South Korea Developing 'Near-Supersonic' Train Similar To Hyperloop (huffingtonpost.co.uk)

The South Korean government plans to unveil a high-speed train that can travel at near-supersonic speeds capable of cutting a five hour journey to just 30 minutes. It's reminiscent of the Hyperloop, a proposed mode of passenger and freight transportation that propels a pod-like vehicle through a near-vacuum tube at more than airline speed. Huffington Post UK reports: According to the Korea Railroad Research Institute, it plans to unveil a "hyper tube" format train in the "not too distant" future. Speaking to the South China Morning Post, the government-owned organization said: "We hope to create an ultra-fast train, which will travel inside a state-of-the-art low-pressure tube at lightning speeds, in the not-too-distant future. To that end, we will cooperate with associated institutes as well as Hanyang University to check the viability of various related technologies called the hyper-tube format over the next three years." While this sounds very similar to the low-pressure concept designed initially by Tesla founder Elon Musk it seems as though the KRRI wants to go even further and create a system that will leave Hyperloop looking like a Hornby set. By throwing all their resources at the project, South Korea is hoping to skip past maglev, a still-new propulsion system that uses electromagnets to actually levitate trains above the air. While this removes some of the friction that comes with using conventional wheels, it still doesn't remove the brick wall of friction that is air itself. By building a low-pressure tube however and placing the train inside it you can effectively create a train that could travel at eye-watering speeds.

Comments

Frist

[Anonymous Coward]

Psot

North Korea responds

[elrous0]

Glorious Leader invent train that go light speed. ALL HAIL GLORIOUS LEADER!

Re:North Korea responds

[Anonymous Coward]

Actual fact: instead of an "air force one" type airplane, NK's Kim uses a system of private train stations and tracks exclusive to his private train, the locations of which are all clandestine.

Re: North Korea responds

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is more safe than a plane.
OTOH, I just can't believe america let a sand n1gger run their country for 8 fucking years.

Re: North Korea responds

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe you think a vehicle which literally runs on a fixed track is safer to protect than an airplane somewhere in all of US airspace. Oh wait, I can believe it.

Re: North Korea responds

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that W Bush worked for Saudi Arabia.

Re: North Korea responds

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The solution is already there - airplanes

Re:North Korea responds

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, it's daddy Kim Jong Il who refused to fly on airplanes, his well-known son does fly on some nice Antonov. Of course the existing train network (which other countries just call the national rail tracks or something) is still used by current glorious Kim. DPRK complies with the struggle against global warming, so the big plane likely is not flown that often.

You can see an airplane trip from 3:40 here. You can watch from beginning until 24:30 uninterrupted, keep going if you want (then there's a train at 27:50 anyhow). It's fucking bad ass anyway!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Not shown : in late 2016 they tested a rocket engine on vertical test stand that will allow to reach GTO and lunar orbit.

Use that low pressure air

[VernonNemitz]

The train could be designed to get some lift from that low-pressure air, taking some of the load off the wheels.

Re:Use that low pressure air

[ShanghaiBill]

The train could be designed to get some lift from that low-pressure air, taking some of the load off the wheels.

That is exactly how Hyperloop works. It uses maglev at low speed, and then uses Air Bearings as it speeds up. There are no wheels.

Re: Use that low pressure air

[Anonymous Coward]

that's exactly how the hyperloop may work... when it is something more than a hyperbole.

Re: Use that low pressure air

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, because the Koreans have already built their hyperloop clone? No.
Because they already have physical prototypes or their hyperloop clone ? No.
Because they have already locked down the final design of their hyperloop clone? No.

But somehow for you it's not the Korean clone but hyperloop that is hyperbole?!?

Re:Use that low pressure air

[Rei]

Wheels at low speed, not maglev.

Of course, the "Hyperloop competition" blurred the line as to what counts as "hyperloop" anymore, because it was based around a bunch of purely maglev options that were radically different from the Hyperloop Alpha design (in many ways beyond just the levitation means).

Re:Use that low pressure air

[Anonymous Coward]

Incidentally, Inductrack also uses wheels for low speed landings. Not sure about the other options, but HTT did base their "Hyperloop" design on Inductrack. Vacuum trains and maglev are not mutually exclusive, and the simplicity and passive levitation afforded by Inductrack make it very attractive even without a vacuum.

The original Hyperloop design isn't a clear win, as complexity and maintenance costs will be substantially greater with all the turbomachinery on every train. On the other hand, Inductrack is very simple and low maintenance with essentially no moving parts, but does require rare earth magnets. At this stage, it would seem wise to invest in both.

Re:Use that low pressure air

[Rei]

Inductrac is less efficient than air bearings and the track is more complicated to build than straight pipe. That said, if the air bearing concept proved unworkable, I'd think it a fine fallback alternative.

The costs of the turbomachinery on the current design is factored into the budgeting. And you need it either way unless you're planning to run a hard vacuum, since otherwise the vehicle will compress the column of air ahead of it. Industrial air compressors aren't exactly new technology, although the operating environment is admittedly a bit unusual ;) But I do have to agree with their choice of focusing on air bearings. They're simple, light, equal or greater efficiency in comparison to magnetic, and most importantly they keep the "track" simple. The main downside is that they require a fairly high wall smoothness (hence Hyperloop Alpha's need for a rotary tube polisher).

Re:Use that low pressure air

[louzer]

This is what will happen to a Hyperloop or any other vacuum/low-pressure assisted transport: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Use that low pressure air

[Anonymous Coward]

They are both hyperbole dumbass.

Re:Use that low pressure air

[Anonymous Coward]

Take the wings and tail off from a 737, set it on a maglev frame, and push it through a big plastic soda straw,. With high air pressure behind it and no air pressure in front. The whole system is already there, they just need to put the parts in place.

Re:Use that low pressure air

[Rei]

You're describing a pneumatic train. Unfortunately, they don't scale well.

Hyperloop Alpha is neither a pneumatic train nor a vactrain nor maglev. It's an extreme variant of a ground-effect aircraft operating in a rarified environment.

Re: Use that low pressure air

[Anonymous Coward]

Removing the air in front of the train is not a new idea. Being able to do it practically is. Pneumatic tube's have been around since 1853. Let's not pretend that the Hyperloop is actually new. It's an application of several pre-existing concepts. High Speed Rail + Maglev + Pneumatic tube

To give you an idea, the best place to build this? Link Korea and Japan. Undersea rail. As a land transport, Korea just isn't large enough to justify building anything at this speed because it's barely competative with the existing high speed trains and air travel. Where you want to build something like this is between Korea and Japan, Russia and Alaska or Canada, or between the southern Continents through the Antarctic. In doing so, you also need to build in slack in the tube so that when an earthquake suddenly shifts the rail or tunnel 100 meters, that the train doesn't go nose-first into the shattered rail or tube wall.

Over land, it's not as cost effective, albeit if it's elevated, it at least is cheaper to build, but is still subject to natural disasters. When people ask why we don't have High Speed Rail all over the US... look no further than Tornado Alley. We simply can't build it in the South. We can build it in California, despite the earthquake risk. We can build it in Oregon and Washington despite the mountains (just tunnel through them at great expense), but we can't build it somewhere that is demolished every year.

competition

[Anonymous Coward]

will drive the industry

Distances

[manu0601]

It is surprising the project comes from a nation with a relatively small territory: the benefits are much smaller than if it happened in for instance Russia, China, or USA.

Re:Distances

[lindseyp]

I'm not sure maintaining such low pressure all the way down the tube is feasible even for LA-San Francisco, let alone interstate distances.

Re: Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

And mountains - connecting Seoul to anywhere must go through a lot of mountains and hyperloop will likely require a perfectly flat track.

