Talk:Transrapid

Untitled

To whomever added the sentence about track costs: standard high-speed tracks are quite expensive as well and also rather cut the landscape due to the necessity of straightness. So it has been argued that Transrapid tracks are not so much more expensive, especially if one takes into account that the train itself might even be cheaper. Does anybody know details, like numbers? Sanders muc 09:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes: Traansrapid published some data on this. Unfortunately they prevent hotlinking to their pages, so go to www.transrapid.de > English > System > System > Economic Efficiency to see this image: :http://www.transrapid.de/basics_en/archiv/35/guideway_infrastruct.gif

fel64 12:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Transrapid tracks are indeed better for the landscape than standard railways, because they are placed on stilts and thus don't cut the country into two parts, which I think is critical for environment. Further, I heard that an amount of chemicals is used to keep standard railways free of plants, but I'm not quite sure whether this is true. I'll look this up somewhere. (PS: I'm in no way involved with Transrapid, this is just what I've heard.) --Robamler 23:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Expansion required (technical details)

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)

---

As a big fan and 'casual expert' in the Transrapid project, I'll try and add some more technical information to the Wikipage if I get the time. :-)

Hyperspeed 10th May 2006CR at 03:20 BST.

---

I just had a quick skim read of the corresponding Transrapid page on the German language Wikipedia, and there is a much greater amount of technical, historical, and operational information on there which I think would be very beneficial to the English language version. I speak a little bit of German myself and could attempt a translation of the German page into this one, although I think it would be done better as a Wikipedia community project.

Would anyone object to me copying the German article into a temporary Wikipedia page and adding a note at the top labelling it as an in progress translation with links to both the German and English versions, or is there a system already in place for translation of Wikipedia articles into different languages? Either way, I think it could prove to be very beneficial for the English Language version! :-)

Additional: Just found the relevant Translation request page and added an appropriate entry on there. This should hopefully speed up and standardise the translation process. :-)

Hyperspeed 12th May 2006CR at 17:10 BST.

---

As has been requested by Hyperspeed, I'll be aiding in the translation over the coming weeks, as well as adding some technical information not yet mentioned. --Qasdfdsaq 01:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

---

as a small caveat - the german Transrapid page is full in depth technical details but lacking competitive and market segment information. I took some input from the German website for that purpose directly into the article. --Polentario 10:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One train at a time on the track?

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)

---

1. Because of the way the system works, the train cannot be derailed in the conventional sense as the train itself wraps around the guideway. I would imagine that the worst effect of this would be rather violent (But hopefully not dangerous.) decelleration and reversal. If you are referring to the train coming into contact with the guideway itself, this could well be a possibility. But the guideway and trains are probabally designed to allow for such a thing to occur with design-anticipated damage only occurring to the guideway and the train, not the passengers on board.

2. Quite possibly...It depends on both the length of the segment in question, and the closing speed of both trains. If both trains enter a 5km section of track with a closing speed of about 400km/h (200km/h each) then the second train would probabally reverse with time to spare. On the other hand, I would guess that two trains entering the same section at a closing speed of 1100Km/h would probabally come off much worse!

It should be pointed out though that in normal operation, the fail-safe train control systems in use would not allow such a thing to occur. Also to my knowlege, this kind of eventuality has not been tested with real vehicles - At least not at the speeds discussed here. Finally, my answers here apply to the Transrapid system only.

Hyperspeed 10th May 2006CR at 17:55 BST.

---

It depends more on the track's operating profile of the section in question than the actual speeds. The Transrapid system is not over-designed and only applies the exact amount of power required to keep a train running at the design speed - no more, and no less. Thus, I regret to say that in your above example of two trains approaching at a 400km/h closing speed on a 5km section of track would inevitably result in a fatal high-speed crash. The drive system simply does not apply the required amount of power to reverse the oncoming train fast enough.

But you are right in that the control and failsafe systems ensure that such an event is explicitly prevented on multiple levels.

As for de-railing or the train coming into contact with the track, that's again very very unlikely, as the propulsion system does not provide enough power to destabalize the train.

