Hyperloop - yes or no?

[jjb1970]

https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/institution-responds-to-hyperloop-one-test

 

Surprised this one hasn't generated more discussion.

[BG John]

I like this bit

travelling at those speeds means that any fault in the system would mean everyone on board would die

[jjb1970]

I've done a bit of a U-turn on this. When it was first proposed I dismissed it is just a hyped up pipe dream, the only purpose of which was to throw a hand grenade to disrupt the California high speed rail plans and get a bit of publicity for Elon Musk. However, after thinking about it quite a bit I think the idea has real potential and is a very clever concept.

[Trog]

These atmospheric pressure transport systems usually end up with a rats breakfast of problems.

[Zomboid]

It's an interesting technology which is probably destined to go the way of maglev - it'll probably work, but won't offer sufficient advantages over flying or conventional rail to ever really catch on.

[olivegreen]

https://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/institution-responds-to-hyperloop-one-test

 

Surprised this one hasn't generated more discussion.

 

I'm not, jjb.

Frankly, however exciting the technology, with the current state of finances globally, the public aversion to risk (mentioned in the driverless TGV thread recently), the NIMBY attitude to the infrastructure that would be needed according to the article, the power consumption (in an era in which we are trying to reduce it) and a host of other things mentioned above and not, I think it is a non-starter commercially for another 50 years at least - which, of course, gives it time to be developed perhaps into a more realistic proposition. Investors will need to be convinced of a need for such a system (yes, I admit I do go on rather about need!) and its advantages over air and high-speed rail as currently understood - technical hype is not enough by itself to convince.

We should bear in mind also that its vision is for a vast country like the USA (or perhaps China or Russia), with huge distances - Europe hardly fits the same profile.

 

(Minor edit)

Edited July 15, 2017 by olivegreen

[jjb1970]

I think it is true that the attractiveness of very high speed is determined to some extent by distance and population distribution. One reason it hasn't really attracted the same support in the UK compared to some other European countries is our rather unusual population distribution which is so heavily weighted to SE England where high density commuter trains are what matter far more than high speed inter-city trains. If you look at population spread rather than land area then the UK is a much smaller country than it looks on maps. I know the people responsible for HS2 made a lot out of their prioritising connectivity between population centres rather than just going for a high speed line along one of the three traditional routes to the North (WCML, MML, ECML).

The concept of evacuating a tube makes sense for a very high speed train as the bulk of the power is needed to overcome air resistance, and the exponential relationship between power and air resistance means that at higher speeds you need huge increases in power for modest increases in speed. The viability to some extent will depend on materials science and the linear induction motors I think. Clearly there are a lot of risk management issues to be considered but I don't see anything that can't be managed. As an alternative to air travel and long distance high speed rail I really see a lot of potential in the idea.

[jjb1970]

It's worth noting that one of the leading teams involved is from TU Delft (NL)

They're not related to CE Delft are they? If they are then I might change my opinion on the hyperloop concept.......

[jjb1970]

That's OK then, I'll retain my faith in the potential of the hyperloop. CE Delft are the archetypal churn out any old garbage report on demand to anybody looking for a report to support their ideas. They do a lot of reports on the maritime sector for green NGOs and some of them are proper stinkers.

[Edwin_m]

The big unanswered question for me is security.  It seems to me the consequence of an explosion on board would be similar to those in an aircraft, and therefore the screening measures would also have to be similar.  This means that for a country with a conventional rail network, the speed advantage of Hyperloop would outweigh the increased check-in time only when it gets out to a distance of over 100 miles or so - or more if the Hyperloop station isn't in the city centre.  Stopping at intermediate stations would cause the same problem and destroy the speed advantage, so it's really only useful between major city pairs, rather like HS2 but without the ability to run beyond is own dedicated infrastructure. 

[brack]

I'm not sure too many people will like the idea of sitting in a 7' diameter windowless cylinder stuck inside a 7' and a bit steel windowless tube. If something were to go wrong (even a mundane breakdown or delay) how do you get out? I know you can't really get out of a plane en route but the pilot can attempt a landing or divert to another airport and there is a chance of survival.

Is technology developing to a point where physical face to face meetings will not be as necessary as now?

I wouldn't say it can't work, but I think there's an awful lot to work out, and not that much benefit. Building new, proper railway lines for freight with heavy engineering works to reduce gradients and curves is probably a more useful use of capital, but doesn't generate the same headlines. Funnily enough that seems to be what China are doing in order to strengthen their grip on trade through the belt and road project.

[The Johnster]

No.

