South Korea Developing 'Near-Supersonic' Train Similar To Hyperloop (huffingtonpost.co.uk) 122
The South Korean government plans to unveil a high-speed train that can travel at near-supersonic speeds capable of cutting a five hour journey to just 30 minutes. It's reminiscent of the Hyperloop, a proposed mode of passenger and freight transportation that propels a pod-like vehicle through a near-vacuum tube at more than airline speed. Huffington Post UK reports: According to the Korea Railroad Research Institute, it plans to unveil a "hyper tube" format train in the "not too distant" future. Speaking to the South China Morning Post, the government-owned organization said: "We hope to create an ultra-fast train, which will travel inside a state-of-the-art low-pressure tube at lightning speeds, in the not-too-distant future. To that end, we will cooperate with associated institutes as well as Hanyang University to check the viability of various related technologies called the hyper-tube format over the next three years." While this sounds very similar to the low-pressure concept designed initially by Tesla founder Elon Musk it seems as though the KRRI wants to go even further and create a system that will leave Hyperloop looking like a Hornby set. By throwing all their resources at the project, South Korea is hoping to skip past maglev, a still-new propulsion system that uses electromagnets to actually levitate trains above the air. While this removes some of the friction that comes with using conventional wheels, it still doesn't remove the brick wall of friction that is air itself. By building a low-pressure tube however and placing the train inside it you can effectively create a train that could travel at eye-watering speeds.
North Korea responds (Score:5, Funny)
Glorious Leader invent train that go light speed. ALL HAIL GLORIOUS LEADER!
Use that low pressure air (Score:2)
Re:Use that low pressure air (Score:4, Interesting)
The train could be designed to get some lift from that low-pressure air, taking some of the load off the wheels.
That is exactly how Hyperloop works. It uses maglev at low speed, and then uses Air Bearings [wikipedia.org] as it speeds up. There are no wheels.
Re: (Score:2)
Wheels at low speed, not maglev.
Of course, the "Hyperloop competition" blurred the line as to what counts as "hyperloop" anymore, because it was based around a bunch of purely maglev options that were radically different from the Hyperloop Alpha design (in many ways beyond just the levitation means).
Re: (Score:1)
Incidentally, Inductrack [wikipedia.org] also uses wheels for low speed landings. Not sure about the other options, but HTT [wikipedia.org] did base their "Hyperloop" design on Inductrack. Vacuum trains and maglev are not mutually exclusive, and the simplicity and passive levitation afforded by Inductrack make it very attractive even without a vacuum.
The original Hyperloop design isn't a clear win, as complexity and maintenance costs will be substantially greater with all the turbomachinery on every train. On the other hand, Inductrack
Re: (Score:2)
Inductrac is less efficient than air bearings and the track is more complicated to build than straight pipe. That said, if the air bearing concept proved unworkable, I'd think it a fine fallback alternative.
The costs of the turbomachinery on the current design is factored into the budgeting. And you need it either way unless you're planning to run a hard vacuum, since otherwise the vehicle will compress the column of air ahead of it. Industrial air compressors aren't exactly new technology, although the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're describing a pneumatic train. Unfortunately, they don't scale well.
Hyperloop Alpha is neither a pneumatic train nor a vactrain nor maglev. It's an extreme variant of a ground-effect aircraft operating in a rarified environment.
Distances (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure maintaining such low pressure all the way down the tube is feasible even for LA-San Francisco, let alone interstate distances.
Re: (Score:3)
Why?
Part of the whole point of Hyperloop is that the low pressures aren't extreme (it's not a hard vacuum), and are thus easier to maintain with a regular series of vacuum pumps. And it has no "joints" (the only interruptions being periodic emergency exits, and the pumps themselves). All of the pipe segments are orbital welded and then polished smooth.
Re: (Score:1)
And how do you account for thermal expansion without expansion joints dumbass?
Re: (Score:3)
What is so difficult for you about reading the design document, "dumbass"? Did you really think that that isn't covered? Section "Earthquakes and Expansion Joints". The tube is not firmly affixed to each pylon; it's mounted on a multiaxis damper. Its positioning is automatically controlled relative to independent factors, including earthquakes, ground shifting over time, and daily thermal expansion (which results in planned for anticipated changes in bend radii as well as a net overall expansion or cont
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you writing that, "dumbass", as if I didn't write precisely that, and explain precisely how it's accounted for as per the document?
The tube expands and contracts. This is accounted for by changing bend radii and changes in length of the tube as a whole at the endpoints.
