California Billionaire Unveils Futuristic 'Hyperloop' Transport...

[Indi Guy]

Source: Reuters

[font size="5"]C[/font][font size="3"]alifornia billionaire Elon Musk took the wraps off his vision of a futuristic "Hyperloop" transport system on Monday, proposing to build a solar-powered network of crash-proof capsules that would whisk people from San Francisco to Los Angeles in half an hour.[/font]

In a blog post, Musk, the chief executive of electric car maker Tesla Motors Inc described in detail a system that, if successful, would do nothing short of revolutionizing intercity transportation. But first the plan would have to overcome questions about its safety and financing.

The Hyperloop, which Musk previously described as a cross between a Concorde, rail gun and air-hockey table, would cost an estimated $6 billion to build and construction would take 7 to 10 years. Eventually, according to the plan, it would jettison more than 7 million people a year along one of the U.S. West Coast's busiest traffic corridors.

As many as 28 passengers could ride in each pod and the system could even transport vehicles, according to the 57-page design plan.

Musk, who in the past has hinted at the hopes of building such a system, proposed the Hyperloop as an alternative to a $68 billion high-speed rail project that's a major priority of California Governor Jerry Brown. It would be safer, faster, less expensive and more convenient, Musk said in the blog post...

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/13/us-musk-hyperloop-idUSBRE97B0U320130813

---

[joshcryer]

1. Just finished digesting the PDF.

It can get super technical at times but otherwise it's a nice and mostly non-technical read. It's actually an ingenious concept. The dang thing coasts most of the way. The energy to power it is free. The ability to build it fully realizable. It can be built right on the I-5 median (I personally think you'd want a retaining wall built too to keep cars from hitting the pylons; something which wasn't really discussed).

You can read the PDF here: http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperloop-alpha.pdf

To think, this could be built for a fraction of the cost of the $60 (more like $100) billion dollar bullet train idea that is inconceivably expensive.

[davidpdx]

6. They need to build this from San Diego all the way up to Vancouver BC

The west coast has one of the worst transportation infrastructures in the country in terms of getting up and down the coast. Amtrack is slower then a dead snail, the bus is great if you like the possibility of being hacked to bits, leaving the only other option of flying.

I live in Korea and I've had adult students ask me about taking the bus between cities and myself as well as other people told them not to because it's not safe anywhere. Maybe we are exaggerating a bit, but you never really know when the nut cases might hack you to bits.

[bananas]

2. Musk said his thinking has changed and he would like to build a "demonstration article".

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2013/08/hyperloop-anoth.html

[Bombtrack]

3. Reminds me of Logan's Run (the novel)

Something like this was featured in the movie but not in detail.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Reminds me

of the old "suck / blow" systems that department stores had as late as the fifties which moved cash around the building. Such systems were also used to move small parts around manufacturing units as late as the sixties and maybe even later.

[freshwest]

17. The vacuum tubes like banks still use, you mean?

[dipsydoodle]

27. Not here they don't.

[freshwest]

46. They're an element of 'drive through' banking here.

One's items are dropped into an elongated cylinder made of plexiglas that flips open and closes tight at one end. Hit a button and a sheet of plexiglas slides down to create a vacuum and woosh it goes to the teller and vice versa.

I was imagining an air tight cylinder to carry people, naturally with the vacuum on the outside. The system I'm speaking of has the device at either end to create the movement.

I like drive throughs if I have to drive miles to get to some place. It saves time from getting in and out, locking up, finding parking, waiting in a line inside and all that. The bank is the only place I still see these, though.

[PoliticAverse]

51. The banks by you don't blow ? n/t

[Nihil]

60. They still do in Tesco though!

(At least in the main one near me - goes between each till and the main cash centre
using plastic shuttles about the size of a small drinks bottle.)

What was old is new again (or something like that)

[dipsydoodle]

61. How amazing.

My son works at their head office - I will ask him what he knows about it. None anywhere near me have such gismos.

[Eleanors38]

29. Perhaps also in This Island Earth (1956).

[Left Coast2020]

4. Looking at this design, I'm wondering.....

While riding in this thing, would we get to hear music from, "The Tubes?"

