Living Car Free Do you live car free or car light? Do you prefer to use alternative transportation (bicycles, walking, other human-powered or public transportation) for everyday activities whenever possible? Discuss your lifestyle here.

Hyperlooped Bus-Sleds

Closed Thread

Old 03-12-18, 03:42 PM
  #26  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7547 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
Yes, but if you remember your Newton's laws you know that getting a lighter object up to speed takes less force than it does a heavier one. A=F/M.
Yes, it doesn't make much sense to have rail systems that stop and start a lot. It makes more sense to let them take advantage of momentum for as long as possible before stopping.

the object of the Hyperloop is to get it up to speed quickly and create a vacuum to lower friction.
Lowering the air pressure reduces wind drag making faster speeds possible with the same momentum/power that would go into overcoming wind drag at sea level. I think the plan was to have tubes use solar panels to power fans to remove air from the system as it leaks in. If it leaks in slowly enough, the power to blow it out shouldn't use more power than it would to drive the train through regular atmospheric pressure.

Building a larger tube with a large object to shoot down the tube requires more force to start it and more to stop it. And they haven't agreed on a full vacuum yet.
Less force can be used to accelerate a heavier object more gradually. F=MA, as you posted. If the mass is larger and the acceleration is slower, the force can be the same.

Rail and tires are designed for different transportation needs.
Tires have rolling friction because they need to steer and stop.

Wishing will not change math.
It's not the physics math that's against them; it's the math of investment-marketing discouraging investments by implying that the math is against them that's against them.
tandempower is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 05:06 PM
  #27  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,755

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike,2011 CF Specialized Tarmac road bike. 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1193 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Less force can be used to accelerate a heavier object more gradually. F=MA, as you posted. If the mass is larger and the acceleration is slower, the force can be the same.
.
Something tells me you arenít interested in what they wrote in the requirements for the Hyperloop challenge as envisioned by Musk and Hyperloop One. Decreasing acceleration will not get someone the contract. It would increase time from point A to B. So you win, it doesnít matter what they are trying to accomplish. Have a nice day.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 05:20 PM
  #28  
badger1
Senior Member
 
badger1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southwestern Ontario
Posts: 3,591
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 733 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
Something tells me you arenít interested in what they wrote in the requirements for the Hyperloop challenge as envisioned by Musk and Hyperloop One. Decreasing acceleration will not get someone the contract. It would increase time from point A to B. So you win, it doesnít matter what they are trying to accomplish. Have a nice day.
A very sensible, and on-point, response, Mobile 155.
badger1 is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 05:57 PM
  #29  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7547 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
Something tells me you arenít interested in what they wrote in the requirements for the Hyperloop challenge as envisioned by Musk and Hyperloop One. Decreasing acceleration will not get someone the contract. It would increase time from point A to B. So you win, it doesnít matter what they are trying to accomplish. Have a nice day.
DC is about 250 miles from NYC, so if the thing goes 500mph, it will take a half hour. If it takes 10 minutes to accelerate to 500mph, then it still gets there in 40 minutes. But besides, haven't you seen how fast Tesla's electric motors accelerate? They have started building electric semi trucks that go from 0 to 60 in five seconds. They just put a motor on each wheel so why couldn't this be scaled up within a large hyperloop pod design?

Personally, I think the problem with a larger design is the tube materials and power to keep the pressure low. More circumference means more seal to leak and more power to pump out air that gets into the system.
tandempower is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 06:32 PM
  #30  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7547 Post(s)
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
There is no sense transporting a bus by rail.

Park the buses at both ends. Transport people in ordinary train cars, let them get on at one end, off at the other end and board the bus if they wish.

Probably the same reason people board airplanes rather than driving buses onto airplanes.

That doesn't mean that this hyperloop mass transit couldn't be optimized to move people, including moving special people pods.
Actually, I think a big key to success could lie in eliminating the possibility of waiting on transit connections. Layovers are a deal-breaker for many people, and more layovers present more opportunities for intermediaries to undermine the system with inefficiency. E.g. the Greyhound station in Orlando is so far from the main bus station. That bus station is next to the Sunrail train station, but the trains don't run during the day as frequently for some reason, so you have to take a bus to get from Greyhound to the train, and then you may have to take a city bus if the train isn't running.

