1 SOCIOECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF HYPERLOOP Balvinder Kaur Dhillon Vidhi Sureka Luke Dodd Sufana Naz Mahmood Matthew Elijah Khadouri Hrishikesh Raul Heer Nanavati 1 Scalability Research Team Hyperlink, London, United Kingdom 07 th June Table of Contents Introduction ________________________________ ________________________________ ______________ 2 1. Importance of other projects to Hyperloop Development and Case Studies pertinent to Hyperloop ____ 3 1.1 Historical cases ________________________________ ________________________________ ______ 3 1.1.1 Shinkansen ________________________________ ________________________________ ________ 3 1.1.2 Advanced Passenger Train (APT) ________________________________ ______________________ 3 1.2 Current Cases ________________________________ ________________________________ _______ 4 1.2.1 High - Speed Trains (HST) ________________________________ _____________________________ 4 1.2.2 Japanese Maglev and Chuo Shinkansen ________________________________ _________________ 4 2. Route Selection and Analysis ________________________________ _____________________________ 5 2.1 Integration of route with existing transportation infrastructure _______________________________ 5 2.2 Development of Old Oak Common (OOC) and Hyperlink Integration ___________________________ 5 2.2.1 Site Constraints ________________________________ ________________________________ ____ 6 2.3 Station Development and impact on other locations ________________________________ ________ 6 2.3.1 Liverpool Manchester Combined Area ________________________________ __________________ 7 3.1.1.1 Wigan ________________________________ ________________________________ ____________ 7 3.1.1.2 Warrington ________________________________ ________________________________ _______ 8 3.1.1.3 Crewe ________________________________ ________________________________ ____________ 8 3.1.2 Scottish Central Belt ________________________________ ________________________________ 9 3.1.2.1 Falkirk ________________________________ ________________________________ ___________ 9 3.1.2.2 Glasgow Urban Area ________________________________ _______________________________ 10 4. Social, Economic and Environmental analysis of Route ________________________________ _______ 11 4.1 Socioeconomic factors concerning the route. ________________________________ _____________ 11 4.2 Environmental sustainability of chosen route ________________________________ _____________ 11 5. Insight into the costs and maintenance of hyperloop ________________________________ ________ 13 5.1 Research data from manufacturers of the cost of major components of the pod ________________ 13 5.2 Investigating the expected average passengers to model prices of tickets ______________________ 13 5.3 Creating financial models to evaluate profitability and calculate key investment metrics. _________ 14 6. Investing and Funding Analysis ________________________________ __________________________ 17 6.1 Define the aim of Environmental, Social and Governance and the impact of investing. ___________ 17 6.2 Comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of private institutions and recommending whether they are best for Hyperloop. ________________________________ ________________________________ 17 6.3 UK Government sustainability investment schemes and evaluation of different gov ernment departments to partner as various schemes they offer for sustainable projects. ______________________ 18 6.3.1 Incorporating the HS2 approach for investing in property rights to assess, considering the government’s financial laws, the viability of implementing Hyperloop. _____________________________ 20 Conclusion ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ 29 Bibliography ________________________________ ________________________________ ______________ 23 2 Introduction In this research paper we analyse the socio - economic feasibility of the Hyperloop Transport System by looking at how it can be integrated into the existing transport network of the United Kingdom. This is done mainly by looking at the success and failures of past transport systems of similar effect such as the Shinkansen in Japan and the Advanced Passenger Train in the UK. R oute analysis is also done to understand where it would be the most beneficial to construct potential Hyperloop stations. C ost analysis is done to understand the potential costs associated with building an Hyperloop by looking at the cos t of the pods and maintenance of the system. 