Hyperloop doesn't work, there's nothing demonstrable coming out of any of the prototypes, and the trade-offs of maintaining the semi-vacuum over great distances isn't worth the cost vs an open air train track. It's pure fantasy at this stage.
The main reasons people choose airplanes over trains is:
So why don't people take the train for these distances? Cost. The easy solution is to tax flights and use the taxes to offset railway prices.
The existing rail networks are there today and deploying 400kmph trains is possible using existing, safe technology. This would mean paris->berlin in 2.5 hours which solves the time problem for even larger distances
> there is a long way to go in encouraging passengers and freight off aircraft and into train stations
75% of intra-EU freight is by road, and the proportion of intra-EU air freight is already dropping. [1]
> What’s more, unlike the aviation sector, rail passenger rights in the EU leave international travellers liable for missed connections and cancellations if they have to book tickets with multiple operators.
If you book air travel with multiple operators and miss your connection, that's tough luck, too. If I fly Air France from Lyon to Paris and then have a RyanAir ticket booked to London that I miss because the first flight was late, that's on me, not Air France.
> Paris to Berlin in an hour: Welcome to the future of high-speed rail travel in Europe
According to the article this future - at best - is decades away...and it relies on completely rethinking and rebuilding the transport infrastructure of a continent.
I love living in Europe and I love the convenience that the TGV and high speed rail networks offer compared to air travel. But this article is all about a future that is not at all guaranteed to emerge.
Can we collectively agree hyperloop is a vapourware.
It doesn't scale. Its too expensive, too dangerous and requires super-materials we don't have. It needs a straight tracks a near impossible scenario in densely populated eu.
Just stop with it already. Might as well talk about pocket wormholes as means of transportation.
How do people justify Hyperloop as a particularly green option when my initial thought would be that it uses a similar amount of energy as a normal train - which we already have as a popular option? Or is the energy cost of maintaining the vacuum & associated processes far less than energy cost of air resistance for a normal train?
My presumption is that the vacuum matter is no trivial undertaking considering the proposals in this article for extremely long tubes all the way across Europe. Not trying to be snarky - I'm not that familiar with the details of Hyperloop and genuinely intrigued by how one would create so much vacuum!
Okay I'm late to the party and the thing is flagged, but why does everyone assume Hyperloop == materials we don't have, magnetic hover and all that ? The hyperloop white paper have none of that and is way simpler ?
The main reasons people choose airplanes over trains is:
A) Cost
B) Time
Journeys like london->edinburgh are already equivalent to flying times in real world conditions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6MGpvuCKD8
So why don't people take the train for these distances? Cost. The easy solution is to tax flights and use the taxes to offset railway prices.
The existing rail networks are there today and deploying 400kmph trains is possible using existing, safe technology. This would mean paris->berlin in 2.5 hours which solves the time problem for even larger distances