Hyperloop One Reveals 10 Strongest Potential Hyperloop Routes In the World (techcrunch.com) 142
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Hyperloop One wants to build a real, working Hyperloop -- but it'll need strong partners to make it a reality, across both industry and government. That's why, in part, it held a global competition requesting proposals for routes around the world. The winners of that competition have now been announced, and the resulting routes span the U.S., the U.K, Mexico, India and Canada. Hyperloop One has assessed each proposal from hundreds of teams who applied from around the world, examining the potential of each from the perspective of infrastructure, technology, regulatory environment and transportation concerns. As a result, it identified the strongest candidates [with four routes in the U.S., two routes in the U.K., one route in Mexico, two routes in India, and one route in Canada.]
The next step for each of these winning teams will be a validation process conducted with Hyperloop One to do some in-depth analysis on each route, establishing things like ridership forecast and building a fully fleshed out business case for each. Hyperloop One will be hosting workshops in each of the above countries to help with this process, and to meet with stakeholders and help establish necessary partnerships. Overall, Hyperloop One points out that these winning teams represent a combined population of almost 150 million people, with routes that would link up 53 urban centers around the world and span a total distance of 4,121 miles).
The next step for each of these winning teams will be a validation process conducted with Hyperloop One to do some in-depth analysis on each route, establishing things like ridership forecast and building a fully fleshed out business case for each. Hyperloop One will be hosting workshops in each of the above countries to help with this process, and to meet with stakeholders and help establish necessary partnerships. Overall, Hyperloop One points out that these winning teams represent a combined population of almost 150 million people, with routes that would link up 53 urban centers around the world and span a total distance of 4,121 miles).
psotted frist due to HYPEr speed (Score:5, Funny)
Remember folks, if they took away the hype it'd just be a plain old rloop.
And the big question is .. (Score:2)
Does anyone know what a real, working hyper loop actually looks like?
And if it is actually viable?
And no I don't mean the student competition to test a device that is totally unlike the original hyper loop concept, and run across a fraction of a fraction of the distance that the concept is supposed extend to.
Re: (Score:1)
Does anyone know what a real, working hyper loop actually looks like?
Yes, Mr. Musk sketched it on a cocktail napkin! The sketch was mostly a list of expected government subsidies, but included a total. He did the math himself, even after having drank a cocktail.
And if it is actually viable?.
No. After the 7 figure dollar amount he sketched a rectangle and wrote "idk vacuum lol" inside it.
And the BIGGER question is .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Faster: depending on security check time, check in time before start and position of the endpoints in the cities: most likely.
Cheaper: most definitely.
Much cheaper, probably not. As in the USA the company running a hyper loop would like to price it close as possible but just below the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be faster than an airline if the incidental time wasting is reduced..
The point is that for an airline, you have to arrive early (as your ticket is for a specific departure time), you have to wait for checkin, then wait to pass security. Then at the other end, if you have an luggage, you have to wait for it to be unloaded and put onto a carousel.
Adding an extra 2 hours on top of
Compare and contrast with catching a train. You usually don't have to arrive early, as if you miss one train you
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to spend 30 minutes waiting to bring air pressure down to a vacuum with a train, nor 30 minutes waiting for air pressure to come back up on the other end.
The margin for catastrophic failure on the Hyperloop will be very low, so security will be closer to what you get at an airport rather than what you get at a train station.
Have you seen the prototypes for the Hyperloop passenger areas? There's no overhead luggage storage (there isn't even room for overhead storage, so your luggage will have
Re: (Score:2)
I can link you the article again, but it is in the story right there!
First of all: the hyperloop is planned to be faster than airplane. The other answer you got explains you the time waste of flights. And finally: if you head checked the proposed connections, you had realized that they are basically all to short for a plane to make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked at the proposed connections? The only ones that don't have existing flight between them are Cheyenne/Denver and Denver/Pueblo. There are already existing passenger train routes for these connections. There are direct flights from Cheyenne to Pueblo.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that the distances are relatively short. Better suited for a hyperloop than for any plane.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW: you should have checked the routes ;D
A plane is most definitely not even half as fast as a hyperloop cabin.