3 1. Importance of other projects to Hyperloop Development and Case Studies pertinent to H yperloop 1.1 Historical cases 1.1.1 Shinkansen Shinkansen is Japan’s high - speed rail network, which links major cities on the Japanese islands of Honshu and Kyushu. The Shinkansen provides a useful historical case study for the Hyperloop. It bears some similarities: it was the first of its kind (High Speed Rail) and is built on an incompatible network to existing Japanese railways (there is still some compatibility because its mostly gauge differences). The literal translation of Shinkansen is “new Trunk Line,” displaying its purpose as a new mainline to connect Japan’s major cities. The primary purposes of the first Shinkansen route were obviously to provide a fast, comfortable journey between cities, but to also help alleviate congestion on the existing Tokaido Main Line. Most Japanese cities are located along the east coast (quite linear to each other so trains are fast as they can operate in straight lines). Mainly used for intercity transport. In rush hour at Tokyo station, shinkansen trains depart every 6 mins or less. Shinkansen operates like the Elizabeth line/central line, so some trains stop at every stop whereas others stop at major intermediate stations. Japanese railways were built before modern cities were developed so they were already located at the heart of cities and are very well co nnected by other means of transport. Which is why shinkansen was constructed in existing stations. This will obviously not be the case with hyperloop because of the vast amount of space required, so constructing it at an intermediate station is the next be st option as it will have good connections to cities, and it will also take the load off major stations. Shinkansen is extremely successful. For a period, it transported the most passengers of any high - speed rail network. Today, with over 10 billion pa ssengers transported over the course of five decades, not a single passenger has died or been injured because of a train accident. It is also highly punctual, with average delays from train schedules equalling just 24 seconds (including natural disasters). Separation from slower train traffic has been suggested as a potential contributor to this punctuality. Key challenges to its safety are natural disasters: earthquakes and blizzards. Engineers have installed earthquake detection systems to mitigate the danger by bringing the train to a rapid halt if such conditions are detected. Technology and safety measures are also rapidly put in place following incidents involving the Shinkansen – demonstrating that adaptability and modularity in the fut ure is just as important as a solid design. 1.1.2 Advanced Passenger Train (APT) The Advanced Passenger Train (APT) was a high - speed tilting train built to operate on the West Coast Main Line. It connected hubs like London, Birmingham, Manchester, and Glasgow. T he tilting aspect of the train was to allow the trains to be faster in the twisty rail network of the UK, cutting down on transportation time. It was a very unsuccessful project for the UK transport system. However, the tilting design has influenced pr ojects in other countries like the Pendolino in Italy. The British Rail Class 390 has now replaced the APT and is run by Avanti West Coast. The reason APT was unsuccessful was due to political factors, poor publicity, and the emergence of a more conven tional, better working alternative called the HST. As the Apt was entirely funded by the government, it was left very vulnerable to shifts in political stances - a consideration to keep in mind for the Hyperloop. As the construction of the APT took over a decade, it raised questions and 4 increased pressure for the service to be put in operation despite ongoing problems. Many riders complained that the ride made them uncomfortable and queasy due to the large cant of the APT. Engineering problems also arose in widely - reported incidents – the cant system failed, leaving a coach stranded on the return journey of the APT’s first official run (8 Dec 1981), and the water in the APT’s hydrokinetic brakes froze two days later, leaving it stuck in Crewe. Each failure r eceived considerable media attention and the project was considered a white elephant. It was eventually dubbed the “Accident Prone Train”, further worsening public and political perception of the project. 1.2 Current Cases The two modern case studies will provide useful lessons for the hyperloop. HS2 (High Speed 2) gives us an example of a large - scale infrastructure project in the UK (United Kingdom). The Chuo Shinkansen provides lessons regarding the development of future - like technology being based upon m agnetic - levitation technology. 