Maglev Trains: Why This ALWAYS Falls Short

Thank you Squarespace for sponsoring this video. Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/megaprojects for 10% off on your first purchase.
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
This video is #sponsored by Squarespace.
Love content? Check out Simon's other KZbin Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373

[@megaprojects9649]

Thank you Squarespace for sponsoring this video. Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/megaprojects for 10% off on your first purchase.

[@alw7315]

talking of hyperloop.. and update of current projects would be nice. :)

[@o_nazim]

Love your Rolex!

[@cbarcus]

One important advantage of the electrodynamic system not mentioned is that the track tolerances are far lower compared to EMS, making the system more resilient to ground movement. Currently, the high speed maglev projects are focused on dense travel corridors, but as the technology matures, the supply chain develops, and the general economic condition improves, this should become more widely adopted. Inductrack technology should prove more suitable for lower speed lines.

Niron magnetics. Should shake things up.

[@NeXtdra42]

​@@alw7315the few companies that haven't "given up" on the idea are grifting various government agencies around the world without actually building or designing anything. The idea is fundamentally flawed and will never be in commercial operation. Also it's literally just a maglev train in a (near-) vacuum tube.

[@dulio12385]

Maglevs can work but people have to stop treating them like trains and more like ground hugging point to point airplanes. Their best use, in my opinion, is as part of a hub and spoke network where you take a maglev between two major transit hubs, get off, then take more conventional transportation to your final destination.

[@cadekachelmeier7251]

Yeah, normal trains are pretty much compatible with any track. You just need to standardize the track width and gauge. With maglev there's so much more lock-in to a specific design that it's a hard sell to use it for anything other than individual routes.

[@frankkobold]

Sure, but, well... Airplanes can do that, without the need of investing into tracks The problem of maglevs is, that they lack a use case which justifies the investment

[@NeXtdra42]

​@@frankkoboldairplanes have A LOT of disadvantages over maglev: - They cost way more per unit traveled - they are a lot less comfortable to be in - airports have lengthy check-in and boarding procedures so you spend a lot of additional time - they have way way lower frequencies and as a result way lower peak capacity - they are a lot worse for the environment There is a good reason Japan is building the Chuo shinkansen on their most congested medium distance route. It's the perfect use case for maglev: between 200km and 500km with few stops. Also Tokyo airports are congested already, it's not like they could fly more planes anyway. Yes the initial investment is downright absurd, but long term it's better than adding more planes. Most governments and companies just aren't willing to think beyond the next election or quarter respectively.

[@frankkobold]

@@NeXtdra42 ah, it's less "not thinking long term", but it's a topic of risk as well as how much you can afford now. Would it have been long term better, that I would have bought an apartment while I was studying instead of renting? Ofc, but there is the risk of me moving later on plus I simply didn't had the money. What if one village disagrees with building the tracks (which are also not good for the environment) near them loudly & publicly? What if a economic crysis leads to massive increase in cost? So ofc running cost are better even with a maglev, but the cost (incl risk) of Capital is just too big. Ofc you have examples like Japan, where it just worked out. But that are very specific conditions which have to be fulfilled, which are rare, so no benefits through scale. Even your 200-500km example: if you have a few stops, why not normal trains with higher speed, which can also be used by other local trains & also cargo? After all, you won't have the tracks occupied the whole time. And if you need for 500km 2h or 1h just doesn't make a big difference. Tldr: cost & risk of capital too high, really far away planes ofc, and on the distances where maglevs would be ideal/better, normal (high speed) trains are an acceptable alternative with higher flexibility & better economy of scale (of the infrastructure to build the tracks etc)

[@T0MT0Mmmmy]

At first sight that looks smart, but in detail almost only those who only want to travel from one hub to another (or nearby) are benefiting. The others will lose time while waiting for their connections at the hubs. Or even worse wasting more time by travelling in the opposite/false direction to reach the hubs or their destinations. So you're about to spend a huge amount of money for maglevs for the benefit of few. While spending the same money on a grid of regular trains would benefit a majority. What is more economic or democratic? "Fun fact" from Germany: the high speed trains in Germany (ICE) are able to travel with almost 300 km/h. But the German operating company (Deutsche Bahn) has redused the actual speed of the trains to a maximum of 250 km/h. Reason: a higher speed is a waste of money. For a higher speed more energy is needed but in return the travellers don't see any benefits. Cause the maybe saved 5 minutes at the train vanishs when you look at your travel time as a whole (traveling to and from the train station, waiting for connections). So speed is not all, there are other things that have more impact.

[@andybryson3887]

I worked in Shanghai during the week and commuted home to Singapore on weekends for 18 mths in 2009/2010, and used the Maglev for the trip to/from Shanghai Airport into downtown Shanghai. Was an awesome period in my career

[@ybing]

but if you carry a lot of luggage it is actually not convivence, the terminal station is not really connected to the subway, at least that's what happen 10 years ago, not sure if there is any update, our bosses taking limo to that station just to try the maglev to the airport

[@GIN.356.A]

​@@ybingit's connected to the subway system now

[@--enyo--]

@@ybingSounds like your boss just wants to use a limo at company expense. 🤣

[@ybing]

@@--enyo-- 🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫

[@kamikazilucas]

the one in shanghai is just a test track and only goes as fast as a bullet train, the chuo shikansen is longer alone in the test track and will go all the way to nagoya in a couple years and is twice as fast

[@hebijirik]

The Japanese one mentioned last is different from all the others in a significant way. Not just that such a long line (compared to other maglevs) is already under construction. The main difference is technological: first time superconducting magnets are used for a maglev train. This further increases the upfront cost in the hopes of decreasing the later running costs. So kind of a maglev on steroids in this aspect. But I really like the way the guidance left/right/up/down is passive in this system and get stronger and stronger with speed increasing. And the superconducting magnets mean stay strong for a long time after external power to the system is lost. So for this to have a crash you have to physically destroy a long enough section of the track in front of it. For us technically minded this really seems like it is at least as safe at 500kph as a regular HST on wheels is at 250kph. I really hope they overcome the red tape and financing issues.

[@prastagus3]

China's experimental sky train maglev also use permanent magnets

[@hebijirik]

@@prastagus3 superconductors? Or just regular permanent magnets?

[@prastagus3]

@@hebijirikI believe they are permanent magnets which floats train and requires no power. Due to this reason, it is not moving that fast. As for superconducting magnets maglev, China did test a high-temperature superconducting maglev system half a year ago.

[@hebijirik]

@@prastagus3 it will be interesting to see where it goes. The Japanese SCMaglev uses regular proven superconductors in the vehicle, similar to what is used in particle accelerators and tokamaks but they have some clever tricks there to keep the cooling system power consumption as low as possible. The track has very simple figure 8 shaped passive coils in the walls that passively create guidance and levitation when the strong SC magnets fly along them. The bottom of the track is just regular linear motor. What I find fascinating is that none of this requires any new or even young technology to work. It is all put together from long proven technologies that are just used in a new application. That is probably why they already got it to over 600kph with people on board. I don't know anywhere near this much about the effort in China but their history with the Shanghai maglev makes me a bit skeptical of their ability to successfully deploy a maglev based on relatively new things like high temp superconductors into a working successfull mass transit system. Nevertheless I would like to be surprised. If they make it work well then that is and advancement for all of us.

[@fauzirahman3285]

Though for this project, the biggest portion of the cost is tunneling through all that mountain

[@Noise-Bomb]

I rode the German Transrapid on the test loop back in the mid 2000 when I was a minor and even then it was a proven and ready to implement technology. It was a joy to ride, flying through the landscape at 400+kph effortlessly. It was quiet, fast and relatively versatile with higher possible ramp angles, higher throughput and a relatively simple carriage design. The problem was always cost of adoption and the difficulty of switching track economically and safely.

[@bieneulm1982]

All the reasons stated why Transrapid failed had been a lie.

