Germany To Build New Maglev Railway 297
EWAdams writes "According to the BBC, the Bavarian state government has announced that it has signed an agreement with Deutsche Bahn, the German state railway system, and the Transrapid consortium, to provide a maglev railway between central Munich and its airport. The only other maglev in full operation at the moment is in Shanghai, again as a city-to-airport service. The cost of the system is estimated at $2.6 billion. No completion date has been announced."
2.6 Billion? (Score:3, Funny)
I hear it's going to be big!
Re: (Score:2)
Your total lack of an argument was just invalidated by Godwin's Law. I think my brain exploded.
-:sigma.SB
Why not a good old electric train on tracks (Score:2, Insightful)
I am strongly opposed to maglev techonology (Score:2, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Halbach Arrays (Score:5, Interesting)
The resulting track and train would both cost a fraction of what they are currently spending. Both the levitation and guide magnets would be totally passive.
For the curious, this is called Inductrack (Score:2)
...and there is more information about it here [wikipedia.org].
Inductrack is a brilliant technology, and not only can the principles be be used to produce cheap passively levitated trains, they also allow for the creation of passive magnetic bearings. While Halbach Arrays are very interesting themselves, and ideal for this system, they are not inherently necessary.
The parent is correct about the cost though; this technology should be inexpensive enough to allow for wide scale adoption of Maglevs. Why we are still s
Re:Halbach Arrays (Score:5, Informative)
I work in the railway industry (Score:5, Informative)
Copper theft is a problem mostly in open tracks but this one would be closed. The computer systems used can monitor intrusions onto closed tracks but only usually monitor intrusions in closed areas on open tracks like where PLCs are located (the controlers that work things like switches and interlockings etc). Also most new tracks are often made accessable only by maintenence trains rather than just being able to "walk" out onto the tracks.
In the cases of attempted copper theft on open tracks...I have some pretty gory stories that usually start with "what's that smell?"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a problem even with regular trains -- people have either tried to steal overhead wires, or, in one case in my town, some kids tried to touch them with a stick on a dare. Let's say that 25,000V at hundreds of amps is nothing to joke with.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Volts is a potential. Amps is not, it is a result of those Volts meeting a certain resistance.
Re:I work in the railway industry (Score:4, Informative)
You increase the voltage to reduce the resistance losses (Power = I^2R) however you are limited by what can effectively be used in a safe manner with a pantograph.
Even super grid wires which in the UK run at 450 KV still have large currents ~ 1,000Amps which is why they are so hot ~200 deg C when under load (this is actually what limits the max load as the wires sag as they get hotter and they must not fall below the minimum safe height).
To put that into perspective 1000 Amps would be still under 0.5Gw and there is a 6GW power station in the UK, most are around 1GW.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your typical electric locomotive is about 4000 hp. 1 hp is 746 watts. So that's 2984kW output at max power. Allowing for inefficiency, it's actually more like 4000kW used. And the line has to be engineered for more than one locomotive. I can easily see 160 to 300 amps being available from overhead wires, even at 25kV.
-b.
Because they're noisy and dangerous? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not a good old electric train on tracks (Score:5, Informative)
Insightful comment, and I agree with you. Maglev technology is really an answer in search of a question. Until high-temperature superconductors become economically feasible, power consumption, and the concomitant pollution from power production, remain prohibitive. Remember that many countries, including China, Germany, and the U.S.A., rely on coal for power generation, and the real cost of the ecological damage and pollution from mining and burning coal doesn't enter the minds of most.
The real question, it seems to me, is why don't they invest those billions in new drivetrain, suspension, and rail technology. The French have achieved wonders with the TGV at a fraction of the cost, by continual refinement of well-proven engineering technology. And they've been in operation throughout France and much of western Europe for more than 25 years, without a single fatality over a speed of 160 kph. The recent successful trials during which a modified TGV set a speed record of 574 kph (357 mph), should be an indication of what is possible. The train had such refinements as more powerful electric motors, lighter axles, larger wheels, and in-cab signaling (the driver doesn't have to rely on trackside signals), and ran a route chosen with long, straight segments, and without sharp curves.
Revolution is sexy and makes the headlines, but the steady progress of evolution is not to be sneezed at. Hell, the x86 processor architecture is still alive and kicking, long after its demise was predicted. I guess nobody told Intel's engineers that it was obsolete, or that further refinements were impossible. Maglev makes headlines with its promise of a Star Trek future today, but TGV's simply keep on hauling millions of passengers in safety and comfort every year. On runs of three hours or less they have largely replaced air travel. Such routine, dependable, reliability is a remarkable achievement.
