Hyperloop - yes or no?

[brack]

Reduced live and dynamic loads result in lighter structures resulting in cost savings. There are little to no cost savings in the tunnelling of the tubes but the station costs are considerably smaller as the cavern for the station is considerably smaller. Some sample figures in the public domain: Standard rail budget cost $10m/mile, High Speed $100m/mile, Hyperloop $70m/mile.

Let me think about what happens to projected costs once someone actually starts a project and tries to make it work...

By any chance are the rail/high speed costings based on actual prices of projects built, whilst the hyperloop figures are plucked from Elon Musk's vacuum tube?

[Glorious NSE]

Reduced live and dynamic loads result in lighter structures resulting in cost savings. There are little to no cost savings in the tunnelling of the tubes but the station costs are considerably smaller as the cavern for the station is considerably smaller.

 

Live and dynamic loads will only be less if the vehicle is substantially lighter - that's likely, but not guaranteed, especially as it could conceivably be a lot bigger than an equivalent rail vehicle.

 

The cavern for the station would only be smaller if you're building your line to handle substantially less capacity than rail surely...if you built underground rail stations to take single car trains they would also be much smaller and cheaper!

 

 

Standard rail budget cost $10m/mile, High Speed $100m/mile, Hyperloop $70m/mile.

 

Okay - 2014 figures, but nevertheless: http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/sectors/why-china-can-build-high-speed-rail34socheaply7365/

 

According to a World Bank paper published last week, China’s high-speed rail so far has cost between $17m and $21m per kilometre, even though it has a high ratio of big-ticket viaducts and tunnels. In Europe that figure is $25m-$39m per kilometre, while in California, the only US state currently planning a high-speed line, it’s more like $56m/km.

 

That would suggest HSR ought to be substantially cheaper than hyperloop.

[Glorious NSE]

Anyone else think it's reminiscent of this....
https://youtu.be/mYDSdczI5ys?list=PLOYs0-h5AfPSDN06gHisyoVgYW-CiYdYl&t=76

[jjb1970]

Hyperloop promises far higher speeds than can be achievable with conventional high speed rail and should be energy efficient. I see it as a very real threat to air on some routes and a viable alternative to high speed rail. I think the technical challenges are manageable.

[Glorious NSE]

Hyperloop promises far higher speeds than can be achievable with conventional high speed rail and should be energy efficient. I see it as a very real threat to air on some routes and a viable alternative to high speed rail. I think the technical challenges are manageable.

I would agree with most of that - what I struggle with are the claims that this is easier and (despite little real-world experience) much, much cheaper. 

 

I can't see how they can build equivalent, but more complicated infrastructure for substantially less, which is their claim. So far, we do have working commercial high-speed maglev, which is the underlying core technology of hyperloop. Despite having off-the-peg tech, that doesn't come out substantially cheaper (in fact, it looks slightly more expensive) to construct than the HSR built in the same country, so adding the complication of putting it in a tube at vacuum to it, with all the implications of that, will certainly not make it any cheaper!

 

Branson's in full Lyle Lanley mode, transport projects everywhere now get "we could build you a hyperloop for that...."

Edited May 3, 2018 by Glorious NSE

[APOLLO]

Currently our roads are full of pot holes with no money to fix them, our railways are creaking at the seams (especially in the SE), we have no money now to electrify key routes, and the ones we are doing are not being done very well (GW main line etc). HS2 has cost  an arm and a leg and not a yard has been built yet (but we DO need that, and the northern bits also). Our new trains seem to be an expensive joke (reading the 800 thread). I could go on -------

 

650mph in a tube ? Who will travel on this - the rich & famous - NOT you and me that's for sure. Cost per ticket ?

 

York to London in 30 mins - WHY ? - with our communication technology evolving there is less need for business travel and folks sure won't commute via the hyperloop tube.

 

Our current UK inter-city network (in my eyes) is excellent. Wigan (my home town) has a hourly service to London, fastest train in just over 2 hours. Most Glasgow - London trains call at Preston, Wigan & Warrington. Will this hyperloop thing stop, drop off & pick up passengers at such towns en route ?

 

It's a mega vanity project in my eyes, certainly not a leap in technology, (think Brunel's atmospheric railway !!) and for the average guy, you, me and the poor commuter a thorough waste of time effort and money.

 

Back to the drawing board Elon - invent an automatic pot hole filling machine !!!!!

 

Brit15

[APOLLO]

Just another couple of points

 

Hyperloop promises far higher speeds than can be achievable with conventional high speed rail and should be energy efficient. I see it as a very real threat to air on some routes and a viable alternative to high speed rail. I think the technical challenges are manageable.

