Hyperloop lays off half of its employees as it pivots away from passenger travel (opens in new tab)

Look at some Swiss alpine tunnels or the underwater Channel tunnel if you want to see advanced tunnel boring technology.

Edit: to give exact numbers: boring for LVCC Loop started on November 15 2019, and the tunnels opened to the public in April 2021, 1.5 years later for 1.7 miles (2.7km) of tunnel. In contrast, boring for the Channel tunnel started in June 1988, and the tunnels were opened to freight trains in June 1994 - 6 years for 50 km (31 miles) of much larger undersea tunnels, which allow transport up to 160km/h in real use (200 km/h being the highest designed speed). That's 5.2 miles per year, versus TBC's 1.1 miles per year, comparing like with like.

> Railroad corporations operated under charters received from the states, [...] These charters usually vested the railroad with a public mission and some pub- lic responsibility. Railroads were chartered to carry passengers and freight, for which they were incidentally permitted to charge fares.

> AMTRAK has not, during its brief existence, attempted to operate its own trains with its own personnel, but has instead chosen to rely upon contracts with the railroads. The result has been the immediate freeing of railroads from the passenger deficit. AMTRAK has also created a type of cost-plus subsidy, with no incentive to the operating railroad to improve services or control costs. The results are generally what one would expect.

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

I've heard it said Amtrak was designed to fail so that freight would have no competition. It seems to me this is the case, since anytime Amtrak tries to expand (or even re-establish service as in Mobile-New Orleans), the freight companies immediately go to court to prevent being forced to share their infrastructure.

Amtrak makes almost all of its money on the Northeast Corridor which it then basically throws away in the rest of the country.

When humans are on a train speed counts and they are willing to pay extra for it. When freight is on a train they can save money by going slower.

You dont need to shave off 4 hours of 8hrs journey, what most logistics channels need is predictability and at as low cost as possible.

If you can save 1/2 shipping costs of you TVs at cost of 1-2 extra days of transportation, you will pick that option (with exception of perishables).

Thats how the logistics channels work. High predictability ensures you can schedule work, space, and send-off without fuss. That's why rail is the best for the task. So company saves money because solution is cheap and because there are no (or minimal) backlogs due to some failure in transport.

Its the definition of KISS. It works, predictable and cheap.

As Musk said 'Its that simple'. It boggles my mind anyone would be crazy enough to pick hyper-loop as cargo solution - a what 10 years old vaporware with no working anything but CGI.

Let's say you want to go from SF to Seattle, a distance of about 800 miles. If you had a typical high-speed maglev train (250 mph), the trip would take about 3 hours. On an airplane, the actual transit would take a little under 2 hours, so if you get to the airport an hour early that's 3 hours total. (Personally I never show up to the airport more than 20 minutes early for domestic flights.) So for any trip longer than that, airplanes beat even high-speed maglev trains on speed. Of course there are factors besides raw speed to consider, like comfort and cost, but speed is an important one.

The bigger your country is, the more the fixed-cost of airline security is amortized over the distance traveled. If you don't have to travel very far, trains make sense. In Japan the population density is 10x higher than in the US, so trips tend to be much shorter. In the US, which is very spread out comparatively speaking, planes are much more compelling. So US trains need to either be really fast, or really cheap and comfortable, to be worth it.

The fastest maglev trains can go quite a bit faster than 250mph, by the way. For example Japan is constructing its "L0 series" which will have a top speed of around 375mph, and at this point you do compete with planes. Building one of these seems a lot more realistic than anything Hyperloop, but it's not like these superfast maglevs are anything conventional either, so I don't see the harm in experimenting with fun tech like vacuum-sealing the train.

You're not entirely wrong however. There is effectively one atmosphere differential at sea level, but framing the difference that way is at worst intellectual dishonest, or at best a rather naive understanding. In actual reality there is a very long tube, and all the surface area is under pressure. In metric is 10,000 kg per square meter, multiplied by all the square meters down the length of tube. Of course this simplified understanding ignores the weight of the transport capsule inside, which causes a momentary higher differential. And, the hyperloop won't work at sea level, as others have pointed out, it would have to be underground to avoid thermal expansion issues... meaning higher pressure.

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/blog_images/hyperl...

> Another extreme is the approach, advocated by Rand and ET3, of drawing a hard or near hard vacuum in the tube and then using an electromagnetic suspension. The problem with this approach is that it is incredibly hard to maintain a near vacuum in a room, let alone 700 miles (round trip) of large tube with dozens of station gateways and thousands of pods entering and exiting every day.

> All it takes is one leaky seal or a small crack somewhere in the hundreds of miles of tube and the whole system stops working. However, a low pressure (vs. almost no pressure) system set to a level where standard commercial pumps could easily overcome an air leak and the transport pods could handle variable air density would be inherently robust. Unfortunately, this means that there is a non-trivial amount of air in the tube and leads us straight into another problem.

I doubt that they can get their costs lower than airplanes. They need to buy land all the way from point A to point B, vs only at airports. Airplanes also run at a partial vacuum (30000 feet) by nature. As such it is hard to see anyone using them instead of something else. Where speed counts airplanes are faster, where speed doesn't count ships and slow trains in air are a cheaper.

The proper answer to your question requires information you're not going to get by asking HN, it's like asking how much time we should spend investigating fusion power. It completely depends on what leads people have, how promising the those leads look, how many "hard steps" are ahead of us, the benefit if we made it past them, etc.

The advantage of fusion is that this radioactivity is short lived compared to uranium - decades instead of centuries or millennia. However, this also means that you have to stay much farther away from it, as it's much more radioactive than a piece of uranium which you can typically hold in your hand without any ill effects (just don't hold it under your pillow for a few years).