Hyperloop sounds like a bunch of hype. High speed trains are a thing already, as are MagLev trains, as are trains that go through tunnels, called the subway. The lack of their success in the US market has little to do with the technology itself and more to do with politics.
The addition of vacuum tunnels does little to alleviate the administrative / financial challenges of our struggling train systems. Vacuum has few practical upsides and a lot of downsides such as safety, reliability, and cost. It boggles the mind as to how investors are falling for this idea.
But perhaps marketing and branding are where Musk/Bronson's talents lie when it comes to high-speed rail? Please tell me otherwise, as I would love to see better rail infrastructure in the US.
I feel like this doesn't quite work. The vast majority of people may be for trains but there are so many points of local veto. If a train/hyperloop needs to cut through a neighborhood in order to avoid taking a 5 mile detour the 20 people effected are going to use everything in their power to stop it - who can blame them.
Even road expansion is slow and costly and hard to navigate.
I think the goal with the vacuum is to get to even higher speed rail which can compete with airplanes for speed and convenience. The thought being, rail has to be clearly better than flying for it work.
That said vacuum comes with many technical issues.
The Northeast Corridor is wildly profitable for Amtrak (based on operating costs), despite being significantly worse than flying, and often slower than driving. (It's faster than rush-hour driving, but that's about it.)
Making fast-enough rail that connects useful places, and upgrading the speed of existing rail that meets the same criteria, is a much better strategy IMO than trying to do "better than flying" rail based on unproven technology. Moonshots have their place, but America should try to catch up to the rest of the world in rail transport instead of pretending we're on the bleeding edge of innovation.
> The Northeast Corridor is wildly profitable for Amtrak (based on operating costs), despite being significantly worse than flying, and often slower than driving. (It's faster than rush-hour driving, but that's about it.)
Worse than flying?
I can take the train from Wash. DC to New York City Penn Station, visit my friends who live in the city by walking alone, and then come back home in time for dinner. (Broadway, Time Square, and Wall Street are all walking-distance from Penn Station)
The closest airport to NYC center is LaGuardia Airport, off of the island. Then you have to spend money on an Uber (or take the train!) into the city anyway. (Cheapest to Uber to the Purple line, then take the purple line into the city).
------------
The Train's competition is a Bus. There are PLENTY of cheap busses that travel the route.
--------
Even if you're off of Manhattan in say... Brooklyn. I'd rather be at Penn Station than LaGuardia Airport. Penn Station has a direct subway line to Brooklyn. Its non-obvious how I'd get from LaGuardia to Brooklyn unless my friends spend time to pick me up (or I take an expensive Uber)
The trains are also more comfortable than [coach] plane seats by a long mile, and you don't have to deal with TSA either. Showing up at the station the minute the train rolls out is/was very feasible, unlike with flying. When I lived in Philly I used Amtrak every chance I got, whether I was going north to NY, south to DC, or west to Harrisburg. It was great. Very comfortable and low stress. And I could generally get tickets on short notice for a price affordable to a student.
When I was a student, all I could afford was the $10 or $20 bus, which was uncomfortable as all heck.
Now that I'm an adult with some money, I'm willing to pay $80 on the train ticket. I agree with you, way more leg room, much less stress.
There's a train that departs every hour in the day (and every 2-hours during midnight hours). I don't even need to plan anything. Just walk up to the train station and go. If you do that with airplanes, your costs double or more.
-------
Once you account for the ~1 hour in airport security, you're basically at the same speed as a train anyway. Then the significantly inferior location of LaGuardia vs Penn Station comes into play (you really can get to far more locations from Penn Station than LaGuardia).
--------
> The trains are also more comfortable than [coach] plane seats by a long mile
I did take the higher-end Acela Express once, just to see what its about. The prices are way higher, but you get an entire table for you (and your family).
Its very expensive, but if I were ever going to take children to NYC, I'd probably consider it.
Another factor to consider is that when trading an hour in line for TSA for an hour on the train, you can relax, take a nap or read a book, while in line for the TSA you have to stay awake and alert. The same applies for time spent in the airport terminal, I'm always afraid to doze off there, lest I miss my flight. And as you mention, missing a train is generally not a huge deal; I missed a few over the years and was always able to get onto the next train an hour of so later. This flexibility alone gives huge peace of mind.
At the time I think I was paying about $40 or so between Philly and Harrisburg, one or two times a month. Not as cheap as a bus, but well worth it I think.
If you enter a tunnel or something, your cell phone shuts off (but there are rumors of cell phone companies beginning to deploy towers inside of tunnels!! So maybe even the "tunnel problem" will be fixed soon). But in today's age where the cell phone is your connection to the world in general, its a pretty nifty advantage.
yep. trains are also more relaxing in ways that busses/planes can ever be for me. it feels like the one time my brain can truly shut up for a bit and i can just enjoy existing.
something about the smoothness of the rails (speaking from a similar position in the nec) as the world speeds by is incredibly calming to me.
> Broadway, Times Square, and Wall Street are all walking-distance from Penn Station
Wall Street is a 3+ mile walk from Penn Station. Sure, it's walkable just like everything in NYC is walkable, but I don't know why you wouldn't just pick another landmark in NYC like Central Park or Grand Central Terminal. Or just say that all are less than a 20 minutes subway ride away.
Also, saying there's a direct subway line to Brooklyn from Manhattan isn't saying much. Brooklyn is huge and to go anywhere besides downtown likely requires a transfer. I'm not arguing that flying is better between DC and NYC, but your arguments are making it seem like it's trivial to get anywhere from Penn Station and impossible to get anywhere from Laguardia.
This. I live in Queens and it's not hard to get to Penn Station, but it's also not hard for me to get to LaGuardia, either.