 

I will not argue with the above. It's just a suspended / ground level / underground large diameter steel pipe. I've planned & supervised the laying of miles of the stuff (gas pipes). The hyperloop vacuum bit is easy also (approx 14PSI in old units) - some gas mains run at several hundred PSI. The propulsion / suspension system, linear motors / magnetic levitation etc was invented donkey's years ago - so I'm sure it will work.

 

My doubts are about its acceptance / affordability / location of boarding points of this form of travel by the general public, cost (astronomical for what it is), etc. I also question again why do we (in the UK) need to travel so fast ? 250 mph rail will be acceptable to most for future high speed rail, city to city (probably not stopping at Wigan !!).

 

If, as jib states, the thing is built and threatens air & fast rail, (which I very much doubt) these industries will take a gigantic hit, especially on future investment etc.

 

I repeat it is a vanity project for the elite, by the elite.

 

Brit15

[letterspider]

Just another couple of points

 

 

I will not argue with the above. It's just a suspended / ground level / underground large diameter steel pipe. I've planned & supervised the laying of miles of the stuff (gas pipes). The hyperloop vacuum bit is easy also (approx 14PSI in old units) - some gas mains run at several hundred PSI. The propulsion / suspension system, linear motors / magnetic levitation etc was invented donkey's years ago - so I'm sure it will work.

 

My doubts are about its acceptance / affordability / location of boarding points of this form of travel by the general public, cost (astronomical for what it is), etc. I also question again why do we (in the UK) need to travel so fast ? 250 mph rail will be acceptable to most for future high speed rail, city to city (probably not stopping at Wigan !!).

 

If, as jib states, the thing is built and threatens air & fast rail, (which I very much doubt) these industries will take a gigantic hit, especially on future investment etc.

 

I repeat it is a vanity project for the elite, by the elite.

 

Brit15

 

I would go so far as to see it is a ruse by Elon Musk to divert attention away from the massive losses recently announced by Tesla. The test track looks like it has had hundreds of millions of dollars poured into it but if what you say is true then it could have been cobbled together for a lot less than a million dollars.

That would work out very cheap for publicity that could fool and assure investors. I would expect Saatchi and Saatchi would charge considerably more!

[stivesnick]

Underground transport systems, need a means of escape. 

 

Although removing the air from the tube, removes the fire risk, you still need to get people out and rescue staff and maintainers in.

 

The discussions on how often you need an access shaft should prove interesting ( and also very expensive) - the fire service will have views on this.

 

Second point, has anyone seen any numbers about the likely capacity of such as system? It is unlikely to match that of HS2.

 

Nick

[Grovenor]

Second point, has anyone seen any numbers about the likely capacity of such as system? It is unlikely to match that of HS2.

Nick

 See post #70 and follow the link. Capacity discussed near the end of the article.

Regards

[brack]

Perhaps the pod has a mini escape pod on it?

 

Capacity is not an issue, there are not that many millionaires to shuttle around in tubes, protected from the peasants (there's an element of vasari's corridor about the whole thing).

[Edwin_m]

Perhaps the pod has a mini escape pod on it?

 

Capacity is not an issue, there are not that many millionaires to shuttle around in tubes, protected from the peasants (there's an element of vasari's corridor about the whole thing).

But it means the lower passenger numbers will have to justify the infrastructure on their own.  Whereas an air service achieves a comparable journey time with nothing except an airport at each end.  And if we're talking about people being strapped in for their safety and about depressurisation drills then I don't see the staff to passenger ratio being much different from an aircraft either.  Basically the costs are unlikely to stack up. 

 

And of course if one of the peasants, or a terrorist group of your choice, manages to knock the tube out of line by a few centimetres with a bomb or truck then the capsule hits the wall, which at that sort of speed could be pretty nasty. 

[Colin_McLeod]

And "if you travel at more than 20mph your head will explode", so said the naysayers in George Stevenson's time.

[jjb1970]

Something to keep in mind is that air travel is the hardest transport sector to decarbonise. There is work to develop electric aircraft but it's difficult to see electric aircraft being feasible beyond small and relatively short range designs. The only answer the aviation sector has is bio-fuels but there are question marks over the carbon credentials and other aspects of bio-fuels, they still result in emissions and the effects of these emissions can be more problematic because of altitude. So an energy efficient alternative that could be powered by renewable or low carbon energy could look increasingly attractive as the relative share of aviation emissions grows and as there is increasing pressure to decarbonise.

[APOLLO]

Somebody (Trump !!!!) aught to tell the currently erupting volcano in Hawaii to "decarbonise" and stop spewing CO2 etc etc into the atmosphere !! (also stop livestock around the world farting and belching !!). Mother nature has a lot to say in this.

