Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 322 posts

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#121

Post by keenmaster »

AlexandrB wrote: post #9

This is evergreen when talking about Hyperloop: http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/12/gadgetbahn/ The problems with building this have nothing to do with technology but with right-of-way, investment, and politics. If those factors were solved, we'd already have high-speed rail in places where Hyperloop has been proposed. The fact that we don't says that Hyperloop is unlikely to be feasible as well.

>The problems with building this have nothing to do with technology but with right-of-way, investment, and politics. If those factors were solved, we'd already have high-speed rail in places where Hyperloop has been proposed. The fact that we don't says that Hyperloop is unlikely to be feasible as well.

I disagree with your conclusion. Hyperloop technology is so lucrative that it might galvanize America to update its long distance transportation infrastructure in a way that bullet trains couldn't have.

Bullet trains:

- Popularized when a huge network of new highways and slow rail were already built in America

- Faced a suburban, car-loving culture

Hyperloop:

- 2-3x speed of bullet trains. Can change the way we perceive geographic distance.

- Popularized during an increasingly urban culture with crumbling highway and train infrastructure

- Cost isn't as much of a concern because a national hyperloop network would create a lot more value than a bullet train equivalent. If the government doesn't want to shoulder the full cost, companies gladly will (when the tech is ripe). I'm hoping for full government funding.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#122

Post by sudosysgen »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #119
sudosysgen wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our subway system in Montreal runs at a frequency of anywhere from 2 minutes to 7 minutes. There are even faster ones.

That's still 2 to 7 minutes longer than a Loop tunnel. And that also only addresses half of the GP's comment (scheduling).

Yep, except that in order to match the capacity of the Montreal metro system you would need to have a car departing every 2 seconds, which is impossible.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#123

Post by sudosysgen »

yellow_postit wrote: post #120
sudosysgen wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do when a terrorist shoots a hyperloop tube causing a pressure wave that will kill everyone inside?

You avoid building it (above ground at least) in the first place

Even building it below ground doesn't work, they just have to punch a hole in the station while it is pressurized.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#124

Post by chrisco255 »

godtoldmetodoit wrote: post #92
TylerE wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hatch in the tube, not the car.

The tube is vacuum, you'd need an airlock not just a simple hatch, no? How do passengers get from car to airlock without a suit?

Hyperloop is not a full vacuum, only partial vacuum if I'm not mistaken. I don't know what kind of difference that would make on pressure but I assume that means that the tubes are not air tight and actually breathe.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#125

Post by chrisco255 »

thephyber wrote: post #93
chrisco255 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not crazy talk. The truth is they likely belong both above ground and below ground, depending on urban density or geography. And tunnels tend to have escape ladders every so many feet.

Elevated train platforms may have escape ladders, but I thought the Hyperloop tube was depressurized and the car within it needs to be pressurized. This poses a problem for the escaping passengers before they reach the ladder.

It's only a partial vacuum from what I understand. I'm not sure what kind of difference that makes but presumably it would be easier to depressurize in an emergency.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#126

Post by klipt »

privong wrote: post #118
owenversteeg wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "Gadgetbahn" article is great, but I do have one criticism. From the article: "If the idea is viable and the people behind it are competent, it should have attracted private investment, as there should be a potential to make profit selling the technology. After all, the proposal has been around for 23 years." High speed rail on a large scale is really something that has to come from the government. While there a…

> the TGV is also profitable Correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that this is only true if one excludes the capital costs associated with the railroad (tracks, right of way, and I think also rolling stock). If you factor in the infrastructure construction costs (and reasonable lifetimes for replacing rolling stock), a high speed trail line will never be profitable without significantly higher fare prices th…

Public transit is almost always unprofitable without some way of capturing the increased land value near the stations.

Supposedly some subways (eg Hong Kong?) own the land near the stations and use the rents to fund the subway, rather than just using fares.

A land value tax that goes back into public transit would probably work too.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#127

Post by ClumsyPilot »

keenmaster wrote: post #121
AlexandrB wrote: post #9

This is evergreen when talking about Hyperloop: http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/12/gadgetbahn/ The problems with building this have nothing to do with technology but with right-of-way, investment, and politics. If those factors were solved, we'd already have high-speed rail in places where Hyperloop has been proposed. The fact that we don't says that Hyperloop is unlikely to be feasible as well.

>The problems with building this have nothing to do with technology but with right-of-way, investment, and politics. If those factors were solved, we'd already have high-speed rail in places where Hyperloop has been proposed. The fact that we don't says that Hyperloop is unlikely to be feasible as well. I disagree with your conclusion. Hyperloop technology is so lucrative that it might galvanize America to update its…

> "Cost isn't as much of a concern because a national hyperloop network would create a lot more value than a bullet train equivalent."

What is the basis for such claim? Most of the information I come across points in the opposite direction.

Trains are a lot cheaper infrastructure wise, and have ~10x higher capacity. Many public transport infrastructure professionals consider hyperloop a joke because it can only move a fairly small amount of people. In UK we are running out of capacity on many rail lines.

So why do you believe hyperloop would generate more revenue or indirect economic benefits compared to a modern high-speed rail?

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#128

Post by freeone3000 »

klipt wrote: post #126
privong wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the TGV is also profitable Correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that this is only true if one excludes the capital costs associated with the railroad (tracks, right of way, and I think also rolling stock). If you factor in the infrastructure construction costs (and reasonable lifetimes for replacing rolling stock), a high speed trail line will never be profitable without significantly higher fare prices th…

Public transit is almost always unprofitable without some way of capturing the increased land value near the stations. Supposedly some subways (eg Hong Kong?) own the land near the stations and use the rents to fund the subway, rather than just using fares. A land value tax that goes back into public transit would probably work too.

Regular property tax works fine. Montreal recaptures the increase as values rise through transfer taxes and ocassional reassesments.

Re: Hyperloop: Pipes of Fancy

#130

Post by avianlyric »

owenversteeg wrote: post #47
AlexandrB wrote: post #9

This is evergreen when talking about Hyperloop: http://www.cat-bus.com/2017/12/gadgetbahn/ The problems with building this have nothing to do with technology but with right-of-way, investment, and politics. If those factors were solved, we'd already have high-speed rail in places where Hyperloop has been proposed. The fact that we don't says that Hyperloop is unlikely to be feasible as well.

That "Gadgetbahn" article is great, but I do have one criticism. From the article: "If the idea is viable and the people behind it are competent, it should have attracted private investment, as there should be a potential to make profit selling the technology. After all, the proposal has been around for 23 years." High speed rail on a large scale is really something that has to come from the government. While there a…

Reading the article I got them impression that when the author said:

> "If the idea is viable and the people behind it are competent, it should have attracted private investment, as there should be a potential to make profit selling the technology. After all, the proposal has been around for 23 years."

They are referring specifically to the development of the technology I.E. the trains and rail equipment. Not to an actual infrastructure project.

The argument being that governments should find the infrastructure, and buy technologies developed using private funds.

Indeed this what we see in the rail industry where companies like Siemens develop rail “packages” which are then sold to multiple infrastructure projects with only minor customisation and modifications.

This is in contrast to the example project where a team wanted $250mil to develop new technologies, and also deploy them. Rather than just deploying an already developed technology.

Post reply on HN