Hyperloops in Canada

[milomilo]

Because it's vapourware, always has been and remains so. We've been saying this all along, and every time it pops up again, later than claimed, under delivering and over promising still, all the fan boys yet again trumpet how amazing it is, even though it is obviously bullshit. If you don't like being shat on, then don't promote bullshit.

"Ad hominem logical fallacies"? Where?

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by scryer

I guess we're going to be playing the game where any kind of progress gets shat on.

Nobody laughs at the Hyperloop because the process of climbing up that “Technological Readiness Level” is so painfully slow, but because they keep moving the goalposts by continuing to insist that they will open the first commercial Hyperloop system in as little as “2 or 3 years’ time”, which will instantly obviate established transportation technologies.

The only one acting immature here (apart from those suspecting ad-hominem attacks and other “fallacies” behind every corner) are those people who believe that we should stop investing in existing transportation technology solutions to our pressing mobility problems, just because some quasi-religious cult believes that they will have a better solution available for implementation within a matter of months...

PS: the strongest criticisms of the Hyperloop still come from those people who understand best what the challenges and painful constraints in real-world transportation engineering are (and which the Hyperloop believers continue to deny just as vehemently as some people south of the border refuse to acknowledge election results), such as Permanent Way Engineers:
https://permanentrail.co.uk/loopyhype/

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because it's vapourware, always has been and remains so. We've been saying this all along, and every time it pops up again, later than claimed, under delivering and over promising still, all the fan boys yet again trumpet how amazing it is, even though it is obviously bullshit. If you don't like being shat on, then don't promote bullshit.

"Ad hominem logical fallacies"? Where?

More to the point, Hyperloop proponents never pitch it as a ready to deploy alternative (it isn't). They simply use it to attack existing rail proposals. Musk did this to CalHSR in California. Some proponents have pushed the same line against HFR in Ontario and Quebec.

What's far more telling is how Asians and Europeans who have HSR networks have laughed off the idea of delaying rail investments to wait for Hyperloop. It's only in North America that the public is easily duped.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

More to the point, Hyperloop proponents never pitch it as a ready to deploy alternative (it isn't). They simply use it to attack existing rail proposals. Musk did this to CalHSR in California. Some proponents have pushed the same line against HFR in Ontario and Quebec.

What's far more telling is how Asians and Europeans who have HSR networks have laughed off the idea of delaying rail investments to wait for Hyperloop. It's only in North America that the public is easily duped.

I don't actually believe Elon Musk is as Machiavellian as that - I do believe he wants to make the planet better, only he is so egotistical that he believes that anything that is his idea is the correct solution.

To be honest, when you look at the incompetence of modern governments at building rail it's not hard to see why people lose faith in it. California is one of the richest places on the planet, the epicentre of innovation and birthplace of the modern world. But railways are easy to build, there's nothing complicated about them compared to everything else we can do, yet California can't build them? Canada is the same, we are near infinitely richer than we were in 1880, but it is just as hard to built HFR as it was to build the Pacific railway. Something is broken.

Of course though, the reason we can't build rail is not because of some technological problem, it is because of government and NIMBYs. The countries we have built have made private possessions so valuable that it is impossible to replace them with public goods. Hyperloop will face the exact same issue, only more so, since it will definitely be more expensive to build than HSR and require a straighter alignment. And thus the case for building it instantly evaporates.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't actually believe Elon Musk is as Machiavellian as that - I do believe he wants to make the planet better, only he is so egotistical that he believes that anything that is his idea is the correct solution.

Musk has a very long history of opposing public transit. This argument against CalHSR was just another episode.

Originally Posted by milomilo

To be honest, when you look at the incompetence of modern governments at building rail it's not hard to see why people lose faith in it. California is one of the richest places on the planet, the epicentre of innovation and birthplace of the modern world. But railways are easy to build, there's nothing complicated about them compared to everything else we can do, yet California can't build them?

California can and is building High Speed Rail. The issue is the cost. And that cost is very much driven by the challenges that come with building in California. Notably crossing fault lines, passing through mountains and ecologically sensitive areas and connecting to urban centres through massive sprawling metros. Musk ignored all of this in his proposed Hyperloop alternative to come up with a fantastically low ball number.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

California can and is building High Speed Rail. The issue is the cost. And that cost is very much driven by the challenges that come with building in California. Notably crossing fault lines, passing through mountains and ecologically sensitive areas and connecting to urban centres through massive sprawling metros. Musk ignored all of this in his proposed Hyperloop alternative to come up with a fantastically low ball number.

It's been cut back to the point where it is pointless, the only portion that is being built, for now, is the easy section. The parts in the major cities will be far harder, and that is due to private property ownership, not technology. Yes, the issue is definitely cost but that does not make it any less of an issue. Large infrastructure in modern democracies has become so expensive and time consuming to build that it is unsurprising that people lose faith that governments can build anything at all.

Otherwise I agree with you, Musk ignores all these constraints, despite the fact that Hyperloop will face the same constraints, only more so, that HSR does.

[hipster duck]

^All the more reason to just have HFR rather than HSR. Want to travel at 200 km/h? Spend $5B. Want to travel at 300 km/h? Spend $50B. I'm exaggerating a bit, but the relationship between train speed and capital costs isn't linear.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

^All the more reason to just have HFR rather than HSR. Want to travel at 200 km/h? Spend $5B. Want to travel at 300 km/h? Spend $50B. I'm exaggerating a bit, but the relationship between train speed and capital costs isn't linear.

It depends on context. It can easily be that the marginal cost increase of more speed is less than the additional benefit of decreased transit time and increased ridership and, and there may be other reduced costs as you need fewer trains and crews. This was the case when the UK was deciding how fast to build HS2, and it was determined that building it to be very high speed made the business case better. This was found to be the case for Alberta HSR too, although the research put into that is not exactly extensive.

For HFR, the limit appears to be what VIA feels is politically palatable. HSR would probably be as good or better an investment as HFR, but the cost is too large, hence why it failed in the past. Hopefully the cost of HFR is just low enough to get built.

[Truenorth00]

HFR was picked because the benefits of simply building a dedicated track in Ontario is so substantial that it is low hanging fruit. Going above 177 kph or 201kph in some circumstances, is a step change in infrastructure requirements. Way more grade separation, larger turn radii, etc. So, VIA found a value space to play in: dedicated tracks built to a level before the step change kicks in.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

HFR was picked because the benefits of simply building a dedicated track in Ontario is so substantial that it is low hanging fruit. Going above 177 kph or 201kph in some circumstances, is a step change in infrastructure requirements. Way more grade separation, larger turn radii, etc. So, VIA found a value space to play in: dedicated tracks built to a level before the step change kicks in.

When HFR first came up, I was like "really, that's the best we can do in Canada?", but after learning all I have on here (from urban sky in particular) and otherwise, I think VIA are being very smart in their approach. HFR is the last, best chance we have at proper intercity rail in Canada so it is vital it gets built, even if we really should be able to do better.

[SpongeG]

this hyperloop was Richard Branson's doing.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

When HFR first came up, I was like "really, that's the best we can do in Canada?", but after learning all I have on here (from urban sky in particular) and otherwise, I think VIA are being very smart in their approach. HFR is the last, best chance we have at proper intercity rail in Canada so it is vital it gets built, even if we really should be able to do better.

HFR does a few things:

1) Proves demand for faster rail travel, especially on city pairs where it's close to competitive with air (Toronto-Ottawa, Montreal-Quebec City).

2) Provides a potential pathway for some incremental upgrades to achieve low grade HSR.

3) Locks down a ROW before further development in the suburbs makes it prohibitively expensive.

Imagine where we'd be if HFR was pushed for a decade or two ago instead of HSR.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

HFR does a few things:

1) Proves demand for faster rail travel, especially on city pairs where it's close to competitive with air (Toronto-Ottawa, Montreal-Quebec City).

2) Provides a potential pathway for some incremental upgrades to achieve low grade HSR.

3) Locks down a ROW before further development in the suburbs makes it prohibitively expensive.

Imagine where we'd be if HFR was pushed for a decade or two ago instead of HSR.

All agreed, but that's not to say that we (Canada as a whole) are not ambitious enough when it comes to infrastructure that would work. If we'd pulled the trigger 20 years ago and just built HSR, even if (when) it went over budget we'd look at it and be glad it was built. Like the Pacific railway - late, massively over budget, hugely controversial, but does anyone think Canada made a mistake building it?