 

Personally I'm getting a little tired of this demonisation of carbon and fossil fuels, banning of diesel etc. Not to say the billions (trillions ?) of tons of CO2 etc emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution is not having an effect - it is - but we can't reverse it, and with population still expanding rapidly there's next to nothing we can do about that either. Everybody now demands the "western" lifestyle.

 

I'm not a climate change / global warming denier (though I question it) - just that we are now past the tipping point. We need better answers to our forthcoming problems, from political, engineering and scientific sources than hyperloops, banning diesel etc.

 

I have a sneaky feeling the problem simply now is far too big to handle on a worldwide basis - we are just playing with it at the edges, certainly here in the UK (small emitter). Will the main emitters USA, China India etc fully decarbonise (by 2040 etc). NO.

 

Brit15

[pete_mcfarlane]

A definite no from the bearded one. 

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/11/09/future-sir-richard-bransons-virgin-hyperloop-one-doubt-lays/

[Talltim]

Why doesn’t this poll have a “Yes if the thrash and clag are good. Oh, and it has opening droplights” option?

[GoingUnderground]

I imagine points are possible but would probably be suitable for only very low speeds, rather like on monorails where a whole chunk of the track is moved sideways.

Yes, that's how I saw points working, but you would either need airlocks to preserve the vacuum in the tube either side of the point, or have them in low speed sections outside of the tube when some other means of redirecting the pods could be used.

 

But on further reflection, I'm sure high speed points would be possible. Just think of how junctions work in tunnels, with an enlarged bore housing the point. The only difference would be how to redirect the pods accurately within the enlarged bore to the desired exit. That doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem to me.

Edited November 10, 2018 by GoingUnderground

[Edwin_m]

Yes, that's how I saw points working, but you would either need airlocks to preserve the vacuum in the tube either side of the point, or have them in low speed sections outside of the tube when some other means of redirecting the pods could be used.

 

But on further reflection, I'm sure high speed points would be possible. Just think of how junctions work in tunnels, with an enlarged bore housing the point. The only difference would be how to redirect the pods accurately within the enlarged bore to the desired exit. That doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem to me.

IT depends somewhat on how hte propulsion system works, but I would expect a fairly sizeable piece of the guideway to have to be moved to re-direct a vehicle.  A high speed junction would have to be very long to minimise lateral accelerations, but perhaps less long than a railway junction of the same speed if the vehicle can rotate in the tube to give a theoretical 90 degrees of tilt. 

[brack]

I'd have thought you could bring the vehicle to a stop and have a giant revolver cylinder with multiple 'firing chambers' that could rotate to line up with tunnels/tubes at different levels...

[Dagworth]

First test of hyperloop tech with passengers on board 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54838982

 

And do I see an RMweb member's name there in the comments?

 

Andi

[Andy Reichert]

Regardless of all the other technology , social and financial issues, I've never seen a mention of how the pod gets rid of the heat generated by the waste transmission power.

 

You can't cool a  object by conduction or convection in a vacuum. No is there any possibility of forced air fan or fast motion cooling or normal air conditioning. So given the enormous work done over distance, how does the system not cook the passengers?

 

Andy

[Nearholmer]

34 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

the waste transmission power

 

What exactly do you mean by "waste transmission power"?

 

And, why do you say the work done is "enormous"? Surely the point of the system is to reduce all the forces exerted by air resistance, track resistance etc to very low levels, thereby reducing the work done to very low levels.

 

I get that there will be some sources of heat, however hard the designers work to avoid that, but if they are small enough (maybe to the level where the metabolisms of the passengers dominates ?!) there may be technology that can cope, for example phase-change cooling.

 

My guess is that one phase-change will have to happen on-board anyway if the journey is of any length: liguid breathing air to gaseous breathing air. That will suck at least some energy out of its environment.

 

The current version seems not to have the half-a-jet-engine of compressor to act as pressure bypass, which is probably a very good thing from a heat perspective.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2020 by Nearholmer

[Andy Reichert]

Acceleration and braking a pod full of 20 or so people up to and down from 400 mph in a very short time takes a lot of power, regardless of low friction and the force needed is generated within the sealed tube. All that kinetic energy is transferred to and from the pod with less than 100% efficiency.  The difference is going to be a lot of heat with nowhere to go. Even radiation is going to be reflected back to some extent.

 

Andy

[Nearholmer]

8 minutes ago, Andy Reichert said:

All that kinetic energy is transferred to and from the pod with less than 100% efficiency.

 

Agreed, but the key issue is surely: how much less than 100%?

 

I guess that without access the the detailed workings of the people on the project, its going to be a long time before we find out.

 

One of the prototype photo kicking around shows the vehicle being black, which might hint at part of the heat-rejection strategy.