rail networks all over the world, but if you want high speed trains, most of the old track is useless anyways. Those high speed trains like the 300kph euroshuttle from london to paris run on it's own dedicated track for most of the jurney. And the track is kind of high tech too, every rail is welded together and then fixed onto concrete.

The big advantage of conventional high speed rails is that it can use conventional tracks. That means you can use existing tracks there where it building dedicated tracks are prohibitive. It also means that you can start the system before the HSL is completed.

When the Eurostar (there is no such thing as "euroshuttle") was inaugurated there was only dedicated track from Paris to the Channel Tunnel, with a short branch to just across the Belgian border. In Belgium and the UK the trains used conventional, existing railways. Later a HSL was build most of the way to Brussel, but the high speed trains do the last 20 km on a conventional railway. The UK HSL was only recently finished. So now the Eurostar indeed does most of it's journey on dedicated track, but this was not the case when it started.


Sure, the euroshuttle can run on old tracks at lower speed, but high speeds trains like this isn't sutible for local commuter services. you can't run at 300kph on old twisting tracks, you have to lay new track...

Actually the HSL from the Channel tunnel to London is used for commuter trains...

Maglev, just like conventional high speed trains runs on dedicated track, and mostly connect big cities(like Paris-London or Berlin-Munich) so if you want a new high speed service between two cities, you still need to build a new track. The maglev will be alot more expensive but it'll be faster too :)

The problem with Maglev is that you need a new track 100% of the way. That means that you can't for example, build the cheapest 80% first, and start the service using existing track for the last 20%. It also means that you need to build new track in to cities, where new construction is very expensive.

Shanghai maglev is told to be an epic fail.
Unless cost is reduced I don't think maglev will develop. Speed difference is not that big.

I don't lnow is there is a possibility to make 16 car maglev train?

I don't lnow is there is a possibility to make 16 car maglev train?

It's already being built. (Yamanashi track extension, which turns into Kanagawa-Kofu segment)

can't maglev trains have even 16 cars? I didn't think there was a limit(not that small anyways), isn't each car levitated and propelled forwads by it's own os adding more cars souldn't matter right?

We are only in the first decade of 21st century.

Is hard to see what will rule the 2050-2100 years.

For now, conventional rail (even if is not that conventional, is a little modified) make more economic sense. But because it have so manny moving parts (engines, weels) it will be limited for ultra-high-speeds.

That "epic fail" run only with 430 km/h because the track is too damn short. :bash:

With no moving parts, and longer distances between stations, it could easy in the future cruise with 600 km/h (maybe 900 km/h). Even with existing tehnology, we could cruise with 500 km/h with passengers on board (if only would have the lines :D), while the conventional TGV, have a cruising speed with passengers of max. 350 km/h, and with not so much room for developement.

P.S.
Another downside for conventional trains is the power supply. It would need huge amount of energy, and the friction between the power line and the pantograph would be a big problem.

go maglev... go... :cheer:

The concept is not new. This isn't the 19th century. It is utterly foolish to invest in 'high speed RAIL trains.. in the 21st century. How stupid can Obama get..? I'd say his so-called 'advisors' are dark-agers.

http://www.smartplanet.com/business/blog/smart-takes/china-developing-600-mph-airless-maglev-high-speed-train/9594/

What about hybrid?Magle on new tracks but wheels incorporated to be able to enter regural tracks at the end of "maglev track"

What about hybrid?Magle on new tracks but wheels incorporated to be able to enter regural tracks at the end of "maglev track"

Waste of energy since bogies will become complete dead weight when levitated.
I believe it will be fairly easy to convert conventional tracks into JR maglevs with virtually no down time since the JR maglev loading gauge is 2.9 meters same as European loading gauge so if the foundation is paved with concrete you only need to install the side fence coils which will not obstruct traffic of conventional trains.
Just install the fences at night and once the fences are in place remove the tracks and overhead power-line and truss.
Difficulties would be platform at station and landing/take off area since the JR method only starts levitating at speeds faster than 150Km/h but I do not think it will be a problem that can't be overcome.

