South Korea Signs On To Build Full-Scale Hyperloop System (newatlas.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

South Korea Signs On To Build Full-Scale Hyperloop System (newatlas.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday June 21, 2017 @11:25AM from the speeding-bullet dept.

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) has partnered with the South Korean government and local universities to build the world's first full-scale Hyperloop system. "The agreement was actually signed back in January but only revealed this week, and sees HTT team up with the South Korean government's department of technological innovation and infrastructure, along with the Korea Institute of Civil Engineering and Building (KICT) and Hanyang University," reports New Atlas. From the report: It involves the construction of a full-scale testbed, licensing of HTT's vacuum tube, levitation, propulsion and battery technologies along with the co-development of safety standards and regulations. The agreement is a multi-year partnership intended to build a new transportation system for South Korea, one which will be known as the HyperTube Express and carry passengers between Seoul and Busan in under 20 minutes, compared to the current three-hour drive. HTT may be setting out to build the world's first Hyperloop but it is no guarantee, with fellow startups Arrivo and Hyperloop One also moving full-steam ahead with their plans. The latter in particular seems to be making solid progress, recently showing off a full-scale test track in Nevada and forming agreements with Russia, Finland and Dubai to explore the feasibility of a Hyperloop in those countries. It's too early to tell who will be first out of the gate, but the competition is certainly heating up.

133 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

vacuum tube by bugs2squash · 2017-06-21 11:33 · Score: 5, Funny

shit, it's not even transistorized.

--
Nullius in verba
1. Re:vacuum tube by FatdogHaiku · 2017-06-21 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  shit, it's not even transistorized.
  But dude, it sounds SO much better going under your feet!
  Then again, if you hear it at all it may be time to run away...
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
2. Re:vacuum tube by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  It'sa near vacuum tube. But gosh darn this presbyopia preventing me from getting too close to the thing for what with the hassle.
3. Re:vacuum tube by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  It'sa near vacuum tube.
  So are the bottle thingies in old radio sets, but when he talked about them my father always skipped the word "near" too
4. Re:vacuum tube by LordHighExecutioner · 2017-06-21 21:41 · Score: 1
  
  Transistorizing it would be way too dangerous. It is built for Sout Korea, and if you put inside transistors, somebody else (guess who...) will add a Li-Ion battery and the whole thing will catch fire.
5. Re:vacuum tube by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 22:07 · Score: 0
  
  you're still tunnelling though
Seoul to Busan in 3 hours... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 11:38 · Score: 2, Informative

Someone has not experienced South Korean traffic.
1. Re:Seoul to Busan in 3 hours... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 19:56 · Score: 0
  
  Duh, it is when travel by train. Someone has not experienced train travel from Seoul to Busan.
St. Scholastica Monastery, Fort Smith, Arkansas by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 11:41 · Score: -1

The St. Scholastica Monastery was founded in January 1879 by four Benedictine sisters from the Monastery of the Immaculate Conception in Ferdinand, Indiana. Since then, St. Scholastica sponsored five hospitals: staffed sixty-two elementary schools in five states, twelve music schools, and two orphanages. The sisters also staffed three high schools for boarding and day students:
St. Scholastica Monastery has a total of more than seventy professed members and sisters. The community’s primary ministry remains living the monastic life and caring for the spiritual life of others. For vocation information, retreat schedule or spiritual help visit their site at http://www.stscho.org/
To arrange for an interior tour of the monastery, call 479-783-4147 at least one day in advance. Visitors are welcome to walk the grounds during the day.
1. Re:St. Scholastica Monastery, Fort Smith, Arkansas by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck off
2. Re:St. Scholastica Monastery, Fort Smith, Arkansas by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  A church, you are trying to get people to join a church, here, on /., yeah, good luck with that.
Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 11:45 · Score: 1

I once traveled Amtrak from Seattle to Atlanta. It took a little over 5.5 days. The ticket was $2,300 since I wanted a place to sleep since sitting in chair would have just been hell for most of a week. Even if Amtrak could do 300 MPH between stops, it still would have taken three entire days (yes, I did the math since I had nothing but time during my trip) including the long layovers to change trains so that is still pretty crappy.
1. Re:Makes more sense there by gweihir · 2017-06-21 11:55 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is Amtrak. You can see in Europe and, for example, Japan, what is possible with trains.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
2. Re: Makes more sense there by ooloorie · 2017-06-21 12:03 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Indeed. The US has a huge rail network with nearly full and efficient utilization: for freight.
  Europe wastes much of its rail network on moving people around while burdening the roads with freight traffic,
3. Re:Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 12:05 · Score: 0
  
  Distance between Seattle and Atlanta via Amtrak is about the same distance between London and Tehran since you have to go to Chicago then to the east coast then down. What might work in Europe just won't work in a country as big as the USA.
4. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 12:09 · Score: 0
  
  I made that trip with my parents on the late 60s. IIRC, it was 3,500 miles not counting the two car ferries. I can easily see how crossing the US via train could be even farther.
5. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 13:06 · Score: 0
  
  Yet the various JR companies in Japan struggle financially despite the heavy usage, and flights between cities within Japan are cheaper than Shinkansen tickets.
6. Re:Makes more sense there by dinfinity · 2017-06-21 13:12 · Score: 2
  
