Is there anything maglevs can do better than railways?

[RSDHanstein@T-Online.de]

(for proof and sources used pleace refer to my home page
http://home.t-online.de/home/rsdhanstein/rh_2eng.htm)


When invented, railways represented a great leap in productivity, economy,
speed and safety, compared to the then usual means of transport.
In contrary to that, the often pretended technical superiority of maglevs like
the german Transrapid are not sound and cannot stand a clear-headed assessment
under technical, economic, ecological and operational aspects.


1	Pretended advantages of Transrapid:

1.1	Lower energy consumption?

A lower energy consumption of Transrapid, compared to wheel/rail high speed
trains like the ICE, is not plausible due to physical reasons. Transrapid is,
in relation to the vehicle length, about as weighty as the ICE [1], and it’s
heavier than many foreign railway high speed trains.

Even in relation to the weight per seat, advanced railway trains are on top.
The japanese fast train Shinkansen 300 reaches 537 kg per seat (710 tons,
1.323 seats) [4]. The even lighter Shinkansen-classes WiN 350 and 300X present
461 resp. 420 kg/seat (provided: equal seat density as with Shinkansen 300).

With Transrapid, its manufacturer, Thyssen, calculates 90 seats per segment
(average) [9]. One segment weighs about 50 tons, that is 555 kg per seat.
Although this calculation considers the 30-70 cm greater width of Transrapid,
the weight per seat figures are worse than those of wheel/rail high speed
trains.

Owing to their unexpected, even surprising development in the recent years,
railway trains by now are less weighty than maglevs are - not only in freight
transport (see chapter 2.3), but also in passenger transport. Whereas
Transrapid’s weight development stands still [14] or even retrograded [1].

Wheel/rail technology accomplished a quantum leap in mass reduction. Related
to the specific weight, factor 2 lies between the prototype ICE-Experimental
(mid 80’s) and Shinkansen 300X (early 90’s) [4].

The omission of mechanic friction with Transrapid does not mean less energy
consumption. For levitation alone, Transrapid needs as much energy as ICE
needs for going 120 km/h.

Moreover, maglevs do have an equivalent for mechanic friction: The magnetic
friction between vehicle and guideway is much greater than is the sum of all
mechanic friction (wheel/rail, gears, motors) of conventional trains.
Additional drag is caused by Transrapid’s linear generator which produces the
electricity foremostly needed for levitation. Altogether, the maglev-specific
drag is 5-6 times greater than the railway-related mechanic drag [12].

A further problem is Transrapid’s high aerodynamic drag which results from
· its greater width compared to railways (3,70m),
· its worse aerodynamic coefficient (cw=0,26), related to one 27m-end segment
[27].

State of the art with railways ist Shinkansen 300 with its coefficient of
cw=0,11, related to one end car (about 25m) [4].

Transrapid’s insatisfactory cw-coefficient becomes plausible when you imagine
the guideway absent. What you see then is not the ideal of aerodynamic
perfection. The big levitation racks that clasp the guideway are likely to
cause much more aerodynamic drag than TGV’s or ICE’s wheels. Moreover, the
inside of the levitation racks are cleft due to the levitation and guidance
magnets that are installed there.

The prototype ICE-Experimental requires 6.450 Kilowatts (kW) power at 300 km/h
constant speed. This is for a 330m long train with 12 passenger cars and 2
motor heads [15].
The corresponding power requirement of the only 54m short, 2-segment
Transrapid 06 amounts 3.180 kW [3].

To make these figures comparable, they must be related to the effective area
in square meters, corresponding to the train capacity.

The effective area is:
· 856 square meters with ICE (12 passenger cars, each 24,34m long, 2,93m wide,
motor heads not included),
· 170 square meters with Transrapid 06 (2 segments, 27m long, 3,70m wide,
minus 15 sq.m. for each of the driver’s cabs).

Therefore the specific power reqirement is:
· 7,5 kW/sq.m. effective area with ICE,
· 18,7 kW/sq.m. effective area with Transrapid.

These figures can be converted into energy consumption:
· 25 Wh/sq.m. effective area and km with ICE,
· 62 Wh/sq.m. effective area and km with Transrapid.

At equal speed (300 km/h) Transrapid consumes 2,5 times more energy than ICE.

The fact that Transrapid is supposed to go more than 400 km/h, aggravates the
problem. At its aimed speed (430 km/h), aerodynamic drag more than doubles
(compared to 300 km/h) [3], and energy consumption almost doubles, too.

It is no surprise that Transrapid 07’s power amounts 30 Megawatts (41.000 hp)
for an only 150m long train. The 55m longer ICE 2 (205m) is satisfied with 4,8
MW (6.500 hp) - 6 times less.

Transrapid’s manufacturers and -supporters often quote comparisons that seem
to prove that Transrapid needs less energy than the ICE does. The trick is
that these comparisons are based on the energy consumption figures PER SEAT
(or per passenger). Thereby a Transrapid stuffed with seats is compared to a
generously furnished, spacious ICE with dining car, business compartment,
service counter etc.
Transrapid’s manufacturer Thyssen in its calculations even assumes different
degrees of seating capacity use (Transrapid: 65%, ICE: 50% of the seats sold)
[9].
No question that these comparisons are utterly insincere.


1.2	Higher speed?

The world record in speed, accomplished by the french TGV (515 km/h), has not
been beat by Transrapid. There is no more „speed gap“ between advanced
railways and maglevs. Both cover about the same speed range.

Speed increases gradually lose their effect: Example: If a 100 km long line is
upgraded, so the trains can go 50 km/h faster, the time-saving-effect
decreases as follows:
Speed increased from 150 to 200 km/h:   10 minutes saved,
Speed increased from 250 to 300 km/h:   4 minutes saved,
Speed increased from 350 to 400 km/h:   2 minutes saved.

Upgrading a railway line from 160 to 200 km/h has a greater time-saving effect
(8 minutes) than installing a 400 km/h-maglev instead of a 300 km/h-ICE (5
minutes).
This upgrading is withheld from the Hamburg - Berlin railway line, so it won’t
compete withTransrapid. Obviously, Transrapid needs to be protected from
competition!

Railways are fast enough to compete with short haul air travel. On the new
german high speed railway line Cologne - Frankfurt (which is acutely under
construction), 300 km/h fast ICE3-trains will take less than 40 minutes to go
from Frankfurt Airport to Cologne Airport [26]. Planes need 45 minutes.

The fact that an 800 km/h fast jet plane on a 200 km nonstop flight only makes
250 km/h average speed shows how little top speeds contribute to cutting
travelling time on short distances.
A maglev with 400-500 km/h that stops every 50 to 100 km (like ICE trains do
in polycentrical, densely populated Germany) would hardly be able to improve
travelling time.

With raising speed, Transrapid AND railways have to face the problem that
yield benefits (like shorter travelling time) decrease while yield costs
(aerodynamic drag, energy consumption, wear) increase.
Air density on ground level is 5 times greater than in high altitudes [6],
aerodynamic drag increases by square [3]. That means that velocities above 300
km/h for land transport are not worth aspiring to.

Despite that, railways do manage higher speeds, not only in world record test
runs. The french railways will operate their new lines (those that by now are
under construction) with 350 km/h [4]. Japanese railroads already own trains
for 400 km/h and aspire to regular speeds of 450 km/h [13]. At Aachen
Technical University (RWTH) advanced free wheel chassis are developped that
not only replace conventional bogies and thus save weight, but also allow
velocities above 500 km/h [19].

We may approve or criticize those speeds. The fact is that we don’t need
maglevs to achieve them.


1.3	Less land use?

If the Transrapid line consists of a posted guideway, the area underneath
cannot really be used due to noise, wind or dropping ice. With a conventional
foundation (dams, bridges) the area used would be about the same as with
railways. Finally, Transrapid vehicles are wider than railway trains and the
speed with which they encounter is higher. The behaviour of two maglevs
encountering with a relative velocity of nearly 1000 km/h at a very little
distance (planned to be less than with high speed railways) has never been
tested.

Besides, an ICE-line could also be built on posts and pretend not to use any
land.

But the most important fact is that railway lines already exist. That means
that a maglev line would always lead to additional land use.


1.4	Less noise?

At equal speed, Transrapid produces a little less noise than ICE. At 250 km/h
it’s 82 dB(A) compared to 86 dB(A) with ICE [21].

However, tests by the german federal environmental authority (Umweltbundesamt)
have proved that maglev noise is experienced 5 dB(A) louder by test persons
than railway noise [16]. At its aimed speed (400-500 km/h), Transrapid is
noisier anyway: 92-98 dB(A).

With posted guideways, application of noise abatement walls will lead to costs
that certainly have not yet been considered.


1.5	Enough passengers?

The projected maglev line Hamburg - Berlin needs (under unrealistically
optimistic assumptions) 11-12 million passengers per year to recover a part of
its costs (costs for the so called operating system) [24]. The biggest part of
the costs, the guideway, which is financed by the german federal republic,
remains uncovered, even if the „phantasy-figures“ concerning passenger
frequency come true.

The famous TGV-line Paris - Lyon is only used by 7-8 milion passengers/year,
though Paris and Lyon have 12,5 million inhabitants and France is
monocentrically structured.
Hamburg and Berlin count only 5,1 million people. Adding to this, Germany is
polycentrical, so traffic is much more disperse and thus harder to bundle.

Transrapid is supposed to make a miracle come true: 150% of TGV’s passenger
figures with only 40% of its passenger potential!

But even then, the federal republic of Germany would not get a return on its
investment.


1.6	Replacing air transport?

Air transport in Germany, which - according to the Transrapid supporters - is
supposed to be shifted to maglev, can be partitioned into 2 categories:
1. Connections with many passengers (mainly those from Frankfurt, like
Frankfurt - Stuttgart or Frankfurt - Hannover). With these flights ICE’s
travelling times are competitive.
2. Other relations whose passenger figures are too low to justify an utterly
new transport system.

Many air routes that were named as potential maglev lines have less passengers
than a railway branch line that is in danger of being closed.
Hamburg - Berlin flights are operated with tiny aircraft (Fokker 50, 48
seats). Berlin - Moscow is served by Lufthansa only once a day by an aircraft
(Boeing 737) that has less seats than a small branch line diesel railcar
(german VT 628).
>From Hamburg to Stuttgart, Lufthansa offers only 7 flights (mon-fri) with
small planes like Boeing 737 (103-141 seats) and Avro RJ 85 (80 seats). Even
when 100% booked, only 1000 passengers can be transported. With these figures,
a regional railway branch line would nearly be in for closing. Between Hamburg
and Rome there’s only one flight per day, served by a small Canadair Jet (48
seats).

Particularly grotesque in this context is the wish of the Transrapid trust to
prolong the planned Hamburg - Berlin line to Amsterdam and Prague. From
Hamburg to Amsterdam, there’s only 5 flights per day (mon-sat) by small planes
(Boeing 737, Fokker 100, Fokker 70), from Berlin to Prague it’s only one
flight with the tiny Saab SK 340. So, what should be shifted to a maglev?

But even if there was a potential, shifting passengers from plane to maglev
would not be a progress since Transrapid needs about as much energy as air
transport does [18].

Shifting air transport is only a pretended argument. In reality, a maglev
would recruit its passengers foremostly from the most ecology-friendly and
energy-efficient mode of transport: railways [25].
The number of passengers taken away from railways would be greater than the
number of passengers shifted from air transport. The overall effect on ecology
and energy-saving would be negative.

Moreover, on distances above 1000 km or on routes that lead over the sea,
maglevs cannot offer travelling times that are competitive to air transport.
Unlike railways, maglevs are not able to cross the English Channel or the
Great Belt.


1.7	Better chances on export markets?

It’s hard to imagine which country should buy Transrapid since in Germany its
only reason for being is promoting the competitiveness of german industry.

That argument in other countries is void or even undesirable for their
domestic economy.

Foreign investors seek to build up economical high speed networks and possibly
integrate existing lines. That way, a fine-meshed network can be achieved with
relatively little effort of building just a couple of new „backbone“-lines
(like in Germany Hannover - Würzburg or Mannheim - Stuttgart).

Besides that, other countries prefer technologies that produce a ‘local
content’ and employment for the domestic economy. All-made-in-Germany high
tech would not have a chance.

How desparate must Transrapid’s manufacturers be to name poor or bancrupt
countries (Chile, Russia, Czech republic) as potential customers? These
countries have better things to do than buying a high-tech-toy!

Even Austria, that has been named as a Transrapid-buyer, is absolutely
uninterested in maglevs. Many years ago, Austria examined this issue, even
Thyssen’s idea of a freight-maglev over the alps (see chapter 2.3). Result:
maglevs are out of the question. Austria intends to upgrade its railway
network instead [11].

Despite that, last summer the hopeless cross-alps-freight-Transrapid was
pushed into the press again. This shows how unreliable public relations by the
Transrapid cartel are. All other press reports on pretended Transrapid exports
are likely to be canards, too.

Some words about the japanese magnetic levitation train „Maglev“ which is
oftenly mentioned as a reason to push on Transrapid despite to its
irrationality.

Without mentioning that Maglev seems even less capable and technically
clumsier than Transrapid [23]: It doesn’t seem reasonable to compete with „the
Japanese“ in products that will be unsuccessful, particularly after having
lost the real successful products (like the german inventions telefax and
SLR-cameras or consumer electronics) to japanese competitors.
The same desaster like in these markets now threatens german railway
technology. As mentioned in chapter 1.1, german ICE-trains are far inferior to
japanese Shinkansen railway trains. German industry should try to make ICE fit
for the world market instead of dissipating with dead-end-developments and
niche products like Transrapid.


1.8	No tunnels required?

It is not true that maglevs do not need tunnels due to their climbing ability
(10%). To avoid roller-coaster-effects, gradients will need to be limited to
usual extent. Railways in Germany are limited to 4% by regulations that
originate from steam age. Electric wheel/rail systems allow much higher
gradients as subways and trams (Würzburg light rail: up to 11%) prove.


2	Disadvantages of Transrapid:

2.1	No network building ability

For the following reasons, maglevs will hardly be able to form networks:
1. Maglev switches (points) and crossings are extremely complicated and
expensive,
2. the existing railway infrastructure (network, platforms, shops etc.) cannot
be used,
3. the important European tunnel links (Alps, English Channel and Great Belt)
cannot be used. There is no european dimension for Transrapid.

Imagine, TGV and ICE were not able to change into the existing network (like
maglevs): A trip from Hamburg to Frankfurt or Munich would be impossible. Even
the superfast TGV Atlantique in great parts uses the „old“ lines. Being able
to use the existing network allows high speed railways to multiply their
advantages and their benefit.

All Europe seeks to make fast trains compatible by standardizing gauges
(spanish AVE high speed trains use regular gauge tracks), signalling systems
(Cologne - Frankfurt will use the Euro-standard ETCS), and by operating
multi-system trains like Eurostar and Thalys.

WHEEL/RAIL-TECHNOLOGY IS THE UNIVERSAL STANDARD OF THE EUROPEAN HIGH SPEED
NETWORK!

The utterly incompatible Transrapid does not fit into this system and thus is
anti-european. In this context, it’s a bit of an involuntary irony that the
Transrapid 07 test vehicle is named „Europa“.


2.2	Expensive guideway

A maglev guideway is a very long electric motor and therefore much more
expensive than a simple steel and concrete railway track.

Shifting the expensive propulsion components from the vehicle into the
guideway makes the guideway extraordinary capital intensive. This way the
break-even-point is pushed far upwards. That means that a very high passenger
frequency is needed to cover the guideway’s fixed costs. The economic hazard
for the investor increases. Transrapid could hardly win a competition of low
fares against railways and especially against air transport, which both have
much less fixed costs.

It’s a principle of traffic planning to check if costs can be cut by shifting
components from the line into the train. Examples:
· Ticket machines should be installed on the train if (for instance on a
branch line) there’s a lot of stations but only a small number of trains.
· The upcoming signalling systems that are based on GSM-standard mobile
communication (ETCS, Funkfahrbetrieb) are supposed to drastically cut costs by
installing signalling and guiding functions not in stationary devices and
switching towers but in the train’s cab.

Consequently, installing the propulsion in the guideway is no good idea.

A cost comparison: For the french new TGV-lines the following amounts were
invested [4]:
· TGV Sud-Est: 1,3 billion ECU for 427 km (3 million ECU/km),
· TGV Atlantique: 1,4 billion ECU for 282 km (5 million ECU/km),
· TGV Nord: 2,0 billion ECU für 329 km (6 million ECU/km).

Figures around 5 million ECU/km seem typical for new high speed railway lines
in Europe unless they don’t need too many tunnels and bridges. Maybe, in
densely populated Germany with its many crossing roads, autobahns, tracks and
pipes, higher amounts like 8 million ECU/km are necessary.

However, the costs for the existing new lines Hannover - Würzburg and Mannheim
- Stuttgart (19 million ECU/km) cannot be used as a scale since they run
almost 100% in tunnels or cuttings, on bridges or dams and that way are about
2-3 times more expensive than plain country lines (as the planned Transrapid
Hamburg - Berlin would be). 1 km tunnel or viaduct cost 15 million ECU in the
rough (tracks, signals, catenary not included) [4].

