It put Ogdenville and West Haverbrook on the map.
The train that never came; how maglev technology was derailed
Submitted 4 days ago by InevitableList@beehaw.org to technology@beehaw.org
https://techcentral.co.za/maglev-train-technology-derailed/268260/
Comments
anachronist@midwest.social 4 days ago
KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
Maglev only makes sense as you have higher density areas which is why HSR is not going to go away any time soon.
InevitableList@beehaw.org 4 days ago
I feel that even if someone succeeds with Maglev it will at best be the Concorde of the railways due to the higher costs and inconvenience of using a niche technology with a limited supply chain and limited number of engineers available to build and maintain lines. Proprietary tech also limits your ability to shop around or negotiate better prices. Remember that Concode was profitable but was retired because it was uneconomical.
I also wanted to draw attention to the diminishing returns higher speeds deliver: 100km/h train = 4 hour journey 200km/h train = 2 hours 300km/h train = 1 hour 20 mins 400km/h train = 1 hour 500km/h train = 48 mins 600km/h train = 40 mins
This ignores acceleration and breaking times and the faster your train the sooner it has to start decelerating in order to avoid overshooting it’s destination. One overlooked time saving that HSR delivers is that the need to build straight tracks and skip stops to maintain speed means a more direct route to your destination delivered at the expense of the places in between. High speed service is actually a downgrade for many communities as the trains no longer serve local stations.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 days ago
It feels like you’re scoring returns logarithmically as you move the scale additively here. The faster you go, the sooner you arrive, it’s linear. I’m not actually sure if acceleration and deceleration has been a big issue at the scales involved.
ook@discuss.tchncs.de 4 days ago
Yeah, how is it so unbelievable that when you go twice the speed you are twice as fast but when you go a third faster in speed you only go a third fast in time. Diminishing returns is something else, like you would go a third faster in speed but arrive only a quarter faster.
pheet@sopuli.xyz 4 days ago
It is not linear but some sort of hyberpolic function as the OP is describing: double the speed and you halve the travel time, you move closer to zero travel time but never reach it. With a linear relation you would reach zero travel time at a specific speed point.
InevitableList@beehaw.org 4 days ago
Doubling the speed turns a 4 hour journey into a 2 hour journey saving you 2 hours. Double speed again and it drops to 1 hour so you only save 1 hour, double again and you save 30 minutes. So the time saving is cut in half each time.
Sxan@piefed.zip 4 days ago
Can you explain "profitable, but not economical?"
InevitableList@beehaw.org 4 days ago
Concorde only flew 2 routes; NYC to London and NYC to Paris so in exchange for training pilots and engineers and securing supply chains for the aircraft you got a tiny return on investment. BA also kept a spare aircraft permanently parked in New York that could step in if there were any problems with the primary craft, another significant expense.
Installing lie flat beds and suites in standard jumbo jets provided similar profits with way fewer headaches.
Zizzy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 days ago
Doesnt make as much money as theoretically possible and god forbid a single cent is left on the table
Kache@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
If you worked a shitty job that only earned $1 a day after accounting for work-related expenses (e.g. transportation, professional equipment, taxes, etc), it would be profitable, but not worth your time.
tal@lemmy.today 4 days ago
Maybe. Presently, the savings in human time is not worthwhile, but the value of human time does tend to rise over time, and it’s possible that someone might find cargos for which time savings are more valuable.