Also, why are you of the impression that inserting words like "dumbass" into your posts makes you sound more intelligent?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not convinced it will be any better than maglev though. The main problem is that the cars need to be relatively small to work, meaning low capacity for passengers and cargo. You get 25% more speed but vastly lower capacity, and a huge increase in cost. Compared to a simple walk on, sit down train the proposed Hyperloop cars look like they would take longer to load up too, and be less comfortable when travelling longer distances.
Japan's maglev system is proven technology, already at the low end of
Re: (Score:2)
A more detailed breakdown of the differences versus high speed rail in general is in this post [slashdot.org].
As for versus maglev: maglev is even more expensive to construct than conventional high speed rail, and suffers from the same design challenges that Hyperloop is designed to eliminate. Beyond that, Hyperloop is entirely self-powering - it uses so little power (coasting the vast majority of the time) that it's easy to have enough solar panels atop the tube to provide for its energy needs. Anything not in a rarifi
Re: (Score:2)
Japan's maglev system is proven technology, already at the low end of the Hyperloop speed range and projected to reach over 900km/h in time. Hyperloop is expected to hit around 1200km/h, so I just can't see the benefit being great enough to outweigh the disadvantages.
The reason to choose Hyperloop over Maglev isn't speed, it's projected cost. Musk thinks he can build the things for $11 million/km. That's about a quarter of what maglev would cost -- assuming that Hyperloop even works.
There isn't a lot to choose between 30 minutes LA to San Francisco and 45 minutes. Over longer haul routes the technology is supposed to eventually go much, much faster than maglev, but the key in the near future will be to beat maglev on cost over medium distances. And to actually work.
As
Re: (Score:2)
Technically you can scale Hyperloop to several times higher speeds, if you can build sufficiently straight segments (e.g. Great Plains). It does however require one alteration of note: you have to increase your leak compensation pumping capacity severalfold (it's an unknown at this point how bad leaks will be, though they tried to be pessimistic in their assumptions), while injecting hydrogen or helium to maintain the same pressure. Ideally hydrogen (it's not explosive nor embrittling at such tiny pressur
Re: (Score:2)
It seems extremely unlikely that maglev would cost more than a hyperloop tube. The tube still needs the same support under it, maybe a little less due to smaller cars but a little more due to the mass of the "track" being higher. It's more material to fully enclose the area, and would need air pumps all along it to create the partial vacuum.
Maglev may ultimately be faster too. The problem with hyperloop is that you have to balance the need to fly on air bearings and the need to shift air out of your way in
Re: (Score:2)
Peak loadings from the tube are significantly lower than from the cars (I've done the math, feel free to double check for yourself). And a Hyperloop car weighs about an order of magnitude less than a train. The peak loadings are vastly lower.
The amount of track steel per unit length isn't that great; if you were just buying raw steel the cost would be something like a fifth of what's being budgeted for buying the pipe segments for the tube. Rail isn't expensive because steel is expensive; it's way, way do
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were picking a number out of thin air I'd certainly go higher. The question is how he arrived at that number, and I suspect economies of scale have something to do with it. Scale can do funny things to your calculations. Things can get harder, then easier, then harder again as you go up.
I once had a colleague whose first engineering job out of college was to do a reverse engineering specification on a prototype submersible; the Navy was pleased with the low cost of the prototype and thought it might
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "picking numbers". For god's sake, why does everyone see fit to argue about a system without having read the design document for said system? All of the cost breakdowns are there. It's not that long of a read. It's fine to disagree with something when you know what it actually is you're disagreeing with, but it's ridiculous to assert that something is wrong when you don't even know what that thing is.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the cost breakdown do you find unrealistic? Name a particular element.
I've actually checked a lot of the numbers personally, and every last one I've looked into checks out.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure maintaining such low pressure all the way down the tube is feasible even for LA-San Francisco, let alone interstate distances.
It's not feasible.
The whole hyperloop thing is a circle-jerking load of bullshit that will never be built. Maintaining any significant vacuum in such enormous spaces is extremely difficult. Mark my words, it's pie-in-the-sky bullshit and it will never go into production, nor will it ever be used in any practical manner (especially not for transporting people).
Re: (Score:2)
hyperloop will likely require a perfectly flat track
Perhaps that can be addresses by tunnels?