Re: And the BIGGER question is .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fastest tested faux-hyperloop is 220 mph over a very short track. And commercial transportation rarely operates at the maximum tested speed.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's easier to achieve fast speeds over a long track than a short one. So that short test track is not the advantage you're implying.
Re: (Score:2)
And that was working at a fraction of the intended final speed. By your logic we'd never have flight as the first aircraft were incredibly shitty.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
X-15 did mach 6.5. Space shuttle was even faster, though not at all deep in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A hyperloop car will go with something like 1000km/h
A plane goes with about 850km/h, but not on a flight with only 350 or 400km distance, because for that you don't use a super fast plane but likely a turbo prop.
On a short flight the plane is spending more time in accent and decent than on the flight itself. So it will likely not even reach its top speed.
No idea how you come to "27 mph" in that context, missed a zero?
Re: (Score:2)
For each of the proposed US routes, you can already buy round-trip airline tickets for about $120
No, you can't. From the very first one:
https://www.travelocity.com/Fl... [travelocity.com]
"We've searched more than 400 airlines that we sell, and couldn't find any flights from Cheyenne (CYS) to Pueblo (PUB) on Mon, Oct 23"
Re:And the BIGGER question is .. (Score:4, Informative)
Is Hyperloop cheaper long term? That still up for debate...
No. Not even close.
...
If you could do great, get the best maintenance, the seals and expansion joints work wonders and last for LONG times. If you could do all that.
600 mile route is 1200 miles of tube. 1 each way.
IF you could do 300 foot sections of tube that would be about 24,000 bolted together seals. Shorter sections equate to many more seals.
If you put one expansion joint every 2000 feet, you would need about 3,500 of those. Each needing to move about 12" do to temperature expansion (Steel, low temp 40f high 110f).
If you can make the main joints last for 25 years on average before replacement (Not likely considering vacuum and shit.) would would be replacing 80 of them a month. Expansion joints lasting 10 years on average I think would be good. There you would be replacing about 30 of them a month.
That is 110 places a month that need to get replaced. If you never have them go bad out of sequence it is possible I guess if you start at one end and go down doing replacements methodically and were able to isolate from the rest of the system, pressurize, remove and install 20 normal sections and 8 expansion joints, re do the vacuum and open to the rest of the system once a week, every week and get it done between 11 PM and 6 AM so as to not kill service too badly
It would still be a clusterfuck.
Re: (Score:2)
IF you could do 300 foot sections of tube ...
I note the "IF" and I am not questioning your numbers but I got curious. Is there any practical way to transport 300 foot sections from fabrication to site? Or were you supposing each section was fabricated next to its installation site?
If it were me I would be instead looking at ways of making joining sections really inexpensive while maintaining very high tolerances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It would still be a clusterfuck.
How did people describe nuclear power in the 20s?
How did people describe steam power in the 1500s?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Refute numbers based on current technology?
But I repeat myself: What do the numbers look like on the materials that haven't been designed or invented yet? How old is air conditioning? Based on 1700 materials and assumptions what did the numbers on AC look like?
We clearly know AC exists and works. In 200 years they'll probably say the same thing about hyperloop. It just means they need to work on the materials not that it's impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
If we want to just imagine shit, then free energy, everything is free and most things easy.
You could go with the best materials we currently know of that we have no idea how to make on that scale. 20ft diameter carbon nanotubes.
That could probably work well. They are much lighter and are effected far, far less by temperature changes. If we did that we would not need expansion joints. We would just need to bolt together vacuum sealed sections.
If it makes you feel better we can keep the impossibly
Re: (Score:2)
It was 63 years between the Wright brothers and the SR-71.
The iPhone was released 61 years after the ENIAC.
Look at what we have 10 years after the first DARPA project.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get 'infinite amount of time'? Are you ignorant to the rate of progress in the last 100 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It took 63 years to go from the Wright brothers to the SR-71.
I think it'll be a few less than 500 years.
