3 ms·

Genuine question: what's the point of low-speed maglev? Seems like you could just use a regular electric train.

melling 9y ago
When have you ever seen a regular train used within a city for short distance travel? Do you mean light-rail or a subway? Much faster and much quieter.
- stuaxo 9y ago
  In London. The south doesn't have much in the way of tube trains. Also, TFL has taken over some of the regular lines and re-branded them The Overground. These run regular trains. I've often commuted a couple of stops from London Bridge to Charing Cross, it's short enough that on the way back from work I would often walk or use a Boris bike. I preferred that route to taking the Underground as it's just nicer travelling above ground, I can't say that it made a difference to the travel time. These are regular trains at the end of longer routes to the South.
  - melling 9y ago
    The trip is less than 2 miles and takes 18 minutes? https://www.londondrum.com/transport/train-journey.php?from=london-bridge&to=charing-cross https://www.londondrum.com/transport/train-journey.php?from=... It’s hard to compare but the maglev seems to operate much quicker: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-06/15/content_29751447.htm http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-06/15/content_297514... “The maglev line will have eight stations stretching over 10.2 kilometers and will run at a maximum speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The whole journey will take about 20 minutes, including the time for passengers to get on and off”
- andrewem 9y ago
  Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I meant - why would one choose a maglev for low-speed transportation, rather than a non-maglev vehicle that runs on rails? (Fill in whatever terms you want in your mind, light rail, subway, tube, underground, tram, streetcar, EMU, I don't care.)
  - melling 9y ago
    I answered with “it’s much faster and much quieter”.

When have you ever seen a regular train used within a city for short distance travel? Do you mean light-rail or a subway? Much faster and much quieter.

stuaxo 9y ago
In London. The south doesn't have much in the way of tube trains. Also, TFL has taken over some of the regular lines and re-branded them The Overground. These run regular trains. I've often commuted a couple of stops from London Bridge to Charing Cross, it's short enough that on the way back from work I would often walk or use a Boris bike. I preferred that route to taking the Underground as it's just nicer travelling above ground, I can't say that it made a difference to the travel time. These are regular trains at the end of longer routes to the South.
- melling 9y ago
  The trip is less than 2 miles and takes 18 minutes? https://www.londondrum.com/transport/train-journey.php?from=london-bridge&to=charing-cross https://www.londondrum.com/transport/train-journey.php?from=... It’s hard to compare but the maglev seems to operate much quicker: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-06/15/content_29751447.htm http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2017-06/15/content_297514... “The maglev line will have eight stations stretching over 10.2 kilometers and will run at a maximum speed of 100 kilometers per hour. The whole journey will take about 20 minutes, including the time for passengers to get on and off”
andrewem 9y ago
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough, I meant - why would one choose a maglev for low-speed transportation, rather than a non-maglev vehicle that runs on rails? (Fill in whatever terms you want in your mind, light rail, subway, tube, underground, tram, streetcar, EMU, I don't care.)
- melling 9y ago
  I answered with “it’s much faster and much quieter”.