Now you ask, why wouldn't a train run if it is just a question of paying an operator to run the same train back and forth on the same rails more frequently? Good question. Maybe something to do with business agreements or unions or both, idk; but the point is the more layovers/transfers, the more opportunity for delays and system-misalignment.
tandempower is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 06:36 PM
  #31  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7547 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
It was one of the reasons I said I almost hate to start in this. I didn't think it would be about the ability of building a hyperloop or the problems they have encountered attempting it. Somehow I felt we would get into social justice and wages. I think Hyperlink may be worth looking at. I am just becoming less sure it will solve anything.
I don't mind talking about problems, but whenever we discuss things like this, you seem to be biased in favor of certain industries and economic assumptions. You accuse me of getting into social justice and wages, but that is exactly what you do in your own way, because you believe in a certain approach to economics and you're bent on insisting that absolutely nothing else is possible because people don't want it. Call yours the social justice of 'my way or the highway (and btw, your way IS the highway).
tandempower is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 06:40 PM
  #32  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7547 Post(s)
A non-political question to discuss in this thread could be how many pedestrians/cyclists would go back and forth between NYC and DC daily if they were given priority over cars?

Another question would be how this option to take a fast train between these two cities would alter the use of other routes in those areas. E.g. how far south of NYC would people go to NYC to catch the fast train to DC and how far north of DC would people go south to take the fast train to NYC?
tandempower is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 07:33 PM
  #33  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,874
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Actually, I think a big key to success could lie in eliminating the possibility of waiting on transit connections. Layovers are a deal-breaker for many people, and more layovers present more opportunities for intermediaries to undermine the system with inefficiency. E.g. the Greyhound station in Orlando is so far from the main bus station. That bus station is next to the Sunrail train station, but the trains don't run during the day as frequently for some reason, so you have to take a bus to get from Greyhound to the train, and then you may have to take a city bus if the train isn't running.

Now you ask, why wouldn't a train run if it is just a question of paying an operator to run the same train back and forth on the same rails more frequently? Good question. Maybe something to do with business agreements or unions or both, idk; but the point is the more layovers/transfers, the more opportunity for delays and system-misalignment.
It depends on how things are organized. In some countries, especially for inbound trains with less frequent service, the buses and taxis know the schedule, and show up at the train station for the train to arrive, picks up passengers, then disperses them around the city.

Of course, Amtrak can be a little less predictable with their arrival times, to the point that here in Oregon, they run buses parallel to the train lines. They'll guarantee bus passengers will make the Portland train transfers (generally), but won't guarantee that train passengers will make the transfer.

An option that I believe is done in some places is to split the trains. So, at a Y in the rail lines, half the train goes right, and half goes left. If rail switching could be done quickly, that could be done on a very small scale, down to individual cars that could be added to or subtracted from a train. Just make sure passengers don't get stuck in the dining car.

I suppose if systems were standardized, then a rail car could hop off the main tracks and head downtown as a trolley.
CliffordK is online now  
Old 03-12-18, 07:38 PM
  #34  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 50,387

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2307 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Now you ask, why wouldn't a train run if it is just a question of paying an operator to run the same train back and forth on the same rails more frequently? Good question. Maybe something to do with business agreements or unions or both, idk; but the point is the more layovers/transfers, the more opportunity for delays and system-misalignment.
Actually ... I don't ask why trains don't run because I know why trains don't run. However, you might do some more research into it.


Personally, I think countries like Canada and Australia (and probably the US too, but it doesn't really concern me) should start adopting fast train systems like those that exist in other countries. I think fast trains are a great idea. And the topic of starting to do just that does come up from time to time. But for various reasons it has yet to gain traction. Years have passed, and not one bit of progress has been made.

If Canada, Australia, and the US are ever going to start building the infrastructure for fast trains, I suspect that Canada and Australia would do it first, and the US would follow along behind somewhere.

Therefore, knowing that the progress toward fast trains in Canada and Australia is pretty much non-existent, except for occasional conversations now and then, going back to your first post of whether or not we'll see any sort of fast trains in the US soon ... my answer is nope.
Machka is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 10:30 PM
  #35  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,755

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike,2011 CF Specialized Tarmac road bike. 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1193 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
Actually ... I don't ask why trains don't run because I know why trains don't run. However, you might do some more research into it.


