3 ms·

> https://www.cst.ch/en/what-is-cst/ https://www.cst.ch/en/what-is-cst/ makes it sound as if they're trying to build small-diameter tunnels like the Boring Comp

> https://www.cst.ch/en/what-is-cst/ https://www.cst.ch/en/what-is-cst/ makes it sound as if they're trying to build small-diameter tunnels like the Boring Company, but using the strengths of the format much more cleverly. This is ancient technology, literally over a century old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway No need to name-drop the Boring Company, as it's just a marketing company who bought a COTS tunneler. Nothing that this company presented was novel. The critical aspect of putting together an railway network through tunnels is a) it's collosal construction and maintenance costs, b) property rights. The numbers of putting together a tunnel network hardly add up, and ultimately projects fail because there is no way to make the numbers work unless you expect to fleece local and central governments. It's also quite strange that CST's marketing brochure does not mention at all two of the main solutions to p2p logistics in urban environment: hub and spoke model with the last mile delivered with small electric cars/scooters/bicycles (Amazon already employs this heavily), and drones.

jhgb 4y ago
> as it's just a marketing company who bought a COTS tunneler. You mean a marketing company that built their own tunneler, surely. The one they originally bought isn't being used anymore, as far as I know.
- robonerd 4y ago
  They have two now apparently, one in California and one in Texas. But public information on these is sparse, I've not been able to find out much about them. This seems uncharacteristic for an Elon Musk company; Musk and SpaceX talk at length about their rockets for instance. There is a different level of public interest between rockets and boring, which might explain why there is more public information about the rockets. Still, I'm not surprised people are skeptical (or ignorant to the existence) of these bores.
  - sandworm101 4y ago
    >> There is a different level of public interest between rockets and boring Or the simple practicalities of the later. I'm a member of the public. What I know of the boring project comes from the youtube videos of the traffic jams in the current Vegas tesla tunnel project. Building an underground tunnel to bypass above-ground traffic problems worked only on the Simpsons (Stonecutter episode). In the real world such tunnels are just another 1-lane road subject to all the same problems as they would on the surface, plus a bunch of bonus problems. It isn't interesting because it isn't practical.
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      So no subway ever approved anything in terms of traffic?
reaperducer 4y ago
This is ancient technology, literally over a century old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway See also, the Chicago Tunnel Company: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company According to Wiki, Chicago's started running in 1906, and London's in 1927.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  That argument seems parallel to 'Yeah nothing cool about M1 Mac. We've had transistors for decades.'
  - bombcar 4y ago
    I mean the M1 exists and you can go buy one. Paper processors get released all the time.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    Well, there's nothing really novel about CST, is there? What's cool is how it puts together elements, IMO.
- adolph 4y ago
  In the year 90 [i]n the former Roman province of Syria (located in modern day Jordan), researchers are currently studying a sensational canal system. It extends mostly underground over a distance of 106 kilometers (66 miles). https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/rome-s-tremendous-tunnel-the-ancient-world-s-longest-underground-aqueduct-a-612718.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/rome-s-tremendous... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadara_Aqueduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadara_Aqueduct
panick21_ 4y ago
Claiming Boring is only a marketing company is not accurate. Even the first maschine they used was modified. The are are building their own now and they just raised 600M to finish engineering on Prufrock-3 and go into real production. Just as with other Musk companies, the first version isn't that amazing and people fall over themselves laughting declaring how it will never work and never be practical and how they will never manage to produce them in real numbers. So its basically like Falcon 1 and Tesla Roaster/Model S. The leader of Boring is an engineer who was doing well at Tesla. I think in 5-10 years it will be a very significant comapny.
- nwiswell 4y ago
  > Just as with other Musk companies, the first version isn't that amazing and people fall over themselves laughting declaring how it will never work and never be practical and how they will never manage to produce them in real numbers. It's not clear to me what you are saying here. Is it that Musk is clarivoyant, and always selects for lines of business where exponential progress is certain to be made incrementally, or is it that his involvement guarantees that incremental progress will always be made? As a follow-up to the former: do you think that's the case for Twitter? As a follow-up to the latter: for how many companies do you believe Musk can simultaneously ensure success?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Arguably the key would be picking industries ripe for disruption if you’re willing to look stupid for awhile. Those would be high-capital low output in general, as low capital or high output have probably already tried many things. If there’s a Muskette strength it would be identifying those.
  - kentlyons 4y ago
    To throw in my 2c (having worked at Tesla before) - I don't think it is either of these directly. Clearly no one is clairvoyant, however Elon is not one to take the status quo as an answer (eg his first principles mantra). And making a ton of incremental improvements over and over (especially in industries that tend to be risk averse to any changes) can result in huge improvements over time. And it's not like he is directly involved with those improvements. But there is a culture of no BS and fix things if you see it broken, get rid of as much bureaucracy as possible, etc. So if he can instill those cultural values he doesn't need to be directly involved. And if something goes wrong, it can also change on a dime, and go a different direction.

jhgb 4y ago

> as it's just a marketing company who bought a COTS tunneler. You mean a marketing company that built their own tunneler, surely. The one they originally bought isn't being used anymore, as far as I know.

robonerd 4y ago
They have two now apparently, one in California and one in Texas. But public information on these is sparse, I've not been able to find out much about them. This seems uncharacteristic for an Elon Musk company; Musk and SpaceX talk at length about their rockets for instance. There is a different level of public interest between rockets and boring, which might explain why there is more public information about the rockets. Still, I'm not surprised people are skeptical (or ignorant to the existence) of these bores.
- sandworm101 4y ago
  >> There is a different level of public interest between rockets and boring Or the simple practicalities of the later. I'm a member of the public. What I know of the boring project comes from the youtube videos of the traffic jams in the current Vegas tesla tunnel project. Building an underground tunnel to bypass above-ground traffic problems worked only on the Simpsons (Stonecutter episode). In the real world such tunnels are just another 1-lane road subject to all the same problems as they would on the surface, plus a bunch of bonus problems. It isn't interesting because it isn't practical.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    So no subway ever approved anything in terms of traffic?

reaperducer 4y ago

This is ancient technology, literally over a century old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway See also, the Chicago Tunnel Company: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company According to Wiki, Chicago's started running in 1906, and London's in 1927.

diordiderot 4y ago
That argument seems parallel to 'Yeah nothing cool about M1 Mac. We've had transistors for decades.'
- bombcar 4y ago
  I mean the M1 exists and you can go buy one. Paper processors get released all the time.
- Arnt 4y ago
  Well, there's nothing really novel about CST, is there? What's cool is how it puts together elements, IMO.
adolph 4y ago
In the year 90 [i]n the former Roman province of Syria (located in modern day Jordan), researchers are currently studying a sensational canal system. It extends mostly underground over a distance of 106 kilometers (66 miles). https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/rome-s-tremendous-tunnel-the-ancient-world-s-longest-underground-aqueduct-a-612718.html https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/rome-s-tremendous... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadara_Aqueduct https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadara_Aqueduct

panick21_ 4y ago

Claiming Boring is only a marketing company is not accurate. Even the first maschine they used was modified. The are are building their own now and they just raised 600M to finish engineering on Prufrock-3 and go into real production. Just as with other Musk companies, the first version isn't that amazing and people fall over themselves laughting declaring how it will never work and never be practical and how they will never manage to produce them in real numbers. So its basically like Falcon 1 and Tesla Roaster/Model S. The leader of Boring is an engineer who was doing well at Tesla. I think in 5-10 years it will be a very significant comapny.

nwiswell 4y ago
> Just as with other Musk companies, the first version isn't that amazing and people fall over themselves laughting declaring how it will never work and never be practical and how they will never manage to produce them in real numbers. It's not clear to me what you are saying here. Is it that Musk is clarivoyant, and always selects for lines of business where exponential progress is certain to be made incrementally, or is it that his involvement guarantees that incremental progress will always be made? As a follow-up to the former: do you think that's the case for Twitter? As a follow-up to the latter: for how many companies do you believe Musk can simultaneously ensure success?
- bombcar 4y ago
  Arguably the key would be picking industries ripe for disruption if you’re willing to look stupid for awhile. Those would be high-capital low output in general, as low capital or high output have probably already tried many things. If there’s a Muskette strength it would be identifying those.
- kentlyons 4y ago
  To throw in my 2c (having worked at Tesla before) - I don't think it is either of these directly. Clearly no one is clairvoyant, however Elon is not one to take the status quo as an answer (eg his first principles mantra). And making a ton of incremental improvements over and over (especially in industries that tend to be risk averse to any changes) can result in huge improvements over time. And it's not like he is directly involved with those improvements. But there is a culture of no BS and fix things if you see it broken, get rid of as much bureaucracy as possible, etc. So if he can instill those cultural values he doesn't need to be directly involved. And if something goes wrong, it can also change on a dime, and go a different direction.