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

The current KTX only takes a bit under three hours to go from Seoul to Busan. What's this talk about cutting a five hour journey down to 30 minutes? You'd be in the ocean by then! Is there really much demand to cross the country in 20 minutes when it only takes a few hours in the first place? Weird. The KTX is cheap too.

Re:Distances

[Solandri]

Keep in mind this is a country with 2.5x the population of New York state squashed into an area about 2/3 the size of New York state. Of countries larger than 10,000 km^2, only Bangladesh, Taiwan, and Lebanon are more densely populated. The highway system is easily overburdened. During the lunar new year, when nearly everyone tries to travel to their home town, it's not unusual for an approx 400 km drive to take 24 hours.

I've traveled between Seoul and Busan by highway, regular train, and airliner. The highway takes way too long when there's traffic. Train is slower than car because of all the stops. Air travel is way too expensive and annoying (flight is 40 minutes, about same as NYC to DC, but takes about 2.5 hours due to time tied up at and getting to the airport). The country badly needs something in-between. They started a high speed rail service, so this is just a natural progression of what they're already building.

Re: Distances

[manu0601]

hyperloop will likely require a perfectly flat track

Perhaps that can be addresses by tunnels?

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

That's well and good, but if a normal train is already slower than a car because it has to make all the stops and the distance between stops is small like you said, I don't see how increased velocity between stops can make much difference. It's never going to reduce a 5 hour trip to 30 minutes if there are more than a couple stations.

You hear about a lot of these "really fast" or "really tall" engineering projects coming out of SK lately - we were discussing pointless dick measuring/supersonic elevators just the other day. These things aren't intended to EVER be economically viable, or even see the light of day outside of maybe Dubai.

Re:Distances

[DerekLyons]

It is surprising the project comes from a nation with a relatively small territory: the benefits are much smaller than if it happened in for instance Russia, China, or USA.

It's not just that it's a small country. It's a small country with essentially one destination - 20% of the population lives in the capital (and 50% in the capital's metro area). Also, the capital is the government, financial, commercial, industrial, educational, entertainments, etc... etc... hub of the entire country. (Also very much unlike the US.)

Re:Distances

[Rei]

Why?

Part of the whole point of Hyperloop is that the low pressures aren't extreme (it's not a hard vacuum), and are thus easier to maintain with a regular series of vacuum pumps. And it has no "joints" (the only interruptions being periodic emergency exits, and the pumps themselves). All of the pipe segments are orbital welded and then polished smooth.

Re:Distances

[SpaghettiPattern]

It is surprising the project comes from a nation with a relatively small territory: the benefits are much smaller than if it happened in for instance Russia, China, or USA.

How about selling expertise, technology, components and whatnot?

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do you account for thermal expansion without expansion joints dumbass?

Re:Distances

[AmiMoJo]

I'm still not convinced it will be any better than maglev though. The main problem is that the cars need to be relatively small to work, meaning low capacity for passengers and cargo. You get 25% more speed but vastly lower capacity, and a huge increase in cost. Compared to a simple walk on, sit down train the proposed Hyperloop cars look like they would take longer to load up too, and be less comfortable when travelling longer distances.

Japan's maglev system is proven technology, already at the low end of the Hyperloop speed range and projected to reach over 900km/h in time. Hyperloop is expected to hit around 1200km/h, so I just can't see the benefit being great enough to outweigh the disadvantages.

Re:Distances

[halltk1983]

Daily commuters. Work in Seoul, live elsewhere, save yourself a ton of money on rent. Also, when North Korea goes bonkers and levels the city, you've got a 70% chance of not being in town when it happens.

Re:Distances

[halltk1983]

You take the regular train if you want to stop at one of the stops. You take the high speed rail if you want to get straight from one major metro area to another. You can get on a train going back the other way if you're in one of the last few stops that got skipped, and save yourself the majority of travel time. This is additional, not replacement.

Re:Distances

[Oswald McWeany]

Maybe they have an NSA that likes to spend two hours doing anal cavity searches.

Hyperloop anal cavity searches are quicker.

Re:Distances

[Rei]

What is so difficult for you about reading the design document, "dumbass"? Did you really think that that isn't covered? Section "Earthquakes and Expansion Joints". The tube is not firmly affixed to each pylon; it's mounted on a multiaxis damper. Its positioning is automatically controlled relative to independent factors, including earthquakes, ground shifting over time, and daily thermal expansion (which results in planned for anticipated changes in bend radii as well as a net overall expansion or contraction at the endpoints)

What it is about some topics that convince people to go online and write rants without having read the design document? It's not that long, for crying out loud. It's one thing to disagree with a particular engineering decision. It's an entirely different thing to have no clue what the engineering decisions are but still rant anyway.

Re:Distances

[Rei]

A more detailed breakdown of the differences versus high speed rail in general is in this post.

As for versus maglev: maglev is even more expensive to construct than conventional high speed rail, and suffers from the same design challenges that Hyperloop is designed to eliminate. Beyond that, Hyperloop is entirely self-powering - it uses so little power (coasting the vast majority of the time) that it's easy to have enough solar panels atop the tube to provide for its energy needs. Anything not in a rarified atmosphere moving at those sorts of speeds is plowing against a large amount of air resistance.

The small size of Hyperloop cars is a feature, not a bug; it's not just the cross section that's kept down, but the length as well. By keeping cars small (but frequently launched for equivalent throughput), they minimize peak loadings. Viaduct costs are roughly proportional to peak loadings. Elevation allows them to reduce a huge amount of overhead costs (the majority of the costs of a typical rail project) and eliminates a lot of the technical challenges with HSR involving ground shifting and earthquakes, transferring all of your support to readily adjustable fixed points.

As for passenger comfort, the interior looks more comfortable than any train I've ever been on. Of course, you can't get up and walk around, but then again, trips are so short there's not really any need to. I would say that the excellent leg room would be great for stretching out for napping, but that would be a very short nap ;)

As for loading, multiple capsules are loaded up at once. It's not a one-at-a-time thing.

Re: Distances

[Rei]

Same solution Japan uses for high speed rail. You're in a tunnel. Now you're out and instantly on a bridge! Now you're off and instantly in a tunnel! Now a bridge! Tunnel! Bridge! Tunnel! Bridge! (repeat until you arrive at your destination)

That said, tunnel costs are proportional to diameter and bridge costs proportional to peak loading, so a Hyperloop-style system wouldn't be such a bad idea in such an environment.

Re:Distances

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'm not sure maintaining such low pressure all the way down the tube is feasible even for LA-San Francisco, let alone interstate distances.

It's not feasible.

The whole hyperloop thing is a circle-jerking load of bullshit that will never be built. Maintaining any significant vacuum in such enormous spaces is extremely difficult. Mark my words, it's pie-in-the-sky bullshit and it will never go into production, nor will it ever be used in any practical manner (especially not for transporting people).

Re:Distances

[hey!]

Japan's maglev system is proven technology, already at the low end of the Hyperloop speed range and projected to reach over 900km/h in time. Hyperloop is expected to hit around 1200km/h, so I just can't see the benefit being great enough to outweigh the disadvantages.

The reason to choose Hyperloop over Maglev isn't speed, it's projected cost. Musk thinks he can build the things for $11 million/km. That's about a quarter of what maglev would cost -- assuming that Hyperloop even works.

There isn't a lot to choose between 30 minutes LA to San Francisco and 45 minutes. Over longer haul routes the technology is supposed to eventually go much, much faster than maglev, but the key in the near future will be to beat maglev on cost over medium distances. And to actually work.

As for comfort, Hyperloop proposes to turn intercity travel into something more like a cross city subway ride. In fact (assuming it works) you'll be able to get from New York to Washington DC in less time than it takes to cross Brooklyn on the MTA.

