Low-speed maglev? Why? That seems to make even less sense than high-speed maglev.

Maybe low-speed maglev trains are easier to construct - on an elevated track system so they don't have to bulldoze a right-of-way corridor for a standard track and overhead electric cables? Maybe medium speed maglev trains are a little more difficult to build (need more distance to make higher speed turns) but are still better than standard trains with overhead electric cables?

Geez...Id think the thing to do initially is get the elevated structure built with standard rail. Then expand and modify. Its much easier to build a railroad when you already have a rairoad.

Most likely low speed trains are used where the track will be very bendy or have alot of stops. As this is inside a city high speed doesnt make sense.

It starts to take on a moon shot prestige. They did not go to the moon, but they have magnetic levitation trains. It does not have to make much sense when status is involved.

@ SJC says "It starts to take on a moon shot prestige. They did not go to the moon, but they have magnetic levitation trains. It does not have to make much sense when status is involved."

Get over with your bigotry.

The speed of the train is 80 to 130 kmph, faster than subway trains but more economical to run.

Doesn't Maglev cost more energy than conventional trains?
After all, you have to power up those electromagnets. Even counting the fact that Maglev has less friction, I really thought it needed more energy.
Can anyone tell us if I'm right or wrong?

Maglev trains can be much lighter than ordinary trains. Therefore you can have better acceleration with the same power demand. Or the same acceleration with lower power, or somewhere in between.

@richard schumacher:

At low speeds, maglev trains are dead silent. This is definitely a big advantage in an urban environment.

@Simodul

To maintain levitation, the electromagnets only need to exert a force on the vehicle without displacing it. energy = force x distance, basic newtonian physics. There are always losses of course, but these are relatively small. In terms of energy efficiency, maglev trains seem to be on par with ordinary trains.

@ Peace Hugger,

I think you are confusing bigotry with astute realism. SJC's observation is consistent with the Chinese government's history of seeking out prestige projects (e.g, much of the construction for the Beijing Olympics) to show the world that "China has arrived," whether or not they are cost effective.

And, when prestige is one of the benefits, the whole cost-benefit equation becomes rather fuzzy. Prestige does have a value. Technology spin-offs also have value. Building expertise in an industry has a value. Many governments routinely purchase, encourage, or subsidize projects with less potential for ancillary benefit than a maglev in the big city where everyone can see it every day.

@Anne

Always good to get a physics reminder

Still: if you use superconductive material, you have to cool it down, and that demands lots of energy.
If you don't use supraconductive material, the losses must be horribly high since you do get very high currents

So I still think Maglev uses up a lot of energy, even if it's not on levitation.