The Hyperloop

When I saw they were running a full scale proof of concept test, I was a little surprised to not see anything on the forum. From what I have read about the hyperloop the past few years, it intrigues me, but falls into the realm of "our infrastructure is too expensive and basically berkeleyed already"

Well, this afternoon, there was a full scale proof of concept test in the nevada desert.

I don't know how to embed the videos But this Awesome link Has a few, full speed, and slow mo.

It looks promising. But if it will actually fly in the States? No idea. France has a pretty good interest in it, so they may see something across Lake Atlantic.

In front of the world’s assembled press, a test ‘sled’ was accelerated down a track at 2.5Gs, eventually reaching 300mph. That’s equivalent to going 0 – 60 in about one second in a regular car. The acceleration was provided by a linear-electric motor, which uses electromagnetism to generate acceleration. It’s not that different to the kind of system you would find in more modern rollercoasters, only a little faster.

That's it?

Wow, they built a rollercoaster!

In order for this thing to work they've gotta build a full size carriage, vacuum tube, and build it a few miles long. Maybe even in a circle. Once it's a made a few thousands laps at 700mph without goin 'splodey, they'll have a product on their hands.

The trouble is, what applications are out there that would prove its value and safety prior to spending big bucks on acquiring land to carry passengers? My thought would be connect a port (like LA) to another major city via abandoned railway right-of-ways. Thing is, ain't nothing abandoned in or around LA.

Maybe instead it'll be developed here in the states and sold over seas where public may be more accepting of acquiring land for a Hyerloop via eminent domain, or perhaps commercial use for hauling goods across long distances in Africa or China?

rollercoaster? 0 to 300 to 0 in under a half mile is more than a roller coaster. And yes, the actual plans are semi vacuum tubes. This is outdoors, in a desert. I'd love to see even highspeed rail hit speeds like that in that span.

The concept is there, the "product" is pretty much there. It's deployment that is the biggest issues.

The I5 corridor from San Francisco to LA has been talked about a lot, as the system can be elevated and there's a median already there. Building an elevated system above the already owned and currently wasted space median really wouldn't be a bad idea.

For as inefficiently as rail has been deployed and used in the States over the last 100 years, it's almost useless here, although some coast to coast shipping routes would be spectacular. Without people to worry about, the 700mph expected passenger speed could be increased even further, blowing even air transport out of the proverbial water.

There are other companies, working with other technologies, but to go from idea in 2013 to a successful prototype test in early 2016 is a feat in and of itself.

The problem is NOT travel speed. The problem is nightmarish logistical delays getting to and from and through the terminal.

How exactly would this solve the real problem?

Is this another Elon Musk project? If so, I predict he will continue to master the crony capitalism system and get this built on the back's of the taxpayers....you know, like all the Teslas driving around that we all are paying for even if we don't own one.

T.J. wrote: master the crony capitalism system and get this built on the back's of the taxpayers....you know, like all the GMs, Fords, and Chryslers driving around that we all are paying for even if we don't own one.

FTFY

Duke wrote: The problem is NOT travel speed. The problem is nightmarish logistical delays get to and from and through the terminal. How exactly would this solve the real problem?

^ This.

Just having the rental car facility off site adds the equivalent time as adding about 600 miles to your trip. So, LA to Portland with on-site rental cars results in a shorter trip duration than LA to San Jose with off-site rental cars. Yes, I know, San Jose recently moved their rental cars on-site.

It’s all about “point of use” which means lots of small regional terminals rather than a few huge ones - reduced “batch sizes” which means lots of small vehicles rather than a few huge ones – shared function with regard to the check in, baggage check, routing & security functions to create a continuous flow where all the functions are occurring concurrently rather than being siloed. In all but the longest distance trips, addressing point of use, batch size, & shared function will save much more time than speeding up the vehicle.

Further, I’d like to hold cost constant and exchange speed for space so my four hour trip is now six hours but I’ve got a private space that can be configured in everything from a bed to a workstation.

In reply to Duke:

As much as I dislike the new levels of bullE36 M3 required for both travel and shipping, if those times could stay the same or possibly get better, while the actual travel/transport portion speed gets cut down, I'd be happy.

I'm more excited about the technology. Conceivably, within 3 generations, we could be breaking the sound barrier and across the country in 2 to 3 hours. Somewhere like Eurasia and Africa, I could see it connecting all the land masses, and being fairly effective with proper planning and layout. Not like many people in the jungle of say Congo need to be in Beijing in 6 hours, but it could have its uses. Of course, I was too young to really remember the Concord, but I remember reading a bit about, and still don't understand, how it was phased out so soon when it seemed so effective.

I think musk has great ideas. I'm a bit on the vapor ware side here....

As soon as I can load my car on a pod and zip across the country I'll be interested. Until then the travel at either end is the biggest issue.

In reply to mazdeuce:

Hyperloop autotrain. That would be good.

In reply to RX Reven':

The problem with that scenario is that the 30% reduction in speed doesn't represent much cost savings, but the 50% extra travel and the lower passenger density both mean a substantial loss of fare throughput.