>David Bennetts (davibenn@pcug.org.au) wrote:
>>According to this information, Maglev actually uses 30% less energy than
>>the ICE train (the German high speed train using conventional tracks).
>That's massaging the figures slightly. It uses 30% less (I'll assume that
>figure is correct) for propultion, mainly due to reduced friction. However
>this doesn't take into account the power needed for levitation, or on
>board power (provided by a generator) for lighting, heating, etc.
The Japanese have fitted an inductive pickup on one of their test maglev
trains, negating the need for an auxillary generator, but of course you
need to be moving for the induction to work, so batteries are still needed
for slow speed work.
What gets me is this proposal to build a maglev spur to Parramatta. The
train would barely make levitating speed before it would have to start
slowing down again!.
The maglev trains 'land' when running at slow speed, they don't sit there
bobing up and down on magnetic fields when stopped....