[@Noise-Bomb]

Edit: kph

[@Brinta3]

@@Noise-Bomb *quiet

[@matsv201]

" problem was always cost " Wrong, cost was never the problem: " difficulty of switching track" The test track swich track 4 times every lap of the track "safely" Safty was never a problem . The accident happen with the system tunred of, that only could be done because it was a protoype track

[@TheDesius]

​@@matsv201 they are more expensive then normal trains so of course cost is a problem. That's also why the Concorde stopped. It was feasible to make but the cost just didn't make sense

[@mashrien]

Whoever edited this video.. I LOVE YOU. The sponsor spot volume was reduced at least 30%, and as a thank you- I sat through the whole ad and let the video play 3 times through (was alt-tabbed doing other stuff) I wish more creators were thoughtful enough to do this.. such a small thing that makes a huge difference to we headphone users.

[@DouglasLippi]

I think that still just counts a single view.

[@igbo__nigga]

mashrien Iamewhlteboy

[@igbo__nigga]

k -I I

[@igbo__nigga]

Iame whlteboy

[@austinli8891]

@@DouglasLippi increases retention rate which means the KZbin algorithm will favour it more

[@jason11259]

The other issue with maglev is that the system has to be built entirely from scratch. A regular high speed train can operate on the new high speed tracks but also extend service onto older tracks and stop at existing stations.

[@johnsnow1355]

Yes definitely trains all use the same tracks so cost effective. Maglev is only good for magnetic

[@rjd-kh8et]

The best place to build a maglev would be if you're building transportation infrastructure from scratch, like South Korea's new capital Sejong.

[@marxel4444]

Im looking forward to what japan will do, they are willing to go there to the end just like high speed rail. Everyone thought they were stupid doing that when the rest of the world still had steam lokomotives, cars and planes. I trust the japanese the most to make that viable, build it and get it to run because they dont bullshit around with their work. I just have to look what the mess the deutsche bahn in germany is. We cant even build an airport here...and in asia they create entire islands out of nothing to build an airport ONTOP OF THE ISLAND THEY JUST BUILD!

[@Gigi-xr3qs]

Maglev is the future, just like how train tracks had to be built on dirt- maglev lines will be built on rails and former road corridors, or between them.

[@timothychung4811]

Alright, what is your point though? Naturally, you can't put maglevs on traditional tracks as that is for the bullet system.

[@pyr0bee]

shanghai maglev no longer runs at 430km/hr, top speed was reduced to 300 early this year. Transrapid became defuct so no major maintenance can be done

[@katrinabryce]

And that is slower than a 320km/h TGV.

[@ymhktravel]

Yes, when I was in Shanghai more than 10yrs ago, I think every journey ran at 430km/h. Now it seems it no longer does that speed. Then what's the point of having the Maglev there in the first place.

[@prastagus3]

@@ymhktravel tech showcase

[@grahamstrouse1165]

There’s really no point in traveling that fast.

[@prastagus3]

@@grahamstrouse1165 perhaps not for passengers, but cargo?

[@MatthiasWiesmann]

One thing worth mentioning in the case of the vacuum tube version (like swiss-metro) cooling becomes a big issue, as your train is basically in giant thermos bottle. There might not be any engine on board, but you have all the passenger equipment, and all the passengers which are probably producing 50 Watt per person of heating.

[@TheExileFox]

People should forget about the vacuum tube train ideas. It's fundamentally flawed beyond issues with thermals. Look at the hyperloop to see an example of why it cannot work.

[@abarratt8869]

@@TheExileFox I once did some calculations on separation distances they'd need in hyperloop, in order for pods to be able to be brought to a safe stop in the event of a pod having an accident. It's a very long distance, and would fundamentally limit the capacity of the hyperloop to ridiculously low levels. A vacuum tube breach is another hyperloop nightmare. There's a real problem with what to do, if it happens. If the tube is fully cut open, the best thing to do is to bleed off the vacuum along the entire length as quickly as possible. An alternative is to have slam-doors that close, to stop the whole tube's vacuum being filled. Trouble is, as the vacuum is filled via the breach the air pressure wave that is filling the tube will push debris through the tube, and this will hit the slam door at about Mach 1. If you make it too light it might fail when the debris hits, and now you've got a slam door + debris travelling down the next section of tube at Mach 1. And so on.

[@miscbits6399]

at anything less than 300km/h vac trains aren't worth bothering with. Tunnels aren't fully evacuated in any case so active cooling does work (we're talking pressures equivalent to 1-200k feet altitude, not full space vacuum for supersonic transit and commercial airliner altitude for subsonic speeds)

[@miscbits6399]

@@abarratt8869 "vacuum" handling is easier than you think. It's reduced pressure (not no pressure) comparable to extremely high altitude flying and we've been making stuff like this with "controlled leaks" for years, plus you don't rely on "one" vacuum pump but have them spaced out perhaps every 50 metres (you'll need to power the entire track length anyway for linear motor coils). In essence if the power goes off they return to atmospheric pressure relatively quickly (less time than the backuppower supplies of the pressurisation kit in the pods) and pressure-sealed escape doors can be fitted to the tubing (essentially a reverse of airline fuselage plug doors, but without the weight considerations) The controlled leak ensures than a pod entering lines approaching a damaged section will essentially air-brake. You're unlikely to see a clean break in the tubes as we're talking steel section several inches thick (weight isn''t really a consideration for fixed infrastructure - you build bridges to account for it) that - like nuclear containment - is essentially terrorist/airliner-resistant (When french terrorists tried firing anti tank weapons at the French nuclear plants it annoyed the administrators because they'd just painted the buildings and it meant a repaint was needed to get rid of the scorch marks) Your bigger danger is earthquakes but on the other hand there are various ways of dealing with potential movement at strike-slip interfaces already and levitation systems can easily cope with 1-2gs of acceleration (this was what was recorded at Christchuirch in 2011 and amongst the highest ever recorded) if they happen to be directly over the epicentre I know I'm being handwavery about this, but maglev vac trains were considered technically feasible in the late 1960s and a planned USA rollout in the 1970s dodn't go ahead for financial reason (this backfired thanks to the 1973 oil crisis) As I've said elsewhere I think these systems will only prove feasible if they can carry cargo in standard shipping containers and compete head on with airfreight/travel, _NOT_ trains Airfreight mostly still uses the "wagonload" concept despite using LD3 containers - cargo is (un)loaded into containers at airports, which are not used end to end. Wagonload (boxcars) has been an obsolete method for railsystems (except in exceptional cases) for several decades (ditto marine transports. Dockside cargo unloading went away a long time ago too for virtually everything except bulk carriers - containerload transport (shipping of complete prepacked units) is what kept rail economically viable and is why shipping runs to a few cents on most finished items right up to the local distribution stage (One case I know - from the 1990s was a friend of mine who was transporting the same items by sea for a landed-in-his-warehouse cost of around 8c/device, but thanks to logistical issues had to airfreight a couple of containerloads to satisfy demand - at a cost of $10 per device Yes, the differences really are that stark

[@borismuller86]

But Elon Musk said he’d build a hyperloop and he’s never let people down before.

[@joshuavoet12]

I rode the Maglev a few days ago for the first time in Shanghai. What an experience. Watching the train lower before opening the doors was incredible. The track also tilts at points

[@davidtucker8724]

I believe the Birmingham maglev wasn't just replaced with a bus. They now use a similar transportation system using the same track except its cable powered.

[@srfurley]

I rode on the Birmingham system once; I wasn’t flying anywhere I just went there to try it. It was sometimes out of service, not because it was particularly unreliable I think but because it was totally non-standard so if it did break down it could take longer to source parts and repair it than for a more conventional system. I think this was the main reason it was taken out of service. It was directly replaced by a bus while converted to a more conventional People Mover type system which I believe is still in use today. It is not cable hauled but uses driven wheels like a conventional train or tram. A recently opened system at Luton airport is cable hauled.

