4 ms·

i still have not been able to understand why a hyperloop is needed instead of just using pre existing high speed rail technology like shinkansen

johnloeber 10y ago
That's especially the case when you consider that the proposed track across CA is really a fairly short track on which the Hyperloop would not save a great deal of time in aggregate: the Hyperloop has a passenger capacity of about 10% of high-speed rail. It's obvious that given the economic/technical costs the Hyperloop imposes, it's way more marginally efficient to build a Shinkansen or TGV-like system. The Hyperloop might be worth pursuing it it were 10% of the price of HSR, but that's just not anywhere near the case, as other commenters have duly pointed out.
klodolph 10y ago
The Shinkansen was extremely expensive to build, comparable to the hyperloop. The lines cost JPY 400 billion in 1963 currency and the whole thing basically led to the regionalization and privatization of JNR. Hyperloop supporters claim that the Hyperloop is more economically feasible than traditional high-speed rail like the Shinkansen. This is, of course, based on estimates which can only be trusted somewhat. However, those estimates are by no means ridiculous. The original Hyperloop proposal is interesting reading, you might want to take a glance at it. It covers the economics, including issues like land use rights, which are a major component in any high-speed transport system which must necessarily have a course with limited curvature. The location is also a big issue. Consider the profitability of Japan's Shinkansen in light of the high population density and the ease in which you can serve 25 million people with a single 250 mile train line--other Shinkansen lines are not as profitable to run. To be clear, I'm relating the arguments in favor. I'm also fairly skeptical.

johnloeber 10y ago

That's especially the case when you consider that the proposed track across CA is really a fairly short track on which the Hyperloop would not save a great deal of time in aggregate: the Hyperloop has a passenger capacity of about 10% of high-speed rail. It's obvious that given the economic/technical costs the Hyperloop imposes, it's way more marginally efficient to build a Shinkansen or TGV-like system. The Hyperloop might be worth pursuing it it were 10% of the price of HSR, but that's just not anywhere near the case, as other commenters have duly pointed out.

klodolph 10y ago

The Shinkansen was extremely expensive to build, comparable to the hyperloop. The lines cost JPY 400 billion in 1963 currency and the whole thing basically led to the regionalization and privatization of JNR. Hyperloop supporters claim that the Hyperloop is more economically feasible than traditional high-speed rail like the Shinkansen. This is, of course, based on estimates which can only be trusted somewhat. However, those estimates are by no means ridiculous. The original Hyperloop proposal is interesting reading, you might want to take a glance at it. It covers the economics, including issues like land use rights, which are a major component in any high-speed transport system which must necessarily have a course with limited curvature. The location is also a big issue. Consider the profitability of Japan's Shinkansen in light of the high population density and the ease in which you can serve 25 million people with a single 250 mile train line--other Shinkansen lines are not as profitable to run. To be clear, I'm relating the arguments in favor. I'm also fairly skeptical.