Re:Why not a good old electric train on tracks (Score:5, Interesting)
You answered your own question. It's not sexy. Maglev is sexy. This is truly a real-life version of Monorail. No one but Stoiber and his little group of cronies wants it built. The track costs are enormous, the route will require no fewer than three more tunnels and two bridges (or bridge extensions), there are some difficult easements to obtain along the route, the energy usage is extreme, ugly noise abatement walls will have to be built, annual track maintenance is more than double the standard rail tracks which the S-Bahn uses, and all of this for what? To shave a maximum of half an hour off the trip between the airport and the train station.
Except no one will ride it. Most travelers aren't going to Hauptbahnhof. They're headed to Ostbahnhof, Marienplatz or Pasing. Once they arrive at the Hauptbahnhof they then have to transfer to the S-Bahn anyway. Not that anyone will ride the thing to begin with. The costs are so high that the ticket prices will be at least three times that of the normal S-Bahn. No local is about to shell out for that and neither would most of the foreigners.
An express S-Bahn in conjunction with the existing S-8 route could be done with only one additional track, but even with a dual track would be a much better solution. The time could be cut from 60 minutes to 40, only 10 minutes slower than the expected maglev time at a cost savings of a few billion plus more than 120 million annually in track maintenance, a recurring cost which will also continue to rise.
Anyone who believes the costs will actually stay anywhere near 2.6B is on drugs. This white elephant will end up costing us more than 5B. But it's sexy.
I want to know just how much of a vested interest in the suppliers, operators and landowners those who have pushed this project have. Maybe we can have another neat scandal.
Re:Why not a good old electric train on tracks (Score:5, Interesting)
I would. you might be right that it wouldn't be popular among the normal commuters (not at 3x the normal price, anyway), but I've never been an a maglev, and would like to try it once.
So...maybe you should see it as a touristic attraction.
Ofcourse, you're probably right with the rest of your analysis. And indeed, it will probably cost 5 billion, if they predict 2.6 - those over-budget things happen a lot, with huge projects.
That said, a small remark, though. When I see the argument 'current TGV trains can go almost as fast as maglevs, for far less money'...well, true, in a way. But that's NOW, and that's when our current state of investment is pretty low, just because of the arguments you brought up. But, the old trainsystem can only be optimized in a relatively small way anymore: it's more of a technical 'polishing' and optimizing...but at the end, no drastic improvements are possible, because it's a fully matured technology.
When the jet-engine for airplanes was first build, they weren't all that faster then the old, matured and optimized classical engines neither. And they were costing a lot more, and were (are) more expensive in maintainance. If people then would have said; well, just let us continue the old way and optimize our current engines a bit further, the technology for the jet engine wouldn't be where it is today. It has proven to be a superior product in many respects by now. Maybe the same can be said of the maglev-development. Sure, it's more expensive to buy and to maintain, and it's currently not all that much faster than an ordinary high-speed train - but it's a NEW technology. That doesn't just mean it's more 'sexy', it also means it's at the beginning of its potential, not at the end, like our current, matured train-technologies.
It's often worth to give a novel technology a shot, even, certainly in the beginning, it doesn't seem all that better and is often more expensive. Fighting against an established market/technology can be very difficult, but it can have its advantages in the long term too.
Monorail! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Monorail! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Monorail! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Monorail! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
MONO = ONE
RAIL = RAIL
Re: (Score:2)
Monorail Cat. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Monorail Cat. (Score:4, Funny)
Depends. A monorail cat could still use wheels, unless they upgraded your cat [icanhascheezburger.com] to maglev.
Re: (Score:2)
Done [icanhascheezburger.com].
All someone has to do is Photoshop up something for "Lolrus and Bukket at Tenagra", and we'll have a complete set of image macros enumerating every conversation that can be held on a message board. (GODEL RLY!)
Good for Bavaria (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for Bavaria (Score:5, Interesting)
What happened to Sandia's 'seraphim'? (Score:2)
Rather than having the track be the motor (as per the german tracks), the Seraphim engine had the motor inside the vehicle instead. And instead of relying on full levitation, it mostly used the magnetic forces for propulsion
Re: (Score:2)
White elephants (Score:5, Insightful)
The track between Munich and the airport is 37km; 23 miles long. A conventional express train (not even ICE) could do that easily in 20 minutes if it doesn't stop at each station. The maglev will do it in 10 mins.
