The short answer is, "yes." I've ridden on it. The slightly longer answer (as another commenter has pointed out) is that it depends on the weight of the train versus the weight of the hyperloop. I see no fundamental reason to assume that the hyperloop is lighter than the train. It could be so, but then, we could make smaller and lighter trains, too (light rail).

Plus you don't get the same natural banking off the walls he talks about, which is relevant at these speeds. While rail could bank, you better be going at the right speed when doing so, too slow and you just fall laterally off the tracks.

This is a problem even when you are at grade. The solution is known: tilt-trains. The track is banked such that the train will not fall over if it has to stop on the curve. The passenger cabin then tilts with respect to the wheels so that it always feels like the floor is "down" regardless of the speed that the train goes around the curve. The radius of curve sets the maximum speed the train can travel around it.

Did you actually read the PDF?

It doesn't carry its motor with it. That's a pretty big reason. Nor does it need the heavy-duty (and heavy!) trucks of a standard rail car.

The motor that it carries with it is about 146 horsepower. That's less than a Kawasaki Ninja street bike.

The General Electric E60 locomotives currently in use on Amtrak crank out 6,250 hp (4,660 kW) and weigh 423,000 lb (192,000 kilograms).

The weight of the tube doesn't really enter into it.

...now I'm contributing to this thread -- shoot!

My bet is that it's not significantly different to compare a light rail (subway-like) system to a hyperloop in terms of weight.

Then you get to add the rails and ties (or concrete sleepers), plus the vastly more heavy rolling stock.

The reason I said that the weight of the tube doesn't enter into it is because the tube isn't moving. The only thing that matters in terms of energy use is the rolling stock.

? You don't need to use ballast & tie track on elevated structure, in fact it's rare to do so on modern rail structures.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV

Edit: I had the wrong numbers before, thanks to Shiffern for the correction.

So yes, you could make the rail lighter, but in order to match the proposed passenger throughput, it would have to go 700mph. Good luck with that.

As a matter of fact, only the frequency and the capacity matter. Speed matters to passengers but not to the amount of people you can move.

The hyperloop as proposed actually has fairly low throughput; conventional rail systems, particularly of inter-metro variety where high throughput is most important, best it easily. 28 passengers per capsule at a capsule every 30 seconds makes 3360 pph during rush hours. RER line A averages 30000 passengers per hour over the entire year, with rush hour capacity being much higher.

Why is speed relevant?

(People/Car)*(Car/Hour) = (People/Hour) = Throughput

At a constant frequency and higher speeds, you will simply have less trains on the track at the same time.

A bigger factor in practical capacity is loading and offloading people and switching near termini.