Transrapid MagLev

[Christian Legeland <clegelan@physik.uni-bielefeld.de>]

Hallo,

I found some older discussion (from April) about energy consumption of
the german MagLev Transrapid and the cost of line constructing.
Perhaps this has been answered earlier, but let me try again:


Propulsion System and Energy consumption:

A cut through the Transrapid (TR) vehicule

|                        |
|    Seats, etc...       |
|------------------------| 
|     BBBBBBB            |
|---A----------------A---| 
|                        |
|S RXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXR S|
|S RTTTXXXXXXXXXXXXTTTR S|
|         XXXXXX         |
|   HHH |  XXXX  | HHH   |
\_______/  XXXX  \_______/

A: support, while standing
X: guideway, concrete or steel
S: sideways guiding magnet coils
H: lift magnet coils
R: steelplate
T: propulsing system and lifting magnet steel counterpart
B: Batteries

While standing the vehicle rests and the supprt A on the concrete
guideway. To start a trip the magnets H lift the vehicle up to 10 mm to
the propulsing system T. The distance between A and the guideway is the
approx 150mm. Between S and R also 10mm distance are regulated.
To move the TR the electric engine T (linearmotor) is operated like an
electric rotating motor (or generator) but the coils unrolled to the
track. The lifting energy comes from the batteries that are recharged
via a linear generator during the trip (faster then 100km/h). They a 3
times redundant, so powerloss in one system does not make the TR drop
down on the guideway.

Due to the small gap between T and H as well as S and R the magnetic
forces are small. Measurements have shown that the magnetic and electric
fields for example inside the TR are 10 times smaller then those from an
electric shaver and smaller then the natural magnetic field from the
earth. 

The forces are roughly 10 N /square cm = 1kg /square cm. That is the
same weight per area you have when you stand normally. EXCEPT FOR High
heel shoes, those produce up to 100 times more weight/area.

The energy consumption is from 150 km/h below the energy consumption of
any other high speed rail system (ICE/TGV/Shinkansen) (on a per seat
basis!!).
For the german line Hamburg-Berlin the energy consumption for an ICE
allowing the same trip times is approx 40% HIGHER then the TR.
In hilly areas this differnce INCREASES!!

I have two figures with older data:
http://www.physik.uni-bielefeld.de/~clegelan/transrapid/energie.html
The upper one is the important one.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS:

I hilly areas the total system is expected to be cheaper then
Steelwheel/Rail, because
- the TR climb 4 times better
- the TR needs only 1/3 of the curve radius
This means that tunnels and bridges are not needed (so much).
In Europe an alpine crossing over the Brenner (the most often used
crossing) has been discussed: It would cost only HALF the money of a new
steelwheel/rail tunnel and could be constructed in HALF the time.

For the Hamburg to Berlin line NO Cost blowouts so far are known. In the
contrary: New CAM techniques could lower the price for construction
significantly. Much less earthwork is recquired.


Bye

C.Legeland

-- 
Christian LEGELAND       Fakultaet fuer Physik     Theoretische Physik  
Universitaet Bielefeld   Universitaetsstrasse 25   33615 Bielefeld
Buero E6-112             Fon +49(521) 106-6209     Fax +49(521) 106-2961
               http://www.physik.uni-bielefeld.de/~clegelan/