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. Is "jettison" really the word they're looking for?

As in to discard something into the sea, atmosphere or space?

[kentauros]

32. I noticed that, too.

My guess is the writer wanted a word like "jet" and picked "jettison" from a list without having a clue as to what it really meant.

[davidpdx]

7. I've love to see this Bejing to Seoul, to San Francisco

It takes me 10 1/2 hours to fly from Seoul to SFO, it would probably cut it down to 3 hours.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

13. Musk's project is suitable for short hauls (SF to LA). Supersonic aircraft are better for long hauls

In any case, it is not possible to erect a line of pylons across the Pacific Ocean to support the tube.

[struggle4progress]

8. SF to LA in 30 mins is 750 mph. The land speed record is still below 500 mph.

Commercial jets cruise at 500 - 900 mph. He's talking about zipping through tubes beside the highway at 1100 ft/sec

He's nuts

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. You're stuck in 1965 & wrong on facts & No he's not nuts. He has been right in big ways.

You are still living in 1965, when the land speed record jumped from 434 mph to 555 mph (894 kph).

Currently the land speed record is 763 mph (1228 kph)

Anyway, so what if it is 40 minutes instead of 30. I'm not going to complain about the extra ten minutes.

Elon Musk has been highly successful by thinking clearly and being open to ideas that others reject because they aren't ordinary.

He is demonstrably not nuts.

[struggle4progress]

15. Fair enough: I missed the jet-powered car that fifteen years ago, that went a mile in about 5 sec

Nobody in their right mind will hurdle through a tube at such speeds

[freshwest]

18. How fast do astronauts go? Don't know how many G's this puts on the body. I love planes taking off.

[DetlefK]

23. Some exemplary calculations for a train accelerating with 1G (no frictions):

distance = 1/2 * acceleration * time²

With 1G acceleration for half the distance of 700,000m and 1G of decelaration for the other half, travel-time for the whole distance would be all in all approx. 530 seconds, that's about 9 minutes.
Top-speed would be approx. 2650 m/s, that's approx Mach 9.

EDIT:
With 0.5G, travel-time would be 750 seconds, that's 12.5 minutes.
Top-speed approx Mach 6.25.

With 0.25G, travel-time would be 1060 seconds, that's about 17.5 minutes.
Top-speed approx Mach 4.4.

[freshwest]

25. Mach 4.4 would not be for the frail or faint of heart, I think.

[DetlefK]

33. Why? You can't feel velocity.

For the first half of the route you feel slightly heavier and tiled backwards, for the second you feel slightly heavier and tilted forwards. Inside the capsule, you have no way to witness the actual speed.
Earth rotates at highway-speed and we don't feel that either (except for coriolis-effect 'n stuff).

And it's so big that people can't imagine it anyway.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. He's not planning on going supersonic, very wisely

since the engineering problems multiply once you are supersonic. I'd also say that even 9 minutes of deceleration at 0.25g would not be popular - it's a fair time to be tipped forward.

[DetlefK]

38. You sure? If he wants to get below 40 minutes, he has no choice.

700km with 300m/s that's 39 minutes. AND acceleration and deceleration are not in there yet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. 615km by road

http://www.travelmath.com/drive-distance/from/Los+Angeles,+CA/to/San+Francisco,+CA

And if we add up the section lengths in the paper, we see they reckon their route is 570km. And we also see he is designing to not go faster than sound:

In either case, if the speed of the air passing through the gaps accelerates to supersonic velocities, then shock waves form. These waves limit how much air can actually get out of the way of the capsule, building up a column of air in front of its nose and increasing drag until the air pressure builds up significantly in front of the capsule. With the increased drag and additional mass of air to push, the power requirements for the capsule increase significantly. It is therefore very important to avoid shock wave formation around the capsule by careful selecting of the capsule/tube area ratio. This ensures sufficient mass air flow around and through the capsule at all operating speeds. Any air that cannot pass around the annulus between the capsule and tube is bypassed using the onboard compressor in each capsule.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

