[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50308433]high speed railway infrastructure can utilize existing railways to a large extent though. hyperloop needs to be built from scratch. there's mentioning that both take up roughly the same amount of physical space, but hyperloop carries fewer people than railways can. ultimately railways still carry more people an hour than hyperloop can (by at least an order of magnitude), meaning that when it comes to mass transit it's in real difficulty
people pour money into all sorts of things. it might be worth something, but it's extremely doubtful it will dethrone the railway. i mean i cannot see this even coming about in china or europe because both places already have major high speed railway networks underway. america is the only place where it might have a few experimental lines in operation for a few decades but even then thats doubtful
[editline]12th May 2016[/editline]
america needs an upgraded and expanded high speed railway network more than anything else. the east coast could do great if it had trains going 300km/h as standard there. japan has done really well out of their HSR network and the technology already exists to take advantage of[/QUOTE]
Trains and the hyperloop serve a different purpose. Think of it as a plane vs a boat. A boat (train) can take more people and probably for a lower price per person but it's slow as shit. A plane (hyperloop) can't take as many people, and costs more per person but it will get you there at a decent speed.
France is now also investing in the Hyerloop's development.
I'm super excited and optimistic for this, its about time we introduce a new and faster way of traveling. Been following the Hyperloop for a while now
[QUOTE=Talishmar;50305886]Nobody sane would let the most advanced or expensive infrastructure go into disrepair.[/QUOTE]
the same people that let their [I]only [/I]infrastructure crumble and waste would most certainly do the same to something more expensive and complex.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50308433]america needs an upgraded and expanded high speed railway network more than anything else. the east coast could do great if it had trains going 300km/h as standard there. japan has done really well out of their HSR network and the technology already exists to take advantage of[/QUOTE]
I agree with you. Hell, we should also be funding public housing much more than we are, so we wouldn't desperately need a railway like this in the first place. My uncle [url=https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Reno,+NV/San+Jose,+CA/@38.4319442,-120.975976,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x809940ae9292a09d:0x40c5c5ce7438f787!2m2!1d-119.8138027!2d39.5296329!1m5!1m1!1s0x808fcae48af93ff5:0xb99d8c0aca9f717b!2m2!1d-121.8863286!2d37.3382082?hl=en]commutes to San Jose from Reno[/url] because it's so expensive to live there.
But neither is going to happen, unless some big wig Silicon Valley personality endorses it / throws a bunch of money at it.
Our government is systematically corrupt. A railway like that would undermine the profits of big oil (and a bunch of other industries that lobby congress which don't immediately come to mind). It would have to come from the private sector, which requires an insane amount of momentum to be successful. Hence, Silicon Valley venture capitalists and Elon Musk.
The Hyperloop has the momentum. It's the best we're gonna get in the near future, if we get anything at all. It's the unfortunate state of affairs we live in.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;50304333]
Hyperloop projected speed is predicted to be about 700mph IIRC
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop[/URL] (alt source in OP article)
Fastest train in japan is 200mph
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen[/URL]
Average 747 goes about 590mph but can go a bit faster depending on weight/winds/etc
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747[/URL][/QUOTE]
So I could work in the west and live in the east? I'll be rich! Assuming they make the price reasonable.
[QUOTE=cheesylard;50310352]I agree with you. Hell, we should also be funding public housing much more than we are, so we wouldn't desperately need a railway like this in the first place. My uncle [url=https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Reno,+NV/San+Jose,+CA/@38.4319442,-120.975976,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x809940ae9292a09d:0x40c5c5ce7438f787!2m2!1d-119.8138027!2d39.5296329!1m5!1m1!1s0x808fcae48af93ff5:0xb99d8c0aca9f717b!2m2!1d-121.8863286!2d37.3382082?hl=en]commutes to San Jose from Reno[/url] because it's so expensive to live there.
But neither is going to happen, unless some big wig Silicon Valley personality endorses it / throws a bunch of money at it.
Our government is systematically corrupt. A railway like that would undermine the profits of big oil (and a bunch of other industries that lobby congress which don't immediately come to mind). It would have to come from the private sector, which requires an insane amount of momentum to be successful. Hence, Silicon Valley venture capitalists and Elon Musk.
