3 ms·

The Hyperloop, if it were possible, would have about three times the current capacity of the Acela. At an 80min round trip running 20hr a day that's 15 trips p

by cbr 13y ago

The Hyperloop, if it were possible, would have about three times the current capacity of the Acela. At an 80min round trip running 20hr a day that's 15 trips per pod per day. So we have 40x28x15 = 16,800 daily round trips. The Acela holds 360 people per train with 16 round trips per day. That's 360x16 = 5,760 daily round trips. A high-speed system with dedicated track could run more often, and you could use longer trains than the Acela does, so the potential maximum bandwidth of high-speed rail is higher. But 16,800 daily round trips is large enough to be taken seriously. (Why do I say "if it were possible"? http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/loopy-ideas-are-fine-if-youre-an-entrepreneur/ http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/08/13/loopy... )

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dragontamer 13y ago
Acela is the elite service for the northeast corridor. It isn't your typical consumer train, but more like the "business class" train. You get more leg room and space to move about. Of the 8 trains on Acela, two are engines, and one is a cafe car. Acela shares its tracks with the Northeast Regional system, which is what your typical consumer is going to take. Really, Hyperloop needs to be compared against the entire Northeast Corridor... a single rail-line between Washington DC and Boston... but this single-rail serves many many more trains than just the Acela. Or at very least, the comparison needs to be against Northeast Regional, a much slower train but is the one that your typical consumer is going to take. After all, Acela trains share its tracks with Northeast Regional... and most people prefer the cheaper prices.
- cbr 13y ago
  The typical consumer doesn't take the Northeast Regional or the Acela. People take Airplanes for speed, or cars/buses for cost. The Hyperloop, as proposed, would compete primarily with airplanes because it's so much faster than other ways of getting between those two cities. (Between Boston and NYC, the link I'd most likely take, the Acela is only marginally faster than the Regional. The improvements planned in CT look like they would help, but actually cut similar amounts of time off the two routes.)
  - dragontamer 13y ago
    I call Northeast Regional "much slower" because its top speed is slower than the Acela. But at the end of the day, I think it ends up only being a 30 minute difference, because rarely do the trains actually go at their top speed (especially as they near NYC). IIRC, Northeast Regional is considered to be at capacity around NYC (where it services on the order of 100,000+ daily commutes). Anyway, the reason why this is being compared to railroads, is that the investment here is not measured only in dollars. When you build ground-based transportation of any kind, it necessitates blowing over some people's property... period. That is a real cost in people's livelihood, as the government forces people to move out of their homes to make room for the new road / railroad / hyperloop. So when we're talking about an entire "Hyperloop" system that can only service ~16k / day in theory (and probably much much less in practice), these numbers have to be weighed against the costs. True, both Railroads and Hyperloop suffer from this problem. But I bet you that the proposed California rail system will have significantly higher capacity... especially when the Rail system is going to connect up to the local metro systems. In fact, the High-speed rail system goes directly to Union Station in the heart of LA. Hyperloop doesn't have such plans. ----------------- Airplanes are magic stuff though, because they don't have these costs associated with them, and in practice Rail isn't much more efficient than Airplanes anyway. But the airways are crowding up between the cities, so building alternative means of travel is necessary now.

by cbr 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dragontamer 13y ago

Acela is the elite service for the northeast corridor. It isn't your typical consumer train, but more like the "business class" train. You get more leg room and space to move about. Of the 8 trains on Acela, two are engines, and one is a cafe car. Acela shares its tracks with the Northeast Regional system, which is what your typical consumer is going to take. Really, Hyperloop needs to be compared against the entire Northeast Corridor... a single rail-line between Washington DC and Boston... but this single-rail serves many many more trains than just the Acela. Or at very least, the comparison needs to be against Northeast Regional, a much slower train but is the one that your typical consumer is going to take. After all, Acela trains share its tracks with Northeast Regional... and most people prefer the cheaper prices.

cbr 13y ago
The typical consumer doesn't take the Northeast Regional or the Acela. People take Airplanes for speed, or cars/buses for cost. The Hyperloop, as proposed, would compete primarily with airplanes because it's so much faster than other ways of getting between those two cities. (Between Boston and NYC, the link I'd most likely take, the Acela is only marginally faster than the Regional. The improvements planned in CT look like they would help, but actually cut similar amounts of time off the two routes.)
- dragontamer 13y ago
  I call Northeast Regional "much slower" because its top speed is slower than the Acela. But at the end of the day, I think it ends up only being a 30 minute difference, because rarely do the trains actually go at their top speed (especially as they near NYC). IIRC, Northeast Regional is considered to be at capacity around NYC (where it services on the order of 100,000+ daily commutes). Anyway, the reason why this is being compared to railroads, is that the investment here is not measured only in dollars. When you build ground-based transportation of any kind, it necessitates blowing over some people's property... period. That is a real cost in people's livelihood, as the government forces people to move out of their homes to make room for the new road / railroad / hyperloop. So when we're talking about an entire "Hyperloop" system that can only service ~16k / day in theory (and probably much much less in practice), these numbers have to be weighed against the costs. True, both Railroads and Hyperloop suffer from this problem. But I bet you that the proposed California rail system will have significantly higher capacity... especially when the Rail system is going to connect up to the local metro systems. In fact, the High-speed rail system goes directly to Union Station in the heart of LA. Hyperloop doesn't have such plans. ----------------- Airplanes are magic stuff though, because they don't have these costs associated with them, and in practice Rail isn't much more efficient than Airplanes anyway. But the airways are crowding up between the cities, so building alternative means of travel is necessary now.