They were invented decades ago.

They have fewer moving parts than wheelbois.

They require less maintenance.

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

  • someguy3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You still need rubber wheels when it’s stopped and at low speed. They retract when it’s fast enough for the maglev to take over.

    The electrical conductors are expensive as shit. The ones in the train need to be super cooled or something. The track ones need to be built along the entire length. On three sides, one vertically and two horizontally. Along with massive power lines along the whole length. They don’t need to move to be expensive.

    The right of way needs to be very straight. So compared to normal high speed, you have to spend much more on buying land, earth moving, tunneling, etc.

    All this needs to be maintained to an extremely high degree because you can’t accept a failure. The engine on a high speed rail fails and you just slow down, no biggie. HSR track is fairly robust and can easily be inspected visually. Since it has the same base as normal passenger and freight you have an entire industry knowledge and inspection machines. Any part of maglev fails and you have a catastrophic failure.

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The ones in the train need to be super cooled or something

      maglevs arent using fuckin superconducters to levitate, it’s basic magnetic repulsion. Get whatever fictional version you’ve got in your head cleared up.

  • kool_newt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because it's not currently profitable in most cases. Capitalism ensures that the merit of an idea comes secondary to it's profitability. We don't get the best things, we get the profitable things.

    • traches@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to defend capitalism in general, but it’s really good at answering these sort of “is it worth the cost?” aquestions. The whole point is to allocate scarce resources efficiently; the problem is that it assumes nobody is a scumbag and all the costs are accounted for.

    • Joker@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where are all the maglev trains in non-capitalist countries? Sooner or later, in any system, someone has to do a cost benefit analysis and decide whether it's worth it. It's not just about profitability. There are plenty of situations in the US where something is unprofitable but still funded because the benefit is worth it.

  • Kyoyeou (Ki jəʊ juː)@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What is a Maglev train? (From WIki)

    Maglev (derived from magnetic levitation) is a system of train transportation that uses two sets of electromagnets: one set to repel and push the train up off the track, and another set to move the elevated train ahead, taking advantage of the lack of friction. Such trains rise approximately 10 centimetres (4 in) off the track. There are both high-speed, intercity maglev systems (over 400 kilometres per hour or 250 miles per hour), and low-speed, urban maglev systems (80–200 kilometres per hour or 50–124 miles per hour) under development and being built.

    Why so little?

    Despite over a century of research and development, there are only six operational maglev trains today — three in China, two in South Korea, and one in Japan. Maglev can be hard to economically justify for certain locations, however it has notable benefits over conventional railway systems, which includes lower operating and maintenance costs (with zero rolling friction its parts do not wear out quickly and hence less need to replace parts often), significantly lower odds of derailment (due to its design), an extremely quiet and smooth ride for passengers, little to no air pollution, and the railcars can be built wider and make it more comfortable and spacious for passengers.

    Cute link to the Wikipedia Page

    I am a curious human, beep boop

  • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    They're super expensive. Few people are willing to pay the massive amount extra for the slight dectease in travel time. Investors also know that.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Look at HS2 in Britain and how people are against the cost for higher speed options, or California HSR. I'm all for it, it should absolutely be done, but getting taxpayers to see 10 years into the future is difficult.

      • LazerFX@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That's because HS2 is a totally flawed, Ill thought out, over budget and badly managed boondoggle - just like everything in the UK rail system since the Beeching cuts in the 60's. If it was properly run, well thought out - and actually made a significant difference in time (not approximately 15 minutes from Piccadilly to Euston), we'd support it.