[j-pb]

That argument is the root cause why we stopped investing in innovation and infrastructure.

The same could have been said about airports, highways, trains, electricity, the internet.

Current train travel is a joke in germany, the infrastructure is failing, the prices and shedules are an international meme.

One of the main reason it sucks so much is having shared cargo and passenger rail. The successfull high speed trains are using their tracks exclusively.

If we had started investing 40 years ago we would all be cruising silently at 460kmh with tickets half the price, because of the maintenance free solid state tech.

Transrapid is also more wheelchair accessible because it is level with the platform and the cabin is much wider.

Also remember that stupid solar roadways idea? Guess where that actually works, in between the transrapid rails. By covering the center of the pylons in solar a route from bremen to hamburg would produce enough energy to replace 1 1/2 coal power plants.

[mqus]

I agree with you that there is too little investment in infrastructure in germany. But maglev was researched extensively and then we decided against it.

> the prices and shedules are an international meme.

Regarding prices: those are actually very reasonable prices for High-speed-trains. Look up tickets on TGV or Shinkansen. ICE tickets are starting at 20 euros. Regional rail is indeed worse but we're arguing about high-speed rail vs maglev. And Maglev is so much more expensive to build, I simply can't see how that would lead to better prices (or schedules/being on time for that matter, which mostly depend on the bad infrastructure and are "just" made worse by the fact that other trains run there)

> Transrapid is also more wheelchair accessible because it is level with the platform and the cabin is much wider.

Sure, ICE trains are bad for accessibility. But that is not due to the tracks they run on but rather due to accessibility not being a priority when designing the trains. Regional trains show that it can be done without bigger problems

> Also remember that stupid solar roadways idea?

The one that failed everywhere they tried?

> Guess where that actually works, in between the transrapid rails. By covering the center of the pylons in solar a route from bremen to hamburg would produce enough energy to replace 1 1/2 coal power plants.

Or you could place them literally anywhere else, there is no shortage of space to put solar panels in.

But to end on a more friendly note: Maglevs are indeed a bit cheaper to service and the fast accelleration is really helpful for those relatively short distances between city centers in some regions. But as was stated in another comment: try building a new line which actually goes from main station to main station. You're going to need space (or tunnels) in city centers and the space between and this will be expensive and tedious. 40 years ago this might have been easier but even then we wouldn't have had a network from the start.

[j-pb]

> But maglev was researched extensively and then we decided against it.

The people against it were the Boomer-Greens, the same generation that got us Harz-IV and favoured Coal over Nuclear. Their anti-transrapid standpoint was just a political counter point to the policy of the CDU, which is absolutely insane, considering that todays greens would be super happy if the CDU started to propose better faster trains.

The BUND (Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz) made some wild claims about bird sanctuaries, ignoring the fact that the reduced noise level and lower ground area requirements would have been a huge improvement for bird sanctuaries, compared to ICE. The same BUND that has a working group against cell towers and community wifi because of RaDIAtioN.

> Regarding prices: those are actually very reasonable prices for High-speed-trains.

That's only if you book months in advance, and even then it's often cheaper to take the plane, which is absolutely insane.

> Maglev is so much more expensive to build

At 17Mio/Euro per double KM, it's EXACLY the same as high-speed ICE tracks. The more costly linear accelerator tech is set of by the cheaper pylons. Turns out preparing the ground and piling up a 5m pile of Gravel is really really expensive.

> I simply can't see how that would lead to better prices

The main ticket price contributor is not the tracks, it's energy and maintenance. Both are significantly reduced for a contact free system with no moving parts and no vibrations.

> The one that failed everywhere they tried? Because solar panels don't like being driven on. But the Transrapid would just float over the solar panels embedded into the center of the track.

You might argue that one could also put solar panels in between regular train track, but the vibration and material dust would quickly render them useless.

> Or you could place them literally anywhere else, there is no shortage of space to put solar panels in.

NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY. With solar transrapid pylons kill two birds with one stone, the track even provides the infrastructure to transport the electricity.

You also forget that the self contained shuttle design of the Transrapid would allow for completely new routing schemes. Instead of a fixed timetable you could use much more flexible "package" based routing, where trains are scheduled on demand. You'd also be able to save a lot of energy lost in regenerative breaking at ever stop by booking a single train from say, Hamburg to Rome, without any stops.