What about hybrid?Magle on new tracks but wheels incorporated to be able to enter regural tracks at the end of "maglev track"

That is what inductrack basically proposes. It could work.

Waste of energy since bogies will become complete dead weight when levitated.

Levitation doesn't cost a lot of energy, and weight is thus not that important. With perfect conductors levitation does not cost any energy at all, in the real world there is of course resistance, but only a small fraction (a few %) of the energy used by a maglev is consumed by levitation. The majority is used in overcoming aerodynamic drag...


I believe it will be fairly easy to convert conventional tracks into JR maglevs with virtually no down time since the JR maglev loading gauge is 2.9 meters same as European loading gauge so if the foundation is paved with concrete you only need to install the side fence coils which will not obstruct traffic of conventional trains.

You forget that a railway line is not a straight line going from A to B. It's a network, with a lot of branches and switches. How do you deal with them during the transition?
Your "side fences" do obstruct switches going to branch lines, that can't just be disconnected.


Difficulties would be platform at station and landing/take off area since the JR method only starts levitating at speeds faster than 150Km/h but I do not think it will be a problem that can't be overcome.

So a Maglev needs wheels anyway. Why not make them compatible with existing track?

Conventional.
MAGLEV in 22nd century!!
:D

in Romania is 50 century! :D:lol::lol:

Levitation doesn't cost a lot of energy, and weight is thus not that important. With perfect conductors levitation does not cost any energy at all, in the real world there is of course resistance, but only a small fraction (a few %) of the energy used by a maglev is consumed by levitation. The majority is used in overcoming aerodynamic drag...

Auhh, what?
Lifting mass will always require force to traverse gravity. Force is also required to achieve momentum(acceleration E=1/2ma^2) so whether it is hidden or not weight will always equate to energy.


You forget that a railway line is not a straight line going from A to B. It's a network, with a lot of branches and switches. How do you deal with them during the transition?
Your "side fences" do obstruct switches going to branch lines, that can't just be disconnected.
Doesn't matter, have you ever heard of gates?
At slow speeds open the gate and inertia will carry the train to the designated way with tires steering the way. At high speed close the gate on a swinging hinge with coils installed and it will not be a problem.



So a Maglev needs wheels anyway. Why not make them compatible with existing track?
The JR system does, but then try landing steel wheels with a rim on rails at 150Km/h, it not going to be pleasant.

Auhh, what?
Lifting mass will always require force to traverse gravity. Force is also required to achieve momentum(acceleration E=1/2ma^2) so whether it is hidden or not weight will always equate to energy.

Lifting mass requires force. However, you are confusing force with energy. In the case of the Maglev generating that force does indeed require energy, as we don't have perfect electromagnets. But the energey needed is not a lot.
Purely from a physics point of view energy is force x distance. Lifting something with a mass m from height h1 to h2 costs an amount of energy (h2-h1)*m*g. Keeping something at a certain height does not cost any energy in a ideal world, regardless of the method used.
My table is also held up by a force. In this case it is the legs that provide the force, and all without consuming energy...
In the case of a maglev generating the needed magnetic fields costs energy because of electric resistance in the coils. The continous active adjustments to keep the maglev from being launched also need energy. The initial lifting from the track too, but that is only a few cm.
The end result is that it's not the lifting where the energy goes. The literature from the different Maglev producers confirms this.


The JR system does, but then try landing steel wheels with a rim on rails at 150Km/h, it not going to be pleasant.

I beleive the inductrack system "takes of" and "lands" at much lower speeds, so that could be an option.