42. Nope. Subsonic, in 35 minutes, and 0.5 g acceleration:

Summary (pg 41 of pdf):

• 300 mph (480 kph) for the Los Angeles Grapevine South section at 0.5g.
Total time of 167 seconds
• 555 mph (890 kph) for the Los Angeles Grapevine North section at 0.5g.
Total travel time of 435 seconds
• 760 mph (1,220 kph ) along I-5 at 0.5g.
Total travel time of 1,518 seconds
• 555 mph (890 kph) along I-580 slowing to 300 mph (480 kph) into San Francisco.
Total travel time of 2,134 seconds (35 minutes)

pg 42 of the pdf:

[freshwest]

47. Are you talking Mach as in breaking the sound barrier? As I said, I love the acceleration on planes.

They're not breaking the sound barrier in doing so. That kind of movement is as you describe.

Breaking the sound barrier is for test pilots I would suppose. Except, IIRC, the Concorde did that, high enough in the atmosphere to prevent complaints over sonic booms. I remember those as a kid when planes were doing it. IDK if they damaged much property, but they had to stop.

Some of this stuff is older tech. I don't see any problem with the system, and seeing things go by is not what I'm talking about.

Someone on the thread thought it was not possible to send people that fast - don't remember who it was and I've got to do some stuff here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. based on your description....those of us with motion sickness.....

are not going to like not having windows to see as well as feel that effect.

[DetlefK]

55. You think it would be better when they could see the walls of the tunnel rushing by?

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. I know so....

thats what prevents me from having motion sickness in subway trains....

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. I don't think motion sickness would be a problem

There will not be any left-to-right or up-and-down oscillation. It will be a steady force, just like gravity is; it will feel as if you are tipped back during acceleration (for about a minute at a time), and tipped forward during braking. Cornering will be done with the capsule tilting to the side so that the force you feel will still seem 'down' onto the couch. It will be extremely smooth (it has to be - the clearance between the capsule and the tube floor is about one millimetre).

Someone else brought up claustrophobia, which I think would be more of a problem - there's some confusion, but most reports say the interior of the capsule is just 1.1m, ie 3 foot 7, high. I think that includes the thickness of the couch, so you won't be able to sit up.

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. smooth is not the problem for motion sickness...

its about feeling movement but not seeing it and visa versa. Its why on a boat when you feel seasick....you look for land...so you can see the movement your body is feeling..

I cannot even play first person shooter video games because of the phenomenon. It's also why you don't get it when you drive and why you let the person with motion sickness sit in the front seat...

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Exactly - that's why I don't think motion sickness would be a problem

You won't feel movement; when the acceleration starts you'll notice one change in the direction of what you perceive as gravity (which your mind, without external reference points, will interpret as the capsule tipping forward a bit), then that direction will be steady for a minute, then the direction will revert to normal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. No its exactly why you WOULD

I couldn't feel movement in a video game...BUT the worst motion sickness I ever had was after playing a first person shooter. I don't think you understand the concept of what motion sickness is...

Edditted to add:
Motion sickness or kinetosis, also known as travel sickness, is a condition in which a disagreement exists between visually perceived movement and the vestibular system's sense of movement. Depending on the cause, it can also be referred to as seasickness, car sickness, simulation sickness or airsickness.[1]

Motion sickness can be divided into three categories:
Motion sickness caused by motion that is felt but not seen
Motion sickness caused by motion that is seen but not felt
Motion sickness caused when both systems detect motion but they do not correspond.