[@marcbeebee6969]

Thats brexit

[@van_trippin5260]

i used to ride the old maglev in the school holidays, that was 80's entertainment for a kid! go see the plane hanging from the ceiling in the terminal then ride the maglev a few hundred times

[@cidiracing7481]

If you mean between the Airport train station and the actual airport, yes there is an overhead train. Not sure if that is where the old Maglev was.

[@van_trippin5260]

follows the same route exactly, just different power now

[@theowinters6314]

Turns out the best version of a train is a train.

[@1987FX16]

TopGear proved this along with the firetruck. xD

[@flybobbie1449]

Heavy snow a few years ago stopped the electric diesel trains. A steam train running a private run continued and carried some stranded passengers.

[@TS-jm7jm]

​@@flybobbie1449steam is glorious

[@Noise-Bomb]

@@flybobbie1449A few years ago I heard of a similar story in Germany where they had some sort of headline power issue and they actually relied on some heritage steam trains to haul cargo for a few days until the power was fixed. Kinda cool to think about but nowadays it comes with it's own issues, primarily water on the stops. Not many modern station have the infrastructure to fill up a steam locomotive with water. And that becomes a bit of a problem when your engine uses it as the main power medium...

[@soggybiscotti8425]

Until the release of Train 2: Electric Boogaloo

[@macnlz]

I've ridden on the Transrapid twice: once at the test track in Lathen (late 80s, I think), and once in Shanghai in 2018. Both rides were amazingly quick and smooth! It's so sad that maglevs haven't seen more adoption, considering that they have some real benefits: they can climb hills 10 times as steep as a regular train, when the track is monorail style, they interfere much less with the surrounding environment (farming below), they're more energy efficient, lower maintenance, and on top of it all, faster than an airplane at medium distances (no cumbersome airport wait times)...

[@jsrodman]

Elevated grade is pretty much irrelevant, you can do that with any method. The energy efficiency is an odd argument If you intend to run them at high speed metal rail speeds, the projects aren't worth the initial outlay for the marginal gain. Even considering the energy costs to build the track, it's unlikely you'd ever get that back. If you intend to run them at closer to the maximum reasonable for maglev, then the air resistance is going to eat up that energy efficiency entirely. Maintance is usually measured in cost, and the cost of bespoke systems is always going to be higher than bog standard ones. So while they might theoretically be lower maintenance in a shiny future, they aren't now. Classic french or spanish style High Speed Rail gives you the faster-than-an-airplane at medium distances as well at lower costs. So the net result is that you get a sort of marginal speed boost for a huge outlay. And this is why they haven't been adopted. The promise of upping speeds by around 100mph or so does have benefits for trunk lines. So I'm not saying that it's without point or value, only that if we're realistic about the tradeoffs, we can see why it hasn't been heavily pursued so far. The noise levels and speed are obvious plusses, but historically it's never been cost effective. I'm hoping that the Japan project can turn this around. And I'm talking about total cost vs total societal benefit here, the way any transportation project should be measured.

[@PetrSojnek]

@@jsrodman Actually, in future the ability to climb more elevated grade may be one of the most interesting properties. Problem with standard train is, they rely on friction of the wheels against rails. Typically you want it to be just enough... with elevated grade it must be actually very high. Trains weigh a lot... and on elevated grades, friction on rail simply might not be enough to overcome weight of the train pulling it "downhill". Next level problem happens, if train stops in slope. There is very real possibility it wouldn't be able to start moving upslope again. And this is not technology limitation... it's basically physics and you can't do much about that. If this was not a problem, why do you think there are so many tunnels built (which is typically very expensive and potentially dangerous endeavor).

[@katrinabryce]

The existing shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka is quicker than flying.

[@macnlz]

@@jsrodman Those are fair points - the up front cost to establish this new tech is a poison pill, given that it represents an incremental improvement. Though high speed train tracks are not “bog standard” - they’re usually already kept to higher standards than regular tracks, and not used for other applications such as freight.

[@macnlz]

@@PetrSojnek Exactly - the need for fewer tunnels and bridges means much lower cost when introducing high speed rail to new areas, where those tunnels haven’t already been built. For the same reason (physics, friction), maglevs can accelerate and decelerate much faster. So not only are they faster once at full speed - for the same distance, they stay near their top speed longer.

[@aphextwin5712]

One aspect not mentioned is the network effect. Conventional high speed rail can tap into an existing network, and be it only for the ‘last mile’ into a city center. Sure, if you want to add capacity, you might also need new tracks into city centres or even new platforms. But HSR often might just replace older lower rail. And HSR can easily be built in stages, HS2 in the UK for example allows train to continue to run further north, even after only the first phase has become operational. You can’t do that a Maglev. And in the same way that HSR requires certain population densities and distances to work best (and thus be the most economical option), Maglev also has an optimal distance, which is longer than for conventional HSR. And given that a longer distance means a larger upfront investment, it is more difficult to finance it.

[@miscbits6399]

That depends _how_ you finance it. The underlaying point is that it's a competitor to airlines, not railways and airlines are currently extremely heavily subsidised (both directly and indirectly by using airspace and subjecting populations to noise pollution) whereas railway budgetting has to pay for EVERYTHING including the track (roads are invariably also heavily subsidised, which is why road traffic grows at the expense of rail) As fuel costs skyrocket this will change. Electric aircraft might be able to puddlejump but they can't do long distances and never will as nothing comes close to the energy density of liquid fuels (let's not fly nuclear aircraft. apart from shielding issues, splattering one across the countryside would be highly antisocial) with the added complication that aircraft will always be taking off close to MTOW no matter how short the flight (enhanced wear and tear). Additionally, the cost of retrofitting airport aprons - and paying for dedicated HV feeds to provide sufficient energy to be able to turn around flights within 2 hours or less (ie recharging) will make the £4.3 billion cost of Heathrow terminal 5 look like chicken feed (it would probably be easier to build dedicated nuclear power stations beside each major airport) - and this WILL be passed back onto fliers, making flying mostly the preserve of the wealthy (again)

[@cidiracing7481]

Depends on how the HSR is planned out. While something like the German ICE does run on conventional rail lines. The Shinkansen lines in Japan are all purpose built tracks just for the high speed trains with no other trains using the tracks, including the tracks into the city center and station platforms. While the second one does cost more, it is also considerably safer. High speed trains on conventional tracks that are shared have the risk of colliding with non high speed rail trains as has happened multiple times with the German ICE trains and the French TGV. Outside of cities, standard tracks also have road crossings which is another failure point that leads to collisions. The UK high speed rail system is a joke anyway. HS1 is not particularly fast with the speed limit they have to follow, and HS2 is ridiculously expensive for what it will deliver.

[@miscbits6399]

@@cidiracing7481 "Shinkansen" literally means "new line" - the existing JR network is 3'6" cape gauge and patently unsafe at higher speeds. The JR New Line HSR network is standard gauge (you see sections of dual gauge in some areas such as the tunnel from Honshu to Hokkaido) Because of the gauging issues, curve radius requirements (no tilting trains in 1964) and heavily used existing network the Shinkansen network had to be built as an end to end complete line. That's not the case in areas with standard gauge throughout the network The Japanese Maglev _does_ have rails and wheelsets, used below 150km/h (90mph) and as such can be moved on the existing Shinkansen lines (as rolling stock, not self-propelled) however that network is extremely busy (It also means that trainsets can be shunted, parked and switched on conventional lines, which greatly reduces complexity of the maglev network - however I doubt that any kind of switching of passenger-carrying trains would occur even at reduced speeds)

[@cidiracing7481]

@miscbits6399 Yes, generally, other trains use narrow gauge in Japan and run around mountains instead of using more direct and straighter routes than what a high speed train needs. But they could have still built a cheaper network on standard gauge that can be also used by non high speed trains and phase out portions of the narrow gauge train services to make the Shinkansen lines economically more appealing in exchange for the highest safety standards. Freight transport was at some point considered in their original plans before they built the line. Instead they went with lines that are only for high speed train passenger transportation and with a setup that is considerably more expensive, but ensures the highest safety. Best example is that they deliberately built all lines so there wouldn't be a single level crossing even though it adds quite a bit to the construction costs than just building all lines at ground level. Germany could have eliminated level crossings over time for their ICE routes. It wouldn't be cheap and it would cause disruptions, but it would be possible and eliminate one of the biggest safety issues. Regarding the Maglev low speed operation. That is on rubber wheels, it does not use standard train wheels to get up to speed. So at least the L0 would not be able to operate on any Shinkansen line outside of the one that is being built currently between Tokyo and Nagoya and the later expansion to Osaka.