The Hyperloop has the momentum. It's the best we're gonna get in the near future, if we get anything at all. It's the unfortunate state of affairs we live in.[/QUOTE]
hyperloop is only really going to be something the wealthy can and will use if it ever gets going
for the remaining 90% of the population, they're stuck using buses or slow trains
[QUOTE=Morgen;50308871]Trains and the hyperloop serve a different purpose. Think of it as a plane vs a boat. A boat (train) can take more people and probably for a lower price per person but it's slow as shit. A plane (hyperloop) can't take as many people, and costs more per person but it will get you there at a decent speed.
France is now also investing in the Hyerloop's development.[/QUOTE]
but its trying to compete with standard HSR, and it's not going to succeed because standard HSR takes far more people in less time than the hyperloop ever can
I don't really see what advantages it possesses over other modes of transport save for the fact its super fast. if you want to be actually economical it should be carrying ten times as many people in each pod than it would under current designs
I mean the fact that it goes on stilts for the entire route is one of its biggest drawbacks
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50306910]hyperloop is a nice idea but the economics of it doesn't really work out (and the engineering isn't the best either)
even maglev itself (which has been in development for decades) has only just started commercial use and its proven to be a bit mediocre because while fast, the demand for it isn't high enough and the ticket prices don't cover the costs that well.
hyperloop represents an even bigger engineering, legal, environmental, and financial challenge, and its competing with loads of other transportation systems that are very much superior as it stands right now (like high speed rail). high speed rail is the big thing we're going to see go cross country and connecting cities in the future[/QUOTE]
Its financially and environmentally interesting because its lack of air resistance means it would beat out energy transport requirements of every single other transport method.
[QUOTE=Cold;50312370]Its financially and environmentally interesting because it would be a per-definition cheapest way of transport simply because the lack of air resistance extremely reducing the energy required to transport something.
Maglev itself doesn't have that kind of potential, they are just a plane train.[/QUOTE]
actually the most cost-effective method of transportation is by ship (as it has been for thousands of years)
railways come second I think, hyperloop definitely isn't there simply because it doesn't deal with the same volumes
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;50304710]you do realize what the cruising altitude of a commercial flight from new york to LA is, right? if something goes wrong you're fucked.
[/QUOTE]
an airbus a380 has a potential cruising altitude of 42000 ft, for sake of tables lets round this up to 45000
atmospheric pressure at this altitude is roughly 14820 pascal
the hyperloop is going to be operating at roughly 100 pascal
bear in mind the airplane doesn't have to rely on air pumps and air-tight tubing to obtain the pressure, it's just like that
it's absurd, come on wake up this is an extremely low operating pressure for public transit which is based on the ground
it's a neato concept and design problem for students but please just keep it in your head as that, I doubt it will make it
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50312305]hyperloop is only really going to be something the wealthy can and will use if it ever gets going
for the remaining 90% of the population, they're stuck using buses or slow trains
but its trying to compete with standard HSR, and it's not going to succeed because standard HSR takes far more people in less time than the hyperloop ever can
I don't really see what advantages it possesses over other modes of transport save for the fact its super fast. if you want to be actually economical it should be carrying ten times as many people in each pod than it would under current designs
I mean the fact that it goes on stilts for the entire route is one of its biggest drawbacks[/QUOTE]
The Hyperloop creates options that simply don't exist with other transportation methods. Inter-city commuting with high speed rail simply isn't viable unless the cities are extremely close together anyway. Currently the fastest high speed train, the Shanghai maglev has a max speed of 267 MPH. If we created a straight track say from Edinburgh to London you are looking at atleast an hour and 15 mins, Hyperloop would get you there in 30 mins or less. You may as well stick to cheaper and slower trains that are more economical and leave the high speed intercity transport to something actually designed to do that.