1.2.1 High - Speed Trains (HST) High - Speed trains are widely used across the UK: Network Rail and Great Western railway are some operators. HST worked better in comparison to APT as it is conventional, comfortable, and highly success ful. HST also did not receive nearly as much negative press attention as the APT. Individuals within the British Rail and outside it came to the general conclusion that it was simply a superior design to the APT – which isolated and weakened supporters of the APT project, discouraging support both internally (in managerial terms) and externally (in political terms). A 1981 report commissioned by British Rail on the project criticized the management structure of the project, calling for the appointment of on e single manager with total responsibility. It alleged that the management structure was hindering the progression and success of the project – as it often meant HST was favoured over APT as experienced engineering resources were withheld from the APT proj ect. High - Speed 2 (HS2) is a conventional high - speed rail project currently under construction in the United Kingdom. It has been a highly controversial project and has garnered huge opposition throughout the UK for its cost, environmental concerns, et c. 1.2.2 Japanese Maglev and Chuo Shinkansen Due to the success of the Shinkansen, a new Japanese Maglev line, The Chuo Shinkansen is under construction. Maglev is a magnetic levitation system of train transportation which is like Hyperloop. Hyperloop transport will benefit by learning from the successes and failures of the Japanese Maglev. Some things the Japanese Maglev does that Hyperloop can emulate are the high frequency between stations, strong access to existing networks, environmental standa rds, and profitability. Shinkansen serves densely populated metropolitan centres, which may not be valid for Hyperloop due to the sheer size of stations and scale of construction required. However, having transportation networks that feed into the hyperloo p will improve access and hopefully increase footfall. Noise is the primary factor limiting higher speeds for the Shinkansen; as Hyperloop goes faster, a strong anti - noise or noise mitigation solution must exist. Like the shinkansen, Hyperloop will reduce burden on higher carbon transportation networks, like highways and airports, resulting in lower carbon footprint. Cost of living will also be reduced as it will enable workers and households to travel rapidly from further distances to cities (where costs o f living are higher), reducing property prices and improving income equality. 5 2. Route Selection and Analysis The selection of a viable route for an Hyperloop system through the United Kingdom and linking its main urban areas presents an enormous challenge. In the sections below we analyse routes and hyperloop station locations. 2.1 Integration of route with existing transportation infrastructure To best optimise a hyperloop route, it must be integrated with other modes of transportation. The key to this is understanding the innate hierarchy within transportation. The need for HS2 stems from a need to provide additional capacity to congested existing routes - it does this by providing faster service between only key node s on segregated high - speed tracks, allowing it to bypass certain stations and provide that express service. This too must be considered in any Hyperloop system suggested: it should avoid the duplication of existing services, and instead fill a gap that pro vides additional capacity to existing services. This provides us with the basis for the next section. 2.2 Development of Old Oak Common (OOC) and Hyperlink Integration Old Oak Common (abbreviated to OOC) is an under - construction Railway station located at the northern end of the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. It is currently intended to serve all HS2 services, The Elizabeth Line, Great Western Railway (GWR) commuter services and the Heathrow Express. The station will have 14 platforms: 6 of these platf orms will be built under ground for High - Speed Rail which connect to the remaining 8 platforms at ground level for the other services. Figure 1 : Illustration of train lines that are relevant to Old Oak Common 6 Figure 2: Layout of the Old Oak Common Train Station The challenges for Hyperlink are finding adequate space to locate a hyperloop station. 2.2.1 Site Constraints Referring to Figure (2), there are numerous limitations on site expansion: Primarily is the construction of HS2. HS2 is the prime motivator for the construction of OOC to provide an interchange with the Great Western Mainline. Additionally, it will provide additional redundancy in passenger flow towards the Euston terminal. Secondly, the Site is located on the Great Western Main Line, one of the primary intercity routes in the UK. It provides intercity services from London Paddington to Bristol, Exeter, Cardiff and southern Wales, Oxford, and Cheltenham, as well as commuter services both via GWR and the Elizabeth line. In tot al all these services come together to provide 24 trains an hour passing through the site in each direction. This provides a huge challenge to construction of the platforms to serve this as it is a hugely active location. UPDATE MAY 2023 - as of ( 20 Ma y 2023 ) HS2 will ‘temporarily’ terminate at OOC due to cancellations and changing of plans regarding the Euston terminus. This makes the station an even more important node in both the London and national transportation networks. 