High Speed Rail in Canada

[wave46]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

^ Why have such an indirect route from Toronto to Ottawa? The only way that would make sense is if they planned a stop in Kingston but that's not labelled.

Grades, perhaps? The terrain along the St. Lawrence and paralleling the 416 is much more subdued than through the Canadian shield.

[niwell]

Because it's nothing more than a line drawn on the map. Of all the dumb futurist proposals, Hyperloop is on of the more unrealistic. Nothing about it adds up - even with significant breakthroughs in materials technology it would be a niche solution for a small number of wealthy business travellers / ultra-rich.

I mean I guess it's slightly better than when Elon Musk came up with the idea of underground automated highways, or Lyft "invented" buses the other day.

[MolsonExport]

^agreed.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by niwell

Because it's nothing more than a line drawn on the map. Of all the dumb futurist proposals, Hyperloop is on of the more unrealistic. Nothing about it adds up - even with significant breakthroughs in materials technology it would be a niche solution for a small number of wealthy business travellers / ultra-rich.

I mean I guess it's slightly better than when Elon Musk came up with the idea of underground automated highways, or Lyft "invented" buses the other day.

Well, if the thermal expansion problem can be solved, it will be fine. And why limited to wealthy people? A constructed ROW makes more money the more people you put into it (well, there is an optimal point, but as we see with HSR, it isn't near airline fares). Can make way more through volume.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, if the thermal expansion problem can be solved, it will be fine.

That's a pretty massive problem, to be fair. Although South Korea seems to think they can pull it off. I have my doubts...

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

nd why limited to wealthy people? A constructed ROW makes more money the more people you put into it (well, there is an optimal point, but as we see with HSR, it isn't near airline fares). Can make way more through volume.

Considering the tens (hundreds?) of billions it would cost to acquire the necessary ROW and build such a structure I couldn't see it being remotely cost effective without extremely high ticket prices. Capacity would be severely limited by safety factors too IMO - as safe as the tube may be you're still talking about instant death of every occupant if an incident occurs. Headways would have to be long enough to ensure that the affected section of guideway be isolated before other vehicles reach it. Any concept I've seen shows pretty small vehicles too - we're talking tens of people not the 1,500 hundred or so in a subway train.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, if the thermal expansion problem can be solved, it will be fine. And why limited to wealthy people? A constructed ROW makes more money the more people you put into it (well, there is an optimal point, but as we see with HSR, it isn't near airline fares). Can make way more through volume.

The cost of building a structure that could be kept at very low pressure reliably would likely be prohibitive.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by wave46

The cost of building a structure that could be kept at very low pressure reliably would likely be prohibitive.

Well, it isn't very low, just fairly low! Hence the fan system.

[lrt's friend]

Why bother talking about hyperloop until there is a real track in operation that has successfully and safely moved people?

[MalcolmTucker]

^ We should have a system that allows new non-government proponents to build new transportation corridors for people at their expense, sort of like how pipelines or powerlines are regulated today, without the government having to provide a ROW (as in assembling it and owning it).

Then the government could step back and let the chips fall where they may.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why bother talking about hyperloop until there is a real track in operation that has successfully and safely moved people?

This x 2.


newsday

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why bother talking about hyperloop until there is a real track in operation that has successfully and safely moved people?

Wouldn't this argument work with every concept anywhere? Someone always has to be the first to try something new.

Though in this case, I agree. We don't even have a regular HSR line yet, let alone something like maglev or even hyperloop. Baby steps.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Wouldn't this argument work with every concept anywhere? Someone always has to be the first to try something new.

Though in this case, I agree. We don't even have a regular HSR line yet, let alone something like maglev or even hyperloop. Baby steps.

Talk about it at a theoretical level, or about a test track, wherever that may be built. Why talk about a planned route in Ontario until it becomes a real possibility? It isn't right now and likely won't be for the foreseeable future.

[MalcolmTucker]

If it costs nearly nothing for the government to be ready for it with a regulatory framework, or a report that informs a future regulatory framework, why not do it? Why start 5 years behind?

[wave46]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If it costs nearly nothing for the government to be ready for it with a regulatory framework, or a report that informs a future regulatory framework, why not do it? Why start 5 years behind?

It will cost taxpayers something though. The regulatory framework has to be developed by a committee of government employees. That requires man-hours and consultations. That costs money.

The second issue is that the technology is very experimental. The principles are there, but how it translates to actual use (if it does, even) is an extremely open question. It might be like a government of the early 1930s developing a regulatory framework for transatlantic blimp travel for the next 40 years - a huge waste of time and energy as developments of the turbine engine and pressurized aircraft changed the game of air travel.

[MalcolmTucker]

The costs of not being near the start, as California transforms itself into one super city ... And there was a framework for blimp travel, even taxpayer supplied blimp fields and masts.

A few million laying things out seems totally fine.

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The costs of not being near the start, as California transforms itself into one super city ...

Not being the first is a very good thing. The first makes the mistakes the rest of the world learns from.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

^ We should have a system that allows new non-government proponents to build new transportation corridors for people at their expense, sort of like how pipelines or powerlines are regulated today, without the government having to provide a ROW (as in assembling it and owning it).

Then the government could step back and let the chips fall where they may.

I dislike the idea of large corporations having too much power. I like things kept accountable in public hands. (And want power companies returned to public control so we can get cheaper electricity...)

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Not being the first is a very good thing. The first makes the mistakes the rest of the world learns from.




I dislike the idea of large corporations having too much power. I like things kept accountable in public hands. (And want power companies returned to public control so we can get cheaper electricity...)

Alberta with private electricity is the cheapest nationally now

And Quebec is allowing a mostly private transit system to be built in Montreal.

A well regulated private utility has outcomes pretty inline with a well run public utility.

If a private company wants to make the mistakes in Canada, generating economic activity in the process, you would stop it?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ainvan

A Hyperloop from Toronto to Montreal would create North America's 4th Largest Metro Area

As an aerospace engineer, I find Hyperloop offensive. Not because it's a bad idea. But because it's still not mature and keeps distracting from real HSR efforts. All while rubes think Musk can somehow bypass the laws of physics and economics.

I don't get how people don't see that this was an Elon Musk ploy to preserve Tesla's tremendous home market in California from the threat of high speed rail there. Have a look at the charger maps in California. You'll see how important the state is to Tesla. And how much focus is put on a long distance corridor there with chargers and autopilot pitched as major attractions.

Musk is not the first guy to propose evacuated tube transport. He won't be the last. He just flat out lied (or is totally clueless about the subject) about the construction costs. And the sham is slowly being revealed for what it is.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/...s-new-cash-amid-high-costs/#1d2f7e85125c

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Even if Hyperloop proved itself and systems were being built all over the planet, it would never see the light of day unless Bombardier starts building them. It's a sad fact but fact none the less, no HSR will get built in Canada if not done by Bombardier. No doubt they would go thru the public relations exercise of putting thee bid out to tender but we all know it would go to Bombardier

What are you on about?

If what you say was true why aren't we seeing more high speed rail, LRT and metros? Bombardier does phenomenally building all that elsewhere.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If it costs nearly nothing for the government to be ready for it with a regulatory framework, or a report that informs a future regulatory framework, why not do it? Why start 5 years behind?

So government should invest money developing regulatory framework's for every single billionaire fantasy?

A regulatory framework can be written in as little as a year or two if there's actual operational data. I've seen this on the aerospace side. So 5 years is nonsense. It'll take 5 years if we try to write something now, because there's no real data. Let them build an actual operational model and we can start discussing regulations when they can demonstrate things like reliability (from component to systems), maintenance cycles, structural loads, etc.

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

If a private company wants to make the mistakes in Canada, generating economic activity in the process, you would stop it?

We aren't talking about private companies here. We're talking about companies with fantastic claims that insist government fund millions or billions in research, development and deployment.

If they had a fully private business plan, few would be arguing against it.