[@matsv201]

When would you ever add a high speed track and not need more capacity. Also, you actually can´t do that, becasue there are incompabilties between high speed rail and freight rail, you have to seperate them

[@CubicSpline7713]

One further point : Maglevs need a dedicated line, without points/crossrails en-route. Conventional trains can switch routes across vast networks (e.g. in the UK) which makes them a very flexible option.

[@revoltx1]

This isnt really a major issue in the scale of the idea, it would be easy to get around by boring a tunnel instead

[@revoltx1]

(or even going over head in some cases)

[@masterchinese28]

I remember taking the maglev in Shanghai in 2004, shortly after it had opened. At the time there was a lot of hype and the local English newspaper even said that a new line to Hangzhou would be available in time for the 2010 World Expo. That never happened. Plans to extend that line to downtown also didn't go anywhere. Many locals are actually wary of it going through their neighborhoods, as some think that the maglev is too noisy and some even told me that they thought the magnets could cause cancer. I am no position to say if they are right or not, but I do know that it has been nearly 20 years since the Pudong airport line opened and it remains unique and largely unprofitable.

[@miscbits6399]

The original plan was to run the maglev at least between the two main airports with a stop in town centre and a right-of-way still exists. The NOISE was the driving factor of oppostion. As soon as locals found out how loud a 500km/h train is they started pushing back _hard_ against the local government (Contrary to perception, whilst the Chinese government is authoritarian, they know better than to piss off hundreds of thousands of people at once, over a single issue) Ok, it's quieter than a jet fighter making a low speed pass (or even a conventional high speed train), but it's still _really_ loud and to make it worse it's a thump you can FEEL from over 100m away) "High-speed maglev noise impacts on residents: A case study in Shanghai" is worthwhile reading The economic case for the maglev is somewhat undermined by the Shanghai subway only taking ~40 minutes to city centre from either airport and being 1/10 the cost. As much as I wanted to ride it, the potential screaming match with my wife about the ticket price difference was not worth it (Never mind that we could easily afford it and I had budgetted it in, she blew her stack when she saw the price vs taking the metro. Persisting would have been "most unwise") WRT magnetic fields or radio emissions causing cancer: Inverse square laws apply to both and in most cases unless you're sitting ON the magnet or antenna, it's not going to affect you (and almost certainly has no effect whatsoever beyond a couple of metres)

[@masterchinese28]

@@miscbits6399 I definitely remember the complaints and fears about the sound too. When I arrived in Shanghai in 2003 from France, the metro line 3 had just opened and it still sold paper tickets. Now they are literally building the line 23 near my apartment. It is MUCH more convenient now than it was then.

[@JinghisKhan]

@@miscbits6399 Yeah once they extended Line 2 from Zhangjiang Hi-Tech out to PVG, most people just switched to taking the subway since it was much cheaper and could get you directly into city center or even all the way out to Hongqiao Airport/Shanghai Railway Central without the need to switch. I did take it once though on my way out, was a cool experience for sure.

[@bellshooter]

Glad to see the Birmingham Airport Link Maglev shown here, often forgotten , a collaboration of GEC, Metro-Cammell and others. I was fortunate enough to see the Japanese prototype Maglev at a Science Institute when I visited Japan in the 1990's? The thing that most people do is overestimate the friction of steel wheels on steel rails, actually quite low, and underestimate the energy required to suspend a 300 tonne train. Plus the Elephant in the Room is the cost of replacing thousands of miles of current rail infrastructure. A factor more per mile than even HS2!

[@kaltaron1284]

The low friction is also one of the reasons it takes a train forever to stop. (And the massive mass involved of course.) IIRC Maglev should be better at that. Sadly I missed the chance to ride the Chuuou experimental track. Guess I'll have to wait until it's opened for real. And yes, the investment costs are mind staggering.

[@MoonMage67]

great video as usual, but why would you mention the idiotic scam that is the hyperloop at the end?

[@keithgarrett42]

Came here to say the same thing!

[@elisfsharri]

You made me watch the end of the video again. "The hyperloops of tomorrow", lol. There is a higher chance that we get teleportation.

[@RailRide]

@@elisfsharri Well yeah, once you solve the trouble with transporters: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIKrc3SaiM2aj6ssi=m548mDBjjdsxKnIn 😀 ⚡💀⚡😀 ...🤨🤔❓

[@stevenvanhulle7242]

My thought exactly...

[@mdhazeldine]

As you said, if you can't built HSR properly (USA, UK etc.) don't even THINK about Maglev. Leave it to the Japanese and Chinese to develop the tech and prove it out while we try and just get some basic trains that work. Maybe in 100 years we can start thinking about Maglev. lol. But....even then I don't think it'll catch on big. It's quite a niche solution that only really works for linear corridors over long distances. It can't interface with existing tracks, so it'll always be it's own dedicated high speed thing, rather than a full network.

[@MeteorMark]

At 20m15s you talk about the L0 Maglev, while showing a regular N700 Nozomi Shinkansen, also a fun and fast train at 275 Km/h between Tokyo & Kyoto, takes only about 2h20m as we recently experienced 😊 Tom Scott was at the experimental Maglev track in Japan for a video.

[@Ven100]

Considering the new CR450 conventional high-speed train will have operating speeds of 400 kmh or 249 mph, it's is not far off the current Shanghai maglev.

[@fauzirahman3285]

And the operating cost is significantly lower too.

[@fishyerik]

Great episode! It's fascinating how difficult it seems to be to get even traditional trains to work really well, despite having some significant potential advantages over road traffic, and maglevs having significant potential benefits over traditional rail, seems to be even harder to produce good versions of. Those are high costs, but then again, as potentially society altering megaprojects go, a few billion dollars isn't that much, especially the quoted estimates. I mean, if something sounds to good to be true and all that, applies very well to cost estimates for massive and highly advanced infrastructure on the same order of magnitude of what it takes to maintain the streets along the planned route during the time it actually will take to get the new infrastructure up and running.

[@neilgodwin6531]

We loved the Birmingham maglev. When we visited the NEC, adjacent to the airport and International rail station, we used to ride it, it was free, unmanned and fun. Incredibly comfortable and almost silent. We were gutted when it closed

[@Igbonigga]

Neil Iamewhlteboy

[@Igbonigga]

k -I I

[@Igbonigga]

yoseIf

[@Igbonigga]

Iame whlteboy

[@eiennofantasy]

Quick correction: the Japanese maglev line is not called "CHO"(超 - super) but "CHOO-OH"(中央 - Central) Shinkansen. Though calling it "Super Shinkansen" instead of "Central Shinkansen" sounds like an actual upgrade of the existing shinkansen system

[@borismuller86]

The Super New Trunk Line!

[@archie4oz]

LOL, I just saw this comment and had the same thoughts (and commented before I noticed this...) 😅

[@888YangJi]

you have not mentioned the one in Changsha, China. It is has been running for a few years and quite successful commercially. total length 18.55km $749 million USD cost. Top speed at 140km/h 40million USD per km isn't that expensive compare to average cost of subway line in China which is between 82-121million USD per km.

[@Igbonigga]

888yangji Iamewhlteboy

[@Igbonigga]

Iame whlteboy

[@Igbonigga]

k -I I

[@ecomandurban7183]

Back in 2004 I was fortunate to be able to ride on the Transrapid at 450 km/hr at the test track in Emsland, Germany.

