sign in sign up
<<
Home , Guided bus, ICE 3, Maglev, Monorail, Regional rail, Shinkansen

University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons

Departmental Papers (ESE) Department of Electrical & Systems Engineering

2002

An Evaluation of and Its Comparison With High Speed Rail

Vukan R. Vuchic University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]

Jeffrey Michael Casello University of Pennsylvania

Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers

Part of the Systems Engineering Commons, and the Transportation Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation Vukan R. Vuchic and Jeffrey Michael Casello, "An Evaluation of Maglev Technology and Its Comparison With High Speed Rail", Transportation Quarterly 56(2), 33-49. January 2002.

This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers/820 For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Evaluation of Maglev Technology and Its Comparison With High Speed Rail

Abstract High speed rail (HSR) systems have a proven record of efficient services in about a dozen countries. Recently, Magnetic (Maglev) technology for high speed ground transportation (HSGT) has been proposed for many and regional lines in , , United States, and other countries. Maglev developers claim that their system can achieve higher speeds, have lower energy consumption and life cycle costs, attract more passengers, and produce less noise and vibration than high speed rail. This article presents a systematic comparison of the proposed Maglev system, specifically the German , and high speed rail systems.

The analysis reaches the following conclusions on the three most important system characteristics. First, recent developments of HSR have reduced the advantage of Maglev in higher speeds, so that the differences in times on typical interstation spacings would be small. Second, high speed rail has a huge advantage over Maglev due to HSR’s compatibility with existing rail networks. Third, high speed rail involves a lower investment cost, while operating costs on Maglev are still uncertain. Energy consumption is estimated to be lower for high speed rail. All other features, like riding comfort, system image, climbing ability, noise, etc., are not significant enough ot make one mode superior to the other. Thus the benefits of high speed ailr strongly outweigh Maglev’s small travel time advantage. Based on this conclusion, the soundness and direction of US federal policy of investing in Maglev systems while neglecting high speed rail and is questioned.

Disciplines Engineering | Systems Engineering | Transportation Engineering

This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/ese_papers/820 An Evaluation of Maglev Technology and Its Comparison With High Speed Rail

High speed rail (HSR) systems have a proven record of efficient services in about a dozen coun- tries. Recently, (Maglev) technology for high speed ground transportation (HSGT) has been proposed for many intercity and regional lines in Germany, Japan, United States, and other countries. Maglev developers claim that their system can achieve higher speeds, have lower energy consumption and life cycle costs, attract more passengers, and produce less noise and vibration than high speed rail. This article presents a systematic com- parison of the proposed Maglev system, specifically the German Transrapid, and high speed rail systems. The analysis reaches the following conclusions on the three most important system char- acteristics. First, recent developments of HSR have reduced the advantage of Maglev in high- er speeds, so that the differences in travel times on typical interstation spacings would be small. Second, high speed rail has a huge advantage over Maglev due to HSR’s compatibility with existing rail networks. Third, high speed rail involves a lower investment cost, while operating costs on Maglev are still uncertain. Energy consumption is estimated to be lower for high speed rail. All other features, like riding comfort, system image, grade climbing ability, noise, etc., are not significant enough to make one mode superior to the other. Thus the benefits of high speed rail strongly outweigh Maglev’s small travel time advantage. Based on this con- clusion, the soundness and direction of US federal policy of investing in Maglev systems while neglecting high speed rail and Amtrak is questioned. by Vukan R. Vuchic and Jeffrey M. Casello

4. Does the proposed mode as a package of ny proposal for an entirely new trans- benefits and costs improve upon the cur- portation mode requires a thorough rent modes? A system analysis that must address, The purpose of this article is to analyze a among others, the following questions: proposed new mode of guided . Is there a demand for the new mode? ground transportation (HSGT), Maglev, and 2. Is the proposed new mode feasible, and evaluate its technical, economic, social and shown to be operationally ready for other aspects. The need for high speed implementation? ground transportation modes is discussed in the following section. To provide the relevant 3. What is the current state of existing modes background and needed understanding of serving this demand? issues involved in introducing a new mode of

Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 56, No. 2, Spring 2002 (33–49). ©2002 Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., Washington, DC. 33 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY / SPRING 2002 transportation, the developments in high fully controlled ways with fail-safe electronic speed ground transportation are presented. signal control. This provides not only an Two sections focus on present status of high order of magnitude higher safety but also speed rail networks and speeds, and Maglev reliable operation even under capacity condi- transportation system development. This tions. leads to the next section with the very impor- While high performance and environmen- tant comparison of Maglev with high speed tal compatibility are necessary features of rail systems, including technical, operational HSGT, the high speed is critical in determin- and network/system aspects of these two ing the optimal role of this mode. Conven- transportation modes. Lastly, a review of US tional railways operating with maximum federal policy with respect to high speed speeds of 100 kilometers per hour—km/h— ground transportation is presented. (in the US, with the exception of the North- This article draws heavily on previous east Corridor, maximum speeds are still lim- research work evaluating the proposed Balti- ited to 125 km/h only) cannot compete with more—Washington Maglev System1 present- freeway travel in the same corridors. Similar- ed in an unpublished report by this paper’s ly, because of the speed restrictions on high prime author.2 This original report led to speed rail, dominates on distances substantial debate on the viability of Maglev exceeding 300-400 km. Thus, railways were systems.3 losing their market, except when highway congestion, restricted parking or other fac- HIGH SPEED GROUND TRANSPORTATION tors made travel by other modes very incon- venient. The Increasing Need for HSGT The need for high speed ground transporta- The Importance of High Speed and tion systems has greatly intensified in recent Its Optimal Values decades. All industrialized countries have One of the goals in HSR systems has faced two serious transportation problems in been to increase the domain in which railway urbanized regions and in major intercity cor- is the superior mode not only in convenience ridors. First, highway and street congestion but also in speed or travel time. This goal has have become a chronic problem, causing been successfully achieved in many locations. longer travel times, economic inefficiencies, The introduction of the first a Grande and deterioration of the environment and Vitesse (TGV) on a new 417 km long line quality of life. Second, congestion problems between Paris and Lyon in 1981, resulted in are occurring at , with similar high switching most of the air travel on this link to user and social costs. TGV.4 Developers of the German Intercity Under these worsening transportation Express (ICE) set the goal that high speed rail conditions, high speed ground transporta- should offer average travel speed twice high- tion has emerged as a vital concept. HSGT er than the and half as high as air travel is by far the most efficient means for trans- (including the advantage of railway in center porting large passenger volumes with high delivery, instead of remote airports). The speed, reliability, passenger comfort, and introduction of an electrified line with safety. While highway and air traffic consist is expected to divert many trips of thousands of driven by individ- between Boston and New from air to ual drivers following mostly advisory traffic Amtrak. Based on these advances of high control devices, high speed ground trans- speed ground transportation in increasing its portation is a physically guided system on