Re: (Score:2)
40f low will not work. It would have to get to at least -20C in places. Even AZ and NM can get cold. I froze my butt off camping outside Tuscon once when it got to -20 C. They were opening shelters for the homeless and I was in a tent.
Re: (Score:1)
I live in Tucson, have for 35 years. -20C did not happen, even in the 2133meter mountains around us. I assume you have a citation for that, record temp, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Dec. '05 I was traveling through southern AZ and stopped to camp out. I was not in Tuscon but maybe 50 miles away. Looking at the records for that time I see that even if I am off a bit, the temp is far colder than what the OP was using to do "back of the envelope" calculations.
Yeah, no one has ever made a big tube before (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of obvious options -- use fibreglass instead of steel and build long slightly curving sections that can deal with expansion by just becoming slightly more, or less, curved. You're thinking too much like railway track.
We can already build and maintain long oil pipelines without having this problem, so how is hyperloop different?
Re: (Score:2)
We can already build and maintain long oil pipelines without having this problem, so how is hyperloop different?
People keep comparing Hyperloop with "cheap" oil and gas pipelines. Forget them. You can put fairly abrupt changes of direction into oil pipelines, including sweeping "Z" bends to accomodate expansion and contour hugging dips and humps to cross valleys and hills. With Hyperloop pods doing 1000 kph (or whatever it is) the tubes will need to be almost straiight.
Re: (Score:2)
You've not factored in the cost of the stations yet. And as the comparison was with airlines, we'd better add in the cost of airports, maintenance workers, certification, price of airplanes, and so on. Yes, Hyperloop's infrastructure is expensive, but that's the point - it moves the always-fluctuating running costs into something far more stable. It's also a bit weird comparing a prototype to an established market and declaring it dead, as if we did that all the time we'd still be bashing rocks together
Re: (Score:2)
As for the engineering issues, that should be something to celebrate! It's not like these are insurmountable problems.
As an engineer who has managed projects I do not find any problem insurmountable if enough money is spent and it does not go against the laws of physics. But I also look at cost benefit, looking ahead beyond the trial stage (as Hyperloop is currently at); and having done that I see Hyperloop will be a commercial failure. Both practical coats and political problems are being vastly underestimated and papered over with hype.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you make it deep enough you can design the normal sections to handle the much smaller expansion issues.
You still need (With incredibly optimistic numbers) 24,000 normal sections. Still need to over the life of the system replace 80 of those a month.
Now though you have to do it underground.
The truth is to make this work is possible.
To afford the build cost is difficult
To have maintenance costs that keep the project viable is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Two: tairsts can only attack from the inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that a hyperloop pod is MUCH lighter than a train. The level of engineering required for the track is massively less.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that a hyperloop pod is MUCH lighter than a train. The level of engineering required for the track is massively less.
That tube is going to be rather heavy though. But it is not just weight; at the speed the hyperloop goes the curvature (vertical and horizontal) will need to be very slight. High speed rail is alread run at the limit of curvature for its speed without inducing nausea in the passengers, so the faster hyperloop will need to have even less curvature than high speed rail.
So where a railway might go round a hill, the hyperloop will need to tunnel through it. Going into a valley the train can drop quite quickl
Re: (Score:1)
Wait, what? So I can build a bridge right over the top of your house without having to pay you anything for doing it?
That sounds ... unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you can build it across a field or forest without making the land underneath useless.
In the UK you will still need to pay someone for it though.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an elevated metal pipe, with trains running inside. It's cheaper to build than conventional rail because you don't need to buy the land under it
I don't know where you live (is that the USA?), but this news is about world applications so it depends on the property laws of the particular nation. The UK was mentioned - here you cannot build a structure over someone's property (other than electric wires) without buying or renting it, rightly so because otherwise the property would become unsalable except at a small fraction of its previous price. Where motorway viaducts are built over urban areas for example, the properties underneath are usually comp
Re: And the big question is .. (Score:2)
You still need land access and the tube cannot hover in the air. Therefore, you need pillars and the ground they are standing on. You need space between both tubes and free space on each side to mitigate potential hazard effects and provide emergency access.
Re: (Score:2)
probably like a monorail
Banglore-Chennai Very nice route (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Do you lash your sleeping bag to something to avoid falling off after you've nodded off?