Simulation sickness, or simulator sickness, is a condition where a person exhibits symptoms similar to motion sickness caused by playing computer/simulation/video games.[1]
The most common theory for the cause of simulation sickness is that the illusion of motion created by the virtual world, combined with the absence of motion detected by the inner ear, causes the area postrema in the human brain to infer that one is hallucinating and further conclude that the hallucination is due to poison ingestion. The brain responds by inducing nausea and mass vomiting, to clear the supposed toxin.[5] According to this theory, simulation sickness is just another form of motion sickness.
The symptoms are often described as quite similar to that of motion sickness, and can range from headache, drowsiness, nausea, dizziness, vomiting and sweating. Research done at the University of Minnesota had students play Halo for less than an hour, and found that up to 50 percent felt sick afterwards.[9]

One common suggestion is to simply look out of the window of the moving vehicle and to gaze towards the horizon in the direction of travel. This helps to re-orient the inner sense of balance by providing a visual reaffirmation of motion.
In the night, or in a ship without windows, it is helpful to simply close one's eyes, or if possible, take a nap. This resolves the input conflict between the eyes and the inner ear. Napping also helps prevent psychogenic effects (i.e. the effect of sickness being magnified by thinking about it).

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. No, I do understand; but I don't think you understand what the capsule would be like

The vestibular system's sense of movement detects changes in the forces your head experiences. But the capsule will change those forces very rarely - and smoothly (and in just one direction - fore and aft) - once when it starts accelerating, and once when it stops accelerating. These are separated by about a minute. Without an external reference, it will feel like the couch has tipped (if you've flown, you may have noticed this as an aircraft accelerates down the runway. But it will be smoother than an aircraft - there can be no sideways or up and down motion).

With a video game, you see a constantly changing screen, so there are repeated mismatches between your vision and your sense of motion. Similarly, with sea-etc.-sickness, you get constantly changing motion, and it's much worse when you cannot see a true horizon (I do get seasick in sailboats, and sometimes feel queasy if I read in cars, so I do have some idea what it's like). But it takes a continued disagreement in the signals, rather than one momentary disagreement, as the acceleration starts.

[Eleanors38]

31. Top speed with 1G is in the same league with the muzzle velocity of "deer rifles."

[theHandpuppet]

34. How do you compensate for the G forces?

Juts curious.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

44. G forces (0.5 G) would be comparable to an automobile:

Accelerating (in real units) 0 to 100 kph in 6.4 seconds is 0.44 G.

Accelerating (in provincial units) 0 to 60 mph (97 kph) in 5.4 seconds in 0.5 G.

Tesla cars do 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds to 5.9 seconds.

A 2012 Toyota Camry SE (V6) does 0-60 mph in 5.7 seconds (probably with some tuning).

2011 Ford F-150 FX4 Super Crew EcoBoost 4x4 (V6) 0-60 mph 6.0 seconds.

[theHandpuppet]

58. Thanks

Appreciate the explanation.

[Ian David]

24. There is a partial vacuum in the tube, so there is almost no air resistance.

And the thing doesn't roll on wheels; it glides on a curtain of air.

[DetlefK]

10. The critic's price-estimate for the vacuum control-systems is ridiculously high.

$12 billion. How did the critic arrive at $12 billion?

The distance is 735km, let's say a gauge is installed every 10 meters, that's 73500 instruments.

Pressure-gauges capable of going down from 1 bar to sub-mbar-range cost a few hundred bucks, tops. Round it up to $1000 per piece for cables, installation and computerization.

My number is $73.5 million for the hardware...

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I think it would need to include the cost of the pumps too

Musk reckons $10 million for the cost of the vacuum pumps for the entire system, including the airlocks at the stations. Maybe it's a question of what you want to do if a leak is detected - just a safe shutdown/conversion to working in atmospheric pressure mode for the whole tube, or an attempt at maintaining the low pressure in sections away from the leak? If the latter, you would presumably need a lot of pumps, all along it.

[DetlefK]

14. Depends on how low he wants the pressure.

IIRC the counter-force by air-friction scales linear with air-density, so approximately linear with pressure.

0.5 bar would already be a decent increase in max velocity. I doubt, he would have to go below 0.1 bar, which is easily achievable. And at this pressure, a leak wouldn't be catastrophic: The pressure would slowly rise over time, like air flowing out of a balloon, especially if such a huge vessel has to be filled.
The pumps could run 24/7, it wouldn't make a difference to the procedures.
If a leak is detected, send out a repair-crew by car and weld the hole shut.
Optimal pressure would be restored within hours to days. (Within minutes in a gallon-sized vessel, but this is a huge tunnel we are talking about.)