[@nigelyorkshiremanwadeley6263]

Here in Australia, we can't even get high speed rail up and running, never mind Maglev.

[@lukefrahn8538]

we struggle with low speed rail. maaaaaaaaate!

[@pbworld7858]

Surely you have an Australian version of USA's Greyhound or UK's National Express? ;-)

[@miscbits6399]

@@pbworld7858 There's been a proposal for a Sydney-Melbourne (via Canberra) HSR line as long as I can remember (at least the late 1960s) and distances in Oz are so great that it's usually better to fly (definitely safer and usually significantly cheaper) It's nearly 600km between Sydney/Melbourne by the _shortest_ road route.(350 miles) and a smidgen over 900km (550 miles) to Brisbane whilst Melbourn to Adelaide is 720km and Adelaide to Perth is 2700km. Australia is BIG (much bigger than all of Western Europe combined) and population densities outside the SE coastal strip are more easily measured in square miles per person than people per square mile HSRs are expensive to build and maintain. This may change (in relative terms) as oil prices keep climbing and carbon emission requirements become more stringent but Australia most likely needs to cconsider nuclear power rather than continuing expensive "backing store" projects like Snowy 2.0 (or even more expensive battery projects which give less runtime)

[@nigelyorkshiremanwadeley6263]

we have a version of England's HST but its only as fast as regular trains...@@pbworld7858

[@andymouse]

You have the added problem that your upside down.

[@jamiedewberry6702]

Note the N700 shown at timestamp 20:15 is a Shinkansen running on wheels put into service in 2007. Looks good and similar but is not a maglev at all.

[@tnxrail]

The Birmingham Maglev was near me and I went on it not long before it closed when I was 4/5 years old. It was stopped for a while and now replaced with a cable drawn people mover which also may change or be part of a link to the HS2 station.

[@markbrusberg9808]

I live between Baltimore and Washington DC and I am one of those opposed to the project. As pointed out in the video, the ultimate goal is to build a Maglev train in the Northeast Corridor and the officials in Maryland were the only ones who were willing to consider allowing a smaller demonstration project in their state. The selling point was getting from DC to Baltimore in 15-20 minutes, with a stop at the airport in between. Aside from the cost - both for the line and compensating people who will lose their homes - the problem is there is no real local need. There are already 2 separate commuter train lines serving the route, along with 2 major highways connecting the cities. Based on where I live I will still need to take the older train as there would be no local stop. Residents realize this isn't for them it's for a larger project that they will not see benefits from.

[@Igbonigga]

markbrusburg Iamewhlteboy

[@Igbonigga]

Iame whlteboy

[@Igbonigga]

k -I I

[@LillibitOfHere]

The place that could really use mag lev, even at regular train speeds, is Chicago. A very quiet train line could improve property values and living conditions along the L. It’s loud as hell.

[@SkunkApe407]

A maglev isn't going to do anything for Chiraq. Decades of corrupt and incompetent leadership has left that city a cesspool.

[@bmyers7078]

7:57. Speed helps with levitation. Wheels might still have noise issues. [time+money+will=innovation].

[@tintin_999]

This is the actual future of maglev, as low noise and vibration urban rail lines. The biggest problem with maglevs to date is that they are all effectively monorails with monorail track switching problems. To switch a regular train between tracks your just have to move two narrow steel beams (rails), to switch a current monorail/maglev between tracks you need to often move a massive heavy concrete beam with a system that is much more prone to breaking down and slow to boot. If you can't switch tracks quickly and cheaply you cannot run as many trains and have to provide a much lower level of service. The Delft Hyperloop project is looking at using magnetic track switching (this part of the project is good, the vac tunnels are silly). In China they have built a maglev that uses a combination of permanent magnets and electromagnets for suspension. Put these together and you could have something quiet and practical. An advantage of maglev trains not mentioned in this video is that they can be much lighter than regular trains, meaning putting them on elevated viaducts can be much cheaper. They are lighter because they do not need to be heavy to make low friction steel wheels on steel rails work without slipping. Cheaper elevated rail is needed in cities as tunneling is so expensive.

[@katrinabryce]

You could probably achieve that with continuously welded rails and modern eclectic motors.

[@miscbits6399]

moving to rubber tyres would solve most of the noise problems (French solution) far more cheaply than maglev, and doesn't have the switching issues (I'm pointing to the French solution as thia was specifically a conversion from rail to tyres+rail whilst most others would require the entire system be rebuilt from scratch)

[@jimgraham6722]

I have ridden the Pudong maglev. On the day I travelled it reached 435kmh. Quite impressive. However, the ride wasnt as smooth as say Shinkansen, Eurostar or CHSR.

[@Gigi-xr3qs]

This guy shaking his hands around like he just took an acting class is going to eat crow after the Japanese Maglev opens.

[@TheMightyZwom]

Monorail! (What's it called?) Monorail! (Say it loud!) MONORAAAAAIL! Mono... D'oh!

[@AtheistOrphan]

Is it true the track will bend?

[@antonywooster6783]

I'm surprised that you did not mention the development of "High-temperature superconductors" in connextion with the maglev projects. To me, that looks like a real game changer.

[@spillsndebris]

Simon it's so nice to hear your voice again. Are you not going to do TopTenz anymore? Literally my favorite thing to listen to while driving any distance.

[@SilentStorm_5]

@ 6:28… pick it up, Pick It Up, PICK IT UP!!! 😉🤣😂🤣

[@riffgroove]

It amazes me that nobody in North America has built a maglev train yet. The Shinkansen is a major mode of transportaion there. It's so reliable in Japan that everybody simply takes it for granted.

[@surferdude4487]

The cost of building and running magnets that are large enough to levitate and propel a passenger train are enormous! Also, mag-lev trains need long runs to make their much higher possible speed make sense. In Toronto, we had the Scarborough LRT. It wasn't mag-lev, but it used a linear motor that was built into the tracks. It was supposed to be super-fast and fully automated. As soon as the thing got into opperation, the residents complained about the noise. That was the end of super-fast. Before the thing ever made it's first run, the TTC driver's union insisted that each train had a live operator at all times. So much for fully automated. To make things worse, the engineers that designed the thing failed to take damp, cold Toronto winters into account, so the thing was broken down about 20% of the time during winter. I don't live in Toronto anymore, but I heard that the Scarborough LRT has been scrapped.

[@JamesThomas-zl9er]

I loved the Maglev at BHX it was very convenient- had no idea it had closed down…

[@Artista_Frustrado]

Maglev lines sound like they work better the longer the train has to travel, which economically is a tad counterproductive Chile would be great for that tho 1with only 15 stops, also Chile is a long straight chunk of land

[@alan-dx2zf]

I travelled on the original Maglev At Birmingham Airport in 1981. I was an electronics apprentice at the time. It was quiet but a bit shaky I thought. Very Heath Robinson.

[@pesawatindonesia]

superb mister

[@SeverSTL]

Thanx., First time propulsion was explained.

[@DavidZimmermannz]

The Birmingham Airports Maglevs track is still in use just with what i think is a cable drawn train on it now. Birmingham Airport is directly connected to over 100 towns and cities via Birmingham International Station and the 'Air-Rail Link' monorail system

[@85priesty]

160kph, I'm amazed it was "only" 23 fatalities...I was expecting "everyone on board...etc"

[@wesleygibson575]

One thing you left out is the fact that Maglevs need an entirely new infrastructure, which cost a lot of money for a singe type of train. High speed Trains aside most Traintracks operate with different trains on them, that transport people as well as cargo.

[@dariuszb.9778]

I remember times when the Swissmetro was looking for a country where first shorter section of the (now known as) Hyperloop would be built to serve as a proof of conception to measure construction and maintenance costs. Over 20 years ago they proposed such investment of underground rail to some cities, including the Polish city of Cracow (Cracow-Zakopane tourist metro line, 12 minutes ride @ 500 kph). Cracow refused to participate in the investment, believing it to be a "white elephant" project. Back those times (20 years ago) the cost of building Lyon-Munich-Vienna Swissmetro line was estimated for 40 bn EUR (some 80 bn EUR today I believe).

[@nimaiiikun]

good you acknowledged Japan's Linimo train. people keep forgetting Japan long had an operational Maglev line before the Chuo Shinkansen.

[@maddog2020tt2]

As a pittsburgh resident I will wholeheartedly agree with your assessment

[@davekirk100]

You don't mention the massive engineering needed for track switches or points. Not nearly as simple as moving a couple of steel rails by a few cm, you have to move the entire track bed and all the electronics needed to move the train

[@colormedubious4747]

You're stuck in a specific design mindset. Think of rotary switches instead.

[@FNLNFNLN]

@@colormedubious4747 It's still more complex than a simple rail switch.

[@MatthiasWiesmann]

Well, the general logistics of plain tracks is also a big cost factor, you are basically competing with two steel bars screwed into concrete blocks and an electric wire. Hard to get cheaper per unit of distance …

[@domp2729]

It would essentially work the same way as monorail switches do where the track itself bends.

[@colormedubious4747]

@@domp2729 Beam replacement switches are constructed of reinforced concrete and do NOT bend. The straight section swings out of the way as the curved section swings in to take its place (or vice versa). The entire process takes about 12 seconds. Rotary switches are faster and also do NOT bend. Segmented switches (such as those used in many Japanese transit monorails) APPEAR to bend from a distance but the individual segments they're made of are reinforced concrete and not bendy at all.

[@Stardustchild01]

It's funny to me that you mention the hyperloop at the end. A technology that will never come into existence. XD

[@henrycarlson7514]

Interesting , Thank you .

[@4KChillVibes.]

I was taken to the transrapid in germany on a school tour and it wasnt working that day either, to enter the park you had to drive under a section of the track which that day just so happened to have a badly damaged rear section of the train stuck on the tracks, it turned out earlier that morning the two sections of the train had seperated that morning and only one section continued home to a kind of main test/station building where we were all emptied out of our bus, i think we were all happy to not be going on it and the teachers spent about an hour trying to get their money back. we were given a terrible 10/15 minute talk on the train by some guy who looked like some transrapid fan rather than a staff member and we were promptly told to get back on the bus.. lol

[@scottgordon1781]

Yes , the Brum maglev , at the former Elmdom airport , maybe the guys at BMC made it , was cool though !

[@brianwalley2131]

I have travelled on the maglev train in Shanghai. It only goes a relatively short distance from the city centre and Pudong international airport, so it is more of a tourist ride than a practical application of the technology

[@gifttanz]

Snails get somewhere eventually: *Snail who has spent the last hour crawling up my window * me: "back to the garden for you sir". Snail: *distressed writhing* Kinda feels like the Maglev projects. "back to the scifi books for you sir".

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Informative and wonderful journal coverage video about Maglev train 🚆 around the world 🌎 practiced in several industrial countries

[@ismoleppanen]

I rode a maglev vehicle in 1977, when it was demonstrade on IVA exhibition in Hamburg.

[@peterblake4837]

Except the GatPort Airwick maglev interport train. The high speeds seen by maglev trains are largely due to the dedicated and expensive track. As to the quality of the ride, the UK's HS2 and the Chunnel running on welded rails is very quiet and smooth.

[@mikeybrant6305]

I’ve been on the Shanghai one, amazing.

[@AubriGryphon]

The problem with maglev is not simply its cost, but where its cost comes from. Maglev track is extremely expensive on a per-mile basis and can't be shared by any other vehicles. In contrast, a length of high-speed conventional track is relatively affordable and can be used by low-speed local trains when not needed for the high-speed service, and a high-speed train can travel at low speed on low-speed track to integrate with existing infrastructure. So, because maglev expenses scale rapidly with the size of the network, they're really only suitable for the rare cases where you need to connect relatively distant cities with fast, high-volume service that can't be supported by aircraft, slower trains, or road vehicles. So certain cases like the Shinkansen make sense, but -- as you noted -- city center to city center transit is very difficult to retrofit into an existing city. Digging them through tunnels just exacerbates the per-mile expenses, so even that isn't really a solution. It's a great idea, but you would have to build your country with this transit system in mind, or else have a strong-to-tyrannical government capable of forcing the city restructuring needed to accommodate it over any objection from the residents. (Looking at you, China.)

[@rokulus7910]

I like how you just dropped in "the hyperloops of tomorrow" at the end, implying that they're the natural, inevitable future of train travel. When in reality hyperloop is little more than an impractical (at best) gadgetbahn that shows no sign of a practical application being developed. The challenges of conventional maglev are nothing compared to the challenges of running a train through a vacuum tube hundreds or even thousands of km long at twice the speed. Unlike hyperloop, maglev actually has a future.

[@jimdigitalvideo]

Thanks for that explanation. I always figured the reason all countries don't have them now is just because they're expensive. Now I realize that although the upfront cost is expensive, that's the least of it.

[@vic5015]

These have also turned out to be *incredibly* experience. And it sounds like this mught actually be better suited for freught trains.

[@SkunkApe407]

If that was the case, they'd be used as such already.

[@AtheistOrphan]

I wouldn’t say the experience is that incredible.

[@christiankruse1970]

Would loved to have learned more about the economics of maglevs. What are the upfront and operating costs Vs HSR? What is the ideal length of a Magelev vs airplane or HSR? Is there an ideal length or route that optimizes maglev over other options?

[@paquirosd]

I swear to god, this guy shows up in every other youtube channel

[@widodoakrom3938]

Lol

[@NothingIsKnown00]

Also Maglev trains can’t use regular rail. It’s a fixed system that can’t use existing infrastructure (yet).

[@puirYorick]

Just as early airlines carried mail as a reliable revenue stream, maglev lines could find niche freight haulage of containers along high-demand routes to be profitable. The trouble with high-speed *passenger* rail service is the need for frequent stops at local stations. Maglev could be seen as a pseudo pipeline for containerized cargo on routes where they could out-compete trucks on freight volume and timely delivery. The weight and logistics may not work out favourably except for high-value goods on single-client routes. It would be informative to analyze all the numbers on energy input, maintenance, labour and infrastructure investment compared to regular rail and OTR trucking. Walmart could investigate a network from The Port of Long Beach to several inland logistics depots versus their current fleet of trucks.

[@ybing]

I think the only one that might really work is the upcoming Japan one, when you can fill up every Shinkansen every 10 mins between Osaka and Tokyo during peak hours

[@abarratt8869]

It's touch and go. Commercially, it likely cannot be completed without government intervention. Whether there is traffic levels to pay for it is far from clear. They have a declining population size, and an awful lot of transport options already. Internal air travel is pretty plentiful and cheap, and a new generation of aircraft could easily undercut the Chuo Shinkansen. Plus they need to solve the Shizuoka problem... But Japan is probably one of the very few countries where such a line can work. Being long, thin, with a large fraction of the population spread out along the Pacific coast, you only ever really need one line to cover most of the population. Covering a large fraction of the population of one of the world's biggest economies within a single infrastructure build is pretty much the best financial prospect for such projects. Try that in countries with more width, you have a lot of the same build costs per line with a guarantee of a much smaller market.

[@nox5555]

@@abarratt8869 central Europe would also work but there ate the alps in the way. Munich-Budapest would be a fantastic connection. only 4 stops, 3 central european capitals and munich.

[@gregoryturk1275]

@@abarratt8869Gotta extend it to Fukuoka and Sapporo and make it run 600km/h 🙏🙏🙏

[@LBG-cf8gu]

nice! thx

[@huwzebediahthomas9193]

Makes the present day unfinished HS2 in Britain look totally Brunel.

