The Hyperloop

[nissangirl74]

"...Elon Musk, the brain child behind Paypal and Tesla has sent people in California into a tizzy on Monday when he released a white paper outlining a hypothetical high-speed transportation system called the Hyperloop....claims will be able to travel at up to 800 miles an hour and transport people from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 30 minutes. While physicists agree that technically, on paper, this is possible, economists seem to agree that technically, on paper, the price tag of $6 billion is impossible...."


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... perloop#p2

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/1 ... o/?hp&_r=0

If he built it, would you ride in it? a 30 minute trip from LA to SF would be pretty sweet but I have to wonder what sort of impact that would have on your body. 800 mph? That's a lot of force. I know that airplanes go almost that (or more) and you can't feel it. Could they incorporate that technology into "the tube"?

[Bubba1]

Yes I would ride in it depending on the cost they'd want to charge to take it. It kinda parallel's the concept of the retired Concorde (supersonic passenger jet). Awesome speed, but in case you've forgotten, the absurdly high cost to ride on Concorde limited ridership to only those who afford it, like Elon Musk. And the Concorde operated using the existing infrastructure. This tube concept requires its own unique infrastructure.

It's a fun, interesting concept, but the economists are correct here. When you factor in reality to the idea, the cost to build/operate/maintain/insure that hypertube concept is far too steep given the heavy debt our governments (state and federal) are currently carrying. That $6+ billion would be better used to repair the current dilapidated California highway infrastructure (that far more people would use daily) than creating a new one from scratch just so a very small group of people like Oprah or Mel Gibson can travel more quickly between LA and SF. Reality can be a real pain in the arse sometimes.

[nissangirl74]

I think they could dump $6 billion into the 405 and it would still suck. I plan trips to CA away from that monstrosity. But I agree, fix what you have that EVERYONE uses and make it safe. Then you can go play with new ideas.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I have to wonder what sort of impact that would have on your body. 800 mph? That's a lot of force.

Impact on your body has nothing to do with top speed (that is, until you start getting close to the speed of light and "theory of relativity" type speeds).

F=ma

It is entirely dependent on acceleration. Just keep it under ~3 g's and you should be fine.

A lot of the cost associated with the concorde was fuel and maintenance. Lots of wear and tear at super-sonic speeds, and lots and lots of fuel burned. By travelling in a vacuum (or partial vacuum) like the hyperloop, you eliminate those losses.

Initial investment would be large... whether it can be done for 6 billion or not, I don't know. After that, it should be relatively cheap to maintain, unless pesky kids/terrorists f*** with your tubes. I'd ride in it. Maybe not first, but I'd ride in it

[MinisterofDOOM]

Concorde's issue was keeping the planes filled. By the final years of its operation, it was very hard to actually fill a plane to capacity, which meant they couldn't operate profitably.

Of course there were also the cost issues of operating a once-cutting-edge but now very outdated piece of hardware. While it might have been fast, it required a lot more attention, maintenance, and money to keep flying safely than more modern, "basic" planes.

The concorde was TOO niche. I don't really think something like the hyperloop would be that way. High speed trains exist pretty much everywhere but North America, and they're not suffering for passengers. This is just a new version of the high-speed train. The low-capacity individual cars mean it won't be hard to fill one up. That'll improve operating profitability AND it'll mean more frequent departure times.

I still think it's very pie-in-the-sky in a lot of ways. But it's not really comparable to the concorde. Linear motors, high speed, and low-occupancy cars are already the obvious future of trains. Sticking them in a low-air-resistance tunnel is really all that's "high tech" about the hyperloop.

Aside:
Something like this could be the "self-driving car" that people are so desperate for. Get those inept machines off my roads, put them on rails, and everyone wins. Let's make it happen!

[Bubba1]

High speed trains exist pretty much everywhere but North America, and they're not suffering for passengers. This is just a new version of the high-speed train. The low-capacity individual cars mean it won't be hard to fill one up. That'll improve operating profitability AND it'll mean more frequent departure times.

!

As info, the US does have high speed intercity train service. AMTRAK offers a much promoted (but poor performing) daily train service in the northeast corridor called "Acela", it's an actual bullet train capable of high speeds, but it was badly designed and operates at a loss. And while AMTRAK is not necessarily suffering for passengers along the northeast corridor and a small section of California, they are literally STARVED for passengers everywhere else. In fact, on certain lanes, AMTRAK takes a financial loss up to $1500 on every passenger they handle outside the northeast corridor and CA. They cannot survive without government subsidies.