EDIT:
You can estimate about the same price for the pumps, so let's say $200 million. Not even close to the several billion dollars that were brought up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. 0.001 bar is the design pressure

Just as aircraft climb to high altitudes to travel through less dense air, Hyperloop encloses the capsules in a reduce pressure tube. The pressure of air in Hyperloop is about 1/6 the pressure of the atmosphere on Mars. This is an operating pressure of 100 Pascals, which reduces the drag force of the air by 1,000 times relative to sea level conditions and would be equivalent to flying above 150,000 feet altitude.

The capsules have to be able to maintain a decent speed while coasting for significant distances.

[DetlefK]

30. Easier than I thought.

1 mbar: Can be build up with rotary vane pumps, which work between 1 bar and 0.01 mbar. There are also gauges that work in that range. And rubber gaskets on the flanges would be good enough.

Looking for leaks on a vaccum-vessel is a really time-consuming and unnerving job, but the pumps wouldn't have a problem at this pressure: Any hole big enough to cause trouble (millimeter-sized and bigger) would be visible with the naked eye and either located on a flange or a weld.

At this pressure, the pressure-gradient is very small, so it would be hard to locate a small leak with a warning-system (apart from having a bad pressure in general).
My advice would be to have a surveillance-crew check the welds on the pipeline year-round, maybe once a week. (earthquake-area!)

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. But how close would the pumps need to be to maintain 1 mbar with a leak?

Checking welds once a week for a 350 mile pipe (needing access all round it) would be a notable cost.

[DetlefK]

39. That strongly depends on the situation.

The power of the pumps and the measurements of their pipes. And of course the size of the leak.
Distance wouldn't matter for the pumps. 1mbar is still such a high pressure, that any increase would immediately spread out evenly along the whole tunnel.

Okay, once a week is too much, but once a year is definitely not enough.
Maybe shut the whole thing down for a week every 3 months...

[freshwest]

19. What if it combined Maglev to increase speed and work that way?

[DetlefK]

20. Sounds good.

Levitating the train on an air-cushion wouldn't work at these low pressures.
And tracks always have the risk of too much friction.
Maglev only has air-friction, but I have no estimates for cost and efficiency.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. That would cost far more

A lot of the cost advantage of this design is to keep most of the system a simple metal tube - no built-in machinery for most of the 'track', just occasional booster sections, and for inclines.

[liberal N proud]

16. Why would this be any more vulnerable to terrorist attack than any other transportation system?

Jim Powell, a co-inventor of the bullet train and director of Maglev 2000, which develops high-speed transport systems using magnetic levitation, said the system would be highly vulnerable to a terrorist attack or accident.

What a lame ass reason for criticizing the plan.

[DetlefK]

21. The tunnel would be like a pipeline anyway.

[liberal N proud]

22. No more vulnerable than any pipeline the oil companies want to run through your property.

Crossing a bridge, is a risk, they could blow it up or just stop and blow up a busy highway. To think that a new proposed system is any more vulnerable than another is ridiculous.

[Posteritatis]

49. It's pretty much a reflexive reason to criticise anything these days

Something new? Terrorists could attack it!

Something large? Terrorists could attack it!

Something more convenient? Terrorists could use it!

etc.

Bin Laden's giggling from wherever he wound up, for certain.

[liberal N proud]

53. Ain't that the truth!

[Eleanors38]

37. The Soviet-era Shkval submarine torpedo used "super cavitational" technology...

Its liquid fuel rocket engine provided part of its thrust in the opposite direction thru small holes in the highly-tapered nose, thus providing a small though constant "envelope" of cavitation in the water = far less resistance and far greater weapon performance: 9 mile range, well over 200 knots & 1.5 ton warhead.

[Kingofalldems]

40. I like this one

[hunter]

43. Our civilization doesn't need to speed up, it needs to slow down.

90% of the time building something new, increasing "productivity," or going faster is the WRONG answer.

This civilization needs to slow down and enjoy life. The death race has got to stop.

I'd rather take a slow train from San Francisco to Los Angeles, time to take in the scenery, open the window and smell the orange blossoms on a nice day, and most of all, have the time to do that.

