# MISC | Maglev or Conventional Rail?



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

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.


----------



## rise_against (Apr 26, 2005)

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


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

Conventional.
MAGLEV in 22nd century!!


----------



## sequoias (Dec 21, 2004)

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.


----------



## PotatoGuy (May 10, 2005)

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


----------



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

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.


----------



## WotaN (Jun 15, 2004)

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


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

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.


----------



## Ionizer (Jun 8, 2005)

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.


----------



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

WotaN said:


> ........
> 
> 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?


----------



## scando (Jun 19, 2004)

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?


----------



## Yappofloyd (Jan 28, 2005)

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.


----------



## WotaN (Jun 15, 2004)

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


----------



## Ionizer (Jun 8, 2005)

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


----------



## micro (Mar 13, 2005)

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.


----------



## 29A (Jan 19, 2005)

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.


----------



## WotaN (Jun 15, 2004)

micro said:


> 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).


----------



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

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.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

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.


----------



## mariusz_ny (Feb 25, 2005)

Cloudship said:


> 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.


----------



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

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


----------



## eomer (Nov 15, 2003)

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 ?


----------



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

Cloudship said:


> 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.


----------



## TRZ (Sep 18, 2004)

scando said:


> 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.


----------



## Cloudship (Jun 8, 2005)

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.


----------



## odegaard (Jul 27, 2004)

TRZ said:


> ...........
> 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


----------



## Mike (Sep 12, 2002)

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.


----------



## Grygry (Nov 24, 2004)

WotaN said:


> 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.



WotaN said:


> 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.



WotaN said:


> 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


----------



## WotaN (Jun 15, 2004)

Grygry said:


> 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 


Grygry said:


> 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]




Grygry said:


> 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.


Grygry said:


> 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


----------



## coldstar (Jan 14, 2003)

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.


----------



## empersouf (Mar 19, 2004)

Maglev of course.


----------



## Shado (Apr 16, 2003)

WotaN said:


> 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.


----------



## Globalizer (Jun 26, 2005)

*East Japan Railway's  FASTECH*
















..................................









average speed: 360km/h


----------



## Scotty (Jan 18, 2005)

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


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

Airplane or Inductrack


----------



## invincible (Sep 13, 2002)

Scotty said:


> 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.


----------



## pflo777 (Feb 27, 2003)

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....


----------



## sequoia (Mar 12, 2007)

who voted "Horse drawn rail cars"?


----------



## Cristovão471 (May 9, 2006)

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.


----------



## kronik (Aug 12, 2004)

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.


----------



## easyb (Dec 12, 2005)

*Photos from the Tangshan Urban Maglev Test Track*



Knuddel Knutsch said:


> Seem like china is getting serious about low speed maglevs...
> 
> Does anybody have pictures?


See








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


----------



## easyb (Dec 12, 2005)

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


----------



## jsiren (Feb 14, 2009)

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.


----------



## davsot (Dec 27, 2008)

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."


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

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!


----------



## Moby_ (Oct 19, 2009)

poshbakerloo said:


> 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


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Moby_ said:


> 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.


----------



## Alexriga (Nov 25, 2007)

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?


----------



## 2co2co (Apr 8, 2008)

Alexriga said:


> 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)


----------



## Moby_ (Oct 19, 2009)

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?


----------



## luci203 (Apr 28, 2008)

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 ), 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:


----------



## Century25 (Jun 8, 2009)

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...600-mph-airless-maglev-high-speed-train/9594/


----------



## worldrailfan (Dec 28, 2009)

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


----------



## SamuraiBlue (Apr 2, 2010)

worldrailfan said:


> 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.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

worldrailfan said:


> 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.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

SamuraiBlue said:


> 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?


----------



## clubbman (Jan 9, 2008)

Bitxofo said:


> Conventional.
> MAGLEV in 22nd century!!


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


----------



## SamuraiBlue (Apr 2, 2010)

K_ said:


> 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.




K_ said:


> 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.





K_ said:


> 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.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

SamuraiBlue said:


> 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.


----------



## SamuraiBlue (Apr 2, 2010)

K_ said:


> 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.


----------