I can get to LaGuardia in a little less time than it takes to get to Penn Station, especially if I don't go during peak rush hour. I have TSA Pre-check, so I typically don't have to deal with 1 hour+ security lines.
When I head to DC, I take the train simply because it's more comfortable, the trip is typically more consistent, and I don't have to worry about bringing "bad" items like a normal sized tube of toothpaste.
When I visit the DC suburbs and exurbs, as I have family and friends there, flying and particularly driving tend to ultimately come out ahead in terms of convenience and time.
Worth noting that more people live in Queens than Manhattan or Fairfax County, Virginia than DC.
Manhattan is definitely the center of the NY metro area, and virtually all business is conducted there, but that is much less true for DC. The DC suburbs actually have a ton of jobs.
It's an imperfect analogy, but the DC area is perhaps closer to the Bay Area in terms of having multiple employment centers. Maybe more extreme.
LaGuardia is in Queens. Of course its convenient for people who live there!
Hmm, I guess a lot of this comes down to where you're going, where you're coming from, and what you're planning to do.
My friends live in Brooklyn and Manhattan. They pay high rent prices by they sold their cars (100% car free). So if I visit NYC, I have to figure out transportation on my own to meet them at whatever location. (Broadway, or various talk-shows like Colbert etc. etc.), which are typically on Manhattan proper.
----
I'll say this: from the perspective of Wash DC -> NYC, I have the choice of either Planes or Trains. The Trains run along-side the Airports (in fact, there are more Train stops). Trains seem like the more convenient option.
From your perspective: NYC -> Wash DC, I think the airport makes more sense. There's less to do in Wash DC than NYC. Union Station is cool and all, but most of what to do in the area is in the suburbs, which inevitably means you need a car. If you're getting a car, might as well land at an airport.
The Wash DC -> NYC trip however is accomplished without ever renting a car, and just staying on the subway lines to get wherever you need.
America lacks the population density, even in the northeastern corridor (which I have ridden by the way, DC to Boston) to make the investment make sense. By the way, the price was too high, and it kept having to slow down near every city.
Tokyo to Osaka, for instance, is a relatively short distance (300 miles), and both cities are larger than any city in the US, with Nagoya at the half-way point. The quantity of humans that can serve is an order of magnitude higher than in the same distance in the USA, even on the eastern seaboard.
It just doesn't work for us. The dramatically reduced costs of infrastructure for constructing mounted tubes on pylons, with each section being a fungible, mass produced item, makes rail obsolete. Understood that a lot of the tech is "unproven", but it's too promising to let curmudgeons focus on the stupid, expensive fool's errand of high-speed rail in the US because they are too unimaginative to see what's available to us in the future.
> and both cities are larger than any city in the US,
While Tokyo is more populous (I assume that's what you mean by 'larger', if not Houston and LA have a few words for you) than any city here in the US, Osaka is not - however New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago are far more spread out than could ever be possible in Japan.
> The dramatically reduced costs of infrastructure for constructing mounted tubes on pylons, with each section being a fungible, mass produced item, makes rail obsolete.
This makes no sense. The "mounted tubes on pylons" contain rails inside and therefore are MORE not less expensive than just "rails mounted on pylons," which we already have. A more complex rail does not make simple rail obsolete. Nor does it beat it on fungibility, cost, or mass production. Where are you getting these "dramatically reduced costs"?
> I think the goal with the vacuum is to get to even higher speed rail which can compete with airplanes for speed and convenience.
But... they already do, at least for short flights. LA to SF is about 600km, or a little under two hours by a 'normal' (ICE or similar) high speed system (1.5 hours by maglev). It's about 1 hour 20 minutes by plane, so by the time you check in, get through security, get on and off, get to and from the airport, the train definitely wins.
Something like this might theoretically compete with long distance flight, I suppose.
You're focused too much on the vacuum aspect of the tube, and not nearly enough on the fact that it's a tube, with enough self-support to be elevated on pylons and is an order of magnitude easier to build than pouring a foundation for maglev tracks.
High speed rail track is dramatically more difficult and expensive to build than a hyperloop tube system. This was, from the beginning, the huge differentiator between the two. Hyperloop tubes aren't comparable to road or rail bridges/tracks, but instead are comparable to constructing oil/gas/water pipelines. We know how much easier it is already to build those.
> Hyperloop tubes aren't comparable to road or rail bridges/tracks, but instead are comparable to constructing oil/gas/water pipelines.
How many pipelines are wide enough diameter to move an entire vehicle and designed to handle the stress of multi-ton vehicles as their dynamic loads? And how many of those are supported on pylons rather than being fully buried?
Roads and rails can have small gaps to allow for stretching from temperature changes. Pipelines solve this with U-shaped segments. Hyperloop can't do either, requires something with airtight-enough seals or some expensive materials.
At such high speeds as proposed, any sagging is impermissible (again, unlike pipelines). Of course it's solved engineering problem but it markedly increases the construction price and complexity.
So, no, hyperloop is not really comparable to pipelines.
See my comment above. An elevated (or submerged) tube with rails (or a track) inside cannot be less expensive than those rails or track elevated (or submerged) alone. I get the pipeline metaphor, but a pipeline with infrastructure inside is just infrastructure + pipeline. So instead of a train system the proposal has always been to build a train system inside a pipeline, which has to be more expensive than either. We have no indication of cost savings here.
While I agree with your overall point, and I also think that hyperloop deployment is unrealistic, I think part of the idea of the concept of hyperloop is to make high speed rail fast enough for the expansive sizes of America.
If you took a 300km/hr train from Orlando to New York City, you’d still be competing poorly with a $100 Spirit Airlines flight.
That’s almost 6 hours on the train compared to a 2 hour flight.