Re: (Score:2)
I always chained the small overnighter to some convenient seat post or something. Not some super strong chain or Yale/Chubb locks. Simple chain and a Godrej Navtal 5 lever lock, not even
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
There are designated shitting tracks.
No SF to LA? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing not only land costs, but contractor overruns (both historical and predicted), regulatory obstacles, etc. ...and that's not even mentioning the whole seismic thing that the region is kind of famous for.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised that SF to LA is not there
California has already made a massive political and financial commitment to building a conventional high speed rail from SF to LA.
Re: (Score:2)
Modesto to Bakersfield. The rest is still unfunded vapor.
Re: (Score:2)
Even TFS mentioned that the regulatory environment was a factor.
Also, SF to LA is in conflict with Gov. Jerry's beloved bullet train.
Nice dream (Score:5, Interesting)
It'd be nice to be able to cross Canada coast-to-coast in 9 hours, I just don't see this happening.
If you could link Montreal to Toronto to Winnipeg to Regina to Calgary to Vancouver, that'd probably be pretty sweet. But while the prairies are nice and flat, Ontario's extremely variable in elevation, with a LOT of rock just under the surface, and it's not like the terrain to the west of Calgary is anywhere near flat.
There would be a massive amount of tunnelling through rock required, and I just don't see the demand for speed covering the infrastructure expense when we have standard rail for freight and flight for people in a hurry.
I love the Hyperloop concept, but I tend to look at suggested implementations as if I'm watching the Simpsons "Marge vs. the Monorail".
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperloop doesn't make a lot of sense for such long-distance travel, because at a certain point the infrastructure costs far outweigh the benefits. But for Montreal to Toronto, or Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto? That could potentially be done at a relatively reasonable cost, with high traffic, and the competing flight is short enough that at least half the trip time is spent on airport-related things rather than the actual travel.
Keep in mind that the original hyperloop concept that Hyperloop One is working from i
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is that, regardless of what Elon wants, all hyperloops will have the security theatre.
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to hijack a hyperloop to crash it into a skyscraper. Because it's a very low density form of transit, it's much less appealing to a terrorist than a conventional train too.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a very low density form of transit, it's much less appealing to a terrorist than a conventional train too.
But think of the publicity it would get !
that Dallas-Houston route might get some gov $ (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Washington D.C. to Mar-a-Lago (Score:4, Funny)
Duh.
All Marketing (Score:3)
I love the concept of the hyperloop, and think it could be made to work, but it just appears this company is a joke largely focused on PR and capital investment than actually focusing on engineering. Even clicking on their website you find Steve Jobs type quotes "come with me if you want to change the world" and so on.
Just recently they showed a video of the "first" vacuum hyperloop. Ridiculous countdowns, systems checks with different teams like they were launching a rocket, etc. The test was a *linear motor* and absolutely nothing new. I would have expected much more; in fact the SpaceX contest student teams seemed to be further along! It makes me embarrassed just watching those kinds of videos.
So really no surprise Musk recently announced his intention to give it a go himself.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm sure it's been done before more times than I could comfortably count, but I think Mars One sets the modern precedent for doing it on a global scale with a veneer of credibility and the help of the media.
Find a shiny idea that people are enthusiastic about, promise to let them in on it, then milk them for processing fees and sell them merchandise. If you don't understand the concept of morals, I suppose it's a living.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of motor except for an linear motor would you useÃY
Re: (Score:1)
You missed the point. a linear motor test isn't a 'big thing'. It's the basics.
A full size working model was made seven decades ago.
It's like some startup car company doing tests of this new invention called 'The wheel'.
Re: (Score:2)
... it just appears this company is a joke largely focused on PR and capital investment than actually focusing on engineering ..... systems checks with different teams like they were launching a rocket, etc.
That's the point. Musk is a showman, a self-publicising narcissist who is addicted to other people's admiration. You are meant to go "Wow!!!!"
Relevance? (Score:1)
Why is this relevant, other than to make some kind of impressive-to-stupid-science-journalist statement?
And shouldn't the word 'winning' be in scarequotes?
Re: (Score:2)
"One points out that these winning teams represent a combined population of almost 150 million people" Why is this relevant, other than to make some kind of impressive-to-stupid-science-journalist statement?
It isn't relevant. There is no way they were representing me as they claim.
If they were, then I am making this post representing a combined population of the almost 7.5 billion people on Earth.
"It'll need strong partners to make it a reality" (Score:2)
In other words, they need a lot of money from investors and governments, with few strings attached. And mostly from governments.
I don't think government investment is bad inherently; I think government contracts with companies making known good technologies is a good thing. For example government contracts with SpaceX.
I remain highly skeptical, especially when wheeled high speed trains are here right now. I can't possibly imagine that hyperloop would be cheaper than high speed rail to build, nor do I see
Re:"It'll need strong partners to make it a realit (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think government investment is bad inherently; I think government contracts with companies making known good technologies is a good thing.
Probably 90% of the rail road systems in Europe, the Telecommunication land lines, the power infrastructure etc. was build by government owned "institutions" before it got privatized and "out sourced" to private companies.
Heck, the french power grid is still run by the government and is only private "on paper".
Re:"It'll need strong partners to make it a realit (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true. I agree completely. I've seen first hand the results of privatizing government-owned monopoly services like transportation, electricity, gas, etc, and it's not pretty. As citizens we end up paying for things twice. Of course once privatization happens, re-nationalizing isn't pretty either. Then you pay for it all a third time.
Colorado (Score:1)
The Colorado proposal is bullshit. The only city here is Denver. Cheyenne and Pueblo are too small. Hell, Pueblo is only 100,000. Colorado Springs which would be in-between is 4x that, and even THAT is too damn small to make this worth it. The only reason it's being considered is because we have a conveniently located major airport, to hell and gone outside the city with a bunch of surrounding land that no one was allowed to build on. So it'd be cheap. But there's no place to go. Once you land at DEN, you'r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Colorado proposal is bullshit. The only city here is Denver. Cheyenne and Pueblo are too small. Hell, Pueblo is only 100,000. Colorado Springs which would be in-between is 4x that, and even THAT is too damn small to make this worth it.
Those places should do fine. The Hyperloop will have a very small carrying capacity. Probably only just enough to carry the millionaires, Musk wannabees and crackpots of those places.
Security will be a b..ch (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the speed of hyperloop transport, and it's reliance on precise positioning in an essentially vacuum tube (and, probably, tight spacing between vehicles) - it would be extremely easy to sabotage one and cause untold destruction and potential loss of life.
So, it stands to reason, security to screen hyperloop passengers would have to be more stringent than that of airlines. Personally, not looking forward to those cavity searches.
And yes, "this is why we can't have nice things".
Re: (Score:2)
Trains have much higher density of people, and you don't even have to buy a ticket or come anywhere near a station or cut open a tube to mess with the tracks.
Re:Security will be a b..ch (Score:5, Informative)
Rail track sabotage is nothing new, and when done properly can lead to significant loss of life and service disruption [wikipedia.org]. We still ride trains.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, now imagine if it didn't have that protective tube and just zoomed people through the sky! That would be risky.
Re: (Score:2)
it would be extremely easy to sabotage one and cause untold destruction and potential loss of life.
Err you basically just described a train.
Oh c'mon, people, it's obvious where to build it (Score:3)
Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook.
Distances are a bit off (Score:2)
.
Re: (Score:1)
The Northern Arc route covers Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Glasgow-Liverpool? Really? (Score:1)
I doubt that more than a few dozen people a day travel specifically between those two places. I really don't see that as economically viable, even if there were fast satellite rail services to Manchester at the Liverpool end and Edinburgh at the Glasgow one. Some of the other ones seem to suffer similar problems (are there really enough people wanting to go between Denver and Pueblo at speed to make that route worthwhile - unless it is to get to NORAD quickly)? I suppose you could have the routes take in so
Hyperloop... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh. Just another snake cult.
Re: (Score:2)
They should at least have an app. What the fuck is it, amateur hour?