34 MAGLEV VS. HIGH SPEED RAIL optimal domain, it is now considered the increased from 400 to 450 km/h, the gain range in which it can have a dominant role is would be only 3.9 minutes. This shows between 100 and 1,000 km, depending on that for any given distance, the marginal the relative speed of high speed ground trans- value of increasing the maximum speed portation and its competitors in a given cor- results in decreasing travel time savings. ridor. In other words, the speed increase from Reducing travel time is critical to its suc- 200 to 250 km/h is much more effective cess. However, the limits to which top speeds than an increase (hypothetically) from should be increased deserves careful scrutiny: 400 to 450 km/h. a. Increases in maximum speed have b. Travel time reductions due to higher decreasing marginal gains in travel time speeds depend very much on the length of savings. As illustrated in Figure 1, on a run between stations. This is also shown 250 km long interstation distance an in Figure 1. For example, if maximum increase in maximum speed from 150 to speed is increased from 250 to 300 km/h, 200 km/h reduces travel time by 24.7 travel time will be reduced by 9.7 minutes minutes; from 200 to 250 km/h saves on a 250 km long run; the same speed another 14.7 minutes. A further speed increase would bring only a 2.6 minute increase from 250 to 300 km/h saves only travel time saving on a 100 km long run, 9.7 minutes. If maximum speed would be and a negligible saving of 1.7 minutes on

Figure 1: Impact of Increases in Maximum Speed on Travel Times for Different Station-to- Station Distances

Travel times between stations vs. maximum speed

100.0

90.0

24.7 min Explanation “a” 80.0 in the text

70.0 14.7 min 60.0 9.7 min 50.0

40.0 250 km

ravel Time (min) ravel Time Explanation “b” T 3.9 min 30.0 in the text 2.6 min 20.0 100 km

10.0 1.7 min 50 km 0.7 min 25 km 0.0 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Assumptions: average accel. rate = 0.9m/s^2 Maximum Speed (km/h) average braking rate = 0.75m/s^2

35 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY / SPRING 2002

a 50 km long run. This shows that the ture, vehicles, controls, reliability, etc., benefits from high speeds are great on must be designed so that this speed can be long interstation distances but very small operated on a daily basis, withstanding the or negligible on short distances. handling of passengers, reasonable weath- c. Marginal cost of increases in maximum er variations, and operated by qualified speed (in system design, construction, personnel (but not an entire team of spe- operating costs, etc.) grows more than cialists supervising and intervening in proportionally with speed. In addition to every minute of system operation). increased precision required in guideway and design, energy consumption Maximum experimental speed is very impor- increases with the speed due to the expo- tant for evaluation of the system’s character- nential increase of air resistance. istics and potential for development. Howev- er, it is the maximum operating speed that To summarize, the cost-effectiveness of defines actual, achievable performance of the investments in designing higher speed systems system. The difference between the two is decreases as the maximum speed grows. quite large: maximum experimental speed These facts show that the optimal domain may be as much as 50-80% greater than the for high speed ground transportation sys- maximum operating speed. Consequently, it tems is on long interstation lengths, such as is very important to distinguish these two 100 km. On shorter distances, the gains in speeds, and in comparing different systems, travel time are so small that it is difficult to to always compare the two corresponding justify the high investment. For example, speeds. Comparing the maximum experi- very important and functional lines between mental speed of one system to the maximum center and airports (Frankfurt, Zürich, operating speed of another system is false and -Heathrow are outstanding and highly misleading. examples) may not be candidates for HSGT (as proposed for Pittsburgh, , DEVELOPMENTS OF HIGH SPEED RAIL , and ), because they require much higher costs and bring very little addi- A brief review of the development of the high tional benefit, regardless of technology. speed rail transportation systems, the only technology currently used for high speed d. It is also important to emphasize that with ground transportation, is given here. respect to maximum speed there are two Through these years of extensive develop- very different concepts: ments, high speed rail has been defined as —Maximum experimental speed for any rail systems providing regular services at transportation system technology is the speeds exceeding 200 km/h. speed reached under specially planned and arranged conditions, for which the Developments in Different Countries Since guideway, power pickup, signals and vehi- cles are specially equipped; the test is usu- the 1960s ally done under special operational Japan built the first high speed rail system, arrangements, safety precautions, etc. and thus initiated the concept of high speed —Maximum operating speed is the speed ground transportation, when it opened the for which the system has been designed for first Line in the Tokaido Corri- regular, daily operation under normal con- dor (-) in 1964, with cruising ditions. The entire system—its infrastruc- (operating) speed of 210 km/h. This