Trying to have trains do high speed intercity transport is simply inefficient, and ineffective in comparison. If we maximise on each ones strong points then we could have the best of both worlds. Don't care how fast you get somewhere? Take a regular electric train and have a cheap ticket fare. Want to get somewhere fast then take a Hyperloop and pay the premium for doing so, but you will get to your destination very quickly. With high speed rail it's getting somewhere in a fair amount of time but again paying a premium for that anyway. Highspeed rail is like trying to take a high speed boat across the Atlantic, slow, costly, and inefficient. But until now it was the only option we had.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;50313408]an airbus a380 has a potential cruising altitude of 42000 ft, for sake of tables lets round this up to 45000
atmospheric pressure at this altitude is roughly 14820 pascal
the hyperloop is going to be operating at roughly 100 pascal
bear in mind the airplane doesn't have to rely on air pumps and air-tight tubing to obtain the pressure, it's just like that
it's absurd, come on wake up this is an extremely low operating pressure for public transit which is based on the ground
it's a neato concept and design problem for students but please just keep it in your head as that, I doubt it will make it[/QUOTE]
If there's an issue in the Hyperloop you can re-pressurize the tube fairly quickly. The specific pressure was chosen so that already commercially available air pumps could overcome any minor leaks without shutting the whole thing down. It's not like this requires any technology we don't already have.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50318819]The Hyperloop creates options that simply don't exist with other transportation methods. Inter-city commuting with high speed rail simply isn't viable unless the cities are extremely close together anyway. Currently the fastest high speed train, the Shanghai maglev has a max speed of 267 MPH. If we created a straight track say from Edinburgh to London you are looking at atleast an hour and 15 mins, Hyperloop would get you there in 30 mins or less.[/quote]
an hour and a half from edinburgh to london is actually very good. it would be feasible to live in york and then work in london under that. heck it would be feasible to live in newcastle and go to london for work even
[quote]Trying to have trains do high speed intercity transport is simply inefficient, and ineffective in comparison. If we maximise on each ones strong points then we could have the best of both worlds. Don't care how fast you get somewhere? Take a regular electric train and have a cheap ticket fare. Want to get somewhere fast then take a Hyperloop and pay the premium for doing so, but you will get to your destination very quickly. With high speed rail it's getting somewhere in a fair amount of time but again paying a premium for that anyway. Highspeed rail is like trying to take a high speed boat across the Atlantic, slow, costly, and inefficient. But until now it was the only option we had.[/quote]
but highspeed rail is still more efficient due to the fact it carries a greater volume in less time
HSR is still much faster regardless, and it's already eliminated a massive amount of intra-air travel within countries with developed HSR networks (such as France or Japan).
the only way that hyperloop could compete is on really long distances which takes 4 or more hours by HSR. of course in that area you start to compete with aircraft
this all of course assumes that supersonic aircraft don't return. if they do, then the hyperloop is fucked. hyperloop is not suited to freight, and it's going to struggle to compete with HSR and aircraft considering both of them will eat away at its market
[quote]If there's an issue in the Hyperloop you can re-pressurize the tube fairly quickly. The specific pressure was chosen so that already commercially available air pumps could overcome any minor leaks without shutting the whole thing down. It's not like this requires any technology we don't already have.[/QUOTE]
nevermind that maintaining that pressure is horribly expensive and requires costly infrastructure
we already tried something similar in the 19th century and it didn't work out because it was much more expensive and cumbersome than alternative methods
[QUOTE=Wii60;50304450]i don't.
subways don't exist in florida. Subways also arn't stuck in air-tight tubes.
Airplanes arn't under the ground in a air-tight tube.
I don't mind if it's like San fran to Los angeles, that makes sense.
But country-long would be silly simply due to low long it would be. earthquakes and all that. then your stuck in a air-tight tube under the ground if it breaks waiting for what could be hours till someone comes pull you out.
if you don't have claustrophobia, that would give it to you.[/QUOTE]
Where did you get the idea that this would be underground? An underground tunnel from the west coast to the east coast? Are you crazy?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50318931]an hour and a half from edinburgh to london is actually very good. it would be feasible to live in york and then work in london under that. heck it would be feasible to live in newcastle and go to london for work even
but highspeed rail is still more efficient due to the fact it carries a greater volume in less time
HSR is still much faster regardless, and it's already eliminated a massive amount of intra-air travel within countries with developed HSR networks (such as France or Japan).
the only way that hyperloop could compete is on really long distances which takes 4 or more hours by HSR. of course in that area you start to compete with aircraft
this all of course assumes that supersonic aircraft don't return. if they do, then the hyperloop is fucked. hyperloop is not suited to freight, and it's going to struggle to compete with HSR and aircraft considering both of them will eat away at its market
nevermind that maintaining that pressure is horribly expensive and requires costly infrastructure
we already tried something similar in the 19th century and it didn't work out because it was much more expensive and cumbersome than alternative methods[/QUOTE]
We also tried electric cars in the 19th century, technology has improved to allow things to work now that didn't work in the past. Hyperloop doesn't compete directly with air travel really, it will be way cheaper than air, and faster to over the intended distances. Air will only be relevant for longer distances.