[@BassandoForte]

Whereas roads are Roman tech... 🤣

[@thesuncollective1475]

I have been on the Shanghai Maglev..it was great

[@Obeythebeard]

With a top capacity of only 10 000 passengers per hour* the Chūō Shinkansen will be a somewhat sad addition to the travel market in Japan. Especially considering the high demand route it is a part of. The Tokaido Shinkansen of today has a peak capacity of 42 000 passengers per hour and it will obviously remain the absolute backbone of the route between Tokyo and Nagoya (and Osaka a few years down the line). That's a lot of money for little use. *5 trains per direction and hour with a seating of 1000 passengers each **16 trains per direction and hour with a seating of a little more than 1300 passengers each

[@ViraIshnia]

This video reminded me that the Alberta government was talking at one point about a train between Edmonton and Calgary. I'm pretty sure it wasn't supposed to be a Maglev but I should look into what happened to that

[@ignitionfrn2223]

1:10 - Chapter 1 - How it works 4:30 - Mid roll ads 5:45 - Chapter 2 - Design & development 11:00 - Chapter 3 - Maglev in practice 15:55 - Chapter 4 - State of affairs

[@asylumental]

You forgot skytrain in Vancouver Canada, which was built for expo '87 And it's still in operation, its been very successful and has had several.modern updates and track expansions.

[@notverydeep9726]

Vancouver Skytrain is a conventional (elevated) metro train with rails and wheels. It does feature automatic operation but is certainly not a Maglev.

[@asylumental]

@@notverydeep9726 it is certainly not a conventional rail system, the skytrain uses linear induction motors to propel and stop the cars, also allowing the cars to climb steep inclines with ease. The system was invented in canada in the 1970's, and is OFTEN associated with MAGLEV technology.

[@notverydeep9726]

@@asylumental but it is still steel wheel on steel rail though and the linear motors must overcome the friction that this entails. To be a Maglev (and thus inclusion in the list this video is assembling) requires levitation. I accept that the word conventional may have also implied bogie mounted AC or DC electric motors. While Linear Motor powered metros using conventional steel wheel and rail are not common, there are a fair number more of them than there are Maglev metros...

[@asylumental]

@notverydeep9726 fair enough... so in lamens terms the skytrain is kinda like a hybrid..

[@riffgroove]

I live in Vancouver, NOBODY refers to it as a maglev train here for the most obvious reason. It isn't a maglev. And the world Expo here was actually in 1986.

[@andymouse]

Maybe superconductivity will help !if we ever see it at cheap and easy temps and pressures...cheers.

[@jamesgornall5731]

The shanghai maglev looks awesome

[@GodlikeIridium]

Maglevs are amazing and can still become much faster. But right now we need to mention that the speed record of 600 km/h isn't that fast. The TGVs record is 575 km/h, a much cheaper conventional train.

[@neilgodwin6531]

UK will never have a maglev rail line. We can't even build a comparatively slow "high speed" line from Birmingham to the North

[@trayolphia5756]

13:44 ahem, the city of Sydney in Australia used to have a monorail system that took a route throughout the city… It has since been removed and replaced with multiple light-rail/tram lines… But kinda poor form to have left it out - it was even featured in the power rangers movie from the 90s

[@EvilGav]

The only high-speed maglev, in Shanghai, doesn't actually even make sense. It runs for 18 miles and take 7.5 minutes, more than half of which is acceleration, and doesn't stop anywhere. For comparison, my old commute was 13 miles, stopped at 6-8 stations, and took ~20 minutes, if it didn't have to stop it would have been more like 15 minutes. The Shanghai maglev, realistically, shaves maybe 5 minutes off the time of just using a fairly boring train (not even a fast one). It serves no real purpose except to be able to point and say "look what we did". What is missed from the film is one of the major reasons why they don't exist in a wider context - and it's the same reason that mono-rails are also basically non-existent. They require very expensive, exclusive track, that doesn't deal with junctions very well - i.e. it mostly requires an end-to-end seamless run. That makes them more or less useless across Europe, given the old world nature of the populations and existing infrastructure. China can build them, because they don't give a shit who they disrupt when building anything. Japan have history of using separate high-speed lines, so know how to do it. The US should be the one leading the way with it, given the vast amounts of emptiness and distances between major cities - but they have to fall out of love with cars to gain the apetite.

[@Dark-Lord-Of-The-Sith]

With me living in the U. S. Midwest, I wish we had some kind of rail line, Mag or otherwise.

[@--enyo--]

Cool, I was hoping for this after the HSR episode. I thought they were like the hyper loop but I guess a little less theoretical.

[@timmyboy2276]

There was also a proposed maglev train between Denver and Glenwood springs that would have a spur down to Aspen and up to steamboat springs. That was turned down by the voters before it could ever get started

[@WhichDoctor1]

It ultimately comes down to the fact that laying two steel bars next to eachother on some hardcore is a hell of a lot cheaper than building a complex construction of connected electro magnets that have to be coordinated with millisecond precision. And given that the extra cost increases fairly linearly per mile, and that maglevs work better the further they travel to take advantage of speed, the upfront outlay is always going to be much more, And atm vastly more, than conventional trains. Same reason the hyper loop was a stupid idea. Well, one of the reasons

[@metalhead2550]

It's an interesting idea and I'm all for fantastic new technologies. However, given SNCF managed to get a TGV up to 574kph, I can't see them taking off unless they have the possibility of reaching near the 1,000kph mark. At which point are we near the fabled hyperloop?

[@widodoakrom3938]

Yeah TGV still the fastest non maglev train

[@hououinkyouma1458]

Well Hyperloop is just maglev in a vaccum tube so yeah.

[@effehell7593]

TGV current top speed is 300 km/h.

[@matsv201]

How fast it can hit in a one time test is totaly irelevant. It also took 150 km to acceleration to that speed and it was down hill. Apart from that they had to straigen the track after and the train was composed of 5 locos and no vagon

[@_peepyopee]

Japan's Maglev reached 603kmh which was limited by the length of the track. Transrapid have also stated that 700-800kmh is achievable China is currently pursuing 1000kmh Maglev tech

[@enlightendbel]

Hyperloops are pretty much maglev with every complexity and problem area multiplied by 10. They won't supercede maglev.

[@AvoidTheCadaver]

the shanghai maglev is very impressive but it didn't run at full speed for all services. One of the drawbacks of the train is that the length of track just isn't long enough for it to viable to run it at full speed all the time. By the time it reached full speed it would be very close to the time that it needed to start decelerating. Most of the time (at least at the time that I had ridden it), it was run at around 250kph or so.

[@dasfabelwesen]

That train in shanghai is pretty loud and it feels bumpier than a regular train.

[@daweilaotou1269]

Having ridden on the Shanghai maglev numerous times & the Gaotie, (HSR) regularly I'd have to agree with you. The Gaotie is much smoother.

[@aphextwin5712]

No contact with the track and no moving part removes some sources of noise and vibration. But levitation probably makes people think of floating in the air, like on a cushion of air. But the air is not providing any real cushioning effect here. The train is magnetically very tight with the tracking. This means that if the track experiences some deviations from a smooth line, for example some minor subsidence of the ground as can occur over time, those deviations will be mirrored by the train. I would suppose subsidence would lead to some small shifts of the concrete elements supporting the track relative to each other.

[@miscbits6399]

@@aphextwin5712 It demonstrates that you can't "just" rely on the levitation but still need a suspension system to soak up ride irregularities The Japanese mmaglev has the same issue and it's mostly in tunnels - Tom Scott published a video on his experience

[@nox5555]

@@miscbits6399 Well it doesnt helps that it was the first and only line with this system and that the company that designed it isnt around anymore. also chinese quality controll on the track...

