Hyperloop Trains
10-08-2020, 07:32 AM
#1
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Hyperloop Trains
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-v...KBN26T2J3?il=0
This is a small step from hypothetical to potential reality. If you're on the younger side, this bears watching. It's significant in that they are starting to build full-scale test systems, although it's most likely going to take many decades to install enough infrastructure to impact aviation.
There are some significant hurdles, notably cost of infrastructure and local right-of-way access.
Also it obviously requires a fairly straight track, so mountainous terrain would necessitate boring tunnels through tens or hundreds of miles of rock, that alone will take decades at best, and cost astronomical sums. NIMBY's might (likely) also force it underground in urban areas. A transcon tunnel (or mid-con) tunnel would also cost astronomical sums, and you'd need a number of them to carry the capacity of current (pre-covid) domestic flying.
Looks more to be a threat to regional flying, or hub-hub NB flying on short, dense routes (NE corridor, LAX-SFO).
Obviously not going to affect any over-water flying.
Worth noting, E(k)=1/2(M)(V^2) still applies so they won't be able to dispense with TSA. In fact this thing is actually a lot more vulnerable than planes to terrorists... take down a plane, the air is still available for use by all the other planes. Take down a hyperloop train, you also take down the tube, blocking all traffic until investigations & repairs are complete. That's another reason it would probably need to be underground... hundreds or thousands of miles of exposed vacuum tube affords endless opportunity for access by malign players. The tangos don't bother with trains in the US because nobody rides them... but they've had a lot of success in Europe with that. Something like this would be quite tempting.
This is a small step from hypothetical to potential reality. If you're on the younger side, this bears watching. It's significant in that they are starting to build full-scale test systems, although it's most likely going to take many decades to install enough infrastructure to impact aviation.
There are some significant hurdles, notably cost of infrastructure and local right-of-way access.
Also it obviously requires a fairly straight track, so mountainous terrain would necessitate boring tunnels through tens or hundreds of miles of rock, that alone will take decades at best, and cost astronomical sums. NIMBY's might (likely) also force it underground in urban areas. A transcon tunnel (or mid-con) tunnel would also cost astronomical sums, and you'd need a number of them to carry the capacity of current (pre-covid) domestic flying.
Looks more to be a threat to regional flying, or hub-hub NB flying on short, dense routes (NE corridor, LAX-SFO).
Obviously not going to affect any over-water flying.
Worth noting, E(k)=1/2(M)(V^2) still applies so they won't be able to dispense with TSA. In fact this thing is actually a lot more vulnerable than planes to terrorists... take down a plane, the air is still available for use by all the other planes. Take down a hyperloop train, you also take down the tube, blocking all traffic until investigations & repairs are complete. That's another reason it would probably need to be underground... hundreds or thousands of miles of exposed vacuum tube affords endless opportunity for access by malign players. The tangos don't bother with trains in the US because nobody rides them... but they've had a lot of success in Europe with that. Something like this would be quite tempting.
10-08-2020, 08:04 AM
#2
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,499
If a high speed rail between Bakersfield and Modesto costs as much as it has It would seem that the startup costs on these would be immense - particularly ones going through areas with actual population density.
It would seem cheaper for reasonably short distances - say 300 miles or so - to simply build a 5000 foot long rail gun catapult and simply fling gliders full of pax at the next station where they could land, be towed back into position and fired onward further. No boring through mountains that way.
It would seem cheaper for reasonably short distances - say 300 miles or so - to simply build a 5000 foot long rail gun catapult and simply fling gliders full of pax at the next station where they could land, be towed back into position and fired onward further. No boring through mountains that way.
Last edited by Excargodog; 10-08-2020 at 08:48 AM.
10-08-2020, 08:54 AM
#3
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by Excargodog
If a high speed rail between Bakersfield and Modesto costs as much as it has It would seem that the startup costs on these would be immense - particularly ones going through areas with actual population density.
10-08-2020, 09:09 AM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by Excargodog
If a high speed rail between Bakersfield and Modesto costs as much as it has It would seem that the startup costs on these would be immense - particularly ones going through areas with actual population density.