Supersonic aircraft are complex and will eat a shit ton of fuel the way they are now, you could probably do it better than Concord now but it isn't going to be great. You need Musk's envisioned electric aircraft to come to fruition for supersonic air travel to return economically. A hyperloop ticket is going to cost many orders of magnitude less than a ticket on a supersonic aircraft with today's technology. I doubt you could even operate a supersonic aircraft in the same places that the Hyperloop would be useful. Concord was limited to only going supersonic over water as well due to complaints about sonic booms.
The Hyperloop could really bring Europe together. You could have extremely quick travel between the capitals of all of central western Europe. You could take the Hyperloop from Paris and be in Frankfurt in 20ish mins or Madrid in an hour.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50319276]We also tried electric cars in the 19th century, technology has improved to allow things to work now that didn't work in the past. Hyperloop doesn't compete directly with air travel really, it will be way cheaper than air, and faster to over the intended distances. Air will only be relevant for longer distances.[/quote]
how will it be cheaper than air considering that you need to develop the infrastructure in the first place?
you're going to be building giant concrete pillars in the middle of expensive cities, and people will oppose it tooth and nail by legislation. they will not only cost a lot to build, but even getting the land in the first place will be impossible.
if you plan on putting the stations on the outskirts of cities then you're already conceding a lot of the competitive advantage to ordinary railways and you aren't much better than aircraft
[quote]The Hyperloop could really bring Europe together. You could have extremely quick travel between the capitals of all of central western Europe. You could take the Hyperloop from Paris and be in Frankfurt in 20ish mins or Madrid in an hour.[/QUOTE]
yes but economically it's not really going to work out. HSR is the future of travel in europe this century due to the fact it can utilize existing infrastructure and technology
hyperloop requires the expenditure of a vast sum of money on unproven engineering in which the greatest disadvantage of it (the fact it has to sit on giant concrete pylons) is touted as an advantage
the whole thing reeks of the solar roads kickstarter a while back
It's cheaper than air because the energy to run it is very low, and if you follow the original design and put solar panels on top of the tubes then it will actually generate more energy than it uses. It won't require as much maintenance as aircraft either. Once it's built the expenditure required will be rather low. You just have to make the ticket cost high enough to cover the development over it's intended lifespan.
People are already opposing HS2 in the UK tooth and nail so that's not really a unique problem to Hyperloop is it?
[editline]14th May 2016[/editline]
I recommend you read this Reddit post: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4iog5z/hyperloop_startup_says_its_tech_is_safer_cheaper/d2zugzz[/url]
[QUOTE=Morgen;50319675]It's cheaper than air because the energy to run it is very low, and if you follow the original design and put solar panels on top of the tubes then it will actually generate more energy than it uses. It won't require as much maintenance as aircraft either. Once it's built the expenditure required will be rather low. You just have to make the ticket cost high enough to cover the development over it's intended lifespan.[/quote]
nevermind that the idea of putting the solar panels on top of the tubes is a terrible idea. the fact its already on concrete stilts is one of the biggest problems with the design as a whole
also what the hell are you going to do when you want to expand the network? can you have branches? what if it needs shut down for upgrading/repairs? when expanding it do you need to make more individual lines?
can you even work on part of it without shutting down the rest? are branches and the like even possible?
[quote]People are already opposing HS2 in the UK tooth and nail so that's not really a unique problem to Hyperloop is it?[/quote]
high speed rail makes use of some of the existing rail infrastructure however - such as stations, electrical power lines, tunnels, bridges, etc. hyperloop will have to build an entirely new infrastructure network up from scratch
i have a hard time seeing how it will even get permission in europe due to the fact that many city centres retain medieval street layouts and that only the newer cities will permit the construction of concrete monstrosities inside them. in america the portents aren't much better because there's already loads of HSR projects underway or being planned
[quote]I recommend you read this Reddit post: [url]https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4iog5z/hyperloop_startup_says_its_tech_is_safer_cheaper/d2zugzz[/url][/QUOTE]
[quote]Converting that to pods per hour, 5 minute spacing with our assumed pod train size translates to 1820 passengers per hour. HSR is about 9600 passengers per hour (from Eurostar), at 800 passengers per train.[/quote]
9600 is a lot more than 1820
also have this for the economics of it:
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-is-dead-wrong-about-the-cost-of-the-hyperloop-in-reality-it-would-be-100-billion-2013-8?IR=T[/url]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50319939]nevermind that the idea of putting the solar panels on top of the tubes is a terrible idea. the fact its already on concrete stilts is one of the biggest problems with the design as a whole
also what the hell are you going to do when you want to expand the network? can you have branches? what if it needs shut down for upgrading/repairs? when expanding it do you need to make more individual lines?
