Re: One "LRT" application, some abandonned systems,, and "costs" versus performance issues.......
> Places that have done them or are under
> Shanghai (airport to a transfer station outside of
> Japan (NEW New Tokaido line):
> For a deeper dive, see:
> Most maglevs also use track-mounted linear motors.
> The concepts are separable, but it works well if
> there is going to be heavy power to the track
> anyway for the levitation, and minimizes power
> needs in the vehicle itself.
> TL:DR: the only one that carries passengers at
> speed today is in Shanghai. The only one being
> built (and experiencing a number of issues during
> construction) for longer runs at real speed is in
> Japan. Several small demonstrator/amusement
> park/test tracks have been done but all were slow
> and/or not available to the public. A couple of
> airport "people mover" setups (relatively slow)
> were built: the one in Birmingham UK ran for about
> 10 years but was shut down, and now operates with
> cable cars; and another was developed in S. Korea
> and is used at Incheon airport.
> In general, they're very expensive, making
> conventional high speed rail look relatively
> affordable, but potentially very fast (up to
> transonic over long distances). While the
> canonical Hyperloop is conceived more as a
> pneumatic tube arrangement, it could work (and
> might work better) as maglev.
There are also at least two Mag-lev "LRT" lines in Korea and Japan, and several abandonned Mag-lev shuttle projects in Britain and Germany.
All of these projects appear to be relatively costly on a per mile to build compared to non Maglev systems, Linear induction" is costly in itself to build, and requires a fully grade separated/access limited ROW, and no the laws of gravity are not magically repealed so Maglev needs less expensive structures as a former Executive Director of a major transportation agency once blurted out in public...
So far Maglev also appears to be very costly to operate and maintain. These have been energy hogs, as it can take as much as 27 times the energy to "levitate" the train (which causes some people umbelievably dumb people to somehow believe that it repeals the laws of gravity and magically floats....
Warning, do not let the people who erroneously believe that Maglev does repeal the laws of gravity have anyting whatsoever to do with planning or designing these systems. Without enough beams to hold up while all of the weight generated when it magiclly appears to be "levitating" on the sructure, or you will certainly have problems like been experience in Mexico City with a conventional system.
Friends and colleagues who have been on Shanghai, have told me it is a "rough ride", and the Japanese "LET" application, used "trucks" which had shock absorbers to dampen the "buck board" qualtiy riding experience described by one of my colleagues on the Shanghai line.
There is a reason these miraculous "maglev" systems keep not getting built in mamy place, and/or have actually been abandonned has been "cost", as these have proven to be no cheaper, and in all cases I've looked at, have actually likely been more expensive to build and operate. I use "likely" as actual data on costs for some "state owned" magleve systems, which are put forth as examples of "political/technical" accomplishments is not credible an/or cannot be verified by independent analysis.
There are lots of technologies that can technically "work" if you have enough money to throw at them.... Despite the difference in speed, no one seems to have found the magical formula hhat has shown the extra speed you get, is worth the extra cost, not unlike our "cost is no bbject" CAHSRA boondoggle, where we've seen the bloated costs justifiend by "super high speed" designs, and have operational costs that can go up by a factor of six times per passenger mile going at speeds over 200 mph, compared to operating at 125 mph...