It would seem cheaper for reasonably short distances - say 300 miles or so - to simply build a 5000 foot long rail gun catapult and simply fling gliders full of pax at the next station where they could land, be towed back into position and fired onward further. No boring through mountains that way.
It would seem cheaper for reasonably short distances - say 300 miles or so - to simply build a 5000 foot long rail gun catapult and simply fling gliders full of pax at the next station where they could land, be towed back into position and fired onward further. No boring through mountains that way.
Also if you don't want to expose aunt Sally to nine G's, you'd need a looooong rail.
10-08-2020, 05:47 PM
#5
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
While technically feasible, I don’t see this as fiscally possible for long-haul. I just looked this up. A new 4-lane divided highway costs $4-6 million a mile in rural areas and 5-8 in urban areas.
Paving a road above ground is usually pretty easy, except for bridges. Bridge costs vary widely. Highway overpasses are in the $20-50 million range. Typical concrete bridges over valleys seemed to be in the $60 Million a mile range.
Tunnels currently cost $100 million to a Billion per mile. Musk claims his Boring Company can reduce this by a factor of ten. That is still $10-100 Million per mile.
So, a 2,500 mile tunnel from LA to NYC would cost 25 Billion (best case, at $10 mil a mile). I think lowering by a factor of ten is wildly optimistic. I’d be surprised if he could achieve low-tier bridge costs...let’s say $30 million a mile. The tunnel alone would be in the $75 billion range.
A project like this would likely end up having stations at intermediate points, such as major cities between. Station costs are notorious for pork-barrel add-ons.
Technical challenges would add to cost and maintenance. California is not the only state with earthquake faults. Water seepage in areas of shallow water table can be an issue, as is soil stability. Mag-lev takes a lot of electricity...you’d have to provide power from multiple utility sources along the entire railway. More cost in remote areas.
There would have to be passenger escape routes at set intervals in tunnels. This is primarily for fire. If the tunnel is deep under a mountain, you have more costs in tunneling to an escape point...which could be under a lot of snow.
Anything that can travel as fast as a plane will have to be maintained like an airplane. Mx costs would likely be similar to an aircraft, not a train. For that matter, track mx would also like be expensive, mostly for needing to inspect remote areas.
California’s much ballyhooed high-speed rail was a colossal flop because the “sounds great!” idea and ridiculously optimistic costs and revenue projections were just political nonsense. Wait...you mean there AREN’T thousands of people waiting to ride high-speed from Modesto to LA every day?
In the SFO area, BART was started when I was in grade school. It was supposed to be completed in three years and be cheap, because the tracks would be elevated above existing railroad tracks, eliminating right-of-way land issues. Instead, it took four times as long to build, at four times the cost. The transbay tunnel tube gave particular problems, and was supposed to be easy...it was just sections lowered into the muddy bottom and bolted together.
Today, BART is not very cheap to ride, and is subsidized to the tune of almost $1 Million a DAY. Why? Because it would cost more to widen the already clogged highways encircling the bay, and the chokepoints of the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate can't realistically be widened.
Bottom line: all those mag-lev costs would have to be recouped somehow to make this a worthwhile project. While potentially faster than air travel, it would likely be just as expensive or more so, and this is just one limited coast-to-coast market.
Stated another way: in this example, it’s like buying 240 787s...and they can only fly LAX to JFK.
Now, short-range stuff? Maybe. But I’d bet it would end up subsidized, just like BART.
Paving a road above ground is usually pretty easy, except for bridges. Bridge costs vary widely. Highway overpasses are in the $20-50 million range. Typical concrete bridges over valleys seemed to be in the $60 Million a mile range.
Tunnels currently cost $100 million to a Billion per mile. Musk claims his Boring Company can reduce this by a factor of ten. That is still $10-100 Million per mile.
So, a 2,500 mile tunnel from LA to NYC would cost 25 Billion (best case, at $10 mil a mile). I think lowering by a factor of ten is wildly optimistic. I’d be surprised if he could achieve low-tier bridge costs...let’s say $30 million a mile. The tunnel alone would be in the $75 billion range.
