There has been quite a bit of hype over the last couple of days about the Hyperloop proposal being pushed by Elon Musk.  It’s been quite interesting to see the different reactions that have come out about the project.

Billionaire inventor and entrepreneur Elon Musk has unveiled his design for a super-fast transport system that carries passengers in pressurised tubes at near-supersonic speeds.

Musk, who heads electric carmaker Tesla Motors and private space exploration firm SpaceX, released a 57-page document describing the ‘Hyperloop’ project today.

It would allow passengers to cover the 614 kilometres between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 35 minutes.

“Hyperloop consists of a low pressure tube with capsules that are transported at both low and high speeds throughout the length of the tube,” the document said.

“The capsules are supported on a cushion of air, featuring pressurized air and aerodynamic lift.”

Musk has said he has no plans to build the system but offered the “open source design” to allow others to pursue a venture.

The system is capable of speeds up to 1,220 kilometers (760 miles) an hour, or Mach 0.91.

Musk has called the system a cross between a “Concorde, a rail gun, and an air hockey table.”

Hyperloop Pod

Many in the Tech community are quite excited by the idea, perhaps partly due to the sci-fi nature of it but also that Elon has a history of making seemingly impossible and slightly futuristic businesses work. He is the founder of both Space X and also of Tesla Motors – the maker of the electric car that Gerry Brownlee had a spin in while on a trip to the US – while previous businesses have included Paypal. He’s built a reputation of doing what people think can’t be done and so when he says he is going to change transport, people understandably listen. On the other side of the ledger are the transport community who seem to have taken a fairly critical approach to the announcement, looking at the proposal in quite some level of detail.

First let’s start with the reason Elon is pushing this idea. There have been talks of building high speed rail in California since the 1980’s and progress on getting it built has been fairly slow thanks to the wonders of politics. Like in NZ anything to do with rail can take decades to get signed off while many large roading projects get rubber stamped without scrutiny. As work on the proposal has progressed, so has the cost and it is now expected to cost up to US $68 billion which is an absolutely scary amount of money. There are a number of places that the train also won’t be as fast as it could otherwise be due to using existing lower speed tracks in a bid to save some money. The Hyperloop proposal seeks to address both the speed and cost issues.

Hyperloop image

I’m not going to go through all of the issues with the proposal as many others have done that already but I will highlight some of them below.

This post from the blog Stop and Move has an excellent breakdown of some of the non engineering issues with the proposal.

I was excited to hear about the proposal, as there had been some hype attached to it. Elon Musk is a serious guy – founder of Tesla, SpaceX and Pay-Pal – so when he says he has something big, it makes sense to listen.

The headlines note the following facts:

  • SF to LA in 35 minutes
  • Cost under $6 billion
  • Something that could be built within the next decade

Fantastic right? The future is here!

Problem is, taking a look at the documents that came with the announcement, it seems to be a fantastic joke. Those claims do not appear to be true – his own proposal doesn’t even get close to supporting them.

The author then goes on to look at some of the non engineering issues with the proposal, these are summarised below.

  1. The project only goes from the northern edge of LA to the western side of the San Francisco Bay area. That leaves almost an extra hour of travelling on each side to reach the centre of LA or San Francisco making the HSR project actually a bit faster and a single seat ride.
  2. It is getting through the urban areas that are the  extremely expensive parts and this proposal avoids that by simply only going to the edges. The cheapest part of the HSR project is the bits in the Central Valley of California which is actually costed at less than $10b so the price isn’t that different to the Hyperloop option.
  3. The proposal assumes they can just install an elevated structure alongside the interstate without any objection from locals. Built into the HSR proposal are costs to deal with court disputes and property purchases.
  4. The Hyperloop only connects San Francisco and LA (well the edges) but nothing in-between whereas the HSR proposal passes through many of the smaller cities along the way like Palmdale, Bakersfield and Fresno. The areas being served are generally the ones who happened to vote in favour of the HSR proposal in a referendum.
  5. Bureaucracy and legal battles are likely to result in the project taking much much longer than the decade worth of construction proposed by Elon.

Other blogs like this one go into some more technical details about the proposal.