36 MAGLEV VS. HIGH SPEED RAIL

Shinkansen Line was later extended to Several new lines have been opened or are , including a tunnel between the under construction in Germany, including islands of and Kyushu, with a total Mannheim-Stuttgart, Frankfurt-Cologne, length of 1,079 km. The operating speeds -Hannover, and Berlin-. have been raised, through improved infra- Italy, , Belgium, Sweden, The structure and , to 240, 270 and, Netherlands, Taiwan, Korea, and several finally, 300 km/h. This line carries more than other countries have also been active in this 400,000 passengers per day. field with some lines in operation in the for- Progress in extending and further improv- mer five countries, and some under construc- ing the Shinkansen is continuous. tion in the latter two. Shinkansen-type trains, which are somewhat The United States has given much less smaller size and lower speeds, have been attention to high speed rail than most of its introduced also on some narrow-gauge lines peers. Similar to Great Britain, the govern- (1.067 meters); double decker have been ment and Congress consider minimizing successfully introduced; new lines are being operating assistance to intercity passenger built; and speeds of 350 km/h are being railroad services (Amtrak) more important designed. These lines have a reputation for than maximum passenger attraction. The high reliability, comfort and safety, and have imposed requirement by Congress on Amtrak operated for decades without a passenger to achieve economic self-sufficiency by 2003, fatality, despite the extremely high passen- has forced Amtrak to introduce extremely ger volumes. high . These fares prevent attraction of France opened its first TGV line between many trips from highways, where no self-suf- Paris and Lyon, 417 km long, in 1981. The ficiency requirement is imposed. line attracted high ridership from the begin- The first high speed rail system in the Unit- ning, including many previous car trips, ed States, Acela in the , newly generated trips, and the majority of has been introduced only recently, in 2000. trips on this intercity corridor. Cruis- This progress is, however, only upgrading of ing speed on this line has been 270 km/h. an existing line, and that is happening In the following years, TGV Atlantique decades after Japan, France, Germany, and was built from Paris to the southwest, then other industrialized countries opened their to Lille in the north and the Channel Tun- first entirely new high speed rail lines. nel. Extension from Lyon to Marseilles on the Mediterranean Coast was opened in June 2001, with maximum operating speeds exceeding 330 km/h. Germany was several years behind France in opening its first high speed rail line in 1991, ICE, between Hannover and Würz- burg with a maximum operating speed of 250 km/h. However, Germany was the leader in upgrading a number of existing rail lines to the speed of 200 km/h, at a much lower investment than new high speed rail lines require. Although with less publicity, many lines in Germany have been operating Amtrak’s Acela is the first high speed rail system at this speed since the 1980s. introduced in the United States. Source: Amtrak.

37 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY / SPRING 2002

of 515 km/h! Maximum operating speeds, achieved by hundreds of trains daily in sev- eral countries, are now in the range of 250 and 300 km/h, with the French TGV system recently achieving an average speed of 317 km/h on a 1,000 km run.

MAGLEV TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT Since the 1960s, more than 100 new guided transportation systems have been proposed High Speed Rail technology: French TGV train, Paris- Lyon. Source: F. Dechamps. as concepts, and several dozen of them have been physically developed and tested. As in Present Status of HSR Networks and Speeds every research and development process, many of these concepts were unrealistic and In summary, high speed rail lines have been infeasible, but a few have progressed to full operating for 38 years with excellent effi- development and successful implementation. ciency and safety. Initially opened as individ- Examples are the ALWEG (Seattle, ual lines, HSR has grown since the 1980s Tokyo, and several other Japanese cities), into networks with more than 1,000 km in Westinghouse C-100 (in many Japan and a European system with integrat- airports, Downtown Miami), MATRA’s VAL ed lines between France (with the Channel system (Lille, Toulouse, Chicago O’Hare Air- Tunnel to Great Britain), Switzerland, Ger- ), UTDC’s Skytrain (Vancouver, Toron- many, and Belgium. With many lines under to—utilizing Linear Induction Motors— construction, high speed rail will in a few LIM, similar to Maglev systems), and several years also connect Sweden, Denmark, The others. Netherlands, Italy, and Spain. They have Magnetic Levitation (the Maglev trans- been remarkably successful in attracting pas- portation system) is another new technology sengers and improving economic efficiency. for guided transportation systems with Basic compatibility of all these rail systems strong public appeal because of its unique is a fundamental feature for construction of feature: the vehicles are supported as well as this integrated international network of high propelled by magnetic , so that there speed ground transportation lines. is no physical contact between and As noted above, maximum operating guideway surfaces. A brief history of Maglev speed is the most important element of high developments is presented here. speed rail, and its phenomenal progress in the world’s most developed systems requires Maglev for Urban Transportation some elaboration. Test runs during the 1960s and 1970s gradually increased maximum Research and development of Maglev trans- experimental speeds from 250 to 350 km/h. portation systems started in Germany A major breakthrough happened in Ger- around 1970, and it produced two systems: many in 1988, when an ICE test train an urban transit system, Transurban, and an achieved 406 km/h. This was followed by intercity high-speed system, Transrapid. another leap in the speed record in 1991, The Transurban system was believed to be when on an experimental run, a TGV train ready for application and the government of established the record speed for rail systems Ontario contracted its manufacturer in 1973 38 MAGLEV VS. HIGH SPEED RAIL to build a line in Toronto. However, after intensive planning, design, and discussions of construction had started, the system faced impacts and costs, a final evaluation was technical problems in test operations, includ- made of the entire project, including a com- ing difficulties with vehicles negotiating parison with high speed rail technology. The curves. The specifications of the system could project was faced with escalating infrastruc- not be achieved, and the project was can- ture cost estimates, increasing project com- celled. plexity, decreased ridership projections, and Another version of an urban transit sys- lingering questions regarding the advantages tem utilizing Maglev technology was more of Maglev technology over HSR systems.7,8 successful. The M-Bahn system, also devel- In February 2000, the decision was made to oped in Germany, was built and successfully cancel the Maglev project and build the operated on two short lines, in Berlin and in Berlin-Hamburg line with high speed rail the of , England. Both technology. systems were later dismantled for nontech- The cancellation of the Berlin-Hamburg nical reasons. project raised various points and a question: this 292 km long line has a length where Intercity Maglev Developments in Maglev could fully utilize its high-speed per- formance, it connects the two largest German Germany and Japan cities with intensive travel, and it can use an Transrapid development proceeded because alignment without many obstacles. If Maglev Maglev operating features are more effective is not feasible for that line, is there any poten- 8 when applied to high speed than to low- and tial for it in Germany? Yet, Maglev promot- moderate-speed transportation systems. ers called for the allocated DM6.1B (US $3B) Strongly encouraged and financially support- federal funds to be used for Transrapid ed by the German government, Maglev has demonstration projects at other locations. been researched and developed through a Among numerous proposals, two have succession of models, presently reaching the become “finalists”: a 37 km long line in eighth generation—Transrapid 8. A full- Munich, from the railway station in center scale, 30 km long oval test has been city to its recently opened airport, and a 78 built in Emsland, Germany, where thousands km long “Metrorapid” line from Düsseldorf of train runs have been performed, proving to , serving cities in the Ruhr area. physical feasibility of this new system. It The debate about these projects includes has also reached the maximum speed of diverse views. Promoters expect benefits for 436 km/h on a test run, and it is claimed that the limiting factor was the length of the test track. The test facility has been open to visitors for many years, with thousands of persons having ridden the Transrapid system. During the last 20 years there have been efforts to implement the Transrapid system. Numerous proposals were made in Germany for various new intercity lines, but the most serious proposal was for a new Berlin-Ham- burg line.5,6 The alignment and station loca- tions were selected and the design was pre- Maglev technology: German Transrapid train. pared in great detail. After eight years of Source: Maryland Mass Transit Administration. 39 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY / SPRING 2002

