Talk:Maglev

T-Flight Does Not Qualify as Train

I've reverted recent edits which updated the train speed record to T-Flight as I don't believe the T-Flight qualifies as a train. In Railway speed record, "trains" are assumed to mean "Passenger trains", but the T-Flight vehicle appears in pictures to be about the size of a car and unable to carry passengers. Furthermore, the 623 km/h speed record was achieved on just 2km of track. This would have required acceleration/deceleration of over 1g, which in my opinion, makes the T-Flight more comparable to a rocket sled.

As a point of comparison, the previously listed speed record was achieved by the L0 Series Shinkansen while carrying passengers in a 7 car set which was at least 170m long. 219.89.31.196 (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Shit. ~2025-32343-88 (talk) 09:01, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Split systems?

We need a list article showing all past, present and future systems. There is more than one system now so the split makes sense. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 11:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds right, the article is getting overly long. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Support, I would be bold as you've heard no objections in a year and a half. Pinging @Difficultly north in case you're not watching this page. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 21:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Maglev is more expensive to maintain.

AI falsely states that Maglev trains are less expensive to maintain! Which is false information. ~2026-53232-2 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Needs a more even evaluation of positives/negatives and viability?

The lead contains a brief for/against summary of positives/negatives: "Compared to conventional railways, maglev trains can have higher top speeds, superior acceleration and deceleration, lower maintenance costs, improved gradient handling, and lower noise. However, they are more expensive to build, cannot use existing infrastructure, and use more energy at high speeds."

This is a reasonably accurate summary of the article that's cited in support , but I don't think it's a completely accurate/objective summary of high-speed maglev (as the previous Talk comment also points out). For example, noise is a major issue for maglev and becomes more so as speeds increase [e.g. https://academic.oup.com/tse/article/6/4/tdae017/7754164] - and the citation is partly referring to a perception that maglevs would be quiet based on the very low speeds of the Birmingham Airport shuttle ("With low-to-medium speed maglevs in city centres you really get the benefit of low noise").

The article feels overwhelming "pro-maglev", whereas there should be more evaluation of the problems? Christian Wolmar has said more than once that he thinks it is "not a viable technology" [e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5319200.stm]. 45154james (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC) [Edited with a few additions and clarifications 45154james (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)]

Records

I have removed two records from China. Based on the pages cited in the main text, as well as this site, the claims that speeds of 640 km/h or 800 km/h were achieved refer only to small experimental sled-like machines. The acceleration involved is also far too high for these to qualify as maglev trains as described in this article, which are intended for passenger transport. The reported specifications (a vehicle weight of 1 tonne, a travel distance of 1,000 meters, a travel time of 8 seconds, and reaching 800 km/h within that interval) support the view that these should not be included in the same category as the other maglev vehicles listed on this page. The CRRC 600 km/h maglev train does not yet exist.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2026 (UTC)