This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maglev article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Maglev was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 7, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 17, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept August 30, 2013 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: in UK / Monorail High‑importance Trains Portal Sel week 16, 2005 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Monorail task force. Physics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Technology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

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)[reply]

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

I came across the article on this and thought a summary would be a useful addition here; it was then deleted with the edit note "Rv interesting but unsourced addition; could you re-add this with appropriate sources, please?".
So, what is the problem here? The information is from the introduction of the linked article, which (I would have thought) should be verification enough: Or, if anyone feels more is needed, it is customary to add a citation request tag, or (in the spirit of co-operation and general improvement) add what is felt necessary from that article. Contrariwise, if the information is believed to be wrong, the problem lies with the linked article also, and should have been addressed there (it wasn’t). So what was it about this that warranted total deletion? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moonraker, thanks for asking about this. There are actually two concerns I have with your addition, only one of which I saw at the time. That first issue is simply verifiability, one of Wikipedia's policies. Without any citations, it's hard for any reader to verify that paragraph. Indeed, it looked to me, when I saw it, to be just some text some person made up. The fact that you took it from another article was non-evident and, in any case, an inadequate excuse; readers should not have to do a scavenger hunt to find reliable sources through which they can verify our claims. And of course, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source (even if you had cited the M-Bahn page).

As it happens, and since you mention the idea that the problem lies with the linked article also, and should have been addressed there, the text you copied was from the lede, where we generally try to avoid including citations (see MOS:LEADCITE). So there's not necessarily a problem with M-Bahn (although I haven't read more than the lead paragraph); the (first) problem is with lack of supporting citations in the text you pasted here.

But I said there was a second issue, which I had not noticed at the time of my reversion. It is that you copied, verbatim, content from another page. I won't write at great detail on this, but will point you to the somewhat lengthy text at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. There was no indication to me that you were copying text from somewhere else. A quick reversion seemed the best approach.

But my edit summary included, as you note above, could you re-add this with appropriate sources, please?. Ths still applies; I have no problem with a useful mention and summary of the Berlin experiment. Add some good sources (presumably already lying, quivering in anticipation of further citation, at M-Bahn), and there's no problem. And if you do again use the text from that article, provide an attribution in your edit summary. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnFromPinckney: Fair enough, though again I would have thought a main article link would make where it was from self-evident. But it hardly matters, now. Anyway, thank you for replying (and my apologies for the lateness of this response); Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 [1], 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)][reply]