  Indeed.
  Seattle to Los Angeles should be very doable by train, but it currently takes twice as long as it does by car.
  Amsterdam to Madrid is a similar distance, but it is fairly easily two hours quicker by train than by car.
  Although it has to be said that once you venture into the Balkan area or Scandinavia, things get tricky fairly quickly if you want to travel by train.
7. Re:Makes more sense there by squiggleslash · 2017-06-21 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is a combination of certain trips being unrealistic by train (even if a train were capable of consistently traveling at 250mph, and were given a straight piece of track, neither of which are practical, it'd take over 20 hours to cross the continental USA) and a lack of investment in rail. Amtrak is always short of funds, it does what it can with what it has, and is at least slowly working on the corridor strategy (the only sane way to do sustainable mid-distance train travel), but it's not exactly in a position to build a 5000 mile NYC to LA high speed track.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
8. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 14:47 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  hate to point this out, but there is plenty of freight on American roads as well.
9. Re:Makes more sense there by Rei · 2017-06-21 14:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Hyperloop itself isn't designed for journeys of that length - it's designed to be optimal for intermediary length trips, with trains better for shorter journeys and aircraft better for longer journeys. That said, it is possible to make Hyperloop have a higher top speed (and thus reduced long-distance travel time) by increasing the sonic velocity of the gas - aka, via either increasing the temperature of the (highly rarified) gas inside the tube, or by using a (rarified) light gas such as hydrogen or helium. The latter requires increased tube evacuation pumping to minimize the fraction of leaked-in-air in the tubes. The former may happen to some extent on its own due to compression heating from passing Hyperloop capsules (the tube itself will be an effective thermal radiator, but the gas inside (due to its very low density) will not be very effective at transferring heat into the tube). Both lighter and hotter gases not only increase the sonic velocity, but also decrease air resistance (particularly using light gases). The low densities mean that you don't use great quantities of gases - meaning that the amounts of helium are affordable and loss rates acceptable, while hydrogen would not be prone to embrittling the tube or presenting a tube explosion hazard even when mixed with leaked-in air (although its behavior inside the capsule compressors / air bearings / etc needs consideration). Rarified water vapour, ammonia or methane atmospheres would also allow improved speeds of sound vs. air, although not to the degree of hydrogen or helium.
  Another issue for long-distance travel via Hyperloop is that the faster you go, the greater the minimum bend radius. Not so much of an issue when you're going over flat plains, but once you start getting into uneven terrain it can present problems. "Floating Hyperloop" is particularly appealing for when dealing with very high speed travel due to the ability to sculpt bend radii as gently as you want over open ocean.
  The Hyperloop design document doesn't consider that other technology can't or won't advance as well. But for at least intermediate-distance travel, they argue - convincingly, in my opinion - that increased aircraft speed, even if associated with improved economics, can't beat out Hyperloop. This is because of the simple reason that increasing aircraft speed means increasing altitude (to reduce the velocity-squared drag and to avoid sonic boom effects on the surface), which means increased subsonic climbing and descent times. Not a problem for long journeys, but for intermediate hops, that looks like a fairly fundamental barrier.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
10. Re: Makes more sense there by Rei · 2017-06-21 15:03 · Score: 2
  
  Not as comfortable or convenient, though. Shinkansen is a great way to travel. Arrive, buy your ticket, walk straight onto the platform, catch whatever train happens to be next and going in the right direction, take whatever seat (much roomier and more comfortable than airplane seats), then relax and enjoy the ride.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
11. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  Not as comfortable or convenient, though.
  
  This is true of trains in the US too... but in both places that is not what wins the market. People care about time and price, and so the trains in Japan are facing a lot of difficulties because the airlines are out competing them.
  I've taken the train there when being touristy, but when on business trips (especially for ones that come out of my own pocket), I fly from city to city. It seems many of the locals think similarly for any trip further than the neighboring cities.
12. Re:Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 15:38 · Score: 0
  
  It sounds like a competitor should create a series of luxury trains for traveling across the country with that kind of travel times and costs.
13. Re:Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 15:44 · Score: 0
  
  Why is there no Atlanta to Chicago connection? What happened to the Chattanooga Choo-choo?
14. Re:Makes more sense there by Chas · 2017-06-21 17:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's basically how (and when) the rail systems have grown up, partnered and died over time.
  Additionally, the northern states have generally been more industrialized, leading to "outsized" growth of rail systems there.
  Chicago, when the rail lines were first coalescing, was a natural economic hub into the west and generally right on the demarcation line of what was The United States and the western territories. St. Louis also shares this to a certain extent. Heading south from there, the next major east-west hub would have been Memphis. And while it IS a transport hub, it's still a Johnny-Come-Lately due to the aforementioned dichotomy between industrialization in the north vs the south.
  Additionally, for a while, every railroad venture was building on its own gauge of track. By the middle of the 19th century, there had been a major push towards a standard gauge. Current standard gauge (Stephenson gauge, international gauge or normal gauge) is 1435mm (4'8" in the US) distance between the inside of each rail. And it's used in roughly 55% of the world's track systems.
  Again, the south, being behind, especially after the US Civil War was still mired in competition between rail lines. So businessmen didn't want their equipment potentially falling into the hands of rivals. So the proliferation of non-standard gauges continued MUCH longer. And because of this, lack of standardization, replacement parts were orders of magnitude more expensive. Because they had to be built on-spec, rather than just being pulled from a standard parts bin. This expense eventually became unmanageable and rail lines in the south started dying off.
  What routes existing in the southern US now are either relative new builds or are legacies of rail line builders who settled (or just happen to have built) on/near standard gauge.
  
  --
  
  Chas - The one, the only.
  THANK GOD!!!
15. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 17:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  A huge amount of freight in Europe goes via sea and rail too. In fact there are many large distribution centres that are supplied by rail. A lot is then transferred to road because that ends up being more efficient currently than sending one container load down a branch line, and. commuters don't want mixed trains and delays to have freight containers removed. If it was possible to unload during a station stop (two or three minutes) without much investment you might see even more rail transport.
16. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  I recently travelled by plane. I worked out that the same journey by train, due to not needing to travel so far to the airport, and check in times at the airport, it would have been the same door to door time and cost. To be fair I like a mile from a station and my final destination was five minutes walk from one.
17. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 18:16 · Score: 0
  
  Or china, I went from beijing to guangzou (next to hong kong) by sleeper train in 24 hours and that was years ago
18. Re: Makes more sense there by thegarbz · 2017-06-21 19:59 · Score: 2
  
  Europe wastes much of its rail network on moving people around while burdening the roads with freight traffic
  You really have no idea do you. The network by the way is a "Eurasia" network. You're more than welcome to drop a cargo ship off in the port of Rotterdam and rail it all the way to Guangzhou China if you want. The few freight trucks that are actually on the roads are not at all a burden.
19. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 20:30 · Score: 0
  
  Another problem with freight on railroads is, that the time slots for freight trains are quite narrow. Once they miss their window, they have to wait long times (often half a day or more) for a new window. That is why oftentimes long distance freight trains are delayed by several days. So, in combination with higher storage costs when compared to USA or Asia, the European industry rather have their raw materials delivered by truck to avoid expensive production stops.
  There's no reason for us Europeans to sit back and be proud of the current state of our rail networks. There's still a lot of work to be done. Automation and AI will certainly help improve the efficient use of the current infrastructure, but we'll have to reach in our pockets and finance the laying of more tracks if we want to reach Paris goals, and more importantly not drown in traffic and it's by-products
  This is why i welcome the news - the whole world will be watching the hyperloop project!
  Coincidentally I am writing this, while sitting in a Stadler KISS that saves me over 40 minutes on my 233 km (~145 mi) trip
20. Re: Makes more sense there by angel'o'sphere · 2017-06-21 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  Europe especially Germany has a lot of freight traffic on rails.
  However the TGV high speed tracks are passenger only AFAIK.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
21. Re:Makes more sense there by angel'o'sphere · 2017-06-21 21:05 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget the "airport". Being minimum 1h early to board a plane. Having the airport minimum 1h by car or public transport away.
  E.g. you fly from Paris to London, I would guess the flight time is less than an hour. But to get to one of the three airports of Paris takes you minimum an hour, with boarding time that is 2h. Now you land outside of London, again more than an hour away from the city center. So bottom line Pars to London is at least a 4h trip by plane.
  Even the existing Eurostar is already faster in bringing you from center to center.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
22. Re:Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 21:12 · Score: 2
  