can you even work on part of it without shutting down the rest? are branches and the like even possible?
high speed rail makes use of some of the existing rail infrastructure however - such as stations, electrical power lines, tunnels, bridges, etc. hyperloop will have to build an entirely new infrastructure network up from scratch
i have a hard time seeing how it will even get permission in europe due to the fact that many city centres retain medieval street layouts and that only the newer cities will permit the construction of concrete monstrosities inside them. in america the portents aren't much better because there's already loads of HSR projects underway or being planned
9600 is a lot more than 1820[/QUOTE]
The guy also says in that thread you can simply add more passenger cars until you get to the desired cost per passenger.
I'm not sure why you deleted part of the paragraph about lowering the spacing in your quote though?
[QUOTE]Converting that to pods per hour, 5 minute spacing with our assumed pod train size translates to 1820 passengers per hour. 1 minute spacing brings that up to 8400 passengers per hour. HSR is about 9600 passengers per hour (from Eurostar), at 800 passengers per train.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Morgen;50319990]The guy also says in that thread you can simply add more passenger cars until you get to the desired cost per passenger.[/quote]
so can high speed rail
you're also ignoring all of the various other shortcomings i mentioned in the post
[quote]I'm not sure why you deleted part of the paragraph about lowering the spacing in your quote though?[/QUOTE]
because 1 minute spacing is clearly insane
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50320051]so can high speed rail
you're also ignoring all of the various other shortcomings i mentioned in the post
because 1 minute spacing is clearly insane[/QUOTE]
You can load up passengers and then deploy pods as they are ready, deploying pods as soon as they are a safe distance apart shouldn't be a big deal then. Like at a large airport the runway might have a plane coming and going every minute or so, doesn't mean you only have one min to get on board and situated.
Pylons can be dressed up, they are relatively small compared to a train track. You also have benefit of no noise pollution over HSR. Cities are okay with noisy high speed trains going through them but aren't okay with a small and quiet tube on pylons going through them? Not sure what's wrong with putting solar panels on top of the tube, it's free space that will be in direct sunlight for the most part. The pylons are small enough that they can follow the existing interstate systems already in place and owned by the state for the most part as well.
The Hyperloop is designed to work in city pairs, it doesn't branch off. Although it is theoretically possible to add a switch so if one is developed then such a system may be implemented in the future.
There is a lot of development to be done on the Hyperloop, it might never be built. I believe it is worth developing it though as it has clear advantages, then we can really see what limitations it runs into in the real world. Probably shouldn't start cancelling any HSR plans for it yet, however relatively small investments into it could quickly prove if the idea is viable either way.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50320311]You can load up passengers and then deploy pods as they are ready, deploying pods as soon as they are a safe distance apart shouldn't be a big deal then. Like at a large airport the runway might have a plane coming and going every minute or so, doesn't mean you only have one min to get on board and situated.[/quote]
that's because there's less room to fuck up. planes can be told to not land and fly elsewhere. a hyperloop pod encountering troubles would be less lucky
a minute spacing would never get past any kind of regulatory authority because safety standards wouldn't allow for it. remember these pods are being shot down tubes at nearly the speed of sound - trains take ages to stop due to their momentum
this is basic physics
[quote]Pylons can be dressed up, they are relatively small compared to a train track. You also have benefit of no noise pollution over HSR. Cities are okay with noisy high speed trains going through them but aren't okay with a small and quiet tube on pylons going through them? Not sure what's wrong with putting solar panels on top of the tube, it's free space that will be in direct sunlight for the most part. The pylons are small enough that they can follow the existing interstate systems already in place and owned by the state for the most part as well.[/quote]
the pylons actually take up just as much room as existing railways do - plus if you want the same volumes you need many more tubes. also you are vastly underestimating the cost of land and how much land will be needed - this cannot be built alongside motorways for the whole route. maintaining the solar panels will be a nightmare likewise
there's also the fact that concrete pylons are extremely expensive
[quote]The Hyperloop is designed to work in city pairs, it doesn't branch off. Although it is theoretically possible to add a switch so if one is developed then such a system may be implemented in the future.[/QUOTE]
this poses a massive problem for expansion and redevelopment then
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50320400]that's because there's less room to fuck up. planes can be told to not land and fly elsewhere. a hyperloop pod encountering troubles would be less lucky
a minute spacing would never get past any kind of regulatory authority because safety standards wouldn't allow for it. remember these pods are being shot down tubes at nearly the speed of sound - trains take ages to stop due to their momentum
this is basic physics
the pylons actually take up just as much room as existing railways do - plus if you want the same volumes you need many more tubes. also you are vastly underestimating the cost of land and how much land will be needed - this cannot be built alongside motorways for the whole route. maintaining the solar panels will be a nightmare likewise
there's also the fact that concrete pylons are extremely expensive
this poses a massive problem for expansion and redevelopment then[/QUOTE]
These pods don't have nearly the same amount of mass as a train. Some of the people entering the SpaceX competition have said their braking systems are capable of braking at 2g, shouldn't take too long to stop in an emergency albeit a bit uncomfortable.