the German industry and potential for struction has been reached. There is present- export; critics challenge the purpose of build- ly an effort to further develop the Maglev ing Maglev on the lines where its high speed system, including modifications to the guide- capabilities bring little advantage over the way, a significant change that will require a parallel railway lines at an extremely high multiyear effort of development and testing. investment and uncertain operating costs. In conclusion, extensive developments In addition to these serious technical stud- and testing of Maglev train technology have ies and projects, there has been an intensive been made in Germany and Japan for sever- publicity campaign aimed at showing Tran- al decades. Test vehicles have carried passen- srapid applications in dozens of corridors gers on short lines at exhibits and test tracks. around the world. Lists were published iden- Major efforts to construct a line that will uti- tifying 28 corridors in the United States lize this technology have been made for alone, with a total length of 16,311 km as many years at many locations, but only one “candidates” for Transrapid. The potential line has been committed to construction: export market was one of the arguments During spring 2001 Shanghai signed a con- used intensively in Germany to secure gov- tract to construct a Transrapid line from the ernment financing for system development city to the airport. In Germany and Japan and later implementation. Interestingly, a there is no line in operation or under con- strong argument used by Maglev promoters struction yet. in the US to get federal funding was that this system would have a strong export potential COMPARISON OF MAGLEV WITH THE for US industry. HIGH SPEED RAIL SYSTEM Research and development of Maglev technology in Japan dates as far back as Based on the analysis presented above, we 1962, but major efforts to develop a high- can now answer three of the four questions speed Maglev system began in the 1970s. The presented in the introduction. technology is somewhat different than the 1. Is there demand for Maglev? Functional- German Transrapid: the Japanese model uti- ly, Maglev represents a high speed ground lizes and the vehicle-guide- transportation system, for which there is way design is based on repulsive magnetic an increasing need in many major corri- forces, while Transrapid uses attracting mag- dors, as shown above in the high speed netic forces. The repulsive suspension tech- ground transportation section. It is likely nique is inefficient at low speeds, so that that this need will increase in the future. trains run on rubber up to the speed of 2. Is Maglev feasible? Maglev represents new 100 km/h before becoming magnetically lev- technology: magnetic levitation and linear itated. This dual suspension makes vehicles induction motor(LIM) . Clear- more complex, but the tests of high speed ly, to be deployed, a system must be phys- running have proven the technological feasi- ically and operationally feasible not only bility of the system.9,10 In fact, the Japanese under controlled conditions, but also in Maglev system, now known as MLX01, permanent operation under “real world” holds the world record with an experimental conditions. This includes such external speed of 551 km/h. In testing, two Maglev factors as public reaction, handling crowd- vehicles met on adjacent guideways while ed conditions, adverse weather, incidental traveling at a relative speed of 1,003 km/h!11 occurrences of technical defects, short Extensive planning of a new Tokyo- power interruptions, etc. As explained in Osaka line has been underway in recent the above section focusing on Intercity years. However, no final decision about con- 40 MAGLEV VS. HIGH SPEED RAIL