2.3 Station Development and im pact on other locations While Old Oak Common is the primary focus, it is important to look at the locations of stations serving additional destinations on the route of the hyperloop. There are two key areas that the hyperloop system will look to serve: the Liverpool Manchester Combined area, and the Scottish Central Belt. Both these areas suffer a similar problem with regards to the potential location of a station, that being the missed opportunity of direct city - centre connections. There are justifia ble reasons for this, we believe. Having a city - centre connection is important, but the excessive cost associated with trying to construct stations within those areas presents a huge economic challenge, particularly if a tunnel - bore approach is needed to l imit unnecessary demolition for such a large - scale project. While there 7 may be brownfield sites within city centres that could be redeveloped, most are unlikely to provide a good city - centre connection. This is also not without precedent: the Chinese Hi gh Speed rail system often locates stations outside of city centres in exurban/boundary locations. The High - Speed Rail (HSR) can afford to be located outside of the city centre because Chinese cities have an expansive enough public transport networks led b y metros that allow for easy access to the urban core. This is where the UK currently struggles, with public transportation systems often lacking accessible and successful levels of service for this to occur. However, part of the assumptions with this proj ect is additional investments into Urban transportation links to accommodate out - of - centre interchanges. Additionally, the nature of the UKs (United Kingdom) urban geography means that many urban centres are located within close distances of each other: the two locations are examples of this. Attempting to provide direct services to each adds complexity to the route in the form of junctions and flyovers. This may be feasible at some point, but Hyperloop technology has yet to demonstrate effectiveness wit h grade separations and the feasibility of junctions, and the high speeds provided will also result in larger signal blocks. This would, coupled with the need to split up routes at high - capacity junctions, limit total passenger capacity and limit the total number of services the route could provide. The value of locating a station in locations suggested comes from the potential of regional connectivity. Within the Scottish Central Belt and Liverpool Manchester Combined Area are several well - connected tow ns and transportation nodes. Providing services to these towns provides incentive to improve that connectivity further, and as well encourages the development of them into true regional hubs - this should go hand in hand with the governments ‘levelling - up’ agenda. 2.3.1 Liverpool Manchester Combined Area Figure 3: Illustration by scalability member, Luke Dodd There are 3 key locations within the region that could act as a potential site for a hyperloop station integrated with other transportation methods: Wigan, Warrington, and Crewe. 2.3.1.1 Wigan 8 Wigan is a town within the Greater Manchester area but is equidistant from both Liverpool and Manchester. Within the town there are two existing railway stations, located less than 100 metres from each other: Wigan North - western, the more important of the two, and Wigan Wallgate. Wigan North - western has 5 platforms with another out of use, and is served by hou rly Avanti West Coast, and several Northern Trains services to both Liverpool and Manchester. Wigan Wallgate is exclusively served by Northern Trains with most services going to Manchester Victoria, and other smaller towns such as Southport and Kirkby, whe re it connects with Mersey Rail Commuter services for Liverpool. HS2 services to Scotland are to serve Wigan North - western when/if the Golborne Link is constructed, further enhancing regional connectivity. Hyperloop services could help to provide im petus to create a regional hub of both stations. 2.3.1.2 Warrington Warrington is in the north of Cheshire, straddling the border between Merseyside and Greater Manchester. Like Wigan, it too has two main railway stations: Warrington Bank Quay is served mostly by north - south intercity services along the WCML along with additional services to Manchester, Liverpool, and additional locations such as Wales. Warrington Central is the primary station for services between Manchester and Liverpool, along with an hourly Tra ns Pennine Express intercity service. Warrington has the advantage over Wigan of being more conveniently located. It is 25km from both cities, but trains to Both cities are within a half hour trip: trains to Wigan are between a half hour and 50 minutes from Liverpool, and over 40 minutes from Manchester. 