Virgin Hyperloop's Historic Pod is Going to the Smithsonian

[Belize]

But they won't - there can be multiple stops, not just hub to hub, because acceleration and deceleration turns out to be a non factor. You can go from 0 to 700 mph in under a minute with only 0.1G. You mentioned turns affecting the G's, but it would be negligible.

So, big picture - there parts in the commuter experience:
(1) home to suburb station: this will likely be increased, since Hyperloop stops won't be as frequent - possibly.
(2) suburb station to metropolis hub: significantly shorter (see math above). Acceleration and deceleration are a nonfactor in getting up to full [theoretical] speed.
(3) metropolis hub to office: no change.

The Hyperloop, as envisioned, will dramatically decrease the commuting time for people who experience 2+ hour one-way commutes currently.

How is that not just a less efficient train though?

Let's assume they keep the current pod concept where a pod can hold about half a dozen people:

Embarkation/debarkation times won't be different that a regular train, and that's being generous assuming airlock crossings don't add time. Except that compared to trains/metros the pods have severely crippled transport capacities. Even if you add dozens of debarkation areas to compensate, you're adding complexity and costs (and surface area) for a gimmick.

Even if you add dozens and dozens of stops, that's just even more complexity to an already technically challenged project, when existing solutions already do this better.

[cubby]

How is that not just a less efficient train though?

Let's assume they keep the current pod concept where a pod can hold about half a dozen people:

Embarkation/debarkation times won't be different that a regular train, and that's being generous assuming airlock crossings don't add time. Except that compared to trains/metros the pods have severely crippled transport capacities. Even if you add dozens of debarkation areas to compensate, you're adding complexity and costs (and surface area) for a gimmick.

Even if you add dozens and dozens of stops, that's just even more complexity to an already technically challenged project, when existing solutions already do this better.

The pods under current concept, holds 23 people.

It's more efficient because the train goes much faster, and the stops essentially don't detract from the overall speed, because acceleration/deceleration aren't a factor. True, embark/debark times won't change, but Hyperloop going so much faster will dramatically decrease the overall commute, at least for the middle, longest section.

[Forogil]

But they won't - there can be multiple stops, not just hub to hub, because acceleration and deceleration turns out to be a non factor. You can go from 0 to 700 mph in under 2 minutes with only 0.3G.

And most commuter trains stop more than once every 5 minutes. Since the train both need to start and stop the time due to that will be double - or in other words they will not make commuter train stops - but rely on normal commuter trains for getting people to the hubs.

Additionally a train going 700mph does in 2 minutes go 23 miles; so stations will naturally be more than 23 miles apart (and likely several times that) as the idea is to run the train at high speed most of the distance and not spend the time at stations.
Most Shinkansen lines have about one stop per 30km.

Have you actually been in a region with working public transport?

And as previously indicated 0.3G is a lot more than people are comfortable with in current trains.

You mentioned turns affecting the G's, but it would be negligible.

Depends on how tight the curves are. An interesting question is how people will react to accelerations when they don't see a reference point.

So, big picture - these are the parts in the commuter experience:
(1) home to suburb station: no change.
(2) suburb station to metropolis hub: no change.
(3) metropolis hub to office: no change.
But possibly: metropolis hub to other metropolis hub: reduction by using high-speed trains (but unlikely to be Hyperloop).

- - - Updated - - -

Embarkation/debarkation times won't be different that a regular train, and that's being generous assuming airlock crossings don't add time. Except that compared to trains/metros the pods have severely crippled transport capacities. Even if you add dozens of debarkation areas to compensate, you're adding complexity and costs (and surface area) for a gimmick.

Even if you add dozens and dozens of stops, that's just even more complexity to an already technically challenged project, when existing solutions already do this better.

There are more fanciful ideas to avoid stops for normal trains (perhaps even more technically challenged); including concepts with folding trains that never stop.

[cubby]

And most commuter trains stop more than once every 5 minutes. Since the train both need to start and stop the time due to that will be double - or in other words they will not make commuter train stops - but rely on normal commuter trains for getting people to the hubs.

Additionally a train going 700mph does in 2 minutes go 23 miles; so stations will naturally be more than 23 miles apart (and likely several times that) as the idea is to run the train at high speed most of the distance and not spend the time at stations.
Most Shinkansen lines have about one stop per 30km.

Have you actually been in a region with working public transport?

And as previously indicated 0.3G is a lot more than people are comfortable with in current trains.

Ah, I see - we aren't connecting on the number of stops going from suburbs to metropolis - those would be dramatically decreased. So a Hyperloop connecting San Diego to San Francisco would only have five stops total, including the start and end (San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno/Bakersfield locale, San Jose, San Francisco).

Hyperloop won't be like regular commuting trains - it just can't, for the very reasons you pointed out above.

Depends on how tight the curves are. An interesting question is how people will react to accelerations when they don't see a reference point.