Maglev developments in Germany and Common Errors in Comparing Modes Japan, all indications are that this question It is a common phenomenon that a new can be answered positively for both sys- transportation system, utilizing a new tech- tems, Transrapid and MLX01. The nology or method of operation, is presented Maglev system can be considered to be to civic and political leaders, and the general technically and operationally feasible. public—citing not only innovative features 3. What existing modes are available for but also many features not unique to that high speed ground transportation? High technology. Often, comparisons are present- speed rail currently serves this demand ed of a new, perfectly designed system with and has a proven performance record an existing system, designed many years ago, (speed, safety, efficiency, reliability, etc.), sometimes worn out from long operation. and a known cost structure. This kind of “promotional” presentation of 4. Is the proposed Maglev transportation new modes and systems has been used for system, as a “package” of performance, many systems, such as , pneumat- costs, positive and negative impacts and ic tube trains, GRT (group ), O- externalities, better than, or at least com- Bahn, and numerous others, most of which parable to the existing systems which can were either physically infeasible, or inferior provide the same type of service? This to existing systems.12 question, critical in deciding which mode A professional review of the specific dif- should be selected for given lines or inter- ferences between the new and existing modes city corridors, is evaluated in a condensed is often performed later, and it obtains much form in the following section. This com- less publicity than the promotional or “mar- parison is extremely important, but has keting” efforts. In most cases such systemat- been given little attention or avoided in ic, objective comparisons show that many of the proposals for Maglev projects. the cited “advantages” of the new system

Figure 2: Maximum Speeds of High Speed Ground Transportation Modes

41 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY / SPRING 2002

were actually not unique to the proposed speed of 317 km/h was achieved on the new system: that a newly built system with con- Lyon-Marseilles TGV line. for ventional technology would have many of the Madrid-Barcelona line is being designed the same features, while involving lower or for maximum speeds of 350 km/h, and top no development costs, sometimes having speeds on TGV have now reached 366 km/h. lower operating costs, and proven mainte- Since there is no operating Maglev line, a nance procedures. regular operating speed of that system A rational, unbiased comparison of two remains to be proven. It would certainly be , based on a systematic evalua- substantially lower than the experimental tion of their major elements must be made. speeds. Therefore, assumed operating speeds The two modes must be compared with each on proposed Maglev lines are hypothetical, other as “packages” of their performance/ not more realistic than assuming the same costs/impacts. This is a standard methodol- speed for a high speed rail system. ogy for comparison of alternative proposed If we assume, however, that Maglev modes for a specific area or alignment.13 achieves in operation 420 km/h, regularly reached in Transrapid test operations, the Comparison of HSR and Maglev Systems impact of this higher speed than high speed rail has on travel times on most interstation The experiences and data about the latest spacings would be small. As the diagram in HSR and Maglev systems’ performance, as Figure 1 shows, increasing the maximum collected from the technical literature, are speed from 350 km/h (HSR) to 420 km/h on used for the following summary review of a 100 km run results in travel time savings the major characteristics of the two tech- of approximately 1 minute. nologies. Initial acceleration rates of high speed rail and Transrapid are comparable, because Maximum Speeds and Travel Times they are limited by passenger comfort. Tran- The widespread belief that Maglev would srapid has a higher acceleration rate than operate at much higher speeds than HSR HSR in higher speed domains, which gives comes from an incorrect comparison: maxi- it an advantage on long interstation spacings. mum experimental speeds of Maglev systems Yet, in most cases this results in a small per- are being compared with operating speeds centage reduction in travel time. of high speed rail. As discussed above, these Maglev promoters correctly claim that two speeds are drastically different, and the Transrapid can travel faster through curves proper comparison can be made only with limited radii and negotiate gradients of between the corresponding speeds. Thus, the up to 10%, while high speed rail is limited comparison, shown in Figure 2, is as follows. to 4%. The fact is, however, that most of The difference between maximum speeds these features are irrelevant in actual appli- of Maglev and HSR has been drastically cations. Excessive guideway superelevations reduced in recent years.14 The maximum in curves are not acceptable for vehicles experimental speeds of the two modes are in which have standing passengers, and it the same range: for Maglev (Japanese), it is would be hardly practical to design a high 551 km/h, HSR (France) has achieved 515 speed ground transportation line with 8- km/h, and German Transrapid, 450 km/h. 10% gradient, regardless of technology. With respect to operating speed, hundreds Thus, in actual design it becomes obvious of HSR trains operate daily on several lines that these technological maximum capabili- at the speed of 300 km/h, and an average ties seldom translate into higher operating speeds. For example, simulation of the pro- 42 MAGLEV VS. HIGH SPEED RAIL posed Baltimore-Washington Transrapid line could operate to Harrisburg at speeds which shows that it would have an average speed of that line allows. This network integration 183 km/h. On a line with similar length, the ability results not only in great convenience Japanese Shinkansen at 209 km/h. to passengers, but also reduces the need for Consequently, Transrapid still has higher transfers, which can often offset the travel maximum speed and acceleration in high- time gains achieved by high speed rail. speed ranges than high speed rail, but its Thus, the intermodal compatibility and advantage in travel times over typical inter- network aspects of high speed rail make it station spacings would be quite small. Even superior to the Maglev system. on spacings of 100 km, the difference would be about 1 minute. Investment Costs, Operating Costs, and Energy Consumption Intermodal Compatibility and Guideway and station construction costs Network Aspects depend very much on the alignment, prima- Maglev’s switches are much more complex rily whether the guideway is constructed at than rail switches. Therefore Maglev is less grade, aerially or in tunnel. Maglev requires capable of serving different branches or entirely separate rights-of-way, special facili- interconnected networks. The Maglev sys- ties that are incompatible with existing sys- tem is primarily conceived as a mode to serve tems. This results in substantially higher long distance travel by a single shuttle-type investments in terminal areas, particularly line, rather than a connected network. in tunnels, due to its larger profile. For any High speed rail, with its simple switches given alignment, estimates in the USDOT15 and extensive existing networks, is designed report indicate that Maglev would have and operated as a transportation network, somewhat (10-20%) higher costs than high with benefits to both the operator and the speed rail. Subsequent estimates for the seven passenger. With the exception of the Japan- US demonstration projects and several Ger- ese Shinkansen lines, all other high-speed rail man proposals show a much greater cost dif- lines, although designed to different stan- ference, with Maglev expenditures about dards for high-speed operation, allow their two times greater than those for high speed trains to extend their running to existing rail rail. In addition, HSR can use existing tracks facilities. This results in great benefits from for some short sections, particularly in lower construction costs (joint use of tracks, downtown areas, where construction costs yards, maintenance and other facilities and are highest. Consequently, with respect to entire sections of lines), shorter implementa- investment costs HSR is significantly superi- tion times, fewer environmental impacts, or to Maglev in the same corridor and on a lower external costs, and reduced local comparable alignment. opposition to construction. Maintenance costs are sometimes claimed While building new sections for high to be lower (or even nonexistent) for Maglev, speed operations, providing connections to but this seems to be an unrealistic assump- existing lines extends the reach of the high tion. Maglev has a significant advantage due speed rail network, allowing high speed to its lack of physical contact with the guide- trains to be routed to cities not directly on way, but any change in highly precise align- new lines. For example, ICE trains in Ger- ment would require extremely costly repairs. many go from the new high speed line Moreover, very complex electronic instru- between Hannover-Würzburg to Hamburg, mentation on the guideway and on trains Frankfurt and other cities at speeds of 200 requires very sophisticated maintenance. km/h or less. Similarly, Amtrak’s Acela trains Estimated maintenance costs per kilometer 43 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY / SPRING 2002