The lower capacity cars may make them fill up but it also means fewer passenger fares to offset the huge costs, which only raises the fares. But since the fares needs to be affordable for people to ride it, that means it'll very likely require huge government subsidies just to operate every year. And where do you think that government money comes from? It's a waste of taxpayer money for what at the end of the day is a pricey niche service at best.

<long time railroad executive.

[MinisterofDOOM]

The lower capacity cars may make them fill up but it also means fewer passenger fares to offset the huge costs, which only raises the fares.

That's what doesn't translate across to linear-motor small-car trains. You're not worrying about cramming as many people into the flight to optimize fuel expenditure. You can make more numerous, more frequent trips with fewer passengers. It balances out the fare pricing, makes it more convenient, and means that you're not DEPENDENT on filling a SINGLE, LARGE train to avoid big financial losses. One of ten 6 passenger trains goes underfilled? Instead of trying to get a bunch of people to ride the same train at the same time, you can give them more options and spread the load. The efficiency of the train's operation means it's not as much of a loss to run a few cars underfilled without adjusting fare prices.

You can either get 200 people on a train at once (which may not be conveniently timed for all of them) or get 20 people on a ten different trains staggered over an hour or so.

[Dattebayo]

My thought is how are you supposed to keep something airtight in a region plagued with earthquakes? Flexible tubes would make maintenance costs high...

[Bubba1]

The lower capacity cars may make them fill up but it also means fewer passenger fares to offset the huge costs, which only raises the fares.

That's what doesn't translate across to linear-motor small-car trains. You're not worrying about cramming as many people into the flight to optimize fuel expenditure. You can make more numerous, more frequent trips with fewer passengers. It balances out the fare pricing, makes it more convenient, and means that you're not DEPENDENT on filling a SINGLE, LARGE train to avoid big financial losses. One of ten 6 passenger trains goes underfilled? Instead of trying to get a bunch of people to ride the same train at the same time, you can give them more options and spread the load. The efficiency of the train's operation means it's not as much of a loss to run a few cars underfilled without adjusting fare prices.

You can either get 200 people on a train at once (which may not be conveniently timed for all of them) or get 20 people on a ten different trains staggered over an hour or so.

Sounds fine and dandy until you take into account the staggering cost of each train and the infrastructure. So running many partially loaded trains instead of fewer fully loaded ones will put you out of business very quickly due to the lack of revenue. It's one of the main reasons why the freight railroads got out of the passenger business. And the only railroad that still does intercity today can't operate without massive annual government funding. welcome to Railroading.

[krash]

I have to wonder what sort of impact that would have on your body. 800 mph? That's a lot of force.

Impact on your body has nothing to do with top speed (that is, until you start getting close to the speed of light and "theory of relativity" type speeds).

F=ma

It is entirely dependent on acceleration. Just keep it under ~3 g's and you should be fine.

James beat me to the punch. I'd love to ride in one though, sounds awesome!

[WDRacing]

6 Billion, pssht that's nothing. We can just add it to the debt. If revenue becomes hard to sustain, just subsidize it with tax payer dollars. We always have more than enough taxes to support this type of thing.

[Bubba1]

It surprises me how few folks (especially in Congress) would take issue with spending billions of borrowed tax payer money (our debt is approaching, what, $17 trillion?) on a transportation money pit that benefits such a small number of people that cannot run on its own without continuous tax payer funding just because it sounds cool? what's next? I know, we could spend a half billion taxpayer dollars on a giant highway bridge in Alaska to connect to a small island town with 50 residents. After all, it would greatly reduce travel time for some of those residents over the old fashioned ferry service which was working fine....oh wait, we almost did that.

If Mr. Musk wants to set up a private corporation to build his idea, great, but IMHO, it would be foolish to offer taxpayer money to fund it.

[IBCoupe]

Could do a public-private partnership like they do all over the place in India: Government contracts with Musk to build, operate, and maintain the thing for X years, and then takes over afterwards. Why does it have to be all public or all private dollars going into the thing?

[Bubba1]

Could do a public-private partnership like they do all over the place in India: Government contracts with Musk to build, operate, and maintain the thing for X years, and then takes over afterwards. Why does it have to be all public or all private dollars going into the thing?

Are you suggesting that in exchange for less upfront tax dollar risk, right after the initial buzz wears off and people finally see creating an niche independent transportation system society really doesn't need, Musk could simply walk away and the US taxpayers get stuck with the ongoing mess?? Because I can't see a private contractor willing taking that kind of risk for the reverse.