Re: (Score:2)
Same solution Japan uses for high speed rail. You're in a tunnel. Now you're out and instantly on a bridge! Now you're off and instantly in a tunnel! Now a bridge! Tunnel! Bridge! Tunnel! Bridge! (repeat until you arrive at your destination)
That said, tunnel costs are proportional to diameter and bridge costs proportional to peak loading, so a Hyperloop-style system wouldn't be such a bad idea in such an environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they have an NSA that likes to spend two hours doing anal cavity searches.
Hyperloop anal cavity searches are quicker.
Re:Distances (Score:5, Informative)
I've traveled between Seoul and Busan by highway, regular train, and airliner. The highway takes way too long when there's traffic. Train is slower than car because of all the stops. Air travel is way too expensive and annoying (flight is 40 minutes, about same as NYC to DC, but takes about 2.5 hours due to time tied up at and getting to the airport). The country badly needs something in-between. They started a high speed rail service [wikipedia.org], so this is just a natural progression of what they're already building.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just that it's a small country. It's a small country with essentially one destination - 20% of the population lives in the capital (and 50% in the capital's metro area). Also, the capital is the government, financial, commercial, industrial, educational, entertainments, etc... etc... hub of the entire country. (Also very much
Re: (Score:2)
It is surprising the project comes from a nation with a relatively small territory: the benefits are much smaller than if it happened in for instance Russia, China, or USA.
How about selling expertise, technology, components and whatnot?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Think of why maglev is expensive... (Score:5, Informative)
Why are you under the impression that putting it in a tube makes handling turbing forces, stopping forces and control more difficult? Inside a tube, all motion is perfectly constrained, and you have a tremendous amount of surface area to magnetic brake against.
The turning radii issues are of course real, and are highly addressed in the Hyperloop Alpha document. Likewise for dimensional precision. For smoothness, their solution is a radial polisher which drives down the tube behind the pipelaying crew and smoothing out each orbital weld (and the pipe itself). For straightness, alignment is maintained by the same suspension/alignment system they use to deal with earthquakes.
As for why maglev trains are expensive - trains are expensive for a wide variety of reasons. Land acquisition and permitting is often the most expensive. Tunnels and viaducts are often a very large component as well. Maglev technology itself often tends to have high bills.
Hyperloop (as per Hyperloop Alpha, not the student competition) isn't maglev, it's an air bearing system. Skis, basically. The pipe is built the same as oil pipeline, and the budget is similar to that of oil pipeline budgeting per unit area per unit distance (oil pipelines have harder environmental issues to overcome and much higher loadings, more significant temperature management issues, etc, but lower precision / straightness requirements, so it's probably a wash). Tunnel cost is minimized by minimizing tube size (the budgeted tunnels are standard rates for tunneled pipe in non-urban areas). Viaduct costs are minimized by a key design feature of Hyperloop - minimizing peak loadings by having frequent, small vehicle launches rather than infrequent, large vehicle launches. Viaduct costs tend to track their peak loading.
As for land acquisition, the costs in Hyperloop Alpha are kept down by a combination of design and cheating. As per design, it's designed to be small enough to fit elevated into highway medians, with the low peak loadings, making overhead suspension an affordable option. Such places are state land, and already permitted for far more environmentally harmful activity (road traffic). This of course requires state buy-in to the concept, but states often specifically pursue high speed transport options. Private land acquisition is limited to places needed to maximize turning radii, and in-city for stations. The latter is the other place that they cheat - Hyperloop Alpha avoids cities. LA and San Francisco are served by it, according to the design, like airports on the outskirts of town; people have to get connecting legs into town. But that would be an unpopular decision, and you would expect the state to insist on greater accessibility (airports are only out of town because they have to be, not because that's a desirable location). Likewise it bypasses cities en route, unlike HSR. Basically, it's designed as something halfway in-between HSR and air travel (both in terms of service and throughput), but targeting much lower prices, higher speeds, and a lower energy footprint.
In short, it's budget savings vs. HSR are somewhat of a combination of cheating (cutting out a lot of what HSR does) and design (keeping track loadings down, profile small, build in the same manner as an established industry (pipeline), and moving your hardware (capital expense) through the system as quickly as you can.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a thin-walled tube. It doesn't do much constraining at the dynamic forces you're talking about.
It's 20 to 25mm of solid steel. "Thin-walled" is very much a relative thing.
You still have to constrain the tube.
That's what the $2.5 billion in steel-reinforced concrete is for. Also the stringers on the outside of the tube (omitted from all the concept art but mentioned in the text).
Land acquisition and permitting is often the most expensive.
