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

What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

consumersresearch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 46 posts

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#11

Post by anologwintermut »

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing.

One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't factor that in at all(nor should they). But building it in practice will be an issue.

The second part of the hyperloop's cost savings come from it being very light. We could simply build very light rail transport on the same pylons. Replace 1,500 KG of batteries with overhead electric wire and use the excess weight for a motor.

So the hyper-loops only real advantage is speed. Which is impressive, except for the fact that it requires you to build a tube with surface variances less than 5mm for several hundred miles, or the air barring will have problems. (or maybe not, perhaps you could have dynamic air barring and high precision topographic maps of the tunnel)

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#12

Post by ricardobeat »

anologwintermut wrote: post #11

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't fact…

But it being very light is a consequence of the design as a whole. Light rail is already as light as it can be given cost/materials.

We already have rail transport on pylons, usually an implementation of a monorail[1], but it only solves the right-of-way issue. Everything else (energy consumption, speed, efficiency, passenger flow, safety) is not much different from standard transportation.

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

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#13

Post by cma »

anologwintermut wrote: post #11

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't fact…

Speed and energy usage. The idea as I understood it was to compete with commuter flights; if i understand your idea correctly you are proposing a slow, lightweight trolley on elevated rails?

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#14

Post by cma »

acqq wrote: post #8
angersock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's aimed at commuter traffic--as somebody who has routinely made a backpack's worth of clothing last a week on trips, I also don't think that the luggage is that much of an issue. The bathroom critique is again silly--it's a thirty minute trip; if you can't hold it that long, you probably need to repeat preschool.

Has it occurred to you that not everybody has perfect health all the time? You can't actually expect that you wouldn't get sick the first minute after you enter the tube. Then imagine yourself having to remain there next 29 minutes and die! This would happen. A lot. Then imagine who'd use that cleverness after the first such case and after every next. I'd rather say "it's aimed at astronauts" than "commuters." Astron…

He said there could be branch stations, and he also gave the example of someone having an emergency right at takeoff in a normal plane, and it taking just as long to get clearance to land, turn around, land, and taxi to a gate.

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#15

Post by acqq »

cma wrote: post #14
acqq wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it occurred to you that not everybody has perfect health all the time? You can't actually expect that you wouldn't get sick the first minute after you enter the tube. Then imagine yourself having to remain there next 29 minutes and die! This would happen. A lot. Then imagine who'd use that cleverness after the first such case and after every next. I'd rather say "it's aimed at astronauts" than "commuters." Astron…

He said there could be branch stations, and he also gave the example of someone having an emergency right at takeoff in a normal plane, and it taking just as long to get clearance to land, turn around, land, and taxi to a gate.

In the plane people can stand up, help the one being sick ("is there a doctor on the plane? please come to the seat 34E" -- the steward is already there etc) bring him water, take him to the toilet. It's a big space. Nothing like that here -- everybody is trapped in the tube not able to leave the chair.

Imagine even worse case: fire in the pod. People burn having to remain unmovable in the seats. Again imagine the public response. Just an impression of having absolutely no chance to do anything at all is enough to scare most normal people forever.

It just has to be big enough for people to normally move inside. Everything else is good for SciFi but not for real use.

If you don't travel, then imagine your computer being connected to the control of the tube in which you are and where you can't move. Now imagine that you can't kill the program for a half an hour which is effectively killing you. Even if the chances are low for the killing process to activate, would you even want to try such an experience?

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#16

Post by ricardobeat »

acqq wrote: post #5
zeteo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the trip is only half an hour. Do people have better comforts on a metro or bus commute?

Yes, people have orders of magnitude better comfort in metros and buses. You can exit the city metro or the city bus every minute. You can sit, stand up and walk in them. The buses for longer distances have the toilets and can stop whenever somebody really needs it. Here you'd be locked in the slanted chair for half an hour where you wouldn't be even able to stand up or stretch the hands! Sounds awful and has real im…

You're exaggerating. As mentioned in the original thread, if any of those situations happen in a taxiing airplane, or during take-off/landing, it's going to be the same or longer time until you get to the gate. Same goes for an intercity bus, stopping in the middle of nowhere doesn't help with anything.

The vehicle carrying version is a tad larger (1.85m height), without adding much to the cost, and would probably be chosen for an actual build. Given the capsule will be coasting for most of the trip, it would be possible to walk around like in an airplane, if it's not doing a sharp turn.

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#17

Post by anologwintermut »

cma wrote: post #13
anologwintermut wrote: post #11

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't fact…

Speed and energy usage. The idea as I understood it was to compete with commuter flights; if i understand your idea correctly you are proposing a slow, lightweight trolley on elevated rails?

That was the hypothetical to break down where the cost savings come from. It would not be as fast, no, but you might be able to get up to high speed train speed's with it.

Energy savings are mostly moot if you power things from overhead wire/ third rail. Electricity is cheap(I'm actually curious why this isn't part of the proposal).

So it's benefit is speed. It's a very big benefit, but the tolerances for the air baring/tunnel wall it rides on are really really small.

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#18

Post by anologwintermut »

ricardobeat wrote: post #12
anologwintermut wrote: post #11

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't fact…

But it being very light is a consequence of the design as a whole. Light rail is already as light as it can be given cost/materials. We already have rail transport on pylons, usually an implementation of a monorail[1], but it only solves the right-of-way issue. Everything else (energy consumption, speed, efficiency, passenger flow, safety) is not much different from standard transportation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.or…

I disagree about the weight. If you took the proposed capsule, added wheels, replaced the 1,500kg batteries with a motor and powered the thing from a third rail, you'd get something rather light with enough power to move at i'd guess 200 or 300 mph(think what you could get out of a Tesla if it had extra motors instead of batteries). This and the route would get you most of the cost savings.

The speed is the huge benefit, but involves a technical challenge of rather unknown cost: how do you build a tube for hundreds of miles with a down smooth surface at the 5mm level.

Re: What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

#19

Post by anigbrowl »

anologwintermut wrote: post #11

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't fact…

The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't factor that in at all

The budget summary at the end suggested $2.5 billion for land acquisition etc, which made me think it's not a serious proposal.

Post reply on HN