The lack of humans means that they can build tunnels with fewer escape routes and almost without regard to ventilation, the centrally coordinated 30km/h speed ought to be cheaper than building for the kinds of speeds one must expect from individual drivers.
>they're trying to build small-diameter tunnels like the Boring Company, but using the strengths of the format much more cleverly.
Agreed. It's scarcely possible to use tunnels less cleverly than by putting large, single-occupant vehicles through them.
Not to mention letting the humans escape alive in case a vehicle crashes and burns.
"Must be safe for humans" always shifts the costs an order of magnitude.
You will always have humans in the tunnel. How do you plan to perform inspections, maintenance, and even emergency support when a cart breaks down and blocks your tunnel?
Certain emergencies would also be much easier to handle without people, like nitrogen purging a fire. Realistically I don't think you'd want to shut down the whole tunnel and wait for hours when you need to fix a problem, but it might work if there aren't many problems. It might work for routine maintenance if it's utilized like most packing facilities- deliveries go out in waves, with packing etc in between.
With pigs of course. Not the ones that go oink though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigging
Most of the heat in that situation comes from braking.
If they pre-chill and coast through the tunnel they'd extract heat.
Overall it seems like a non problem with many solutions if any are actually needed.
They did that because Tesla are available for them quickly.
Do you really think those peope are to stupid to understand that higher occupency can increase threwput?
This is ancient technology, literally over a century old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Post_Office_Railway
No need to name-drop the Boring Company, as it's just a marketing company who bought a COTS tunneler.
Nothing that this company presented was novel. The critical aspect of putting together an railway network through tunnels is a) it's collosal construction and maintenance costs, b) property rights.
The numbers of putting together a tunnel network hardly add up, and ultimately projects fail because there is no way to make the numbers work unless you expect to fleece local and central governments.
It's also quite strange that CST's marketing brochure does not mention at all two of the main solutions to p2p logistics in urban environment: hub and spoke model with the last mile delivered with small electric cars/scooters/bicycles (Amazon already employs this heavily), and drones.
You mean a marketing company that built their own tunneler, surely. The one they originally bought isn't being used anymore, as far as I know.
Or the simple practicalities of the later. I'm a member of the public. What I know of the boring project comes from the youtube videos of the traffic jams in the current Vegas tesla tunnel project. Building an underground tunnel to bypass above-ground traffic problems worked only on the Simpsons (Stonecutter episode). In the real world such tunnels are just another 1-lane road subject to all the same problems as they would on the surface, plus a bunch of bonus problems. It isn't interesting because it isn't practical.
See also, the Chicago Tunnel Company: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tunnel_Company
According to Wiki, Chicago's started running in 1906, and London's in 1927.
Paper processors get released all the time.
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/rome-s-tremendous...
Just as with other Musk companies, the first version isn't that amazing and people fall over themselves laughting declaring how it will never work and never be practical and how they will never manage to produce them in real numbers.
So its basically like Falcon 1 and Tesla Roaster/Model S.
The leader of Boring is an engineer who was doing well at Tesla.
I think in 5-10 years it will be a very significant comapny.
It's not clear to me what you are saying here. Is it that Musk is clarivoyant, and always selects for lines of business where exponential progress is certain to be made incrementally, or is it that his involvement guarantees that incremental progress will always be made?
As a follow-up to the former: do you think that's the case for Twitter?
As a follow-up to the latter: for how many companies do you believe Musk can simultaneously ensure success?
Those would be high-capital low output in general, as low capital or high output have probably already tried many things.
If there’s a Muskette strength it would be identifying those.
My read of GP's comment is that even without any concrete evidence to support a prediction of success (and indeed possibly the opposite), for some reason Musk's involvement alone is enough to be confident that the Boring Company will be relevant in 5-10 years. It's hard for me to understand his logic without writing it off as personality cult stuff.
> that was sort of the basis of the the Toyota Production System / "Lean" revolution in manufacturing that Tesla itself adapted.
Yes but Toyota then stuck around for to long on one technology.
> Musk's involvement alone is enough to be confident that the Boring Company will be relevant in 5-10 years. It's hard for me to understand his logic without writing it off as personality cult stuff.
That seems like a strange opinion. If somebody us successful in other conservative high capital business then its a personality cult to suggest that this might be possible again.
And the reason are partly the same. Electrification. So its not even a totally different unique field.
And its not just Musk. I just generally think its a good idea to remove complexity from the tunnel and put it into the pod. One of the big problems with subways is limited numbers and terrible maintenance. You can piggyback of the EV industry.
> As a follow-up to the former: do you think that's the case for Twitter?
I have no idea. Its such a different thing. I don't think its a great use of his time.
> As a follow-up to the latter: for how many companies do you believe Musk can simultaneously ensure success?
I don't think he can ensure it, but it makes it much likely.
But I would say the number is not static. It depends on the problems that exist within the companies. In 2017 during Model 3 ramp it was likely 1 of them, but lucky at that point SpaceX had nailed the most fundamental things in terms of reuse and the company faced on lethal issues.
He he access to lots of great people that he at least partly trust to put into these positions. So that helps, and he pretty good at recruiting young talent.
So I don't really know.
No, stating that the Boring Company is a marketing company that bought a COTS is an accurate statement. The Boring Company didn't invented tunellers digging holes in the ground, and just because it claimed it did modifications to a COTS tuneller (and uncorroborated ones) that changes nothing.
I understand that the Musk Stan phenomenon is a thing, but let's not try to make it look that he invented fire and the wheel.
> that changes nothing
And you know this how?
> that he invented fire and the wheel.
I literally said they bought a machine and they are working iteration by iteration to improve it.
Who are you arguing against?
Safety evacuation requirements are also easier to meet when you limit tunnel access to a trained workforce under a permit system, compared to a situation where you have the general public in the tunnels. Emergency rebreathers, for example, can become part of your plan. A higher level of safety can be assured for workers since a permit system means that a control center will have positive accountability of everyone in harm's way.
Obviously you still want to extract them as quickly as possible but it’s easier to manage.
[0] One relatively common danger to bulk cargo ships is rusting of transported cargo consuming the oxygen in a enclosed space then crews becoming incapacitated when they enter for maintenance or other activities.