Hyperloop one

Chat about non-baseball topics. No political discussions!
Freed Roger
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress
Posts: 26227
Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Location: St. Louis

Hyperloop one

Post by Freed Roger »

Meet George Jetson. low pressure tubes to shoot people and freight at 670 mph.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/busi ... p-one.html

St. Louis - KC a possibility...I may live to see it* **

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/3/1641 ... lity-study

*if cryogenics works

** And if it counts when the towns are called St. Vladimar and Putin City.

Arthur Dent
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12317
Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Hyperloop one

Post by Arthur Dent »

Can anybody explain how this possibly makes any sense if we can't build straightforward proven high speed rail?

TimeForGuinness
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 20035
Joined: April 18 06, 7:38 pm

Re: Hyperloop one

Post by TimeForGuinness »

Arthur Dent wrote:Can anybody explain how this possibly makes any sense if we can't build straightforward proven high speed rail?
++

Also, considering the implications of using Hyperloop for moving freight, I expect huge pushback from the airline, trucking, and train industries.

User avatar
vinsanity
Chili dog truther
Posts: 8772
Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: Hyperloop one

Post by vinsanity »

Arthur Dent wrote:Can anybody explain how this possibly makes any sense if we can't build straightforward proven high speed rail?
Can't or won't?

I thought the advantages with Hyperloop was that it took less land, is faster to assemble and resulted in faster travel than traditional high speed rail?

Arthur Dent
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12317
Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Hyperloop one

Post by Arthur Dent »

Why would a sealed tube fed by vacuum pumps take less land or be faster to build than two parallel metal rails?

If successful, it's potentially faster, but it's clearly an upgrade option over high speed rail, which we are already unable to get done.

User avatar
CardsofSTL
All Hail the GDT Master
Posts: 47810
Joined: April 26 11, 6:06 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Hyperloop one

Post by CardsofSTL »

I think this would have some of the same drawbacks that you hear people talk about when it comes to train travel. What do you do when you get to the place you are traveling? Rent a car? Take a cab? I would love to be able to hop on a high speed rail and get down to Cincy or up to Cleveland in a flash; but I don't want to be stranded at the train station when I get there. Maybe if the rail would have a plan in place for shuttling people from the stations to the key parts of cities it would be more attractive.

User avatar
Swirls
gone fission
Posts: 8308
Joined: December 11 07, 4:15 pm
Location: South Korea

Re: Hyperloop one

Post by Swirls »

CardsofSTL wrote:I think this would have some of the same drawbacks that you hear people talk about when it comes to train travel. What do you do when you get to the place you are traveling? Rent a car? Take a cab? I would love to be able to hop on a high speed rail and get down to Cincy or up to Cleveland in a flash; but I don't want to be stranded at the train station when I get there. Maybe if the rail would have a plan in place for shuttling people from the stations to the key parts of cities it would be more attractive.
Don't lie. Nobody willingly wants to travel to Cleveland.

User avatar
CardsofSTL
All Hail the GDT Master
Posts: 47810
Joined: April 26 11, 6:06 am
Location: Columbus, OH

Re: Hyperloop one

Post by CardsofSTL »

Swirls wrote:
CardsofSTL wrote:I think this would have some of the same drawbacks that you hear people talk about when it comes to train travel. What do you do when you get to the place you are traveling? Rent a car? Take a cab? I would love to be able to hop on a high speed rail and get down to Cincy or up to Cleveland in a flash; but I don't want to be stranded at the train station when I get there. Maybe if the rail would have a plan in place for shuttling people from the stations to the key parts of cities it would be more attractive.
Don't lie. Nobody willingly wants to travel to Cleveland.
That's where I practice my graffiti art

User avatar
vinsanity
Chili dog truther
Posts: 8772
Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Location: Indianapolis

Re: Hyperloop one

Post by vinsanity »

Arthur Dent wrote:Why would a sealed tube fed by vacuum pumps take less land or be faster to build than two parallel metal rails?

If successful, it's potentially faster, but it's clearly an upgrade option over high speed rail, which we are already unable to get done.
I thought that was something I had read. I'd imagine making sure the ground is sufficiently level at and near stations, building tunnels through large enough inclines, etc take more effort where a Hyperloop may not have to do it? Sections may be built offsite and loaded up. Again, speculation on my part. I was asking if something I recalled was correct.

Here's an article that claims it's $16 million cheaper per kilometer. https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/06/hyp ... peed-rail/

And you mean unable due to what reasons? Political?

Arthur Dent
Hall Of Famer
Posts: 12317
Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Hyperloop one

Post by Arthur Dent »

vinsanity wrote:
Arthur Dent wrote:Why would a sealed tube fed by vacuum pumps take less land or be faster to build than two parallel metal rails?

If successful, it's potentially faster, but it's clearly an upgrade option over high speed rail, which we are already unable to get done.
I thought that was something I had read. I'd imagine making sure the ground is sufficiently level at and near stations, building tunnels through large enough inclines, etc take more effort where a Hyperloop may not have to do it? Sections may be built offsite and loaded up. Again, speculation on my part. I was asking if something I recalled was correct.

Here's an article that claims it's $16 million cheaper per kilometer. https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/06/hyp ... peed-rail/

And you mean unable due to what reasons? Political?
My view is that they can claim its cheaper because no one has actually built one of these things, but if they did, the fundamentals suggest it would be substantially more expensive.

I'm not an expert on why the U.S. sucks at high speed rail, but I'd guess its similar to our problems with infrastructure in general: it costs way more here than international norms and is blocked by tons of NIMBYism.

Post Reply