Even in China where they’ve got the best high speed rail system in the world, most of the major cities are concentrated on one cost with huge populations and you still have Chinese travelers choosing low cost airlines for many longer trips (air travel in China was exploding before Covid).
I think what America needs to do is not to focus on long distance rail (which is what the current Amtrak CEO is doing) and to expand intercity high speed rail lines between major cities. There should be high speed rail linking relatively close regions that have clusters of cities.
(And of course, all of this is a great argument for making airline tickets pay more for their climate externalities - trains should be more attractive to consumers on price because they’re the lowest carbon form of transport)
I think you might be underestimating the comfort and convenience of train travel.
> That’s almost 6 hours on the train compared to a 2 hour flight.
A 2 hour flight also has you getting to the airport early-ish (~1h), going through check-in and/or security (0.75-2.0h, 1.5h average in my experience), waiting for luggage upon arrival and navigating the airport (~0.5h), getting to center city from the airport (~1h). So in addition to 2 hours in the air, there's an additional cost of 1h+1.5h+0.5h+1h=4h, so that's 6 hours in total, and that's best case scenario.
I'd choose train travel over plane travel always, provided the trip is not more than a couple thousand kilometers and it's an express. Trains are spacious (in comparison), and you don't experience intense pressure changes, or the bad air conditioning that you have in planes. Air travel tires me out for the rest of the day; after train travel I find myself energetic enough to do things the same day.
I've taken the Shanghai/Beijing route and I can tell you there is plenty of demand at that price point. Great value and not much longer than the overall airport process.
The train could offer a better service though. More leg room, proper internet connections, better food (the altitude won't make it bland) being able to move around etc. You could even make the train overnight and people could sleep in them.
The other thing is that the airport process isn't very friendly.
Most of the spent flying short routes isn't spent in the air. The process of getting to and away from the gate is so unpleasant and inefficient that it makes me a little angry if I think about it too long.
And that's if everything goes well. Delays are frequent. Add on top of that the cramped cabin, luggage restrictions, and that they ask you to not get up or use the bathroom for so long while the plane is going up or coming down (most of the ride on these short hops).
And it's _expensive_.
Flying is awful and I hate it and will gladly choose the train if it's remotely competitive.
We don't have a solution for flying without oil based fuels (yet). We might get there, but it makes sense to try to develop much faster ground based transportation in parallel. If they efficiently can hit 600mph without risk of obstruction on the tracks, it becomes a contender. Money will become available to develop the infrastructure if flying becomes prohibitively expensive due to carbon offsets and/or dwindling reserves. As a 25-50 year plan it's fine.
The original Hyperloop concept avoids the things you mentioned.
It does not use vacuum:
> The problem with this approach is that it is incredibly hard to maintain a near vacuum in a room, let alone 700 miles (round trip) of large tube with dozens of station gateways and thousands of pods entering and exiting every day. All it takes is one leaky seal or a small crack somewhere in the hundreds of miles of tube and the whole system stops working.
> However, a low pressure (vs. almost no pressure) system set to a level wherestandard commercial pumps could easily overcome an air leak and the transport pods could handle variable air density would be inherently robust.
It does not use MagLev:
> A viable technical solution is magnetic levitation; however the cost associated with material and construction is prohibitive.
There are still challenges, but because of the Hype any company doing anything related just calls their system 'Hyperloop' as well.
> It boggles the mind as to how investors are falling for this idea.
> But perhaps marketing and branding are where Musk/Bronson's talents lie when it comes to high-speed rail? Please tell me otherwise, as I would love to see better rail infrastructure in the US.
Musk has not asked a single investor for money for Hyperloop. He likely knows its currently not a great investment.
Bronson is a guy who jumps on anything related to Musk and makes a bad copy of it that gather lots of money and then doesn't do much with it.
I tend to agree. There are a lot of different aspects of market economics and environmental issues at play.
The hyperloop, as a concept alone, has value if the marginal cost over conventional methods is supplemented by the increased efficiency in transportation. It will only make sense where predictable constant travel occurs (i.e. NY to DC). The is the same for trains or any other communal means of transport. I primarily don't think it should be a passenger driven technology. The issue with passengers is they don't travel consistently for 24hrs a day.
I honestly think a vacuum train for commercial logistics has far more economic viability. A tube from LA to KC,KS or one from KC to the east coast would drop transportation time and labor cost significantly. This is obviously a huge endeavor but, something along this line would allow product to ship half way or completely across the country in less than an hour[1] with availability 24hrs a day. This would be a huge boost in productivity and resource availability.
The point of Hyperloop is to provide a shiny new technology that municipalities can use as an excuse for not investing in public transportation, ensuring that America switches to electric cars instead trains/buses/trams/bikes/etc as ICE automobiles are phased out over the next 20 years.
As in the US the majority of people don't demand public transport, I don't see why municipalities would need an excuse. Outside of nerd circles the hyperloop is rally not even very well known so I don't even understand how that would make sense.
And 'the point' of Hyperloop certainty never was that, that is just conspiracy nonsense by people who are bitter that most people don't share their opinion. The most you could say is that 'hyperloop has been abused by XY people to avoid investing in public transport' but I have not seen a single piece of evidence for that.
Are you really so cynical that every new technology that you don't like, is instantly put to 'ah this is a conspiracy to prevent adoption of what I like'.
I'm very skeptical of this concept because of how difficult it is to build and maintain a massive vacuum chamber that will experience that level of stress over its lifespan. As far as I know, the largest vacuum chamber in the world by volume is the SPF at NASA [1], which is only 37x30m in size. Building such a vessel hundreds of kilometres in length that would have bullet trains going through it multiple times a day seems dangerous and impractical. A single leak anywhere in the tube could potentially cause explosive pressurization [2].
Vacuum chambers are generally safer because they don't explode; they implode. Also, the maximum pressure differential is quite low, by definition, around 14psi.
