Asklemmy

43818 readers

867 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

237

Why are maglev trains still rare? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

142 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is that factoring in the always on cooling of the magnets?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here's an article about the subject, paper linked at the bottom of the article: https://phys.org/news/2010-12-high-speed-pollute-percent-traditional.html

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thx, as I understand it, this is calculated for traditional railway technology and does not have anything to do with to maglev.