  I once traveled Amtrak from Seattle to Atlanta. ... .Even if Amtrak could do 300 MPH between stops, it still would have taken three entire days ... including the long layovers to change
  
  And with Hyperloop it would take ... what? Your trip time was dominated by changeovers and convoluted routing (as someone else has described), not by the speed of the train. Unless there were a direcr Hyperloop between Seattle and Atlanta (don't hold your breath for it materialising) the Hyperloop experience could be very similar.
23. Re: Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  commuters don't want mixed trains and delays to have freight containers removed. If it was possible to unload during a station stop (two or three minutes) without much investment you might see even more rail transport.
  You obviously have never heard of sidings (is that an understood terminiology in the US? UK term for a bit of track alongside the main track for parking trains for unloading freight etc). Most stations in the UK used to have freight sidings; but most of those have been removed as "inefficient".and converted into car parks or housing.
24. Re: Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  The few freight trucks that are actually on [Euopean] roads are not at all a burden.
  You obviously never drive in the UK. On motorways the trucks are often filling two of the three lanes in nose-to-tail groups of 20 or more, with cars queuing behind to pass in the outer lane. The trucks are often stuck together aerodynamically. We call these situations "elephant races". Then you will see high streets in towns blocked for minutes by massive trucks delivering penny parcels to shops or fighting to pass each other in opposite directions.
25. Re: Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 21:30 · Score: 1
  
  and flights between cities within Japan are cheaper than Shinkansen tickets.
  Then it must be a lot cheaper to park at Japanese airports (or take a taxi there) than it is in the UK
26. Re:Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed.
  Seattle to Los Angeles should be very doable by train, but it currently takes twice as long as it does by car.
  Looking a UK viewpoint, that is absolutely insane.
27. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 21:50 · Score: 0
  
  What you see rarely is shipping containers on road vehicles. Most of the boxes that come in by sea are sent on by rail. It's the break-bulk cargo that goes by road.
28. Re: Makes more sense there by gweihir · 2017-06-21 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  And if that were true, it would be a problem. Instead, it is a complete fantasy on your part.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
29. Re:Makes more sense there by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-06-21 22:05 · Score: 1
  
  That's where hyperloop could save on travel time tremendously: if there actually is a continuous network, you wouldn't have to slow down, stop, and accelerate at each intermediate station like a regular train; you could zoom flat out to your destination. It would also mean that you could presumably build a hyperloop station at every two horse town along the way, no need for those people to travel to a major town, again cutting a lot of travel time. Provided that switching tubes will be possible, and economically feasible.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
30. Re: Makes more sense there by gweihir · 2017-06-21 22:07 · Score: 1
  
  Fort his purpose, the UK does not qualify as "Europe". It has a completely different rail-system.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
31. Re: Makes more sense there by ooloorie · 2017-06-21 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  You're missing the point.
  My point is that the US rail system is huge (the largest in the world by far), it is highly utilized, and very efficient. Making the US system more like the European system by burdening it with passenger traffic and adding high speed trains would make it less efficient and increase emissions.
  And if Europeans wanted a more efficient rail system, they should follow the US model, rather than the other way around.
32. Re: Makes more sense there by thegarbz · 2017-06-21 22:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You obviously never drive in the UK.
  No I drive in Europe. Not only in Europe but regularly only the main highways between the two largest ports and trading hubs of Europe.
  
  On motorways the trucks are often filling two of the three lanes in nose-to-tail groups of 20 or more
  In many parts of Europe trucks are not allowed to overtake during the day if there's only 2 lanes on the motorway. In the parts where you are it's rarely an issue that holds up people for more than a few seconds.
  
  Then you will see high streets in towns blocked for minutes by massive trucks delivering penny parcels to shops or fighting to pass each other in opposite directions.
  I'm sure solving this middle of the town delivery issue is best done by putting a freight train down the main street. Don't conflate the last mile problem with international freight.
  And all of this doesn't change the fact that by far the most cargo in Europe is carried by electric rail.
33. Re: Makes more sense there by ooloorie · 2017-06-21 22:44 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Background discussion: "The US should use more rail / should be more like Europe."
  Me: "The US has the biggest and most efficient rail system on the planet; you simply don't notice it because it's all freight. European rail systems are less efficient because they use part of their system for passenger transport."
  You: "European industry likes inefficient modes of transport!"
  Wow, great argument you have there!
  In addition, it is the mix of passenger and rail traffic that is causing frequent freight delays in European rail traffic in the first place, because passengers cannot be "railroaded" for a day or two, so they always take priority. On top of that, passenger traffic requires expensive and inefficient high speed trains.
34. Re: Makes more sense there by ooloorie · 2017-06-21 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, anecdotal evidence, the best kind, eh?
  I suggest you get yourself some data and facts on rail network size, freight volumes, and utilization of rail systems in different countries. You'll be surprised.
35. Re: Makes more sense there by Maritz · 2017-06-21 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  My point is that the US rail system is huge (the largest in the world by far), it is highly utilized, and very efficient. Making the US system more like the European system by burdening it with passenger traffic and adding high speed trains would make it less efficient and increase emissions.
  Sorry couldn't help but grin. Emissions? US? Worried about? lol.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
36. Re: Makes more sense there by ooloorie · 2017-06-21 22:55 · Score: 0
  
  And all of this doesn't change the fact that by far the most cargo in Europe is carried by electric rail.
  In fact, most freight is carried by roads, in both the US and in Europe, as you can easily look up on the US DOT and EU sites ("modal split"). So, please stop making things up.
  Anyway, what we're talking about here is which rail system utilizes its resources better, and that's the US system. In addition, the US rail system is by far the largest in the world. If Europe wants a more efficient rail system, it should follow the US model, rather than the other way around. Europe might also do well to build a lot more rail to catch up.
37. Re:Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  If the train network had individual powered carriages and intelligent switching it could do the same at TGV speeds. The individual powered carriages might be expensive, and changing switching would not be cheap, but still much less expensive than hyperloop. Of course you could reduce cost by using autonomous vehicles on some sort of asphalt structure...
  Ultimately for meetings people will increasingly use video conferencing, which means that the use case for long distance travel will be dominated by a need to be inexpensive, so I am unconvinced there is an economic case for hyperloop, even if technically fascinating.
38. Re: Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 23:55 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure solving this middle of the town delivery issue is best done by putting a freight train down the main street. Don't conflate the last mile problem with international freight.
  No. it would be solved by single rail freight depots serving a whole town or district and distributing and collecting goods by small-to-midsized road trucks, or optionally holding goods for collection. Not much different from what courier companies do in the UK now, except their depots generally take delivery by large road trucks, not rail; these couriers make a tidy profit, so don't tell me (like the 1960's railway bean counters did) that it is uneconomic.
  Larger freight originators like industrial estates can have rail running right through their buildings. That was once common in the UK and some such sites still exist.
39. Re:Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  You mean like in "The Sting"
40. Re:Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-22 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Don't know much about railways do you? European trains do not stop at each intermediate station. There are [at least] two types of train, expresses (or "Inter-City") and stopping (or "Local"). The expresses skip the intermediate stops while the stopping trains do stop at those stations, often on passing loops to allow an express to overtake. On many main lines there are four or even six tracks (ie two or three each way) for the different types of train.
  