Personally, I think countries like Canada and Australia (and probably the US too, but it doesn't really concern me) should start adopting fast train systems like those that exist in other countries. I think fast trains are a great idea. And the topic of starting to do just that does come up from time to time. But for various reasons it has yet to gain traction. Years have passed, and not one bit of progress has been made.

If Canada, Australia, and the US are ever going to start building the infrastructure for fast trains, I suspect that Canada and Australia would do it first, and the US would follow along behind somewhere.

Therefore, knowing that the progress toward fast trains in Canada and Australia is pretty much non-existent, except for occasional conversations now and then, going back to your first post of whether or not we'll see any sort of fast trains in the US soon ... my answer is nope.
Normally I agree with your point, and by in large I do here as well. However if the Hyperloop lived up to its specifications it would be a new form of transportation. As Musk predicts now we have cars, trains, Planes and boats he wants a new form. The Hyperloop would fit between trains and planes. Now where I agree the most is because they are still theoretical Current fast trains would be more cost effective. Once again we have a problem in that our rail lines are owned by private companies so all new track would have to be put down and to reach everywhere our airlines already do will take a lot of track. We are talking trillions in infrastructure. I do not know about Canada and Australia but plains literately fly just about anywhere people might want to go. Flights from LA to San Francisco can be had for as little as $50.00 during special hours and $250.00 for non discount flights. The flight takes an hour and change. The Amtrak is $65.00 to $250.00 and it takes 11 hours. There is no reason to believe HSR will cost less than Amtrak so it is hard for trains to get a foothold in passenger rail.

Look ant twelve hours of flights in the US airspace and see what trains are up against. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...paths-us/2072/
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 11:03 PM
  #36  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 50,387

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2307 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
Normally I agree with your point, and by in large I do here as well. However if the Hyperloop lived up to its specifications it would be a new form of transportation. As Musk predicts now we have cars, trains, Planes and boats he wants a new form. The Hyperloop would fit between trains and planes. Now where I agree the most is because they are still theoretical Current fast trains would be more cost effective. Once again we have a problem in that our rail lines are owned by private companies so all new track would have to be put down and to reach everywhere our airlines already do will take a lot of track. We are talking trillions in infrastructure. I do not know about Canada and Australia but plains literately fly just about anywhere people might want to go. Flights from LA to San Francisco can be had for as little as $50.00 during special hours and $250.00 for non discount flights. The flight takes an hour and change. The Amtrak is $65.00 to $250.00 and it takes 11 hours. There is no reason to believe HSR will cost less than Amtrak so it is hard for trains to get a foothold in passenger rail.

Look ant twelve hours of flights in the US airspace and see what trains are up against. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...paths-us/2072/
Where fast trains have been proposed as being possibly viable is between relatively close locations such as between Calgary and Edmonton (300 km apart), or maybe Vancouver to Hope, and a few locations in eastern Canada ... Toronto to ??

Yes, planes do fly between many of those places, but they can be a bit of a pain. Take the Calgary/Edmonton situation, for example. When I lived there, there was no public transportation to the Edmonton airport (which was almost unbelievable, but that's how it was). I think they were toying with the idea of expanding their rail system out to the airport, but I don't know if they've done that or not. Anyway ... to go from a hotel in downtown Edmonton, where you might be having a business conference to the airport would requiring a shuttle bus or taxi and would take roughly 30 min. Then you've got to check in at least 30 min in advance, go through security, and all that. Then the taxi-ing around the runway. Then the flight ... that's the easy part ... and back to taxi-ing around the runway, and disembarking, and locating transport home or to your office or whatever ....

And all of a sudden your 300 km flight has taken as long as it would to drive.

Whereas, ideally, a 300+ km/h fast train would pick you up in downtown Edmonton ... shoot out to Red Deer (halfway), make a quick stop there, and shoot the rest of the way into downtown Calgary, and there you are in an hour ... roughly 2 hours ahead of the person who drove or flew.

However, although it gets discussed and discussed and discussed, and lots of people think it is a great idea ... it doesn't happen.

So when someone new comes along proposing something new for fast public transportation ... although I might like it to happen, and although I wish so many more places would adopt fast public transportation of some sort ... I've listened to so many years of discussion to no avail that I just have my doubts anything is going to change. At least, not in the near future.

That said, I wouldn't be completely surprised to hear of something like this, or something more similar to existing fast trains, starting to be built in China. They've got the population and technology to do it.
Machka is offline  
Old 03-12-18, 11:07 PM
  #37  
Rollfast
What happened?
 
Rollfast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Around here somewhere
Posts: 6,359

Bikes: No. 7 now sitting in a box in the living room

Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1038 Post(s)
You can't ever have a hyperloop, something will act as Ritalin.
__________________
Mrs. Reagan also taught me to Just Say No To Shifting, and be kind to elderly single speeds.
Rollfast is offline  
Old 03-13-18, 09:57 AM
  #38  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7547 Post(s)
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
It depends on how things are organized. In some countries, especially for inbound trains with less frequent service, the buses and taxis know the schedule, and show up at the train station for the train to arrive, picks up passengers, then disperses them around the city.

Of course, Amtrak can be a little less predictable with their arrival times, to the point that here in Oregon, they run buses parallel to the train lines. They'll guarantee bus passengers will make the Portland train transfers (generally), but won't guarantee that train passengers will make the transfer.

An option that I believe is done in some places is to split the trains. So, at a Y in the rail lines, half the train goes right, and half goes left. If rail switching could be done quickly, that could be done on a very small scale, down to individual cars that could be added to or subtracted from a train. Just make sure passengers don't get stuck in the dining car.

I suppose if systems were standardized, then a rail car could hop off the main tracks and head downtown as a trolley.
From what I've heard, delays have to do with dispatch giving priority to freight trains. I assume there is money involved with who gets priority, but maybe they just like freight better than passengers, idk.
tandempower is offline  
Old 03-13-18, 10:02 AM
  #39  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7547 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
Actually ... I don't ask why trains don't run because I know why trains don't run. However, you might do some more research into it.


Personally, I think countries like Canada and Australia (and probably the US too, but it doesn't really concern me) should start adopting fast train systems like those that exist in other countries. I think fast trains are a great idea. And the topic of starting to do just that does come up from time to time. But for various reasons it has yet to gain traction. Years have passed, and not one bit of progress has been made.

If Canada, Australia, and the US are ever going to start building the infrastructure for fast trains, I suspect that Canada and Australia would do it first, and the US would follow along behind somewhere.

Therefore, knowing that the progress toward fast trains in Canada and Australia is pretty much non-existent, except for occasional conversations now and then, going back to your first post of whether or not we'll see any sort of fast trains in the US soon ... my answer is nope.
I think a lot has to do with backroom discussions about what the effect on automotive markets would be if mass transit gained popularity in traditionally dominant auto markets. People know that population is growing and causing congestion, but they also know that once good mass transit exists, there will be a snowball effect and they're afraid of the market shifting so they delay greenlighting the agenda and thus keep mass transit reserved for those who can't drive or can't afford to drive for whatever reason.
tandempower is offline  
Old 03-13-18, 10:34 AM
  #40  
CliffordK
Senior Member
 
CliffordK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,874
Mentioned: 112 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6219 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
From what I've heard, delays have to do with dispatch giving priority to freight trains. I assume there is money involved with who gets priority, but maybe they just like freight better than passengers, idk.
I think it is complex. I think Amtrak rents a priority window of sorts. So, if they are on-time, they actually do have some priority. However, if knocked out of their window, then they fall to the bottom of the priority list.

That could happen for a number of reasons. I was with my niece waiting for a train in Portland, the beginning of the line headed Eastbound. Apparently something was wrong with the engine, and it took them a couple of hours to get a substitute hooked up, and to take off, by which time, the train was late leaving, and apparently further delays along the track, there was no catching up... and a couple hundred miles down the track, it had lost more time. I think that train was headed across the country, so if the pattern held up... it could well have had an extreme delay by the time it rolled into Chicago. I think it was supposed to merge with a Seattle train, and I'm not sure how they do the merge if half is on-time, and half is delayed by several hours. Would they just run both halves?

Of course, even if they should have priority, a freight train might still be able to knock them out of their scheduling window.

One of the issues that the USA has is that much of the track is single track for both directions. And, even in the places with parallel tracks, often the tracks are owned by different companies, and not available to all. So, every time trains pass, one train is forced onto a siding.
CliffordK is online now  
Old 03-13-18, 11:39 AM
  #41  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,755

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike,2011 CF Specialized Tarmac road bike. 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1193 Post(s)
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
I think it is complex. I think Amtrak rents a priority window of sorts. So, if they are on-time, they actually do have some priority. However, if knocked out of their window, then they fall to the bottom of the priority list.

That could happen for a number of reasons. I was with my niece waiting for a train in Portland, the beginning of the line headed Eastbound. Apparently something was wrong with the engine, and it took them a couple of hours to get a substitute hooked up, and to take off, by which time, the train was late leaving, and apparently further delays along the track, there was no catching up... and a couple hundred miles down the track, it had lost more time. I think that train was headed across the country, so if the pattern held up... it could well have had an extreme delay by the time it rolled into Chicago. I think it was supposed to merge with a Seattle train, and I'm not sure how they do the merge if half is on-time, and half is delayed by several hours. Would they just run both halves?

Of course, even if they should have priority, a freight train might still be able to knock them out of their scheduling window.

One of the issues that the USA has is that much of the track is single track for both directions. And, even in the places with parallel tracks, often the tracks are owned by different companies, and not available to all. So, every time trains pass, one train is forced onto a siding.
The problem is maybe a bit simpler than we might think. Amtrak was made from a failed system and doesnít have the tools to succeed.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/amtrak-tracks-late-trains
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 03-13-18, 02:16 PM
  #42  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7547 Post(s)
Originally Posted by CliffordK View Post
I think it is complex. I think Amtrak rents a priority window of sorts. So, if they are on-time, they actually do have some priority. However, if knocked out of their window, then they fall to the bottom of the priority list.

That could happen for a number of reasons. I was with my niece waiting for a train in Portland, the beginning of the line headed Eastbound. Apparently something was wrong with the engine, and it took them a couple of hours to get a substitute hooked up, and to take off, by which time, the train was late leaving, and apparently further delays along the track, there was no catching up... and a couple hundred miles down the track, it had lost more time. I think that train was headed across the country, so if the pattern held up... it could well have had an extreme delay by the time it rolled into Chicago. I think it was supposed to merge with a Seattle train, and I'm not sure how they do the merge if half is on-time, and half is delayed by several hours. Would they just run both halves?

Of course, even if they should have priority, a freight train might still be able to knock them out of their scheduling window.

One of the issues that the USA has is that much of the track is single track for both directions. And, even in the places with parallel tracks, often the tracks are owned by different companies, and not available to all. So, every time trains pass, one train is forced onto a siding.
I wouldn't like to see more corridors cleared for more rails. There is a fairly nice area north of Orlando where the St. John's River runs parallel to a rail line, which has a bike road next to it, which runs parallel to US17/92, which runs parallel to I95 and there are corridors of housing and business that separate the corridors so you can bike in a nice, shaded forested area near the river with the train line also surrounded by trees. To widen the rail corridor, trees/forest and maybe the bike road would be lost. The solution would be to replace some of the paved/auto corridors with train tracks, but idk what it would take to make that happen. I don't think there is an all-of-the-above solution that creates enough space for driving and rail, and I don't think the underground boring will ultimately good (in fact, it won't even be possible in Florida because of the ground. Buses may be the only solution for a while, and hopefully they will start protecting truck lanes from auto traffic on the highways so buses will be able to have priority along with freight trucks.
tandempower is offline  
Old 03-13-18, 02:28 PM
  #43  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,674

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3258 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
Where fast trains have been proposed as being possibly viable is between relatively close locations such as between Calgary and Edmonton (300 km apart), or maybe Vancouver to Hope, and a few locations in eastern Canada ... Toronto to ??

Yes, planes do fly between many of those places, but they can be a bit of a pain.
Toronto to Montreal and/or Ottawa of course. And yes, part of the motivation is that air travel can be a pain. Even the slow trains we have now compete somewhat effectively against air for middle distance (300-500 km) travel, because they go downtown to downtown and are well served by hotels, restaurants and conference facilities often within walking distance or a very short cab ride. In fact even air works best if there is a local train at each end. Also a more comfortable seat, faster loading and unloading, easy to get up and stretch your legs, and (so far, thank God) much easier security procedures. It only takes a bit longer and it is more useable time, not as fractured as air travel time with its landing and takeoff precautions around using electronics, headphones etc.

