Elon Musk Thinks He Can Get You From NY to LA in 45 Minutes | Autopia | Wired.com Will this new musk venture work? I kind of think fast tubes look like more fun. You can't fly them into buildings, and they don't take much energy once they are built. Before we run out of jet A should we build the hyperloop? Talk among yourselves. I'm sure there are some serious technical challenges, but this looks easier than some other transportation ideas.
Cool! One might wonder how you can acquire the rights of way, and drilling transcontinental tunnels can't be cheap! Icarus
The only way this happens is with government support. I am sure there are technical challenges with this hyper loop system, and I don't really expect any trans continental tubes anytime soon. The problem is that the high speed rail in california just seems so slow and over budget. Texas has tried for years to get high speed rail passed, now they seem to be taking the toll road approach and allowing a private company to try a route from Houston to Dallas at a projected $10B. That's a lot less expensive per mile than the california system. If hyper loop can be commercilized that would even be less expensive. The state still is required to grant right away. For multi-state projects, the federal government would need to be involved.
This idea's been around for a very long time; at least since the 30s when various designs graced the cover of Popular Mechanics. An air-evacuated tube would enable trains to travel at high speeds, with less power needed to overcome air resistance. As much as I'd love to see it happen, I'm skeptical...but happy to be proven wrong.
The key step would be starting small. Specifically, setting up a demo project that: 1) Would connect two fairly close cities with lots of cheap land in between. Two Texas cities might meet the requirements. 2) Don't go underground, but possibly semi-buried. Find and solve the fundamental issues where they are easy to fix. If a train gets stuck during testing or something substantial needs to be repaired, you don't want that to be a major civil engineering exercise. 3) Make it useful if it works. The trains actually need to connect to something useful, like an airport....or theme park. 4) Make it robust. If the 300+ mph encounters too many problems but 200 mph works, then set it up so that can be successful. That's my two cents.
Where did the idea on digging tunnels come up? It's a solution to limited open space, but the OP link talked about above ground or submerged tubes.
From me talking about not digging. A demo line either goes above or below all the intersecting land features such as highways, power lines, rivers, hills, etc. My only point here was to avoid those as part of the demo, whereas a inner city version has few choices other than to go underground.
The colorado company promoting this wants to build a 2 mile proof of concept as a kind of ride. Who knows, could work in a city like vegas. A couple of miles doesn't really prove it could work for real travel though. Musk is frustrated that high speed rail in california is not likely be completed until 2032+, and will likely cost over $100B. I'm sure he would like a california trial, and a real solution in a decade. The big push in california is mainly because air transport has become a hassle, and fuel costs have gotten flight costs to go up. Otherwise who is going to pay as much for a flight to ride a train. That is also true about high speed ground transport in texas and other areas. It appears from cases I have read that regulation of high speed is why it did not develop organically in the US, a large set of expensive regulations set in over 75 mph, US passenger trains share tracks with freight. Getting people out of their cars on long trips will save a great deal of gas. On a track 300 mph is a problem. There is drag, and friction, and any imperfection even leaves can cause big problems. When I was on a traditional train in alaska a few weeks ago the train took an extra hour because it was going slow to give them time to inspect the tracks, to see if the uncharacteristic heat had done anything to buckle the tracks. That is why the Japanese and Chinese are trying maglevs. That helps solve the problem of friction and imperfections in the tracks, but debris can still fall on them, and there is still aerodynamic drag. If we are going to build magnetic levitation trains anyway, this hyper loop might be cheaper, more energy efficient, and more resistant to the weather Japan's 500km/h maglev train undergoes first successful test run (Wired UK) [COLOR=rgba(31, 31, 31, 0.85098)][/COLOR] [/COLOR] [COLOR=rgba(31, 31, 31, 0.85098)]The big problem with this new tech is how far off it is. I am sure if the california high speed rail plan was completed by 2022 for $60B there would not be the discussion. Tracks seem so 19th century, and they used tubes on futurama, and my parents were promised jet packs![/COLOR] [COLOR=rgba(31, 31, 31, 0.85098)][/COLOR]
In New York City a prototype system was built and tested around 1870. Here is the link: Beach Pneumatic Transit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Same basic concept, not a speedy design.
The countries that have high speed rail run their trains on dedicated tracks. There are no heavy freight trains to damage the rails and slow down the passenger trains. They're mostly double track, as well, so there's no impediment to maintaining high speeds. It's not just the trains that are fast - the whole system is built for speed. 300mph here would be a huge improvement, but it's not going to happen on existing tracks. So, given the investment required, may as well plan for something much faster.
+1 That is one reason for the disappointment from some that the california high speed rail would be sharing sections of track, although some sections are dedicated and higher speed. I thought part of the reason the Japanese were building their maglev was because even dedicated tracks are harmed by snow and even leaves. Another reason was efficiency. I don't think the twice as fast ride would have prompted the expenditure on its own. Snow slows Japan's bullet trains, closes Toyota plants - CNN.com Which makes me think that maglev or tubes are the way to go, since we don't have track yet in america anyway. I honestly don't know which has a bigger problem. I like the idea of the tubes, because you don't need the locomotive, so cars can go individually, and the vacuum and cover allows it to withstand debris and use less energy. Either way I think magnetic levetation solves a lot of problems versus steel wheels on a track.
Yes and no. Maglevs have their own pros and cons. They're potentially much faster, which is the main attraction. But, they cannot use any existing trackage, so getting them into city centres is going to be very expensive, both for land acquisition and construction. The design of turnouts - aka 'switches' - is also not perfected, and it has to be for the concept to be ready for prime time. Germany's vaunted maglev launched itself into the trees a few years ago during testing, when the turnout didn't activate properly. France is not ready to give up on tried and true wheels on rails, and has worked hard lately to prove it - 350 mph is very impressive. Of the existing technologies, I'd say TGV is the best investment. Significantly higher speeds are possible with maglevs and 'vacuum tubes', but the overall trip time is what's important. France set itself the goal of making trains faster - city centre to city centre - than aircraft, and they've succeeded. If the alternatives are able to tunnel under cities at reasonable cost and put stations downtown, that would make a big difference. Again, I don't mean to shoot down what appears to be a promising idea, but it has to work at least as well as what we already have. Well, what some countries have. "High speed rail" is an oxymoron in North America. The question in my mind is "What's different now, that makes this 100 year old idea possible?" If the answer is improved technology, or willing investors, then by all means, build away. I'm not sure "Elon Musk" by itself is a sufficient answer.
Yes Europe is quite different than the US or China. US and China don't have good exiting track. The Houston to Dallas high speed rail is proposed as a 205 mph public/private venture with the money ($10B) put up mainly by Japanese corporations. The private funding on public land gives them the choice of technology, and should get it built much faster than a state project would get done. It was mainly for discussion. I really don't know if this will be commercially successful. The four major things that have changed since 2000 - major problems in the US getting traditional high speed rail, 911 effect on airports, private investors, technological improvements. The only successful maglev proof of concept that is of descent length that I know of is shanghai. The chinese selected a track high speed rail over maglev for shanghai to beijing though, but were not able to run at the promised speeds (204mph). They officially say it was for operating costs, but it looks like technical reasons, the fastest trains take just under 5 hours instead of under 4 hours. Its going to take until 2027 for us to see if the 500 kph (311mph -don't know why coversion math is off) runs smoothly. I think the chinese will get a working long distance maglev going before the Tokyo Nagoya train is fully operating.