Travel by automobiles, aircraft, or tubes is not my idea of "progress."

Stretching weekends from two to three days, vacations from two to six weeks or more, that's my idea of progress.

Our current notions of "productivity" are bullshit.

[hughee99]

59. One way some people enjoy life is spending more time where they want to be,

and less time getting there. Some people would rather spend the day with family or friends in another city than with strangers on a train, no matter how nice the scenery is.

[hunter]

68. My parents live in a remote place.

Maybe the U.S. military could get me there in a day, but commercial transport takes longer to arrange and it's expensive.

My parents bought their dream retirement home years ago and I've never seen it because I can't afford to get there.

I do see my parents when they visit. Every two or three years they come back to California to visit everyone who can't visit them. They fly over the ocean, but then they ride the bus, hitch rides, and stay with friends, family, and folks they've met in their travels.

I was fortunate to see Europe as a kid, a year on the road with my parents and all my siblings. But I wouldn't recommend that sort of travel to anyone. We did not fly, we took a train across the U.S.A., sleep in your seat class, and a ship across the Atlantic, bunks in a room without windows class, and no return ticket. Many parts of Europe were still very poor just like we were poor.

Travel for pleasure is a privilege of wealth. Until we discover cheap fusion energy, control our population, and otherwise demonstrate some sort of intelligence as a species, it will always be thus. Ordinary people don't travel for pleasure. They don't fly, they don't stay at the Holiday Inn, and they don't rent cars. They travel for work, or recklessness, or desperation. All my ancestors came to the U.S.A. in the 18th and 19th century out of recklessness or desperation. Tired of being a sailor? Jump overboard in San Francisco, swim, and run! Hungry and cold in Northern Europe? Mail-order bride to polygamist Salt Lake City doesn't look so bad.

I saw Europe as a kid because my parents are reckless. I'm fairly well traveled because I'm reckless. My wife and I did not pass the reckless tradition on to our kids. We did not take them on reckless travels. If they've gone on their own reckless travels as young adults we haven't heard about it... yet.

Our modern fossil fueled transportation system is unsustainable. The carbon dioxide spilled will probably sink this civilization. Unless something changes there will come a time when fast transportation can no longer be supported, even for the very wealthy. A huge fossil-fueled infrastructure is required to build and maintain jet airliners and other high speed transportation systems. I don't think this civilization is going to last. I'd like to build a civilization that's more resilient.

When and if humanity can get it's act together, then maybe something like this evacuated tube transport becomes safe and sustainable.

[tabasco]

45. Stay out of small planes, dude.

What kind of commie idea is this anyway - transporting people without OIL??

[Piedras]

48. Hyping the Hyperloop

Hyping the Hyperloop by Robert Cruikshank author of the California High Speed Rail Blog looks at some challenges of the Hyperloop.

Today we finally learned the details of Elon Musk’s much-hyped Hyperloop. And while some readers may expect me to trash it, I actually think it’s a pretty awesome idea. What’s not to love about getting from SF to LA in 30 minutes? Sign me up!

The Hyperloop does have some significant technical challenges facing it, but so does any ambitious idea. It’s also not a new idea. Proposals like it, usually known as a vactrain, have circulated for the last 100 years. Yet there are significant problems with the Hyperloop – specifically with the way it’s being discussed and framed. Many of the same media outlets that have spent the last five years criticizing every detail of the California high speed rail project have today been reporting on the Hyperloop concept without the same levels of skepticism that they’ve brought to HSR – even though HSR is a commonplace, proven technology whereas the Hyperloop is a concept on paper.

The Hyperloop as proposed by Mr. Musk does not go from downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles. It stops short of both, particularly from LA. So its touted travel time in comparison to high speed rail is unknown and/or misleading. It can carry only 28 people a time compared to 1,000 to 1,200 people on board a high speed rail train. It bypasses intermediate stops in the California Central Valley like Fresno, Bakersfield, and other cities so far fewer people would benefit from it.