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

The length of the tube expands and contracts dumbass. That means the vacuum tube itself needs vacuum tight expansion joints called bellows moron.

The person that wrote the design document is clearly as stupid as you are.

Re:Distances

[Rei]

Technically you can scale Hyperloop to several times higher speeds, if you can build sufficiently straight segments (e.g. Great Plains). It does however require one alteration of note: you have to increase your leak compensation pumping capacity severalfold (it's an unknown at this point how bad leaks will be, though they tried to be pessimistic in their assumptions), while injecting hydrogen or helium to maintain the same pressure. Ideally hydrogen (it's not explosive nor embrittling at such tiny pressures, although its behavior when compressed would need to be studied). You need light gases to raise the speed of sound inside the tube (also reduces air resistance / compressor mass throughput requirements). Water would work also instead of hydrogen or helium (it's a gas at those pressures), although not as well (but better than air).

At least, pessimistically it's required. I don't think they've done anything to simulate what sort of temperature the rarified gas inside the tube would maintain under full load (the effect of passing vehicles on the tube itself is trivial - the gas is a terrible conductor of heat, and the tube has a huge convecting surface area). If the rarified gas was left significantly hotter than the tube (due to its poor conduction of heat), that too would raise its speed of sound.

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

Many buildings such as hospitals and offices use pneumatic mail delivery systems. Place the items that you want processed in a capsule. Place the capsule in the loading bay of the pneumatic system, close the hatch, pull the lever and it's gone over a distance of 100's of meters.

Oil and gas pipelines run for distances of hundreds of miles at high pressure. So long as everything is inspected for rust or metal fatigue, there is no problem.

Re:Distances

[AmiMoJo]

It seems extremely unlikely that maglev would cost more than a hyperloop tube. The tube still needs the same support under it, maybe a little less due to smaller cars but a little more due to the mass of the "track" being higher. It's more material to fully enclose the area, and would need air pumps all along it to create the partial vacuum.

Maglev may ultimately be faster too. The problem with hyperloop is that you have to balance the need to fly on air bearings and the need to shift air out of your way in an enclosed space. When you get up to higher speeds you need to pump the excess air from the front to the back. They are hoping they can keep improving the vacuum but then you waste more and more energy maintaining it and a failure becomes more and more catastrophic.

Maglev can push the air aside with a long nose cone because even tunnels are not nearly as confined as the hyperloop tubes.

Hyperloop is relying on being able to exceed the normal speed of sound without a sonic boom due to the lower air pressure, but it looks theoretically possible to design a maglev that could cross that threshold without the boom disturbing people. It's something JAXA is working on for aircraft and which JR has put a lot of effort into for current trains which would run faster if not for the noise.

Re:Distances

[jandrese]

Musk's cost estimates are also pure fantasy. $11 million/km for an elevated human rated pressure vessel? That's not even close to reasonable.

Re:Distances

[jandrese]

There is no way the tickets for this will cost less than an airline flight over similar distances. Some people can do that (there are commuter flights), but not as a daily thing. Typically they'll work for a week then head home for the weekends.

Re:Distances

[jandrese]

They have never heard of express trains? That's the typical solution to having too many small stops on a rail line.

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

It is surprising the project comes from a nation with a relatively small territory: the benefits are much smaller than if it happened in for instance Russia, China, or USA.

Or Canada or Brazil.

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Part of the whole point of Hyperloop is that the low pressures aren't extreme (it's not a hard vacuum),

So it seems that Mars is the ideal place for development. Elon Musk is a visionary.

Re:Distances

[hey!]

If I were picking a number out of thin air I'd certainly go higher. The question is how he arrived at that number, and I suspect economies of scale have something to do with it. Scale can do funny things to your calculations. Things can get harder, then easier, then harder again as you go up.

I once had a colleague whose first engineering job out of college was to do a reverse engineering specification on a prototype submersible; the Navy was pleased with the low cost of the prototype and thought it might like a second one. The problem was that the prototype was made by scrounging surplus bits and pieces; building a second one that was exactly the same would have cost 10x as much because you'd have to hunt down an exact replacement for each part. But if you were building a 100 units, you probably could do it for 100x the cost, because you could amortize the project's fixed costs over more units: source the odd parts, reverse engineering them if necessary, or doing design revisions with an eye to making it reproducible.

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this. The Hyperloop is a fail due to basic physics problems and implementation realities:

1). If you air evacuate a tube that is many miles long, you have to construct the tube to resist enormous forces. That can be done but it's expensive. As in, really expensive;
2). Simply maintaining seals on such a large system becomes daunting. Imagine building a submarine (a watertight structure obviously)... that's 100 miles long. Or 1,000 miles long. Or 10,000 miles long. Does this sound like something you can seal effectively?
3). Transit systems get massive use over decades. We're talking thousands of people a day, minimum. Imagine trying to maintain the London Tube, or the Madrid Metro, or the New York Subway, under high vacuum, for over a century. Sure those are old systems but unless you completely address the volume use-case, you are living in infrastructure fantasy land;
4). Long, rigid tubes, that must remain intact to protect the vacuum. How long until an earthquake, or a train accident, or an outside piece of construction equipment, or corrosion, breaks the tube wide open? There's an internet analysis of what happens to the trains and people inside and it isn't pretty. To summarize, everyone dies. The forces unleashed by catastrophic loss of vacuum are not survivable.

When real-world pipelines break (the closest analogue we have to the Hyperloop), the incident is controlled by sealing valves on either side of the leak and emptying the pipe between the valves. Fast reactions to close the valves are needed and emptying the pipeline is often messy. Now imagine valves on the Hyperloop; they have to be approximately 10-20 feet across! Safety would dictate that these valves be kept closed all the time, unless a train is passing. Suddenly you have to cycle the valves many times per hour. We're talking about a huge and high precision gate valve, cycling thousands of times per year. Parts wear is going to become a giant problem.

The people rooting for Hyperloop are hoping for a transit magic bullet. Hyperloop isn't a magic bullet.

Re:Distances

[oldmac31310]

Or India?

Re:Distances

[Rei]

The length of the tube expands and contracts dumbass.

Why are you writing that, "dumbass", as if I didn't write precisely that, and explain precisely how it's accounted for as per the document?

The tube expands and contracts. This is accounted for by changing bend radii and changes in length of the tube as a whole at the endpoints.

Also, why are you of the impression that inserting words like "dumbass" into your posts makes you sound more intelligent?

Re:Distances

[Rei]

What about the cost breakdown do you find unrealistic? Name a particular element.

I've actually checked a lot of the numbers personally, and every last one I've looked into checks out.

Re:Distances

[Rei]

It's not "picking numbers". For god's sake, why does everyone see fit to argue about a system without having read the design document for said system? All of the cost breakdowns are there. It's not that long of a read. It's fine to disagree with something when you know what it actually is you're disagreeing with, but it's ridiculous to assert that something is wrong when you don't even know what that thing is.

Re:Distances

[Rei]

Peak loadings from the tube are significantly lower than from the cars (I've done the math, feel free to double check for yourself). And a Hyperloop car weighs about an order of magnitude less than a train. The peak loadings are vastly lower.

The amount of track steel per unit length isn't that great; if you were just buying raw steel the cost would be something like a fifth of what's being budgeted for buying the pipe segments for the tube. Rail isn't expensive because steel is expensive; it's way, way down on the list of costs.