  It would also mean that you could presumably build a hyperloop station at every two horse town along the way
  You've lost me now, contradicted yourself. But that advantage is not a Hyperloop characteristic, you can do it with any type of railway as in my paragraph above.
41. Re: Makes more sense there by AmiMoJo · 2017-06-22 00:29 · Score: 2
  
  Europe doesn't waste rail capacity on people. Those passenger trains don't replace freight, they have separate lines for that. Surprisingly, freight tends not to want to go to the same places as people. There are separate lines, or lines used during the day for people and at night for freight.
  And no matter how you look at it, a train carrying 200 people and 10 trucks on the road vs. a train carrying 10 containers and 150 cars on the road is a pretty good trade-off.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
42. Re: Makes more sense there by drinkypoo · 2017-06-22 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  Anyway, what we're talking about here is which rail system utilizes its resources better, and that's the US system.
  That's a red herring. The real question is, which country is really utilizing rail as much as it should be, and the answer is... Japan? Maybe? Certainly nowhere in Europe, and certainly not the USA. We should have a lot more rail.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
43. Re:Makes more sense there by drinkypoo · 2017-06-22 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  (even if a train were capable of consistently traveling at 250mph, and were given a straight piece of track, neither of which are practical, it'd take over 20 hours to cross the continental USA)
  
  It doesn't [necessarily] matter if it takes over 20 hours if you can sleep, do work, eat a meal that didn't come out of a prepackaged styrofoam tray... Obviously, for some cases it matters, and in those cases people will still want to fly, but we could still be using rail more often. In addition, not all the trips are all the way across the country.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
44. Re:Makes more sense there by squiggleslash · 2017-06-22 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Oh I agree, that said, 20 hours is enough to be uneconomic - for a trip of that length, passengers are going to want better amenities (somewhere to sleep) and fewer would be interested.
  This is why corridor services (regular, hourly, services with a total trip of four hours or less) tends to work better as a sustainable (ie self funding) service. You can provide a great deal more comfort than a plane, passengers can work or relax, total trip time is within an order of magnitude (in some cases better than) an equivalent flight, and a full train at airplane ticket prices is virtually always profitable.
  5,000 with a perfectly straight 250mph track is, well, expensive enough by itself, but the fact it would be a 20 hour trip means that while it'll be attractive to some, it'll just not attract enough customers and high enough fares to pay for itself.
  
  --
  You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
45. Re:Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 02:59 · Score: 0
  
  Taxes and other policies were specifically enacted to discourage rail development in the south after the war. The curtailing of rail has as much to do with the restriction of industrialization as the reverse. Unfortunately the political structure that gave a greater representation to the south than population numbers warranted has still not been corrected. This over representation in the south was a primary cause of the war and remains a real problem today.
46. Re: Makes more sense there by brianerst · 2017-06-22 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Emissions mean you're burning fuel. Fuel costs money. American corporations don't like to spend money and are constantly looking for more efficient ways of doing business and squeezing out costs.
  So, yeah - the US is very worried about emissions, just not for the reasons everyone else is.
  (For reference, the EU freight rail share is 11.9% while the US freight rail share is 32.6%. The EU is much better about electrification of rail - it's basically non-existent in the US except for some passenger rail.)
47. Re: Makes more sense there by Immerman · 2017-06-22 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to specifically care about emissions to optimize them to a local minimum.
  In the absence of emission-specific technologies, emissions still correlate directly with fuel use, and thus expense. Minimize expense, and you reach a local minimum of emissions as a side-effect.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
48. Re: Makes more sense there by brianerst · 2017-06-22 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, for inland freight transport, the EU has a greater intensity of road transport to rail transport (51.1 / 11.9 = 4.2x) than does the US (56.8 / 32.6 = 1.7x).
  Europe ships more by sea than the US (a combination of being surrounded on three sides by ocean and from importing/exporting a greater percentage of its goods overseas) but once it gets on dry land, you use trucks to a much greater degree than does the US.
49. Re: Makes more sense there by stealth_finger · 2017-06-22 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  If your sole measure of efficiency is total tonnage of freight moved then sure.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
50. Re: Makes more sense there by stealth_finger · 2017-06-22 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Fort his purpose, the UK does not qualify as "Europe". It has a completely different rail-system.
  Pretty soon we're not going to qualify for any purpose except geographical.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
51. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  For the last couple trips within Japan, high speed trains would have been around $100-150, while flights were $25-50. Most people take the local train (metro system) to the airport, the same train you would take to the central train station, so that adds a couple dollars and takes 10-20 minutes either way unless you live right next to one of the destinations. Trains within cities are a whole different deal and heavily used there.
52. Re: Makes more sense there by thegarbz · 2017-06-22 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you yourself should check just how burdened the roads of Europe are. Unless the definition of burden is like what I'm experiencing right now, the burden of having to get up out of this chair and get a cup of coffee.
53. Re: Makes more sense there by thegarbz · 2017-06-22 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  So, please stop making things up.
  I'm not making anything up. I just don't feel burdened in the slightest. I am more burdened by the fact my coffee machine is in the kitchen not right next to my chair than I am by trucks on the main highways.
  
