this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
190 points (94.8% liked)

World News

39110 readers
2437 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MadhuGururajan@programming.dev 63 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

Nobody needs driverless or magnetic. Just do the simple fucking trains for now. Bunch of circus baboons the lot...

[–] huginn@feddit.it 49 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Driverless transport is a huge boon to a transit system.

[–] MadhuGururajan@programming.dev 10 points 11 months ago

If they didn't advertise it and kept it lowkey nobody would have complained..

[–] frezik@midwest.social 40 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Driverless is fine, but what's the maglev for? It's a tech that sounds futuristic, but solves no problem and causes a bunch of new ones.

[–] NeuronautML@lemmy.ml 38 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

Speed. High speed trains clock in at 300 km/h, whereas maglev takes you to 600 km/h.

I agree with the above commenter, the EU needs to streamline passenger rights and international connections first, like they did for airtravel, but once that is taken care of, the next step is connecting European capitals on high speed maglev with very few stops.

To give you a sense of what such a transportation system could achieve, you could go from Lisbon to Kiev in 6 hours and a half at 600 km/h. If capitals served as country maglev hubs, we could do away with intra European flights altogether and cut a significant amount of flights to outside of Europe by concentrating the departures.

You could then have a hierarchy of sorts where maglev serves traveling between capitals, high speed between major cities within countries, regional between regions of smaller sparsely populated towns and local trains within cities or between close cities. Ideally if a passenger wanted to travel from a small town into another small town 3000 km away, the service should book all the appropriate hierarchy changes in one ticket.

The issue is that the line would have to be pretty much straight or have very shallow curves, due to the speed, so it would take a TON of land buying. That's complicated enough as it is without even considering the NIMBYs.

[–] ambitious_bones@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The line that is proposed in Berlin is less then 10km long. If speed is the great upside of maglev then it can't even play out this strength here.

[–] NeuronautML@lemmy.ml 12 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh yeah no issues from me there. I was answering the original question of what maglev tech is for. Maglev only makes sense for very long distances.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 12 points 11 months ago

This is intracity travel. There isn't enough distance for high speed lines to make sense.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Speed. High speed trains clock in at 300 km/h, whereas maglev takes you to 600 km/h.

which would be great but the end point is only 6km away - you'll spend the entire trip accelerating and then decelerating.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You could even split it into different tiers, depending on demand and system load. If tons of people are going between, let’s say, Zurich and Madrid, they could just run a dedicated service straight through. On the flip side, a “limited express” that makes stops at national border stations and capitals would decrease the necessity of backtracking as much (e.g. Berlin to Poznań).

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bighatchester@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

Fucking magnets , how do they work ?

Seriously though what is maglev ?

[–] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 24 points 11 months ago

Driverless is pretty good as far as trains are concerned. It's already figured out in some systems, so it's not unproven technology as is the case in cars.

[–] Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Driverless is fine, it's the magnetic thing that has me raising an eyebrow.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There's plenty of systems that would fall apart without driverless as their train frequencies are so high manual operation is not an option. Under less extreme circumstances it's still a good idea because it allows you to use more small trains instead of fewer larger trains, saving space (smaller stations), operating costs (drivers tend to want to be paid), and increasing frequency which is mindbogglingly important in public transit.

As to magnetic: This system in particular is very good, better than standard rail, at elevated track because it can be built lighter because the train doesn't produce point-loads (in the form of wheel contact), but forces that are easier to direct into the ground. It's also quieter.

This is not a high-speed system, 150km/h is the current max and IIRC they said the tech can't possibly ever do more than 200km/h. We're not talking about building a Shinkansen or Transrapid, but something metro-scaled, both in capability and cost.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Copenhagen has driverless in their subway system. Works great.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 49 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I think trains are awesome but what's the justification for maglev here? Why get a whole other set of trains, maintenance equipment that is incompatible with other systems in the city?

