Selling point for hyperloop is energy efficiency and sustainability at high speeds: CEO of Swisspod

How is Swisspod’s hyperloop technology different from its competitors?

Many of the competitors globally do active infrastructure, which means electromagnets or permanent magnets on the infrastructure itself. But, we changed that. We are looking to make infrastructures passive, which means no magnets or electrification on the rail. Therefore, the cost of the infrastructure is very comparable with high-speed rail, but with a much better energy efficiency and higher speeds.

If you have active infrastructure, that is levitation propulsion on the infrastructure, and a route of 1000 kilometres, you will have to implement 1000 kilometres of magnets along the track. Can you imagine how expensive that’s going to be? Maglev (short for magnetic levitation) is running on such a system.

Therefore, as you can see, Maglev hasn’t really been adopted globally because the costs and risks are very high. Just imagine if one magnet is broken–the reliability of the system is gone. You also have to de-risk such an infrastructure because it can be strategic infrastructure. Let’s say you make a tunnel, it can be also utilised for defence purposes.

Can you explain how passive infrastructure works?

We put electromagnets on the vehicle and the infrastructure is fully passive, which means either a piece of aluminium or a piece of steel or a combination of the two. Then, we generate the whole electromagnetic field from the vehicle itself. Therefore, the vehicle is called self-contained because it’s also powered by a battery system. The battery is driving, it’s connected to a converter, the converter to a linear induction motor, and the capsule becomes active. The electromagnet is on the capsule itself and you have a very good price for the infrastructure by using only steel and aluminium. Nobody has done that before– we had to change this paradigm of seeing and of building the technology. We tested a reduced-scale model in Switzerland and we are now building a full-scale prototype in the US. In the reduced scale model, we reached a speed of 250 kilometres per hour. The first full-scale test will probably run within six to eight months from today.

What is the background to the signing of the MoU with TuTr?

We met with the Minister of Railways Ashwini Vaishnaw in Zurich when he came to Davos. We had a two-hour long meeting with him about hyperloop and he loved our concept and technology. IIT Madras is the best technology university here and TuTr Hyperloop, a spin-off from the university, is doing great. We have the same vision as TuTr about the product, when it comes to autonomous vehicles, self-contained vehicles, and passive infrastructure.

TuTr has the local and technical skills to develop the whole concept when it comes to manufacturing and producing those vehicles. The EFTA agreement that was signed recently also played a very important role for us in terms of timelines.

From a technical point of view, should hyperloop tubes be underground, on the ground, or above ground?

If you ask me what would be the best from a technical point of view, it would be to make it underground. The explanation is very simple– you have a constant temperature underground. Any material varies with the temperature, so if you have a change of temperature, everything is going to move and the tube is going to misalign. That’s a bad thing to happen. Therefore, underground would be much better technically. But on the ground, of course, it’s going to be much cheaper to build it. It also depends on how strategic this tube is going to be, because if you have it on the ground, it can be subject to terrorism. If you put it underground, nobody is going to have access to it. I do believe that at the beginning, for a pilot project, on the ground infrastructure is going to be better. Scientifically, I prefer to have it underground. But I think in a more pragmatic way, with good safety nearby, the tube can also be done on the ground.

An elevated, above ground track is not preferable?

Well, it’s much simpler to be on the ground, right?

How do you envision the commercial use of hyperloop, be it for passengers and/or freight?

The flow rate that we’re envisioning is each 30 or 45 seconds we can launch a capsule with a max payload of 30 passengers. I really believe in hyperloop as a passenger mode of transportation. The selling point for hyperloop is energy efficiency and sustainability at high speeds. Today, we do not have an alternative for high speeds– the only alternative is the aviation sector and we know about the CO2 emissions. For that reason, I believe that a government should invest in infrastructure of which the beneficiary is the passenger itself.

But, it should also be open for freight transportation. If you have 16 or 18 hours of operating time for passengers, the rest can be allocated for freight. And of course, for the first five years while we’re testing our technology, it can be made for freight for safety purposes and standardisation regulations. Also, running a bit of freight before putting passengers in it will also make the case stronger in front of governments. I’m a big believer in the technology for passengers but to minimise risk at the beginning and to make some use cases, it can also be for freight.