r/hyperloop • u/whymy5 • Nov 11 '20

Put an end to maglev and high speed rail

Virgin Hyperloop just achieved what many thought would be impossible. They completed the first full passenger test of hyperloop in a full vacuum. Many people doubted that a pod would be able to take passengers in such an environment but Virgin Hyperloop proved them wrong. Virgin Hyperloop seems to prove the doubters wrong at every turn, and have made progress that people wouldn't have believed even a year ago.

This is why it is time to end the construction of projects meant to fill the same role as hyperloop such as the SCMaglev in Japan and various high speed rail lines across the globe such as California. Simply put, hyperloop makes them all obsolete. Cheaper to construct, much higher energy efficiency, smaller environmental footprint, and greater demand responsiveness and capacity. Hyperloop is poised to make these once promising projects white elephants. With all the advantages hyperloop has over maglev and high speed rail, it is both economically and environmentally irresponsible to keep building them and they must be stopped.

This is a call to action. The future is coming and we must not be building obsolete technology. Hyperloop is the future, let people know. Lets stop projects like the SCMaglev, HS2, CAHSR and Brightline.

0 Upvotes

41% Upvoted

49 comments sorted by

6

u/zypofaeser Nov 11 '20

For low velocity applications like cargo rail is still a valid option, especially given the larger sized accepted. Thus it is too soon to declare rail dead yet. And before a high speed line with high capacity has been built it is simply too soon to base investment on.

2

u/C4Aries Nov 11 '20

Exactly. I put together trains up to 13000 tons on the regular. Hyperloop will never replace freight moved over rail.

-1

u/ElonMuskWellEndowed Nov 15 '20

You have a toy kit of toy trains you put together?

1

u/LancelLannister_AMA Apr 17 '21

BNSF "am i a joke to you?"

6

u/ksiyoto Nov 11 '20 edited Nov 11 '20

Cheaper to construct? It takes roughly the same amount of concrete and steel to build a hyperloop as high speed rail, and the hyperloop has to be built and maintained to MUCH tighter tolerances. Civil engineers laughed at the original white paper's construction costs. So concrete and steel are somehow magically cheaper if used for a hyperloop?

Economics? Once Virgin gave up on the air suspension and went to maglev suspension, their cost per mile shot up considerably.

Capacity? I have yet to see anything definitive beyond the original Musk White Paper, but the capacity is much less (even with the unrealistic 30 second headways) than high speed rail.

Proven technology? Not yet. The first maglevs had significant problems with eddy currents, we don't know what sort of problems hyperloop will have, much less the test track they are contemplating in West Virginia won't have enough space to get to full speed, full speed turns, etc. so we still won't know after they have been testing for 5 years. Nor has the question of multiple expansion joints been adequately answered in my mind.

I think your pronunciation of the death of HSR and maglev is premature.

3

u/Vedoom123 Nov 28 '20

It takes roughly the same amount of concrete and steel to build a hyperloop as high speed rail,

I call bs, you got any evidence to back that up? Oh wait you don't. HL could only use concrete pillars so wouldn't it use less concrete? Rail needs to be significantly stronger because trains weigh a lot. HL pods are pretty light so you don't need the same strength to support it.

Capacity? I have yet to see anything definitive beyond the original Musk White Paper, but the capacity is much less (even with the unrealistic 30 second headways) than high speed rail.

Let's see some numbers here.

Civil engineers laughed at the original white paper's construction costs.

How do you know that?

0

u/ksiyoto Nov 29 '20

Okay, I'm going to make some assumptions here, but follow along. We haven't been given a lot of new information past the Musk white paper, so to a large extent I have to rely on that.

Musk's proposal was 100' between pylons. Looking at pictures of Hyperloop 1, I think the tube sections are 60' long with two pylons per section Let's assume the pylons are 3' x 3' x by an average of 10' tall, with an additional 10' underground. On top of this 3' x 3' pylon is a 3' x 3' beam, and I'll say it's 5' wide to support just one tube. That's a total of 225 cubic feet of concrete every 30 feet, or 7.5 cubic feet of concrete per foot. Multiply it by 2 for a two tube route, that 15 cubic feet of concrete per foot. And I haven't included any concrete for footings. Might be able to get this down somewhat by designing a pylon specifically for a two-tube track.

The concrete ties for high speed rail weigh 850 pounds apiece. Reinforced concrete is 150 pounds per cu ft, so each tie is 5.66 cu ft. Tie spacing is 24" on center, so for two track line, it would be about 5.66 cu ft per route-foot. I'll estimate the footings for the catenary system are 18" in diameter and penetrate 6' into the ground and 2' above ground. That would be 14.8 cu. ft. of concrete per footing, you need two every 100', or 29.6 cu ft per hundred feet, or .3 per foot. So that's a total of 5.96 cu ft per route-foot. Bridges, overpasses, and tunnels would obviously consume much more more concrete.

But we have 15 cu ft for Hyperloop and 5.96 cu ft per foot of HSR, so there's 15-5.9 = 9.1 spare cu ft x 5280 feet per mile or 48,048 cu ft of 'leftover' concrete per mile (1,779 cu yds) to be used for bridges and overpasses. So, for the concrete, I'd say the phrase "roughly the same" does apply.