Maglev cannot be faster, as it has to plow large amounts of air out of the way (particularly problematic in tunnels - which means that they have to significantly increase tunnel diameters, which significantly increases tunnel costs). The only limitation to Hyperloop speed is the speed of sound in the tube - which can be increased if needed, as discussed elsewhere in this comments section. The amount of vacuum needed is many orders of magnitude less stringent than what you'd normally consider a "vacuum"; it's about a thousandth of atmospheric pressure, versus the millionths or billionths of atmospheric pressure in hard vacuum systems - and thus thousands to millions of times easier to maintain.

Hyperloop is relying on being able to exceed the normal speed of sound without a sonic boom due to the lower air pressure,

The speed of sound does not work that way.

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

At the speeds this thing goes any bends have to have such a large radius that they are effectively straight and cannot compensate for the thermal expansion dumbass.

Re:Distances

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you see fit to be a stupid fucking moronic dumbass?

Think of why maglev is expensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of why a maglev train is expensive...
Think of the control problem of vehicle suspension at such high speeds.
Think of the turning forces.
Think of the stopping forces.
Think of the turning radii.
Think of the dimensional precision necessary for a track that handles 300 mph traffic.

Now double the speed and pack it all into a vacuum tube.

Re:Think of why maglev is expensive...

[Rei]

Why are you under the impression that putting it in a tube makes handling turbing forces, stopping forces and control more difficult? Inside a tube, all motion is perfectly constrained, and you have a tremendous amount of surface area to magnetic brake against.

The turning radii issues are of course real, and are highly addressed in the Hyperloop Alpha document. Likewise for dimensional precision. For smoothness, their solution is a radial polisher which drives down the tube behind the pipelaying crew and smoothing out each orbital weld (and the pipe itself). For straightness, alignment is maintained by the same suspension/alignment system they use to deal with earthquakes.

As for why maglev trains are expensive - trains are expensive for a wide variety of reasons. Land acquisition and permitting is often the most expensive. Tunnels and viaducts are often a very large component as well. Maglev technology itself often tends to have high bills.

Hyperloop (as per Hyperloop Alpha, not the student competition) isn't maglev, it's an air bearing system. Skis, basically. The pipe is built the same as oil pipeline, and the budget is similar to that of oil pipeline budgeting per unit area per unit distance (oil pipelines have harder environmental issues to overcome and much higher loadings, more significant temperature management issues, etc, but lower precision / straightness requirements, so it's probably a wash). Tunnel cost is minimized by minimizing tube size (the budgeted tunnels are standard rates for tunneled pipe in non-urban areas). Viaduct costs are minimized by a key design feature of Hyperloop - minimizing peak loadings by having frequent, small vehicle launches rather than infrequent, large vehicle launches. Viaduct costs tend to track their peak loading.

As for land acquisition, the costs in Hyperloop Alpha are kept down by a combination of design and cheating. As per design, it's designed to be small enough to fit elevated into highway medians, with the low peak loadings, making overhead suspension an affordable option. Such places are state land, and already permitted for far more environmentally harmful activity (road traffic). This of course requires state buy-in to the concept, but states often specifically pursue high speed transport options. Private land acquisition is limited to places needed to maximize turning radii, and in-city for stations. The latter is the other place that they cheat - Hyperloop Alpha avoids cities. LA and San Francisco are served by it, according to the design, like airports on the outskirts of town; people have to get connecting legs into town. But that would be an unpopular decision, and you would expect the state to insist on greater accessibility (airports are only out of town because they have to be, not because that's a desirable location). Likewise it bypasses cities en route, unlike HSR. Basically, it's designed as something halfway in-between HSR and air travel (both in terms of service and throughput), but targeting much lower prices, higher speeds, and a lower energy footprint.

In short, it's budget savings vs. HSR are somewhat of a combination of cheating (cutting out a lot of what HSR does) and design (keeping track loadings down, profile small, build in the same manner as an established industry (pipeline), and moving your hardware (capital expense) through the system as quickly as you can.

Re:Think of why maglev is expensive...

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

Think of why a maglev train is expensive...
Think of the control problem of vehicle suspension at such high speeds.
Think of the turning forces.
Think of the stopping forces.
Think of the turning radii.
Think of the dimensional precision necessary for a track that handles 300 mph traffic.

Now double the speed and pack it all into a vacuum tube.

Exactly. It's a fantasy project that will never be built. But the hyperloop whores will never admit that the whole thing is an impractical joke with no chance of success. Mark my words, this thing will never, ever go into production.

Re:Think of why maglev is expensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you under the impression that putting it in a tube makes handling turbing forces, stopping forces and control more difficult?

The point is it won't make it less difficult. Why are you under the impression that putting it in a vacuum tube is no sweat? The speed, however, does make those things much, much more difficult. Again, think of why maglev is expensive.

Inside a tube, all motion is perfectly constrained, and you have a tremendous amount of surface area to magnetic brake against.

It's a thin-walled tube. It doesn't do much constraining at the dynamic forces you're talking about. You still have to constrain the tube. You can't have a 600+mph ground vehicle and gloss over the suspension problem.

The turning radii issues are of course real, and are highly addressed in the Hyperloop Alpha document. Likewise for dimensional precision.

Turning radius "issues" and exacting dimensional precision are solved problems. They can be achieved, but their minimum requirements here are a matter of physics. Hyperloop quadruples their severity (at least). Again, think of why maglev is expensive.
Also, a nitpick; the Hyperloop Alpha document (at least the one I read on the Space-X website) "highly addresses" precisely nothing. It's envelope calcs and napkin sketches. The problems with large turning radius are "addressed" with circles drawn on a map of Southern California.

For smoothness, their solution is a radial polisher which drives down the tube behind the pipelaying crew and smoothing out each orbital weld (and the pipe itself). For straightness, alignment is maintained by the same suspension/alignment system they use to deal with earthquakes.

The smoothness of the interior wall is the least of your problems. Deviations of the tube centerline have to be small at spectral wavelengths of hundreds of yards (or more), and it has to stay that way throughout the day, throughout the year, and through an earthquake.

Land acquisition and permitting is often the most expensive.

Not solved by Hyperloop.

Tunnels and viaducts are often a very large component as well.

Not solved by Hyperloop.

Hyperloop (as per Hyperloop Alpha, not the student competition) isn't maglev, it's an air bearing system. Skis, basically.

Not meaning to be dismissive, you are very, very clearly not a mechanical or structural engineer. It doesn't matter what the bearing system is. Wheels, air, maglev, whatever, the suspension problem is not addressed. An air bearing is a bearing, not a suspension system. In order for it to be a suspension, it needs to absorb the lateral deviations in the track/tube to even out the reaction forces, and it needs to do this at all the required frequencies. At higher and higher speeds, those frequencies correspond to longer and longer track/tube wavelengths over which you have to control or attenuate the deviations. If you want a smaller suspension system, you have to make the track more perfect. If you want to spend less on making your track perfect, you have to have a bigger suspension (and heavier train car). Either way, the track also has to be effectively rigid against enormous transient loads, which is a huge problem when you want to put it up on stilts.
Hyperloop Alpha only makes passing mention of putting a mechanical suspension on the cars. This makes it a lot more like a train car than you realize. These problems are a big deal in HSR at half the speed, and exist in concept before you even get around to figuring out how to hold the vacuum down. If you put the thing on the moon and wanted to go the same speed, you'd have these same problems.

The pipe is built the same as oil pipeline, and the budget is similar to that of oil pipeline budgeting per unit area per unit distance (oil pipelines have harder envi

Re:Think of why maglev is expensive...

[Areyoukiddingme]

It's a thin-walled tube. It doesn't do much constraining at the dynamic forces you're talking about.

It's 20 to 25mm of solid steel. "Thin-walled" is very much a relative thing.

You still have to constrain the tube.

That's what the $2.5 billion in steel-reinforced concrete is for. Also the stringers on the outside of the tube (omitted from all the concept art but mentioned in the text).

