Hyperloop One Reveals 10 Strongest Potential Hyperloop Routes in the World

M

monkeymagick

[H]News
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
480
Los Angeles based Hyperloop One has outlined 10 potential locations to deploy its hyperloop technology after holding a competition with over 2,600 submissions. Four locations from the US have been suggested which include a route 640 miles between Dallas to Houston and and three city 488 miles route of Chicago, Columbus, and Pittsburgh. The company recently had its passenger pod hit a top speed of 192 MPH.

The goal of Hyperloop One in terms of getting actual operational Hyperloops up and running is to have three routes working in a commercial capacity by 2021, so this is a key step towards helping accomplish that.
 
They need to get the speed up a lot or just switch to standard bullet trains
 
I want to see a fully operational prototype before hearing any more hype.
Because right now, all their test sleds coast to a stop once off the test accelerator.
I also want to see how they're going to evacuate such a huge system in anything close to a reasonable time.
 
So instead of Texas getting the Large Hadron Collider that they started building but quit funding because, science.
We will get uber fast trains so peeps can get from Austin to Dallas in 9 minutes. yay
don't get me wrong, anyone who has driven the clusterfuck that is IH 35 knows what a boondoggle this would be.
 
Nothing about the Northeast Corridor or do they not want to murder Amtrak's only profitable routes immediately?
 
It still ain't happening. This is like people talking about what they'll do after they win millions playing the lottery. A feel-good fantasy is all it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this
DeathFromBelow said:
Thats exactly what they're building...
Click to expand...

Right. But we keep hearing "Ooh! Hyperloop over HERE! Hyperloop over THERE! Hyperloop Hyperloop EVERYWHERE!"

And, frankly, I'm just kinda sick of it.

Until they can actually demonstrate that it'll work on something more than a quarter mile test tube, I just wish they'd STFU about it.
 
Chas said:
I also want to see how they're going to evacuate such a huge system in anything close to a reasonable time.
Click to expand...
Why would you need to evacuate dead people? In the event of a catastrophic failure there isn't likely to be many survivors.

In the event of a minor failure such as loss of locomotive power the sled would just stop and the passengers could just walk to the nearest rescue hatch. Oh wait... they're in a vacuum so I guess they would just have to sit there until someone figured out how to get them out.

I dunno, the safety of the entire system seems questionable to me.
 
Chas said:
Right. But we keep hearing "Ooh! Hyperloop over HERE! Hyperloop over THERE! Hyperloop Hyperloop EVERYWHERE!"

And, frankly, I'm just kinda sick of it.

Until they can actually demonstrate that it'll work on something more than a quarter mile test tube, I just wish they'd STFU about it.
Click to expand...

3DwAjL3.jpg
 
Unless they have a coast to coast service this will be largely irrelevant. These short hops are far better served by regional airlines or conventional trains that are much less expensive...
 
dgingeri said:
It will never be cost effective. It will bleed money worse than Amtrak.
Click to expand...


Don't agree. This will compete more with the short haul airlines than it will with Amtrak.

In most cases, Amtrak is so slow as to almost useless for anything long distance.
Try going from LA to Seattle on Amtrak - 34 HOURS.
It's less than 3 hours by plane (and about the same price), or 18 hours by car.
(You can drive 9 hours, eat/sleep for 10 hours, and drive another 9 hours and still be there 6 hours faster).

Now if we had a 200 mph bullet train, it would take 6 hours, or maybe 8 hours with a few stops. THAT I would consider if the price was similar to a plane.

Besides, as long as it's privately run (and not bleeding tax payers money) I don't care how much money they spend.
 
RedWagnum said:
Why would you need to evacuate dead people? In the event of a catastrophic failure there isn't likely to be many survivors.

In the event of a minor failure such as loss of locomotive power the sled would just stop and the passengers could just walk to the nearest rescue hatch. Oh wait... they're in a vacuum so I guess they would just have to sit there until someone figured out how to get them out.

I dunno, the safety of the entire system seems questionable to me.
Click to expand...

You mean like a plane?