The cost estimate for the Hyperloop seems to be overly optimistic as does its time to begin operation. Robert holds that much of the time to begin operation of High Speed Rail is due to political consideration and opposition from NIMBYs, that a Hyperloop would most likely face too.

Further High Speed Rail is a mature technology around the world, with further improvements to come, while a Hyperloop is unproven with unknown risks.

Stop And Move another blog Roberts links to takes a critical look at the travel time for the Hyperloop proposal:

HSR between downtown LA and downtown SF: 2 hours, 28 minutes

Hyperloop trip between downtown LA and downtown SF:
1 hour from LA to Sylmar via Metrolink
20 minute transfer
35 minutes to Dublin
20 minute transfer
1 hour 10 minutes from Dublin to LA via BART (oops, this probably should be Dublin to SF)

Total: 3 hours 25 minutes

An entire hour more than traditional HSR! It turns out that stopping at the edge of the metropolitan area, where nobody is actually going, sort of kills your time advantage. You see the same when comparing rail vs air. Sure, planes fly at 550mph....but the airports aren't your destination.

So, if the above is accurate the journey time from SF to LA could be longer via a Hyperloop!

There are many more good points about the likely costs, travel times, political realities to be faced, safety considerations, and time to begin operation in the two blogs linked to above.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

50. He's speciously wrong on at least two points: capacity and NIMBY

Re: 28 people per time: that is a bogus argument, rather like saying that cars are useless for carrying people from LA to SF because they can only take 5 people per time. Multiple capsules would be in the system at any given time, just like there could be multiple trains at different points on a track and multiple cars on a highway.

The advantage of 28 people per capsule is that there would be so many capsules going that you wouldn't have to make a reservation: just show up at the station and take the next one.

Re: NIMBY: Musk makes the valid point that the Hyperloop pylons would be placed alongside the existing I-5 highway and would require very little in the way of new right of ways. Those right of ways would be much like electrical transmission towers in farmers' fields that they are very used to and would not pose a problem for anybody.

By contrast, the California High Speed Rail would require a lot of new right of ways and that is part of its expense.

[Piedras]

54. Hyperloop passenger capacity seems to be less than High Speed Rail

I'm not convinced that Hyperloop, HL for short, would have a passenger capacity equal to High Speed Rail, HSR. Not unless some unknown number of additional tubes each way are built would equal the capacity of a two track high speed rail system.

With 28 people per HL capsule it would take roughly 40 of them to equal the passenger capacity of one high speed train. How often could the capsules depart? If one leaves every 30 seconds it'd take about 20 minutes for them all to equal one (nearly) full train. If the HL capsule headway instead is two minutes it would take well over an hour for them to to transport as many people as one single train.

In time there will be many high trains per hour. Perhaps four to six high speed trains departing per hour in each direction. With a fifteen, or six, minute headway for trains at peak times people could travel almost any time they wish to.

It would take additional HL tubes and capsules to move as many people per hour as HSR will be able to, at considerable added cost for more tubes and right of way.

Building a HL system all the way from downtown SF to downtown LA will involve considerable cost for its right of way too. It can't all go alongside Hwy I-5, which would unlikely be "free". The owners of the Tejon Ranch are opposed to giving up right of way. Many miles will have to go through the SF Bay Area and metropolitan LA, where right of way will be very costly.

Those built up areas are likely to have NIMBYs oppose a HL on elevated pylons. More rural farmers and ranchers may too.

Fewer Californians benefit. Going from SF to LA via I-5 bypasses millions of Central Valley Californians. Californians who will be able to ride HSR. Those bypassed Californians are less likely to politically support an expensive Hyperloop.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

56. Good analysis. Here's another angle:

If the cost of building Hyperloop is $12 billion and the HS Rail is $70 billion, then you could build six Hyperloops for the cost of one rail line. If you use the same corridor you could probably build them together for less cost by using bigger pylons with two or three
tubes in parallel.

For $70 billion you could run Hyperloop from San Diego to Vancouver, British Columbia with a spur to Las Vegas.