Although if your traveling at 500mph towards a section of tunnel which has deformed in any way your are pretty screwed.
I don't know about Virgin system but Elon Musk original Hyperloop paper clearly stated:
> The problem with this approach is that it is incredibly hard to maintain a near vacuum in a room, let alone 700 miles (round trip) of large tube with dozens of station gateways and thousands of pods entering and exiting every day. All it takes is one leaky seal or a small crack somewhere in the hundreds of miles of tube and the whole system stops working.
> However, a low pressure (vs. almost no pressure) system set to a level wherestandard commercial pumps could easily overcome an air leak and the transport pods could handle variable air density would be inherently robust.
A modest low pressure in the tube would become high pressure in the tube when you start pushing a piston (Hyperloop car/capsule) down the tube. Where would all the air piling up in front go? This is why the original concept drawings had large fans on the front of the cars, however this concept seems to have been abandoned, leaving this problem unsolved.
The capsule pumps the air behind itself. That is correct.
However this is is Virgin Hyperloop. Its very different from Elon Musk Hyperloop design.
No evidence that Elon Musk changed his design. We know he is still on his back burner. His change seems to be more about moving to tunnels rather then tubes.
The air flows around the train, same as a subway. The low-pressure tube still maintains an lower net pressure and corresponding reduction in a drag vs. a tunnel with standard temperature and pressure, even if there are variations in static pressure along the length of the tube.
> A single leak anywhere in the tube could potentially cause explosive pressurization [2].
Also search 'vacuum cannon' for what a long depressurized tube can do. If the tube ever got breached, the atmosphere would rush into it and propel anything inside the tube like a cannonball.
When I think of WV, the main thing I think of is opioid addiction. Other than that and coal mining I don't really know anything else about WV. So, why WV?
WB has large expanses of area. It's already being renovated, look at the changes in my home town from 1979 to 2020 - it's gone from a quaint small town to a tourist destination and upscale DC suburb with the Clintons owning a home there ('One of America's Coolest Small Towns'-Budget America).
If this experiment works it might enable much more of WV to be considered a suburb of DC. That could be good or bad, but most likely both in different areas. It would definitely be profitable.
This is certainly what optimistic WV politicians what to believe, but unfortunately for them there is the problem of Hyperloop being a bunk gadgetbahn that won't pan out and was probably never meant to. (The true purpose of hyperlink, promoted by a man who sells cars, likely being to derail traditional highspeed rail proposals with "but if we wait N years we could build a Hyperloop instead!")
WV is being taken for a ride, but not the sort they hope for.
Uh... West Virginia is nowhere near the NYC-DC axis. It is potentially on the route between DC and Chicago, but most crayon maps would rather hook the Midwest into the Northeast Corridor by going via Pittsburgh, the Juniata water gaps, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia instead of picking a more southerly route that hits Baltimore or DC.
The site selected is about three hours from DC. But yeah, nowhere near NYC.
Interestingly enough, I was reading an article[0] about how Wheeling and Pittsburgh were competing to be the gateway to the west. When the National Road bypassed Pittsburgh, that was a big win for Wheeling. Most of the rail ended up going through Pittsburgh, though, and then the PA Turnpike opened a path through the mountains that further solidified Pittsburgh's advantage.
For WV's part, I could see them being very motivated to try and bring a new mode of transportation through their state.
In the 1820s and the 1830s, after the opening of the Erie Canal, there was serious competition to figure out which Ohio River city would be the western terminus of various eastern seaboard cities. By the 1840s, however, it became clear that the answer to transportation was going to be the railroad, and terminating at the Ohio River made no sense; the real target was the western entrepôts such as Chicago.
From the perspective of the major NE railroads, the New York Central traveled through the same Mohawk Gap that the Erie Canal uses, and then travel along the south bank of Lake Erie. The Pennsylvania Railroad followed the route of the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal system, that traveled Philadelphia-Pittsburgh via Altoona.
The B&O (originating from a state that had no access to the Ohio River) tried playing off Virginia and Pennsylvania against each other, but Pennsylvania stopped playing ball when it committed to the Pennsylvania Railroad, and Virginia forced the B&O to pick Wheeling over Parkersburg to make it harder for B&O to bridge the Ohio River and push on to Chicago. (The B&O would eventually reach Parkersburg, cross the Ohio there, and continue to Chicago, but this happened a generation later).
The Pennsylvania Turnpike was based on the route of the South Pennsylvania Railroad, which was never built.
Yeah! That South Pennsylvania Railroad was only going to happen because Vanderbilt felt that the Pennsylvania Railroad was stepping on his turf in New York. Interesting stuff.
There's another corridor that might make sense as their first one DC<->WV<->NC Research Triangle. At 4h by car, with a marketed Hyperloop speed (emphasis on marketed) of 670mph, you could theoretically cut the time to 30m. Meaning you could live in WV and commit to Durham,NC. WV is also somewhat equidistant to Pittsburgh,PA and Philadelphia,PA as well.
If you managed to create a commuting hub that allowed 30 minute (plus time to hub, etc.) commutes to Pittsburgh, Durham, DC, and Philadelphia you would have a major hub with a great deal of value, akin to Chicago in the height of the railway days. That's a pretty big if though, and would take a lot of work, money, and politics.
If they did it though they could expand the hub:
* Add a station in Richmond, and a line to VA Beach
* Expand north with a line from Philadelphia to NYC
* Once you are in NYC, expand north line a line to boston
* Finally, expand sound to Atlanta and then to Orlando.
Lot of ifs in there, and not sure I would be on it happening, but if it did the benefits would likely be amazing in terms of less pollution from cars, less unemployment since your pool of workplaces is much higher, potentially less shipping costs,etc. It's something I'd love to see.