Wouldn't it make more sense to operate the Maglev over a distance which would allow it to save a significant amount of time? i.e. Actually inter city?
Oh, and I don't believe those cost/mile figures for a second. Any of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! I'm totally convinced by your compelling argument - backed up with fact after fact after fact!
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, the GA maglev/highspeed monorail was what GA thought it would cost. Until they install one, who knows. But the GA was a direct rip-off of the Colorado monorail, and the values that CIFGA came up with, match what GA is showing on their small test track.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree: if I was in charge I would choose a direct "normal" rail link. But there are 2 points *against* a 'normal" rail-link:
1) Dick-swinging: as in "look at us, we have a cool high tech toy".
2) Public subsidy of private industry: the builders (German of course: and I bet Bavarian firms will
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good for Bavaria (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
- General Motors
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, lets try pricing out a highway (Score:2)
Its to the airport so we'll be generous and give it six lanes. 2 lanes for one mile comes to about $540,000 per year (maintenance plus capital costs). Triple that is 1.6 million per year. Times 18 is a hair under $30 million. And we'll give it a useful life of, hmm, call it twenty years before the government decides to vote some lucky contractor more money. Total lifetime cost: $600 million. Double the cost because its Europe and, hey, everyone knows things are
Re:OK, lets try pricing out a highway (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good for LAX (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it would not be competitive with jet travel over long haul routes like that. The maglev competes with short hop flights not long haul trips.
Re: (Score:2)
If it could maintain even 250mph average with stops, it could compete with jets on the 1000-mile market. Remember that this would take you directly into a center city, and also stop along the way. Kind of hard to do that with any conventional jet. You might have NYC to LA with most people going NYC to Chicago, or Salt Lake to LA.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good for Bavaria (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The one time I was in NYC I thought the train to JFK was pretty good by world standards. The real problem is the JFK can't cope with the current traffic load. A train which competes with air traffic from JFK would make more sense.
How about a fast train to Washington? If not a maglev then perhaps something like a TGV?
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is: why in the name of (deity of choice) didn't they extend the *subway* out to JFK and the PATH out to Newark rather than making people change to another train to get into NYC? There was no good engineering reason for this decision -- I suspect it was due to infigh
Luv it... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can frequently find Japanese tour groups that will ride back & forth between the airport and downtown, like it was a theme park ride
When the Shanghai Maglev first went online, ridership was fairly low. The ticket cost is a bit high in local terms... Today, with the Olympics right around the corner, ridership means the train is usually full.
Plans are in place to build the next one as a longer leg, perhaps between Shanghai and Nanjing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I may not be the first to think of this (though google results for "high speed rail vacuum" seem to return results concerning toilets and braking systems) - could it be practical to build a vacuum-tunnel for a maglev train to travel through?
I was thinking that perhaps building a deeply submerged tunnel (through rock especially) would work well, since there would be no surrounding atmosphere to sneak in easily. It would seem easiest to form a vacuum-se
Re: (Score:2)
All vacuum chambers are actively pumped, that means it costs money.
Re:Luv it... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Lev it (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, I may be especially bitter since the lady at the ticket window lied to me. =) When I got to the maglev station, I realized I hadn't checked if the plane ticket I'd bought in Shanghai was for Pudong or Hongqiao. I know the characters for Pudong, and I couldn't find them on my ticket, so I asked the ticket lady (in Chinese) if the characters for airport were for Pudong. She said yes. I said, *are you sure this ticket is for Pudong Airport?* She said yes. So I bought a ticket, had a fun ride on the maglevl, and promptly missed my flight from Hongqiao.
At 2.2 billion for a short hop, the German maglev seems very overpriced compared with comparable train systems. Linking all the major cities in California on a high speed rail network is only $30B by comparison.
Re:Luv it... (Score:5, Informative)
The reality is that the Shanghai maglev is poorly used because it fails to deliver travelers to where they want to go. The Shanghai maglev would be a spectacular success if it actually terminated in one of the major business districts in Shanghai. But it does not.
As it stands, it is a white elephant. A trimuph of engineering and an amazing proof-of-concept - but a terrible piece of transport planning.
Re: (Score:2)
Ripoff.... (Score:5, Funny)
Which would you rather have? A shiny new Maglev or 2-weeks of war. Those Europeans have a warped sense of priorities.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now 2 weeks of war will fill up all the news channels 23 hours a day (1 hour a day for lindsay lohan/brittney/misc DUI moviestar).