[@miscbits6399]

@@nox5555 Tom Scott's Japanese experience demonstrates that both your assertions aren't relevant to the bumpiness of the ride. Either the cabins need to be isolated from the external environment or something like air-sprung seats need to be used - and given the comments he made about noise levels, it's likely to end up being the former over the latter, if a decision isn't make to partially evacuate the tunnels This is a complex set of issues (to say the least) and in all liklihood some combination of solutions will be used. Shinkansen riders have become used to extremely smooth rides and the current maglev ride quality will be intolerable to the average Japanese passenger

[@maz1960]

15:15 - I am from Pittsburgh, and... Yeah, that's pretty much true.

[@BasisForChange]

There are many mistakes here. Friction is not a speed issue for wheeled vehicles, even very heavy trains. At high speeds air drag dominates the frictional costs of steel wheels on steel rails. The French TGV wheeled train had an experimental run at over 550kph. The issue with the wheels is mostly track and bogey maintenance. Those costs grow as the third to fourth power of the wheel loads. The fact that they could be better climbers is irrelevant for high speeds as the passenger comfort issues are the same whether the acceleration is lateral or vertical. High speed vehicles with any suspension and drive train require tracks with little lateral or vertical direction changes. Straight and flat = expensive and huge right of way acquisition costs. Maglevs have had limited penetration because they are about fixing the wrong problems, while introducing their own intrinsic issues like needing some form of linear motor versus just turning a wheel. We know how to do the latter really well. Good roller bearings used in roller blades are capable of more than 30,000 rpm so a 16 centimeter diameter wheel would support a linear speed of 900kph.

[@boden8138]

Yes, wheels are surprisingly good.

[@LilaKuhJunge]

Think of a maglev track as the stator of an electric motor and the train being some kind of the unrolled rotor. Now in order to cope with all kinds of external impact factors, the flight height must be something like 15-20mm, meaning we have an air gap of 20mm between stator and rotor. A typical electric motor has an air gap of less than 1mm which makes it far more efficient. Additionally, the maglev needs energy to lift off and stabilize during flight which also impacts efficiency.

[@nevermindmeijustinjectedaw9988]

the maglev train in shanghai shows that it's not only possible but also well worthwhile in rich areas with lots of people to use it. and the whole thing about many stops reinforces a point i've always used to make about maglevs: it's best for replacing air travel with an electric (green) option at half its speed but lower cost and hopefully less superfluous security bs like on airports. the us eastcoast is a pretty good choice, but i'm not so sure about japan, honshu is pretty much covered in one part by an ocean of cities that grew into eachother, there maglevs seem like a waste to me. large, rich countries with few but large cities where there's lots of commuting between them by plane or bus would be the ideal choice. canada and australia would be interesting for one, sydney-canberra-melbourne, then adding brisbane and adelaide some day later, aswell as montreal-toronto and some day to detroit or sth. in another timeline i couldve imagined this between moscow and st peterburg, or on the brazilian coast, starting between rio and sao paulo. and sure, all of these are very grand projects, so the shanghai style is still a great option for the start. you REALLY dont want airports near to cities. but commuting there is also annoying. so you build a super high speed maglev train with only a two terminal stations.

[@SkunkApe407]

And where would you put an airport, if not outside of a major city? Why would someone in Chicago or NYC leave the city and drive to a smaller town, just to catch a plane? I swear, you train needs are modern day Luddites who won't drop an outdated technology. Rail will never be more cost effective or economic as fight. If trains were the wonders you think they are, the Wright Brothers would never have invented the airplane.

[@nevermindmeijustinjectedaw9988]

@@SkunkApe407 ever lived near an airport? oh wait, no, americans probably all live next to highways, sorry, i'll take it back. no wonder y'all are so loud if you get deafened by constant traffic eversince you're born

[@backlogbuddies]

The maglev in Shanghai is one of the reasons why they burn so much coal. It's also insanely expensive and a massive financial burden

[@nevermindmeijustinjectedaw9988]

@@backlogbuddies noone forces them to burn coal. civilised countries choose nuclear.

[@SkunkApe407]

@@nevermindmeijustinjectedaw9988 wrong answer, chump. Many European nations have elected not to use nuclear power.

[@danielhale1]

Same reason we're not firing laser guns or driving flying cars: Lots of problems, very expensive, and traditional weapons/vehicles are just so darn effective. Just because a new tech offers benefits doesn't mean it's ready or viable.

[@Notsogoodguitarguy]

I think it's very understated how much of a problem regular stops are. If you gotta stop every few kilometers, high speeds make very little sense. Also, normal high-speed trains can get to pretty impressive speeds already, close to the comfortable speed limit where passengers would still be comfortably. The French TGV travels up to 320 km/h, the German ICEs aren't that far behind. And that's already pretty near the limit of comfortable travel. Maglevs sadly don't make too much sense. They would make sense on big stretches without many stops, but there isn't many of those. You don't really wanna build a rail that connects only big cities and skips everything in between.

[@miscbits6399]

The reason for maglev non-adoption can be summed up simply: Railways already exist and are good enough for most purposes. Good enough is the enemy of perfect (Lathen happened on an experimental line without adequate railway safety procedures) Maglevs have a massive disadvantage which comes with speed - NOISE (but so are fast trains). The Shanghai maglev was slowed down outside of the middle of the day due to complaints from residents nearby - it's the equivalent of a jetliner passing by at cruise speed (If you're ever heard a 737 doing a high speed cruise trim pass over a runway for demontration purposes you'd understand - they're deafening even at 100m away from railway centreline At low speed they're almost silent, which is a huge advantage over rail - but see the first line The limiting factor on train speed is NOT rail friction, it's "Hunting ocillation". Friction due to air resistance utterly dwarfs everything else above 200mph and most of it is incurred along the sides of the train, _not_ at the front. (Woodpecker or bullet noises are for noise reduction, not efficiency) Punching a train-size hole in the air takes a LOT of energy (8MW on the Shanghai maglev) and active levitation requirements are low (Shanghai maglev only uses 15kW for levitation) (for electrodynamic levitation this is a parasitic draw but the same principle applies - going forward at high speed chews vastly more power than levitation - but the NOISE problem of punching a train-size hole in the air at speeds over 300km/h persists) Japan's maglev line is 90% in tunnels. Building it in the open would result in them being inundated in noise complaints on an operational track and I'm pretty sure that most of the remaining open sections will be enclosed for the same reason within a couple of decades of launch (and of course, that avoids the issue of "obstacles on the track") If you're going to build a high speed maglev in tunnels, you may as well partially evacuate the things to reduce propulsive draw and allow higher speeds. Oh dear, you've just reinvented vac trains (Hyperloop) With fuel costs continuing to climb and (especially in China) air travel being actively discouraged by governments, maglev has a good chance for revival - not as competition for trains, but as competition for AIR TRAVEL With suitable routing (and cooperative governments, the feasibility of a maglev route from the east cost of the USA to the west coact of Europe via the Bering Strait would depend on being able to get there faster than aircraft for less money - this _is_ doable (Vactrains can easily hit mach 5 in suitably evacuated high speed tunnels and terrestrial electrical supplies will be cheaper than jet fuel not far in the future from now - even cheaper if China's work on Molten Salt Reactors validates the scalability and cost predictions Alvin Weinberg made at Oak Ridge in the 1960s Time will tell, but Maglev vac trains are on the cusp of new possibilities. Personally I believe they'll need to be capable of hyprid operation ("low speed" tracks to the tube entrances), large enough to allow shipping containers to fit (due to curve requirements, 20/40/60/longer aren't an isssue) AND allowing pods to actively "entrain/detrain" enroute in order to allow multiplexing and reduce traffic handling complexity (DOn't worry about "terrorists" or "buckling" on evacuated tunnels, It's only one atmosphere at most and we already know how to make tubing capable of withstanding much (MUCH) more than that even at 4-5 metre diameters. The fact that the tubing is on the ground means that power can be fed along it and pumps, etc spread out. (you actually want "calibrated leaks" so that in the event of power failure, trains will passively airbrake and people can escape)

[@pirazel7858]

Maglevs are cool and like a manned missionto Mars and fusion power, always 20 years in the future

[@widodoakrom3938]

Lol