[Gold Digger]

I wonder if they did do this, would they charge astronomical prices for tickets?

In Japan, if you take the bullet train from Tokyo to Kyoto, it's about a $250 round trip and takes about 3 hours.
If you do it by airplane, you can fly from Haneda (just outside of Tokyo) to Osaka, and then take a train to Kyoto and spend about $150 dollars. The flight is just about an hour and the train ride is about 20-30 minutes depending on which train you are on.

What I don't understand is why pay more for a less convenient service? Granted, it's a direct shot from Tokyo to Kyoto, but you're spending $100 more. I'd rather save the Benny and fly/train it. That's extra money for the bars...

[IBCoupe]

Are you suggesting that in exchange for less upfront tax dollar risk, right after the initial buzz wears off and people finally see creating an niche independent transportation system society really doesn't need...

Objection: leading, assumes facts not in evidence...

[Bubba1]

Are you suggesting that in exchange for less upfront tax dollar risk, right after the initial buzz wears off and people finally see creating an niche independent transportation system society really doesn't need...

Objection: leading, assumes facts not in evidence...

Objection overruled, Counselor, this is not a court of law. But perhaps you could provide some compelling reasons on why we go into even more debt to build the Hyperloop?

[PapaSmurf2k3]

But perhaps you could provide some compelling reasons on why we go into even more debt to build the Hyperloop?

Playing devil's advocate here... but I'd say maybe the 6 billion dollar investment could potentially save us from the much larger high speed train investment?

Again, I don't even agree with the high speed train investment, just saying.

[Bubba1]

But perhaps you could provide some compelling reasons on why we go into even more debt to build the Hyperloop?

Playing devil's advocate here... but I'd say maybe the 6 billion dollar investment could potentially save us from the much larger high speed train investment?

Again, I don't even agree with the high speed train investment, just saying.

Thing is, who's clamoring for speeding up the existing train service between LA and SF? Especially when you consider the other established and less expensive mass transit transportation alternatives between those cities that have plenty of capacity and use the existing transportation infrastructure that we've already invested billions developing. Those alternatives include buses, existing train service, cars, boats, and a little invention that travels quickly called airlines.

[frapjap]

<long time railroad executive.

Of the trains in the basement, or for realz?

[Bubba1]

<long time railroad executive.

Of the trains in the basement, or for realz?

For realz. First Conrail, then Norfolk Southern.

[frapjap]

Cool! Does that mean you can identify lots of engines by sound alone?

[Bubba1]

Cool! Does that mean you can identify lots of engines by sound alone?

Nope. I was involved with logistics, not mechanicals.

[Dattebayo]

Guys, underground trains in an earthquake zone. Seriously?

[Razi]

Guys, underground trains in an earthquake zone. Seriously?

Where does it say underground?
It's an above ground system with pylons supporting the tubes.

There's more technical stuff in this .pdf:
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/file ... _alpha.pdf

Technical pylon stuff starts on page 28.

[Dattebayo]

I could swear I read underground somewhere, must've been some other site...

[Razi]

Well, he mentioned he could put one of these underground, but not in a place like California, of course.

[IBCoupe]

Objection overruled, Counselor, this is not a court of law. But perhaps you could provide some compelling reasons on why we go into even more debt to build the Hyperloop?

That was a cloaked argument, Bubbs.

"Initial buzz" and "society really doesn't need" are things you really aren't supporting - just offering conclusory statements. Having regularly traveled actual high speed trains in Asia (and soon in Europe), I've been converted, and I'm convinced that the only thing standing between trains and the American people are s*** American trains and s*** American train service. You pointed to the Acela as high speed rail in the U.S., but just last week I was on a train from Shanghai to Changzhou, traveling at a sustained 172kph (106mph) from start to end, less stops along the way. Does the Acela ever get that fast? And if so, for how long, exactly? I've traveled slower trains, too, like the one from Wuhan to my in-laws, and the one from Haikou to Sanya. I spent most of each of those treks at 142kph (88mph). And you know how much each of them cost? Between $12 and $15 (72.5 to 100 RMB). Round trip. Know how much it costs to get onto Acela from New York to Washington? $164. One way. Wikipedia says Acela's average speed is 70mph (112kph). From Shanghai Hongqiao rail station to Changzhou north station, it's 165km, and the express train gets you there in 47 minutes, for an average speed of 210.6kph (131mph). Seriously, it's not that Americans don't want to ride trains, it's that Americans don't want to ride American trains.

