The Future of Hyperloop in the UK

[Lucan]

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

I agree with most of what you say. If you can put men on the moon you can build Hyperloop. The question is whether there is any point for what it will cost.

It will certainly only be between very major locations (LA to SF in California is mainly cited). To be fair, Brunel envisioned that for the GWR ((London - Bristol; OK, Bath too) until over-ruled by the shareholders. Difference with Hyperloop would be that intermediates would need very long passing loops for the deceleration and acceleration, not to interrupt the main flow. Bear in mind that the pods are so close that when one slows, everything behind has to slow too, all the way back. I'm not convinced that the flow dynamics have really been worked out.

I dont think junctions would be too difficult. You would not need to move the whole tube like moving a mono-rail. The tube at a junction would be similar to that on a London tube line, and only the guide rails within would need moving.

I mentioned before that a lot of the low cost is due to (paraphrasing the advocates) "the land underneath still being usable". Obviously the advocates do not expect to pay for the land it passes over, except for a bit of compensation for the presence of the concrete base pads for the pylons, as with electricity transmission towers. Even if you accept the land is still usable (not what I generally see under motorway flyovers etc) I can't see that argument wash outside desert areas. They also assume no problems with planning permission either, perhaps based on the asssumption of behind-doors dealings, as seem to take place in the USA and certain other areas of the World.

Basically they are claiming that a railway in a vacuum tube would be cheaper to build than a railway not in a vacuum tube, except that they avoid the word "railway" (or "railroad"!).

As for capacity and fares, you need to understand that Musk has elite customers in mind. Think Concorde. This is most apparent in his early proposals for another pet project, the High Speed Loop (not to be confused with Hyperloop). Sitting in a traffic jam on his commute one day, Musk had a pipe dream (or was it a "joint" dream) of his car being lowered into a tunnel, driving along it, and popping up again ahead of everyone else (to his own advantage, but everyone else's disavantage of course). He has since built a prototype at Hawthorne ( https://www.boringcompany.com/testtunnel - Don't believe the cost figure BTW ). You have only to think for a moment to realise that the flow capacity of such car lifts is abyssmal, and such a scheme could only benefit a few high payers. Expect that any tunnels built by his Boring company will end up as conventional tube railways.

 

[edwin_m]

Expect that any tunnels built by his Boring company will end up as conventional tube railways.

Would that they could. They aren't big enough even for a Glasgow Subway train.

 

[w1bbl3]

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

I'm curious how it would? As to achieve the current very low costs package couriers have focused on logistics consolidation where by a parcel picked up from a retailer / warehouse / DC is shipped to the nearest hub then sorted into a consolidated load for onwards shipment to the next hub (or where volumes are great enough) to the delivery depot. This strategy minimises the amount of empty or part filled trailers moving around the system.

The long waits that can occur at hubs are whilst enough freight arrives to consume the lessor of 77m3 or 22 tonnes for onwards shipment to the next hop.
A hyperloop system considering costs would only serve to move the goods between hubs where actually the transit time isn't the driving factor. The current hyperloop design proposals seem ill suited to the creation of a branching network.

 

[Robsignals]

I wouldn't want to be put in a tin can and sent through a pressurised tube faster than the speed of sound.

I wouldn't want to be a 'test passenger' but I'd happily travel on the first day of public service. Echoes of early protesters against railways "at 20mph people won't be able to breathe. .."

 

[MarkyT]

Would that they could. They aren't big enough even for a Glasgow Subway train.

To be fair, that's true of the test tunnel but that's not to say 'production' tunnels couldn't be bigger (and costlier!). The various computer visualisations published show a 'pod' rather bigger than the small Tesla car used in the test, more 'small bus' in scale.

 

[Roger100]

I'm curious how it would? As to achieve the current very low costs package couriers have focused on logistics consolidation where by a parcel picked up from a retailer / warehouse / DC is shipped to the nearest hub then sorted into a consolidated load for onwards shipment to the next hub (or where volumes are great enough) to the delivery depot. This strategy minimises the amount of empty or part filled trailers moving around the system.

The long waits that can occur at hubs are whilst enough freight arrives to consume the lessor of 77m3 or 22 tonnes for onwards shipment to the next hop.
A hyperloop system considering costs would only serve to move the goods between hubs where actually the transit time isn't the driving factor. The current hyperloop design proposals seem ill suited to the creation of a branching network.

50 years ago I worked for a local cable manufacturer with a big export market. When I started there in about 1963 or 64 the company craned cable drums onto a low loader and took them down to the sidings at Iver where they were craned onto a wagon. Sometime later a loco took the wagons up to somewhere like Acton where eventually they were shunted onto a train to take them to the docks.

After a few years they decided it was cheaper and much quicker for the low-loader to take the drums all the way to the dock.

