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

New York to London in an hour - by train

smartplanet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 146 posts

Re: New York to London in an hour - by train

#11

Post by ChuckMcM »

Good luck holding a vacuum under the ocean. I read stuff like this and I think, "Gee, I don't think these people have actually built anything." because if they had they would realize that if it costs $1M a foot too build subways [1] in cities with moderately skilled labor, its going to cost $10 - 25M/ft to build something like this. That's half a quadrillion dollars (448 trillion dollars). What sort or rate of return do you think you would need to make that feasible?

I'd love someone to actually do a credible cost analysis of an evacuated tunnel train. Unfortunately I don't think Oster did.

[1] http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/01/14/the-costs-of-second-...

Re: New York to London in an hour - by train

#13

Post by jsprinkles »

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #3

Link to the BBC article instead of the blogspam: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-pipedrea... Also, easy terrorist target.

Safe to say that the terrorists have won, if the first eight comments on something as cool as this have to do with possible ways the terrorists can destroy it. What a depressing new era.

Re: New York to London in an hour - by train

#14

Post by grecy »

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #3

Link to the BBC article instead of the blogspam: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-pipedrea... Also, easy terrorist target.

> Also, easy terrorist target.

What a shame this determination is made on so many "advancements" now.

(I think it's complete nonsense to even mention)

Re: New York to London in an hour - by train

#15

Post by untog »

crazygringo wrote: post #9
untog wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a more difficult target, just less of a damage multiplier, I suspect. Even in the high-speed train crashes of today deaths aren't too high. A train travelling at 2,500mph, however...

Really, how is this any different from airplanes? Just use equivalent security measures. Also, I wonder if it would be possible to have more frequent, smaller trains, e.g. airplane-sized. Then it doesn't seem like terrorism should be any "extra" consideration at all.

Well, airplanes are a considerable distance up in the sky and incredibly difficult to reach. It's why the vast majority of plane-related "badness" happens shortly after takeoff or shortly before landing. Any land-based rail vacuum tunnel would not be protected in this way. An underwater one would be to an extent- I suppose it depends how deep it goes. But it's still a lot easier to drop something (say, a bomb) into water and let it sink than it is to fire it into the air and hit a plane.

Re: New York to London in an hour - by train

#18

Post by ctdonath »

Another megaproject supporting my theory there's a market for promoting - not building, just promoting - projects so large, expensive and outlandish that a small team can make a decent buck thereon. A miniscule percentage of half a quadrillion dollars nets a few million for research, marketing & salaries.

Re: New York to London in an hour - by train

#19

Post by jsprinkles »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #11

Good luck holding a vacuum under the ocean. I read stuff like this and I think, "Gee, I don't think these people have actually built anything." because if they had they would realize that if it costs $1M a foot too build subways [1] in cities with moderately skilled labor, its going to cost $10 - 25M/ft to build something like this. That's half a quadrillion dollars (448 trillion dollars). What sort or rate of return…

Daryl Oster's company has submitted proposals to Florida, at least, on building and maintaining a system such as this. I think part of the requirement for submitting such a proposal is at least a cursory cost analysis. Wikipedia reads a bit like the company wrote it itself, but:

The firm fixed bid for the 96-mile (154 km) Evacuated Tube Transport (ETT) system was $253M, this was less than one tenth of the cost of the bid by Global Rail Consortium to build electrified double track High Speed Rail for $2.6B. The bid by et3 contained letters of support by three entities in China to supply IP and key materials for the project. The engineering consultants hired by the authority did not dispute the validity of the et3 bid price or ETT technology, but recommended to eliminate the et3 bid from consideration for other reasons.[1]

This comment doesn't pass judgment on whether Daryl Oster is a patent troll or not, but that's also a discussion worth having.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evacuated_Tube_Transport

Re: New York to London in an hour - by train

#20

Post by tedunangst »

corin_ wrote: post #10
archangel_one wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strikes me more that the potential for damage is higher here. A pretty small explosive charge would compromise part of the tube, and then what happens to the pods zipping along at 2,500mph inside them when the air comes rushing in? For that matter, if they did have an underwater tube connecting London and NYC, the water would come rushing in and you know that's not going to end well. It sounds pretty cool - it's the…

We already have underwater tunnels for trains, such as the one between England and France - water would come crashing in regardless of whether there is air or a vacuum in the tunnel. It's not actually Futurama, the tunnel won't be train-sized and made of glass.

The chunnel is technically under rock, not under water. It's not exposed to the ocean.
Post reply on HN