It's 2020. SF to LA for $25 on Elon Musk's Hyperloop - Are you buying it?

[wraper]

A big failure doesn't mean decompression, it means implosion of some description.  The entire concept of making it work is practical insanity and doomed to failure.

All those examples of implosions and comparing them to Hyperloop are non informative BS to be frank. Imploding some tank which was designed to hold the pressure inside is not an indicator of how a properly designed vacuum container would perform. Say usual submarines operate at outside pressure of 30 times higher than atmospheric and nothing implodes. And deep diving submersibles with humans inside operated even at more than 1000 times of atmospheric pressure.

Those vacuum containers aren't hundred of km long. Good luck.

So what? It does not become easier to implode because of it's length. I see no issue at least for this particular argument. It's like saying that tube transferring natural gas should explode because of it's length (which actually is way more likely to happen).

[PlainName]

And that's marketing trickery 101.

Yes! Undoubtedly.

Which is why it's daft to debunk such stuff - it's made to impress whoever non-techy needs impressing, and trying to extract hard technical details... stuff is going to be glossed over at minimum.

But... this is Virgin. Recall when they started Virgin Galactic, and you could say pretty much exactly the same thing about that then. Now, they are very nearly going. Branson has managed similar with his airline and trains - there was a lot of sceptism that he could pull them off, but he did in the end. Yes, the trains are shit if you're a passenger but that's Brit trains for you

I think the only thing you can really take away from this is that Virgin's marketing videos tend to be quite a bit ahead of reality, so they probably aren't as up to speed as they make out. But will this actually materialise? Sure. Branson has done the maths. It may end up costing his investors a fortune but I reckon it's going to happen at some point and in some form, even if it's just for the prestige of being able to say they did it first.

[dropkick]

Nope. The California "high speed rail" project is a failed boondoggle already. Only a few tens of miles have been built in the middle of nowhere. Many of the physical routes have been changed from something sane and logical to just plain stupid so that certain travel time requirements in the government bids were met.  I know of one town where they wanted to run it right down the middle of the town, killing dozens of businesses (some are manufacturing/processing and have EPA grandfathering and couldn't be moved elsewhere without going bankrupt due to idiotic regulations).  This because putting it on the edge of town would add like 2 minutes.  The train never has been "high-speed". The top speed is 85mph. It was just a conventional railroad. No new technology. And let’s not mention the various mountain ranges to cross or some of the largest earthquake faults in North America.  How long would it take to repair an earthquake-caused break? Years?  Regular tracks and roads can be measured in days. Or just fly over the problem!

No one wants the people rail but the kickback-receiving politicians.  The rest of us can just get on a plane.  There isn't a huge demand for SF-LA traffic anyway.  The airlines handle it just fine.  And you can already take the train there if you really want to, mostly tourists and it's a much prettier view than the inside of a tube.  Remember SF is 500+km away from LA. Most people from LA consider going to SF and northern California like traveling to another state.  Las Vegas is 200km closer and that’s a trip in itself!   It's not like a maglev trip 15 miles away to the other side of town for your daily commute.  You’d still have to drive an hour in traffic to the airport/suckport/blowport, go thru security for another hour, etc   There would just be no demand.  The LA area already has two commuter train systems which are somewhat usable, but since the LA area is 1000+ sq. miles, if you don't live near it, it is completely useless.  It’s not like the NY subway where everything is crammed onto the tip of an island. (There are buses of course which not that many people use and are completely subsidized by the government.)  So where is the suckport going to be? Probably nowhere convenient for 95% of people. The 5 or so major airports are much closer if you really need to go to SF and visit the poop and needle filled streets!

[DougSpindler]

Do the math on California height speed rail.  What is the current projected cost to complete the project?  Take that number and decide that by the number of legal and illegal citizens in the state.  With Southwest and other airlines charging $100 for a flight from Oakland to Las Angles how many train tips will each illegal and legal citizen have to take to pay for the silly rail project?  I think last time I made the calculation it was 2,000 trips.  Then calculate the amount of time it would take every person to take that trip.  They’ll be dead.   The solution?  Increase the cost of the high-speed rail ticket $10,000.  People are going to pay that, right?  $100 by air, and $10,000 by rail.