  Anyway, what we're talking about here is which rail system utilizes its resources better, and that's the US system.
  Actually what we're talking about here is if the goalposts should be further to the left or to the right. Let me remind you what I quoted you as saying: "Europe wastes much of its rail network on moving people around while burdening the roads with freight traffic". The absolute magnitude or usage or rail is irrelevant. I am calling you out on the fact that the roads are not burdened.
54. Re: Makes more sense there by gweihir · 2017-06-22 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Looks like it. A real shame. And all your people had to do is not to listen to the completely disconnected-from-reality UK "elite". Also I am well aware that a _lot_ of people voted against this suicide-move, and they do not deserve what is to come at all.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
55. Re:Makes more sense there by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-06-22 05:23 · Score: 2
  
  Sigh. Regular trains either service small stations meaning that they take ages to travel longer distances, or they only stop at major stations which means that you first have to travel to a major station in order to take advantage of them (adding more time as you change trains)
  
  Let me draw you a picture:
  Regular trains:
  [local train from Two Horse Town] --- stop --- stop --- stop --- stop --- stop ---- [change to intercity at Big City] ------ stop ------ stop ----- [change to local at Mega City] --- stop --- stop --- stop --- [arriving at final destination in Shitface gulch]
  
  Hyperloop:
  [enter pod at Two Horse Town] --- zooooooooooooooooooooooooom --- [arrive at Shitface Gulch]
  See how that works?
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
56. Re: Makes more sense there by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 05:45 · Score: 0
  
  Not as comfortable or convenient, though. Shinkansen is a great way to travel. Arrive, buy your ticket, walk straight onto the platform, catch whatever train happens to be next and going in the right direction, take whatever seat (much roomier and more comfortable than airplane seats), then relax and enjoy the ride.
  Much better to reserve your seats. Otherwise I agree 100%.
57. Re:Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-22 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  I know exactly how trains work, I used to work as an engineer for a railway company and have even driven trains. I have also travelled more miles by train than any other form of transport. Thanks though.
  
  Let me draw you a picture: ........ Hyperloop: [enter pod at Two Horse Town] --- zooooooooooooooooooooooooom --- [arrive at Shitface Gulch] See how that works?
  Great, but only if Hyperloop does go to Two Horse Town and Shitface Gulch (which sounds very unlikely from the names), and you are the only passenger on board. A "pod" on conventional rails could do that too if you laid rails to those places; such "pods" have been tried, but operators did not find them economical.
58. Re:Makes more sense there by nukenerd · 2017-06-22 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  PS : That is the UK meaning of "engineer" (ie techie), not the US meaning (ie driver) in this context.
59. Re: Makes more sense there by radarskiy · 2017-06-22 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Europe does less rail freight shipping than the US, but it also does less road freight shipping than the US.
60. Re: Makes more sense there by ooloorie · 2017-06-22 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not making anything up.
  Yes, you are:
  
  And all of this doesn't change the fact that by far the most cargo in Europe is carried by electric rail.
  Your "fact" isn't even close to being true; it's something you made up.
  
  Actually what we're talking about here is if the goalposts should be further to the left or to the right.
  
  No, what we are talking about is gweihir's assertion:
  
  You can see in Europe and, for example, Japan, what is possible with trains.
  
  Fact is that the European rail system is not a well-run system: it requires subsidies, it uses resources inefficiently, it doesn't serve its passengers well, and it is a poor way of reducing carbon emissions.
  The rest is your goalpost moving ("trucks don't bother me").
61. Re: Makes more sense there by ooloorie · 2017-06-22 13:39 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you yourself should check just how burdened the roads of Europe are.
  I don't need to check, I have been driving on European roads for decades. Trucks are a massive problem on European roads and a constant political issue in countries like Germany and Switzerland. If you don't know this, you really are out of touch with European politics.
  But that isn't even what we are talking about here. What we are actually talking about is whether Europe's rail system should be a model for the US rail system. You erroneously thought that that was related to truck volumes on highways (and hence moved the goalposts), but it isn't. Not only are Europe's rail systems inefficiently run, they also have limited capacity, so even running them more efficiently wouldn't eliminate the problems with trucks on European highways.
62. Re: Makes more sense there by thegarbz · 2017-06-22 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Trucks are a massive problem on European roads and a constant political issue in countries like Germany and Switzerland. If you don't know this, you really are out of touch with European politics.
  Politics is irrelevant due difference of reality vs people's perception. There's all sorts of "politics" not grounded on any fact. But okay, I'm going to assume you just have some major unlucky roads. I too have been driving European roads for decades, in the Germany you so kindly cite.
  Complete and total non-issue.
  
  You erroneously thought that that was related to truck volumes
  Actually I replied to a direct quote. What you think is or is not in error should be directed to the person who originally wrote the statement. And while you're at it the original comment said that "Europe *wastes* it's rail on people", to prove that you need to show me how the Europe would be better suited to put those people on the road and the trucks on the rail. Common I'll wait*.
  * No I won't.
63. Re: Makes more sense there by stealth_finger · 2017-06-22 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and then to add insult to injury enough of them still bought it enough to vote tory but not enough so they could actually win win and now we're landed in pretty much the worst possible spot.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
64. Re: Makes more sense there by ooloorie · 2017-06-23 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  And while you're at it the original comment said that "Europe *wastes* it's rail on people", to prove that you need to show me how the Europe would be better suited to put those people on the road and the trucks on the rail. Common I'll wait*.
  Well, that's what we're really talking about: should rail be used for passengers or for freight or for a mix.
  Criteria are: cost, emissions, and travel times.
  Yes, my contention is that an all-freight rail network like the US network results in substantially better resource utilization and substantially better service for both passengers and freight on those criteria than Europe's mixed freight/passenger rail systems.
Tracks should be standardized and compatible roads by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 11:54 · Score: 0

Or we will have a lot of investment in systems you can not travel on without switching providers first.
Is this sort of like MagicJack? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 11:58 · Score: -1

Excuse my ignorance but is Hyperloop the same as MagicJack, or is it more like Obihai? I tried plugging my POTS phone into my router. The RJ11 actually fits fine into the center portion of the RJ45 port, and even locks in. However, I was not able to make phone calls and didn't even get a dial tone.
Someone said I need MajicJack. And then this guy at work said Obihai. But the office nerd suggested I try Hyperloop. So I'm wondering, how much is Hyperloop and do they ship it to the USA from Korea (i.e. South Korea).
thanks for any help.
-- Spike
Is this for real? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 11:59 · Score: 0

Is this a legitimate technology or the stuff of legend we will talk about when this generation's tech bubble burts?
I can't for the life of me ever want to use one of these things because of the claustrophobia of being in a tube. Not to mention what happens if a fire breaks out. How do you evacuate? I look very suspiciously at it
1. Re: Is this for real? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  No hyperloop has worked yet.
  They tried driving vehicles with their own power but nothing that can actually seal and be moved by the vacuum.
  If it doesn't work like a vacuum tube at a bank then it's a lie because that is how they are selling it.
2. Re: Is this for real? by Rei · 2017-06-21 13:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That's not in the slightest "how they're selling it". Read the design document. To reiterate that which for some inexplicable reason has to be repeated in every thread about Hyperloop: the Hyperloop Alpha design:
  * Is not a pneumatic tube
  * Is not a vacuum train
  * Would not even work in a hard vacuum
  * Is not maglev
  * Is a ground-effect aircraft / air-bearing suspended vehicle in a highly rarified atmosphere, utilizing a battery-powered compressor to shunt the air built up ahead of the vehicle to the suspension and behind the vehicle.
  Your failure to read anything about how it works is nobody's fault but your own.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
3. Re: Is this for real? by Rei_is_a_dumbass · 2017-06-21 14:15 · Score: -1
  