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Looks like it is a 6 mile line that will demonstrate whether maglev is practical

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Surely they can't just go to Japan and find out it's very expensive and not really worth it compared to just building traditional trains. They must first waste trillions on it themselves.

Parade pony projects should be banned from public transport already.

[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sure, there are better ways to spend the money, but there are much worse ways also.

The way that spending like this comes back to bite us is when anti-public transport lobbies use this as a poster child for why trains won't work instead of for why maglev doesn't work.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

i would build a national porn studio the size of an airport

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

Completely different systems for completely different applications. Japan is building over-regional high-speed rail, this is about a metro-scale application with passive tracks.

[–] nutsack@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

if you've been to berlin you would know that they could use a few more

[–] veganpizza69@lemmy.world 32 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

The term is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadgetbahn

Gadgetbahn is a neologism that refers to a public transport concept or implementation that is touted by its developers and supporters as futuristic or innovative, but in practice is less feasible, reliable, and more expensive than traditional modes such as buses, trams and trains. It is a portmanteau of the English word "gadget" and the German word Bahn, meaning "train" or "railway".[2][3]

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

makes me wonder what they call Monorails...

[–] Pipoca@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Monorails are often considered a gadgetbahn.

Gadgetbahn is less about being new, and more about being gimmicky with few real advantages.

[–] Ekpu@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

We allready had the M-Bahn in 1990. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Bahn

At this time it would have been new and modern...

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, it really isn't. TSB has actual advantages. In a sense it's roughly Transrapid technology scaled down to ~150km/h, city and regional operation. IIRC they said the tech scales to max. 200km/h.

One advantage is how cheap elevated ways are with the thing: Ordinary train wheels are point loads which need quite sturdy reinforcement to properly distribute the forces. Of course that won't matter if you build the thing on the ground or dig tunnels.

Also Berlin's old maglev was quite successful (given the circumstances) and beloved. The reason it didn't survive is because it was made redundant when east and west subway infrastructure was connected up again after reunification, the track was simply in the wrong place.


Another only apparent Gadgetbahn is Wuppertal's hanging monorail: It makes perfect sense in Wuppertal -- and probably also only there. It's a very narrow valley and over long stretches the only sensible place to build rail public transit was over the river.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (7 children)

Trains are still better than cars, so id rather have one AI maglev train than a bunch of cars on the road

[–] 7of9@startrek.website 12 points 11 months ago

Would you like 1 maglev train for 10km, or 10 extra trains to make better use of existing infrastructure?

[–] hh93@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

The problem is that with that kind of budget you could improve a lot more traditional trains

It's really just hyperloop 2.0 in order to not improve the classic public transportation

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] KpntAutismus@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

how about actual public transport, like being able to laterally move outside of cities, not being hilariously late every time and paying your workers enough, not resulting in endless strikes?

[–] Jessvj93@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The use of astroturfers to sway or argue on social media sites, like Reddit :P, has me playing minesweeper with this comment section lol. Who is genuine and who is paid to push for a certain position?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] spiderkle@lemmy.ca 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It would just save emissions not money. Is Berlin afraid to invest in any big projects with a bit of risk, because they're still traumatized by the airport debacle, that took about a decade more to finish?! Correct me if you're ein Berliner. Taking a bit longer is normal in big infrastructure projects but years is something different.

[–] frustbox@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

No, I think the conservative party is just too scared to touch cars.

They rolled back quite a few projects to improve cycling infrastructure, citing it's negative impact on car traffic. They'd rather see a continuation of the traffic collapse than be the ones who start all the construction and draw the wrath of car brains on them.

So to appease the people who do want more public transport, and environmentally conscious traffic, they propose some "look it's futuristic" new tech miracle solution while funneling research funds to their business buddies and thumping their patriotic chests for found something for German industry.

Because building a tram is not prestigious enough (and conflicts with the holy car).

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Plans for a driverless magnetic train that would swoop through Berlin and carry passengers and goods are under way as part of the local government’s attempts to boost the German capital’s green credentials.