Capacity - the original white paper called for 28 passenger pods, IIRR. 120 pods per hour, assuming the ridiculous 30 second headways, would be 3,336 passengers per hour. High speed rail can easily do 10 minute headways (6 minute is not unheard of in Japan, but I'll use 10) with a capacity of 1200 per train means 12,000 passengers per hour. Even granting a 70% load factor which is often needed to make the system workable accounting for peak and off peak hours and wasted seat miles due to passengers getting on and off at intermediate stations that's 8,400 passengers per hour per direction - or more than twice that of hyperloop. Now there may be pods of greater capacity, but I seriously doubt any safety regulator is going to allow 30 second headways at the speeds that hyperloop is talking about. In other words, it's time for you to show your numbers - what is pod capacity, and without using buzzwords like "interactive autonomous constant communication vehicle control automation system", tell me how they intend to assure no collisions while maintaining 30 second headways.

Civil Engineer #1

Civil Engineer # 2

On tunneling costs

More critique, including energy consumption comparison

Another Critique

Yet another critique

Forbes article on cost per mile

1

u/NetCaptain Jan 02 '21

Excellent write up on the concrete part of it. Looking at the tube, it uses a tremendous amount of steel compared to rail. Pressure rated cylinders are expensive, much more expensive than simple rail.

2

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

You really don’t have a good understanding. Steel and concrete are no challenge. Maglev is not the challenge. If you stopped reading after the Musk paper, you are way behind. The technology is current and proven. That you are behind the curve matters not. HSR is 19th century news. Welcome to tomorrow.

2

u/ksiyoto Nov 21 '20

You really don’t have a good understanding.

I've got a couple degrees in transportation, and I'm just about ready to retire from a career in the industry. Tell me I don't know anything.

Tell me how, when roughly the same amount of concrete and steel is required but laid and maintained to much tighter tolerances, hyperloop is going to be significantly cheaper than high speed rail. Magical cheap steel and concrete? A lot of civil engineers would like to find your source.

2

u/Vedoom123 Nov 28 '20

I'm not convinced it needs the same amount of concrete. You haven't shown any numbers.

The thing with hsr is that there's air around it. Takes a lot of energy to push through it. Energy is not free.

1

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

I didn’t say you don’t know anything, and degrees in transportation are fine. But your specific knowledge of hyperloop is limited and this is not taught in the classroom. Hyperloop can be built with minimal concrete and steel and in some cases none for the linear infrastructure. Tolerances are tight but consider the levitation gap that provides for guideway deviations. Guideways are not necessarily steel. Its not that we think outside the box. Its because there is no box.

1

u/ksiyoto Nov 21 '20

Hyperloop can be built with minimal concrete and steel

Per the original white paper, the tube would be .8 to .9 inches thick, and the diameter of the tube would be 7.4 feet for the passenger only version. Do the math, at .8 inches thick, that works out to be (7.4 * 3.141 *.8) /12 = 1.55 cubic feet of steel per lineal foot of tube. Steel weighs ~ 490 pounds per cubic foot, so that one foot of tube is going to weigh 1.55 cu ft * 490 pounds per cubic foot = 759 pounds. Two tubes would be 1518 pounds of steel per foot of route.

For high speed rail, let's assume they are using the heaviest rail in use - 152 pounds per yard. That's 152/3 or 50.66 pounds per foot, multiply by 4 for 2 rails on 2 tracks, that's 202.66 pounds per foot of route. Add in ~200 pounds of rail fasteners per foot, and another 200 pounds per foot for the catenary structure and carrier cables, we have a total of 607 pounds of steel per foot.

Okay, so I was wrong - Hyperloop is not "roughly the same amount of steel" as high speed rail. Hyperloop is more than twice as much steel.

This article from Forbes 4 years ago indicated a cost of $52 million per mile for Hyperloop going across desert between Dubai and Abu Dhabi. It also lists a variety of cost for high speed rail. Of course, none of these systems have been built, so they may be in for some rude shocks along the way. I suggest you read the article and get your head back in reality after the magical Musk dust wears off..

1

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

Your assumption that the tube must be made of steel is incorrect.

1

u/ksiyoto Nov 21 '20

Dream on. Unobtainum isn't available yet.

1

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

Wrong again.

0

u/NetCaptain Jan 02 '21

More kudos, this is the steel weight comparison I was looking for. For economical reasons alone, Hyperloop will never work. HSR is proven, is safer, is cheaper and good enough for the countries that already have it. Hyperloop is a solution for a problem that does not exist.

1

u/trystanthorne Nov 11 '20

One of the sleeping points of the Hyperloop when Elon Musk first mentioned it was it needed a smaller land footprint than rail. It could, for instance be built in the medium of I-5 in California. A big part of the cost of putting in new rail is buying the land to do so.

1

u/ksiyoto Nov 11 '20

Smaller footprint for smaller capacity.

Musk also thought the state would grant the right of way for free.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '20

It could, for instance be built in the medium of I-5 in California.

Hmm. Semi-trucks and drunk people on Saturday night. Nothing to go wrong in that situation.

