[kEiThZ]

Correct. Losing fossil fuel transport demand and even some manufactured goods (as additive manufacturing allows for on demand local manufacturing) are much bigger threats in my opinion. Though this also creates room to compete for other businesses on their networks. Autonomous trucking lowers the price bar for dispatchable shipping on some goods. But I still think most of what would go by truck tomorrow is probably going by truck today.

I found an FRA link with some stats (I'm too lazy to go looking for Canadian stats, probably similar):

Freight Rail Overview | FRA

railroads.dot.gov

Notable points:

• 52% of freight traffic is bulk commodities including energy and agricultural products. 48% is consumer goods and other products, mostly intermodal shipping. Intermodal includes sea and air to rail. Not just truck-rail.
• Average fuel efficiency is 470 ton-miles per gallon.
• Average train length is 73 cars. Top is 200 cars. This is growing.

This shows you how incredibly fuel and labour efficient rail transport is. To put the above in perspective, shipping a 2t car from Vancouver to Halifax takes ~$100 in fuel at today's prices. Maybe just as much in direct labour costs. And these numbers for rail, can and will be improved with alternative fuels (hydrogen or electrification) and automation.

You'd probably need to budget $100 in consumables like tires for an autonomous vehicle doing 6000 km. And the capital cost amortization per km would be no contest, in favour of rail. And this is all before these heavy trucks start chewing up roads and attracting heavy fees from government. If you think governments are going to standby and let them double or triple road maintenance demand with no cost, I've got some oceanfront property in Saskatchewan you might want to look at.

 

[afransen]

Agreed that added pressure on roadways is going to lead necessarily to some sort of road taxation. Not just for freight, but also passenger vehicles. It's inevitable that with AVs will come excess, unmanageable demand for road capacity.

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm not even talking about road capacity. Tractor trailers do a ton of damage to the roads today. Adding more will only make it worse. That is expensive. And that is before we discuss the capacity/throughput of the road network itself. At some point, these costs will have to be recovered. And that will have a substantial impact on this 100% freight by truck dream.

 

[kEiThZ]

Now that Musk has admitted Hyperloop was an attempt to distract from California HSR, I hope people stop talking about it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1557221632837505025

 

[afransen]

Unfortunately it has a life of its own. I think that is probably a maximally uncharitable view of the situation. Maybe Musk was being cynical but he does seem prone to some flights of fancy.

 

[kEiThZ]

It was obvious at the time to a lot of engineers and even train nerds.

 

[MrGoose]

Unfortunately it has a life of its own. I think that is probably a maximally uncharitable view of the situation. Maybe Musk was being cynical but he does seem prone to some flights of fancy.

All the problems of space travel with none of the space tolerances.

 

[afransen]

All the problems of space travel with none of the space tolerances.

I agree that Hyperloop is a bad idea, and probably technically infeasible.

I'm not convinced that the more mundane cars in tunnels "Loop" idea is a bad idea. As long as it is privately financed I see no harm in it trying to find a niche in urban transport.

I could see it finding a niche as an urban express minibus, as people paying $10 a ride to get the 30 km downtown is a well proven model and if it can be done in 20 mins and not an hour that will be very compelling. Put 4-8 passengers in a vehicle and even with a safety driver it could be profitable.

 

[DirectionNorth]

I agree that Hyperloop is a bad idea, and probably technically infeasible.

I'm not convinced that the more mundane cars in tunnels "Loop" idea is a bad idea. As long as it is privately financed I see no harm in it trying to find a niche in urban transport.

I could see it finding a niche as an urban express minibus, as people paying $10 a ride to get the 30 km downtown is a well proven model and if it can be done in 20 mins and not an hour that will be very compelling. Put 4-8 passengers in a vehicle and even with a safety driver it could be profitable.

If you're going to spend the money and public effort on building tunnels and stations, you might as well make it public transport. The Loop and its thinking will prevent a true high-capacity transit system in Las Vegas from being built for a generation (the Strip seems like a very good choice of corridor, connecting to the airport, U of N at LV, and downtown).

 

[rbt]

I agree that Hyperloop is a bad idea, and probably technically infeasible.

Bad idea for people; all those usual comfort problems become a big issue. Virgin Hyperloop might be stumbling on a feasible business plan in creating an alternative for air-freight though.

Running a pair of 1.2m standard oil pipelines at a depth of 50m below ocean surface from Sydney (Nova Scotia) to Porto (Portugal) could have some very interesting uses and replace a few hundred daily cargo flights between Europe and North America. It's basically pneumatic tube system scaled up.

 

[afransen]

Bad idea for people; all those usual comfort problems become a big issue. Virgin Hyperloop might be stumbling on a feasible business plan in creating an alternative for air-freight though.

Running a pair of 1.2m standard oil pipelines at a depth of 50m below ocean surface from Sydney (Nova Scotia) to Porto (Portugal) could have some very interesting uses and replace a few hundred daily cargo flights between Europe and North America. It's basically pneumatic tube system scaled up.

Maintaining a hard vacuum for that length would be very difficult and energy intensive, if it is even possible.

 

[rbt]

Maintaining a hard vacuum for that length would be very difficult and energy intensive, if it is even possible.

Agreed entirely, but goods are also not as sensitive about the duration of the trip. Slower speeds don't require nearly as much of a vacuum.

 

[lenaitch]

Bad idea for people; all those usual comfort problems become a big issue. Virgin Hyperloop might be stumbling on a feasible business plan in creating an alternative for air-freight though.

Running a pair of 1.2m standard oil pipelines at a depth of 50m below ocean surface from Sydney (Nova Scotia) to Porto (Portugal) could have some very interesting uses and replace a few hundred daily cargo flights between Europe and North America. It's basically pneumatic tube system scaled up.

Is there even the technology to bury something below the seabed? It's not like it's an even, sandy terrain. Most submarine cables and pipelines are, at best, trenched just below the bed. Maintaining a vacuum at depth would be harder than it is on the surface. What happens if something gets stuck?

 

[crs1026]

Is there even the technology to bury something below the seabed? It's not like it's an even, sandy terrain. Most submarine cables and pipelines are, at best, trenched just below the bed. Maintaining a vacuum at depth would be harder than it is on the surface. What happens if something gets stuck?

Seismic events happen. Cables and pipelines have some flex, but I can’t imagine building a tunnel remotely with enough strength to withstand all that. And there is the question of gradient. Route selection would certainly be interesting. And access to a fault or blockage would require some very complicated robotics. I’d say we are a couple of decades before tackling any of that, even for a shorter run..

- Paul

 

[rbt]

Is there even the technology to bury something below the seabed?

No, nor do you need to bury it. See the under construction Norway coastal highway for an example of floating (but not on the surface) transportation corridor. Deeper than boats and weather concerns, but anchored in place is sufficient.

Obviously Virgin Hyperloop, having recently fired half their staff, is a very long way from having either the technology or funding to implement anything. I just feel a cargo specific approach, despite being a long-shot, is still more feasible than a passenger approach so I applaud VH on making that change.

What happens if something gets stuck?

A world of financial hurt for the operator no doubt; and some next-day mail won't be delivered next day.