At a time when Berlin’s transport company, the BVG, is so short of drivers that it has reduced its timetable by about 7%, Stettner said the fact that the train was self-driving as well as cheaper and easier to construct than an underground line was a further advantage.

It was dismantled in 1991, two years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, to allow for the restoration of the U2 underground line, which had been cauterised by the erection of the notorious cold war barrier that cut the city in two.

At a recent presentation of his plans, including slick architectural sketches, Stettner said there were many ideas on how to practically make use of a new M-Bahn in a city that retained the scars of division.

Last month Germany’s highest court blocked the federal government’s plan to shift leftover Covid-era aid to fund projects to tackle the climate emergency, leaving many policy decisions in limbo.

“If the funds survive the court’s earthquake decision, they should be used to finance efficient ways to reduce CO2 emissions, and to adapt to climate change, not for willy-nilly ‘perhaps nice-to-haves’,” it wrote in an editorial.


The original article contains 834 words, the summary contains 225 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] TheControlled@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Why can't we ever have anything cool?

[–] febra@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

This is just another useless pet project some dumb politician is trying to introduce to gather votes from people that won't have to take this train anyway. I'd rather they fix current infrastructure and expand it as it is instead of throwing money at hyperloops, inner city maglevs, ad other dumb pet projects.

[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

So it’s the 1984 HyperLoop?

“High tech” shit that doesn’t solve transport issues.

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Maglev trains don't solve transport issues?

[–] stephen01king@lemmy.zip 12 points 11 months ago

If it takes money away from more practical transport projects that can have more impact, they kinda are not solving the issue.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

They are a needless complication. You're not going to go that fast for intracity transport, and high speed intercity trains are getting along fine without it, anyway. It takes more power, complicates rail switching, and you can't have a third rail for providing direct electricity.

Nothing wrong with traditional rail. Maglev is cool on paper, but solves no actual problem.

[–] Melonpoly@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Maglevs are generally advertised as being city to city transport.

They do have a higher power consumption than bullet trains at high speed (the LO uses about 90-100 kw/seat - km vs the N700 series which is 70 kw/seat-km), however they are going up against air travel which is far less efficient (Airbus A319neo uses ~209 Wh/seat-km). So compared to flying they are still way more efficient. I'm not sure about the rail switching, it looks like they have fewer moving parts but I haven't looked into it. I'm not sure my having a third rail is that important? There are other methods of providing power to trains for example using pantograph or induction or by recovered harmonic oscillation of the magnetic fields created from the track.

Maglevs reduce travel time, better acceleration, better incline performance, lower maintenance costs, are quieter than conventional rail, can operate at higher speeds during rain or snow since the don't rely on friction for breaking, and are still more efficient than air travel. However, running costs (mostly from power consumption) are more expensive and they can't use existing infrastructure. So on paper they solve many issues while having fewer cons than conventional high-speed rail.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Switching is a big, complicated mess for maglevs. Traditional rail is simple here, and has been solved for over a century.

Maglev could be good for city to city, provided those cities are far enough apart and you make no stops in between. Problem is, we often want to give service to cities in between. Forcing maglevs to accelerate and decelerate all the time kills their advantage.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Marsupial@quokk.au 2 points 11 months ago

That normal trains don’t?

[–] Melonpoly@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago (2 children)

A driverless Maglev train is already rideable in Japan.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZX9T0kWb4Y&pp=ygURQ2jFq8WNIFNoaW5rYW5zZW4%3D

Whether or not it's worth it is yet to be determined. Driverless trains of lower speeds also already exist.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_driverless_train_systems

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm not sold on "driverless". Even if it's being monitored 24/7 by some dude in Brussels or whatever, there's really no substitute for having someone PHYISCALLY on that train, in control, in case of an emergency or something.

[–] faercol@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 11 months ago

There's been driverless subway for decades though, if it's intracity travel (which seems the case here), then it makes sense.

Maglev doesn't, as many pointed out

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›