[hengheng]

Europe's busiest express train line seems to be LGV Paris-Lyon, with a peak scheduled capacity of 13 TGV trains per hour. Given that a TGV duplex fits 545 passengers, we are above 7000 per hour. Now couple two TGVs together, and you'll be well above.

Weirdly enough, the only source I found was German wikipedia on the train track (LGV Sud-Est[1]). Neither English nor French wikipedia have capacity information, and neither of the respective articles on the train itself have capacity information, even though the TGV duplex was introduced for this very reason.

[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Sud-Est

[kuschku]

In Germany there are some tracks with higher usages, but those are not the same line – they just share part of the line (imagine on the track A -- B -- C -- D, a train going from A to C, and from B to D, both every half hour – between B and C now you have 15min frequencies).

But the point is the same, regardless of if we use Japan, Germany, France, Spain, etc: 10k people per hour, or more, is easily possible.

Hyperloop transports less people than a single lane of highway. And with the cost you could maintain teslas for rental on a dedicated highway for many decades.

[Grishnakh]

>Hyperloop transports less people than a single lane of highway

So what? Airplanes also transport fewer people than a highway. How many people travel by air between LA and SF right now per hour? Probably no more than the capacity of Hyperloop.

>But the point is the same, regardless of if we use Japan, Germany, France, Spain, etc: 10k people per hour, or more, is easily possible.

What makes you think 10k people per hour actually want slow train service between LA and SF, when they can just use their car, get there in about the same time, and then not have to rent a car at their destination?

>And with the cost you could maintain teslas for rental on a dedicated highway for many decades.

You're placing passenger capacity above speed. The whole point of Hyperloop is speed: it's faster than an airplane, without all the downsides of the airplane (terrorism, TSA, crashing, etc.) HSR is not, it's slow (esp. the way they'll build it in this country). Of course, Hyperloop doesn't have the advantage of not having to rent a car like driving yourself does, but it makes up for it with very high speed.

[kuschku]

> when they can just use their car, get there in about the same time

> HSR is not, it's slow

Have you ever seen an actual HSR system?

We’re talking about 220mph minimum. That’s quite a bit faster than per car.

And, due to TSA, it’s faster than an airplane, and without the annoying stuff. And cheaper.

Hyperloops only differences over HSR is that it’s 15min faster, is a lot more uncomfortable, a lot more expensive to build, a lot more expensive to use (due to few people per capsule), etc.

[Grishnakh]

>Have you ever seen an actual HSR system? >We’re talking about 220mph minimum. That’s quite a bit faster than per car.

Sorry, that's complete bullshit.

We're not talking about HSR in Japan, China, or Germany here. We're talking about "HSR" in California, USA.

The California system will be very, very lucky if it manages to ever hit 200mph in a short stretch. Realistically, it might be about the speed of the Amtrak Acela Express, which is basically no faster than any regular train, except that it manages to hit 150mph once or twice, briefly.

You seem to be making the ridiculous assumption that HSR in America will resemble HSR in other countries somehow, in both speed and cost. Nothing could be farther from the truth. HSR here is a horribly expensive boondoggle. It'll be worse than the F-35.

[kuschku]

I’ve only seen German and French HSR, but the one in the US can’t be that bad.

Worst case, you just let some Germans build it for you.

[Grishnakh]

>I’ve only seen German and French HSR, but the one in the US can’t be that bad.

This is your problem then: you're speaking from ignorance. Yes, it really can be that bad. Acela Express is a total joke compared to foreign HSR, and the one in California isn't even built yet, the cost projections are insane, and the proposed top speed is only 200mph.

>Worst case, you just let some Germans build it for you.

We can't do that. I'm not joking, I mean that literally. We simply cannot do that, and will not do that. Sure, it'd make sense to just let a company that's already an expert do that, but we won't. We'll do it with crappy domestic companies (though perhaps getting the passenger cars made by Bombardier in Canada) at an absolutely astronomical cost, because that's just how things are done in this country now for anything that's government-funded. Just look at the F-35 jet for proof.