These pylons don't look like they take up the same space as a railway to me, or need fencing off:
[thumb]http://s3.amazonaws.com/digitaltrends-uploads-prod/2016/05/Hyperloop-One-Event-12.jpg[/thumb]
[editline]14th May 2016[/editline]
[video=youtube;ndmcEwvh1D0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndmcEwvh1D0[/video]
[QUOTE=Morgen;50320532]These pods don't have nearly the same amount of mass as a train. Some of the people entering the SpaceX competition have said their braking systems are capable of braking at 2g, shouldn't take too long to stop in an emergency albeit a bit uncomfortable.[/quote]
yes but a minutes clearance is clearly insane and blatantly ignores the safety standards put in place for transport. it still has mass and momentum and it's at high speed. a minutes clearance simply isn't enough
the only place you'd probably be allowed to do this is in india, where the disregard for safety manifests itself often
[quote]These pylons don't look like they take up the same space as a railway to me, or need fencing off:
[thumb]http://s3.amazonaws.com/digitaltrends-uploads-prod/2016/05/Hyperloop-One-Event-12.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE]
Is that the 28 person pod design? It doesn't also account for the additional infrastructure, the secondary tube (or more if we're going to upgrade capacity), the station, etc
Also if the tubes are going to be that small I seriously doubt that they will generate much in terms of solar electricity. how much area will you have available for solar panels on these things? what kind of energy generation are we talking here? the cabling and the other associated parts of electrical infrastructure? the access roads and ladders and the like?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50319540]the whole thing reeks of the solar roads kickstarter a while back[/QUOTE]
Solar Roads was physically impossible.
Hyperloop is a natural progression of trains, and all it needs is new infrastructure.
Of course it'll be expensive, but it'll also be better.
Dunno why you're bein so fuckin pessimistic about this.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50320400]that's because there's less room to fuck up. planes can be told to not land and fly elsewhere. a hyperloop pod encountering troubles would be less lucky
a minute spacing would never get past any kind of regulatory authority because safety standards wouldn't allow for it. [B]remember these pods are being shot down tubes at nearly the speed of sound - trains take ages to stop due to their momentum
this is basic physics [/B]
the pylons actually take up just as much room as existing railways do - plus if you want the same volumes you need many more tubes. also you are vastly underestimating the cost of land and how much land will be needed - this cannot be built alongside motorways for the whole route. maintaining the solar panels will be a nightmare likewise
there's also the fact that concrete pylons are extremely expensive
this poses a massive problem for expansion and redevelopment then[/QUOTE]
Trains can also just stop, rather then plumit to the ground if something fucks up.
Traditional trains function on the premise of metal surfaces to metal wheels to provide a as low rolling friction friction as possible, which also means they have very minimal surface area to apply friction too in need off a break.
You don't have this issue with maglev trains, you inverse the polarity of the magnets, and your giant sleds get forced to the ground with an incredibly large surface area.
There are dozens of other potentially breaking solution you could add, and currently high-speed trains also adopted magnetic breaks.
Your only real limitation is the amount of G force the people can handle inside.
And also you're in a tube, no animal or car or collapsed tree can fuck up for you, you don't have as much reasons to emergency break.
Look, at the core this technology is just a vehicle with minimal surface friction through either maglev, or air cushions, contained in in a depressurized pipe for minimum air friction, to greatly reduce energy required to transport something.
You want bigger trains with bigger time differences in between, you can do that. You just want to take a current maglev train and depressurize its track, to increase speed and decrease energy costs, you can do that.
