Clearly different tunnel implementations are appropriate for different situations. If you're going from LA to Las Vegas you'll do it differently than if you need to go a dozen city blocks.
The practicality of the hyperloop has by now been demonstrated in various places. What's being demonstrated here is the entrance and exit technologies that go with the hyperloop.
Where did you get that crazy idea? Hyperloop has lost to maglev. Trains that go 372mph already exist in Japan and China. The hard part is to deploy the technology as part of the rail network. Meanwhile Hyperloop companies are just trying to fleece dumb money with fake prototypes.
It seems to me that there were two technical details of TBC. One was "We can build a tunnel cheaply". That seems as far as I can see to have been entirely down to digging smaller tunnels- which doesn't seem like innovation to me, especially since some of the cost saved is by not building the escape tunnels that traditionally are built for safety not capacity. The second detail was "These tunnels will be fitted in a way that allows super-efficient transportation". That seems to have entirely disappeared.
I would really hope to see some evidence of their efficiency of digging tunnels being legitimately better than traditional methods now. Otherwise you've got to fear that this all ends in a dozen people dying in a tunnel because the safety precautions weren't sufficient.
The first benefit was directly as a result of the second. It was the hyperloop concept that afforded the option of a smaller diameter tunnel; switching to a more traditional transportation method would mean concessions all around if you want to still stick to the smaller diameter.
The channel tunnel actually are three tunnels: two train tunnels with a service tunnel in-between. The train tunnels are connected to the service tunnel at every 375m (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Tunnelling)
So, there are no exits to the surface, but there are ways to get out of each of the tunnels.
I would guess this kind of construct would make Musk’s design at least 50% more expensive per kilometer (in Musk’s design, a service tunnel can’t be less wide than the real ones. You could make a setup where tunnels can serve as service tunnels when needed, but even than, you need to build all those connections between the tunnels)
Having the car on a sled means no wear on the tyres. Furthermore the sled is specifically designed for the rails and acts as a guide for the car, which is more reliable than having the autopilot cruise through the tunnel with the danger of the user being able to disable the AP and blick the tunnel. The sled therefore makes the Tesla some sort of a bumper car without making any damage.
17 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 47.6 ms ] threadTSLA investors take note.
The practicality of the hyperloop has by now been demonstrated in various places. What's being demonstrated here is the entrance and exit technologies that go with the hyperloop.
SpaceX investors take note.
This is just a tunnel. Not even the planned sled from before. A tunnel for just Teslas.
Cheap tunnel debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ezF7NmwQZs
Hyperloop debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk
I would really hope to see some evidence of their efficiency of digging tunnels being legitimately better than traditional methods now. Otherwise you've got to fear that this all ends in a dozen people dying in a tunnel because the safety precautions weren't sufficient.
Who is that guy and what has he done to Elon Musk?
So, there are no exits to the surface, but there are ways to get out of each of the tunnels.
I would guess this kind of construct would make Musk’s design at least 50% more expensive per kilometer (in Musk’s design, a service tunnel can’t be less wide than the real ones. You could make a setup where tunnels can serve as service tunnels when needed, but even than, you need to build all those connections between the tunnels)
Burn him at the stake for trying.