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?

  • FiskFisk33@lemmy.one
    231·
    1 year ago

    all the other complex and important factors aside, air restistance is a formula of speed squared. Meaning for example if you bump speed up by 40% you double air resistance, and therefore double the energy cost of transport.

    • breadsmasher@lemmy.worldEnglish
      13·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t that only applicable for identical trains? For sake argument, if you had two identical trains designed with poor aerodynamics, one at 100mph and one at 140mph then you can double the energy cost. But if you take two different trains with one designed to be more aerodynamic, at the same speed they wouldn’t have the same energy cost as the second has a better profile?

      Plus theres less friction from needing to be on a rail.

      So I think saying its double the cost of transport is too simplistic to be meaningful in this discussion

      • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
        101·
        1 year ago

        It’s more than that - doubling air resistance only doubles the energy use if it’s the only inefficiency on the train (e.g., no losses in the magnets, HVAC, lighting, etc.). Add onto that the fact that you’re basically eliminating rolling resistance from traditional trains when switching to maglev, and the expected outcome should be much less than double.

        Finally, the most important part, each high speed rail route of any meaningful distance has the opportunity to displace a certain amount of air travel, so big picture, HSR results in a significant decrease in overall energy consumption.