Re: (Score:2)
geek drawback.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Your Donna Summer 8-Track will not survive..
Re: (Score:2)
If they set up a one sided flux distribution, this wont be a problem.
...then again, maybe subjecting all the passengers to strong magnetic fields has its upside....
Re:geek drawback.. (Score:4, Funny)
2.6 billion? (Score:2)
"OECD in Figures 2005 - Transport"
http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,3398,en_2825_497139_1_1_1_1_1,00.html [oecd.org]
Or is it just a way for politicians to make themselves look good while wasting vast quantities of money?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the airport were funding the line I think we may have seen something rather different.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it matters. If the income from the people who do use it is enough that it exceeds the annual operational cost by enough that within a reasonable time frame it pays for itself then the state and ergo the taxpayers will net a profit.
I think I was just confu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think it'll encourage more than 8% of journeys to be made by rail?
Just for some perspective, Germany's 7.77% (according to those figures) is not half bad, as train statistics go. Only Hungary, Switzerland, and Japan have significantly greater train use -- a whole bunch of OECD countries are bunched up with Germany. Plus I'm not sure I have much faith in those figures -- apparently in my country, no one ever travels at all :-)
Or is it just a way for politicians to make themselves look good while wasting vast quantities of money?
I don't know enough about Munich politics to comment. But the S-Bahn trip between the airport and the city could do with being a lot quicker (th
Metal plate in head (Score:3, Interesting)
And magnetic strips on credit and... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Stupid wasteful idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Having flown several times into and out of Munich before, I know what the current connection between the airport and the city is like: a complete nightmare. So I fully understand that they want to do something about it. But this maglev project of theirs is a complete waste of resources, economically (way too expensive) and technically (way to many dedicated material inputs). What they really should do, IMHO, is upgrade the rail connection to use standard high speed ICE trains. That's a lot cheaper and about just as effective.
This Maglev is only worth it for really long distances, like the Hamburg-Berlin line they once planned. But then again, there are good reasons why that is not working out. In short, I love the technology, but after about 30 years they should at long last admit that it was a practical failure and can the thing. But certain people can't admit mistakes and certain others (e.g. someone the Germans will be able to identify as soon as I write "Edmund" :-) ) are looking to build a monument for themselves at all cost (that idea totally fits his personality and current cereer status, by the way).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I was there at the end of July and it was a pleasant 45 minute train ride to the Hauptbahnhof in the centre of town, and there's about 3 services an hour. Not necessarily the cheapest at 8.80EUR or so, but for 18EUR my wife and I had an all day "partner ticket" we could use on the metro all we wanted for the day we were there (so only 40c more than two singles from the airport to the city centre).
Most cities I've been to the airport services have been a bit ex
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There are essentially two arguments in favor of the Transrapid:
1) it will make all the world want to buy this fancy German technology, as it will show everybody how viable and useful it is.
2) it will make the ride to the airport much faster, as the ride from the central station will become much faster.
Re 1): that's fairly
$2.6 Billion- That's USD (Score:2, Interesting)
Offtopic Prediction: 10 years from now, the USD will have fallen dramatically because commodities have begun to transfer from being traded in USD to either the Euro or the Yuan
Alas the first Maglev closed in 1995 (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope the German one turns out to be more technically reliable.
Re: (Score:2)
Note the date of the accident, there was just the 1 year remembrance of this tragic accident killing 22 people. The timing couldn't have been worse, or better, as I'm not so sure if it's a good idea to build it here in Germany.
The point is, they forgot a maintenance car on the test track. Now this is a CLOSED test track, on poles, nothing unexpected can pass (except birds I guess). No one apparen
Waste of Money? (Score:2)
Re:Waste of Money? (Score:4, Funny)
Have you been to Germany? Traveled through the country and taken a few train trips? With those taxes comes some of the nicest, most efficiently-running, most well-maintained infrastructure in Europe. It's worth the money in the sense that, to Germans, it ensure that the country has an amenity that keeps their country running in a lifestyle to which they're accustomed.
Now, contrast this with New York City-- the fact that there's no rail connection between the airports and downtown comes across as pretty ghetto and low-rent.
