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?

  • slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    130
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you introduce a new rail type into your rail network you can’t use your existing fleet of trains on that section reducing the ROI on that train engine or carriage. Also, any train you purchase for the new rail type will only ever work on that system lowering their profitability in the long term.

    • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      A million times this. Mag-lev only works for either super dense routes where the added cost as you describe can be displaced by the immense value add of shorter and generally more comfortable travel. Or in nations that can force through decisions from the top down, such that cost becomes almost a non-factor like China. Rail in general across the western world is a weird mix of nationalized and privately owned companies and operators, such that introducing mag-lev with the intent to replace conventional rail would require compensation to the private companies who have invested billions in the current infrastructure else they simply won’t be part of the new one, with all the issues that entail.

      From an environmental standpoint it’s also really hard to see an ROI in scrapping something that works in favor of mining, constructing and spending intense amounts of energy in all forms to build something better but only moderately so. The biggest improvement is moving from trucks to (electric) train for freight, going from electric train to mag-lev is only slightly better so the ROI just won’t be there.

      • Zippy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would suspect it would be complex to design mag-lev for all the various types of loads trains for be subject to. Wheels are fairly versatile and have a wide range of loads.

    • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Also the fact that ‘less moving parts’ doesn’t mean lower complexity or maintenance cost. Train wheels are a very robust and efficienct mechanism and most train designs are not being limited by them.

      • Dubious_Fart@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Very robust because they have 300 years of research, innovation, materials science and manufacturing in them. Making them incredibly stellar, well understood, damn near perfect technology for what they do.

        • lol3droflxp@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also them just being wheels in general which are one of the most efficient and simple ways to move stuff.

      • user134450@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        woah this is awesome!

        maglevs need classical wheel systems anyway because there might be a power outage, so simply having wheels that are compatible with the local rail system is a brilliant idea.

        add in a tiny propulsion system so they can use the normal tracks at low speed without the help of the maglev tracks and you can sort of blend the two systems together in critical locations like switches and train stations.