• Bye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ok so this video convinced me hyperloops are a bad idea because vacuum is difficult to maintain

    well then what’s a good idea that can go faster than airplanes? What am I supposed to be excited about instead? I love trains and the hyper loop sounded like a really fast train, which is cool.

      • Amju Wolf@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        The actual speed that matters should be calculated including any on- and off-boarding, so planes aren’t all that fast for short distances (considering most people probably need at least an hour before flight in the airport and at least like 20 minutes after arrival).

        • mayonaise_met@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          At least 20 minutes is not enough to get to a place you want to visit though, while trains in many places ride straight into the city.

          • andruid
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Some more modern cities air ports near the centers as well

      • erwan
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maglev is expensive both to build (because you need magnetized rails) and to operate (uses more energy overall than a shinkansen).

        There is a reason why Japan built a prototype decades ago but never built a commercial line.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t the hyperloop just a vacuum tube for cars? As in, it would have the same density issues that cars do, it’s just faster.

      The better option is ultra high speed trains, like the bullet train in Japan.

      • infeeeee@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s just a propulsion/transportation system, so the size of each car is not defined. Like a bus and a personal car use the same system…

        Maybe you think about his boring tunnels which are just normal tunnels for normal cars: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Convention_Center_Loop

        For hyperloop only prototypes were built, not for real usage. Considering the price of maintenance and construction of the vacuum tunnels, bigger cars will be used in normal operation. It’s also a separate system from any other current transport method, so there is no benefit of smaller cars, maybe something like a RORO system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll-on/roll-off

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok. I thought the original proposal was a pneumatic tunnel system connecting major cities (e.g. LA & SF) catering to individual passenger vehicles. So essentially a RORO, but smaller scale for transporting passenger cars.

          The LV system always seemed like a demo of the concept, but without the pneumatic system.

        • ColonelPanic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even more ideally there should be ample public transport at either end of the high speed line so a car isn’t necessary, and freight trains are far more efficient than carrying a lorry containing a single container.

          Eurotunnel is relatively unique as it bridges the UK to the rest of Europe, and the only other realistic option is a slower ferry journey. Where continental journeys are concerned there’s no need for them to be able to carry vehicles in my opinion.

        • Firipu@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You don’t need a car everywhere. Most non US developed countries have a robust public transport network. A car is actually less practical than public transport for like 90% of use cases if you live in Metropolitan areas. Same for tourism. Don’t need a car to go visit Paris. Jump on a local tgv and be in center Paris just a few hours later from most of western Europe. Why would you bring a car…

          • KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Because I want to visit the hardware store damnit, and it’s 1h away by train/bus vs 15min by car, and I have to carry all the stuff with me on the train, man, I miss having a car sometimes…

          • tankplanker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not everywhere has this, for example regional France does not, not does regional Japan. Also it’s completely unhelpful to get people out of cars and into public transport without realising that people need to take baby steps towards this. Dictating the end state without having sensible steps to bring people along with the process is just beyond dumb, especially when a lot of countries e.g., the UK have absolutely shit public transport that requires decades of investment.

    • gomp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Faster than current planes? Past planes that have been retired because they weren’t as efficient