They were invented decades ago.

They have fewer moving parts than wheelbois.

They require less maintenance.

There’s obviously some bottleneck in expanding maglev technology, but what is it?

    • traches
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to defend capitalism in general, but it’s really good at answering these sort of “is it worth the cost?” aquestions. The whole point is to allocate scarce resources efficiently; the problem is that it assumes nobody is a scumbag and all the costs are accounted for.

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It isn’t. Most decision makers of capitalism are very unaware of science. You’d know this if you work in research. The ideas that see light of day do so not because they’re good in any quantifiable sense. It is because they convince the capitalists. This can be affected by so many things that aren’t merit or even cost based.

        Some things make sense from a cost perspective, but not a profitability perspective. Profit isn’t just about cost. There’s margins, competition, longevity, etc. Something can be of moderate costs, but if the margins are too low or it is too long term or a project, it is of low value to capitalists.

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m really struggling to understand what you’re getting at here.

          Whether or not a decision maker is aware of science, their products will still be subject to the laws of physics.

          Some things make sense from a cost perspective, but not a profitability perspective.

          For example?

          • Cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            To simplify it, when capitalism answers “is it worth the cost?”, it is not answering “is the benefit of this thing to society worth the cost?”. They’re answering “are the profits I would get out of this and the risk worth the cost?”. And profits do not always agree with what’s good for society.

            One example of moderate-to-low cost investments that are of demand in society but not very profitable and hence does not see focus is low-income housing (at least in the US). Housing developments disproportionally target high income or even luxury housing, as the margins on those are far better (but the costs are also much higher). Even nowadays, that this trend has been going on for a while, and luxury housing has really fallen out of demand (which greatly increases the risk), it continues. Luxury housing still looks a better investment to investors, when society does not need more luxury housing. It needs more moderate and low income housing.

          • MooseBoys@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think OP is just thinking of “cost” to mean capex. Whereas most real-world cost evaluations consider capex, opex, and opportunity cost, among others. Something having low cost but low margins will usually have a large opportunity cost, which increases the total real cost.

      • The current, dominant form of capitalism isn’t and doesn’t, though. It maximizes short-term profits and ignores all other medium and long-term costs. The efficient allocation of scarce resources doesn’t happen when inefficient allocation yields greater short-term profit. The stock market ensures that high short-term yields with lower total returns will be favored over the inverse. In particular, it emphasizes competition over cooperation, which is more resource wasteful for the gestalt.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      What kind of benefits are there to maglev trains that are not cost related?

        • Aux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They’re not that faster. Conventional train speed record is 574.8 km/h, Maglev record is 603 km/h. Maglev price doesn’t justify diminishing returns.

          • flux@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And how about the actual speeds they are used with? Another poster suggested the maintenance costs of traditional speeds skyrocket as speed increases, while maglev doesn’t really have a lot of stuff that wears down in the first place.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              All but one operational Maglev lines run at speeds below 160kph. Which is way lower than conventional high speed railways which usually run at speeds over 300kph. Also “non high speed” conventional railways in the UK have a top speed of 200kph, which is also faster than existing maglev lines, lol.

              The only exception is Shanghai Maglev, which tops out at 430kph. But that line only exists as a Chinese propaganda tool.

          • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I doubt conventional trains are regularly traveling at the speed record. Thats a poor way to compare the speeds of things.

            • Aux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Regular conventional service is much much faster than regular maglev service. It’s not even a comparison at this point.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then it’s good that we don’t have them, isn’t it? Kool_Newt’s post implies that it’s due to a failing of capitalism, but this sounds like a win to me. I’d rather my money go towards food and housing than a faster or more comfortable experience doing something I rarely need.

          • Venutianxspring@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, but if it lessens the impact on the climate from air travel and vehicles, then it’s a good thing. Especially if they can become reliable and convenient enough that people don’t need to have their own vehicles to drive everywhere.

          • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            One of the most common flights is US west coast to east coast. Normal high speed rail can’t do this in a reasonable time frame. We need something faster if we want to get reduce those flights.

            One of the features of capitalism is externalizing the costs, especially of pollution.

            • howrar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah, that makes sense. So maglev is overall cheaper but still less profitable because the costs are paid where they’re incurred.

              • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Cheaper than flights? You’d have to do the math on it. We may have to accept that some things like travel will be expensive. But right now it’s not feasible Wrt to time to take a train or even HSR coast to coast.

              • Aux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                It is scientifically proven that high quality public transport, and especially train services, improves the lives of people and improves the economy.

                Money spent on food is a total waste. No matter how much food you buy for people, they will eat all of it and will ask for more. Simply because you need to eat every day of your life.

                This is also true for housing to some extent, as populations generally tend to grow over time, thus more and more houses will always be needed no matter how much you have built already. But houses take a lot more time to run out of as you don’t need a new house every day, only once every few years when the population increases.

                But you can build a good railway system in the area once and then people will use it to earn their own money, to pay for their food themselves and to buy their own homes themselves. And they will also pay for railway maintenance and bring profit to the budget as well. It’s a one time investment which lasts virtually forever.

                The government should invest in long term solutions: infrastructure, education, etc. There’s really no point investing anything into short term solutions. Housing can be a long term investment if done properly though. But that’s an off topic.

                • howrar@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Thanks. So it basically comes down to externalizing costs again. Those who build the trains don’t see most of the profits or the costs that come with it, so they optimize for the parts that they do see.

                  Regarding food, I as an individual need to eat every day, and I need to pay for that food. I’m not going to just not buy food because I’ll need it again tomorrow. It doesn’t matter if the government provides the food or I buy it myself, it’s still money that needs to be spent on it. One could argue that food security also leads to similar second/third order effects by freeing up that mental real estate dedicated to survival and allowing it to be used for positive contributions to the community, though I don’t have data to back this up so it’s just speculation. Similarly, if the rails are public and built using my tax money while providing me with no value, I would consider it to be wasteful as survival takes precedence over comfort. If it’s private and not profitable, then it means no one wants this for the price it takes to build and maintain, so it was a bad idea to have it in the first place. But either way, this is all moot because it’s a conclusion reached from incomplete information. I’m down for public spending on this if there are higher order effects that everyone benefits from.

      • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Better acceleration, steeper inclines, tighter curves at same speed, better ride quality and less wear. As someone has mentioned below, normal trains could go a lot faster than they do in practice, because the ride quality, wear and wind resistance get atrocious, and the tracks need to be exceptionally straight. Making a maglev go fast is more feasible, though you still have the wind resistance issue obviously.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s basically evolution. It’s not that we don’t get the best things, it’s that when something evolves traits that require more energy than they are worth, they inevitably die out. I’m reminded of the film The Man in the White Suit.

      It’d be nice to always have the “best” things, but the “energy” to support them has to come from somewhere.