The trouble with hyperloop systems is that roads are the simplest way to get goods from A to B. While 50 years ago railways served far more places than today, delivery of parcels and other goods switched to road transport, because it was more efficient. Today rail is still used for things coal, where it is still economic to have a rail terminal at the dock and also at the power station. But roads are much more fault tolerant. When the line gets washed away near Dawlish, it takes months for it to be restored. Where a road is blocked, there are usually enough other roads to route around the blockage, which can be accomplished very quickly. If a haulage/delivery company proves unreliable, you just switch to another one. If a rail freight company proves likewise, there's very little else to choose.

Parcels and most freight has switched to road. They're not going switch back to something similar to rail.

 

[mark-h]

I dont think junctions would be too difficult. You would not need to move the whole tube like moving a mono-rail. The tube at a junction would be similar to that on a London tube line, and only the guide rails within would need moving.

There would still need to be an airlock within the tunnel at each station which would add construction cost and dwell time as the airlock is closed/opened and the station tunnel is (de)pressurised.

 

[Robsignals]

A left field issue is how to dissipate heat not just from motoring and braking but from the passengers when there's no air to carry it away, this alone could sink the idea. Pods can only radiate heat so the tube will probably need to be water cooled throughout, another construction and operating cost.

I'd say operating in vacuum is unrealistic, perhaps around half atmospheric pressure would give useful benefits while solving many problems. For conventional trains has any research been done on drawing in air at the front compressing it through ducts and venting at the rear/sides? Would there be a net energy saving compared to unvented trains.

 

[An_Engineer]

I dont think junctions would be too difficult. You would not need to move the whole tube like moving a mono-rail. The tube at a junction would be similar to that on a London tube line, and only the guide rails within would need moving.

I remember the original Musk design used air bearings, so needed a contiguous wall surface, which is where those thoughts came from. A maglev style system seems more likely but current maglev junctions seem ridiculously complicated. Whichever way junctions are implemented, I think it unlikely that pods will be travelling at anywhere near full speed through them (so limiting capacity and affecting journey times). So rather than railway in a tube, it might be more accurate to say maglev in a tube? That will be cheap, right?

 

[al78]

But roads are much more fault tolerant. When the line gets washed away near Dawlish, it takes months for it to be restored.

Yes, it is hard to imagine a scenario where the M6 would be unusable for months at a time.

 

[Robsignals]

Yes, it is hard to imagine a scenario where the M6 would be unusable for months at a time.

Unsafe viaduct at Spaghetti Junction perhaps.

 

[Meerkat]

Unsafe viaduct at Spaghetti Junction perhaps.

Chaos sure,but there is the toll road paralleling it.
Thirlwall collapsing would be much worse, but unlikely both would collapse

 

[vlad]

Yes, it is hard to imagine a scenario where the M6 would be unusable for months at a time.

If the M6 gets affected by the sea then it's really time to worry!

It's not just railway lines. The A379 south of Dartmouth was washed away in the storms of last March and is still inaccessible. However, there are other roads that can be used whereas in the case of the railway line through Dawlish there's no alternative.

 

[MarkyT]

The A379 south of Dartmouth was washed away in the storms of last March and is still inaccessible.

The road has been reconstructed now, and opened fully in October 2018. Moved 10m to 20m further inland.

 

[L&Y Robert]

Hyperloop! A pie-in-the-sky idea if ever there was one. There have been others though. And so we've been here before!
On the chilly grey morning of 7th February 1973 I found myself, together with my (new) wife and a bunch of photographers, standing on the muddy banks of the "Ouse Washes" in a sort of fenced-off viewing area. We were there to watch the RTV31 "Tracked Hovercraft" swish by on its big white elevated concrete "rail". I remember thinking at the time that it was a spectacularly non-event, in spite of the frenzied clicking of camera shutters and whirr of cine cameras from the assembled crowd - well, 'group' would better describe it. But I held my tongue, because we (wife and self) were invited guests of one of the engineers on the project, my brother-in-law Michael in fact. Michael was an electrical engineer - not an "Elecrician" you understand, his training ground had been Marchwood power station, his expertise was Big Electricity. I bring him into the story because he was hugely enthusiastic for the project, for the switch to magnetic suspension, for the linear motor then being developed, all that.

An hour or so later we were invited up to the "Control Room", and I found that all the people there (a lot of 'em, technical and non tech.) had the same bubbling enthusiasm, all thrilled to bits that their "Vehicle" had made a successful run. But my eyes had seen a poxy little, er - 'pod', straddling a HUGE ugly white concrete rail (about 2m by 1m) on a line of chunky concrete pylons, - in my eyes 'despoiling' the sanctity of the Fens. In my mind's eye I fancied lines of concrete pylons marching through the countryside with this clumsy great beam on top of them. I knew then, without analysing my thoughts, that it was a huge mistake, and sure enough a short time afterwards the whole project was cancelled, and some time after that the whole team shipped over to Canada.
The moral of the story is, I submit, that the concept was buoyed up and pushed forward by 'Enthusiasts' each one beaveriing away in his own speciality, but no-one looking at the bigger picture, and asking the questions "Are we serious? Do we really want this?"
The test-track along the river bank was ultimately demolished, but the 'vehicle' and a single span of the track still exist as a museum curiosity at "Railworld" Peterborough. There is quite a lot of guff on the Webb as well, if you're interested.

 

[L&Y Robert]

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

Not just journalists either. I find most people have only sketchy understanding of anything technical. A member of my family was amazed when I used a syphon to empty the sink (blocked plug-hole). "How does it work, actually?"

And another thing . . .
It is claimed here and there that this system would be so energy efficient, bowling along its tube in near vacuum. But I was wondering how much energy is required to evacuate a tube a hundred or two miles long? Thunderfoot did a sum for this in one of his pieces I remember. But is that (essential) use of energy factored in? Didn't see it referred to anywhere.

And another thing . . .
When you've arrived at the destination, been through the de-training process, what happens to the capsule? Is it physically turned round and poked into the pipe the other way? Or do they just flick-over the seat backs like they used to do on the trams? Is there a sort of storage bay (carriage sidings) for 'spare' capsules?

Are there two tubes per route, and 'up' and a 'down' tube?

Do all capsules fit all tubes, or have they to be tube-route specific?

"Details, details! We'll sort these things out in due course, and "Never mind the quality, feel the width!"

 

[edwin_m]

The moral of the story is, I submit, that the concept was buoyed up and pushed forward by 'Enthusiasts' each one beaveriing away in his own speciality, but no-one looking at the bigger picture, and asking the questions "Are we serious? Do we really want this?"

The nickname "gadgetbahn" has been coined for concepts of this sort.

 

[jon0844]

The mobile industry is about to embark on a new wave of foldable phones. People are still asking 'why?' in much the same way as they did with curved TVs and to a lesser extent 3D screens.

At least the technology for these exists and a working model was shown off at CES earlier this week, and once people saw it a lot of people who have raved about the concept were actually slightly underwhelmed..

 

[Lucan]

It is claimed here and there that this system would be so energy efficient, bowling along its tube in near vacuum. But I was wondering how much energy is required to evacuate a tube a hundred or two miles long?

I am thinking more of the amount ot energy and weight of steel to make those tubes. The price of iron and steel has got so high that people are stealing cast-iron manhole covers.

When you've arrived at the destination, been through the de-training process, what happens to the capsule?

Standard railway practice I expect - a crossover to the other direction or possibly a [slow!] 180 degree loop. But be careful not to use the word "railway" to a Hyperloop fan.

Are there two tubes per route, and 'up' and a 'down' tube?

Yes, and most artist's impressions show that.

Do all capsules fit all tubes, or have they to be tube-route specific?

Of course there could be a standard, but the developers are still flaffing around at the moment. I expect they will make some silly decisions just like the railway pioneers did, and in any case I don't believe there will ever be enough of them to need a standard.

We'll sort these things out in due course, and "Never mind the quality, feel the width!"

I don't think there is quality or width yet.

I believe Hyperloop is perfectly possible because you can solve most engineering problems if you throw enough money at them;. but I believe it would make no economic sense. Many of the technical criticisms are a bit weak. For example the expansion "problem" could be met by including expansion bellows every few hundred yards; I was once involved in replacing similar bellows in the hot gas ducts of a nuclear power station. These were about 8 feet in diameter and made of quality alloy steel about 15mm thick. However, those bellows made to that high standard were insanely expensive.

Railways have some advantages and some disadvantages compared with other modes. Obvious disadvantages are relative inflexibility and the fact that stations are spaced apart; Hyperloop magnifies those disavantages. HS rail can reach the centres of cities by slowing down and entering on legacy tracks, and can take diversions ditto; Hyperloop cannot. Hyperloop does not encourage any intermediate stopping because that would negate the point of doing 750mph, so to catch one most people will need to travel a long way first, by car or conventional rail, which again largely negates the 750mph advantage. Even if Hyperloop had terminals in the 8 largest UK cities (an unlikely high number), from where I am I would have to travel either 30 miles in the wrong direction or 100 miles in the right direction even to reach one of those terminals. OTOH I can pick up a long distance conventional rail service from a station only 8 miles from here - even though it would probably be on the alignment one of those "eight-city" routes, there is no way that 750mph Hyperloop pods would want to stop here.

Hyperloop is more suited to regions with major cities a long way apart (far longer than the UK standard) with not much in between - in Australia perhaps.

 

[edwin_m]

Hyperloop is more suited to regions with major cities a long way apart (far longer than the UK standard) with not much in between - in Australia perhaps.

Good post.

I'd also add that the number of passengers and time-sensitive freight travelling between those cities must make it worthwhile to build infrastructure over the whole distance rather than just buying the relevant number of planes and building/extending an airport each end if nothing suitable exists already. Compared to a railway it will probably cost more and carry less, because as mentioned it is single-use but the railway can carry other passenger and freight traffic that needs to share part of the route. Hyperloop probably also has quite a low throughput due to the size of and spacing between the capsules. It's quite possible that in the rare situation that the traffic justifies building the infrastructure, it will also exceed the capacity of the system!