2.3.1.3 Crewe Crewe presents a more unique location, as it is located further from both cities than Wigan and Warrington. However, it has several advantages that would make it an optimal location for an integrat ed transportation hub between Hyperloop, HS2, and conventional railways. Crewe already acts as a regional hub, sitting on the West Coast Main Line, and currently where London - Manchester trains diverge towards Manchester. Currently journeys to Birmingham take an average of 1 hour and will be reduced further once HS2 is finished. 9 Figure 4 : Illustrations by scalability member, Luke Dodd While trains are not expected to stop here from London - Manchester on HS2, trains will go to Liverpool on this route. As it already acts as a regional hub, the addition of HS2 further enhances Crewe's status. This makes it an optimal location for an Hyperloop station, allowing faster journeys between London and Manchester. It would additionally allow for better connectivity to the West Midlands and Wales, which are otherwise missed out by the proposed route of the Hyperloop. 2.3.2 Scottish Central Belt While there is no single definition, the Scottish Central Belt contains over half of the entire population of Scotland. The smaller definition restricts it to the ‘triangle’ formed by the M8, M80 and M90 motorways. Within this area around 2.39 million people reside. Contained within are the two most important cities of Scotland: Glasgow and Edinburgh. Glasgow is the largest city in Scotland, with a metropolitan population of 1,698,000 in 2023. (The central belt definition provided, and the metro area of Glasgow do not always overlap). Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland and has a metropolitan populatio n of 554,000. The geology of the Central Belt can present a challenge for any tunnelling relating to the project. Much of it is volcanic in nature and carboniferous (i.e., limestones), which presents a challenge to tunnel boring within this area - it l imits the size of tunnels able to be dug out, and often takes longer to do. 2.3.2.1 Falkirk Falkirk is located west of Edinburgh and northeast of Glasgow. The town itself has a population of 34,000 while the larger council area has a population of 160,000. It has two primary railway stations: Falkirk High and Falkirk Grahamston. Falkirk High provides intercity services between Glasgow and Edinburgh, with Glasgow 20 minutes away and Edinburgh 28 minutes away. Grahamston provides services towards either city but not directly between them. However, this enables better local/regional connections with the route. Geographically it may not seem the most convenient, but it is the main intercity railway route between Glasgow and Edinburgh. 10 The distance between stations p resents a challenge in the construction of a hyperloop station. The distance between the stations is 1.27km directly, and takes 13 minutes on public transport, 17 minutes to walk, and 6 minutes to drive. Additionally, there are minimal brownfield sites whi ch could be used to develop a location, which puts additional pressures from a planning perspective. A potential site could be the Central Retail Park located next to Grahamston Station. The site is 135,000 m 2 which provides ample space for the development of a station and additional transit - oriented developments. Further investments would however be needed to connect to Falkirk High, particularly as that is the primary connection to Glasgow and Edinburgh. 2.3.2.2 Glasgow Urban Area One potential location within th e region is Ravenscraig, an at - present under - development new suburb located south - east of Glasgow city centre in the vicinity of the local centres of Motherwell and Wishaw. The advantage here is that the site is one of the largest brownfield sites within t he UK, offering a huge blank slate for any development. There are also many opportunities for enhanced transport connections to Glasgow city centre, with proximity to both Motherwell and Wishaw stations, along with the potential for a railway station locat ed on the Argyle line passing along the eastern edge of the site. The site does have limitations. It is located 20 km from Glasgow city centre. Even with adequate transportation links, they are unlikely to provide a high enough capacity service for the passenger loads. As well the transport links to Edinburgh would require a transfer at a station further down the railway lines, limiting to the attractiveness of the route if it requires a particularly challenging transfer. 