  Oh look it's the dumbass moron again claiming something that's 1/1000 of atmospheric pressure isn't a vacuum. Here is the simple fact. Since it's a vacuum, you need vacuums running 24/7 to maintain the vacuum. That alone will make the uneconomical. They can't even keep their current tiny test tracks at 1/1000 of atmospheric pressure because it costs too much.
4. Re:Is this for real? by nukenerd · 2017-06-21 21:40 · Score: 1
  
  Is this a legitimate technology or the stuff of legend we will talk about when this generation's tech bubble burts?
  A Hyperloop will be built, somewhere, but probably only as a novelty ride like to Las Vegas. It will be incredibly expensive, but Musk will pay because he wants his name on a flag. It will close when the novelty wears off and the maintenance gets expensive, joining the long list of other technological white elephants, like airships, Brunel's vacuum propelled trains*, and aircraft with flapping wings.
  * Yes, yes, no relationship to the Hyperloop, no more than airships are.
Why can't NK do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 11:59 · Score: -1

Oh right, communism.
1. Re:Why can't NK do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Ironically, the saying is that with communism, at least the trains always run on time.
2. Re:Why can't NK do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 15:11 · Score: 0
  
  No, that saying is associated with Fascism.
3. Re: Why can't NK do this? by KGIII · 2017-06-21 16:16 · Score: 1
  
  It is also taken out of context. They did not make the trains run on time. Not even close. My understanding is that it was usually sarcastic. Trains, and the fascists, just weren't that reliable.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
4. Re:Why can't NK do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 22:14 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, it's valid for any totalitarian state. The premise being that you would never claim the trains don't run on time, due to fear of being overheard by an informant.
Mule with a spinning wheel by eric31415927 · 2017-06-21 12:10 · Score: 1

You know a town with money is a little like the mule with a spinning wheel.
No one knows how he got it and danged if he knows how to use it.
- Introductory remarks before the Simpson's Monorail Song
1. Re:Mule with a spinning wheel by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  Is there a chance the tube could bend?
2. Re:Mule with a spinning wheel by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 13:41 · Score: 0
  
  Not on your life my Asian friend!
Bad ass wifi? by TheOuterLinux · 2017-06-21 12:12 · Score: 1

Could you imagine trying to rig that up like they have in planes or busses?
idiotic and impossible by slashmydots · 2017-06-21 12:45 · Score: 0

Here's the thing about hyperloops. You maintain a vacuum you need intense, spread-out pressure along a sturdy structure like an arc/circle/triangle/whatever. If you so much as take a good swing at it with a hammer when it's at a near-vacuum, you ruin the shape and it collapses in a massive, loud implosion. Look up "truck vacuum collapse" on youtube if you're not familiar. These aren't just sensitive to terrorist attacks, they're sensitive to a car running into them and killing everyone on the train. Heck a baseball bat would probably destroy it let alone a rifle round ruining the vacuum AND they're miles and miles long, which you can't guard 24/7. Hyperloops are simply impossible.
1. Re:idiotic and impossible by drinkypoo · 2017-06-21 12:54 · Score: 2
  
  you overbuild it. they said all the same stuff about trains. the rail is vulnerable. anyone could just go out and unbolt parts of it! etc etc
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
2. Re:idiotic and impossible by PacoSuarez · 2017-06-21 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  No, the whole thing is ridiculous. Check out Thunderf00t's analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk
3. Re: idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  I've frequently used large hammers on vacuum vessels that were under vacuum, and they didn't collapse. When you work on plasma experiments, you can end up with mangled electrical components that take a lot of force to remove, but you don't want to break vacuum to do so (there is a big difference between an easy to reach low friction low vacuum, and ultrahigh vacuum that can be ruined by just a thin layer of water from exposing a surface to humidity). The vessels are often just tubes of stainless, and they can take a beating. The problems you refer to are from unpressurized or light pressure vessels that aren't stiff enough to handle buckling... which is easily solved by making the material a little bit thicker (it stiffens faster than linear with thickness). Making vacuum systems of various qualities is a long since solved problem with a lot of off the shelf parts, although there is some room for economy of scale developments.
4. Re:idiotic and impossible by Rei · 2017-06-21 13:46 · Score: 2
  
  Check out Thunderf00t's analysis
  Right. Because when I want an engineering analysis, I always turn to an organic chemist.
  Meanwhile, in the real world, mild or hard vacuum lines and chambers are widely used in industry (for example, see VDUs), and designing a structure to be stable against vacuum, including in catastrophic-rupture scenarios is basic engineering. Believe me, the VDU and its low pressure lines are not what people at refineries fear ruptures in - if you want to see some alarm, rupture a line for a hydrocracker.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
5. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 13:52 · Score: -1
  
  This is what it looks like when someone just doesn't like anti-feminists and does mental gymnastics to try to make their baseless opinion seem like they have any basis in reality. Thunderf00t's analysis is spot-on and you don't like it because you don't like him for not being a SJW cuck like yourself. Keep crying, your tears are delicious!
6. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  He usually is pretty spot on. He usually follows up his ideas with experimental analysis. He is a bit over the top but is usually also pretty good at spotting bullshit.
  In a refinery the vacuum is at max a few hundred feet long. Usually well away from people. You know it. They are talking hundreds of miles of vacuum. You should also know the kind of energy they are talking about to create such a thing. Plus the structures they have built so far are nowhere near what you see in an industrial sense. They are hell bent on re-learning all the hard lessons.
  The hyperloop is a boondongle to separate fools from money. I hope it works but I will not bet on it. There will be no near vacuum hyperloop built.
7. Re:idiotic and impossible by 0111+1110 · 2017-06-21 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  I checked it out. He thinks it's impossible because...expansion joints and because the atmosfear is too heavy. Right. Sorry but his analysis is bullshit and he nitpicks at lots of things that are irrelevant to the main idea. Like whether powering it with solar panels is viable or what the price of a ticket will be. Who gives a shit? A regular high speed train doesn't need to be solar powered and neither does a hyperloop and if the tickets are expensive so what? It will be a train system for the rich then. It will still be cool and maybe someone will eventually figure out how to build a cheaper vacuum tunnel transportation system that the common people can ride in. This is just the start. Guessing the future is always a bad idea but if I had to guess I would say vacuum tunnels are a good guess at what our ground transportation will look like in a few hundred years. It is also easier to power without fossil fuels than aircraft and we may run out of fossil fuels in less than a hundred years.
  I get that people don't like new ideas or that maybe people just don't like Elon Musk, but at least be honest in an analysis of the engineering challenges. It is most certainly not an impossible or ridiculous dream. It's doable from an engineering POV. It's just very very expensive and there may be problems maintaining the vacuum in practice.
  
