Currently, vast amounts of freight moves by railroad, a proven, moderately cheap to construct and maintain, energy-efficient mode of transport.
So why would an expensive, unproven new technology look attractive? Is there some huge added value in moving freight rapidly? It’s hard to see where this comes from, and thus how any “enormous” ROI is possible.
Some Googling suggests that existing high-speed rail transport strongly focuses on carrying passengers rather than freight. Clearly, hyperloop freight could become a competitor to air freight (on the limited number of routes it serves - the problem of serving many destinations looks formidable).
Good questions. Hyperloop may be cheaper than train transportation and maybe better for perishables? True, things like lumber and coal probably aren’t time sensitive and train or even water travel will probably be slower to be replaced. I was thinking mostly of how many millions of trucks are plying the interstates from coast to coast every day and how expensive that is per ton per mile. But the biggest benefit of starting with freight will be to demonstrate its speed and safety to potential passengers.
Assuming it’s feasible at all, of course. I have no opinion about that because it’s no fun not imagining it.
No argument there. It’s just that your statement in post #253 sort of implied the opposite–that they could somehow increase their odds of success simply by tamping down the hype. I don’t think it would work that way even if a correlation were found.
Interesting examples you have there, and I think I see the difference in our perspectives. I had been thinking strictly in 20th century terms because (as I see it) technology didn’t really exist in a recognizably modern form before that point. Obviously there were many inventions and discoveries before then, but they didn’t quite capture the public’s interest in the same way, and so as you say hype didn’t really exist before then.
I’m sure one could write many volumes on why there’s a difference. Maybe there was a threshold effect, where at one point the disruptive inventions were coming so fast and furiously that it became difficult to imagine exciting new things not being world-changing. One hardly noticed the low success rate because there was always something more current that was massively successful.
True, but you can’t ignore the hype around average people crossing the Atlantic in a matter of hours. That actually happened, and entirely lived up to the hype.
At any rate, I think we actually agree more than disagree, but perhaps have different selection criteria for what constitutes hype. I’ll just say that the Hyperloop will live or die virtually independently of how its hyped. About the only way I can see an influence is if the success becomes somehow tied to public fickleness–say, if it’s built as a politician’s pet project. But that’s a different argument completely.
It is very rare for new technology to come in on schedule and under budget. I doubt if Hyperloop will be an exception.
Does anyone here remember when they first heard about Maglev?
Tell us what your reaction was. Mine was somewhat along the line of “Wow, this is going to be really big”. But probably none of the rest of you were so gullible.
The dominant reason anything is shipped by truck rather than train is that trucks can go anywhere, including right up to the loading dock of the factory or Wal-Mart. Trains, while much cheaper and more efficient, can only go where the tracks are. A freight hyperloop might therefore be able to compete with freight trains, but it cannot compete with freight trucks.
A significant issue here is that Hyperloop will not be able to compete directly with trucks: at the hyperloop terminal the stuff it moves will have to be loaded on trucks to make it to the final destination.
I agree that it would be highly desirable to have a pathway that allows the technology to develop, be profitable, and prove itself. I’m a bit skeptical that competing with freight railroads offers that.
So my initial reaction months ago (read my first posts) was that it may be technically feasible, but its a failed business idea from the get go.
Here’s my new thoughts.
I read the first paragraph and LAUGHED! this seems to be the EXACT SAME WORDS I read when I first learned about Dean Kamen’s IT (or GInger) that turned out to be the Segway. If you haven’t heard, IT didn’t live up to the hype and is now the poster child for a failed business idea. (really, it is) From Hype to Disaster: Segway's Timeline - WSJ
I note how they are now backing away from the original pie in the sky ideas. As reality sets in they are realizing what they can and can’t do technically and at what cost (i.e Las Vegas route instead of California, Freight instead of people, scaled down sizes)
importantly…its not IF they CAN do it…its IF they SHOULD do it. THe first thing they need to do is spend a few weeks learning about Lean Startup. Cripes, Stanford is practically right up the road…spend 0.0001% of your planned time and money and just go build a business model case. Who do you think your customers are? what value do you think you bring to them? THen go out and validate those ideas by simply asking your proposed customers some questions.
It’s not a 100% failure from a technology POV though. Here in Shanghai right now, there’s a spin-off of the segway that’s quite popular. Basically it’s just a wheel with footpads either side of it. That’s it. You lean forwards to go forwards and backwards to stop. And because it’s so small, you can carry it by its handle, like a briefcase, and take it into your home to charge it.
For various reasons I doubt that this will ever achieve massive success like, say, the bicycle. But the reuse of principles from the segway in a somewhat unexpected way, suggests to me this isn’t the last you’ll hear about it. It’s not like the Sinclair C5 again; it’s more like the segway was a good idea but just not the right form factor.
Resurrecting this old thread because it’s 2023, ten years since we first were told that Hyperloop was coming ‘soon’. There is no Hyperloop. There are none under construction anywhere in the world that I know of. The metal expansion issues have not been addressed as far as I can tell. The safety issues have not been addressed.
We are no closer to ‘hyperloop’ than we were ten years ago, despite all the breathless reporting from the garbage tech press. All we’ve done was consume many hundreds of millions of dollars of investment capital on fiberglass mockups and tiny ‘test’ tracks that don’t address the real problems. Virgin Hyperloop spent $350 million and then gave up. Hyperloop TT promised a track in Dubai in 2018, didn’t make it. So they said 2020. Missed that too. Then they said 2023. And all they have to show today are some renders.
Most of the hyperloop startups are bankrupt. None of them did any engineering that actually advanced Hyperloop.
Hyperloop seems to me to be an artifact of the era of easy money looking for investments. Most of those Hyperloop companies were designed more to extract money from investors and governments than to actually build a useful transportation system.
They aren’t stopping, though. Currently a company is lobbying Alberta hard to fund a Hyperloop. And we’re stupid enough to give them money to try. And it’s generating the same kind of hype in the garbage tech press.
I love this:
Note they didn’t mention that Virgin Hyperloop doesn’t exist any more, and that the ‘test run’ was a 100 mph jaunt down 500 meters of track - proving nothing, and solving no problems. But it made for good headlines and maybe some more funding.
A few points:
None of these other startups have anything to do with Musk. Musk produced the original whitepaper and threw a couple bucks toward some university competitions. Hyperloop TT, etc. are completely unrelated.
California High Speed Rail still does not exist, tens of billions of dollars later. It was approved by voters in 2008. And that’s with train technology that was outdated even then! So… we may have bigger problems with huge infrastructure projects than the basic technology.
In the meantime, SpaceX completely took over commercial launch and is now the sole provider of US crewed launch capability. Tesla has also grown from building tens of thousands of cars to millions. So, probably a good thing for Musk to have stayed focused on those other things.
It is kinda funny how the name has persisted. It’s a weird, basically meaningless name but somehow it stuck.
As for why nothing happened: I don’t think metal expansion is a showstopper; it wasn’t properly addressed in the original proposal, but there are numerous possible solutions.
I’d say the actual problems are two-fold:
It intersects with public infrastructure. And as we see with California HSR, even when the basic technology is off-the-shelf, actually building things collides with so many interested parties that it becomes virtually impossible. As an example, we get people fighting HSR with NIMBY tactics not because they really object to the train, but because they see it as a way of transporting undesirable people (from poorer places) into their community.
A project like this really needs a talented, rich, ultra-motivated “dictator” that can understand the technology and bulldoze away objections in the public sphere. There are probably only a few dozen people on the planet with the requisite talents, and none of them are working on it (they mostly have day jobs already). It’s not going to happen with dabblers or pure hype-masters.
I did get a fun article out of it, though. The concept appeared first in 1825 by Musk’s predecessor, The London and Edinburgh Vacuum Tunnel Company. Makes for interesting comparative reading.
Interesting throwback! At the time, I had no doubt that this was a whole lot of nothing. I figured that if someone with degrees in English like me could understand the towering technical issues and see the financial smoke that was being blown where smoke doesn’t go, then it really wouldn’t hold up with someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.
I was skimming the pdf (I’m astonished it’s still viewable) and gawked at this line:
The capacity would be on average 840 passengers per hour which is more than sufficient to transport all of the 6 million passengers traveling between Los Angeles and San Francisco areas per year
There’s so much bad stuff to unpack here, I don’t even know where to start.
They should have listened to the Straight Dope. We saw this train wreck coming a decade ago.
Good call indeed! And I didn’t even remember that when I resurrected the zombie.
What are the solutions? I still haven’t seen one. Also, in another thread I mentioned buckling from differential heating and other issues I haven’t seen addressed.
Actually, there is one solution: put the tube underground. It would cost a fortune and be totally not worth it, but as a technical solution it fixes most ofbthe other show-stoppers. Safety in the case of a failure gets worse, though.