11 3. Social, Economic and Environmental analysis of Route 3.1 Socioeconomic factors concerning the route The term socioeconomic combines both social and economic factors. This is integral within this report as it is necessary to not only acknowledge the feasibility of this venture but to also discuss the potential ramifications on both the individuals in the area and the economic climate. There are multiple advantages for having a station in Old Oak Common for those living within the area however many of these advantages can be considered detrimental for the occupant's long term. For instance, the station would mean there would be more access to the area and subsequently the improved transport links would in turn make travelling and day to day life more convenient for the residen ts. The presence of an Hyperloop station in Old Oak Common would however not only enhance the convenience for residents but could also lead to significant economic changes in the area. Improved transport links and increased accessibility often results in r ising property prices, as the area becomes more desirable for potential house buyers. Whilst this could be advantageous for property owners and stimulate economic growth, it may also have adverse effects on the existing population. This could make the area less affordable for the existing population and so this could result in them becoming displaced and forcing them to consider other areas to move to. The advanced transport links could even potentially result in the area becoming a ‘Commuter Town’ as it wo uld be well connected to the larger city, in particular London. A ‘Commuter town’ is characterised by its residents who typically work in the larger city but choose to live in the commuter town due to lower housing costs, better quality of life etc. Th is further contributes to the displacement of existing long - term residents. This phenomenon has been observed in other areas experiencing rapid transportation development, leading to gentrification and social inequality. Displacing established communities is a major threat to social cohesion and could result in potential loss of local character and identity in the area. From an alternate perspective, an increasing population could strain local resources such as schools, healthcare facilities, and infrastru cture. Tourism itself does not necessarily have to be considered as a fundamental factor that could impact the lives of the residents as Old Oak Common remains an underfunded community however the consequences of its accessibility in relation to London, a tourism hotspot, must be considered. Although there are multiple negative consequences of the new station being built at OOC, there are further advantages that could hugely improve the community. The new station would inevitably create employ ment opportunities and therefore would decrease unemployment. Given that this is already a prevalent concern, this could benefit the residents and work to rejuvenate the town. The new transport links would result in further funding and more demand for impr ovements to the area and so this in turn would rejuvenate the landscape. 3.2 Environmental sustainability of chosen route In a world that is becoming more technologically advanced, information is more accessible and subsequently the consequences of environment al disturbances have moved to the forefront of the agenda. Now more than ever it is necessary to consider environmental sustainability of the route to limit the effect on the climate. Certain routes can be considered more eco - friendly where they have mi nimal impact on the environment of both the animal and human population in the area. For instance, the building of the station could result in loss of microhabitats and destruction of whole ecosystems to pave way for the new train line. The production o f residual debris can disrupt the structure and composition of ecosystems which can in turn lead to changes in the species distribution and abundance in the area. If any debris were to then end up in nearby bodies of water, it could even cause water pollut ion. Soil contamination 12 must also be considered when discussing the effects of debris in the environment. Debris can accumulate and degrade in the soil, releasing pollutants. Therefore, there are multiple possible short and long - term effects that the Hyper loop can have on the environment. Sustainable transportation routes should be designed to minimize emissions and noise and should prioritize the health and well - being of nearby residents. It is also imperative to ensure that new transportation routes ar e economically and socially sustainable, considering factors such as accessibility, affordability, and equity. Overall promoting environmental sustainability in transportation requires a comprehensive approach that considers the impacts of transportation on both the natural environment and the people who use and live near the transportation routes. 