8 million ECU would only be half of the 16 million ECU/km, which the
flatland-Transrapid Hamburg - Berlin (with no tunnel and no viaduct) is
supposed to cost under optimistic assumptions [5].

Due to the experiences made with large scale projects in general and
especially with the Transrapid test line in Lathen, Germany, it is unlikely
that the cost assumptions for the maglev line Hamburg - Berlin would not be
exceeded.
The Transrapid test line originally was supposed to cost 70 million ECU. In
the end, it was 375 million ECU - over 5 times more [25].

Upgrading the existing Hamburg - Berlin railway line to 200/230 km/h would
only cost 0,5 billion ECU and lead to about 85-90 minutes travelling time with
ICT tilting trains [8]. The 10 times more expensive Transrapid (5 billion ECU)
would take about 60 minutes.
The price for a quite marginal time-saving effect is a huge cost explosion
which leads to a very poor ratio of costs and benefit.

Moreover, 25-30 minutes are only saved between Hamburg and Berlin. Passengers
that formerly used the Intercity line Hamburg - Berlin - Dresden would have to
change in Berlin and lose the few minutes saved.


2.3	Not suitable for freight transport

The freight version of Transrapid maglev can only carry 18 tons per
25m-segment while weighing 46 tons itself [9]! This is an extremely poor ratio
of weight and payload. This fact is likely to lead to an energy-consumption
even higher than the one of road haulage! Shifting goods from truck to maglev
is not at all desirable under ecologic aspects!

A conventional railway freight-car (german 60-foot-container car) weighs 20
tons and can carry a payload of 70 tons [10]. With american double stack
container cars the ratio should be even better.

For the transportation of 1000 tons of goods in containers, 400 tons of
railway rolling stock are required - or almost 3000 tons of Transrapid!


2.4	Low line capacity

Since the guideway propulses the vehicles, a Transrapid line must be divided
into sectors that can be switched and controlled separately. This fact limits
the line capacity because only one vehicle can be located in one sector [20].

Advanced wheel/rail-systems do not have this limitation. Modern computer-based
signalling systems (like ETCS on the new Cologne - Frankfurt line) allow
trains to follow up in minimum intervals, only limited by the braking ability
of the following train.


2.5	High maintenance costs

The following facts are likely to cause high maintenance costs:
· the gap between guideway and vehicle must constantly be kept on 10mm. This
leads to extremely high requirements on exactness in construction and
maintenance.
· The claim that Transrapid technology is free of wear is nonsense. Wear
occurs also with contact-free transmitted dynamic forces. On the Transrapid
test line in Lathen bolts that fasten the linear motor to the guideway broke
so the line had to be closed due to safety reasons in 1988 - after only a few
thousand kilometers of test operation [25]. The magnetic forces that are
required to lift and guide the weighty vehicles and maintain the 10mm gap
constant to the millimeter even at high speeds necessarily promote wear.


2.6	Danger to the „Bahnreform“ (deregulation, privatization of german
railways)

The commitment of Deutsche Bahn AG (DB) in the Transrapid project indicates
that deregulation and privatization have not yet come far enough to allow DB
free enterprise. Obviously, DB can still be abused for industry-political
purposes.

A private, independent enterprise would never embark upon a business in which
· the hazard is that unequally divided to its debit,
· the pretended viability is that obviously and bluntly dragged in by a more
than shaky calculation,
· the (not existing) transport need had to be ordered in by a law
(Magnetschwebebahnbedarfsgesetz = „lex Transrapid“)?

Lufthansa, whose privatization process has come much further, meanwhile drew
back from Transrapid. This fact tells a lot!

Maybe DB can gain more independence from government mismanagement when listed
on stock exchange. But exactly this is likely to be baffled by Transrapid.
Imagine, the german minister of post and telecommunications had burdened
Deutsche Telekom with a similar bad bargain - good night, T-Aktie (Telekom
share).

A DB-share burdened with Transrapid would be of high risk to the shareholder.


3	Overall assessment

The pretended advantages of Transrapid compared to wheel/rail technology
either turn out not to be sound or their benefit is marginal.
In contrary to that, its disandvantages can be seen as „K.O.-criteria“ for an
economically and ecologically sensible application.

This way, Transrapid ranges in the long queue of transport systems that may
have been interesting from the technocratic point of view, but which moved
directly from the prototype state to the transport museum. Other monorails
like Alweg-train, Aérotrain, Schwebebahn and M-Bahn are already there.


-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/   Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading