3 ms·

Ok let me rephrase, and actually make my point stronger. I'd take a shot at fully funding hyperloop with all the ressources that our current HSR system has, ov

by j-pb 6y ago

Ok let me rephrase, and actually make my point stronger. I'd take a shot at fully funding hyperloop with all the ressources that our current HSR system has, over keeping our ICEs any day. If it was up to me we'd fund Transrapid. It's also build on pylons, does 500kmh, and is proven tech that has been running for 40 years. So we get the best of both. But I don't see a future for Transrapid, because it's not cool enough for political backing. Hyperloop is, so I'm doing a strategic vote here.

himinlomax 6y ago
Do TGV and Shinkansen have the problems you say ICE has? Do they run in a literal vacuum?
deng 6y ago
The Transrapid was simply way too expensive. The planned route between Hamburg and Berlin, which is not even 300km, was shelved because the estimated costs exploded. The DB (German Railway) gets 2.5 billion EUR funding per year for its train network, which is 38.500km, so it's really not that much. The Transrapid wouldn't even have been significantly faster, since there were three stops planned between Hamburg and Berlin. And both the Transrapid and the ICE were/are built by Siemens, so there's not reason to think they would have been more reliable.
- Xylakant 6y ago
  To add to that, one of the major problems was that due to the political power structure (state vs federal government etc.), a no-stop trip on the direct route wasn’t viable political. So the DB basically opted for refurbishing the existing track, because that did not need political approval on any level - the track existed and no new permits were required. All of this would be issues that hyperloop would have to face as well. None of these are in any way related to the underlying technology. In addition, there’s extremely few routes in germany where 300km/h vs. 500km/h top speed makes a significant difference. The latest generation of ICE trains trades a lower top speed for faster acceleration. We’re a small country with comparatively short distances between population centers.
- j-pb 6y ago
  Transrapid tech has no moving parts apart from switches and trains. It's a lot easier to get that reliable.
  - deng 6y ago
    Given that one of the major problems with the ICE is that often times the air conditioning doesn't work, I seriously doubt that. The real problem here is that you're dealing with a monopoly. Siemens simply has no reason to care, so they don't. It doesn't matter if they build an ICE or a Transrapid, it's not like the DB could switch suppliers. The problem in Germany is not to travel between major cities. The real issue is if you have to reach a city which is not big enough to be connected to the ICE network, since missing your connection often times means waiting for an hour.
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
> It's also build on pylons High-speed rail can also be built on pylons.[1] The hyperloop white paper argued that being able to build on pylons would be an advantage of hyperloop over conventional rail: > The key advantages of a tube vs. a railway track are that it can be built above the ground on pylons and it can be built in prefabricated sections that are dropped in place and joined with an orbital seam welder. By building it on pylons, you can almost entirely avoid the need to buy land by following alongside the mostly very straight California Interstate 5 highway, with only minor deviations when the highway makes a sharp turn. The author seemed completely unaware that conventional rail can also use pylons, and can (and does) use prefabricated elements. The whole white paper seemed terribly uninformed about the realities of high-speed rail. 1. http://img2.chinadaily.com.cn/images/201801/02/5a4b62cea31008cfb2e95604.jpeg http://img2.chinadaily.com.cn/images/201801/02/5a4b62cea3100...

by j-pb 6y ago

himinlomax 6y ago

Do TGV and Shinkansen have the problems you say ICE has? Do they run in a literal vacuum?

deng 6y ago

The Transrapid was simply way too expensive. The planned route between Hamburg and Berlin, which is not even 300km, was shelved because the estimated costs exploded. The DB (German Railway) gets 2.5 billion EUR funding per year for its train network, which is 38.500km, so it's really not that much. The Transrapid wouldn't even have been significantly faster, since there were three stops planned between Hamburg and Berlin. And both the Transrapid and the ICE were/are built by Siemens, so there's not reason to think they would have been more reliable.

Xylakant 6y ago
To add to that, one of the major problems was that due to the political power structure (state vs federal government etc.), a no-stop trip on the direct route wasn’t viable political. So the DB basically opted for refurbishing the existing track, because that did not need political approval on any level - the track existed and no new permits were required. All of this would be issues that hyperloop would have to face as well. None of these are in any way related to the underlying technology. In addition, there’s extremely few routes in germany where 300km/h vs. 500km/h top speed makes a significant difference. The latest generation of ICE trains trades a lower top speed for faster acceleration. We’re a small country with comparatively short distances between population centers.
j-pb 6y ago
Transrapid tech has no moving parts apart from switches and trains. It's a lot easier to get that reliable.
- deng 6y ago
  Given that one of the major problems with the ICE is that often times the air conditioning doesn't work, I seriously doubt that. The real problem here is that you're dealing with a monopoly. Siemens simply has no reason to care, so they don't. It doesn't matter if they build an ICE or a Transrapid, it's not like the DB could switch suppliers. The problem in Germany is not to travel between major cities. The real issue is if you have to reach a city which is not big enough to be connected to the ICE network, since missing your connection often times means waiting for an hour.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

> It's also build on pylons High-speed rail can also be built on pylons.[1] The hyperloop white paper argued that being able to build on pylons would be an advantage of hyperloop over conventional rail: > The key advantages of a tube vs. a railway track are that it can be built above the ground on pylons and it can be built in prefabricated sections that are dropped in place and joined with an orbital seam welder. By building it on pylons, you can almost entirely avoid the need to buy land by following alongside the mostly very straight California Interstate 5 highway, with only minor deviations when the highway makes a sharp turn. The author seemed completely unaware that conventional rail can also use pylons, and can (and does) use prefabricated elements. The whole white paper seemed terribly uninformed about the realities of high-speed rail. 1. http://img2.chinadaily.com.cn/images/201801/02/5a4b62cea31008cfb2e95604.jpeg http://img2.chinadaily.com.cn/images/201801/02/5a4b62cea3100...