Then we have to ask is rail earthquake proof like air traffic routes are?  The rail line will have to cross over several earth quake faults.  One of which in the past 200 years shifted the earth 20 feet sideways.  Would sure hate to be on that train when an earthquake happens  and there’s a new curve in the tack and 20 feet of it is missing.

And look at the other advantage of high speed rail.  The time savings.  High speed rail would take 4 - 4.5 travel time.  Airplane 45 minutes plus 1 hour for TSA unless you are TSA Pre.  Then it’s 15 minutes.  In just over 2 hours from Oakland I can be at anyone of 5 So Cal airports by air.  Or in 4.5 hours I can arrive in LA and take an Uber for another hour to get to one of the other airports.  Total travel time is now 5.5 hours by high speed rail.  But now lets factor in an hour to drive to the train station.  High speed rail is now 6.5 hours.  That’s longer than it would take me to drive. 

Yup, I can see why everyone who doesn’t have a brain is in favor of high speed rail.   

[wraper]

Do the math on California height speed rail.  What is the current projected cost to complete the project?  Take that number and decide that by the number of legal and illegal citizens in the state.  With Southwest and other airlines charging $100 for a flight from Oakland to Las Angles how many train tips will each illegal and legal citizen have to take to pay for the silly rail project?  I think last time I made the calculation it was 2,000 trips.  Then calculate the amount of time it would take every person to take that trip.  They’ll be dead.   The solution?  Increase the cost of the high-speed rail ticket $10,000.  People are going to pay that, right?  $100 by air, and $10,000 by rail.

It's a crap which turned several times more expensive that planned (even then it would be a very expensive shit) due to poor execution and uncontrolled hiring of money sucking consultants for which the main objective was sucking even more money. It's estimated to cost around $80 billion in total if finished. However your numbers are way off. CA population is 39.5 million, if you multiply it by $100 x 2000 it would be $7,9 trillion. Even if it was $10 per ticket, it still would be $790 billion.

[DougSpindler]

Do the math on California height speed rail.  What is the current projected cost to complete the project?  Take that number and decide that by the number of legal and illegal citizens in the state.  With Southwest and other airlines charging $100 for a flight from Oakland to Las Angles how many train tips will each illegal and legal citizen have to take to pay for the silly rail project?  I think last time I made the calculation it was 2,000 trips.  Then calculate the amount of time it would take every person to take that trip.  They’ll be dead.   The solution?  Increase the cost of the high-speed rail ticket $10,000.  People are going to pay that, right?  $100 by air, and $10,000 by rail.

It's a crap which turned several times more expensive that planned (even then it would be a very expensive shit) due to poor execution and uncontrolled hiring of money sucking consultants for which the main objective was sucking even more money. It's estimated to cost around $80 billion in total if finished. However your numbers are way off. CA population is 39.5 million, if you multiply it by $100 x 2000 it would be $7,9 trillion. Even if it was $10 per ticket, it still would be $790 billion.

Yeah, but you got my point. 

[Nusa]

You're throwing in artificial constraints. Who said all passengers have to be residents of the state? Who said you can't make money on cargo runs? Outside of the current COVID conditions, a great deal of travel is done by tourists, both foreign and domestic.

That said, I agree that the issues for new high speed transport options are economic and political. If those ever get solved, none of the technical issues are showstoppers.

[PlainName]

The rest of us can just get on a plane.

Not for much longer. Turns out 1% of people cause half of aviation emissions and the US is way out in front of everyone else for making the atmosphere smelly. Surely can't be long before flights are reduced, either because they'll be the pollution low-hanging fruit, or the airlines have gone bust because of everyone working from home, etc.

[Ed.Kloonk]

and the US is way out in front of everyone else for making the atmosphere smelly.

?

[dropkick]

No artificial contraints.  We already have a rail line up the coast which is what the tourists use/want.  Tourists are not going to sit in a dark tube. Actually there would probably be continous advertisments shown in place of windows! "Brought to you by Carl's Jr."

We already have plenty of rail lines for cargo from all our ports. How do you think all the junk from China gets into the rest of the U.S.?

This is simply a pipe dream. Even if it was finished, it's not high speed rail. Never has been or will be, other than words on paper. 20 years ago everyone was dreaming of a maglev from LA to Vegas. That never happened either!  It might have seen more use than an SF route, but we'd still be paying for it today and for another 20 years.

Long distance trains are for cargo, not people. I think we figured that out in the last century.

[DougSpindler]

Why would anyone taker high speed rail from Sf to LA when they can do it on a MegaBus in the nearly the same amount of time?  Or drive?  Then you don’t have to rent a car in LA.

Why on earth would cargo be sent on high speed rail when traditional rail would get in there a few hours later.  If the cargo needs to get there fast it would be sent like it is now by plane or courier.

[PlainName]

and the US is way out in front of everyone else for making the atmosphere smelly.

?

s/smelly/polluted
although to be fair CO₂ doesn't smell that much.

[PlainName]

Tourists are not going to sit in a dark tube.

Sure they will, at least until it becomes 'normal' and no longer a brownie-point selfie background.

[Nusa]

Why would anyone taker high speed rail from Sf to LA when they can do it on a MegaBus in the nearly the same amount of time?  Or drive?  Then you don’t have to rent a car in LA.

Why on earth would cargo be sent on high speed rail when traditional rail would get in there a few hours later.  If the cargo needs to get there fast it would be sent like it is now by plane or courier.

At least do the research before you say these things. Driving time: 6 hours 16 minutes. Megabus: Doesn't serve SF. Other Bus times: 8-12 hours. Train time: 10 hours 35 minutes average. Flight time 1 hour 29 minutes, plus an hour or more at the airport. Proposed high-speed rail time: under 2 hours 40 minutes, which would compete directly with air travel.

If the option existed at a reasonable price, I'd use it if I wanted to make that trip. Cars and parking aren't necessarily needed at either end, as both LA and SF have mass transit options. Heck, riding the SF cable cars is something everyone should do at least once. Functional slice of history!

[DougSpindler]

Why would anyone taker high speed rail from Sf to LA when they can do it on a MegaBus in the nearly the same amount of time?  Or drive?  Then you don’t have to rent a car in LA.

Why on earth would cargo be sent on high speed rail when traditional rail would get in there a few hours later.  If the cargo needs to get there fast it would be sent like it is now by plane or courier.

At least do the research before you say these things. Driving time: 6 hours 16 minutes. Megabus: Doesn't serve SF. Other Bus times: 8-12 hours. Train time: 10 hours 35 minutes average. Flight time 1 hour 29 minutes, plus an hour or more at the airport. Proposed high-speed rail time: under 2 hours 40 minutes, which would compete directly with air travel.

If the option existed at a reasonable price, I'd use it if I wanted to make that trip. Cars and parking aren't necessarily needed at either end, as both LA and SF have mass transit options. Heck, riding the SF cable cars is something everyone should do at least once. Functional slice of history!

Dude where are you getting your times?  I was regularly flying from OAK to LA, that flight is 45 minutes.  San Diego and Portland are 1:30.   There are many people from SF who have taken MeagBus from SF to LA.  Yes it doesn’t depart from SF, but that doesn’t present people in SF from taking it.
How the heck is the high speed train going to take only 2:40?  No way.  That is not what they are saying.

How the heck are you coming up with those crazy drive time?  Are you driving at “normal” I5 traffic speed?  Or are you driving at 55?  It’s not unheard of to make that trip in just over 4 hours by car.

[fourfathom]

How the heck are you coming up with those crazy drive time?  Are you driving at “normal” I5 traffic speed?  Or are you driving at 55?  It’s not unheard of to make that trip in just over 4 hours by car.

San Francisco to Los Angeles is about 400 miles via I-5 (the fastest route).  You would have to average 100 MPH to make that trip in 4 hours.  And you probably can't average more than 60 MPH for the first and last 50 miles of that trip (where the speed limits are 55 MPH and get lots of traffic).  The speed limit is 70 MPH for the middle portion of that trip, but 80 MPH is a fairly common actual speed. 

So "just over four hours"  I don't think so, and I've driven that route many times.

[Nusa]

Why would anyone taker high speed rail from Sf to LA when they can do it on a MegaBus in the nearly the same amount of time?  Or drive?  Then you don’t have to rent a car in LA.

Why on earth would cargo be sent on high speed rail when traditional rail would get in there a few hours later.  If the cargo needs to get there fast it would be sent like it is now by plane or courier.

At least do the research before you say these things. Driving time: 6 hours 16 minutes. Megabus: Doesn't serve SF. Other Bus times: 8-12 hours. Train time: 10 hours 35 minutes average. Flight time 1 hour 29 minutes, plus an hour or more at the airport. Proposed high-speed rail time: under 2 hours 40 minutes, which would compete directly with air travel.

If the option existed at a reasonable price, I'd use it if I wanted to make that trip. Cars and parking aren't necessarily needed at either end, as both LA and SF have mass transit options. Heck, riding the SF cable cars is something everyone should do at least once. Functional slice of history!

Dude where are you getting your times?  I was regularly flying from OAK to LA, that flight is 45 minutes.  San Diego and Portland are 1:30.   There are many people from SF who have taken MeagBus from SF to LA.  Yes it doesn’t depart from SF, but that doesn’t present people in SF from taking it.
How the heck is the high speed train going to take only 2:40?  No way.  That is not what they are saying.

How the heck are you coming up with those crazy drive time?  Are you driving at “normal” I5 traffic speed?  Or are you driving at 55?  It’s not unheard of to make that trip in just over 4 hours by car.

Google, of course. I did SFO-LAX (1:29 gate to gate, 56 mins in the air) instead of OAK-LAX (1:12 gate to gate, 56 min in the air). Clearly the difference is in ground waits and taxi times. Add having to arrive 90 minutes before departure time to be safe.

Megabus: their route map only shows the Los Angelas-Riverside-Las Vegas route running in California. If they had an SF run, that must have been before Covid and taken at least 7 hours. https://us.megabus.com/journey-planner/map

High speed rail time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail#Speed_requirements

Driving time: Googles driving time estimate. As the previous responder said, 4 hours doesn't pass the math check unless you aren't measuring from central SF to central LA, or drive way above the speed limit. Interestingly enough, LA to SF is 6:29, while SF to LA is 5:59. I can only assume there's some construction on the northbound route right now.

Most of this stuff was found on my very first search attempt...it's NOT hidden or hard to find if you bother to try at all.

[DougSpindler]

This is clearly something you have never actually done.  There are times when I have been able to leave my house and fly and arrive in LA faster than I can drive from San Francisco to San Jose.  Any idea what the average speed folks are diving at on California’s highways?  Or on I5?

In your Google Map “calculations” are you using the setting the shortest route?  Fastest route?  Or the route which allows you to speed the most?

[fourfathom]

Any idea what the average speed folks are diving at on California’s highways?  Or on I5?

I drive from Northern California to Northern Washington several times a month, round trip.  Most of this is on I-5, with a posted speed limit of 70 MPH (or less).  I generally push it up to 80 MPH, and very few cars pass me.  The ones that do are occasionally spotted again, pulled over by the Highway Patrol, so most people stay within 10 MPH of the limit.  For a while I was driving I-5 between San Jose and Los Angeles about once a month, and 80 MPH was again the magic number.  What route and speed do *you* drive that gets you from SF to LA so quickly?

Yes, airplanes are usually faster, and the hassle is minimized if you can use the small local airports.  But SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX, SAN, and the other big ones can be an ordeal and sometimes I would rather drive anyway.

[DougSpindler]

Any idea what the average speed folks are diving at on California’s highways?  Or on I5?

I drive from Northern California to Northern Washington several times a month, round trip.  Most of this is on I-5, with a posted speed limit of 70 MPH (or less).  I generally push it up to 80 MPH, and very few cars pass me.  The ones that do are occasionally spotted again, pulled over by the Highway Patrol, so most people stay within 10 MPH of the limit.  For a while I was driving I-5 between San Jose and Los Angeles about once a month, and 80 MPH was again the magic number.  What route and speed do *you* drive that gets you from SF to LA so quickly?

Yes, airplanes are usually faster, and the hassle is minimized if you can use the small local airports.  But SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX, SAN, and the other big ones can be an ordeal and sometimes I would rather drive anyway.

It must have been a while since you’ve been making that trip.  Speeds are a bit higher now, and there are les tickets being given thanks to apps like Waze.  It’s no uncommon for folks to be driving close to 100 and then there are the ones who have to be doing 110 - 120.

Pre-covid I was waking up at 7:00 for an 8:15 flight to LAX.  About 15 minutes to shower and get something to eat.  Drive to the airport and parking was 25 mins.  Just over an hour latter I was out of the airport at the curb waiting for Lyft.

I’m not saying everyone I’d doing this, but to say it can’t be done or it’s not happening would not be correct either.  When my co-workers drive to LA they are always talking about how “long” meaning how quickly they could get there.  Just over 4 hours is not uncommon. I think best I have ever done is 5, I’m more careful about fuel economy and the environment.

[wraper]

It must have been a while since you’ve been making that trip.  Speeds are a bit higher now, and there are les tickets being given thanks to apps like Waze.  It’s no uncommon for folks to be driving close to 100 and then there are the ones who have to be doing 110 - 120.

Pre-covid I was waking up at 7:00 for an 8:15 flight to LAX.  About 15 minutes to shower and get something to eat.  Drive to the airport and parking was 25 mins.  Just over an hour latter I was out of the airport at the curb waiting for Lyft.

I’m not saying everyone I’d doing this, but to say it can’t be done or it’s not happening would not be correct either.  When my co-workers drive to LA they are always talking about how “long” meaning how quickly they could get there.  Just over 4 hours is not uncommon. I think best I have ever done is 5, I’m more careful about fuel economy and the environment.

That calls for $490+surcharge speeding fine and a point on your record if you get caught.

[Nusa]

Like I said, you clearly aren't measuring from San Francisco, but from wherever you are in the rather gigantic bay area -- that's how you're shaving an hour off so easily. The "safe" level of speeding, which is about 80, by itself isn't enough. The BART train from OAK to downtown SF takes 40 minutes, and driving that route is closer to an hour with normal traffic.

I had to giggle at "the best I've ever done is 5", while implying that 4 hours is typical. I'm going to say that googles 6 hour estimate from downtown SF to downtown SF isn't that far off. No fair counting wherever you are as downtown. How long does it take you to drive to Fishermans Wharf? Add that time to your SF to LA trip time.

[DougSpindler]

Like I said, you clearly aren't measuring from San Francisco, but from wherever you are in the rather gigantic bay area -- that's how you're shaving an hour off so easily. The "safe" level of speeding, which is about 80, by itself isn't enough. The BART train from OAK to downtown SF takes 40 minutes, and driving that route is closer to an hour with normal traffic.

I had to giggle at "the best I've ever done is 5", while implying that 4 hours is typical. I'm going to say that googles 6 hour estimate from downtown SF to downtown SF isn't that far off. No fair counting wherever you are as downtown. How long does it take you to drive to Fishermans Wharf? Add that time to your SF to LA trip time.

Dude are you on crack?   Where are you getting these bogus times?   BART train from OAK to downtown SF takes 40 minutes.  I’ve been taking BART or years from the East Bay to San Francisco.  It takes me 35 minutes to get from suburbs in Contra Costa County to Downtown San Francisco.  My route takes me through Oakland and there are NO express trains which means I have to stop at all of the stations in Oakland on my route.  The trip from Downtown Berkeley to San Francisco is also 27 minutes.  Again this is making stops in Berkeley and Oakland to get to downtown San Francisco.   

It takes me 55 minutes to get front the suburbs in the East Bay to get to San Francisco airport.  In making that trip  the train stops at every statins on that route in Oakland, and San Francisco.

The trip from downtown Oakland to downtown San Francisco is about 14 minutes.  Heck in 40 minutes I could walk from Oakland to San Francisco.

You have me puzzled by this one.....  How can you get a ticket and a point on your driving record if there are no cops to pull you over?

[sandalcandal]

Sabine Hossenfelder did a [IMO] good video on Hyperloop recently.

Similar concerns to my own: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/dodgy-technology/its-2020-sf-to-la-for-$25-on-elon-musks-hyperloop-are-you-buying-it/msg3327198/#msg3327198
Physically viable concept if altered from the Elon Musk whitepaper but no one seems to be doing a "real" job of tackling the pertinent challenges.

[DougSpindler]

It’s a 100 year old technology just being recycled. 
Anyone remember France’s Jet train?  The tracks are still there.  But what happed to the trains?   

Wait, it get better.

https://youtu.be/RNFesa01llk

And  better

https://youtu.be/EeWcQf9QCmg

And better

https://youtu.be/CQJgFh_e01g https://youtu.be/CQJgFh_e01g