Not solved by Hyperloop.
Solved by Hyperloop insofar as the government of the state of California can be convinced to play ball. The majority of the proposed route is on existing public land. I've said before that this is the reason why Hyperloop won't happen, and not any technical r
Re: (Score:2)
Think of why a maglev train is expensive...
Think of the control problem of vehicle suspension at such high speeds.
Think of the turning forces.
Think of the stopping forces.
Think of the turning radii.
Think of the dimensional precision necessary for a track that handles 300 mph traffic.
Now double the speed and pack it all into a vacuum tube.
Exactly. It's a fantasy project that will never be built. But the hyperloop whores will never admit that the whole thing is an impractical joke with no chance of success. Mark my words, this thing will never, ever go into production.
Hornby set? Maglev is "new"? (Score:2)
I think it's great that one day we'll live on a planet where we don't have to sit in a plane but instead can sit in a train, although I'm sure TSA will find a way to make it slower and more annoying. However, the original article really quotes some... HYPERBOLE ideas:
"...leave the hyperloop looking like a Hornby set."
Never heard of it. When using a simile try to ensure that the part you're comparing things to is actually known by people. With all due respect to Bruce Hornsby, of whom I have heard. He's
Re: Hornby set? Maglev is "new"? (Score:1)
It is still new... to the Koreans. While Germany's Siemens group has built Shanghai's maglev from Pudong airport to Shanghai (traveling at 431 kph), South Korea has built a slow and short maglev that runs near their airport. Delayed for years, as they figured out how to make it work, this was supposed to be their technology demonstrator for sales to other countries. Last time I checked, nobody is building a maglev anytime soon. This new hyperloop competitor will be another waste of taxpayer's money.
Re: Hornby set? Maglev is "new"? (Score:1)
Japan started construction last year on their maglev between Tokyo and Nagoya, due 2027. Wholly financed privately by JR. Most sections will be underground. Tunnels generate too much noise.
Re: (Score:2)
it's there because james may is obsessed with them.
anyways.. they're toy trains popular in the UK when toy trains became popular.
Re: (Score:2)
we don't have to sit in a plane but instead can sit in a train
So instead of sitting in a sealed container traveling through the air at 500 MPH, you will sit in a sealed container traveling through a tunnel at 500 MPH?
It doesn't seem like there are any benefits over air travel. Though there are many disadvantages. The biggest and most obvious is the lack of flexibility. You have to bore the tunnel and it only goes from one fixed point to another. The cost is enormous and the infrastructure is inflexible (literally and figuratively). Apart from that, tunnels need main
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the pressure maintenance figures in the Hyperloop Alpha document are unreasonable, cite the actual numbers you disagree with and explain why.
The main advantages over air travel are that the pressure is much lower, frontal area much lower, allowable spacings far closer (no "air traffic"), no noise pollution, no air pollution, and efficient, direct acceleration of the vehicles, with the tube itself serving as a mounting point for the solar panels that power it.
You clearly have never read the Hype
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the standard way people complain about Hyperloop.
Step 1) Don't ever bother actually reading the design document, despite the fact that it's not that long and addressess the vast majority of arguments
Step 2) Compare Hyperloop to something not even remotely comparable to it, like the costs of building viaducts for an order of magnitude higher peak loadings, building tunnels with an order of magnitude or more greater cross section, acquiring orders of magnitude more private land, and comparing costs fo
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of Hornby? I'm not a toy train fan but I'd be surprised if almost everyone didn't know who Hornby is? I don't play with dolls but I've heard of Barbie. You don't have to play with cars to know who Hotwheels and Matchbox are.
Guess they found something (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Choice of words (Score:1)
Funny choice of words, since it's the air itself which causes your eyes to water at high speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure it's just bad journalistic article writing, or that weird kind of "we have superior technology" boosterism. From the description, the thing sounds pretty much the same as hyperloop.
Terrorist target? (Score:2)
A lot easier target than an airplane. You could be miles away when the bomb goes off.
Re: (Score:2)
Linking to someone talking on YouTube is one of the most annoying ways you could possibly try to make an argument. How many people do you think will actually bother to click on that?
Re: (Score:2)
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to detonate bombs large enough to take out a concrete column for a big steel pipe, why wouldn't you do it where you'd kill a lot more people rather than "hopefully lucking into causing enough deflection (by increasing the span) right before the next capsule arrives that it can't decelerate sufficiently in time to handle said deflection, and possibly killing or injuring one capsule's worth of people"?