In the event of a catastrophic failure you fall and crash into the ground. No survivors.
In the event of a minor failure such as loss of power you fall and crash into the ground. Likely no survivors.

You would have a better chance of surviving a failure on a hyperloop than a plane.
 
nutzo said:
Don't agree. This will compete more with the short haul airlines than it will with Amtrak.

In most cases, Amtrak is so slow as to almost useless for anything long distance.
Try going from LA to Seattle on Amtrak - 34 HOURS.
It's less than 3 hours by plane (and about the same price), or 18 hours by car.
(You can drive 9 hours, eat/sleep for 10 hours, and drive another 9 hours and still be there 6 hours faster).

Now if we had a 200 mph bullet train, it would take 6 hours, or maybe 8 hours with a few stops. THAT I would consider if the price was similar to a plane.

Besides, as long as it's privately run (and not bleeding tax payers money) I don't care how much money they spend.
Click to expand...

How is this going to compete with a $150ticket for a hop between Chicago and Pittsburgh? Or Houston and Dallas? Same day those tickets are only 189...do you really think they can get the cost down to the price of less than 189/person? BTW thats only a 1 hour flight. People are wiling to pay for speed but I just cant see them paying THAT much more for this. The concord failed because it couldnt get the price down. I see this a very concordish...

BTW LA to Seattle is 2 hrs 45 minutes roughly for about $86 to $189 depending on airline for same day departure. Buses are slightly cheaper and yes a lot longer (~28 hrs). I doubt the AMTRAK takes 34 hours unless they stop on the way. Driving is 17 hours depending on traffic.
 
nutzo said:
You mean like a plane?

In the event of a catastrophic failure you fall and crash into the ground. No survivors.
In the event of a minor failure such as loss of power you fall and crash into the ground. Likely no survivors.

You would have a better chance of surviving a failure on a hyperloop than a plane.
Click to expand...


False. Go look up aviation accident statistics. Even some of the catastrophic accidents where the plane fireballed have survivors. Also with most minor failures, such as a loss of power, you DO NOT FALL AND CRASH INTO THE GROUND. Physics dictates this will not happen. You actually glide to the ground and stand a VERY good chance of surviving...
 
Standard bullet trains are capable of hitting those speeds. My other gripe is, how do you properly ventilate a vehicle inside a vacuum? What about emergency instances? It seems that the engineering challenges are more of an impossibility than a challenge.
 
kju1 said:
How is this going to compete with a $150ticket for a hop between Chicago and Pittsburgh? Or Houston and Dallas? Same day those tickets are only 189...do you really think they can get the cost down to the price of less than 189/person? BTW thats only a 1 hour flight. People are wiling to pay for speed but I just cant see them paying THAT much more for this. The concord failed because it couldnt get the price down. I see this a very concordish...

BTW LA to Seattle is 2 hrs 45 minutes roughly for about $86 to $189 depending on airline for same day departure. Buses are slightly cheaper and yes a lot longer (~28 hrs). I doubt the AMTRAK takes 34 hours unless they stop on the way. Driving is 17 hours depending on traffic.
Click to expand...

No one really knows what costs will be. The trips are short because its a test, they want longer ones, but those require all sorts of new problems and costs, they need a working model first. I would also expect the first few to be total loss leaders until some network and cost reduction happens through new processes and improvements.

Cost will also have a great deal to do with pure volume, which could be much higher than what an airline can do, by sheer bulk AND speed for turn around. This will also be cargo, which is one of the bulk incomes for most rail lines, not passenger. Depending on load ability, normal rail transit is slow, this would cut times to 1/10 or less. As for flights....They are not always dependable, over booked, delay etc etc, having taken a normal bullet train while someone else flew and they were set to leave 2 hours before me, yet I got their first. Granted that was due to delays, however that is a common issue with flights. I would also imagine most of these states and cities will not only give zero effective taxes on these to Musk if they pick that location, but will probably give a good deal of funding to it as well. The city will get lots of coverage, and the new travel ability and cargo ability will probably be a boon to the areas it stops in.

I do see it costing way to much, and don't have much faith in it ever working and supporting it self, however Musk has a good habit of going into tech that the government is or plans on subsidizing. Meaning cost ends up meaning little to him, because the people are going to pay for it anyway....Just by force with tax dollars. I would not be shocked if that is what ends up happening here.
 
Emission said:
Standard bullet trains are capable of hitting those speeds. My other gripe is, how do you properly ventilate a vehicle inside a vacuum? What about emergency instances? It seems that the engineering challenges are more of an impossibility than a challenge.
Click to expand...
" Never tell me the odds"
 
"a route 640 miles between Dallas to Houston"

Um, google says 239 miles. So it must be taking the LONG way around. One assumes it would go back and forth on the same track/tube, so wouldn't even need a circular route? Or does this thing only go in 1 direction?
 
Funny that the whole California High Speed Rail proposition decided to dole out a crap ton of money for a train is what got Elon to jump out of his seat and scream "LYPERHOOP...er HOOPERLYP... er Speedy Go Fast Go Gimme Money NOW!" yet none of these proposed "good sights" are California :D
 
ButtonPuncher said:
Chicago routes... They are going to need to start development on Hyper Tollbooths. ;)
Click to expand...
No they will just charge extra for the ticket, so the price will be higher than anywhere else in the country. Need to pay those mobsters.... I mean politicians to make sure its safe.
 
Burticus said:
"a route 640 miles between Dallas to Houston"

Um, google says 239 miles. So it must be taking the LONG way around. One assumes it would go back and forth on the same track/tube, so wouldn't even need a circular route? Or does this thing only go in 1 direction?
Click to expand...

They're talking about a loop of: Dallas (Ft Worth) - Austin - San Antonio - Houston - Dallas

There's roughly 18 million people living in that triangle.
 
kju1 said:
BTW LA to Seattle is 2 hrs 45 minutes roughly for about $86 to $189 depending on airline for same day departure. Buses are slightly cheaper and yes a lot longer (~28 hrs). I doubt the AMTRAK takes 34 hours unless they stop on the way. Driving is 17 hours depending on traffic.
Click to expand...

Look it up on Amtrak, it does take 34 hours.

I used this as an example because I've taken this trip multiple times, and have used all 3 methods. My trip time is a little longer since I'm a bit south of LAX.
I've taken the train once (brought the family) and it's a very scenic trip since it goes along the coast. But, it's slow as it goes through towns, and it makes too many stops. We even stopped for over an hour waiting for a freight train to pass the other way due to the single track at that location.

I've driven it a couple times. It's 2 very long 10 hour driving days due to traffic.
No way you could make it in 17 hours unless you never stopped, didn't hit any traffic, and where speeding most the way.

As for HyperLoop, they will need to be competitive with plane travel.
At 750 MPH, the trip would take about 1.5 hours. About 1/2 the time of a plane. I'm sure there are people who would pay extra for that.
I'd pay more as long as the seats have more room than the typical plane.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Funny that the whole California High Speed Rail proposition decided to dole out a crap ton of money for a train is what got Elon to jump out of his seat and scream "LYPERHOOP...er HOOPERLYP... er Speedy Go Fast Go Gimme Money NOW!" yet none of these proposed "good sights" are California :D
Click to expand...

Brown's slow speed train to nowhere has all the same problems Amtrak already has.
It's nothing more than a way to funnel tax dollars to politically connected people.
 
nutzo said:
Look it up on Amtrak, it does take 34 hours.

I used this as an example because I've taken this trip multiple times, and have used all 3 methods. My trip time is a little longer since I'm a bit south of LAX.
I've taken the train once (brought the family) and it's a very scenic trip since it goes along the coast. But, it's slow as it goes through towns, and it makes too many stops. We even stopped for over an hour waiting for a freight train to pass the other way due to the single track at that location.

I've driven it a couple times. It's 2 very long 10 hour driving days due to traffic.
No way you could make it in 17 hours unless you never stopped, didn't hit any traffic, and where speeding most the way.

As for HyperLoop, they will need to be competitive with plane travel.
At 750 MPH, the trip would take about 1.5 hours. About 1/2 the time of a plane. I'm sure there are people who would pay extra for that.
I'd pay more as long as the seats have more room than the typical plane.
Click to expand...

I recently did San Diego to Everett Wa and it took about 23 hours only stopping for gas/food. Its not a bad drive, the mountains are even pretty good, I've driven i90 from seattle across the country and the mountains in wa and idaho are quite a bit worse imo. Worst part of the drive imo is the long flat bit between LA and SF, so boring.
 
RedWagnum said:
Why would you need to evacuate dead people? In the event of a catastrophic failure there isn't likely to be many survivors.

In the event of a minor failure such as loss of locomotive power the sled would just stop and the passengers could just walk to the nearest rescue hatch. Oh wait... they're in a vacuum so I guess they would just have to sit there until someone figured out how to get them out.

I dunno, the safety of the entire system seems questionable to me.
Click to expand...


Evacuate, as in "pump the air out" since they're supposed to be in a low pressure (not true vacuum) to avoid friction and resistance issues.
 
Chas said:
I want to see a fully operational prototype before hearing any more hype.
Because right now, all their test sleds coast to a stop once off the test accelerator.
I also want to see how they're going to evacuate such a huge system in anything close to a reasonable time.
Click to expand...

They'll have to use air locks I'd imagine. Pod is loaded, airlock is evac'd, airlock gate is opened, pod is sent, pod arrives, airlocks are closed and pressure equalized in the loading area. Rinse, repeat.

I can imagine the transport tube will be kept under vacuum.
 
nutzo said:
You mean like a plane?

In the event of a catastrophic failure you fall and crash into the ground. No survivors.
In the event of a minor failure such as loss of power you fall and crash into the ground. Likely no survivors.

You would have a better chance of surviving a failure on a hyperloop than a plane.
Click to expand...


No. You really don't. A failure is likely going to be a rupture of the track housing. Meaning you're going to be crashing into a shockwave and overpressure as the vacuum breaks.
On top of that, look at what happens when you evacuate a tanker truck with even minute flaws in the shell. *IMPLOSION*.
And you're going to be doing it at HUNDREDS of miles per hour.
The amounts of energy being released with this sort of thing is the equivalent to a nice sized bomb going off, essentially in your face.


To survive something like that you'd have to be Vesna Vulović levels of lucky as shit. And even then...
From the Wikipedia page:
She suffered a fractured skull, three broken vertebrae, two broken legs, several broken ribs and a fractured pelvis. Her injuries resulted in her being temporarily paralyzed from the waist down. She went on to make an almost complete recovery, but continued to walk with a limp.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elios
like this
Spidey329 said:
They'll have to use air locks I'd imagine. Pod is loaded, airlock is evac'd, airlock gate is opened, pod is sent, pod arrives, airlocks are closed and pressure equalized in the loading area. Rinse, repeat.

I can imagine the transport tube will be kept under vacuum.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. This thing's being constructed out of thin-wall steel tubing. It's actually THINNER than what goes into most tanker trucks.
 
Chas said:
On top of that, look at what happens when you evacuate a tanker truck with even minute flaws in the shell. *IMPLOSION*.
Click to expand...

I've seen the same video. It's a flawed video.

Those tankers are designed structurally to keep pressure from the inside. They are not designed to keep a vacuum. A tank designed for a vacuum (keeping atmospheric pressure out) is structurally different.

If you go back and watch the video, you'll see the point of failure on the (on the truck one) tanker is from the structural rings separating from the tank. This is again, because the tank sits INSIDE the rings as they're structurally designed to keep the tank pressure in.
 
Last edited:
Chas said:
Right. But we keep hearing "Ooh! Hyperloop over HERE! Hyperloop over THERE! Hyperloop Hyperloop EVERYWHERE!"

And, frankly, I'm just kinda sick of it.

Until they can actually demonstrate that it'll work on something more than a quarter mile test tube, I just wish they'd STFU about it.
Click to expand...
What? You are angry that they talk to journalists and journalists make articles?
Learn to relax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top