West Virginia isn't well placed for that either. The good North-South corridors in the VA/NC area are going to be the Great Appalachian Valley (i.e., the I-81 corridor) or further east as far as the Fall Line (i.e., I-95 corridor). West Virginia doesn't expand that far east, excepting the area around Martinsburg.
WV is a really crappy state to build any sort of hub in. Geographically, it's dominated by a desiccated plateau: every watercourse carves a gorge, with the depth of gorge largely determined by how big the watercourse is. The population of WV is really spread out with no concentrated urban areas. The most concentrated regions are along the major river courses of the Ohio, Kanawha, and Monongahela Rivers, along with the population in the small sliver of the Great Appalachian Valley within its borders.
> with a marketed Hyperloop speed (emphasis on marketed) of 670mph
That is the targeted top speed, AIUI. However, geography hits your butt hard here: it's a simple consequence of physics that higher speeds make your engineering headaches grow more than linearly. Your curve radii grows quadratically with speed, and curve transition length is cubic. Trying to reach max speed in the environment of the Appalachian Plateau will be extremely expensive in terms of viaducts or tunneling, and making up the height difference between the Plateau and the valleys to the east is also going to be challenging.
What kind of right-of-way would this system have? If it's sufficiently deep, would they need permissions from every land owner along the route, or could they just bore straight through 100m beneath the surface without affecting anything above ground?
>> "a trip between New York and Washington would take just 30 minutes"
Would be great, but I'd worry that they will never get the right-of-way to actually bore underneath these huge cities to convenient centrally located stations.
I have to be honest, whenever I read a tech company with the name 'Virgin' in front, I believe that will spend huge amounts of money and not achieve much.
Virgin Galactic and Vrigin Orbit are both burning huge amount of money and have really not achieved much in relation to the amount spend.
However they are always big in the media and Branson is always mentioned along side of Elon Musk. As if Virgin Orbit and SpaceX are even remotely comparable.
As soon as the Hyperloop concept was shown, a company pops up doing it, again making sure the name Vrigin is always mentioned when Elon Musk Hyperloop comes up.
Their method and approach often seem more about big hype and big money raising. These companies also tend to find financing from big money people in the middle east, where with a lot of flash and not much substances you can finance. Virgin Orbit is public and promising intercontinental flight, system they are simply not able to develop by any evidence so far, its honestly borderline scamy.
This plan of spending 100s of million to develop a short test track seem like the same sort of thing. If it cost this much, how much will it cost from SF to LA?
> In a hyperloop system, which uses magnetic levitation to allow near-silent trave
In Elon Musk original hyperloop paper, he was explicit not using magnetic levitation.
Saying: "A viable technical solution is magnetic levitation; however the cost associated with material and construction is prohibitive."
I hope of course they are successful, any attempted at developing new technology is great however I would never bet on them to achieve anything.
I still think the Hyperloop as described in the paper is mostly a good idea, but I think its smart of Elon to switch to tunnels. It makes the legal and safety situation way easier. I think the Boring company is actually developing a Hyperloop test track as well, but this is somewhat speculation at this point.
I don't know about Virgin Orbit, but isn't Virgin Galactic actively testing their aircraft for space flights? [1] I think it's a bit of a stretch to either call them a scam or argue that they didn't achieve much. This area has so many regulations it takes decades to innovate and go from idea to market.
They are suborbital, while this is certainty an achievement its also far more limited in value and market. They have existed for a very, very long time. They have done the first test flights a long time ago now and have for years promised to be operational.
The problem is this, the amount of money they are spending is essentially impossible to make back with suborbital tourism, even if NASA helps them out with some extra flights.
The have a large team and they have burned threw 100s of millions to get to this point and there is still no clear schedule. The continue to make flashy media events showing of seats and designs and so on.
At the same time, their public stock price is incredibly high. To get it there, they seem to imply that they are gone develop hypersonic transport. Hypersonic transport is much, much, much harder then what they are doing so far, and they have struggled mightily for a long time to even get the engine to the point where it is now.
Note that the article states this will just be a 6 mile test track inside of a former coal mine, not an real-world system for transporting passengers from one part of WV to another.
82 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadThe addition of vacuum tunnels does little to alleviate the administrative / financial challenges of our struggling train systems. Vacuum has few practical upsides and a lot of downsides such as safety, reliability, and cost. It boggles the mind as to how investors are falling for this idea.
But perhaps marketing and branding are where Musk/Bronson's talents lie when it comes to high-speed rail? Please tell me otherwise, as I would love to see better rail infrastructure in the US.
Simpsons. Monorail. The song is what sold me on the idea.
Even road expansion is slow and costly and hard to navigate.
That said vacuum comes with many technical issues.
Making fast-enough rail that connects useful places, and upgrading the speed of existing rail that meets the same criteria, is a much better strategy IMO than trying to do "better than flying" rail based on unproven technology. Moonshots have their place, but America should try to catch up to the rest of the world in rail transport instead of pretending we're on the bleeding edge of innovation.
Worse than flying?
I can take the train from Wash. DC to New York City Penn Station, visit my friends who live in the city by walking alone, and then come back home in time for dinner. (Broadway, Time Square, and Wall Street are all walking-distance from Penn Station)
The closest airport to NYC center is LaGuardia Airport, off of the island. Then you have to spend money on an Uber (or take the train!) into the city anyway. (Cheapest to Uber to the Purple line, then take the purple line into the city).
------------
The Train's competition is a Bus. There are PLENTY of cheap busses that travel the route.
--------
Even if you're off of Manhattan in say... Brooklyn. I'd rather be at Penn Station than LaGuardia Airport. Penn Station has a direct subway line to Brooklyn. Its non-obvious how I'd get from LaGuardia to Brooklyn unless my friends spend time to pick me up (or I take an expensive Uber)
Now that I'm an adult with some money, I'm willing to pay $80 on the train ticket. I agree with you, way more leg room, much less stress.
