The Future of Hyperloop in the UK

[jon0844]

Would a more viable (though still implausible) target for Hyperloop be freight containers?
Far fewer safety and comfort issues, just keep slinging them down the tube with front and back panels (using the container itself for structural strength).
Big old tunnel if done here unless you developed a new small standard container that used a tunnel sized like big sewers. Pallets into city centres from rail fed out of town distribution hubs?

That could actually be a good idea. Imagine Amazon shipping goods quickly from one distribution point to another. No need for people to put themselves at risk, and a series of 'trains' running from the same place, to the same place. Much like a network of tubes that supermarkets used to use (do they still?) to send money upstairs from each till.

Far more practical than this idea of moving a small number of people in a small tube for hundreds of miles with limited capacity and a high danger risk if there's a rupture for any reason; earthquake, deliberate act etc.

 

[edwin_m]

I can't see a few hours saving in transit times for bulk freight justifying an entirely new route over a long enough distance to deliver that saving. For time-sensitive freight there is already the air option.

 

[jon0844]

I can't see a few hours saving in transit times for bulk freight justifying an entirely new route over a long enough distance to deliver that saving. For time-sensitive freight there is already the air option.

I agree, but I was trying to think of something it could be good for. As a way of getting people around, I think it's a terrible idea.

High-speed rail would be fine for most people, with loads more flexibility if built well. It may not be as fast, but it has the means to move a LOT of people which is probably more important.

 

[Lucan]

That could actually be a good idea. Imagine Amazon shipping goods quickly from one distribution point to another.

Moving goods from one distribution point to another is not the main time consumer, whether by road or rail (if the latter could get its act together). The time it takes to get stuff from Amazon or by any other form of Internet or phone order is dominated by reaction, handling and trans-loading times.

Here in South Wales, if I order stuff eg from a place in Swindon it takes typically 48 hours to reach me - but the road trip can only be an hour. Cutting that hour down to 5 minutes with Hyperloop will merely reduce the delivery time to 47 hours and 5 minutes. Big deal. Is that worth investing billions for? As we are talking about small premium stuff, the fleets of delivery drones that Amazon have proposed would cut a lot of trans-loading delays and be far cheaper.

 

[MarkyT]

Moving goods from one distribution point to another is not the main time consumer, whether by road or rail (if the latter could get its act together). The time it takes to get stuff from Amazon or by any other form of Internet or phone order is dominated by reaction, handling and trans-loading times.

Here in South Wales, if I order stuff eg from a place in Swindon it takes typically 48 hours to reach me - but the road trip can only be an hour. Cutting that hour down to 5 minutes with Hyperloop will merely reduce the delivery time to 47 hours and 5 minutes. Big deal. Is that worth investing billions for? As we are talking about small premium stuff, the fleets of delivery drones that Amazon have proposed would cut a lot of trans-loading delays and be far cheaper.

A better more practical alternative for the 'medium mile' would be something like magway, which is envisioned as a much simpler slower system for freight, in a smaller plastic pipe, with no vacuum.
https://www.magway.com/

A High-Capacity Delivery System
Magway is a revolutionary e-commerce delivery system that improves air quality and congestion by removing significant number of parcels and the delivery vans that carry them, from highways and urban areas. Combining its proprietary technology with existing tried and tested solutions Magway delivers goods more reliably, with greater predictability and at a significantly reduced operating cost. Capital investment is also substantially reduced and the system is inherently safer, independent of weather conditions and more secure than road transport.

Integration with automated warehousing and picking systems seems to be their aim here and I've read elsewhere they're working together with leading online grocer Ocado, who developed all their own warehouse automation technology. While magway doesn't need to be in a pipe all the time I guess the pipe helps with security and weather proofing. Not ever having people in the pods (apart, perhaps, from staff in a maintenance vehicle* when regular service is blocked on a particular section) makes the whole thing much easier from a safety point of view.
* Ideally most routine inspection and maintenance should also be automated or remotely controlled so as not to require human access to the pipes, just as with utility applications where sometimes the pipe is physically too small to accommodate a human anyway.

 

[jon0844]

Sometimes the more simple solutions are best. Hyperloop is dead in the water IMO. Level five self-driving cars are still way off (and may never happen unless we stop them mixing with people and real people driving). Drones delivering goods was never serious either, whatever Amazon might have said, and even less likely now it's probable there will be tighter controls on drone flying (that and the fact people would almost certain seek to bring them down from the sky!).

 

[Clip]

Here in South Wales, if I order stuff eg from a place in Swindon it takes typically 48 hours to reach me - but the road trip can only be an hour. Cutting that hour down to 5 minutes with Hyperloop will merely reduce the delivery time to 47 hours and 5 minutes. Big deal. Is that worth investing billions for? As we are talking about small premium stuff, the fleets of delivery drones that Amazon have proposed would cut a lot of trans-loading delays and be far cheaper.

Not sure you quite understand logistics here but it really would cut down your delivery much more than you think

 

[The Ham]

Current Hyperloop photos/mockups show seatbelts and it seems to be the plan that all passengers (and staff) would remain seated for the entire journey. That could increase the maximum permissible decceleration quite considerably; ordinary cars can achieve over 10m/s^2 without causing injury. Plugging those sorts numbers into the relevant "SUVAT" formulas gives a braking distance of approximately 4km and time of 30s.

Also, some concept images of larger "pods" do seem to have seating for 30+ passengers, so maximum capacity could be as high as around 3600 per hour. That's not too bad, roughly equivalent to the seated capacity of 6 class 390 Pendolinos.

However, the real downsides include the psychological problems caused by having no windows (people just don't feel safe in such conditions), the lack of compatibility with existing transport networks and the cost of construction (which, despite Mr. Musk's ideas, is very unlikely to be any less than those for a conventional high-speed railway line).

Road design assumes that cars can undertake a stop at a rate of 0.45g so as to allow for the road surface being wet. With Highway Code emergency stopping based on 0.65g. As such a stopping force greater than 1g (what is proposed above) would be fairly uncomfortable. Probably to the extent that you'd want to travel backwards to make it better.

HS2 is proposed to have >15tph. However even at 12tph the capacity from two lines (one in each direction) would be 13,200 (or over 3.5 times the capacity). As such you'd need over 7 hyperloop tubes to have the same capacity.

 

[Roose]

Interesting article late last year in La Vie du Rail by François Lacôte ('world expert on high-speed rail') describing Hyperloop as a great techno-intellectual fraud.

• Unfulfilled promise of Bertin's Aerotrain, German Transrapid, Japanese Maglev and Swissmetro.
• Problems of air resistance or use of semi-evacuated tube (How do you get passengers from atmospheric pressure into vehicle in a vacuum? Vehicle leak - instant death for passengers?)
• 10km safety zone between vehicles at 900km/h? (1000 passengers/hour cf high-speed rail 20000/hour)
• Tube geometry: curve horizontally at 50km radius (for passenger comfort similar to HSR), vertically at 200km radius (to achieve design speed); implications for infrastructure?

 

[edwin_m]

I would guess the Hyperloop capsules are intended to rotate in the tube to give effectively a much greater tilt angle than a tilting train and therefore the possibility of using a somewhat tighter horizontal radius than would be needed for a train at a similar speed. Planes tilt to similar large angles but for different reasons and they over-compensate for the curving forces so people feel the tilting. Whether people would feel ill with extreme tilt angles and near-zero lateral acceleration is probably yet another of the "human factors" that haven't been thought about.

 

[Lucan]

Wrt the French article, I can't read French at that level, but getting the passengers into the vehicle is technically feasible with an airlocks arrangement, but requiring a very high level of reliability that won't be cheap either to make or to maintain. Remember that a lot of Musk's claims hinge on Hypeloop being cheaper than HS Rail.

On the safety zone (ie vehicle separation) Musk and his supporters do not propose to keep vehicles a stopping distance apart as conventional rail does (or road is supposed to). They propose to run them close together and rely on automation and communication to slow them all down together if there is a some sort of stoppage ahead - I find this the most scary aspect of Hyperloop. But Musk is relying on sweet-talking Hyperloop out of being required to follow normal railway safety practice, and/or on the ignorance of US politicians of such safety practice. It is fundamental to the Hyperloop viability to claim that "it is not a railway/railroad".

The severe restricion on curvature is also a point I raised in my post above (#57). In particular the point debunks claims that the Hyperloop can be built cheaply like an oil pipe line. Even the more sensible claims of Hyperloop proponents involve g levels that are beyond established comfort or sickness inducing levels.

 

[GreatAuk]

On the safety zone (ie vehicle separation) Musk and his supporters do not propose to keep vehicles a stopping distance apart as conventional rail does (or road is supposed to). They propose to run them close together and rely on automation and communication to slow them all down together if there is a some sort of stoppage ahead - I find this the most scary aspect of Hyperloop. But Musk is relying on sweet-talking Hyperloop out of being required to follow normal railway safety practice, and/or on the ignorance of US politicians of such safety practice. It is fundamental to the Hyperloop viability to claim that "it is not a railway/railroad".

I quite agree... It seems to me that the only way to achieve the extraordinarily ambitious cost targets and stated capacities are to ignore all technical, operational, regulatory, safety, and political considerations.

I tend to think that between one and two orders of magnitude more expensive per passenger than the Japanese maglev Shinkansen currently under construction seems like a reasonable guesstimate for a realistic cost.

That said if the line in the UAE or wherever it is turns out to be a roaring success I'll happily reconsider.... Although even then it's worth remembering what a different environment (in all senses) the UAE is versus the UK.

 

[jon0844]

I quite agree... It seems to me that the only way to achieve the extraordinarily ambitious cost targets and stated capacities are to ignore all technical, operational, regulatory, safety, and political considerations.

I tend to think that between one and two orders of magnitude more expensive per passenger than the Japanese maglev Shinkansen currently under construction seems like a reasonable guesstimate for a realistic cost.

That said if the line in the UAE or wherever it is turns out to be a roaring success I'll happily reconsider.... Although even then it's worth remembering what a different environment (in all senses) the UAE is versus the UK.

Wasn't that how Tesla started? Throwing caution to the wind. Developing 'auto pilot' functions that were far from fully autonomous yet allowed customers (through Elon's clever marketing) to take their hands off the wheel or even change seat. And die.

In terms of safety, a warning on the screen perhaps isn't enough but presumably keeps it legal.

 

[Lucan]

Wasn't that how Tesla started? Throwing caution to the wind.

Just for the record, the Tesla company was not started by Musk, he bought into it. The idea of battery powered cars was not a new one of course (in 1985 my company had an internal taxi service around London using an electric crew bus), more of a revival.

Tesla's Autopilot (introduced 10 years after the company was founded) has been a disaster though, with its problems represented by its mis-name - because it cannot automatically pilot the car, only assist, whatever that means. As 100% concentration is still required from the driver*, and modern cars require virtually zero effort to turn the steering wheel or use the brake, there is really no point in the Autopilot other than as a typical Musk marketing and publicity point.

* In fact the 100% concentration required is more intense than that of conventional driving, because the user must not only make the normal driving decisions and judgements continuously (in case Autopilot gets it wrong), but he must also constantly be making the further decision of whether to intervene or not. Needless to say, many Autopilot users neglect to supply that degree of concentration and have consequently failed to intervene in those situations where intervention was needed, hence the crashes.

 

[PeterC]

Not sure you quite understand logistics here but it really would cut down your delivery much more than you think

I looked at the DPD log for a recent delivery that I had. Picked up from South London at close of business and taken to a sorting hub in the Midlands. Trucked overnight to a delivery centre in the Home Counties and delivered to me at lunchtime. With that model you cannot eliminate road from the pick up or delivery which leaves the trunk haul currently down the M1. However much you cut that down it won't get the product delivered any earlier.

 

[jon0844]

Just for the record, the Tesla company was not started by Musk, he bought into it. The idea of battery powered cars was not a new one of course (in 1985 my company had an internal taxi service around London using an electric crew bus), more of a revival.

Tesla's Autopilot (introduced 10 years after the company was founded) has been a disaster though, with its problems represented by its mis-name - because it cannot automatically pilot the car, only assist, whatever that means. As 100% concentration is still required from the driver*, and modern cars require virtually zero effort to turn the steering wheel or use the brake, there is really no point in the Autopilot other than as a typical Musk marketing and publicity point.

* In fact the 100% concentration required is more intense than that of conventional driving, because the user must not only make the normal driving decisions and judgements continuously (in case Autopilot gets it wrong), but he must also constantly be making the further decision of whether to intervene or not. Needless to say, many Autopilot users neglect to supply that degree of concentration and have consequently failed to intervene in those situations where intervention was needed, hence the crashes.

Take away autopilot and the clever (but not new) idea of restricting features in software so can do upgrades 'over the air', Tesla cars aren't even that amazing in terms of build quality or reliability. And the batteries are off-the-shelf designs, albeit built in huge quantities to get prices down.

But Elon has done a great job of making it sound like they're not really cars - they're some futuristic vehicle that uses our roads. Even other electric cars are still based on old technology. He's done what Steve Jobs did for Apple and created fanboys that will defend the brand to the death and ignore all the controversy. Heck, touchscreens are pretty poor way to manage functions in a car compared to real buttons and feedback from users is nearly always negative (but now every car maker seems to be fitting them).

Autopilot to me sounds like not much different to a lot of other cars. My dad has a car with adaptive cruise control, and very limited lane steering (it will give a gentle nudge if you wander lane, and assist slightly to get you back on track. It gets harder if you keep going, unless you indicate in which case it allows you to do so unhindered). It can't take the car around a corner, but it's enough that you can drive with minimal effort, but always with your hands on the wheel and you foot ready to brake in an emergency. Yes the car will slow and even stop by itself, and then go again, making driving in traffic easy but when I've driven the car I still prefer to slow before the car might do so (even though it maintains a safe stopping distance, it does brake quite aggressively which is fine for you but what about the car behind you?).

It also seems that Tesla has found that it can't really do things cheaper than anyone else. The new model that was meant to be so cheap everyone would have one has been full of problems, and they only sell the more expensive models now anyway. You simply can't get the base model at all. And as before, Elon has to ask for more funding for new developments to keep the current business going. It's pretty much just one giant pyramid scheme IMO.

Since the Thailand incident and other stupid social media comments, I expect he'll take more of a backseat in the future. Just as Ryanair told Michael O'Leary to take a break from the spotlight.

 

[Clip]

I looked at the DPD log for a recent delivery that I had. Picked up from South London at close of business and taken to a sorting hub in the Midlands. Trucked overnight to a delivery centre in the Home Counties and delivered to me at lunchtime. With that model you cannot eliminate road from the pick up or delivery which leaves the trunk haul currently down the M1. However much you cut that down it won't get the product delivered any earlier.

Well you seem to have had yours in less than the 48 hours the person i quoted so its still feasible - its the first and last legs of any parcel delivery which slow it down but as you will note from your description - the places it has been to are also the problem if its had to go to the midlands before its gone to the home counties - theres possibilities everywhere to reduce the time

 

[cb a1]

I looked at the DPD log for a recent delivery that I had. Picked up from South London at close of business and taken to a sorting hub in the Midlands. Trucked overnight to a delivery centre in the Home Counties and delivered to me at lunchtime. With that model you cannot eliminate road from the pick up or delivery which leaves the trunk haul currently down the M1. However much you cut that down it won't get the product delivered any earlier.

What is an item doing in the time between arriving at X and departing X? If it's all handling time then a freight hyperloop will provide no benefit.

However, if a lot of that time is waiting for a driver and vehicle to be available then it may be that a freight hyperloop could provide a significant reduction in the time from 'order' to 'delivery'*.

Whilst this doesn't apply to your specific scenario, I would expect** that a lot of freight traffic is business to business*** with delivery to final customer being a relatively small part of the sector.

* I'm not sure how important this actually is. I can see the argument when it is say a part needed to fix a fault, but beyond that I'm less clear what the benefits are?
** I've tried to do a quick google on this, but not sure how to find statistics on this.
*** I would also expect a lot of the business to business freight will be businesses which operate 24/7 but again this is merely speculation and I don't have any evidence to back up what is essentially a hunch.

 

[nidave]

How would the tubes deal with themal expansion? Wont it cause isses with keepng the pressure correct as you would need expansion joints - if not there is going to be a nasty kink on a hot day

 

[MarkyT]

...Even the more sensible claims of Hyperloop proponents involve g levels that are beyond established comfort or sickness inducing levels.

And with no toilets on board because the journey times are supposed to be so short. Won't be very pleasant trapped on board for an extended wait following a failure. If they had to evacuate for any reason mid section, they would presumably have to destroy the vacuum in the main tube which would take a very long time to reestablish.

 

[jon0844]

There are so many issues that it's amazing the likes of CNET, Wired and big TV networks lap it all up and don't ask any questions at all, besides maybe stuff like 'oh Elon, how are you such a genius?' while Tweeting from their personal accounts how happy they were to have met him.

 

[edwin_m]

And with no toilets on board because the journey times are supposed to be so short. Won't be very pleasant trapped on board for an extended wait following a failure. If they had to evacuate for any reason mid section, they would presumably have to destroy the vacuum in the main tube which would take a very long time to reestablish.

In the event of loss of pressure an aircraft only needs to supply emergency oxygen for long enough to descend to a safe altitude. If the same happened on a passenger Hyperloop it would need to be supplied for long enough for the loss to be detected and that part of the tube brought safely to atmospheric pressure, with no doubt greater health risks from a long-duration event. Also how do they move an immobilised vehicle or evacuate the passengers to the nearest escape hatch?

 

[birchesgreen]

There are so many issues that it's amazing the likes of CNET, Wired and big TV networks lap it all up and don't ask any questions at all, besides maybe stuff like 'oh Elon, how are you such a genius?' while Tweeting from their personal accounts how happy they were to have met him.

Because there is a general lack of science or engineering knowledge among journalists these days?

 

[Lucan]

In the event of loss of pressure an aircraft only needs to supply emergency oxygen for long enough to descend to a safe altitude. If the same happened on a passenger Hyperloop it would need to be supplied for long enough ..

The vacuum in the Hyperloop tube will be 1/1000 th of an atmosphere (unless Musk has moved the goalposts lately). If a passenger pod within that tube lost its pressure, everyone inside would die within about 30 seconds, oxygen or not. They would not be a pretty sight. There is no comparison with aircraft.

 

[jon0844]

Because there is a general lack of science or engineering knowledge among journalists these days?

Nobody expects journalists to be experts, but they should know how to ask questions. And over time, which they've all had plenty of, they could do some basic research and see what other people are saying. Nobody should take everything that someone like thunderf00t says as gospel either, but it must set some alarm bells ringing and perhaps prompt some tougher questions the next time Elon is talking about it (not that he seems that interested in it these days, having moved on to his glorified car tunnel).

I really do think that people are in such awe of Elon Musk that they'd never dare question him. And given how Elon can fight back on social media, maybe that's not a bad idea.

 

[birchesgreen]

I think they largely just regurgitate press releases these days

 

[dgl]

Nobody expects journalists to be experts, but they should know how to ask questions. And over time, which they've all had plenty of, they could do some basic research and see what other people are saying. Nobody should take everything that someone like thunderf00t says as gospel either, but it must set some alarm bells ringing and perhaps prompt some tougher questions the next time Elon is talking about it (not that he seems that interested in it these days, having moved on to his glorified car tunnel).

I really do think that people are in such awe of Elon Musk that they'd never dare question him. And given how Elon can fight back on social media, maybe that's not a bad idea.

At least Thunderf00t is a real scientist, and supposedly a pretty good one at that. So, when he talks on a subject there must be some fact to it.

 

[gingerheid]

I don't think this would have a good social effect on the UK. The only reason for using it for freight would be to simplify supply chains; ie centralise more. We don't need that, and I don't think we should want it either.

 

[jon0844]

At least Thunderf00t is a real scientist, and supposedly a pretty good one at that. So, when he talks on a subject there must be some fact to it.

His fault is he repeats himself too much, but a lot of YouTubers do this to ensure their videos are of a certain length for promotional value. Generally that means never anything less than ten minutes.

It can turn people off and it also likely means a lot of people never hear what he has to say becuase they have short attention spans. The likes of Elon Musk and Tim Cook (even Donald Trump) talk soundbites.

 

[An_Engineer]

Putting my engineer hat on. There is nothing about the concept and technology that seems impossible, and all issues look solvable................ for a price.

The price is where I would think it will fail (and indeed has seen off other rail competitors). I find it unlikely that a long de-pressurized high tolerance tube will be any cheaper than two parallel tracks of metal (which is essentially what rail is). The financial estimates for hyperloop seem to be extremely disingenuous, by neglecting all sorts of items that are actually vital for a mass transport system.

eg.
The initial plans are end to end only, no possibility of alternate destinations or intermediate stops. Want extra routes on the same line? You'll have to pay for extremely expensive switching equipment (diverting an entire tube metal tube???). No? Okay instead, how about instead we build a completely separate line? Yes that will cost even more. You mentioned intermediate stops? Not going to happen if you want to maintain line speed. Safety equipment? Well you'll probably want regular escape routes, good air ventilation, fail safe signalling, monitoring equipment, maintenance (which will be a lot more expensive on a tube than on rails). etc

Basically, as has been mentioned, the high costs of rail are very little to do with the basic technology (very simple), and much more to do with all the extras, the safety equipment, the maintenance, the use case etc. The hyperloop has all the same issues as rail but on steroids, and with all the associated costs that entails (promoters of hyperloop generally sweep these issues under a rug). Add to that the low capacity, and I struggle to see that there will be enough users (either passengers or freight) willing to pay such a high price for the convenience. Remember, Concorde was not a failure of technology, it was a failure of the economics of that technology.