13 4. Insight into the costs and maintenance of hyperloop A hyperloop transport system can be treated as a modified tube system, but the complete system is overground with solar panels over the top of the tubes. Capturing the complete ideology of the system, the anticipated costs of hyperloop would be accounted to infrastructure, capsule/pod design and development, tube production, operational costs, and main tenance. The topology and length of the route influence the costs of infrastructure. Also, the number of bends and curves along the terrain increase the overall costs by a significant amount. The restriction on the bend radius is also considered for highe r speeds. The cost is estimated in tens of millions of pounds per mile. The system is dependent on the tube that accommodates the capsule which enables the tube to transport the capsule in a low - pressure environment. Tube size, material used in production, supporting beams are the factors which highly impact the cost. Costing is also done for the design, manufacturing, and testing of capsule. The pod designed should be aerodynamic and light in weight. This will have the ability for the pod to travel at high - speed. Passenger safety is also made of utmost importance as this high - speed close to ground travel can become a catastrophic disaster if not treaded carefully. So, research and development, prototyping and manufacturing should be considered for the c osting analysis. After successfully manufacturing the complete system and setting it in place, the next biggest cost incurred is the operational one. These will include the energy consumption, maintenance, personnel, security, insurance, and administrative expenses. 4.1 Research data from manufacturers of the cost of major components of the pod The main systems which run the pod are the chassis, propulsion, braking, aerodynamic shell, power supply, energy storage, communications and most importantly the safety and control systems. Various manufacturers of hyperloop have brought about a rough estimate on the costs of the overall pod. The Delft Hyperloop Passenger Pod estimated the costs of 8.5 to 10 million Euros (9.2 to 11 million Dollars) (Hyperloop, 2019). Mor eover, in the report on the feasibility of Hyperloop by (Rana, 2020) the estimation was based on the linear induction motor selected by Hyperloop alpha (by SpaceX) which provides an average propulsive power of 37 MW and a peak output of 56 MW. The cost of system was found out to be 35 million dollars per km. This figure includes the cost of stator, power electronics along with energy storage components. Meanwhile, the manufactures of hyperloop have declared the prices of the pod in overall, little to no solid details were provided in depth regarding the costs of individual components publicly. Many speculations have been done with the figures of different components but are not viable sources of information. Some general insights of different components were noted while studying on all the components. The cost of the braking system will depend on the design, type of brake mechanism used, manufacturing and materials, safety, and certification. The complexity of the braking system design, including the number of components, the sophistication of the control system, and the integration with other pod systems, can affect the cost. More advanced and intricate designs may incur higher costs. The specific technology chosen for the braking system will impact the cost. Electromagnetic braking systems or regenerative braking systems will have different costs associated with their development, manufacturing, and maintenance. The cost of manufacturing the braking system components, including materials and production processes, will also influence the overall cost. Factors such as material selection, machining, fabrication, and assembly methods will contribute to the cost of the braking system. The braking systems in Hyperloop need to meet rigorous safe ty standards and regulations. The braking system must undergo testing, certification, and validation processes, which can add to the overall cost. Safety considerations may require redundant systems and additional safety features, which can impact the cost of the braking system. 4.2 Investigating the expected average passengers to model 14 prices of tickets The passenger count can be described in relation to the people who travel longer distances, within 2 cities. The hyperloop system will enable people to live in a city while work in other. Also, the existing travellers which are using other modes of transport to commute within cities like airways, roadways, and railways. Hyperloop will revolutionise the actual definition of transport in terms of time r equired to travel more than 500 kilometres in a matter of minutes. The price tickets can be analysed using the current RASK (Revenue per Available Seat kilometre) and CASK (Cost per Available Seat kilometre) models. The term available seat kilometre is a measure of the capacity available in the hyperloop pod. It is the product of number of seats available on board and the distance travelled by the hyperloop. RASK is the ratio the hyperloop’s revenue in a particular period to the available seat kilometre while CASK is the ratio like RASK, but it is divided from total expenses in a particular time instead of the revenue. To estimate these factors for modelling ticket prices the average passenger count is calculated. However, the estimation of this figure c an be indeterminate. 