There's a train that departs every hour in the day (and every 2-hours during midnight hours). I don't even need to plan anything. Just walk up to the train station and go. If you do that with airplanes, your costs double or more.
-------
Once you account for the ~1 hour in airport security, you're basically at the same speed as a train anyway. Then the significantly inferior location of LaGuardia vs Penn Station comes into play (you really can get to far more locations from Penn Station than LaGuardia).
--------
> The trains are also more comfortable than [coach] plane seats by a long mile
I did take the higher-end Acela Express once, just to see what its about. The prices are way higher, but you get an entire table for you (and your family).
Its very expensive, but if I were ever going to take children to NYC, I'd probably consider it.
I found a review for the Acela, it matches my experience: https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/acela-business-class/
When I took the Acela Express, families were out playing board games during the train ride. Train-level comfort is far superior to plane comfort.
I'd say Coach Train seats are comparable to Airplane first-class. And first-class Train seats are... well.. you can see the Acela review for yourself.
At the time I think I was paying about $40 or so between Philly and Harrisburg, one or two times a month. Not as cheap as a bus, but well worth it I think.
If you enter a tunnel or something, your cell phone shuts off (but there are rumors of cell phone companies beginning to deploy towers inside of tunnels!! So maybe even the "tunnel problem" will be fixed soon). But in today's age where the cell phone is your connection to the world in general, its a pretty nifty advantage.
something about the smoothness of the rails (speaking from a similar position in the nec) as the world speeds by is incredibly calming to me.
Wall Street is a 3+ mile walk from Penn Station. Sure, it's walkable just like everything in NYC is walkable, but I don't know why you wouldn't just pick another landmark in NYC like Central Park or Grand Central Terminal. Or just say that all are less than a 20 minutes subway ride away.
Also, saying there's a direct subway line to Brooklyn from Manhattan isn't saying much. Brooklyn is huge and to go anywhere besides downtown likely requires a transfer. I'm not arguing that flying is better between DC and NYC, but your arguments are making it seem like it's trivial to get anywhere from Penn Station and impossible to get anywhere from Laguardia.
I can get to LaGuardia in a little less time than it takes to get to Penn Station, especially if I don't go during peak rush hour. I have TSA Pre-check, so I typically don't have to deal with 1 hour+ security lines.
When I head to DC, I take the train simply because it's more comfortable, the trip is typically more consistent, and I don't have to worry about bringing "bad" items like a normal sized tube of toothpaste.
When I visit the DC suburbs and exurbs, as I have family and friends there, flying and particularly driving tend to ultimately come out ahead in terms of convenience and time.
Worth noting that more people live in Queens than Manhattan or Fairfax County, Virginia than DC.
Manhattan is definitely the center of the NY metro area, and virtually all business is conducted there, but that is much less true for DC. The DC suburbs actually have a ton of jobs.
It's an imperfect analogy, but the DC area is perhaps closer to the Bay Area in terms of having multiple employment centers. Maybe more extreme.
Hmm, I guess a lot of this comes down to where you're going, where you're coming from, and what you're planning to do.
My friends live in Brooklyn and Manhattan. They pay high rent prices by they sold their cars (100% car free). So if I visit NYC, I have to figure out transportation on my own to meet them at whatever location. (Broadway, or various talk-shows like Colbert etc. etc.), which are typically on Manhattan proper.
----
I'll say this: from the perspective of Wash DC -> NYC, I have the choice of either Planes or Trains. The Trains run along-side the Airports (in fact, there are more Train stops). Trains seem like the more convenient option.
From your perspective: NYC -> Wash DC, I think the airport makes more sense. There's less to do in Wash DC than NYC. Union Station is cool and all, but most of what to do in the area is in the suburbs, which inevitably means you need a car. If you're getting a car, might as well land at an airport.
The Wash DC -> NYC trip however is accomplished without ever renting a car, and just staying on the subway lines to get wherever you need.
Tokyo to Osaka, for instance, is a relatively short distance (300 miles), and both cities are larger than any city in the US, with Nagoya at the half-way point. The quantity of humans that can serve is an order of magnitude higher than in the same distance in the USA, even on the eastern seaboard.
It just doesn't work for us. The dramatically reduced costs of infrastructure for constructing mounted tubes on pylons, with each section being a fungible, mass produced item, makes rail obsolete. Understood that a lot of the tech is "unproven", but it's too promising to let curmudgeons focus on the stupid, expensive fool's errand of high-speed rail in the US because they are too unimaginative to see what's available to us in the future.
While Tokyo is more populous (I assume that's what you mean by 'larger', if not Houston and LA have a few words for you) than any city here in the US, Osaka is not - however New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago are far more spread out than could ever be possible in Japan.
This makes no sense. The "mounted tubes on pylons" contain rails inside and therefore are MORE not less expensive than just "rails mounted on pylons," which we already have. A more complex rail does not make simple rail obsolete. Nor does it beat it on fungibility, cost, or mass production. Where are you getting these "dramatically reduced costs"?
But... they already do, at least for short flights. LA to SF is about 600km, or a little under two hours by a 'normal' (ICE or similar) high speed system (1.5 hours by maglev). It's about 1 hour 20 minutes by plane, so by the time you check in, get through security, get on and off, get to and from the airport, the train definitely wins.
Something like this might theoretically compete with long distance flight, I suppose.
High speed rail track is dramatically more difficult and expensive to build than a hyperloop tube system. This was, from the beginning, the huge differentiator between the two. Hyperloop tubes aren't comparable to road or rail bridges/tracks, but instead are comparable to constructing oil/gas/water pipelines. We know how much easier it is already to build those.
How many pipelines are wide enough diameter to move an entire vehicle and designed to handle the stress of multi-ton vehicles as their dynamic loads? And how many of those are supported on pylons rather than being fully buried?
At such high speeds as proposed, any sagging is impermissible (again, unlike pipelines). Of course it's solved engineering problem but it markedly increases the construction price and complexity.
So, no, hyperloop is not really comparable to pipelines.
If you took a 300km/hr train from Orlando to New York City, you’d still be competing poorly with a $100 Spirit Airlines flight.
That’s almost 6 hours on the train compared to a 2 hour flight.
Even in China where they’ve got the best high speed rail system in the world, most of the major cities are concentrated on one cost with huge populations and you still have Chinese travelers choosing low cost airlines for many longer trips (air travel in China was exploding before Covid).
I think what America needs to do is not to focus on long distance rail (which is what the current Amtrak CEO is doing) and to expand intercity high speed rail lines between major cities. There should be high speed rail linking relatively close regions that have clusters of cities.
(And of course, all of this is a great argument for making airline tickets pay more for their climate externalities - trains should be more attractive to consumers on price because they’re the lowest carbon form of transport)
> That’s almost 6 hours on the train compared to a 2 hour flight.
A 2 hour flight also has you getting to the airport early-ish (~1h), going through check-in and/or security (0.75-2.0h, 1.5h average in my experience), waiting for luggage upon arrival and navigating the airport (~0.5h), getting to center city from the airport (~1h). So in addition to 2 hours in the air, there's an additional cost of 1h+1.5h+0.5h+1h=4h, so that's 6 hours in total, and that's best case scenario.
I'd choose train travel over plane travel always, provided the trip is not more than a couple thousand kilometers and it's an express. Trains are spacious (in comparison), and you don't experience intense pressure changes, or the bad air conditioning that you have in planes. Air travel tires me out for the rest of the day; after train travel I find myself energetic enough to do things the same day.
Related:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19557848
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19560125
The other thing is that the airport process isn't very friendly.
And that's if everything goes well. Delays are frequent. Add on top of that the cramped cabin, luggage restrictions, and that they ask you to not get up or use the bathroom for so long while the plane is going up or coming down (most of the ride on these short hops).
And it's _expensive_.
Flying is awful and I hate it and will gladly choose the train if it's remotely competitive.
It does not use vacuum:
> The problem with this approach is that it is incredibly hard to maintain a near vacuum in a room, let alone 700 miles (round trip) of large tube with dozens of station gateways and thousands of pods entering and exiting every day. All it takes is one leaky seal or a small crack somewhere in the hundreds of miles of tube and the whole system stops working.
> However, a low pressure (vs. almost no pressure) system set to a level wherestandard commercial pumps could easily overcome an air leak and the transport pods could handle variable air density would be inherently robust.
It does not use MagLev:
> A viable technical solution is magnetic levitation; however the cost associated with material and construction is prohibitive.
There are still challenges, but because of the Hype any company doing anything related just calls their system 'Hyperloop' as well.
> It boggles the mind as to how investors are falling for this idea. > But perhaps marketing and branding are where Musk/Bronson's talents lie when it comes to high-speed rail? Please tell me otherwise, as I would love to see better rail infrastructure in the US.
Musk has not asked a single investor for money for Hyperloop. He likely knows its currently not a great investment.
Bronson is a guy who jumps on anything related to Musk and makes a bad copy of it that gather lots of money and then doesn't do much with it.
IIRC, the proposed pressure was less than 1 kPa. That would be less than the pressure at the Karman Line, the boundary of space.
The hyperloop, as a concept alone, has value if the marginal cost over conventional methods is supplemented by the increased efficiency in transportation. It will only make sense where predictable constant travel occurs (i.e. NY to DC). The is the same for trains or any other communal means of transport. I primarily don't think it should be a passenger driven technology. The issue with passengers is they don't travel consistently for 24hrs a day.
I honestly think a vacuum train for commercial logistics has far more economic viability. A tube from LA to KC,KS or one from KC to the east coast would drop transportation time and labor cost significantly. This is obviously a huge endeavor but, something along this line would allow product to ship half way or completely across the country in less than an hour[1] with availability 24hrs a day. This would be a huge boost in productivity and resource availability.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain.
Building the tubes is a big cost, but they should be much less intrusive and politically problematic than roads or rail.
And 'the point' of Hyperloop certainty never was that, that is just conspiracy nonsense by people who are bitter that most people don't share their opinion. The most you could say is that 'hyperloop has been abused by XY people to avoid investing in public transport' but I have not seen a single piece of evidence for that.
Are you really so cynical that every new technology that you don't like, is instantly put to 'ah this is a conspiracy to prevent adoption of what I like'.
Maybe the Hyperloop is this century's Monorail...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Power_Facility
[2] https://youtu.be/0N17tEW_WEU?t=168
Although if your traveling at 500mph towards a section of tunnel which has deformed in any way your are pretty screwed.
> The problem with this approach is that it is incredibly hard to maintain a near vacuum in a room, let alone 700 miles (round trip) of large tube with dozens of station gateways and thousands of pods entering and exiting every day. All it takes is one leaky seal or a small crack somewhere in the hundreds of miles of tube and the whole system stops working.
> However, a low pressure (vs. almost no pressure) system set to a level wherestandard commercial pumps could easily overcome an air leak and the transport pods could handle variable air density would be inherently robust.
However this is is Virgin Hyperloop. Its very different from Elon Musk Hyperloop design.
No evidence that Elon Musk changed his design. We know he is still on his back burner. His change seems to be more about moving to tunnels rather then tubes.
Also search 'vacuum cannon' for what a long depressurized tube can do. If the tube ever got breached, the atmosphere would rush into it and propel anything inside the tube like a cannonball.