A project like this would likely end up having stations at intermediate points, such as major cities between. Station costs are notorious for pork-barrel add-ons.
Technical challenges would add to cost and maintenance. California is not the only state with earthquake faults. Water seepage in areas of shallow water table can be an issue, as is soil stability. Mag-lev takes a lot of electricity...you’d have to provide power from multiple utility sources along the entire railway. More cost in remote areas.
There would have to be passenger escape routes at set intervals in tunnels. This is primarily for fire. If the tunnel is deep under a mountain, you have more costs in tunneling to an escape point...which could be under a lot of snow.
Anything that can travel as fast as a plane will have to be maintained like an airplane. Mx costs would likely be similar to an aircraft, not a train. For that matter, track mx would also like be expensive, mostly for needing to inspect remote areas.
California’s much ballyhooed high-speed rail was a colossal flop because the “sounds great!” idea and ridiculously optimistic costs and revenue projections were just political nonsense. Wait...you mean there AREN’T thousands of people waiting to ride high-speed from Modesto to LA every day?
In the SFO area, BART was started when I was in grade school. It was supposed to be completed in three years and be cheap, because the tracks would be elevated above existing railroad tracks, eliminating right-of-way land issues. Instead, it took four times as long to build, at four times the cost. The transbay tunnel tube gave particular problems, and was supposed to be easy...it was just sections lowered into the muddy bottom and bolted together.
Today, BART is not very cheap to ride, and is subsidized to the tune of almost $1 Million a DAY. Why? Because it would cost more to widen the already clogged highways encircling the bay, and the chokepoints of the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate can't realistically be widened.
Bottom line: all those mag-lev costs would have to be recouped somehow to make this a worthwhile project. While potentially faster than air travel, it would likely be just as expensive or more so, and this is just one limited coast-to-coast market.
Stated another way: in this example, it’s like buying 240 787s...and they can only fly LAX to JFK.
Now, short-range stuff? Maybe. But I’d bet it would end up subsidized, just like BART.
10-08-2020, 07:05 PM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,261
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
Wait...you mean there AREN’T thousands of people waiting to ride high-speed from Modesto to LA every day?
10-08-2020, 07:43 PM
#7
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,940
10-14-2020, 07:12 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Driving 99 have to shake my head passing the HSR construction. Seems the median of I-5 wud have been far easier project.
If the goal was (nonstop) high speed from norcal to socal. For people and freight.
Even if not it would have offered easier east-west light rail connectivity to the coastal and 99/foothill cities.
If the goal was (nonstop) high speed from norcal to socal. For people and freight.
Even if not it would have offered easier east-west light rail connectivity to the coastal and 99/foothill cities.
10-14-2020, 10:54 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Posts: 4,116
Originally Posted by Excargodog
If a high speed rail between Bakersfield and Modesto costs as much as it has It would seem that the startup costs on these would be immense - particularly ones going through areas with actual population density.
It would seem cheaper for reasonably short distances - say 300 miles or so - to simply build a 5000 foot long rail gun catapult and simply fling gliders full of pax at the next station where they could land, be towed back into position and fired onward further. No boring through mountains that way.
It would seem cheaper for reasonably short distances - say 300 miles or so - to simply build a 5000 foot long rail gun catapult and simply fling gliders full of pax at the next station where they could land, be towed back into position and fired onward further. No boring through mountains that way.
Going SMF to LA....cars 1-4. SMF to fresno? get on Last car in string. Rebuilding the string would take some work but not impossible.
simpler than autonomous airplanes id think?
10-14-2020, 12:31 PM
#10
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,499
Originally Posted by BobZ
Or maybe a HS train down a major population center rail link that detaches cars that autonomously decouple and from rear position of train slow and stop at intermediate stations.
Going SMF to LA....cars 1-4. SMF to fresno? get on Last car in string. Rebuilding the string would take some work but not impossible.
simpler than autonomous airplanes id think?
Going SMF to LA....cars 1-4. SMF to fresno? get on Last car in string. Rebuilding the string would take some work but not impossible.
simpler than autonomous airplanes id think?
