Comparison Transrapid conventional high-speed trains
A comparison of energy consumption between the ICE and the Transrapid has
been the subject of several publications (Mnich et al. (no year), Breimeier
2000, Leitgeb 1998).
There are results from simulation and measurements of power demand for
Transrapid. For an unbiased comparison between Transrapid and ICE it is
preferable to take energy demand per square meter (of usable interior space) and
km rather than energy demand per seat km as a point of reference. The latter
perspective would depend on the specific space utilisation of a particular
vehicle design and not on the system characteristics. The following figures are
therefore based on energy consumption per usable interior area.
Breimeier 2000 gives the following values for ICE and Transrapid for
different speeds:
Speed |
Specific energy consumption in Wh per square meter
and km |
|
ICE 3 |
Transrapid |
150 km/h |
24 |
27 |
200 km/h |
28 |
31 |
250
km/h |
33 |
35 |
300
km/h |
40 |
41 |
330
km/h |
46 |
45 |
350
km/h |
50* |
47 |
400
km/h |
- |
56 |
430
km/h |
- |
64 |
* extrapolated value
Source: Breimeier 2000
The above table shows that above 330 km/h, the Transrapid has an energy
advantage over conventional high-speed trains (based on extrapolation).
Due to better acceleration rates, the Transrapid needs less maximum speed in
order to achieve the same running time on a given line. As a consequence,
comparing running times rather than speeds, the energy comparison will be even
more favourable for the Transrapid (at high speeds).
Comparison Transrapid short-distance air travel and cars
At speeds above 350 km/h that will in the foreseeable future not be reached
by conventional high-speed trains, energy efficiency of maglev technology should
be compared to airplanes. This comparison yields very strong energy advantages
of maglev.
Especially in business travel on medium distances (>300 km), the
Transrapid technology could be a serious alternative to cars. It is obviously
not possible to make the comparison at equal speeds but even given the speed
difference between the two means of transportation, the Transrapid will win over
the car (with its low average occupancy) in energy efficiency. This can be
demonstrated by the following rough estimate. Assuming a consumption 5-10 liters
of fuel per 100 km and an occupancy of 1 person (which is realistic for business
travels), one gets a specific consumption of end energy of about 500-1000
Wh/passenger km. At 400 km/h the Transrapid consumes about 60 Wh/ seat km. If
an occupancy of 75% is assumed and an efficiency of the prechain of 25%, this
corresponds to about 320 Wh/ passenger km. |