You cut off that quote:

> incorporating reduced-pressure tubes in which pressurized capsules ride on an air cushion driven by linear induction motors and air compressors.

So the tubes are low pressure. Perhaps not vacuum, but in reality so called vacuum tube delivery systems aren't actually a vacuum either, that's why a more accurate name for them is Pneumatic Tube Systems.

I'm not sure what it is exactly you're trying to argue, above you made it sound like the system isn't low pressure at all.

The MIT prototype, and some of the other proposals, are really a maglev system. The original Hyperloop proposal called for aerodynamic support, with very tight tolerances, but that turns out to be iffy.

A maglev system needs a much more expensive track and/or a lot of energy from the vehicle to power the lift. This is the big problem with maglev - track cost. Maglev works fine; the Transrapid system in Shanghai has been running for 12 years now without serious problems. Top speed 300 MPH.

The Hyperloop is only interesting if it's far cheaper than a maglev. The Transrapid maglev system has far more capacity, can corner better, and can climb steeper grades.

Same source: "The Hyperloop resembles a vactrain system but operates at approximately one millibar (100 Pa) of pressure." That would be a "medium vacuum" according to Wikipedia.

Both BBC quotes are in full agreement with the document at http://spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf . Page 12, "100 Pascals", that's roughly 99.9% of the air removed.

The distinction between "very low pressure" and "vacuum" that is implied by the "hyperloop is not a vactrain" camp is a fantasy.