  --
  Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
8. Re:idiotic and impossible by Baloroth · 2017-06-21 14:23 · Score: 1
  
  So, so many things wrong with this. First, you rupture the vacuum, you don't kill people. The train coasts to a stop, just like any other object traveling at 500 mph in the air (like, say, a passenger jet, except you don't have to worry about crashing into the ground because you're on the ground). The system is really just a high-speed train that operates in a vacuum for increased efficiency. Secondly, vacuum chambers tend to not be all that delicate. In fact, they tend to be made of incredibly tough material, because that's how you make a vacuum chamber. If you can swing a hammer strong enough to visibly dent half an inch of solid steel I'd be shocked (and it wouldn't lose vacuum due to a dent). Even if you punctured it with a rifle round (good luck with that), life isn't a Hollywood movie: the thing's not going to explode in a giant fireball, it's just going to (rather slowly) lose vacuum. Hell, they might not even notice right away: you need continuously running vacuum pumps to deal with leakage anyways, which will already be handling inflow on the level of a few mm sized hole. Now, if you hit it with an RPG, you might make a decent hole. Probably not, mind you: solid steel is no weakling. Your best bet would be C4, or maybe a bunch of thermite to cut the entire tube in half. That might actually kill people.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
9. Re:idiotic and impossible by Rei · 2017-06-21 14:27 · Score: 1
  
  VDUs are also much higher diameter, which makes them harder to design, not easier. And the feed lines can have very high length to diameter ratios.
  It's the same engineering principles. The amount of structural reinforcement - both wall thickness, and reinforcing rings - to resist implosion is very well understood engineering and there are standard guidelines for it. Thunderf00t's ignorant nonsense to the contrary headlined with comic sans text done in what looks like MS Paint notwithstanding.
  
  You should also know the kind of energy they are talking about to create such a thing.
  
  The share of vacuum-related energy required equates to pennies worth of electricity per passenger-trip. And the energy density of the tube is orders of magnitude less than a tube full of typical hydrocarbon fuels (aka a pipeline). The maximum instantaneously deliverable power at a point of rupture is also orders of magnitude less than that of a collision of a loaded passenger train.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
10. Re: idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny how the people who insist that vacuum systems are horribly unsafe and unstable have never actually worked with vacuum systems ;)
11. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 14:42 · Score: 0
  
  The irony, it burns!
12. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 14:45 · Score: 0
  
  So, DON'T build it out of thin glass or run it along highways?
  Thanks, professor.
13. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 15:00 · Score: 0
  
  No irony, just reality. Reality is hard for ideologues to handle.
14. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  Say we have one kilometer of tube with 7 ft diameter, so the volume is about 3500 m^3. The crappy vacuum roughing pump I used in a previous lab was 25 m^3/hr with a 1 hp motor, so it would take 23 days to pump to a solid medium vacuum using that one crappy pump that utilizes half a household outlet. That is about 430 kW-hr of electricity, so around $60 per kilometer to pump out. A larger pump would be more efficient, and with off-the-shelf metal seals, there would be no problems with a mechanical pump keeping up with typical leak rates (metal seal leak rate matter when you're trying to do UHV stuff with much lower pressures that won't matter as far as air resistances).
  So a ballpark cost of $60k to pump out a 1000 km route? Plus some maintenance on the pumps, although they are designed to run 24/7 annual (or less frequent in actual practice) servicing, and there is a lot of off the shelf standard stuff for paralleling and dealing with pump failures. For comparison, I've seen estimates that every time an international flight is canceled for mechanical reasons, it costs the airline $40-50k. So yeah, the process of pumping down isn't going to cost that much compared to other frequent transportation costs, and ultimately it comes down to construction cost and what downtime and problems cause for lost ticket sales, etc.
15. Re:idiotic and impossible by Rei · 2017-06-21 15:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The expansion joints thing is just another example of why you don't turn to a biochemist for a lecture on engineering. Most HSR doesn't have expansion joints either. Lots of things don't have expansion joints. There are three standard ways in industry to deal with thermal expansion: 1) resist it, 2) let it expand by increased bend radii, 3) let it expand by increased linear length. All three are widely used. In HSR, it's common practice to use the "resist" approach - they generally lay the track hot, so that when it cools it contracts and there's built-in tension on all but the hottest days. They usually use heavy and/or anchored ties (commonly concrete) to resist track movement. Pipelines generally use some combination of #1 (e.g. overburden anchoring), #2 (e.g. expansion loops) or #3 (e.g. slip-type expansion joints). Hyperloop wants to use #3, with the dampers as slip joints (e.g. like teflon shoes on pipelines). Whoop-de-doodle-doo. Even if that sort of thing wasn't already a common solution for thermal expansion, they could always just switch to resisting expansion, with a pretensioned tube, like the rail on HSR.
  
  --
  "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
16. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 15:45 · Score: 0
  
  First, you rupture the vacuum, you don't kill people. The train coasts to a stop, just like any other object traveling at 500 mph in the air
  No, there's no "coasting" to a stop. You have a shockwave traveling down the tube at several hundred miles an hour until it encounters an obstacle; i.e., the train.
17. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 15:55 · Score: 0
  
  That is about 430 kW-hr of electricity, so around $60 per kilometer to pump out
  You're assuming constant power usage by the pump, but the power usage drops with pressure. The minimum power of the pump as it gets closer to a good vacuum can easily be 25% of full power rating, and this improves for larger pumps or parallel systems. You can cut the energy usage in half and still be conservative with the estimate, so 215 kwh or $30 for pump down using your numbers, and cheaper to keep the pumps running once pressure is low.
18. Re:idiotic and impossible by drinkypoo · 2017-06-21 16:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Check out Thunderf00t's analysis
  That's like checking to see what Ben Carson thinks of the Pyramids.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 17:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You have a shockwave traveling down the tube at several hundred miles an hour until it encounters an obstacle; i.e., the train
  There is no shockwave, as a shockwave is some discontinuity that requires a nonlinear steepening effect to propagate (e.g. heating from extremely high intensity compression... not decompression). As there is a distribution of different speed atoms and molecules in a gas, they tend to spread out and form a gradient that grows less steep with propagation.
20. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 18:27 · Score: 0
  
  I hope it works but I will not bet on it. There will be no near vacuum hyperloop built.
  You're now betting against the gigantic, vertically integrating Korean corporations. That's a sucker bet.
21. Re:idiotic and impossible by scatbomb · 2017-06-21 18:39 · Score: 1
  
  1atm of pressure differential can be surmounted by the strength of modern building materials. There are many many things that can and likely will go wrong, but to say it's impossible is pretty insulting to all the talented engineers who've put people on the moon, on the bottom of challenger deep, flown stuff to mars, made modern microchips, etc. We could build a hyperloop if we set out to.
22. Re:idiotic and impossible by Solandri · 2017-06-21 19:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I helped design submarines. Big, long metal tubes which can withstand well over 50 atmospheres of external pressure. Designing a tube to withstand a single atmosphere is trivial.
  