Not everything about this concept has be exactly like the fucking google sketchup drawing Elon Musk made.
[QUOTE=paul simon;50320815]Solar Roads was physically impossible.
Hyperloop is a natural progression of trains, and all it needs is new infrastructure.
Of course it'll be expensive, but it'll also be better.[/QUOTE]
they said the same thing about concorde
solar roads aren't physically impossible, neither is hyperloop (probably)
but do they make economic sense? not really
[editline]14th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cold;50321067]Your only real limitation is the amount of G force the people can handle inside.[/QUOTE]
with a minutes clearance between pods i could see this being a major problem
[quote]And also you're in a tube, no animal or car or collapsed tree can fuck up for you, you have a lot less reasons to emergency break.[/quote]
you do realise that unless the tube has an easy way to access it (which is hard if its on concrete pylons the whole way) then you will have additional problems should an incident arise
railways have access roads, tunnels, bridges, etc along them all over the place for this sort of thing. having everything contained inside a tube suspended above the ground above a busy motorway is not a very good design choice. this sort of shit requires massive infrastructure that nerds don't think about. technically possible doesn't mean its actually a good idea.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50321151]they said the same thing about concorde
solar roads aren't physically impossible, neither is hyperloop (probably)
but do they make economic sense? not really
[editline]14th May 2016[/editline]
with a minutes clearance between pods i could see this being a major problem
you do realise that unless the tube has an easy way to access it (which is hard if its on concrete pylons the whole way) then you will have additional problems should an incident arise
railways have access roads, tunnels, bridges, etc along them all over the place for this sort of thing. having everything contained inside a tube suspended above the ground above a busy motorway is not a very good design choice. this sort of shit requires massive infrastructure that nerds don't think about. technically possible doesn't mean its actually a good idea.[/QUOTE]
The reddit example, of 1g at 1200 kmph, breaks in 23 seconds, launching a pod every minute you already have an 37 second margin.
You're not going to be leaving your seat on a 20 minute trip, so you might as well strap people in reasonably, it won't be pleasant be you'll be able to easily survive up to 10g, giving you an effective stopping time of 3.3 seconds.
All of these infrastructure factors are like wisely applicable to just normal trains. And maglev train tracks are build off the ground for various reasons as well.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;50321151]they said the same thing about concorde
solar roads aren't physically impossible, neither is hyperloop (probably)
but do they make economic sense? not really[/quote]
A lot of things they claimed for solar roads actually are actually physically impossible, and most of the things that aren't require superconductors that can operate at up to 50C.
[QUOTE=Cold;50321463]The reddit example, of 1g at 1200 kmph, breaks in 23 seconds, launching a pod every minute you already have an 37 second margin.
You're not going to be leaving your seat on a 20 minute trip, so you might as well strap people in reasonably, it won't be pleasant be you'll be able to easily survive up to 10g, giving you an effective stopping time of 3.3 seconds.[/quote]
37 second margin is too small for safety standards. even india is hesitant with margins that small
[quote]All of these infrastructure factors are like wisely applicable to just normal trains and maglev train tracks are build of the ground for various reasons as well.[/QUOTE]
the difference is that the technology and infrastructure for normal railways already exists and can be adapted at much less expense but with greater returns
hyperloop is going to struggle to get the infrastructure built unless the government steps in with eminent domain really hard. there's also mentioning that a lot of countries are already committed to HSR so it would be difficult to convince them to change to the hyperloop when its not going to be much better than HSR
[QUOTE=Cold;50321067]Trains can also just stop, rather then plumit to the ground if something fucks up.
Traditional trains function on the premise of metal surfaces to metal wheels to provide a as low rolling friction friction as possible, which also means they have very minimal surface area to apply friction too in need off a break.
You don't have this issue with maglev trains, you inverse the polarity of the magnets, and your giant sleds get forced to the ground with an incredibly large surface area.
There are dozens of other potentially breaking solution you could add, and currently high-speed trains also adopted magnetic breaks.
Your only real limitation is the amount of G force the people can handle inside.
And also you're in a tube, no animal or car or collapsed tree can fuck up for you, you have a lot less reasons to emergency break.
.[/QUOTE]
Im not sure if I am misunderstanding you, but a trains braking capabilities has nothing to do with the size of the wheel-rail contact, which is actually bigger than you'd think which can be characterised as a hertzian elastic contact
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