Land acquisition and permitting is often the most expensive.

Not solved by Hyperloop.

Solved by Hyperloop insofar as the government of the state of California can be convinced to play ball. The majority of the proposed route is on existing public land. I've said before that this is the reason why Hyperloop won't happen, and not any technical reason. The HSR project allows the Right People to get rich from land speculation. The Hyperloop does not.

But to continue...

In order for it to be a suspension, it needs to absorb the lateral deviations in the track/tube to even out the reaction forces, and it needs to do this at all the required frequencies. At higher and higher speeds, those frequencies correspond to longer and longer track/tube wavelengths over which you have to control or attenuate the deviations.

So design a suspension system. And don't forget, you have quite a lot of room to play around in. Per the document, the capsule only occupies 36% of the cross-sectional area of the tube. People have this persistent notion that the Hyperloop capsule is jammed into its tube like the carrier in a bank's pneumatic system. It's not. There's plenty of room for as sophisticated a suspension system as necessary.

Viaduct costs are minimized by a key design feature of Hyperloop - minimizing peak loadings by having frequent, small vehicle launches rather than infrequent, large vehicle launches. Viaduct costs tend to track their peak loading.

Why don't trains already do this?

Because trains haul freight, everywhere in the world. Passengers are an afterthought, and an ill-considered afterthought at that.

As for land acquisition, the costs in Hyperloop Alpha are kept down by a combination of design and cheating. As per design, it's designed to be small enough to fit elevated into highway medians, with the low peak loadings, making overhead suspension an affordable option. Such places are state land, and already permitted for far more environmentally harmful activity (road traffic).

Why don't trains already do this?

Because trains haul freight. It doesn't have to get there quickly, but when it does, there sure is a lot of it.

the Hyperloop Alpha document (at least the one I read on the Space-X website) "highly addresses" precisely nothing. It's envelope calcs and napkin sketches.

Well no, it's more than back-of-the-envelope calculations. Somebody went to the trouble of putting together a solid model of the tube and the pylons and running it through the simulator. But yes, the document is not sufficient for some guy with a hammer to go out and start slapping one up. It's a proposal. It's been sanity-checked fairly well, by people who understand just as much about static and dynamic loads as you do, and it's been mathematically demonstrated to be not insane. No, the capsule suspension system has not been worked out. Nor has the capsule door seal, which must stay air-tight in the face of dozens of unsealings and resealings a day, not to mention foot traffic. Nor has the exact nature of the system that ties the tube to a pylon been worked out.

But none of these things are physical or financial impossibilities. Analogs can be found in existing products and structures.

Re:Think of why maglev is expensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

For tube, thin-walled is literally a relative thing. "Thin" refers to the wall thickness being a very small fraction of the tube diameter.

So design a suspension system... There's plenty of room for as sophisticated a suspension system as necessary.

That was easy. Glad you've already established that it's completely feasible and fits in the tube and doesn't weigh too much and won't cost $100 million extra in development.

Because trains haul freight, everywhere in the world.

Trains haul freight because freight makes money. Passenger trains don't. Neither would the Hyperloop if you laid out the absurd amount of money it would take to develop and build.

Well no, it's more than back-of-the-envelope calculations. Somebody went to the trouble of putting together a solid model of the tube and the pylons and running it through the simulator... It's a proposal.

Wow. The simulator? Slam dunk, then. Look, I know I'm being a smart-ass here, but running bullshit analyses is really easy (especially CFD analyses), and is in fact really tempting when you're trying to spin things in a proposal that your employer is fond of. I know, I've seen it. The document is indeed effectively a collection back-of-the-envelope calculations. It's got some pretty streamlines, though.

It's been sanity-checked fairly well, by people who understand just as much about static and dynamic loads as you do, and it's been mathematically demonstrated to be not insane.

Mathematically demonstrated? You are definitely not an engineer of the non-software type. Ideas are cheap. I can come up with plenty of designs that are mathematically feasible but impossible to build. It's trivial.
And I don't doubt that Space-X has some crazy-smart structure and dynamics guys (in fact I know they do), but this is still half-baked. It doesn't appear to me to have been strongly sanity-checked at all.

No, the capsule suspension system has not been worked out. Nor has the capsule door seal, which must stay air-tight in the face of dozens of unsealings and resealings a day, not to mention foot traffic. Nor has the exact nature of the system that ties the tube to a pylon been worked out.

Details, details. Let's figure all that out after contract award. I'm sure the development costs will be manageable.

I have to stress at this point that nothing remotely like this thing has ever been built.

But none of these things are physical or financial impossibilities. Analogs can be found in existing products and structures. Yes, the design regime is a little outré, but airplanes and rockets and skyscrapers exist, and quite frankly, the Hyperloop is a lot less outrageous than the SR-71 Blackbird. And yes, if you wanted it developed by letting a cost-plus contract to Lockheed, it would cost as much as the entire Space Shuttle program. Elon Musk has demonstrated quite sufficiently that Lockheed's way is not the only way to achieve high performance physical systems. Hyperloop could be substantially cheaper than California's High Speed Rail project. But it would have to be approached the same way SpaceX approaches rockets, and outside Elon Musk, it doesn't appear there's an American company capable of that approach.

I agree that it might be possible to build. It would most certainly be a financial insanity. Analogs to parts of this thing can be found. Analogs to a 700 mph passenger train in a vacuum tube can not.

The Blackbird is not as outrageous as this. Lots of Mach 2+ planes have been built, even a passenger plane, and several go Mach 3+. Many planes have had ramjets. You get the idea. Again, nothing even remotely like the Hyperloop has ever been built.

I honestly don't know what you mean by "Lockheed's way". Space-X's rockets aren't all that remarkable as far as rockets go. LOx-RP1 in a GG cycle. Simple and straightfor

If they have this kind of money

[Snotnose]

They can fucking defend themselves against Best Korea. How many artillery guns and shells can you buy for this kind of money?

Much as I hate to say it, Trump is right maybe 1 time in 10.

Re:If they have this kind of money

[Anonymous Coward]

You say this as if we're in Korea to protect the South from the North. It's strategic to have the 8th Army stationed there. And to have forces in Japan.

Sure, they could defend themselves, but then they'd control powerful military forces that would be a threat to the American hegemony that enforces American economic priorities. South Korea and Japan could (rather trivially) develop nuclear weapons systems and a military that technically matches our own.

They don't, because American boots are a carrot and stick -- defence is assured since an attack on either state would invite American wrath; compliance is assured since we are already inside their borders.

Re:If they have this kind of money

[Anonymous Coward]

The pay the US nearly $900 million annually for $28k troops. http://www.politifact.com/trut... They pay something like 95% of what it costs us to have a presence there, and the benefits to the US are numerous.

Re:If they have this kind of money

[wisebabo]

I'm not sure that cost is the only consideration in whether or not the U.S. should help defend S. Korea. This is even though I have heard that S. Korea pays the U.S. a couple(?) of billion a year in reimbursement; whether or not this is a fair amount I have no idea.

Much more important is the implied alliance between the two nations. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea, inevitably American soldiers will be killed which will bring a much stronger response from the U.S. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea with nukes then they will invite an immediate (and apocalyptic!) nuclear response.

Perhaps more importantly having a U.S. presence in S. Korea TELLS THE CHINESE that the U.S. is a power in their backyard and the U.S. could make life difficult for them in any really serious conflict. (Imagine if China had military bases in Canada). Having U.S. stealth bombers minutes away from Chinese territory must be something that keeps the Chinese strategic planners up at night. The expansion of the THAAD missile defense system to S. Korea allegedly "solely" for the defense of S. Korea and Japan must also make them worry. Could it, indeed, be used to intercept Chinese ICBMs headed for the U.S.? That would mean China would be emasculated in a strategic nuclear conflict (they used to have, like, only 200 warheads that could reach the U.S,; a first strike coupled with a good missile defense system could've rendered them completely useless. That's surely one reason why China is now building subs carrying nuclear weapons, unlike the ICBMS launched from China they can be launched from anywhere and would not have to fly directly over the S. Korean defenses on their way to their targets in the U.S.).