Personally I find that the inability of two trains to run in opposite directions on one section of track to be an over-hyped and useless "safety feature", one that we will hopefully never see the inadequacy of in practice. However, it will admittedly slow down the oncoming vehicle and possibly reduce the force of the impact. However, I stress that at the rated 200km/h switching speed, an impact will be inevitable.

--Qasdfdsaq 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Translation of German version into English

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)

Yes, it does. I have transferred the energy requirements, and will probably to the same for other sections. The German version is quite impressive!--MrFish^{Go Fish} 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

Contradicting information regarding construction costs

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)

incomplete and old information

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)

Disagree with above statements

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)

The source is "Transrapid oder Eisenbahn" by Rudolf Breimeier. He analyzes a multitude of available data, a lot if not most from the Transrapid makers themselves.

a)Energy: The TR needs energy to levitate and to move. The amount of energy needed for levitation and guidance is the same no matter at what speed the TR moves. A train does not need any energy for that. So at lower the speeds the train has an advantage.

b) inclination: I don´t think you have ever travelled on new the Cologne-Frankfurt line? It has a max. inclination of 4%. Once you know this line, you would think differently about a 10% inclination.

c) travel time: Includes time for accelaraton and deceleration, a 5% reserve and is counted from the departure at station A to the departure at station B.

d) acceleration: The main factor limiting acceleration is again passenger comfort. Trains could accelerate much faster, but that might be a good idea for a Metro train, but not for a long distance train(luggage or dishes) Markus Becker02 21:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

a) Agreed. However some sources state that this power is very low (below the amount of energy needed for the ICE or Transrapid's air conditioning system). Is your source available to look at online?

b) In fact, I have travelled the line many times. I stand by my statements about the 10% grade. So do the laws of physics.

c) Adding 5% reserve time to Transrapid's sub-17 minute journey time yields less than 17 minutes 50 seconds. Still nowhere near your 22 minute quote, and still 33% faster than the ICE3's time (does that include reserve time too?).

d) Transrapid's acceleration is virtually un-noticeable. It was designed this way to ensure passenger comfort; it could accelerate a lot faster if they decided to make it that way. The Japanese JR-Maglev accelerates 3x faster than Transrapid again, but most passengers don't find it uncomfortable. Many HSTs cannot accelerate faster, even if the designers wanted them to; it is a limitation of the train's engine power, which often cannot be economically increased. Most HST's already operate at maximum acceleration, which incidentally is far lower than Transrapid's standard acceleration.Qasdfdsaq 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alleged theft of Transrapid technology

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)

Hi,

I just want to add to this topic a small incident, which I came across, when I took the Maglev from Shanghai-Airport to the city (in 2005). During the waiting for the next train, they showed videos of the testing and manufacturing of the train. Most times they showed pictures of the German testing area and the German Transrapid (recognizable from the chraracteristic red stripes), but the comment to the pictures was completely different. In summarization it stated that the "great people and scientists of China developed and built this train with some minor technical help from European engineers." There was neither mention of Germany nor of the major companies involved. And the report left no doubt that the invention was done by China. Of course one can expect Chinese propaganda at such a prestige-spot, but the cold-bloodedness with which they bended the truth, tells a lot about the Chinese position about technology-theft (especially since the report was in English with Chinese subtitles).

But that is a leitmotif when it comes to western technology in China. The companies are all so enthusiastic about investments in China, that they become careless and then they wonder, that a few years later they get competitions with their own products produced cheaper by Chinese firms. --84.57.24.35 12:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Transrapid Guideway Advantage

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)

