51
The train that never came; how maglev technology was derailed
(techcentral.co.za)
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
Agreed, It'd be interesting to see the cost breakdowns.
I guess you have to spend more on tracks to get higher speeds, but still to get to 600kph you must put a lot of electricity into that thing.
If sort of feels like maglev should be able recover a decent amount of electricity during braking, but maybe there are practical constraints - or just too much loss to wind resistance.
Maybe it comes down to just a handful of magnets round a few axles being cheaper than a long line of magnets the length of the track.
Almost certainly as much as regenerative breaking on an EV, so upwards of 90%. Like you mentioned, it's the same thing in another shape.
A high speed train probably doesn't break all that much, though, and I'm guessing wind resistance is the biggest energy cost either way. Which is why people talk about putting a maglev in an evacuated tunnel, although you now have an oversize oil pipeline around your maglev tracks adding further to the cost.
It's true. You can make a pretty cheap magnet, but never as cheap as a couple stupid rods on the ground (although at high speeds I bet it's not just rods but ultra-precise rods). Some systems put the magnets just in the car instead, though, and usually with high-speed rail acquiring a continuous corridor of land to build is the big hurdle, so it might make sense to go as high-end as possible once you have it.