[Piedras]

64. Clem's Eight HyperLoop Show Stoppers

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2013, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Clem, a participant in the California High Speed Rail Blog has eight "show stoppers" doubting the viability Elon Musk's HyperLoop proposal. A big dump of all my thoughts on the HyperLoop… kudos for trying, but the concept is not even half-baked.

I agree with Robert that the claim of HSR being less safe by two orders of magnitude than flying is quite likely factually incorrect (Page 2) although impeccably timed to take advantage of public perceptions in the wake of the recent Spanish train crash.

My list of show stoppers…

Show Stopper #8: 0.5g acceleration seems a bit excessive for a comfortable ride. You want this to feel like a swift elevator or subway, not like a roller coaster. 0.5 g is firmly in roller coaster territory and requires the passenger to be strapped in at all times with drinks and laptops put safely away. (Oh and how do you strap in a Model X?) Try more like 0.15 or 0.2 g. This has large and costly impacts on the acceleration sections; the reason for keeping the acceleration so high is to keep the acceleration sections short.

Show Stopper #7: There is little in the document that discusses the cost, size or weight of environmental control and life support systems, basically providing a safe and comfortable environment for the passengers inside. The driving case here is not based on journey times, but on emergency evacuation where it is conceivable a capsule could languish in the tube for quite a while. (How long would repressing the whole tube take, before emergency hatches can be accessed and opened?) This vehicle subsystem would not be unlike a business jet’s environmental control system, which is neither small, simple, light-weight, nor cheap.

Clem has six more HyperLoop "Show Stoppers" at the above link.

Show Stopper #6 Thermal issues
Show Stopper #5 Branching issues
Show Stopper #4 Vacuum issues
Show Stopper #3 Security issues
Show Stopper #2 Safe stops and restarts issues
Show Stopper #1 Equipment failure issues

There is a (mostly) well informed discussion of HyperLoop issues in blog linked to above.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

65. Right off the bat, #8 is ridiculous. 0.5 G is a car ride, not a roller coaster. nt

[Piedras]

67. Clem's HyperLoop Show Stopper #1-Equipment Failure

Clem's list of eight HyperLoop "show stoppers" counts down to Show Stopper #1 Equipment Failure:

Eight HyperLoop Show Stoppers

Show Stopper #1: There will always be the risk of equipment failure or tube damage that will cause a sudden and unplanned stop, which dictates the headway between vehicles. This minimum headway, regardless of how fancy and automated the traffic control system, is a simple and necessary consequence of “shit happens” and creates an inherent capacity limitation for fixed-guideway transportation systems, of which the Hyperloop is just another example, after you look past all the high tech. The minimum headway consists of the following time contributions:
- the time for the preceding capsule to clear a junction and free the routing through the junction to be changed for the following capsule
- the time for the route through the junction to be changed
- the time for the control system to confirm the new route is clear
- the time for the following capsule to perform an emergency stop if the new route is not clear for whatever reason
- a bit of extra time for safety margin.
This is no different than for HSR, and the resulting minimum headways are usually several times longer than the emergency braking distance. HSR deals with the capacity limitation imposed by the minimum headway by (1) packing a huge number of people into one vehicle, e.g. two double-decker trains coupled together with over 1200 passengers, and (2) by operating at top speeds that strike an optimal balance between reasonable braking distances and close headways. Hyperloop can’t strike this balance: in order to work, it requires very high speeds (and greater emergency braking distances), can carry only a few passengers per capsule, and requires relatively short headways. The two-minute headway assumed in section 4.1 is speculative at best, and it’s not at all a given that the Hyperloop could ever provide the same transportation throughput (in passengers per hour per direction) than plain old HSR. Not by a long shot. The minimum headway question is fixed guideway system design 101, and may be the Achilles’ heel of the whole concept. It is not sufficiently addressed in the document.

[hunter]

71. My preference: Knock a few lanes of the interstates for high speed rail.

The land's bought, no reason to turn it all over to cars and trucks.

We ought to be doing everything we can to discourage automobile commutes, short-hop airline routes, and the like.

There's no excuse for more than four lanes of fossil fueled highway traffic or sub-1000 mile continental airline traffic.