True high speed trains are more comfortable than buses, easier and less expensive than air travel, substantially less tolling than driving, and they go places boats can't. I think that rounds out your list of alternatives. And now your most recent gripe? That we'd go into debt for it? More assumption of facts not in evidence: perhaps in your world as an American rail executive, financial incompetence was rampant, but there's really no need to assume that it has to be that way.

Whether you want to go with Musk's idea or not, American rail needs improvement. It'll come at a cost to American airlines (American Airlines, included), but not really to American citizens. And there are arguments for going with Musk's proposal or some other radical alternative: getting American society back into the swing of chasing technological and scientific leaps for the sake of technological and scientific progress.

[IBCoupe]

Also, another point: I'm not sure how many cars per train Amtrak runs, but I rarely see more than 8 or 9 in China (and you actually see them because you've got assigned seats). I think the most I saw was 12 (or maybe 14; my memory's fuzzy on that) on a Dongguan-Shenzhen run I was doing periodically. I don't know how that fits into the Bubba-MoD debate up-thread.

[Bubba1]

Thanks Isaac, for minimizing the decades worth of experience I have in the rail industry, which includes service design and costing. But that's okay, you and your in-laws have ridden a couple fast trains in China, so that's equivalent. As far as fare differences between AMTRAK and Chinese bullet trains? Those bullet trains in China are heavily subsidized by their government, which means the government covers almost all of the operating/infrastucture costs enabling fares to be dirt cheap. They are not operated for profit. AMTRAK, on the other hand, is operated as a for-profit company, and although it does receive funding by the US government , it's a small fraction of what the Chinese invest (even when scaled equivalently). Plus AMTRAK has to deal with higher labor/benefit costs. Evidently, you are unaware that the US government has been actively trying to wean itself off passenger rail funding for the last 30 years, and funding has been steadily reducing during that period, not increasing. so It's not surprising that AMTRAK's fares are significantly higher. You also are unaware that AMTRAK also does not own all their own tracks. They have work out special deals for "service windows" (meaning periods of track time) with the major freight railroads on many of the tracks they use, which impacts costs/schedules/speeds. Plus those freight rail tracks/infrastucture were designed to handle mostly slower freight traffic, not triple digit speed bullet trains, which is huge problem for programs like ACELA. You also probably didn't know that the only place ACELA can hit their advertised 150+MPH speeds is a small 20(?) mile stretch of track in Rhode Island. Otherwise they must operate at about the same speed as the old cheaper Metroliner (up to maybe 100mph depending on the area). ACELA is able to shave more time by making fewer stops and priority routing (meaning other trains hold periodically in order to let it pass) .

IMHO anyone riding ACELA is wasting money as the old Metroliner northeast regional service is cheaper, performs better, is as comfortable and is not much slower.

AMTRAK (including ACELA) has been "sh!tty" but it's not for the reasons you cited. It's actually a combination of some mismanagement over the years, but mostly US government interference, grossly insufficient government funding, crowded tracks (lots of trains using them) soaring fuel/benefits costs, and an aging, incompatible infrastructure. To be fair to AMTRAK, the US government expects AMTRAK to operate a national network on a regional budget, and that ain't easy. Given what they have to work with, they do a pretty good job, and in the northeast corridor, I would say extremely good. I doubt the Chinese railroads could operate with such cheap fares if they had as little funding as AMTRAK gets.

Creating a real bullet train service in this country equivalent to the Chinese or Europeans, would require all new infrastructure, and that cost would be staggering. And being $17 trillion dollars (and growing) in debt, our government (who's already unwilling to invest in rail, despite its many virtues ) really doesn't have the money to invest in something that doesn't utilize the existing infrastructure, and the larger distances between cities as you move west makes trains less competitive than planes, which makes the funding less likely to happen on national level. The northeast corridor works well mainly because of combination of several big cities relatively close and a dense population along all the stops.

I'm a big rail supporter as you are. But as someone who has had a unique ringside seat on how rail systems operate, I know it's gonna cost more than $6Bill to design/build that infrastructure in California (albeit along a fault line, which is lunacy). And if you think they'd charge $20 for an 350 mile LA-SF ride in a hypertube, which was suggested in the article, I have a bridge to sell you in NY. Knowing the folks I've met in the industry including some lobbyists, my guess is Congress will not fund it, and would probably suggest California fund it themselves, which they can't afford either.