If this experiment works it might enable much more of WV to be considered a suburb of DC. That could be good or bad, but most likely both in different areas. It would definitely be profitable.
WV is being taken for a ride, but not the sort they hope for.
Anyway, WV is between NYC and DC, and there was a good site available for them to build their prototype.
Interestingly enough, I was reading an article[0] about how Wheeling and Pittsburgh were competing to be the gateway to the west. When the National Road bypassed Pittsburgh, that was a big win for Wheeling. Most of the rail ended up going through Pittsburgh, though, and then the PA Turnpike opened a path through the mountains that further solidified Pittsburgh's advantage.
For WV's part, I could see them being very motivated to try and bring a new mode of transportation through their state.
[0]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20093288?seq=1
From the perspective of the major NE railroads, the New York Central traveled through the same Mohawk Gap that the Erie Canal uses, and then travel along the south bank of Lake Erie. The Pennsylvania Railroad followed the route of the Pennsylvania Main Line Canal system, that traveled Philadelphia-Pittsburgh via Altoona.
The B&O (originating from a state that had no access to the Ohio River) tried playing off Virginia and Pennsylvania against each other, but Pennsylvania stopped playing ball when it committed to the Pennsylvania Railroad, and Virginia forced the B&O to pick Wheeling over Parkersburg to make it harder for B&O to bridge the Ohio River and push on to Chicago. (The B&O would eventually reach Parkersburg, cross the Ohio there, and continue to Chicago, but this happened a generation later).
The Pennsylvania Turnpike was based on the route of the South Pennsylvania Railroad, which was never built.
A number of federal agencies have offices there, including the FBI. I believe it's the central fingerprint data facility.
There are tens of thousands of people who work in DC, but live in West Virginia because it has fewer taxes than Maryland or Virginia.
If you managed to create a commuting hub that allowed 30 minute (plus time to hub, etc.) commutes to Pittsburgh, Durham, DC, and Philadelphia you would have a major hub with a great deal of value, akin to Chicago in the height of the railway days. That's a pretty big if though, and would take a lot of work, money, and politics.
If they did it though they could expand the hub:
* Add a station in Richmond, and a line to VA Beach * Expand north with a line from Philadelphia to NYC * Once you are in NYC, expand north line a line to boston * Finally, expand sound to Atlanta and then to Orlando.
Lot of ifs in there, and not sure I would be on it happening, but if it did the benefits would likely be amazing in terms of less pollution from cars, less unemployment since your pool of workplaces is much higher, potentially less shipping costs,etc. It's something I'd love to see.
WV is a really crappy state to build any sort of hub in. Geographically, it's dominated by a desiccated plateau: every watercourse carves a gorge, with the depth of gorge largely determined by how big the watercourse is. The population of WV is really spread out with no concentrated urban areas. The most concentrated regions are along the major river courses of the Ohio, Kanawha, and Monongahela Rivers, along with the population in the small sliver of the Great Appalachian Valley within its borders.
> with a marketed Hyperloop speed (emphasis on marketed) of 670mph
That is the targeted top speed, AIUI. However, geography hits your butt hard here: it's a simple consequence of physics that higher speeds make your engineering headaches grow more than linearly. Your curve radii grows quadratically with speed, and curve transition length is cubic. Trying to reach max speed in the environment of the Appalachian Plateau will be extremely expensive in terms of viaducts or tunneling, and making up the height difference between the Plateau and the valleys to the east is also going to be challenging.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgantown_Personal_Rapid_Tran...
I always thought that Hyperloop was going to avoid contrasting terrain in the early days.
>> "a trip between New York and Washington would take just 30 minutes"
Would be great, but I'd worry that they will never get the right-of-way to actually bore underneath these huge cities to convenient centrally located stations.
Virgin Galactic and Vrigin Orbit are both burning huge amount of money and have really not achieved much in relation to the amount spend.
However they are always big in the media and Branson is always mentioned along side of Elon Musk. As if Virgin Orbit and SpaceX are even remotely comparable.
As soon as the Hyperloop concept was shown, a company pops up doing it, again making sure the name Vrigin is always mentioned when Elon Musk Hyperloop comes up.
Their method and approach often seem more about big hype and big money raising. These companies also tend to find financing from big money people in the middle east, where with a lot of flash and not much substances you can finance. Virgin Orbit is public and promising intercontinental flight, system they are simply not able to develop by any evidence so far, its honestly borderline scamy.
This plan of spending 100s of million to develop a short test track seem like the same sort of thing. If it cost this much, how much will it cost from SF to LA?
> In a hyperloop system, which uses magnetic levitation to allow near-silent trave
In Elon Musk original hyperloop paper, he was explicit not using magnetic levitation.
Saying: "A viable technical solution is magnetic levitation; however the cost associated with material and construction is prohibitive."
I hope of course they are successful, any attempted at developing new technology is great however I would never bet on them to achieve anything.
I still think the Hyperloop as described in the paper is mostly a good idea, but I think its smart of Elon to switch to tunnels. It makes the legal and safety situation way easier. I think the Boring company is actually developing a Hyperloop test track as well, but this is somewhat speculation at this point.
Here a link to the original paper:
- https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperl...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipTwo
The problem is this, the amount of money they are spending is essentially impossible to make back with suborbital tourism, even if NASA helps them out with some extra flights.
The have a large team and they have burned threw 100s of millions to get to this point and there is still no clear schedule. The continue to make flashy media events showing of seats and designs and so on.
At the same time, their public stock price is incredibly high. To get it there, they seem to imply that they are gone develop hypersonic transport. Hypersonic transport is much, much, much harder then what they are doing so far, and they have struggled mightily for a long time to even get the engine to the point where it is now.
My company, Megiddo Hyperloop, just chose West Virginia too!