
Can a 700 M.P.H. Train in a Tube Be for Real? - dnetesn
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/opinion/can-a-700-mph-train-in-a-tube-be-for-real.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
======
jcranmer
Hyperloop feels a lot like supersonic, vactrain, maglev PRT--which is to say,
4 technologies that have all ended up miserably failing.

It's worth noting that the skepticism involved is not in any way displaced by
the recent test. The major problems with Hyperloop boil down to:

1\. High-speed switching, necessary to expand more than single-city pairs

2\. Ability of the loop to maintain tolerances and structural integrity after
weather and seismic considerations (particularly CA!) take their toll

3\. Right-of-way feasibility, both in terms of cost-effective land acquisition
and in terms of curve radii tolerances (note that even 300 km/h HSR systems in
practice often have effective speed limits lower than that on much of the
track)

4\. The ability to get safety certifications--and the implications that would
have on headways and consequently passenger throughput

5\. Ability to maintain the necessary pressurization of such a long pneumatic
tube

6\. The cost/benefit of hyperloop relative to other technologies (like
conventional HSR, maglev, even highways and airports).

The way that the company seems to be shrugging off all of these questions is
not a good sign.

~~~
vermontdevil
Not to mention it might be economically cheaper to pursue automated
automobiles since we already have the roads built.

~~~
bubuga
> Not to mention it might be economically cheaper to pursue automated
> automobiles since we already have the roads built.

Automated automobiles won't help cutting trip times, which is the main reason
why people pay to fly or to ride a high-speed train.

~~~
IshKebab
Not immediately. But in a future where all vehicles are automated it might be
safe to have 200 mph highways or cars that automatically drive onto high speed
trains, or cars that can also run on rails, etc.

------
jasonkolb
The shit talking about this is disappointing to me. Isn't this the route of
crazy idea that moves us into the future? It's not supposed to be easy. You
think people would put their livelihood and reputation on the line for
something that they think is a sham?

Seriously, if this mentality were pervasive we would not be having this
conversation on the internet or driving cars to knowledge work jobs, we would
be riding horses to the field.

I love the nerve and ambition it takes to try something that seems impossible,
these are the people moving the world forward.

Edit: words

~~~
jandrese
Being a realist I have to be skeptical about the idea of building miles of
vacuum tube through earthquake country.

It still smells like one of those crazy Sci-Fi ideas that crashes and burns
when people do the math and discover that they'll need to charge $10,000 a
ticket and be at 100% capacity for decades before they break even.

The cost estimates I have seen for constructing the tubes are hilarious
lowballs thus far. It's definitely not going to be cheaper than high speed
rail per mile, especially when you're talking about California (land of
NIMBY).

~~~
Reedx
Perhaps, but by all accounts Elon is a pretty smart engineer and has ready
access to smarter engineers. Not to mention those actually working on it. It
just seems unlikely to me that none of them accounted for something so
obvious? Certainly they did and felt it was a solvable problem.

If nothing else, if it increases expectations people have about transit then
that's good. The currently planned California "high-speed" rail is pretty
underwhelming.

~~~
cozzyd
I have heard, but don't know whether or not to take seriously, the argument
that the proposal is designed to derail CAHSR in order to sell more cars. If
that's the case, it seems to be working.

What part of CAHSR do you find underwhelming (other that it will take too long
to build?). I disagree with some of the routing decisions (I think it should
go SJ ->SF -> Oakland -> Central Valley -> LA ), but what would conceivably
make it better?

------
cyann
We had a project[1] like that for Switzerland, but it was canned in 2009
(underground: too expensive).

Above ground tube is probably going to make it for flatter countries.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro)

------
fla
We've been there already in the 90s, and it was too expensive [1]. Has the
technology changed that much ?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro)

------
calebsurfs
Best part of the article:

"Mr. BamBrogan’s real first name is Kevin. This is just one of many aspects to
this undertaking that makes me feel that it will all be revealed as a
breathtaking piece of performance art."

Is entrepreneurship sometimes completely, or partially, performance art?

~~~
maxerickson
Everything is performance art from some perspective.

------
peterwwillis
I'm reminded of when those tubes that drive-through bank tellers send get
stuck and go out-of-order. And i'm reminded of earthquakes. Burying the tubes?
Maybe not such a great idea.

------
pbreit
How does one get a name like "Brogan BamBrogan"?

------
benlower
Sounds like a bit of a "pipe" dream

~~~
mike_hock
I see what you did there.

------
elf_m_sternberg
It's sorta clever how Elon Musk convinced Ayn Rand-besotted train-crazy tech
bros to invest in his testbed for a Clarke Mass Driver.

~~~
dang
Please don't call names in arguments on HN. This is in the site guidelines:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

Especially please don't post comments that do nothing but call names.

------
mozumder
I can't believe how many adults actually fall for this garbage. There's too
much that's just broken about it, from fundamental design to implementation.

Some people LOVE bad ideas.

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive dismissals to HN. Claiming grandly that an
idea is broken (and putting other people down) adds no information.

On HN, the idea is to post civilly and substantively, or not at all. For
example, neutrally explaining _how_ an idea is broken would be substantive.

~~~
mozumder
That's nice and all but the article itself lists all of those, and this would
be a reaction to the article itself, instead of repeating it.

(I'm assuming everyone read the article?)