Consider the alternative: the U.S. says "you're on your own" to S. Korea (and Japan). Within a year, the extremely technologically capable S. Koreans and Japanese would likely have their own nuclear weapons (and delivery systems as evidenced by the latest Japanese solid rocket booster). Sounds good no? Except now the Chinese would have to worry about nuclear weapons being delivered onto their soil in minutes by intermediate range ICBMs. They'd have to invest in missile defense and/or more nuclear weapons to ride out an attack. Perhaps India would be spooked and would also follow their "rival" (the Indians like thinking the Chinese are their chief competitor, the Chinese couldn't care less). That could provoke Pakistan to add to their arsenal (at 100+ warheads the fastest growing in the world). Not good since the Pakistanis are probably the country most likely to give (or have stolen from) nuclear weapons for use by radical Islam. Of course with Trump saying the Saudis (who, remember comprised 19 of the 20 hijackers on 9/11) should be allowed to have nukes for use against Iran, maybe there is another pathway for nuclear terrorism.

Anyway, while some of these "dominos" falling is farfetched you can see how inter-country tensions are a lot more complex than a simple "let them pay for their own defense". That's why nuclear non-proliferation treaties (were) a critical part of world diplomacy (until the Bush administration let the Indians be recognized as a DECLARED nuclear power, the first since WWII, with no substantial penalties).

Re: If they have this kind of money

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't defend themselves from NKorea, stupid. They, like DPRK, are pawns in a proxy war beteeen China and the USA.

Re:If they have this kind of money

[ghoul]

Your last line is horseshit. The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty was brought in in 1972 immediately after India tested its own bomb. Its purpose was to keep the club closed to the 5 who had their bombs. India never signed the NPT so there is no question of having penalties for violating it. (Same for PAkistan and ISrael who never signed). WW2 even the US had only 6 bombs (The Japanese surrendered because the soviets attacked). All proliferation happened AFTER WW2.
Incidentally the basic equations which made the Bomb possible came from India - Go look up Bose Einstein Statistics. India was always advanced in nuclear research. If not for the chaos of Independence and 4 wars (3 with pakistan 1948,1965,1971 and one with China 1962 ) progress might have been faster on the bomb. Also the CIA assasinated India's top nuclear scientists by taking down their plane in Switzerland while they were on a conference visit. Else India would defintiely beat France, China and Israel to the Bomb. India and US are friends today but the US has done a lot of shit to India in the past. Which is why Bush did not want to push India anymore. Part of why India and US are friends today is Bush being a better diplomat than Clinton or Obama.

Re:If they have this kind of money

[Anonymous Coward]

Soul is only tens of kilometers from the border. Then there is the question of Chinese reaction to such event, which automatically leads to increase possibility for Taiwan invasion. And if Japan is forced to get involved, Russia might make their move at the north, filled with the feelings of invulnerability. Some people like international anarchy for them take advantage of. Most people realize that it is no longer a good idea due to the unacceptable risks related to nuclear weapons and disruption of commerce.

Re:If they have this kind of money

[Anonymous Coward]

It's strategic to have the 8th Army stationed there. And to have forces in Japan.

Strategic for whom? Projecting power is trivially easy for the American military. Air & naval power require no in-country footprint whatsoever (our bombers and cruise missiles hit Iraq from the fucking midwest and the middle of the Indian Ocean, and we can loiter drones and other air support on station for a long ass time), and we can park a carrier groups off the coast of whatever fuckstain country we want to intimidate within days, with 1 or more additional battle groups on the way to reinforce it. Airborne insertion of special ops can be achieved within hours, and within a couple days, we could have inserted literally a couple of entire divisions of ground troops. At that point, you've got enough of a foothold that you can start flying in big-ass transports with all kinds of people, armor, guns, and everything else.

But yeah, we're in Korea to bully them into toeing the line... as if we couldn't do that from a couple fucking trailers in Nevada, and 50 miles offshore.

Re:If they have this kind of money

[Anonymous Coward]

that seems to be working ok with NORTH Korea

oh wait..

Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[gavron]

I think it's great that one day we'll live on a planet where we don't have to sit in a plane but instead can sit in a train, although I'm sure TSA will find a way to make it slower and more annoying. However, the original article really quotes some... HYPERBOLE ideas:

"...leave the hyperloop looking like a Hornby set."

Never heard of it. When using a simile try to ensure that the part you're comparing things to is actually known by people. With all due respect to Bruce Hornsby, of whom I have heard. He's got a band, not a set.

"...maglev, a still-new propulsion system..."
Only if still-new is 1972 tech. Seriously... this is almost 50-year old technology. It's not "still new". It has its challenges which is why it's not used everywhere... just like any other form of compromise in transportation, shipping logistics, or life.

E

Re: Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is still new... to the Koreans. While Germany's Siemens group has built Shanghai's maglev from Pudong airport to Shanghai (traveling at 431 kph), South Korea has built a slow and short maglev that runs near their airport. Delayed for years, as they figured out how to make it work, this was supposed to be their technology demonstrator for sales to other countries. Last time I checked, nobody is building a maglev anytime soon. This new hyperloop competitor will be another waste of taxpayer's money.

Re: Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan started construction last year on their maglev between Tokyo and Nagoya, due 2027. Wholly financed privately by JR. Most sections will be underground. Tunnels generate too much noise.

Guess they found something

[jpellino]

to do with all those Galaxy Note 7 batteries.

Re:Guess they found something

[gijoel]

What? Are they burning them as fuel for their steam locomotives?

Re:Guess they found something

[esperto]

Use as high explosives to bore through the tunnel. With the tens of millions of note 7's apparently they could built a tunnel linking south korea to china via north korea and have some to spare.

Choice of words

[contrains]

" . . . the brick wall of friction that is air itself. By building a low-pressure tube . . . could travel at eye-watering speeds."

Funny choice of words, since it's the air itself which causes your eyes to water at high speeds.

Re:Choice of words

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the though of near super-sonic speeds an the ground level is so affecting that it makes a grown man cry. Future shock is here.

Congress was wise to kill maglev

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was younger, I thought Congress was foolish to cancel maglev research, and the SSC. Now I am older. The LHC would be a cheaper and 'good enough' big supercollider. A maglev line would require tens (hundreds?) of MILLIONS of passengers a year to break even. Germany and Japan were developing maglev systems. An American maglev would be chasing too few routes. Congress was smart enough to kill it, and have only one real high speed rail line.

Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[gl4ss]

it's there because james may is obsessed with them.

anyways.. they're toy trains popular in the UK when toy trains became popular.

What's the actual difference?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the entire point of putting Hyperloop "capsules" in a tube was to pump the air out to eliminate air resistance and allow the capsules to travel at ridiculous speeds. The maglev part is about eliminating friction from rails too, but you wouldn't need a to put the train in a tube just to get a benefit from maglev. As far as I know, they haven't demonstrated Hyperloop running in a tube yet, but my understanding is that is the ultimate plan for Hyperloop.

So what's special and new about this proposal? It sounds exactly like the core idea for Hyperloop to me... put a train in a tube and pump out all the air to reduce friction so the thing can go at silly speed, cost silly amounts of money to build, and be vulnerable to new problems that ordinary trains aren't.

Re:What's the actual difference?