In short it seems that there are a lot of elements in the Hyperloop proposal that simply don’t add up and even if it is technically possible it may not be as easy as has been suggested. Many see it as perhaps an attempt to derail the often controversial high speed rail project more than anything else. So while the idea is very cool looking, it does unfortunately seem more like loopy hype than a Hyperloop.

Share this

24 comments

  1. I know that high speed rail or even car is also risky – nevertheless it is probably worth pointing out that travelling in a pressurised tube at 1220kmh in one of the worlds most famously active earthquake zones could be a fairly scary prospect – hell of a way to go though!

    1. Not too difficult to design for that to be reasonably safe even with that in mind. But it just adds another layer of cost and approvals process that this project obviously hasn’t considered…

      1. If you read the document you’ll see that earthquake risk HAS been addressed pretty well. Do you really think Musk is stupid enough to have completely forgotten about seismic risks?

        1. Meh, I don’t know him, and if he has, I stand corrected. I did however read about the fact that he has “forgotten” that a train shouldn’t end at the edge of a city it is to be a suitable replacement for another high-speed train that IS proposed to go from the heart of one city to another. So maybe I was just not particularly impressed with his memory already?

    1. It would cannibalise the many, many passenger flights that happen between these cities – IF it actually connected them, rather than just the outskirts.

      France for example has comparatively few internal flights – why should one taker a plane when the TGV travels all over France?

  2. ‘Elon has a history of making seemingly impossible and slightly futuristic businesses work’

    Not really. Internet payment systems, electric vehicles, and rockets are all existing and proven technology, nothing ‘seemingly impossible’ about any of them. Like almost all successful entrepreneurs he is a genius at combining existing tech and systems in more successful ways. Which is very impressive but not analogous to what is proposed here.

    You will note he is not planning to spend a dime on this. I suggest that Musk himself knows this is not going to happen, otherwise he would be keeping the IP.

    Hype.

    1. Or proposing to finance and profit from it himself. Though I can’t quite see the IP in here anyway. Vacuum tube rail? Maglev rail? All done long before him.

      Kinda sad in a way, that he sees more likelihood of getting money from building fricking spaceships than high-speed trains…

  3. Hyperloopy! But I kinda like Elon Musk, mainly because he’s called… Elon Musk. Clearly this thing would never pass the fire regs – you need an service tunnel for each tube with the ability to exit at any given point, which renders the physics impossible by the looks. They don’t cover this in the documentation. Just ask the Chunnel designers about it – you gotta have a way to get out – and in – in the event of a fire blocking the pipe. Simples.

  4. The votes are in; It’s all Loopey Hype.
    Now we’ve had this diversion into lala land plus Gerry ‘discovering’ electic cars can we please get back get back to the CFN? Cheers

  5. So it travels about the same speed as an aircraft… but an aircraft that requires an expensive tube on stilts rather than flying through free air. How can that possibly make sense?

    1. Obi, if you had read a bit into it, you would have understood the question instead of expecting people to answer it for you. quicker and less polluting than the plane, cheaper and faster than the train.Faster than the plane because it can accelerate much quicker than the plane. At least that is what the proposal claims.

      1. Understanding the (claimed) attributes of the solution does not equate to understanding the specifics of the problem(s) it purports to address. Are we, for example, to believe that one of the problems to be addressed is the lack of speed of aircraft on the SFO-LAX route? What specific areas of San Francisco and Los Angeles are to be linked? What is the capacity requirement of the system? etc. Unless the specifics of the “question” are stated it’s impossible to evaluate how well this solution claims to meet them.

  6. I would probably think up a protection system for it first before prototyping because the chance of dying in one of these pods would be higher than standard air travel.

  7. Nowhere does it make clear that passengers have to be alive when they arrive at their destination. Personally I think that if you are going to use a rail gun and windowless carriages, you might as well just load the passengers into a giant artillery shell and use the gun to fire them in the general direction of San Francisco/Los Angeles.

  8. I think it is a great idea. The problem is that it is too big a project to try as a first attempt. everyone wants to be the second guy. when it comes to technology, the pioneer usually fails and it is the people that come after that succeed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *