Trains.com

California Higher Speed - But is it Still Rail?

3225 views
38 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:32 PM

     I like ideas like this.  It gives me a chance to ponder some of the math.  At $60 billion to build, and $30 to ride, the first 533 million or so fares would be enough to just cost the construction cost, plus interest of course.

     The article says speeds up to 760 m.p.h.  Isn't that breaking the sound barrier?  To make the 383 mile trip in 30 minutes, you'd have to be going 760 m.p.h. for the entire distance.  Or, since the speed would be 0 m.p.h. at each end, I suppose you could go an average of 760 m.p.h., if you hit 1520 m.p.h. at the middle of the trip.

     You would think that anyone considering investing in this scheme would be better at math than the folks proposing it.  

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,139 posts
Posted by Gramp on Thursday, December 18, 2014 8:57 PM

Here's a different link.  More explanation.

http://www.wired.com/2014/12/jumpstartfund-hyperloop-elon-musk/

 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Thursday, December 18, 2014 7:29 PM

YoHo1975
LA to SF in 6 hours? There is no day nor time when that is possible....legally.
 

383 miles on the 5.  6 hours = average speed of 64 mph.  Driving at 70 mph is hardly impossible.   

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:53 PM

Paul of Covington

   One thing to remember from the article:

  "'They look at this like a blank sheet of paper on which they can realize their fantasies,' UCLA professor Craig Hodgetts said."

    I thought I remembered a similar discussion some time ago & found it:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/216301.aspx

 

Paul, I thought so. And, seeing who put this out for us the first time, I have no better opinion of it now than I did then. If you must get somewhere day before yesterday, it might be the way to go.

Johnny

  • Member since
    July 2010
  • From: Louisiana
  • 2,310 posts
Posted by Paul of Covington on Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:34 PM

   One thing to remember from the article:

  "'They look at this like a blank sheet of paper on which they can realize their fantasies,' UCLA professor Craig Hodgetts said."

    I thought I remembered a similar discussion some time ago & found it:

http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/743/t/216301.aspx

_____________ 

  "A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
Posted by Victrola1 on Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:28 PM

Wizlish

 

 
Victrola1
It sounds too good to be true...

 

"Only" 16 billion to connect LA and SF.  And now solar power is the technology supposed to be 'too cheap to meter.'  Unless I remember incorrectly, PRT at either end (at higher-yet infrastructure costs?)

Engineered by architecture students.

What could go wrong?

 

The asthetic trumps the laws of Economics and Physics. 

 

  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: US
  • 13,488 posts
Posted by Mookie on Thursday, December 18, 2014 3:22 PM

Wizlish
 
Victrola1
It sounds too good to be true...

 

"Only" 16 billion to connect LA and SF.  And now solar power is the technology supposed to be 'too cheap to meter.'  Unless I remember incorrectly, PRT at either end (at higher-yet infrastructure costs?)

Engineered by architecture students.

What could go wrong?

 

  Mischief

She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,879 posts
Posted by YoHo1975 on Thursday, December 18, 2014 2:33 PM
LA to SF in 6 hours? There is no day nor time when that is possible....legally.
  • Member since
    October 2014
  • 1,644 posts
Posted by Wizlish on Thursday, December 18, 2014 2:28 PM

Victrola1
It sounds too good to be true...

"Only" 16 billion to connect LA and SF.  And now solar power is the technology supposed to be 'too cheap to meter.'  Unless I remember incorrectly, PRT at either end (at higher-yet infrastructure costs?)

Engineered by architecture students.

What could go wrong?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • 1,486 posts
California Higher Speed - But is it Still Rail?
Posted by Victrola1 on Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:35 AM

 

LA To San Fran In 30 Minutes? Hyperloop CEO Says Speed Tube Could Become Reality

 

 

PLAYA VISTA (CBSLA.com) — It takes about six hours to drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco – depending on your speed – and more than an hour to fly.

But in the future, the trip may take a matter of minutes.

Designers of the speed tube called Hyperloop say they are one step closer to making that happen.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/12/17/la-to-san-fran-in-5-minutes-hyperloop-ceo-says-speed-tube-could-become-reality/

Surface, but no mention of flange on rail. Controlled nuclear fusion not mentioned. Solar powered. 

It sounds too good to be true. 

 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy