>>1998781
>They were supposed to be the future of rail transport,
[dubious]

I see very little deflection going on in a trains wheels and the tracks. Assuming the bearings are state of the art I don't see how much efficiency was to be gained in the rolling resistance departement. As such I doubt something as complex and expensive as maglev replacing something as primitive and simple as the axle, wheels and tracks would break even even during a very long lifetime of a train.
I haven't looked into it or done any calculating tho, it's merely intuition.

>>1998781
because it's just HSR with slightly higher speed and significantly higher operational costs plus you still want these trains to be somewhat compatible with the rest of the network. In Japan, they have to make costly track gauge adjustments just so that Shinkansen trains can run towards Yamagata or Akita, and the tunnel connecting Honshu and Hokkaido is still a sore in the eye of JR East. Maglev are compatible with literally nothing that exists, so it's no surprise that a country that just shits out innovation for the fuck of it, and the country that invented high speed rail, are the only ones going for maglev right now.

>>1998799
maglev should be seen as the ultimate link between large prosperous city pairs. the idea of an air corridor should be regulated to third world shitholes that don't have the money or expertise to build this. Japan, eastern china, western Europe and northeast NA should all have Maglev networks

>>1998947
>maglev should be seen as the ultimate link between large prosperous city pairs
Conventional HSR already does the job all over Europe. HSR already beats domestic and continental aviation on several corridors such as Munich-Berlin, London-Paris, Amsterdam-Brussels-Paris and virtually every domestic air corridor from Paris (which doesn't matter anyway because iirc France already banned air corridors that are served by parallel top-speed TGV). Americans still haven't figured out how to build high speed rail outside of the Northeast Corridor, and freight companies hold all the power. It will take at least another half century until any maglev enters a serious planning stage

>>1998949
>>1998947
>>1998799

HSR gets 300, even 350 kph, maglev gets around 500. You gotta pump up those numbers if you really want it to make a difference. If it were 600 we'd be talking. AFAIK the japanese HSR system will be quite expensive to operate, so we'll be talking high fares. Would you pay that much more to make Tokyo-Osaka in 75 minutes rather than 150? Some people might, plus there's the issue of capacity. But still, at best it will only be practical and economical on very few such corridors.

File: 2654626245.png (209 KB, 2518x1274)

209 KB PNG

>>1998781
Because they offer a marginal increase in performance over HSR for a dramatic increase in cost.

standard high speed rail is already brutally expensive and makes billions in losses

They are probably not even worth the effort. Reliable wins against fast every time, and there's nothing more reliable than a technology improved for like two centuries, that you can also use for freight. You'd really be pushing the throughput of conventional rail to consider maglev speed to be necessary, and if service is bad already demand is not induced.

Why don't Maglev fanboy think about cost?
wheel-type can reduce construction costs by running on existing tracks, but Maglev have to be built from scratch.
>Maglev 500kph 286km 47 minutes
>CRHrail 350kph 284km 59 minutes
What country outside of Japan and China needs this so much that it costs more than $1 billion to save just 10 minutes?

>>1999265
>59-47=10
Third world education at work. Also the distances are slightly different.

>>1998966
>Because they offer a marginal increase in performance over HSR for a dramatic increase in cost.
This,
TGV are granted for 400+ Km/h but building a railroad for that will be more costly and not worth the effort, in fact some track are granted for 350 Km/h but the TGV is limited to 320 Km/h because they discovered that's the sweet spot between speed and cost, going faster will wear out more faster the rails, the catenary, the train and drain much much more energy, on the other hand Maglev doesn't have those problem but lack flexibility, basically what you can do is line from A to B, no Railroad switch or at very expense and it complicates operation and maintenance of the train plus building a maglev railroad is very expensive and in fact it's not really pratical except for some niche path. In the end is all about cost effectiveness.

>>1998781
There are no white countries anymore, only third world countries coasting on the momentum and wealth of made by white boomers.

>>1998781
Too much maintenance hassle. It could've been done if we hadn't imported the entire third world to live off our wallets.

File: 1686243768782700.png (2.77 MB, 1917x1086)

2.77 MB PNG

>>1998781
>There could easily be a coast to coast maglev network in the US
In the Cyberpunk 2077 universe, the United States military built a coast to coast maglev network from 1998-2008, and then allowed private companies to use it.
It even uses the same Transrapid maglev tech as in your pic. It's fictional of course, but it's interesting, especially since it seems to be so heavily inspired by reality. It's basically what would have to happen if such a system were to actually exist. The military would first have to be convinced that they need a maglev system.