Lifting mass requires force. However, you are confusing force with energy. In the case of the Maglev generating that force does indeed require energy, as we don't have perfect electromagnets. But the energey needed is not a lot.
Purely from a physics point of view energy is force x distance. Lifting something with a mass m from height h1 to h2 costs an amount of energy (h2-h1)*m*g. Keeping something at a certain height does not cost any energy in a ideal world, regardless of the method used.
My table is also held up by a force. In this case it is the legs that provide the force, and all without consuming energy...
In the case of a maglev generating the needed magnetic fields costs energy because of electric resistance in the coils. The continous active adjustments to keep the maglev from being launched also need energy. The initial lifting from the track too, but that is only a few cm.
The end result is that it's not the lifting where the energy goes. The literature from the different Maglev producers confirms this.



Auhh, do you really understand what you are talking about?
Gravity is a constant force pulling you to the center so you need constant force in the opposite direction so maintaining at a certain height requires a constant amount of energy.
You also have not addressed the fact that to accelerate you need energy and the amount of energy is dictated by the amount of mass so lighter the mass the less energy is required.

The JR maglev system is not like the Transrapid system, it maintains lift through Electro-dynamic Suspension(EDS), EDS has the advantage of larger gaps than Electromagnetic Suspension (EMS), but EDS needs support wheels which are employed in low speed running, because EDS can't produce a large levitation force therefore in part utilizes a phenomenon known as wing ground effect where at a certain speed the constant air rushing underneath blows up the body like a gust of wind blowing up fallen leaves. Not enough energy to lift it completely but with EDS working together it lift and stabilizes the train at speed above 150Km/h. My complete misunderstanding, I realized that speed is the working force of EDS since induced electro-magnetic field of a coil becomes stronger as the source electro-magnetic field passes as speed increases therefore as the train moves faster the induced levitating electro-magnetic field becomes stronger.

As for landing it will land at around the same speed but may not land directly onto the rail due to the instability in electro-magnetic field causing derailment.

Auhh, do you really understand what you are talking about?

Yes I do. I'm a civil engineer.


Gravity is a constant force pulling you to the center so you need constant force in the opposite direction so maintaining at a certain height requires a constant amount of energy.

Again, force is not the same as energy. Where is the "constant amount of energy" keeping the floor in the building where I work at a constant coming from?


You also have not addressed the fact that to accelerate you need energy and the amount of energy is dictated by the amount of mass so lighter the mass the less energy is required.

We were talking about levitation.


The JR maglev system is not like the Transrapid system, it maintains lift through Electro-dynamic Suspension(EDS), EDS has the advantage of larger gaps than Electromagnetic Suspension (EMS), but EDS needs support wheels which are employed in low speed running, because EDS can't produce a large levitation force therefore in part utilizes a phenomenon known as wing ground effect where at a certain speed the constant air rushing underneath blows up the body like a gust of wind blowing up fallen leaves. Not enough energy to lift it completely but with EDS working together it lift and stabilizes the train at speed above 150Km/h.


I know the difference. Inductrack is also an EDS system, but using permanent magnets. In this maglev system there are no powered magnets used at all to lift the vehicle. Yet levitation does cost a small amount of energy (as we are not in a perfect world), can you guess where it shows up?

Again, force is not the same as energy. Where is the "constant amount of energy" keeping the floor in the building where I work at a constant coming from?
We were talking about levitation.
Yes we are talking about levitation now where is the floor?:lol:
Without the floor you go into free fall, no?
If supporting beams of the floor is not strong enough again the floor will collapse, no?
Force is energy with vector, force of gravity is a energy force with a vector toward the center of mass, as I have written you need constant force opposite with a vector opposite of gravity with enough energy to cancel gravity to sustain levitation.


I know the difference. Inductrack is also an EDS system, but using permanent magnets. In this maglev system there are no powered magnets used at all to lift the vehicle. Yet levitation does cost a small amount of energy (as we are not in a perfect world), can you guess where it shows up?

Auhh, JR maglev EDS systems do not use permanent magnets for one thing.
What you call inductrack is magnetic induction meaning a coil obtains electro-magnetism through a strong magnetic force that passes by. The intensity of the coil's magnetic field induced depends on the speed and the strength of the magnetic field passing by. The passing magnetic field is generated by the super conductive magnets within the train.