[Hesperus]

I think it has potential,  bear in mind that we will run out of fossil fuels one day and electric aeroplanes aren't looking likely.  This technology can run on electricity and would run into the centre of cities rather than the outskirts.  Scale the pods up to a decent size and you can have a waitress service on longer runs such as New York to Los Angeles or even accross the Atlantic.

 

I don't think we will see it in the UK in the next 50 years but I think it will spring up somewhere in the next 20.

 

 

travelling at those speeds means that any fault in the system would mean everyone on board would die

 

I'm not convinced that is the case as much as current high speed transport.  It is essentially travelling very fast down a tube,  if something goes wrong it will still be travelling down the tube unlike a conventional train which can head off into the scenary after a fast derailment or a plane which tends to hit the ground rather hard.  If the vacuum leaks out it will certainly slow down rather fast but not necessarily critically

[Gerald Henriksen]

I think it has potential,  bear in mind that we will run out of fossil fuels one day and electric aeroplanes aren't looking likely.  This technology can run on electricity and would run into the centre of cities rather than the outskirts. 

 

 

The problem is that it then runs into the problem anyone has trying to service the centre of cities - getting the land both for the tubes and the station is very expensive - I believe their initial announcements on how they would be much cheaper in California conveniently had the terminal stations outside of LA and SF where land was still relatively cheap.

[caradoc]

What is the carrying capacity of this system ? Given the extremely high speeds, presumably an extremely large separation will be required so that if one pod/train stops the one behind does not collide with it at 400mph !

[Trog]

I suppose they could make it seem a little less like a padded cell, if they put a row of HD TV screens along the side walls and showed a suitably edited and timed film shot out of a conventional train window. They could make the effect even more realistic if the spacing of the TV screens and the seats was mismatched.

[olivegreen]

  If the vacuum leaks out it will certainly slow down rather fast but not necessarily critically

 

!!!!!   … starting from around the speed of sound (the I Mech E article refers to 700mph….if, of course, that is ever achieved!)…?

 

I hae me doots !

 

(Edit - for completeness, the speed of sound at sea level is about 760mph… but you'll get my point!)

Edited July 16, 2017 by olivegreen

[Hesperus]

Well if someone drives a bulldozer into the tube and it all goes at once it's going to be a fairly dramatic deceleration. But if someone drove a bulldozer onto a TGV line the result wouldn't be pretty either. A small leak in a 200 mile long tube would see the overall air pressure rise comparatively slowly, sensors could slow the train automatically when it was detected.

 

So long as it isn't built by the #####* I can't see how it is more dangerous than flying.

 

*Insert own personal stereotypes here, I'll go with people from Wolverhampton.

[olivegreen]

Your point taken, Hesperus. My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, of course, but for me (as I said earlier) the system is a non-starter for many decades, not least from the financial and commercial points of view: I was never suggesting it would be more or less dangerous than any other. 

 

I don't know anyone from Wolverhampton, so will refrain from comment! 

[jjb1970]

I think of all the arguments against the hyperloop concept (and even though I like the concept, I'm not oblivious to the issues around it) I think those relating to risk management are the weakest. There is nothing that unusual or exotic about the risk factors. The risks can be analysed and managed, of that I have no doubt at all.

 

The passenger experience is more valid point, but against this I would point to the fact that modern air travel is an utterly appalling experience of which the only redeeming feature is it gets you to point B quickly if point B happens to be many hundreds or thousands of miles away. Despite the ghastly experience people still fly. Even if you fly business class it still sucks in my opinion. So if the hyperloop cut journey times I think passengers would adapt to and accept being shot down a steel tube.

[Theakerr]

Didn't Dan Dare of Eagle fame show this mode of transport?

[modfather]

It's just not going to be waterproof enough for dawlush. I'm out.

[Gerald Henriksen]

The latest on Hyperloop:

 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/888053175155949572

[railsquid]

The latest on Hyperloop:

 

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/888053175155949572

 

And it's not clear what "verbal approval" was granted by whom for what.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/20/elon-musk-hyperloop-verbal-government-approval

 

Personally all I see (as long as there's no proven working prototype) are the are first 4 letters of this concept.

 

Also did tunnelling technology suddenly get way cheaper?

[Gerald Henriksen]

And it's not clear what "verbal approval" was granted by whom for what.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/20/elon-musk-hyperloop-verbal-government-approval

 

Personally all I see (as long as there's no proven working prototype) are the are first 4 letters of this concept.

 

Also did tunnelling technology suddenly get way cheaper?

 

 

Musk seems to think he can dramatically decrease the cost of tunneling, hence his creation of The Boring Company last year to solve LA traffic woes:

 

https://www.boringcompany.com/faq/