Talk:Transrapid

message: While this article describes the political development of the Transrapid very well, it lacks explanation of technical details. At least, a link to Magnetic levitation train should be provided, but I think there should also be some special technical aspects of the Transrapid included in this page. I'll check whether I can do this, but if it's getting too complex, I would like to look for some place to anounce it. Where is the best place for this? Wikipedia:Todo_list or Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion? --Robamler 23:42, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion required (technical details) 

message: Why can only one train exist on the track at the same time?
-------
Acording to the german article the track is divided into segments of 0.3 to 5 km length which need their own power source. Acceleration or deceleration happens through changing the frequency of the magnetic field inside the segment. Only one train can be in a segment but on the track there can be more.. sorry bout my bad english :)
-------
I'd like to expand/clarify this a little:
Because the motive force of the train is actually provided by the magnets in the guideway (Rail) and not by the magnets (Or any other system) on the train itself, this basically means that each section of track can only "move" in one direction at a time.
Therefore if two maglev trains (One heading North and the other south, for example.) were to approach each other on a collision course and the Northbound train was to enter a specific section of track just before the southbound one, then the section of track in question would be set to "flow" North and would result in the southbound train slowing down, stopping momentarily, then accellerating backwards towards the North.
The end result of this would simply be two trains travelling in the same direction with a possibly shorter seperation distance than usual! :-) 
Hyperspeed 10th May 2006CR at 03:20 BST.
-------
:Nice principle but a couple of questions
:* How violent would the reversal be. In particular could it derail the train allowing another train to crash into it.
:* Couldn't they crash near the end of the segment before the second train hitting the segment has had time to slow down/reverse Plugwash 10:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One train at a time on the track? 

message: I've created Transrapid/German where the translation of this article from German to English can take place. At current, there appears to be a problem with referencing the images from the German version, so I may have to transfer these over manually. If you can help with the translation, then please do! :-)
Follow-up note: Cheers for moving the temp page RHaworth, much appreciated! :-)
Hyperspeed 12th May 2006CR at 18:30 BST.
-------
For those who are interested, the translation is coming on quite well so far now. I've managed to translate about 25-33% of the original German so far and I'm hoping to have the whole page done within the space of a month, assuming I'll be doing it all on my own. Would anyone mind me adding a note at the top of the original Transrapid page linking to the temp one, so that anyone who can't find the information they might be looking for on this page can go over to the translation and possibly have more luck there? :-)
Hyperspeed 15th May 2006CR at 01:10 BST.
:: This looks really good but nothing has happened on the translation for some time. Maybe we should move some parts over to this article (Energy requirements for example)
--217.86.148.253 13:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does.  I have transferred the energy requirements, and will probably to the same for other sections.  The German version is quite impressive!--MrFishGo Fish 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The German article isn't very impressive, it has many mistakes, speculations and opinions, mostly from fanatic opponents of the Transrapid-System. Markus Schweiß, formerly wikipedia-admin, was one of the author and is one of those TR-opponents. He was a common user of TR-boards and he always claims on his wiki-page that he has a contra-TR-Page. The section energy requirements is unlocigal & wrong. There's no source for the draw coefficient cw, neither for A-Front. There's no sense in making this calculation. There are many real value for the energy consumption in the literature. --82.83.50.120 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of German version into English 

message: One paragraph says it's cheaper than HSR, one says it's more expensive. A blanketing more/less statement is dubious anyway due to the multiple factors involved - Transrapid could theoretically be cheaper in some places, HSR may well be cheaper in others. Some clarification and cleaning up is required. --Qasdfdsaq 17:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting information regarding construction costs 

message: Economic and environmental consideration
The TR has been more energy efficient that the ICE until the ICE 3 entered service. Up to a speed of 330 kph the ICE 3 consumes less energy that the latest version of the TR. 
The TR has no mechanic friction between train and track, but the magnetic field between the magnets in the track and in the TR slows the TR down, more than classic mechanic friction slows an ICE 3. Furthermore the TR needs quite a lot of energy just to levitate 10mm above the track. 
Construction costs
Building a maglev track is not less costly than a comparatively High-speed railway (HSR) line. According to numbers form TR proponents in Germany a conventional HSR is significantly cheaper in flat terrain and still a bit cheaper in a low mountain ranges(3.5<->5 billion and 4.9<->5.4 for a 200 kilometer long line). It is true that the TR is capable of climbing significantly steeper tracks than conventional trains, but there is a catch. You can not go from zero to a 10% inclination without building a very long ramp. Such a ramp for a speed of 400 kph would be four kilometres long. That does not come cheap and at least in Germany you don´t actually need the ability to climb a 10% inclination. Furthermore you should keep the passengers in mind. Even the 4% inclination feels like a roller coaster sometimes, 10 % would hardly be comfortable and also causes problems with the luggage and dishes in the restaurant.    
Transportation system for Germany
The railroad line from Hamburg to Berlin was in a poor state –no surprise after 40 years of communism- but it had to be improved for a speed of 100 mph anyway. 
As far as the general suitability for Germany is concerned it is correct that you can hardly go 100 kilometres before reaching a major city. Often the distance is less and the closer the stops are the less sense makes increasing the top speed. For example at a speed of 300 kph an ICE 3 need 26 minutes for a distance of 100 kilometres, at 400 kph the TR need 22 minutes. A 1/3 increase in speed just leads to a 15 % decrease of travel time. Markus Becker02 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  incomplete and old information 

message: Markus, I do not agree with your edits to the article. You have provided no sources, nor any actual figures. The construction cost of Transrapid on-site is much lower than that of HSR, though the components cost more. You've not stated which of these are included in your points.
Additionally, your comments in this discussion lend serious doubts about the credibility of your other information. 
You imply that the Transrapid is less energy efficient at lower speeds and more at higher speeds. Logic and arithmetic would have it the other way round. Please state your sources.
You mention that a 10% grade would require a long ramp. You then mention the "roller coaster" quality of such a ride. This is absolutely untrue. With a long ramp, you do not feel the grade at all, whether 10%, 4% or otherwise. Without looking out the window, passengers would not be able to tell they're on a grade at all. Simple physics prove this. There would be absolutely no problems with luggage or dishes in the restaurant.
Finally, you mention that TR takes 22 minutes to traverse 100km at 400kph, while ICE3 takes 26 minutes. Again, this is absolutely incorrect. The TR, when limited to 400kph, can easily cover 100km in less than 17 minutes. With full speed enabled (even Shanghai over 30km operates above 400kmh) it takes 14.5 minutes. That's a 35% decrease in travel time with 33% increase in top speed, not 15% as you say. At 500km/h it becomes 45%.
Transrapid has superior acceleration when compared to HSR; nearly double when compared to some (e.g. TGV). This means it makes more sense to use Transrapid over shorter distances than HSR, even with top speed kept the same.
Qasdfdsaq 19:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disagree with above statements

message: As I read the Chinese WP about :zh:磁懸浮列車 (Maglev train), there's a paragraph pointing that in Sept., 2005, German and Chinese both authorities have rejected the statement about technology theft. Here's the line:
2005年9月，中國成都飛機公司開始研製CM1型「海豚」高速磁悬浮列車，最高時速500公里，預計會於2006年7月在上海試行。但有觀點認為，這是中國剽竊了德國的技術，再把德國技術的不足之處加以改良，但兩國政府均否認有關說法。
My only objective here is to find out the truth since what I found in the non-Chinese sources are quite negative. Would Germany still bring this topic into the coming G8? -- Sameboat - 同舟 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged theft of Transrapid technology 

message: I recall an article from Railway Gazette International from the late 1980's or early 1990's that mentioned that one reason for the configuration of the guideway was that a pair of rails for conventional trains could be installed in the center allowing one path to share both technologies into crowded city centers. There was even a drawing of an ICE sitting on the guideway. The prinicpal of sharing HSR and Standard rail is part of the success of the TGV system as well.
-DX  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dal-x (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transrapid Guideway Advantage 

message: :Polentario, why do you imply that I would ignore that monorail-page? or other sources? I told you many times, those are NOT sources about Transrapid, those are articles about monorails. Yes, look at the "worth while" Transrapid, Emsland Page of monorails.org - no word of "monorail" - just a link.
:"exclude anonymous IPs from editing this article"? Why? I did obviously improvements (+ HSR, +train +others) to this article while I was here as anonymous IP - so why should it be locked? --82.82.173.246 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources are monorail, yes, which include and define Transrapid maglev as being part of their story and the links you mention directly draw the conclusion. http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/MagWhat.html  
Mathew 13:9 : He that hath ears to hear, let him hear! Youre could provide even more valuable contributions, if you skipped provideing biased /possibly paid opinion. 
The real question is more wether Transrapid stays in the same niches (ending like Alweg) or really provides added value. Our german discussion about Standi values is more worth while translating in the article.Polentario 12:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I doubt this. That has nothing to do with Transrapid in general. --82.82.189.98 13:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transrapid as Monorail / Alweg

message: What our IP friend doubts as not interesting is a Traffic german project evaluation scheme (Standardisierte Bewertung, "Standi") very commonly used in Germany. This provides generic values (return on invest/ measurable bang for the buck for complete society). MOre than 1 is required to receive federal funding. 
Transrapid projects as in MUnich or Metrorapid have reached 1,5. This is comparable and sometimes even better than ICE HST projects. There are some indications that a Transrapid from Berlin City to Leipzig Airport (while skipping the planned new Big Berlin Airport) would have an excellent Standi, however this would be tough for Berlin. To compare:  Tram-train pilots have often Standis about 2,4, some Tram-Train and extension project about 1,4. I ask the english audience wether we should elaborate this aspect and evaluation scheme in the english wikipedia as well.--Polentario 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not include [[Standardisierte Bewertung]] (German Project evaluation scheme) 

message: This article is in desperate need of copy-editing. It sounds like it's been cobbled together from technical articles in a foreign language. Do something somebody!! And no, I am not volunteering. BuzzWoof (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Appalling wording

message: One of the earliest serious applications for what is today Transrapid was in Toronto, Canada. They partnered with the local company Hawker Siddeley Canada to build a three-route system through Toronto, and actually started construction of a 5.6 km test track in Toronto when the project was cancelled around 1969 or 1970. This seems like something worth mentioning! Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally proposed for Toronto 

message: I've removed this section because:
#it has been marked as unreferenced for 9 months without its original author(s) making any attempt to fix this.
#it is poorly written, with the first paragraph drawing parrallels between Schwebebahn & Aerobus without any explicit reference to Maglev.
#it is poorly informed, apparently believing that Birmingham (the location of the first public service maglev) and Derby (where said system was developed) are German speaking!.
If somebody wants to write something better quality, better informed and (above all) cited to replace this, please be my guest. -- Starbois (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic parallels section 

message: I'm a bit confused as to what this paragraph in the "Technology" section is saying:
: From a competition standpoint, the Transrapid is a proprietary solution. The track being a part of the engine, only the single-source Transrapid vehicles and infrastructure can be operated. There is no multisourcing foreseen concerning vehicles or the highly complicated crossings and switches. Unlike classical railways or other infrastructure networks (as jointly administrated by the Bundesnetzagentur in Germany) a Transrapid system does not allow any direct competition.
The only halfway reasonable interpretation I can come up with is that Transrapid International may hold patents that currently prevent anyone else from building tracks and/or vehicles, but can someone here make that explicit if that is actually the case?  (I don't really see any technological reasons why not anyone should be able to build vehicles that operate on the tracks, but the tone of the quoted paragraph seem to make it out to be a fundamental difference from classical rail.  Which seems unfair; if it were invented today, would it not have the exact same problems with patents?)  -- magetoo 03:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology section; "proprietary"? 

message: How is this rejected proposal notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article? I suggest it be shortened into a section of Transrapid. AadaamS (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Transrapid]] 

message: Substituted at 09:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Transrapid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://210.15.220.118/ewlna_submissions/EastWestResponse_100708_ThyssenKruppTransrapidAustralia.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/transportstrategy/eddingtonstudy/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131212053442/http://english.eastday.com/e/110119/u1a5677922.html to http://english.eastday.com/e/110119/u1a5677922.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090922213331/http://www.canv-maglev.com/ to http://www.canv-maglev.com/
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20080806150309/http%3A//www.transrapid%2Dusa.com/images/route_USA.gif to http://www.transrapid-usa.com/images/route_USA.gif
*Added  tag to http://www.thyssenkrupp-transrapid.de/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070620005529/http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~breede/medien/ss03/referate/Transrapid.pdf to http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~breede/medien/ss03/referate/Transrapid.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130105005223/http://www.transrapid-usa.com/content_history_main.asp to http://www.transrapid-usa.com/content_history_main.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Transrapid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719234220/http://www.transrapid.de/cgi/en/basics.prg?session=76d1f56f4da67ae8_285873&a_no=35 to http://www.transrapid.de/cgi/en/basics.prg?session=76d1f56f4da67ae8_285873&a_no=35
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211193855/http://www.i70solutions.org/docs/reports/MagLevPresCoates02-09.pdf to http://www.i70solutions.org/docs/reports/MagLevPresCoates02-09.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)