HYPERLOOP in Canada

[Phate.exe]

2 hours ago, Wintyr said:

do they have to use concrete mabey some fancy space aged metal or composite of some sort

Concrete IS a composite.

 

It's aggregate (read:  gravel) bonded together with cement.  It's also extremely cheap (relatively speaking), VERY strong in compression loads, and construction methods are pretty simple.  Tensile strength isn't great, which is why it's usually reinforced with either steel (rebar or fibers) to carry the tensile load.

 

Back on topic:  I don't see hyperloop happening anywhere.  Vacuum chambers are finnicky bastards, and if you'd like an illustration of what happens to people riding in the hyperloop if the vacuum fails just watch the channelsuperfun vacuum cannon video.

[LienusLateTips]

Why not Vancouver - Seattle - Portland

 

we are pouring money into finding routes for HSR 

[Wintyr]

we should just delete the whole thread Linus said hyper loops are boring

[RagnarokDel]

High speed monorail would be better. Hyperloop is a silly idea.

6 hours ago, Damascus said:

Eh, a Maglev train is magnitudes safer, cheaper, easier to maintain and only marginally slower.

Trains cant handle elevation well.

[LienusLateTips]

2 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Trains cant handle elevation well.

 

ah... curving at 40kph

 

(By Flying Penguin at the English language Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=27410696)

[Damascus]

5 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Trains cant handle elevation well.

Trains don't but suspended monorails like these do.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/suspended-monorail.html

[RagnarokDel]

3 minutes ago, JDE said:

 

ah... curving at 40kph

 

(By Flying Penguin at the English language Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=27410696)

Not quite what I was talking about. I was talking about going uphill and downhill.

2 minutes ago, Damascus said:

Trains don't but suspended monorails like these do.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/suspended-monorail.html

I literally talked about monorails in my post

 

Monorails also have the advantage of being able to be put right in the middle of our highways so you dont have to kick people out of their lands and deforest even more.

[Damascus]

2 minutes ago, RagnarokDel said:

Not quite what I was talking about. I was talking about going uphill and downhill.

I literally talked about monorails in my post

Lol, didn't notice.  The rest of my posts have been about monorail being a better alternative so I guess I derped.

[Eaglerino]

We can't make an oil pipeline that doesn't leak but I expect them to believe they'll send me through a vacuum tunnel that is absolutely flawless for less than $100 a trip

[MoonSpot]

2 hours ago, huilun02 said:

 cost for a ride would have to be exorbitant to just break even. Would the kind of people who can afford it, be willing to spend on what is considered a form of mass transit?

Looking to the concorde is probably the best answer we'd get on that.

There are none in service now, with no equivalent replacement.  Did manage to hobble along for almost 3 decades before calling it quits, and was both a success and a failure.

[Teddy07]

4 minutes ago, MoonSpot said:

Looking to the concorde is probably the best answer we'd get on that.

There are none in service now, with no equivalent replacement.  Did manage to hobble along for almost 3 decades before calling it quits, and was both a success and a failure.

The problem with the Concorde is not the technical feasibility but rather the economic situation. It is just not worth it.

It is just like the moon landing. Of course, we can do it but it´s not worth the cost.

 

[MoonSpot]

52 minutes ago, Teddy07 said:

The problem with the Concorde is not the technical feasibility but rather the economic situation. It is just not worth it.

It is just like the moon landing. Of course, we can do it but it´s not worth the cost.

 

Yep.  Cost was the question being possed by huilun02, and whether or not chartering to wealthier patrons would sustain a transportation system.

Never really does, only the middle class makes mass transport work long term.  From planes, trains to roads for automobiles.

That's also why concorde had both success and failure.  Techincal success, it did work.  However, it failed to service the middle class market and as such was a market and business failure.

[laminutederire]

15 hours ago, Zando Bob said:

Oh. Boring. Why not a maglev then, they go way faster. 

The train they used is capableof going up to almost 600km/h, the limitation isnt there 

[Bananasplit_00]

guess Canadians also want to be turned into minced meat for the cheap cost of a first class airplaine ticket? hyperloop is stupid and why is anyone actiually funding this?...

[Sparviero]

I hear Shelbyville has a monorail. 

[RagnarokDel]

8 hours ago, MoonSpot said:

Looking to the concorde is probably the best answer we'd get on that.

There are none in service now, with no equivalent replacement.  Did manage to hobble along for almost 3 decades before calling it quits, and was both a success and a failure.

I doubt there's supersonic booms in a near vaccum like hyperloop. That was one of the big hurdles of the concord.

[TheRedViper]

Im sure people from a forum know better about economics than one of 2 guys to ever make 3 billion dollars company from scratch. If hes doing it, its because he and his team believe in it. They told him electric cars were dead, that space should be left to governments, etc. Look at his projects now.

 

Also, the interest for the montreal toronto link comes from the amount of people that actually move between these two often, especially the ones going from one place for a week than coming back for weekends. The loop would allow everyday travel. Not to forget most international flights from montreal actually need to stop at toronto to change flight, thats a lot of people.