Transrapid is a Monorail as well

It seems the Transrapid consortium tries to avoid Transrapid being adressed as MOnorail, since they want to avoid the stinch of the Alweg failure. Transrapid is technically a Monorail (where is the second rail, source??) and this is a decisive difference to standard rails. Transrapid is NOT a railway and not a train in the railway sense. --Polentario 08:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, V RS sources should be the answer to this dispute (and this also applies to Polentario's opinion above). Also, a dispute between WP editors often indicates there is a dispute or controversy in the real world. If so, it should be described in the article if possible (once again using V RS sources). Avb 09:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Polentario obviously can't show us a source for his monorail-thesis. There is no dispute like this in the real world. Otherwise Polentario would be able to show us sources of this dispute. BTW: I don't see the "Transrapid consortium" here anywhere - anyone else do? Transrapid is a typical High-Speed System --82.82.184.253 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[1] - what have you got? Lars T. 13:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

what i have? I have no Transrapid-source, no Maglev-literatur, no Maglev-laws (MbBO, AMbG) that describes the Transrapid as a monorail in the foreword, neither in the whole source. Have you any? btw: Your Link is nice: "Shanghai Maglev is the fastest railway system in commercial operation in the world." Shanghai, China Polentario wanted to delete both informations: "fastest" (the high speed) and "railway system". No words of "monorail" on that page. Same here Emsland, Germany. Informations about the high speed, using of the word "train", no word "monorail" --82.82.184.253 14:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just about everybody, including other encyclopedias and the international media (e.g. BBC, New York Times, der Spiegel) tends to call Transrapid a monorail (see this Google search and this Google search) while its makers do not use the term (see this Google search and this Google search). Please discuss and solve the dispute here on the talk page. A slow edit war and original research are not going to be a solution here. Avb 22:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

no, that's untrue. check out your links. you won't hardly find any Transrapid-pages there. There's also no hint from SpON.

Ohh? What is this then? Lars T. 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But search for "transrapid hochgeschwindigkeitszug". You'll find several media links, the third one is from Focus. There are others from Financial Times Deutschland, Tagesschau, NDR, BR, Der Standard and others. No Transrapid-literatur neither law is using the word "monorail"(/"Einschienenbahn"). So we should hold the origin formulation, "is a German high-speed train using magnetic levitation" ... btw: Look at User_talk:Lars_T. - he already got several warnings regarding editing & vandalizing a page --82.82.176.204 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I personally never thought of Transrapid as a monorail, nor do I care what you people call it in the article. As long as you're doing it the wiki way, which you currently are not. It doesn't help to deny what I've written. You're entitled to disagree of course, but that won't fly given that anyone else who clicks the links will find what I said. Please note that the type of edit warring currently going on will sooner or later result in the article being locked. See also WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DR, and WP:DE.

Having said that, perhaps you guys can compromise on is a German high speed monorail train using magnetic levitation? I'm leaving this discussion, as mud is starting to fly and I don't like editing environments where others are simply ignoring arguments and essentially stonewalling. Good luck. My only interest in Transrapid is that I was on it last year, short weeks before the accident. Avb 12:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You never thought of Transrapid as a monorail, the media never thinks of Transrapid calling a monorail, no law is claiming it as a monorail, no TR-literature - why should wikipedia do it? What you've written was obviously wrong - of course it helps to tell the truth! You don't believe the google-search? Maybe you believe the screenshots of the google-search for TR-HSR ( Page 1 Page 2). Before article being locked you should give Lars T. a big warning. That would not be his first one. And before locking the article you should change into the origin version without the word monorail. The only one who is simply ignoring arguments, who is simply ignoring sources is Lars T. --82.83.32.72 23:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I plead guilty and i am not Lars.

Some english web Sources for Transrapid = Monorail: Monorail society, http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/MagEms.html, http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPMagIntro.html. I assume there was a Marketing Speeech Policy Attempt to position Transrapid beyound the MOnorail niche and failure being succcessful in germany, but not as much in english speaking countries. the German Spiegel uses MOnorail with and for Transrapid ONLY in the ENGLISH version http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,485422,00.html not in the germn originl articles. So our IP friend 82.83.32.72 has a certain point from a German Maglev promoter perspective. German comparision of ALWEG MOnorail und TRAnsRApid is hoever to be found in writing at Reinhard Krischer (writer of a ALWEG Book) http://www.eisenbahn-webkatalog.de/news/index.php?newsid=817&druck=true and in the alweg web pages

As a compromise, I in the german entry I inserted the following wording (translated):

Transrapid is a German Maglev train foreseen for High-speed railways using magnetic levitation. The complete system is developed and marketed by Transrapid International, a joint venture of the German companies Siemens AG and ThyssenKrupp AG. After more than three decades of intense discussions and studies, the only projects alive or in a very mature state (Munich, Shanghai) so far are much closer to classical monorail local niche appliciations than to the originally planned use in nationwide traffic networks. --Polentario 13:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I could certainly live with something along these lines.

About attempts to avoid monorail-associated problems/differences/etc: it would be nice if we had a source for that so that we could add it to the article. Avb 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

there never have been attempts to avoid monorail-associated problems/differences/etc. Obviously someone is seeing ghosts, not for the first time (cp. my Posting from 13:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)) edit: as he concedes himself - it's just the subjective polemic perspective of the lonely TR-Opponent "Polentario" --82.82.178.243 14:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

??? the story about the marketing issue is my theorie finding, Munich and Shanghai being close close to Monorail applications one can read out of Alweg pages and the monorail society. P--Polentario 14:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Polentario, first read - then write ;-) We had the monorails.org-topic before in this discussion. You can find the "Transrapid" on the monorail-section, but you won't find the "monorail" on the Transrapid-pages on monorail.org. (Shanghai, China, Emsland, Germany) back to wikipedia, we are here on the Transrapid-article, not on the monorail-article. Use it on a footnote but not in the first sentence. Also in your english-SPIEGEL-article the word monorail isn't in the first part, there you'll find "rail" instead! Your article from eisenbahn-webkatalog.de is something about monorails - not about Transrapid. I have not a point from a German Maglev promoter perspective. I'm not subjective, i'm objectiv when i'm saying: Still noone could give us a Transrapid-source (literature, law, ...), which describes the Transrapid as a monorail in the first part.

about your compromise. delete the word "foreseen" (it's senseless) and delete the complete last sentence, it's polemic, it's totally wrong, you have no source for it and it's your subjective loneley point of view. There are enough of such these wrong sentences of you in the article --82.82.178.243 14:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You are lying straight in the face, for whatever reasons. Krischer is a Pro Alweg and Transrapid writer and does the comparision explicitely. Especially English quality sources using monorail as term for Trarapid have been provided massively, including the ones on Monorail.org do as well. --Polentario 11:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am lying? straight? where exactly? I was only asking for sources - and got nearly no answer. Your Krischer-source was about monorail. Which "English quality sources" are you talking about? The TR-Articles on Monorail.org are not using the word "monorail"

we talked about this before, see above - nothing new. --82.82.173.246 23:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again: Please stop edit warring and discuss on talk page instead

See also WP:3RR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:DR, and WP:DE. Avb 00:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

and who want to discuss here? how many postings are here from Lars T.? Where is your warning to him? ..... Even you said yourself that you never thought of Transrapid as a monorail. noone could show us here TR-sources which describes the Transrapid as a monorail. So why should we do this here on wikipedia in the first sentences?--82.82.178.243 08:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop being obnoxious. You only have to click on my and your links above to see that slightly less than 1 in 4 of the many many V RS sources use monorail exclusively, slightly less than 3 in 4 of them use high-speed rail/etc exclusively, and the remainder use both, including the New York Times. Worse, you are a single editor edit warring against 3 other editors. How does it hurt the article to include a term that 98% of this article's 100+ editors have no problem with, given that your (and my) POV has already been accommodated by the fact that "high speed rail" has been added to the lead? You don't give us any policy-based arguments. We don't need "TR" sources, let alone rely on them exclusively. You keep ignoring policy-based arguments. We need to report on the balance of WP:V / WP:RS sources.

I concede that Lars and other editors also largely fail to discuss - but he at least was willing to compromise to reach consensus. But you should note that I've warned Lars too. My advice to the both of you is improve your collaboration skills as expected from Wikipedia editors. You may want to start by reading the policies and guidelines I linked above. Avb 12:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"obnoxious"? What are you talking about? where should I have been obnoxious? The only thing I asked for was sources! And noone could give us such sources. Worse that i'm what? that i'm one editor against 2 others (Lars & Polentario)? that should be worse? not really. TR-Opponents & -laymans have obviously more power at wikipedia, yes, that's worst. But on the other hand ..... wikipedia is not that important and has not a good reputation. I can live with that ;-) policy-based arguments? Maybe i don't understand that. Why policy-based arguments? when there are sources? And of course we need sources to write a good article - why not? I'm ignoring what?

Lars was willing to compromise? Sorry what? He was willing to nothing. He nearly never wrote something here in the discussion. edit warring was his only thing, the same text again and again. No basic approach for compromise. No sources. You warned Lars? Where? He's a registered wikipedian-User, he already has severeal warnings. Give him a warning on his page - not here! --82.82.178.243 14:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misread everything I wrote. For example, see this compromise edit, this warning and this edit summary. Consider the difference between WP:V sources and "TR sources". Wikipedia is not an official TR publication. It aims to present a neutral overview of collective knowledge. Avb 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

What have i misread? Your examples are not that good. a Lars T compromise with still his unsourced "monorail". A wanring to whom? and on Lars T page? no. Where is the difference between your definition of WP:V sources and "TR sources"? I don't see any and i never seen here a WP:V / "TR sources" about Transrapid which is describing the Transrapid as a "monorail" in the first chapter. I was never talking about an "official TR publication". But this article doesn't aim to present a neutral overview of collective knowledge. Yes, it should be. But therefore WP:V-sources about Transrapid are usefull. --82.82.178.243 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, as someone who has been watching this develop, here's what I see. Looking at the comments above, I see external links to reliable sources that describe the Transrapid system as a high-speed monorail train system (BBC, Spiegel, SME TechWeb and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers among others). The monorail article's first sentence currently says "A monorail is a single rail serving as a track for a wheeled or (magnetically) levitating vehicle; also, a vehicle traveling on such a track." The Transrapid system uses a single rail in its track. The only difference that I see is that Transrapid themselves choose not to use the word monorail, perhaps for political or psychological reasons; I don't yet see anything published by Transrapid to say that it is not a monorail. As the old saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck." The compromise sentence that we have on the article now addresses all of these points. Slambo (Speak) 15:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Slambo, the question was not "is the Transrapid a monorail or not". The question is, should "monorail" be the 5th word in the Transrapid-article? And then we take a look at sources about Transrapid. Most sources never uses the word "Monorail". And most of the sources which use that word, doesn't use it in the first chapter/sentences. (BBC and National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers are the only sources for using the word "monorail" in the first chapter i've seen here so far. But also uses words like "train", "rail technology" and "high-speed" and no mention of "monorail" in the technical-section.) So, it's not that "Transrapid themselves choose not to use the word", all the literature, laws and most of the media doesn't use it. So why should wikipedia use the word for the foreword? The most important attributes are "High-speed train" and "maglev". --82.82.178.243 16:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to put monorail as the fifth word, based on the accepted definition of monorail. It grammatically fits in the sentence there and it is a concise and accurate description of the system as a whole. The first sentence of an article's lead section should be a basic definition of the subject discussed in the article; the rest of the lead section should provide a short overview of the most important points of the article. Slambo (Speak) 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

well, as I said before, nearly noone else doing this - why should wikipedia do it? monorail is not that typical term for the Transrapid, it's "high speed" and "maglev". OK, now it's in the article and also the compromise from Polentario uses these words. --88.130.95.110 11:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess this qualifies for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars.