figures for the seven proposed Maglev proj- erable vibrations and noise levels. Thus, high ects in the US vary among themselves by as speed rail still has an advantage over Maglev much as a factor of 10.16 More information with respect to riding comfort. on this item is needed from suitable demon- stration projects to make a valid compari- System Image and Passenger Attraction son of the two modes. It is argued that a demonstration line of Maglev does not have resistance as Transrapid is needed to test and evaluate rail vehicles do, but its magnetic levitation public acceptance of this new mode, vehicle requires continuous energy consumption, levitation and high speed travel. Actually, the which may be greater than the energy greatest innovation among these elements is required to overcome wheel rolling resist- high speed travel, for which the public has ance. Another factor in energy consumption already demonstrated acceptance with the is the use of the — introduction of Shinkansen and TGV, prima- LIM, which uses more energy than the rotat- rily because of large time savings. Innovative ing . It has been observed that technical features, such as welded rails offer- systems utilizing LIM, such as the Vancouver ing smoother ride and lower rolling resist- Skytrain and the Toronto Scarborough line, ance and high-speed rail switches, while sig- use between 20 and 30% more energy for nificant for improved system performance, traction than similar rail vehicles with con- did not have a direct influence on passenger ventional rotating electric motors (in this attraction. comparison both types of vehicles are on It is likely that the shape and levitation of wheels, so that levitation has no influence on Transrapid trains would have very good energy consumption). public appeal. High speed rail systems, how- For all these reasons Transrapid is likely ever, now also have a drastically different to have substantially higher energy con- form and look than conventional railways sumption per square meter of vehicle floor had only 25 years ago, and new body designs area than the latest German high-speed rail are continuously being developed. It is there- train, ICE-3. An analysis by Hanstein17,18 has fore difficult to find any major difference shown that when correct comparisons between the appearances of the two modes. between Transrapid and ICE-3 are made, The long-term impact of these exotic fea- i.e., consumption per square meter of car tures, however, is likely to be limited, as has floor, the former shows higher energy con- been demonstrated by monorails. Since the sumption. Jäns19 data confirm this. In con- demonstration projects of the 1950s and clusion, high speed rail consumes less ener- 1960s, monorails have been called the “sys- gy than Maglev per comparable unit of train tem of the future.” However, monorails are capacity. used only where exotic novelty is more important than passenger service and operat- Riding Comfort ing efficiency: Disney World, , and Extremely high comfort—smooth ride and similar other locations. It should be noted low internal noise—have been amply that incompatibility of monorails with other demonstrated on most of the existing high modes is one of their major shortcomings. speed rail systems, including the Japanese It can be said that Transrapid would ini- Shinkansen, French TGV and German ICE tially have an advantage over HSR with systems. Visitors driven on the Transrapid respect to public appeal; on the other hand, and, particularly, on the Japanese test rail systems are known to draw a great pub- Maglev train, have often experienced consid- lic appeal with their rail technology and net- work operations with interline schedules, 44 MAGLEV VS. HIGH SPEED RAIL

Table 1: Comparison of Maglev and HSR Technologies in Critical Systems Characteristics SYSTEM FEATURES MAGLEV HSR a. Travel time factors • Maximum speeds 420 – 450 km/h 300 – 350 km/h (261 - 280 mph) (186 - 217 mph) • Acceleration rates Higher at upper speed range b. Intermodal compatibility • Network connectivity None / single lines Excellent / extensive networks • Use of existing New and elevated guideways, New lines combined with existing infrastructure tunnels and stations needed lines and stations can be used c. Costs

• Investment costs16 $12 - 55 M / km $6 - 25 M / km ($19 - 88 M / mile) ($10 - 40 M / mile) • Operating and maintenance Uncertain Known costs

• Energy consumption17 Higher than HSR d. Additional factors

• Riding comfort Superior • System image / passenger Excellent, plus initial Excellent / superior network attraction innovation interest accessibility • Impacts on surroundings Lower noise and vibration Tracks mostly at grade

Sources: See Endnotes 16 and 17

Table 2: Selected Inherent Advantages of HSGT Technological Options Advantages of technologies with respect to each other (+ means the technology has an apparent inherent advantage) Selected Characteristics Accelerail New HSR Maglev Trip-time and revenue performance + +

Initial cost + Autonomy from existing railroads + + Through train potential over other railroads + + Service-proven technology and cost structure + +

Source: See Endnote 15

45 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY / SPRING 2002

etc., which Transrapid would not have. The The conclusion of this comparison is that passenger attraction would depend on the the advantages of Maglev over high speed speed, comfort and integration with other rail are few and they are very small. They are modes, not differences in vehicle support and far outweighed by the advantages of HSR, propulsion method. particularly in system network and compati- It is not likely that either high speed rail or bility characteristics and investment cost. Maglev would have a significant advantage The limitation on networking and incompat- over the other in system image and passenger ibility with other transportation systems attraction. makes Maglev extremely inconvenient for integration in intermodal systems, which Impacts on Surroundings actually represent the “transportation system Indications are that Maglev, not having of the future.” physical contact with guideway, has lower Consequently, there is no positive answer noise20 and vibration along the line than high to the basic question: “Why build a Maglev speed rail. Rail lines have an advantage in system?” While that system has some exotic their greater ability to utilize at grade tracks features, Maglev is not competitive with in urbanized areas. In high-density areas existing high speed ground transportation both modes must use tunnels. systems, i.e., high speed rail. The usually implied superiority of Maglev over high speed rail, and its aura as a “system of the Conclusions future,” are based on an artificially created image of superiority in speed, lower energy The preceding comparisons of Maglev and consumption and better passenger attrac- HSR systems features are summarized in tion, none of which is supported by facts at Table 1. Their review shows the following this time. differences in the three most important fea- tures: COMMENTS ON FEDERAL POLICY AND 1. Travel time: Maglev, despite higher top speeds and greater acceleration, has little ACTIONS travel time advantage in real-world appli- There is a large difference between the evalu- cations. ation of the technology presented above, and 2. Intermodal compatibility: High speed rail the results of federally conducted studies. has an extremely significant advantage in The FRA report, High-Speed Ground Trans- its compatibility with other transporta- portation for America,21 presents a concep- tion systems and with built-up areas. tual comparative analysis of three possible 3. Cost structure: High speed rail is less systems for the Northeast Corridor: Accel- expensive to construct, has a known oper- erail (high speed trains on upgraded railroad ating cost level, and has an advantage in lines), high speed rail with mostly new align- energy consumption. ments, and Maglev. This analysis, repro- duced here as Table 2, correctly shows that The remaining features, such as riding com- high speed rail has an advantage over fort, system image, impacts on surroundings, Maglev in its ability to use existing rail lines as well as grade climbing capability, are of (where desirable), and that it has “service- much lesser importance (and differences proven technology and cost structure.” between the two systems are not major), so However, being politically mandated to that they would not have a significant influ- justify Maglev as a “solution,” the report ence on mode selection. deceptively compares the speeds of the two 46 MAGLEV VS. HIGH SPEED RAIL technologies. For HSR, current operational The proposed Maglev Demonstration speeds are set at 200 mph, while Maglev is projects in the USA (Baltimore-Washington evaluated at 300 mph, a speed even greater and Pittsburgh), in Germany (Munich and than Transrapid’s experimental speed. The Ruhr), as well as the line under construction report merely mentions in a footnote that in Shanghai, are such short lines, that it will “French National Railways have successful- not be possible to test and demonstrate ly tested [HSR] at speeds well in excess of Maglev capabilities on them (high speed, 200 mph.” This unrealistic speed difference reliability, operating costs, and others). A leads to passenger travel times computations longer line with considerable passenger that give Maglev an advantage over high potential which is not served by a railway at speed rail. Thus, the conclusion of that present, such as Las Vegas-Los Angeles, report that Maglev has a higher benefit/cost would be a much more appropriate demon- ratio than HSR is based on confused con- stration project. cepts and incorrect assumptions. The strong and persistent promotion and The fact that the high speed rail has a political support for this mode can be “service proven cost structure,” while the explained by the lobbying aimed at the gen- costs of Maglev are subject to many hypo- eral public and politicians who are laymen thetical assumptions further undermines the with respect to transportation systems tech- report’s conclusion that Maglev would have nology. Again, the same pattern exists in all a “higher benefit-cost ratio” than high speed the countries: Maglev is promoted on a polit- rail in the Northeast Corridor. Thus, distort- ical basis, while it is strongly disputed by ed facts about operating speeds and cost many professionals such as engineers and comparisons with drastically different relia- economists. bilities are used to satisfy the political man- Most Maglev reports, in Germany and date that Maglev should be proclaimed USA, include only superficial comparisons “superior” to the existing modes—Accelerail with high speed rail, and those comparisons and high speed rail. are largely deceptive: Maglev is compared The entire US Federal Maglev Program with existing or upgraded railroads, rather follows the same pattern that has taken place than with new high speed rail systems which in Japan and in Germany in the last couple would be the closest alternative to the pro- of decades: it is a program promoted by tech- posed Maglev. Further, most benefits listed in nology suppliers, rather than by transporta- support of the Maglev, such as the need for tion operating agencies or in response to pub- high-capacity, high-speed systems, reduction lic needs.22 Actually, there is neither an of highway congestion, environmental bene- interest by operators, nor is there proof that fits, and others, are actually those valid for the public would benefit more from Maglev any high speed ground transportation: they than from other transportation systems. In are technology-neutral. The fact that most of spite of the claims of great significance of this these benefits could be achieved by high system for industry, engineering research and speed rail also, is not mentioned. development, as well as attraction of passen- While both the German and Japanese gers exceeding that of any other mode, there Maglev system feasibility has been demon- have been few concrete proposals to finance strated, neither superiority nor equivalence these systems by private investors. All efforts of this technology with high speed rail has on Maglev projects, in Japan, Germany, and been proven. Disadvantages of Maglev in the USA, are aimed at getting large amounts comparison with high speed rail strongly of public funds and only limited private par- outweigh their advantages. ticipation. 47 TRANSPORTATION QUARTERLY / SPRING 2002

Endnotes 1. Maryland Transit Administration (MTA).“The Baltimore Washington Project Description,” 2000. 2. Vuchic, Vukan R. “The Maglev Transportation Systems and the Baltimore-Washington Proposed Project—An Independent Expert Review,” unpublished report, January 2001. 3. “Maglev vs. High Speed Rail: The Debate.” The Urban Public Transportation Monitor, March 20, 2001. 4. Roth, Daniel L. “The TGV System: A Technical, Commercial Financial, and Socio-Economic Renais- sance of the Rail Mode.” University of Pennsylvania, 1990. 5. Raschbichler, Hans Georg. “The Berlin-Hamburg Superspeed Maglev System.” ETR—Eisenbahn- technische Rundschau, No. 12, 1998. 6. Jäns, Eberhard. “The Superspeed Maglev System from the Operator’s Viewpoint,” ETR—Eisen- bahntechnische Rundschau, No. 12, 1998. 7. Rothengatter, Werner. “Beantwortung von Fragen des Ausschusses für Verkehr für die öffentliche Anhörung ‘Magnetschwebebahn Berlin—Hamburg.’” (“Answers to Questions of the Transportation Committee for Public Hearings on the Maglev Berlin-Hamburg Project”), 1996. 8. Hondius, Harry. “Metrorapid: Prestigeprojekt oder sinnvolle Ergaenzung des SPNV?” Der Nahverkehr 9/2001, pp. 38-42. (“Transrapid for Ruhr: A Prestige Project or Functional Completion of the Regional Transit Network?”), 2001. 9. JR Central. MLX01—MagLev eXperimental 01: Technical Report, 1996. 10. “Superconducting Maglev Technology on the Threshold of the 21st Century.” Technical Report, 1996. 11. Railway Technical Research Institute. “History of Maglev R&D.” http://www.rtri.or.jp/re/maglev/ html/english/maglev_history_E.html. 12. Vuchic, Vukan R. Urban Public Transportation Systems and Technology. Prentice-Hall, 1981. 13. Vuchic, Vukan R. “Comparative Analysis.” George E. Gray, and Lester A. Hoel, editors, Public Transportation, Chapter 10, Prentice-Hall, 1992. 14. Eastham, Tony R. “A Re-evaluation of Maglev for High Speed Ground Transportation.” Fourth International Conference on Unconventional Electromechanical and Electrical Systems. St. Petersburg, Russia, June 21-24, 1999. 15. USDOT. High-Speed Ground Transportation for America. USDOT, Federal Railroad Administra- tion, September 1997. 16. See as examples: USDOT, Federal Railroad Administration, “ Maglev Deployment Project, Project Description,” and “Atlanta-Chattanooga Maglev Deployment Study,” June 2000. 17. Hanstein, Richard. “Is There Anything Can Do Better than Railways?” http://home.t- online.de/home/rsdhanstein/rh_2eng.htm, March 10, 1999. 18. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat beim Bundesminister für Verkehr. “Anmerkungen zum Betreiber und Finanzierungskonzept der Magnetbahn Transrapid,” Internationales Verkehrswesen 46, 1994. (“Com- ments about Organizational and Financing Concepts for Transrapid.”) (19) See note 6 above. (20) See note 6 above. (21) See note 15 above. (22) See note 7 above.

48 MAGLEV VS. HIGH SPEED RAIL

Vukan R. Vuchic is a UPS Foundation professor of transportation in the Department of Sys- tems Engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. He has been a consultant to many cities, such as , Edmonton, , , Philadelphia, Rome, and to major public agencies in Caracas, , San Francisco (BART), Toronto, Washington, DC (WMATA) and others. Vuchic has authored about 140 publications, including the books Urban Public Trans- portation Systems and Technology and Transportation for Livable Cities. One of Vuchic’s spe- cialties has been comparative analysis of intercity and urban transportation systems, including High Speed Rail, Maglev, Autotrain, and monorails. His works on comparing transit modes, such as , semirapid and , Transit (LRT), metro, , Auto- mated Guided Transit (AGT) systems, etc., have been quoted as definitive works on these sub- jects. He holds degrees in transportation engineering from the University of Belgrade and the University of California, Berkeley.

Jeffrey M. Casello is a Ph.D. candidate in Systems Engineering at the University of Pennsyl- vania, where he also completed his undergraduate degree. He holds a Master’s degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, concentrating in Intelligent Transportation Systems, and a Master’s degree from the University of Pennsylvania. His current research work, advised by Dr. Vuchic, analyzes transportation and land-use patterns, identifying suburban centers at which opportunities exist to increase regional transit ridership and reduce auto dependency. His professional experience includes six years as a civil engineer in the Facilities Design Divi- sion of the New York State Department of Transportation, and recurring work as a consultant in several cities for both transit and highway projects.

49