[presidenteloco]

I'm pretty sure it's just bad journalistic article writing, or that weird kind of "we have superior technology" boosterism. From the description, the thing sounds pretty much the same as hyperloop.

Terrorist target?

[walterbyrd]

A lot easier target than an airplane. You could be miles away when the bomb goes off.

Re:Terrorist target?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is that and the idea that it may not actually be possible to work correctly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Before anyone gets twisted and says 'low pressure' he addresses that in the second video. He uses the pressures right out of the papers hyperloop is producing.

This *might* work at lower pressure (say airplane altitude) but will still have a lot of issues. Even then might not work.

It is not even all that new of an idea. Robert Goddard proposed it years ago and failed to get it to work correctly. I want it to work. But at the pressures they are talking about it probably will not. I hope for the best but lets be pragmatic. It probably will not :(

Re:Terrorist target?

[Rei]

Linking to someone talking on YouTube is one of the most annoying ways you could possibly try to make an argument. How many people do you think will actually bother to click on that?

Re:Terrorist target?

[Rei]

If you're going to detonate bombs large enough to take out a concrete column for a big steel pipe, why wouldn't you do it where you'd kill a lot more people rather than "hopefully lucking into causing enough deflection (by increasing the span) right before the next capsule arrives that it can't decelerate sufficiently in time to handle said deflection, and possibly killing or injuring one capsule's worth of people"?

Airplane attacks were popular because of the ability to kill hundreds of people at once, or to hijack planes and use them as weapons. Not exactly applicable to Hyperloop. And even airplane attacks seem to be falling out of popularity, in favour of coordinated shootings and plowing through crowds.

Re:Terrorist target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linking to someone that understands things like science and math on YouTube is one of the most annoying ways you could possibly try to make an argument to morons like me. How many uneducated dumbasses like me do you think will actually bother to click on that and learn something about how stupid the hyper loop is?

Fixed that for you.

Re:Terrorist target?

[Anonymous Coward]

A terrorist would kill many more by derailing a normal passenger train on a bridge. Most dies, and a train carry lots of passengers.

Blow up a hyperloop exactly when a capsule arrives. All people in that capsule crash at 900km/h and die, but they are few. Much fewer than on a train. And then the hyperloop shuts down - it cannot work without vacuum and the terrorist bomb just made a big hole in the pipe. No more people get hurt.

If the bomb is a little late, it merely punctures the pipe behind the capsule; shutting down operations until the pipe is repaired. If the bomb is a little early, the capsule will slam into the column of inrushing air and brake to a stop. Unpleasant & scary but no dead people.

If the bomb is too small, the capsule will pass over the hole without falling out or crash. Bumpy ride, emergency stop; but no dead.

Re:Terrorist target?

[Rei]

Linking to someone talking on YouTube is one of the most annoying ways you could possibly try to make an argument. How many people do you think will actually bother to click on that?

Missed the whole point for you.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Terrorist target?

[Oswald McWeany]

A lot less devastating than an airplane though. If the bomb doesn't kill you itself, you're much more likely to survive. The train is less likely to hit a building or other people, and there would be less of a psychological impact.

Re:Terrorist target?

[Anonymous Coward]

Airplane attacks were popular because of the ability to kill hundreds of people at once, or to hijack planes and use them as weapons.

Are you suggesting that we not even defend against a super-sonic train being hijacked and rammed into the White House?

Comfort

[lazy genes]

The real problem is that you have to sit with complete strangers. This is where speed and time matters. It is ten times harder to sit next to a ignorant person if you are more ignorant than he is. Personal vehicles on tracks would be more sustainable and much faster. A vehicle on a track guided by a local and a universal computer system is the only way to move things in a sustainable way. The best solution is to shrink people down to the size of a small rodent. This will eventually increase human intelegence simply by increasing its population.

Re:Comfort

[Anonymous Coward]

See SkyTran or other Personal rapid transit concepts for how this may be realized. Well, aside from shrinking people...

Re:Comfort

[Eunuchswear]

The best solution is to shrink people down to the size of a small rodent.

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Comfort

[lazy genes]

I have no time to produce a news letter. Most of my ideas intrude on people's egos.i spend my time developing profitable sustainable systems. The thought experiment with transportation in mind, to except no injuries ,tickets , illiminate insurance , scale to 16 billion, save time and energy. Engineering process should always include scaling to 16 billion people. Population size is relative to the intelegence of the population. It will take 16 billion to reach another quantem leap. We are still evolving or stuck in the survival of the fittest stages.... Slowly eliminating and understanding our instinctual behavior s .

New Thread please

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem when threads become long and wieldy occurs when it gets locked and forcibly advised that ressurecting old threads is not tolerated and to create a new one because that's why is because. Oh wait...

Too bad the science doesn't work out

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a reason Elon Musk himself hasn't invested money into the hyper loop, the science doesn't work out. If the loop is ruptured, everyone dies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk&t=1s

Re:Too bad the science doesn't work out

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of reasons why the Hyperloop may never be built, but the statement 'If the loop is ruptured, everyone dies' is total bullshit. I used to work on pumps for fluid transport at 15,000 PSI. Over 1000 atmospheres. Sounds scary. You know what happens when you rupture one of the lines of that pump? Nothing. Because fluids are incompressible (actually just nearly incompressible because of dissolved gases), there is very little stored energy in a fluid at 15000 PSI. The point is, armchair engineers can make up all sorts of scary bullshit. It's just as likely that a rupture in the hyperloop would be detected instantly and activate shutdown protocols that decelerate all the cars as fast as safely possible. I don't know, I'm not the right kind of engineer and I haven't done the calculations. But I doubt the youtube channel you link has done so either.

Korea Rail is big on promises but results vary

[RubberDogBone]

Various Korean rail companies have supplied trains around the world and nobody doubts they make a lot of rolling stock.

But many of the Korean-built mass transit and passenger trains seem to suffer extreme defects and lawsuits. Boston MBTA, Philadelphia SEPTA and California Metrolink are all suing Hyundai Rotem over different issues with their rail vehicles. Rail lines in Australia are also engaged in lawsuits.

Now, problems and disagreements happen with rail. But there is a big pattern of Korean rail suppliers overpromising what they can do, underbidding competitors, and then either failing to deliver on time or delivering equipment with massive faults and defects.

It seems to be mainly a case of trying to bag contracts before Chinese or Japanese suppliers can get them, even if the Korean companies can't really deliver. This is what happens when all these municipal rail systems have very star-eyed visions of what they want and pocket change to pay for it, so they go for the biggest dreamer and low bidder all at once with a very optimistic timetable. And it just can't work that way.

So here is KRRI promising the unproven and yet to be invented faster than anyone else AND for the best price. Yeah goody for you. Somebody will fund it.

Disclaimer: Aside from the US, there is no nation I love more than South Korea. It's in my blood. I proudly own a Korean car and go nuts over Korean pop culture. But there have been just so many rail issues. It really sullies the Korean reputation.

Re:Korea Rail is big on promises but results vary

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look at the companies that had provided cars to Boston MBTA before, you'll find that they were also plagued with problems - and that includes Siemens. As far as I can tell, Boston MBTA is not suing Hyundai Rotem, although Hyundai Rotem did sue Boston MBTA over bidding issues for the latest project, which was won by a Chinese company (you think Korean cars have problems, hoo boy).
I do agree though, the problems don't make the company look great. I wonder how much of the problem is simply down to the fact that Hyundai had little to no experience working in the American regulatory environment.

Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[petes_PoV]

we don't have to sit in a plane but instead can sit in a train

So instead of sitting in a sealed container traveling through the air at 500 MPH, you will sit in a sealed container traveling through a tunnel at 500 MPH?