Force is energy with vector, force of gravity is a energy force with a vector toward the center of mass, as I have written you need constant force opposite with a vector opposite of gravity with enough energy to cancel gravity to sustain levitation.

You need a force, but please, stop confusing force with work. If you generate a magnetic field that does no work, then the only electrical energy consumed will be to counteract internal resistance.
Once you do perform work with your field ofcourse you need to provide more energy. However work is only performed when the force moves an object, not when it is keeping an object in place. SO in the context of a maglev the "work" done consists of the initial levitation, and in an active system the control of the field. But nto a lot is needed. The Transrapid for example needs less energy to maintain its levitation than it needs for its air conditioning, and can hover for an hour on batteries alone.

You can produce a magnetic force using a permanent magnet. There no energy is consumed, yet heavy weights can be kept in place against gravety...



Auhh, JR maglev EDS systems do not use permanent magnets for one thing.

I didn't say it did.


What you call inductrack is magnetic induction meaning a coil obtains electro-magnetism through a strong magnetic force that passes by. The intensity of the coil's magnetic field induced depends on the speed and the strength of the magnetic field passing by. The passing magnetic field is generated by the super conductive magnets within the train.

Indeed. And the magnetic field doesn't come cheap. There is a "magnetic drag" which basically means that part of the forward impulse of the vehicle is consumed to generate the currents in the track that create the field. This magnetic drag generates lift. However inductrack has a very good lift/drag ratio so not a lot of the energy put in the system is used for levitation. (more like 1% or so).
Transrapid needs more energy for maintaining levitation, but that is mostly because it is an active system, constantly adjusting the fields to keep the air gap constant. That costs energy, but still only about 10% of the total energy needs of the system.

You need a force, but please, stop confusing force with work. If you generate a magnetic field that does no work, then the only electrical energy consumed will be to counteract internal resistance.
Once you do perform work with your field ofcourse you need to provide more energy. However work is only performed when the force moves an object, not when it is keeping an object in place. SO in the context of a maglev the "work" done consists of the initial levitation, and in an active system the control of the field. But nto a lot is needed. The Transrapid for example needs less energy to maintain its levitation than it needs for its air conditioning, and can hover for an hour on batteries alone.

Why do you change your wording? It was force now it is work.
No there is no work done after it obtains a certain height and it remains at the same height but gravity is constantly WORKING against mass so an equal force is required in opposite vector to maintain at the same height.
Why do you come to a conclusion that it does not need a lot?
Again Transrapid system is a completely different technology that DOES use permanent magnet.
And again you are still neglecting the fact that more mass requires more energy to achieve acceleration so heavy bogies on maglev is completely useless.
If more mass is added to JR maglev it will require higher speeds to achieve levitation to obtain the necessary strength in the induced magnetic field.


Indeed. And the magnetic field doesn't come cheap. There is a "magnetic drag" which basically means that part of the forward impulse of the vehicle is consumed to generate the currents in the track that create the field. This magnetic drag generates lift. However inductrack has a very good lift/drag ratio so not a lot of the energy put in the system is used for levitation. (more like 1% or so).
Transrapid needs more energy for maintaining levitation, but that is mostly because it is an active system, constantly adjusting the fields to keep the air gap constant. That costs energy, but still only about 10% of the total energy needs of the system.

Again you mixing technology.
The JR system feeds electricity into the primary electromagnetic motion coils constantly switching polarity to move the train forward. The train's super conductive magnets repel/contract the primary magnetic field while generating another magnetic field within separate levitation coils embedded in the fence covers as it speeds down the guide way to levitate the train. The secondary levitation field is generated through the Meissner effect so I do not think any energy is lost.

I hope India, Pakistan, Brazil, Mexico, USA, Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Indonesia and Canada will invest in Maglev.

In particulary the vactrain version.

I'd also like to see a Maglev line Berlin - Munich.

MAGLEV FOR AFRICA!