It's a lot like the difference between renting and apartment and owning a house. Renters are understanding that the kitchens and bathrooms are going to be old and not well maintained, because the landlord isn't willing to invest in upgrades if it doesn't give him more rent. On the other hand, people who own their house are going to put money into their homes to upgrade their kitchens and buy nice furniture because they enjoy the lifestyle it provides.
Germans expect to live in a country where they have the amenities they would expect as owners. Americans are content to have their government act as a slumlord.
Re: (Score:2)
They're gonna need 2.6 billion? (Score:2)
Shanghai is Airport to .... uh, no where! (Score:2, Informative)
The Shanghai system doesn't actually go anywhere... it gets about halfway (30KM?) from downtown before it just stops.
Interesting in a "we're hip, we've got a maglev" way, but sure would be more useful if you could take it to and from the airport.
Re:Shanghai is Airport to .... uh, no where! (Score:5, Informative)
Not to mention that the maglev costs 50 RMB and covers in 8 minutes a distance that a taxi costing 100 RMB would cover in 40. So especially if you're traveling alone, the maglev is by far the most convenient way to get in and out of Shanghai. If you're with your whole family and don't want to deal with public transportation, a taxi might be more convenient -- but it will most certainly be slower.
Why yes, I lived and worked in Shanghai for almost 3 years, thank for asking.
The biggest limitation... (Score:2, Interesting)
Undercarriage wheels where actually
Stupid stupid stupid (Score:2, Interesting)
In addition, german Maglev technology is rather dangerous; an accident 1 year ago on a demonstration line killed 23 people [google.ca], this accident was caused by inadequate (by design) signalling system. This is particularly concerning because the first role of railroad signalling is to indicate that the t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I stand by what I said. I talked about TGV safety record; I said nothing about the ICE.
The TGV is an articulated trainset, whereas the ICE is a conventional separable coach trains. The TGV has extreme longitudinal safety (the cars cannot separate) whereas the ICE cars are easily separated during an accident (whenever the TG
Re:Stupid stupid stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Conventional rail has been developped over the last two centuries, and thus has 200 years of engineering experience [wikipedia.org]. Any self-respecting low-level railroader can tell blindfolded in his sleep what arrangement is safe or not.
Maglev has no such lengthy experience. Maglev is radically different technology, and the safe practices and design have to be determined from scratch.
Only the TGV and the Shinkansen have the number of passenger/miles AT HIGH-SPEED to give it sufficient experience.
The only good and bad luck was because of the design. The articulated trainset is an inherent safety feature which neatly paid-off. And the resilient wheel was a fatal feature. Engineers willingly chose to design an articulated train on one side, and to give it resilient wheels on the other. There is no luck in that, only calculation that, alas, proved to be faulty in the case of the ICE.
Never say never. Back in 1955, trains were experimentally run as fast as 206 mph [wikipedia.org]. It took almost 50 years for this speed to be attained in normal commercial service. Never say that there will not be 400 mph TGVs within the next 50 years.
The investment is much smaller than comparable investment in roadways or airlines for the same transport capacity.
Maglev will always be more expensive than maglev for the only reason that maglev is not compatible with the existing rail network.
So, instead of riding on existing lines to go downtown, you will either have to very expensively build new lines to reach the downtown station, or have to stay on the outskirt of the city, much like the airports of today. And everywhere you want to go with a maglev, you have to build a line. Not so with a TGV that can go anywhere a train can go.
The cost is never going to go down.
In order to be profitable, a rail network needs flexibility. One important factor for flexibility is the ability to switch tracks. Not just to get to a particular track in a station, but to go around other traffic.
In order to do this, you need track switches. The more switches in your network, the more flexible it is.
Maglev networks will never be as efficient or flexible as conventional rail networks because maglev switches are so cumbersome that putting as many switches on a maglev as there are on regular rail networks will be prohibitive.
The reason is that a maglev switch has to replace a straight sect
Faster, quieter, low-maintenance, uses less energy (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong! (Score:2)
Lower maintenance? (Score:2)
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maglev's are quieter than conventional rail systems below 100 mph, but above that they get really loud really fast
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The TGV on steel rails does 200mph in regular service, and it made a record run of over 300mph, but mechanical wear would probably be too high to go that fast in regular service.
2 words. (Score:2)
Maglevs are expensive but achieve performance in term of people transportation that just can't be achieved with cars, even in a country where there's no generalized upper limit on the highways (although, I've heard, with all local speed limitations, nowaday it's hard to find long enough sectors to try to achieve mad speeds with a car).
Re: (Score:2)