It doesn't seem like there are any benefits over air travel. Though there are many disadvantages. The biggest and most obvious is the lack of flexibility. You have to bore the tunnel and it only goes from one fixed point to another. The cost is enormous and the infrastructure is inflexible (literally and figuratively). Apart from that, tunnels need maintenance, you can't look out the windows, it is expensive to maintain the low pressure. This sort of "tunnel plane" will have all the security drawbacks of a real plane (without the ability to divert to a nearby station in case of an emergency), so we can expect the same degree of security theatre and delays at embarkation.

The only advantage I can see is that this train shouldn't be subject to disruption due to weather (and hopefully, it will be driverless). However, the crushing cost of digging and maintaining the tunnels will ensure that it is only ever going to be travel for the wealthy. The british/french Channel Tunnel - $15Bn at today's prices for 24 miles - should be all the warnings that people considering a project like this, should ever need.

Hyper loop One Test Track

[TheSync]

BTW if you are in Vegas, drive up to the Apex Solar Plant, and you will easily see the Hyperloop One test track.

in the not-too-distant future

[Anonymous Coward]

Next Sunday, A. D.

Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[Rei]

If you think the pressure maintenance figures in the Hyperloop Alpha document are unreasonable, cite the actual numbers you disagree with and explain why.

The main advantages over air travel are that the pressure is much lower, frontal area much lower, allowable spacings far closer (no "air traffic"), no noise pollution, no air pollution, and efficient, direct acceleration of the vehicles, with the tube itself serving as a mounting point for the solar panels that power it.

You clearly have never read the Hyperloop Alpha design document. It does include diversion options. There are regularly spaced emergency exits across the track. Vehicles brake to a stop then roll on wheels to the nearest emergency exit.

As for security: the cars are about the size of monorail cars. So if you're going to assert random things about what security will be like, why not assert it'll be like monorail security?

Yes, the design fundamentally does not work if it's not driverless (you really should read the design document before discussing it).

The costs of tunneling are included in the budgeting in the design document (again, you really should read it). There is no "50km long 7,6m diameter undersea tunnel" leg to it.

This is what happens to low pressure tubes

[louzer]

This is what happens to low-pressure tubes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[squiggleslash]

I'm of the opinion that Hyperloop is a bad idea, but the Chunnel costs, which are relatively reasonable, isn't one of them. The Chunnel was for three tunnels, two of which were designed to accommodate, with plenty of space around them for walking, air flow, etc, two 20' high freight trains with catenaries two feet above them. The tunnels in the Hyperloop case will be a small fraction of this size - uncomfortably small if you follow Musk's proposal, but hopefully at least 12' if created by a company that doesn't think humans are sardines.

Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[Oswald McWeany]

Never heard of Hornby? I'm not a toy train fan but I'd be surprised if almost everyone didn't know who Hornby is? I don't play with dolls but I've heard of Barbie. You don't have to play with cars to know who Hotwheels and Matchbox are.

Samsung involved?

[OneHundredAndTen]

For, if it is, this will be the hottest product of the year.

Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US Hornby is relatively unknown as far as I know. If they referenced a "Lionel set" a larger number of people might figure out they were talking about model trains. Still, even Lionel is no longer a household name: model trains just aren't that popular.

Language?

[alex67500]

Near Supersonic? What was wrong with near-sonic?

"Near supersonic"

[Gornkleschnitzer]

Paraphrased, this train can travel "almost more than" the speed of sound. So... does it travel at exactly Mach 1, or slightly slower?

Designed initially by Elon Musk. Really?

[Eunuchswear]

While this sounds very similar to the low-pressure concept designed initially by Tesla founder Elon Musk

Some of us know how to read books. This idea wasn't exactly new when Elon Musk was born!

See, for example, The Reefs of Space, Frederik Pohl and Jack Williamson, 1964.

Maintenance?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how they would perform maintenance on the tracks in a very low pressure system like that? You can't break it up into sections and I'd assume pumping the air out of miles of tubes would take too long to do every time you make a repair so the maintenance workers would have to work in essentially space suits.

Re:Maintenance?

[Rei]

You cannot have people inside the tube at the same time as vehicles are in the tube regardless, so there's no point to conducting maintenance in a vacuum; you would simply repressurize it (aka, open valves at the pumping stations, or the emergency exits). But there's also no point to ever having people inside. There's nothing except for an accident to damage the inside of the tube; the vehicles do not touch the walls, and it's a very rarified atmosphere, so it's not going to rust from the inside. If there's any need from maintenance, it'd be a need from the outside.

There is one thing that I fault the initial design for, which is the proposal of a two-tube system. This means that if one tube has to go down for maintenance, you have to alternate the other tube between directions, and each time you switch it, wait for it to clear. This would be a big throughput loss. With a three-tube system, you can have the third tube follow whichever direction has the highest demand at whatever point in time, and when one tube goes out you can still keep bidirectional traffic going. Maybe have the third tube be a "stop halfway then continue" design so it can offer service to the valley, at lower speeds.

The other thing I fault the initial design for was for setting it up as a competitor to HSR, which was obviously going to invite a lot of anger against them, and while most of it is just by idiots who never bothered to read the design document, some is legitimate - in particular, that Hyperloop doesn't serve as many cities, or city centers (which they really should have done), like HSR does. I feel that they should have proposed LA to Vegas as the initial leg, so as not to stand in competition to HSR, and so there would be few cities in-between. It's also raise the concept of Vegas magnates funding it; the ability of LA residents to hop to Vegas in half an hour for cheap would be hugely beneficial to them.

As for going into cities: I know they wanted to give a very impressive price figure, and going into cities would have raised that, but as it stands, their price figure was so low that a lot of people refused to believe it (without ever looking at why it was low). A higher price figure because of going into cities would have both made people more credulous, as well as being a more useful, likely-to-be-funded system.

Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[Rei]

This is the standard way people complain about Hyperloop.

Step 1) Don't ever bother actually reading the design document, despite the fact that it's not that long and addressess the vast majority of arguments

Step 2) Compare Hyperloop to something not even remotely comparable to it, like the costs of building viaducts for an order of magnitude higher peak loadings, building tunnels with an order of magnitude or more greater cross section, acquiring orders of magnitude more private land, and comparing costs for building through cities with the costs of building through the countryside.

I'd have a lot more respect for its opponents if they'd actually read the design document and actually make comparisons to remotely comparable things. As it stands these threads usually just make me want to hit my head on the wall. At least you recognized the absurdity of the comparison being made.

Train tunnels have to be big. Not only because trains are big to begin with, but because the tunnel walls can't be anywhere the train, or the train will push a big column of air ahead of it, eating energy and slowing it down. Hyperloop tunnels are like aquaduct tunnels - no larger than that of the pipe. Which is sized for capsules, in the non-vehicle version, of two people side by side in First Class-style, semireclined seats.

Re:Designed initially by Elon Musk. Really?

[Rei]

... which did not involve anything remotely similar to Hyperloop.

Please learn how Hyperloop actually works before insisting that something else is the same. (hint: google "Hyperloop Alpha" and read the design document; it won't take all day). Hyperloop Alpha is neither maglev nor a vactrain; it's basically an extreme version of a ground-effect aircraft flying through a rarified atmosphere, using a compressor to prevent the buildup of a column of air ahead of it by shunting it to the air bearings and behind it - thus allowing it to operate at far-easier-to-maintain pressures and with much easier construction / lighter vehicle mass than maglev.

Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Outside the US Lionel is relatively unknown as far as I know. If they referenced a "Hornby set" a larger number of people might figure out they were talking about model trains. Still, even Hornby is no longer a household name: model trains just aren't that popular.

Re:Hornby set? Maglev is "new"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyper loop morons like are worse than space nutters.