  And you don't design these things to be uniform in strength so if it fails, the entire cross-section buckles killing everyone inside. You deliberately design them with weaker sections. That way if there's ever a problem, a weaker section fails first and (for a submarine) gives the crew advance warning the hull is about to fail while allowing them time to recover, or (for an airplane or hyperloop) equalizes the pressure before the entire structure can fail.
  
  I think Hyperloop is a boondoggle in California. But I could actually see it working for South Korea. They have an extremely high population density (lots of potential customers), the maximum travel distance in the country is annoyingly too short for airliner but too long for regular passenger trains, and the geography is incredibly stable (no earthquakes).
23. Re:idiotic and impossible by phantomfive · 2017-06-21 20:02 · Score: 2
  
  The expansion joints thing is just another example of why you don't turn to a biochemist for a lecture on engineering. Most HSR doesn't have expansion joints either. Lots of things don't have expansion joints
  Incidentally, continuous rail is really, really cool.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
24. Re:idiotic and impossible by Hognoxious · 2017-06-21 20:26 · Score: 0
  
  Believe me, the VDU and its low pressure lines are not what people at refineries fear ruptures in
  
  Could that be because they aren't inside them and moving at twice the speed of OMFG?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
25. Re:idiotic and impossible by angel'o'sphere · 2017-06-21 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  A car can not run in one. Perhaps google a bit for the concepts?
  Submarines seem to survive baseball bats quite nicely, so do air planes ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
26. Re:idiotic and impossible by angel'o'sphere · 2017-06-21 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  1atm of pressure differential can be surmounted by the strength of modern building materials.
  This is the equivalent of a water depth of 10 meters (roughly 11 yards). So yes, it is trivial.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
27. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 23:04 · Score: 0
  
  Thunderf00t's analysis is spot-on and you don't like it because you don't like him for not being a SJW cuck like yourself. Keep crying, your tears are delicious!
  lol. Superb thinker here. The reason you haven't gotten bored of epithets like 'cuck' and 'SJW' is: you're fucking stupid.
  /pol/ must be quiet these days. Here was I hoping you'd actually gone and topped yourselves (we all know you want to)
28. Re:idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  Vacuums are pulled on a regular basis safely on containers for science class projects let alone a purpose designed metal transportation network. You likely deal with pressure vessels on a daily basis (propane tanks, natural gas pipelines, etc) that are under far more stress than a potential Hyperloop would be under. And even if you do get a complete failure it wouldn't be too difficult to design failsafes into the system (pressure doors, equalization valves, etc) to quickly safe the system. Most of the "issues" with the Hyperloop could be solved by a Middle school science class let alone teams of skilled engineers.
29. Re:idiotic and impossible by Hognoxious · 2017-06-22 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  How long is a submarine? How much does one cost?
  It's quite a bit per mile, isn't it?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
30. Re:idiotic and impossible by nickersonm · 2017-06-22 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Is there anything that wouldn't be a boondoggle in California?
31. Re: idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  Even though I expect hyperloop to be uneconomical, I find this to be a stupid comparison. Subs handle way more pressure, and the costs often have to do with the stuff inside of them, making them streamlined, making them silent and attack resistant for military subs, or full of windows for civilian subs.
32. Re: idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  There is another expansion option that is kind of like an expansion loop and already used on vacuum systems: corrugation. There are a lot of vacuum systems that have parts cycling to cryogenic or high temps (sometimes in different parts of the same machine). Ideally you try to isolate that from the vacuum vessels, but it is not perfect, and often you want to heat up the vessel on purpose to remove water (200 C if using metal seals... With sometimes large gradients to parts that don't have metal seals). A variety of flexible bellows, varying by strength and flexibility, can expand and move, but not collapse under vacuum.
33. Re: idiotic and impossible by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, hammers get used on vacuum vessels, and importantly, they are not built like tanks, either the military or pressure kind. A lot of large vacuum vessels are just 1/8" thick rolled stainless.
34. Re:idiotic and impossible by LunaticTippy · 2017-06-22 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  This submarine is 6000km long and cost $300m, so a submarine costs $2m per 10km.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
Reminds me of a song by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 12:50 · Score: 0

When I hear the word hyper loop it reminds me of Just Playin' by JT Playaz. The reason for this is the lyrics of the chorus "The heart of the core, they seek for more, The melody, the hype of the loop" which sounds like the hyper the loop.
30 minutes is not enough time for a zombie movie! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-21 15:37 · Score: 0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_to_Busan
Never been in Soouth Korea by angel'o'sphere · 2017-06-21 20:39 · Score: 1

Actually the only asian country so far is Thailand.
But the week that thing goes life I will be there and wait in the queues to be one of the first 10,000 to catch a ride.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
SkyTran would be better than Hyperloop... by msc.buff · 2017-06-22 07:35 · Score: 1

Why doesn't Elon get behind this?

http://www.skytran.com/

Hyperloop is a 'pipe' dream which will mostly serve the rich and only a very few with specific travel requirements. SkyTran would serve an entire City or Country with more then just personal public transportation. Run whatever cables/wires you want down the tracks and get fiber, gas, power and more. Every loading station could be a Wifi/Cellular node blanketing the area with open access. There is so much potential in a SkyTran system that it annoys me it doesn't get more exposure and I keep seeing an endless series of Hyperloop stories.
1. Re:SkyTran would be better than Hyperloop... by drinkypoo · 2017-06-22 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  I find that a bit confusing myself. It seems like a perfect plan because it permits preservation of the auto companies — they just go to building monorail pods instead of cars, no big deal. They're the ones who have the manufacturing capacity lying around to do something like that. And it would also be highly compatible with TBC, but then, so is basically any form of transportation given the scale of it.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
3 hours drive to Busan HAHAHAHAHA! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-22 12:18 · Score: 0

"one which will be known as the HyperTube Express and carry passengers between Seoul and Busan in under 20 minutes, compared to the current three-hour drive."
No one in the history of EVER has made the drive from Seoul to Busan in three hours. It takes two hours by high speed rail going 300 km/h. South Korea has one of the most riven geographies on earth: nearly the entire country is mountainous. If the hyper loop were a straight shot, maybe 20 minutes would be possible between the cities, but that would require an epic tunneling effort.
Oh, and they do have earthquakes there. My hotel room in Seoul shook for a good 30 seconds from a strong earthquake in Kyeongju, a city about 30 minutes north of Busan. There was some damage to historical sites there.