4.3 Creating financial models to evaluate profitability and calculate key investment metrics. Comprehensively creating financial models evaluates the profitability of an Hyperloop system would require detailed information about numerous fa ctors, including capital costs, operational expenses, revenue streams, passenger projections, and financing terms. Estimating the upfront capital costs associated with the construction of the Hyperloop infrastructure, including the tube, stations, land acq uisition, and other necessary components and involving detailed cost breakdowns based on engineering studies, feasibility analyses, and construction estimates. Determining the ongoing operational expenses required to run the Hyperloop system including ma intenance costs, energy costs, employee salaries, marketing expenses, insurance, and other overhead expenses. Detailed cost projections based on industry benchmarks, operational plans, and maintenance schedules would be necessary. Identifying the potent ial revenue streams for the Hyperloop system. This could include ticket sales for passenger travel, cargo transportation fees, advertising revenue, and potential partnerships or collaborations. Revenue projections would depend on factors such as passenger demand, pricing strategy, and market analysis. Additionally, estimating the number of passengers expected to use the Hyperloop system over time analyses market size, travel patterns, demographics, and potential competition. Passenger projections could be b ased on market research, survey data, and comparable transportation systems. By analysing the passenger count, a pricing strategy for passenger travel and cargo transportation assists in considering factors such as distance travelled, competitive pricing, value proposition, and market demand elasticity. Fare structures and pricing models that balance revenue generation with affordability for customers need to be created. Furthermore, the financing options available for the Hyperloop project, including debt financing, equity investments, and potential government subsidies or incentives are to be evaluated considering the cost of capital, repayment terms, and the impact of financing on the overall financial model. Financial metrics such as net present value (N PV), internal rate of return (IRR), payback period, and profitability ratios are needed to be calculated. These metrics will help assess the financial viability and attractiveness of the Hyperloop project. Subsequently, performing sensitivity analysis assi sts in understanding the impact of changing variables and assumptions on the financial model. Also, assessing the sensitivity of key parameters such as passenger demand, construction costs, and energy expenses evaluates the project's resilience to uncertai nties. A typical financial model for a project to find its feasibility is the discounted cashflow (DCF) model. It uses the anticipated free cash flow and discounts them to the net present value (NPV). It helps in determining an investments potential val ue and the time to achieve break even. It is given by, 15 𝐷𝐶𝐹 = ∑ 𝐶𝐹 𝑛 ( 1 + 𝑟 ) 𝑛 𝑘 𝑛 = 1 (Eq 1) Where, CF = cash flow at the end of the year r = discounted rate of return or internal rate of return n = Life of the project Considering a hyperloop project may run for 4 years, with cash flow per year given below: Table 1 Approximation of cash flow (in million dollars) Year 0 1 2 3 4 Cash flow (in million dollars) 100 40 30 15 45 *The numbers are random and around approximation. Then as per the discounted cash flow value model, 100 = 40 ( 1 + 𝑟 ) + 30 ( 1 + 𝑟 ) 2 + 15 ( 1 + 𝑟 ) 3 + 45 ( 1 + 𝑟 ) 4 ∴ 𝑟 = 11 472 % This suggests that if the internal rate of return from the Hyperloop project is expected to be greater than 11.47 %, then the project shall be expected or else it should be rejected. Another suitable key investment metric to evaluate company’s investment for the Hyperloop is the profitability ratio. It is the process which evaluates the value for a certain Hyperloop company using the metrics of other businesses of equivalent size. Profitability is one of the important selection criteria for the company’s financial profile. They a re distinguished into two major categories namely margin ratios which offers an understanding on a business’s capability to turn profit into sales and return ratios which put forward a way to examine how successfully an organisation generates its returns f or its shareholders. Considering a preparatory income statement for an Hyperloop organisation, Table 2 Income Statement for an Hyperloop organisation Revenue Quantity Cost per quantity (in thousand dollars) Total cost (in thousand dollars) Earnings from number of solar panels sold 200 8 1600 Earnings from number of pods sold 40 1000 40000 Earnings from pods leased for 20 years 40 1000 40000 Service and Maintenance - - 48000 Total - - 129600 Variable Costs - - Materials - - 40000 Spares - - 22000 Wages - - 30000 Total - - 92000 Fixed Cost - - 16 Rent Expense - - 10000 Insurance Expense - - 10000 Total - - 20000 Sum Total - - 112000 Net Income - - 129600 *The numbers are random and around approximation The margin ratio is g