A really _useful_ engine.
A really _useful_ engine.
You can remove the timbers from a boat and replace them, that doesn't mean you can't name the boat! But for what it's worth, trains aren't broken up as often as you might think - typically once a train is on a route it stays the same consist for years. If the train is a DMU or EMU, then it usually stays as that consist for its entire life.
The other problem with your assumption is that the word "train" can differ depending on context. If I say "I'm taking the train to New York tonight", and you say "Oh, which one?", am I providing the most obvious answer if I say "Well, the one lead by locomotive 40126", or "The 6.23, I guess I better be at the station by quarter past six!"
Trains are named according to multiple criteria: a train can be a physical item, such as a trainset or just "Any train with this locomotive"; but a train can refer to the marketing of a specific timetabled route: for example, the US has lots of "named trains" like the Silver Star and the Texas Eagle.
I hope this makes sense,
Maintenance should be significantly lower than the NEC/Acela Express, given the primary issue with the latter is that it's 150 years old and showing it. Ridership should be similar to the combination of the Acela Express and Northeast Regional with similar fares.
The NEC is profitable BTW. Just saying. It's the reason why Texas Central and All Aboard Florida are doing their things.
proper opsec requires you to not get greedy, so remove all thought of making lots of money - just make enough to pay for itself.
Nonsense. What you need is plausible deniability. Invest in a wide portfolio of stocks, launch a startup company or two, invent three more that - on your CV - you sold for an undisclosed sum to an unnamed "big player". Become a regular at several casinos.
None of that will stand up to close scrutiny. But it will help avoid close scrutiny, because someone wondering where you get your money from has a couple possible answers to choose from.
I'm trying to stay concise, but I'll spell it out for you.
NYC has a TON of underground infrastructure that goes down as deep as 600-800 ft (depending on where you are and how you measure). For a train traveling 700MPH, you are going to need to pick a depth and more or less stick to it over a distance as small as Manhattan (maybe 3 miles wide at most?). The higher you go, the more trouble you will have finding a clear straight run. You can't get too close to the infrastructure above, or the rock will not support the weight and you'll have to make expensive reinforcements. For instance, when putting the LIRR (Long Island Railroad) connection in at Grand Central ("East Side Access" if you want to Google it), they opted to dig 140 feet down so that they would not have to reinforce the foundations of the station above. The F train is about 100 feet down so it can pass under the other subways. I can tell you from experience that the escalator ride is no fun down to the F train, and I would avoid it if I could. Sometimes the escalator would be out of service and you got to use them as stairs. Fun. There is an infamous subway entrance at Washington Heights 180ft deep that is accessible only by elevator (well, also stairs). The elevators are troublesome and one of them has - I shit you not - a human operator who just sits there and presses the automatic buttons. The other (identical) elevators are fully automatic, they just still hire this one guy. Sorry, tangent.
Finally, there is the water infrastructure. It is the deepest as far as I know, down something like 600ft. Maybe there is some way to "thread the needle" and get the hyperloop tunnel between the water infrastructure and the subway infrastructure. That'd be great, but it's still really far down. If he can dig all the way from Washington to NYC it will seem like a relatively minor thing, but lets not pretend it's trivial. It took them 4 decades to dig the water tunnel.
A high flying passenger jet isn't really a good comparison for a number of reasons: it's a container of higher pressure air (it's relatively easy and easy on materials to contain 1 atmosphere of pressure - think about how you'd get a latex balloon and some wire to contain one atmosphere at 50,000 feet. Now think about how you'd use the same materials to keep the same amount of air at one atmosphere 30 feet below the surface of the ocean...);
Another problem is that passenger jets don't try to keep a perfect one bar of pressure when they're flying at high altitudes, which is why divers are told not to fly within 24 hours of a dive.
And a final problem is that, really, the pressure at 50,000 feet is about 0.1 atmospheres, whereas the pressure in a hyperloop tube will be a significant fraction of that. That said, building a container to protect 10% of an atmosphere from 100% outside probably isn't substantially different from building one to protect 1% of an atmosphere, it requires compressive strength only around 10% higher.
It's a fairly massive engineering challenge to keep 400 miles of tubing big enough to contain a Tesla Model 3 at a pressure of 1% (or even 10%) of an atmosphere. I'm not saying it's impossible, but... it's certainly going to be expensive and/or will leak rather a lot requiring substantial energy expenditures just to maintain the vacuum.
I'm personally more bothered about the fact it'll be a horrible traveling experience, but the engineering does seem a little off the wall from where I'm standing.
Trains hate it when you anthropomorphize them.
Adobe, Adobe, Adobe (and a little Apple)
The move to play stuff natively comes from the role that Flash once played and our collective horrified reaction. We did the "let the OS handle it" and we got Quicktime. We did the "let the browser load plugins" and we got Flash and the horrifying Acrobat plugins, and some more Quicktime.
True, I once got verbal consent to DVR an NFL football game, rather than the express written consent I needed.
Damned game didn't record.
Even the subway is up to 180 ft down. Try 600ft.
And NYC continues to construct subways, train tunnels, and water tunnels - at incredible expense.
The person who's taking you to lunch has no intention of paying.