Anyway, its not our fault that you keep ignoring sources (as if Spigel never wrote Germany developed the Transrapid monorail 'magnetic levitation' train decades ago), or point to different pages of websites were they don't mention that the Transrapid is a monorail (why should a site about monorails specifically mention that something is a monorail). Lars T. 19:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

and you disqualify yourself again and again - not only on the transrapid-topic. And here you qualify yourself as the biggest edit-warrior? How many postings have you done here in the discussion? 2? 3? WOW. How many times did you edit the article in the last days? 20? 30? how many warnings did you get? ! OK, that's offtopic in general, but nevertheless the sad truth and in this caption it's ontopic.

delete the "our" and write "my" - or are you speaking for your royal majesty? Is that SPIEGEL-article your only source? (and you know that SPIEGEL is very very TR-opponent) Nevertheless you took ages for posting that link. Regarding to your monorails.org-theme: Why should a Wikipedia-article about a monorail specifically mention that something is a monorail? A Link somewhere as the same as on the TR-pages on monorails.org - OK. --88.130.75.154 10:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

YOU are the guy who keeps insulting people. Go back under your bridge. Lars T. 11:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

At least your last 5 words is obviously a personal attack --82.82.173.246 23:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And your behaviour fits that of a troll. Go back under your bridge. Lars T. 13:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I am definitely neither lone ranger nor out of range with my opinion, and variou sources can be provided:

The German wisoweg website is a local technical history documentation portal with en detail alweg/monorail http://www.wisoveg.de/rheinland/alweg/al-utopie.htm cites a web issue of the PRO Bahn pro railway magazin in the rhineland, from 2001, the author is Prof. Dr. Klaus Groß. The Alweg entries are from a exhibition documentation in Rheinisches Industriebahn- Museum e.V. Köln.

Quote: "Ursprünglich war als Einsatzgebiet eher der Hochgeschwindigkeits-Fernverkehr vorgesehen. In einem Eisenbahnbuch von 1955 lautete eine Kapitelüberschrift zur ALWEG-Bahn: „Heute Utopie, morgen vielleicht schon Wirklichkeit: Mit 400 Stundenkilometern nach Madrid“, wobei Hamburg der Ausgangspunkt sein sollte. Wie beim Transrapid zerplatzten die Träume, und übrig blieben ein paar Anwendungen im Nahverkehr, insgesamt aber immerhin noch mehr, als bei den staatlich geförderten 70er-Jahre-Entwicklungen C-Bahn, H-Bahn und M-Bahn zusammen."

My summary of the quote : It provides a Explicit comparision between Alweg monorail and Transrapid, as Alweg being similarly developed for international traffic (e.g. european connection between hamburg and Madrid). As with Transrapid, all this dreams went bust, only some local traffic applications came true, but at least some more as via other german cabin-rail or Magnet-rail white elephants of the 70ies.

On the mentioned web page are further entries about failed Alweg projects (e.g. in the Ruhrgebiet or a connection between the then Munich airport, innercity and lake Starnberg) where later Transrapid came into consideration (Metrorapid, Trara Munich).

http://www.mosafilm.de/CF/heftbesprechung/vergleiche/029/monorail.html#urania is a website about MOsaic, a popular popular culture and educational monthly in eastern germany, the cited articles draw several paralles about Alweg / MOnorail and Transrapid and provide detailed info about eastern monorail projects, e.g. in Jena.

Its worth while to check the websites 88.130.75.154 cites. http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/MagEms.html internally links to a "What is Maglev MOnorail" page, quote: "So what is a Maglev Monorail? Simply put, maglev monorail follows the guideway as conventional monorail does, but powerful magnets provide propulsion and lift".

I assume 88.130.75.154 has seen those, ignored them and is keeping lying straight in our faces for whatever reason.

I ask to exclude anonymous IPs from editing this site. --Polentario 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Transrapid as Monorail / Alweg

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)

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)

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

Why not include Standardisierte Bewertung (German Project evaluation scheme)

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)

Appalling wording

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)

Originally proposed for Toronto

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)

Historic parallels section

I've removed this section because:

1. it has been marked as unreferenced for 9 months without its original author(s) making any attempt to fix this.
2. it is poorly written, with the first paragraph drawing parrallels between Schwebebahn & Aerobus without any explicit reference to Maglev.
3. 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)

Technology section; "proprietary"?

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)

Merge to Transrapid

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Transrapid/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is a lot of information and a few more images in the translation from German that still needs to be added to the article. Slambo (Speak) 14:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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 {{dead link}} 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 {{dead link}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)