>>1998781
>Very VERY expensive track, even compared to 'normal' HSR because you need to include the magnet system
>Needs a completely separate ROW, you cannot just drive through the city center on the normal rails like with ordinary HSR, neither can you branch off onto 'slow' conventional routes to serve towns outside of your main line
>can't easily share stations, you'll have to demolish at least one platform in any one you wish to cross or find room to add one (good luck!)
>ROW cannot be used by other long-distance, regional, local or freight trains
>Maglev cannot re-route around a blocked section by taking the slow route, which dooms a system with substential length to be a horrible maintenance nightmare and an unreliable mode of transport

Their slightly higher speed isn't worth it over the lower cost and higher flexibilty of a normal HSR system that can actually be integrated into the normal rail-network

>>2000716
Nice post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1UOIHsT8Ds&t=3

>>2001115
>actually be integrated into the normal rail-network
This integration is actually a problem, not a benefit. It is just that we are currently too poor and/or retarded to construct additional tracks despite more than a century of technological advancement.

If you want high speed high frequency high reliability service there is zero benefit to being integrated with other systems.

>What country outside of Japan and China needs this so much that it costs more than $1 billion to save just 10 minutes?

I've done the Shanghai maglev, the main memory I had was how it wasn't anywhere near as smooth as I expected, especially when buffeted by wind.
This was back when it could hit over 430km/h
Apparently now they've reduced top speed to 300 for cost reasons.
Was fun to experience but don't see it's benefits over existing HSR tech unless you are going to max it out with evacuate tubes

>>2001483
>If you want high speed high frequency high reliability service there is zero benefit to being integrated with other systems.
there is an advantage though: You can have your high density on the mainline where all the high-speed trains go, yet have them branch off once they've gone through the major hubs to actually attatch cities that don't justy a fully secluded development to the network, at reasonable cost and with low complexity for the passengers.
You can also use rolling stock much more flexibly and thereby adapt to demand and its changes.

>>2002142
No, you want to keep the pleb short distance commuters of your high speed intercity/intercountry network. Just transfer in the hub to the network optimized for local transport.

>>2002043
I can see the benefit that Maglev has in reduced wear and tear. Downside is the cost of the track.
If only the track could be passive, and the train active.

>>2003261
>Just transfer in the hub to the network
those transfers are always the weakpoints in the travel plans and will lower your ridership considerably
not only are you losing much of the dearly bought travel-time you saved by using a maglev, but you're also even more at the mercy of punctuality
seriously, if you talk to people who are not train autists, sitting on the train isn't the part that bothers them, it's having to run to the next one or spend an hour in some shitty train station if they miss it

>>1998781
People here are talking about technology and are being retarded,
The more simple answer is that an expensive track plus hard to find unused land that doesn’t get snatched up by real estate speculators whose whole thing is to blow the price of property into the stratosphere, thus making any attempted infrastructure project get annihilated by the sheer price of land acquisition.
Like, half of the reason California hsr is so fucked is because they keep getting into debates with property owners who want to charge the state the value of their land based on their predictions of how the line will inflate the price.
France built much of its rail by literally seizing land for public good or underpaying it via the boot of the state. China does the same thing, and doesn’t bother to pay land owners what they want for the property.
The vast majority of existing rail in America was built privately by independently wealthy robber barons who hadn’t yet gotten ravaged by anti trust laws, and the trans continental lines were literally given that land for free provided they linked the coasts. The American state literally doesn’t have the legal infrastructure to use land at such a scale because America is a land of homesteaders and people who came explicitly for the prospect of owning land. If the state gets away with seizing land via the threat of violence on a large scale, (ignoring the many times it did that to the natives) the whole foundation of trust in American free markets will be shattered. Nobody wants to bite the bullet and do anything for the public good at the expense of the capitalists so nothing new gets built.

>>2003261
>Downside is the cost of the track.
>If only the track could be passive, and the train active.
The new chinese maglev has an active train and passive track, I think

>>2003552
>If the state gets away with seizing land via the threat of violence on a large scale
The state can, provided it collectively grows a pair. You can't build big infrastructure anywhere any time without pissing someone off, but you can decide how happy you are going to be with that happening.

>>2001483
>This integration is actually a problem
kek
how will you move trains around the network? for maintenance, after they have been manufactured, to redistribute the load based on demand etc?

normal trains are great since you can ferry HSR trains on slow tracks when needed

>>2006348
>how will you move trains around the network? for maintenance, after they have been manufactured, to redistribute the load based on demand etc?
Those features are nice to have, but you can work around them. And this becomes less of an issue once the network grows.
You still need extra track since current rail is either congested or not suitable for HSR. Why not create something competitive with flight that can achieve 99.9% punctuality, instead of the 73% that the ICE has.