6 ms·

Of all the problems facing construction of "viable high speed rail" in the US (they already exist in many other places), I don't think Hyperloop competition is

Of all the problems facing construction of "viable high speed rail" in the US (they already exist in many other places), I don't think Hyperloop competition is among ... the top 50. Practically anything could be "a clever political ploy", but where's the evidence for this? Any in the absence of such evidence, why speculate? Just as a thought experiment, could HN user daemin's comments be part of a clever ploy to invent a fake persona to distract from a SECRET AGENDA? ;)

Brakenshire 9y ago
We're just building a new major high speed line in the UK, and you'd be surprised how often you hear people say that it shouldn't be built because the technology will be superseded by the hyperloop, or autonomous cars, or whichever. It's one of the major talking points, even if it isn't one of the major blocks.
- karmapolic 9y ago
  its things like these which make it seem like a clever ploy. However cool a technology hyperloop seems like. it is nothing more than a research project with a great marketing stunt.
- mseebach 9y ago
  Meh. The imminency of "Major New Technology Just Around The Corner" has always been a favourite argument for the anti-progress crowd. EDIT to add: Before Hyperloop, it was Maglev. And frankly, a significantly better argument against HS2 is that it's an impossibly expensive boondoggle.
  - Brakenshire 9y ago
    > a significantly better argument against HS2 is that it's an impossibly expensive boondoggle. Nah, it connects most of England's largest cities, and will be 2/3rds of the network which will connect all of the cities of the North of England into something approaching a single labour market. Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham will be all be within 30-50 minutes of each other, with London within an hour and a half, with trains running between destinations 2 or 3 times an hour. The value of that is enormous.
    - gaius 9y ago
      It would have been politically a LOT easier of they'd built a Birmingham-Newcastle leg first
      - sgt101 9y ago
        and probably better for the long term economy as well; the last thing Birmingham needs is a reason why London is a good base for doing business in Birmingham.
        vidarh 9y ago
        This is a pet peeve of mine. It hurts not just the other cities in the UK, but London as well. We don't alleviate overcrowding in London by making it easier to move to London. We alleviate overcrowding in London by making more other locations economically stronger. That should mean strengthening a region around Birmingham, faster links connecting the Leeds - Sheffield - Manchester triangle + tack on Liverpool, and a wide orbital around London improving connections between the towns around London that now are reduced to feeder/sleeper towns. There are towns around London that has decent direct rail tracks, but where the fastest rail route is a 2x-3x longer journey in to a London terminal and back out again. Actually run direct trains, and you suddenly have new viable commuter regions that bypass the centre. Only after that should we think about making the links between these centres faster. The problem of course is that many of these will need to be run at substantial losses for years before enough companies etc. will move/get established to change transport patterns, and it's so much easier to justify building more expensive routes where there is existing overcrowding. Never mind that doing so just attracts more people.
      - gsnedders 9y ago
        Perhaps. There would also have been political costs incurred due to the overcrowding on the southern end of the WCML and that then being apparently a lower priority than providing a quicker link between two cities. And yes, I realise the XC trains around Birmingham (inc. to Newcastle) are frequently overcrowded, but there's a comparatively cheap solution to this: buy more trains.
- dionidium 9y ago
  Yes, I think this is it. I don't buy into any "clever political ploy" theory, but this type of stuff does get into people's heads. The rise of Uber and Lyft are already being used in arguments against mass transit.
- rohit2412 9y ago
  Same here in India. People oppose hsr train as a waste of money in favor of centuries old infrastructure. The same people also believe that if we should move to a new technology, it should be hyperloop, rejecting maglev on the way. They either want current infrastructure to be maintained, or pie in the sky dreams.
aerovistae 9y ago
Exactly.
totalZero 9y ago
It's not competition from Hyperloop that's in consideration. It's the diversion and absorption of public demand and political capital. If people think Hyperloop is in the works, they are less likely to ask for high speed rail. And politicians are less likely to become banner carriers for high speed rail in such a situation. Not taking a side here, but it doesn't seem useful make fun of the parent comment for what, on its face, seems to me as a pretty apt comment. These two gentlemen stand to gain from the failure of mass long distance transit. So, why are they spearheading any kind of Hyperloop project? It's a valid question, and the suggestion about their motive is not farfetched for a couple of successful business magnates.
daemin 9y ago
> Just as a thought experiment, could HN user daemin's comments be part of a clever ploy to invent a fake persona to distract from a SECRET AGENDA? ;) If that were the case it would be one hell of a troll, set up an account for many years just for this one incident!
Chathamization 9y ago
> Practically anything could be "a clever political ploy", but where's the evidence for this? I mean, Musk's initial announcement regarding the hyperloop was about how California high speed rail shouldn't be built. These are the first lines of his blogpost announcing the hyperloop[1]: > When the California “high speed” rail was approved, I was quite disappointed, as I know many others were too. We can debate Musk's motivation, but the fact remains that the hyperloop is being used to argue against high speed rail construction, and has been since it was first announced. [1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/hyperloop https://www.tesla.com/blog/hyperloop

Brakenshire 9y ago

We're just building a new major high speed line in the UK, and you'd be surprised how often you hear people say that it shouldn't be built because the technology will be superseded by the hyperloop, or autonomous cars, or whichever. It's one of the major talking points, even if it isn't one of the major blocks.

karmapolic 9y ago
its things like these which make it seem like a clever ploy. However cool a technology hyperloop seems like. it is nothing more than a research project with a great marketing stunt.
mseebach 9y ago
Meh. The imminency of "Major New Technology Just Around The Corner" has always been a favourite argument for the anti-progress crowd. EDIT to add: Before Hyperloop, it was Maglev. And frankly, a significantly better argument against HS2 is that it's an impossibly expensive boondoggle.
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  > a significantly better argument against HS2 is that it's an impossibly expensive boondoggle. Nah, it connects most of England's largest cities, and will be 2/3rds of the network which will connect all of the cities of the North of England into something approaching a single labour market. Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham will be all be within 30-50 minutes of each other, with London within an hour and a half, with trains running between destinations 2 or 3 times an hour. The value of that is enormous.
  - gaius 9y ago
    It would have been politically a LOT easier of they'd built a Birmingham-Newcastle leg first
    - sgt101 9y ago
      and probably better for the long term economy as well; the last thing Birmingham needs is a reason why London is a good base for doing business in Birmingham.
      - vidarh 9y ago
        This is a pet peeve of mine. It hurts not just the other cities in the UK, but London as well. We don't alleviate overcrowding in London by making it easier to move to London. We alleviate overcrowding in London by making more other locations economically stronger. That should mean strengthening a region around Birmingham, faster links connecting the Leeds - Sheffield - Manchester triangle + tack on Liverpool, and a wide orbital around London improving connections between the towns around London that now are reduced to feeder/sleeper towns. There are towns around London that has decent direct rail tracks, but where the fastest rail route is a 2x-3x longer journey in to a London terminal and back out again. Actually run direct trains, and you suddenly have new viable commuter regions that bypass the centre. Only after that should we think about making the links between these centres faster. The problem of course is that many of these will need to be run at substantial losses for years before enough companies etc. will move/get established to change transport patterns, and it's so much easier to justify building more expensive routes where there is existing overcrowding. Never mind that doing so just attracts more people.
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      Perhaps. There would also have been political costs incurred due to the overcrowding on the southern end of the WCML and that then being apparently a lower priority than providing a quicker link between two cities. And yes, I realise the XC trains around Birmingham (inc. to Newcastle) are frequently overcrowded, but there's a comparatively cheap solution to this: buy more trains.
dionidium 9y ago
Yes, I think this is it. I don't buy into any "clever political ploy" theory, but this type of stuff does get into people's heads. The rise of Uber and Lyft are already being used in arguments against mass transit.
rohit2412 9y ago
Same here in India. People oppose hsr train as a waste of money in favor of centuries old infrastructure. The same people also believe that if we should move to a new technology, it should be hyperloop, rejecting maglev on the way. They either want current infrastructure to be maintained, or pie in the sky dreams.

aerovistae 9y ago

Exactly.

totalZero 9y ago

It's not competition from Hyperloop that's in consideration. It's the diversion and absorption of public demand and political capital. If people think Hyperloop is in the works, they are less likely to ask for high speed rail. And politicians are less likely to become banner carriers for high speed rail in such a situation. Not taking a side here, but it doesn't seem useful make fun of the parent comment for what, on its face, seems to me as a pretty apt comment. These two gentlemen stand to gain from the failure of mass long distance transit. So, why are they spearheading any kind of Hyperloop project? It's a valid question, and the suggestion about their motive is not farfetched for a couple of successful business magnates.

daemin 9y ago

> Just as a thought experiment, could HN user daemin's comments be part of a clever ploy to invent a fake persona to distract from a SECRET AGENDA? ;) If that were the case it would be one hell of a troll, set up an account for many years just for this one incident!

Chathamization 9y ago

> Practically anything could be "a clever political ploy", but where's the evidence for this? I mean, Musk's initial announcement regarding the hyperloop was about how California high speed rail shouldn't be built. These are the first lines of his blogpost announcing the hyperloop[1]: > When the California “high speed” rail was approved, I was quite disappointed, as I know many others were too. We can debate Musk's motivation, but the fact remains that the hyperloop is being used to argue against high speed rail construction, and has been since it was first announced. [1] https://www.tesla.com/blog/hyperloop https://www.tesla.com/blog/hyperloop