Also airports are hugely expensive infrastructure too, and have a huge impact on surrounding properties, with a lot of resistance to expansion, and there are or will be various limiting factors in how many flights can take off and land for a particular route; so when the flight corridors or runways or boarding gates that connect Dallas and Houston get saturated, and the highways are in gridlock too, one way to increase capacity, and flexibility is by adding a rail option.

Last edited by cooker; 03-13-18 at 02:36 PM.
cooker is offline  
Old 03-13-18, 05:26 PM
  #44  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,755

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike,2011 CF Specialized Tarmac road bike. 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1193 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
Toronto to Montreal and/or Ottawa of course. And yes, part of the motivation is that air travel can be a pain. Even the slow trains we have now compete somewhat effectively against air for middle distance (300-500 km) travel, because they go downtown to downtown and are well served by hotels, restaurants and conference facilities often within walking distance or a very short cab ride. In fact even air works best if there is a local train at each end. Also a more comfortable seat, faster loading and unloading, easy to get up and stretch your legs, and (so far, thank God) much easier security procedures. It only takes a bit longer and it is more useable time, not as fractured as air travel time with its landing and takeoff precautions around using electronics, headphones etc.

Also airports are hugely expensive infrastructure too, and have a huge impact on surrounding properties, with a lot of resistance to expansion, and there are or will be various limiting factors in how many flights can take off and land for a particular route; so when the flight corridors or runways or boarding gates that connect Dallas and Houston get saturated, and the highways are in gridlock too, one way to increase capacity, and flexibility is by adding a rail option.

Hyperloop is not rail however and they have to deal with ROW concerns as does regular rail. Air routes can be changed from the cabin of the plain rail and hyperloop need all new delivery system. As I said Passenger rail is or at least has not been profitable in the US for a number of years, the profit made on a few routes in the east doesn't come close to paying for passenger rail in the US today. Plus while you might get away from the terminal quicker the ontime rate for rail can be horrid. Making connection is pretty hard to predict. We in the US may indeed see and upsurge in light rail for short hops. Trains today have the same limiting factors as the Bus or Planes. Maybe more than buses because it is harder to add trains to a route. Like I said here they will have a long road to hoe trying to sell rail to the public at 78 billion for a route between LA and San Francisco. I just don't believe digging a tunnel to put in a tube will be more cost effective.

You may have a different method of getting ROW in Canada but here in the US Hyperloop would be one of the few ways to get anyone interested in something like HSR. Here in California there have been challenges to the HSR for years and every time they get to another city or County they go back to court. I agree that if this happens it isn't going to happen in the US first.

Last edited by Mobile 155; 03-13-18 at 05:34 PM.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 03-13-18, 09:42 PM
  #45  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,674

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3258 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
Yes, but if you remember your Newton's laws you know that getting a lighter object up to speed takes less force than it does a heavier one. A=F/M. the object of the Hyperloop is to get it up to speed quickly and create a vacuum to lower friction. Building a larger tube with a large object to shoot down the tube requires more force to start it and more to stop it. And they haven't agreed on a full vacuum yet.
Rail is a bit like the hyperloop in that the cars draft off each other like cyclists in a paceline, so in a sense each rail car creates a partial vaccuum that assists the next car.

The hyperloop can't accelerate or decelerate too fast as it will injure or strain the occupants. And the rate of acceleration is not critically important. If it accelerates up to speed in two minutes instead of 30 seconds, that still adds a lot less than two minutes to a 90 minute trip or whatever it turns out to be.

Also it can use air resistance for braking. For example if a vehicle in the tube has a fan or jet that sucks up the air in front of it and blows it out the back, just turning that down or off will immediately cause air pressure to build up in front, slowing the vehicle down.

Last edited by cooker; 03-13-18 at 09:47 PM.
cooker is offline  
Old 03-14-18, 03:38 AM
  #46  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 50,387

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2307 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Machka View Post
Yes ... perhaps there, maybe in places like Japan or China. But certainly not the US. The US has a long, long way to go to catch up to other countries.
Maybe in places like China ...

Hyperloop competitor: China building ?flying train? capable of 4,000km/h speeds



Hyperloop ... and currently ...

"China already has more high speed railways than any other country, and trains travelling from Beijing to Shanghai will be able to reach speeds of up to 350km/h from next month."
Machka is offline  
Old 03-14-18, 08:23 AM
  #47  
cooker
Prefers Cicero
 
cooker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 12,674

Bikes: 1984 Trek 520; 1990s Peugeot (Canadian-made) rigid mountain bike; 2007 Bike Friday NWT; misc others

Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3258 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Mobile 155 View Post
Hyperloop is not rail however and they have to deal with ROW concerns as does regular rail. Air routes can be changed from the cabin of the plain rail and hyperloop need all new delivery system. As I said Passenger rail is or at least has not been profitable in the US for a number of years, the profit made on a few routes in the east doesn't come close to paying for passenger rail in the US today. Plus while you might get away from the terminal quicker the ontime rate for rail can be horrid. Making connection is pretty hard to predict. We in the US may indeed see and upsurge in light rail for short hops. Trains today have the same limiting factors as the Bus or Planes. Maybe more than buses because it is harder to add trains to a route. Like I said here they will have a long road to hoe trying to sell rail to the public at 78 billion for a route between LA and San Francisco. I just don't believe digging a tunnel to put in a tube will be more cost effective.

You may have a different method of getting ROW in Canada but here in the US Hyperloop would be one of the few ways to get anyone interested in something like HSR. Here in California there have been challenges to the HSR for years and every time they get to another city or County they go back to court. I agree that if this happens it isn't going to happen in the US first.
They solved the highspeed rail issue in denser areas like France, Germany and Japan because the have the population to support it and the public are already favourably inclined to use rail. So we will probably have more success in implementing it in North America where it connects population centres that are already served by rail, like the US eastern seabord and the Toronto Montreal corridor. Right of ways already exist, but might need to be straightened, but at least that will only require some new segments, not a whole new route. Or, maybe large new rural segnments will be built.

Hyperloop is still literally a pipe dream and it may or may not happen. If it does, it's hard for me to believe that drilling a 500 km tunnel is cost effective. I bet hyperloops will be underground in developed areas and on stilts in rural areas. We have precedents:

cooker is offline  
Old 03-14-18, 02:15 PM
  #48  
Mobile 155
Senior Member
 
Mobile 155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,755

Bikes: 72-76 Peugeot, 89 Klein Quantum Road Bike,2011 CF Specialized Tarmac road bike. 2013 Haro FL Comp 29er MTB.

Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1193 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
They solved the highspeed rail issue in denser areas like France, Germany and Japan because the have the population to support it and the public are already favourably inclined to use rail. So we will probably have more success in implementing it in North America where it connects population centres that are already served by rail, like the US eastern seabord and the Toronto Montreal corridor. Right of ways already exist, but might need to be straightened, but at least that will only require some new segments, not a whole new route. Or, maybe large new rural segnments will be built.

Hyperloop is still literally a pipe dream and it may or may not happen. If it does, it's hard for me to believe that drilling a 500 km tunnel is cost effective. I bet hyperloops will be underground in developed areas and on stilts in rural areas. We have precedents:
ROW exist here but the government doesn't own them. SO a private party will have to buy or lease the ROW from the major freight hauler that already has the ROW. Canada may be different, China is different as is Dubai .

Here there is little political will for the government to intercede.
Mobile 155 is offline  
Old 03-14-18, 04:30 PM
  #49  
tandempower
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,888
Mentioned: 87 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7547 Post(s)
Originally Posted by cooker View Post
So we will probably have more success in implementing it in North America where it connects population centres that are already served by rail, like the US eastern seabord and the Toronto Montreal corridor.
Imo, what would be smart would be to build the hyperloop tunnel on pylons above the existing rail corridor or I95 corridor connecting New England with Florida/Orlando. That way, people could come south during the winter without driving and/or renting cars, and many more people could visit theme parks and beaches without clogging up the roadways with motor-traffic.
tandempower is offline  
Old 03-14-18, 07:39 PM
  #50  
Machka 
In Real Life
 
Machka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 50,387

Bikes: Lots

Mentioned: 103 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2307 Post(s)
Originally Posted by tandempower View Post
Imo, what would be smart would be to build the hyperloop tunnel on pylons above the existing rail corridor or I95 corridor connecting New England with Florida/Orlando. That way, people could come south during the winter without driving and/or renting cars, and many more people could visit theme parks and beaches without clogging up the roadways with motor-traffic.
That wouldn't be expensive at all!!

Machka is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service