Airplane attacks were popular because of the ability to kill hundreds of people at once, or t
Re: (Score:2)
A lot less devastating than an airplane though. If the bomb doesn't kill you itself, you're much more likely to survive. The train is less likely to hit a building or other people, and there would be less of a psychological impact.
Re: (Score:1)
The best solution is to shrink people down to the size of a small rodent.
I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Korea Rail is big on promises but results vary (Score:5, Interesting)
Various Korean rail companies have supplied trains around the world and nobody doubts they make a lot of rolling stock.
But many of the Korean-built mass transit and passenger trains seem to suffer extreme defects and lawsuits. Boston MBTA, Philadelphia SEPTA and California Metrolink are all suing Hyundai Rotem over different issues with their rail vehicles. Rail lines in Australia are also engaged in lawsuits.
Now, problems and disagreements happen with rail. But there is a big pattern of Korean rail suppliers overpromising what they can do, underbidding competitors, and then either failing to deliver on time or delivering equipment with massive faults and defects.
It seems to be mainly a case of trying to bag contracts before Chinese or Japanese suppliers can get them, even if the Korean companies can't really deliver. This is what happens when all these municipal rail systems have very star-eyed visions of what they want and pocket change to pay for it, so they go for the biggest dreamer and low bidder all at once with a very optimistic timetable. And it just can't work that way.
So here is KRRI promising the unproven and yet to be invented faster than anyone else AND for the best price. Yeah goody for you. Somebody will fund it.
Disclaimer: Aside from the US, there is no nation I love more than South Korea. It's in my blood. I proudly own a Korean car and go nuts over Korean pop culture. But there have been just so many rail issues. It really sullies the Korean reputation.
Hyper loop One Test Track (Score:2)
BTW if you are in Vegas, drive up to the Apex Solar Plant, and you will easily see the Hyperloop One test track [thisisinsider.com].
This is what happens to low pressure tubes (Score:1)
Samsung involved? (Score:2)
"Near supersonic" (Score:1)
Designed initially by Elon Musk. Really? (Score:2)
While this sounds very similar to the low-pressure concept designed initially by Tesla founder Elon Musk
Some of us know how to read books. This idea wasn't exactly new when Elon Musk was born!
See, for example, The Reefs of Space, Frederik Pohl and Jack Williamson, 1964.
Re: (Score:2)
... which did not involve anything remotely similar to Hyperloop.
Please learn how Hyperloop actually works before insisting that something else is the same. (hint: google "Hyperloop Alpha" and read the design document; it won't take all day). Hyperloop Alpha is neither maglev nor a vactrain; it's basically an extreme version of a ground-effect aircraft flying through a rarified atmosphere, using a compressor to prevent the buildup of a column of air ahead of it by shunting it to the air bearings and behin
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
You say this as if we're in Korea to protect the South from the North. It's strategic to have the 8th Army stationed there. And to have forces in Japan.
Sure, they could defend themselves, but then they'd control powerful military forces that would be a threat to the American hegemony that enforces American economic priorities. South Korea and Japan could (rather trivially) develop nuclear weapons systems and a military that technically matches our own.
They don't, because American boots are a carrot and stic
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure that cost is the only consideration in whether or not the U.S. should help defend S. Korea. This is even though I have heard that S. Korea pays the U.S. a couple(?) of billion a year in reimbursement; whether or not this is a fair amount I have no idea.
Much more important is the implied alliance between the two nations. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea, inevitably American soldiers will be killed which will bring a much stronger response from the U.S. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea with nukes then
Re: (Score:2)
Your last line is horseshit. The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty was brought in in 1972 immediately after India tested its own bomb. Its purpose was to keep the club closed to the 5 who had their bombs. India never signed the NPT so there is no question of having penalties for violating it. (Same for PAkistan and ISrael who never signed). WW2 even the US had only 6 bombs (The Japanese surrendered because the soviets attacked). All proliferation happened AFTER WW2.
Incidentally the basic equations which made the
Language? (Score:2)
Near Supersonic? What was wrong with near-sonic?
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot have people inside the tube at the same time as vehicles are in the tube regardless, so there's no point to conducting maintenance in a vacuum; you would simply repressurize it (aka, open valves at the pumping stations, or the emergency exits). But there's also no point to ever having people inside. There's nothing except for an accident to damage the inside of the tube; the vehicles do not touch the walls, and it's a very rarified atmosphere, so it's not going to rust from the inside. If ther