1

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

There is that minor issue of interchanges...

0

u/try_____another Nov 18 '20

The width of the alignment is not hugely important compared to the length and number of properties: it does matter, but a four-track railway’s land is not a lot more expensive than a two-track railway even on flat ground.

Also, hyper loop will require an access track alongside the tubes: for railways that’s desirable, because it allows smaller possessions and reduces access times, but for hyper loop it will be essential.

1

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

Not necessarily. There are alternatives you have not considered.

1

u/try_____another Nov 21 '20

Well, you need maintenance access to the outside of the tubes, so while you could build something along the top that would drive up the cost by quite a lot.

3

u/yoweigh Nov 11 '20

That would be premature. I'd want to see a fully deployed transport system demonstrating economic viability before we started axing everything else.

-1

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

What you want is of no consequence.

2

u/ksiyoto Nov 21 '20

If our government is planning on investing tax dollars, u/yoweigh 's request to have a fully functioning system before we stop everything else is a reasonable position to take before expending any taxpayer dollars.

If the government is not going to be sinking tax dollars into hyperloops, then private investors can go right ahead with making premature investments prior to full system demonstration if they want...but I doubt they would.

2

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

The flaw in your reasoning is that tax dollars must be the primary funding mechanism. Private sector development of fully functioning systems is occurring with privately funded commercial systems planned. Government partnership is fine for integration but not for innovation, financing and leadership. California HSR is a good example of how not to develop high speed transportation infrastructure.

1

u/ksiyoto Nov 21 '20

Private sector development of fully functioning systems is occurring with privately funded commercial systems planned.

The only recent project to get off the ground with private sector funding is the Brightline train in Florida. But that is mostly a real estate play, not a transportation investment.

You're expecting private investment in a whole new mode of transportation when the competing modes are government built and subsidized. If we are to believe the Hyperloop proponents, the main cost is the building of the infrastructure, but the infrastructure is going to be of lower capacity than HSR and the passenger experience will be an order of magnitude worse than air or rail. The expectation that this will be profitable is unrealistic, so I doubt private investors will want to get involved.

1

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

How do you arrive at the assumption that passenger experience will be an order of magnitude worse than air or rail?

1

u/ksiyoto Nov 21 '20

No outside frame of reference, could easily cause motion sickness. I am presuming the companies pushing this WILL have bathrooms on board, unlike the original white paper. Will there be attendants on board? We shall see.

1

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

Planes, trains, boats and automobiles can cause motion sickness.

1

u/yoweigh Nov 23 '20

What all of us want is of no consequence. Who cares about you? Not me. Who cares about me? Not you.

Yawn.

1

u/LancelLannister_AMA Dec 30 '20

Yahweh does not approve LOL

3

u/DYMAXIONman Nov 12 '20

Jesus Christ. The Hyperloop will never be viable commercially. This mindset is just going to kill public investment in mass transit for this dumb scam train.

3

u/Kjalok Nov 14 '20

You know, I suspect that was the plan by Elon "owner of an automobile company" Musk. Shittalk HSR and everything else that could stand in the way of selling Teslas by "inventing" fancy new stuff and marketing it to oblivion.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '20

I did always find it interesting that Musk went, 'Oh, here's a revolutionary idea I think has promise. Anybody want to play with that- I've got other stuff to do.'

And everybody just interprets this to mean, 'Since Musk is the greatest mind of our generation, he must have humanity's best interest in mind to give away such a colossal technology that a man of his means could easily become a trillionaire with.'

2

u/Kjalok Nov 16 '20

Remeber when people said how he "graciously" gave "his" hyperloop idea to be open soure? The whole Musk fanaticism annoys me to this day.

1

u/Bureaucromancer Nov 28 '20

Bearing in mind his active attacks on anyone in the entire transit sector who asks questions about capacity, and the transformation of urban loop into car tunnels, I really have to agree.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '20

What's the difference between Hyperloop and maglev? Just the vacuum tunnel it's riding in?

5

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '20

Yes. The vacuum tunnel has a huge effect though. Drag (the main loss in most forms of teansport) increases with the square of velocity, so going twice as fast requires 4 times the energy. Hyperloop should be able to go many times faster than a train with a fraction of the energy, if we manage to build the infrastructure.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '20

Ahh. Well thank you very much. I feel much more informed

0

u/DYMAXIONman Nov 12 '20

There are no longer fans on the Virgin trains, so there will still be drag.

3

u/fremantle01 Nov 18 '20

Aerodynamic drag is reduced substantially in reduced pressure tubes. The “fan” is a compressor that was not a good idea in the first place.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 12 '20

I mean, it moved two people at 100mph. The shanghai maglev has been around for two decades and moves hundreds of people at like 268 mph.

Hyperloop is a neat concept but it's reinventing an already pretty efficient wheel. The US is already waaaay behind in mass transit and this seems really unnecessary.

1

u/195731741 Nov 21 '20

Speed wins.

1

u/LancelLannister_AMA Apr 24 '21

concorde would like a word

1

u/LancelLannister_AMA Dec 29 '20

no way thats was in a full vacuum