Same way they do now in planes. You're going to say, "but the ground/sky is a reference", and the answer to that is most people don't see those references in planes, either because the sky doesn't offer much of one even if you can see it, or people can't see out the windows.

So, big picture - these are the parts in the commuter experience:
(1) home to suburb station: no change.
(2) suburb station to metropolis hub: no change.
(3) metropolis hub to office: no change.
But possibly: metropolis hub to other metropolis hub: reduction by using high-speed trains (but unlikely to be Hyperloop).

So, big picture - these are the parts in the commuter experience:
(1) home to suburb station: no change.
(2) suburb station to metropolis hub: dramatic decrease in commute time.
(3) metropolis hub to office: no change.

There are more fanciful ideas to avoid stops for normal trains (perhaps even more technically challenged); including concepts with folding trains that never stop.

Folding trains - do tell.

[Belize]

There are more fanciful ideas to avoid stops for normal trains (perhaps even more technically challenged); including concepts with folding trains that never stop.

For some reason the first thing that popped into my mind was high speed rolling walkways...

[Forogil]

Ah, I see - we aren't connecting on the number of stops going from suburbs to metropolis - those would be dramatically decreased. So a Hyperloop connecting San Diego to San Francisco would only have five stops total, including the start and end (San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno/Bakersfield locale, San Jose, San Francisco).

Exactly, and therefore:

So, big picture - these are the parts in the commuter experience:
(1) home to suburb station: no change.
(2) suburb station to metropolis hub: no change.
(3) metropolis hub to office: no change.
But possibly: metropolis hub to other metropolis hub: reduction by using high-speed trains (but unlikely to be Hyperloop).

Same way they do now in planes. You're going to say, "but the ground/sky is a reference", and the answer to that is most people don't see those references in planes, either because the sky doesn't offer much of one even if you can see it, or people can't see out the windows.

And people wear seat-belts during take-off and landing planes, but normally don't wear those in trains.
There's usually only one each of take-off and landing during each plane journey, so it's not too bad.

[cubby]

Exactly, and therefore:

So, big picture - these are the parts in the commuter experience:
(1) home to suburb station: no change.
(2) suburb station to metropolis hub: no change.
(3) metropolis hub to office: no change.
But possibly: metropolis hub to other metropolis hub: reduction by using high-speed trains (but unlikely to be Hyperloop).

No - again, the times from Suburb stations (in my example those would be the three stations between San Diego and San Francisco) would be dramatically changed. The whole point of the Hyperloop is to allow people in the far suburbs get to metropolis' in dramatically reduced time. Hence #2 is not what you're saying.

I think we're diverting a bit because you're suggesting there will be multiple stops (i.e. 10+ between metropolis') and there won't be. Five Hyperloop stations from San Diego to San Francisco, just where I indicated. I also believe I may have misspoke earlier suggesting there would be more - my bad there.

And people wear seat-belts during take-off and landing planes, but normally don't wear those in trains.
There's usually only one each of take-off and landing during each plane journey, so it's not too bad.

And people will probably wear seat belts in the Hyperloop pods - you can see in the demo the passengers are doing so already. And a few more won't change that experience.

I was curious about what you meant regarding folding trains.

[Forogil]

No - again, the times from Suburb stations (in my example those would be the three stations between San Diego and San Francisco) would be dramatically changed. The whole point of the Hyperloop is to allow people in the far suburbs get to metropolis' in dramatically reduced time.

You know that Demolition Man where San Diego and Los Angeles merge to San Angeles is fiction?

San Diego And Los Angeles are the metropolises; and there will realistically not be stops between them.

I don't think that it will be fruitful to continue this discussion as it will likely drag on forever; as hyperloop goes from promise to promise.

[cubby]

You know that Demolition Man where San Diego and Los Angeles merge to San Angeles is fiction?

San Diego And Los Angeles are the metropolises; and there will realistically not be stops between them.

I don't think that it will be fruitful to continue this discussion as it will likely drag on forever; as hyperloop goes from promise to promise.

Los Angeles and San Diego are 120 miles apart - you could make a case for having a substation in each city. However, you could also put one right in the middle, say in San Angeles (), and that would solve a number of other problems.

San Angeles
Bakersfield/Fresno area
San Jose
San Francisco

[Hellobolis]

No - again, the times from Suburb stations (in my example those would be the three stations between San Diego and San Francisco) would be dramatically changed. The whole point of the Hyperloop is to allow people in the far suburbs get to metropolis' in dramatically reduced time. Hence #2 is not what you're saying.

500 miles is "suburbs distance" to you? that's never going to work with only 3 stops for that distance. even if the hyperloop does what it's suppose to do, the travel time to the station would push it out of acceptable commute time.

[cubby]

500 miles is "suburbs distance" to you? that's never going to work with only 3 stops for that distance. even if the hyperloop does what it's suppose to do, the travel time to the station would push it out of acceptable commute time.

No, but 120 miles is. You'd be amazed at what people were doing pre-covid to have both the big city job and the suburban home. 2+ hours commute each way, every day. Those three stops would be right at the heart of a major portion of people who already commute. The big losers would be those people in Sacramento and surrounding areas going into the Bay Area.

[Hellobolis]

No, but 120 miles is. You'd be amazed at what people were doing pre-covid to have both the big city job and the suburban home. 2+ hours commute each way, every day. Those three stops would be right at the heart of a major portion of people who already commute. The big losers would be those people in Sacramento and surrounding areas going into the Bay Area.

yeah but your 2 hour drive turns into something like 30 minutes drive to station + 10mins parking/transfer time + 30 mins hyperloop + 5 mins transfer + 20 mins public transit to destination.

sure you might gain some time but the gain has to be pretty darn big before people start using public transit instead of the convenience/reliability of their own car.

better to have more less efficient hyperloop stations then.

[Forogil]

yeah but your 2 hour drive turns into something like 30 minutes drive to station + 10mins parking/transfer time + 30 mins hyperloop + 5 mins transfer + 20 mins public transit to destination.

sure you might gain some time but the gain has to be pretty darn big before people start using public transit instead of the convenience/reliability of their own car.

better to have more less efficient hyperloop stations then.

Or basically traditional public transport...

[cubby]

yeah but your 2 hour drive turns into something like 30 minutes drive to station + 10mins parking/transfer time + 30 mins hyperloop + 5 mins transfer + 20 mins public transit to destination.

sure you might gain some time but the gain has to be pretty darn big before people start using public transit instead of the convenience/reliability of their own car.

better to have more less efficient hyperloop stations then.

These people with the 2+ hour commute each way are already using public transportation. So the increased speed would have a dramatic impact on commute times.

[Edge-]

These people with the 2+ hour commute each way are already using public transportation. So the increased speed would have a dramatic impact on commute times.

Some may be. I'm still not remotely sold on the speeds, even if they were practical and not theoretical, having that meaningful of an impact. As he pointed out, yeah it cuts the travel time from where you are to where you're going (generally) down, but you may have to add on additional travel time at both ends depending on where you are/transit hub is and where the city hub is/where you work.

All the pros for Hyperloop continue to largely seem to rest on "optimal/theoretical situations".

[Hellobolis]

These people with the 2+ hour commute each way are already using public transportation. So the increased speed would have a dramatic impact on commute times.

you would lose time, not gain time if you had to use public transit instead of a car to get to the hyperloop hub. so that makes it even worse.

[cubby]

you would lose time, not gain time if you had to use public transit instead of a car to get to the hyperloop hub. so that makes it even worse.

You're still misunderstanding me.

The people I'm talking about currently drive to public transportation to get to work. Home-->Train Station-->City-->Office. Hyperloop replaces the Train Station, dramatically cutting down the time for that portion of the commute, which is typically the longest. (@Edge assuming the speeds Hyperloop claim comes to fruition, of course).

It would also open up more options for some/many people.

[Hellobolis]

You're still misunderstanding me.

The people I'm talking about currently drive to public transportation to get to work. Home-->Train Station-->City-->Office. Hyperloop replaces the Train Station, dramatically cutting down the time for that portion of the commute, which is typically the longest. (@Edge assuming the speeds Hyperloop claim comes to fruition, of course).

It would also open up more options for some/many people.

oh you mean they spend 2+ hours in JUST the train? and that would be reduced to 30-45mins in hyperloop?

yeah sure. but that's not a fair comparison. i always travel door to door, not train station to train station.

the train ride is only the longest part of the journey if you live within short travel time of the train station. buf if there is only one train station every 120 miles you suddenly might find yourself traveling over an hour just to get there, at which point the exercise becomes counterproductive.

[cubby]

oh you mean they spend 2+ hours in JUST the train? and that would be reduced to 30-45mins in hyperloop?

yeah sure. but that's not a fair comparison. i always travel door to door, not train station to train station.

the train ride is only the longest part of the journey if you live within short travel time of the train station. buf if there is only one train station every 120 miles you suddenly might find yourself traveling over an hour just to get there, at which point the exercise becomes counterproductive.

Yeah, just the train.

I have to agree that door-to-door should be the way to do it, but if you compare pieces of it, it's at least reasonable.

And the train stations will be farther apart with the Hyperloop, so that distance would be increased, even if the train ride is decreased (I'm arguing against myself here, lol).

[cubby]

HyperloopTT the group behind the Cleveland project unveiling the full scale valve that will be able to isolate given sections of the tube for easy re-pressurization either for maintenance or in the event of an emergency.
Interesting milestone.

It's 16.5 feet tall, weighing 77,000 pounds and can fully open or close within 30 seconds, the company behind the valve said in a video release.

Add Cleveland to the list of cities/state/countries currently working on various stages of Hyperloops projects.