4 ms·

This is very similar to existing maglev trains (such as transrapid) but has the advantage that a lot of the technology is now in the trains, not in the track. T

by cgeier 4y ago

This is very similar to existing maglev trains (such as transrapid) but has the advantage that a lot of the technology is now in the trains, not in the track. That makes construction of such tracks a lot cheaper (but separate and new tracks are needed anyway). Also, this new system is designed for cruising speeds of up to 150 km/h (instead of 500 km/h). But in addition to passenger transport, they seem to be able to carry freight as well. Last year there was a demo track for container transport in Hamburg's harbour [1], not sure, if it's still there. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tee6BjDY0N8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tee6BjDY0N8

rob74 4y ago
The question in my mind is just: if not for higher speeds, why should you build a maglev line instead of a conventional (high speed / regular) train line? IMHO the other purported advantages are not really convincing - it may be a little bit quieter, but the "flexible track routing" sounds very unconvincing: at ground level you would have to fence off the track, so in an urban setting it would probably end up on stilts most of the time. And if you consider that, phrases like "Visually appealing track route for urban use without overhead lines" sound a bit ridiculous - is a concrete guideway on concrete stilts really more visually appealing than tram (or train) rails with overhead line? (In case anyone is wondering: Germany has the luxury problem of having all other cables - power, telecom, etc. - 99% underground, so they can debate the aesthetic impact of overhead lines of trams. Not an issue in most other countries.)
- albertopv 4y ago
  I live near a railway where over 100 trains pass every day, most are freight ones. They are very, very noisy, even a small reduction could help when these lines are within cities.

4 ms·

This is very similar to existing maglev trains (such as transrapid) but has the advantage that a lot of the technology is now in the trains, not in the track. T

by cgeier 4y ago

rob74 4y ago
The question in my mind is just: if not for higher speeds, why should you build a maglev line instead of a conventional (high speed / regular) train line? IMHO the other purported advantages are not really convincing - it may be a little bit quieter, but the "flexible track routing" sounds very unconvincing: at ground level you would have to fence off the track, so in an urban setting it would probably end up on stilts most of the time. And if you consider that, phrases like "Visually appealing track route for urban use without overhead lines" sound a bit ridiculous - is a concrete guideway on concrete stilts really more visually appealing than tram (or train) rails with overhead line? (In case anyone is wondering: Germany has the luxury problem of having all other cables - power, telecom, etc. - 99% underground, so they can debate the aesthetic impact of overhead lines of trams. Not an issue in most other countries.)
- albertopv 4y ago
  I live near a railway where over 100 trains pass every day, most are freight ones. They are very, very noisy, even a small reduction could help when these lines are within cities.