Science Fictiony, but not Science Fictiony enough. What we really need is the Gravity Train. 
A train ride from New York City to London?
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
Wow, you've blown my mind, too, Gaith. I'm ready to go...
Get a pilot's license. Even if the technology existed, I guarantee that would be necessary for liability reasons.
The Sport Pilot rating can be had for around $5000, with payments spread out over the course of training (6 to 12 months probably). Think of it like an extra semester of college. (The Private rating is approximately twice that.)
Seems like a good idea. One plus over container ships is the fact that container ships are known to lose containers in rough seas - can't really recover that. I cannot imagine the journey would take any longer, either.
T'Girl's thinking seems to be limited by the post title. There is global freight and a land-based alternative to sea and air would be a good option to have for many outside of both New York and London. It's just that the Times of London printed the story and so used the example to sensationalise the news...
T'Girl's thinking seems to be limited by the post title. There is global freight and a land-based alternative to sea and air would be a good option to have for many outside of both New York and London. It's just that the Times of London printed the story and so used the example to sensationalise the news...
Since Panama continues to have ships waiting to use their busy canal and are spending huge sums building wider and linger locks, I'm having trouble believing claims that hauling freight by train is less expensive than bulk freight and container ships.
Many of those ships are propelled by larger versions of the diesel engines that generate the power for locomotives.
Many of those ships are propelled by larger versions of the diesel engines that generate the power for locomotives.
^ And the future Earth of the Legion of Super-Heroes (30th century) had tunnels directly through the planet.
Panama's not really a good counter-example as a large percentage of the traffic through it doesn't really have an A-B land-route alternative. Also (modern) rail freight uses the same containers as the ships (and road-going trucks, come to that); that's intermodal containerisation for you.
Costs are really remarkably low whichever route you go as a result, with the cost per tonne largely moving inversely to how many containers you can cram onto one transport vehicle (# containers on a ship> rail > road > air). So you're right that rail is more expensive than sea, but the margin is less than you might think. Choice largely comes down to the degree of flexibility you need. If you don't need much, and are moving a lot, and can move it by sea, you will; if the land route is a lot shorter, you won't.
If you had a rail link across the Bering Straits, you'd certainly attract some freight business to it. My guess is that while the Northwest Passage remains effectively closed to container shipping, the rail link would do fairly well. If the Northwest Passage opened properly, container ships would probably take a lot of the business.
^^ And it will probably open up when the tunnel is about half done. 
As a bonus, there would be no rats in the tunnels.
Rats can adapt to anything, you'd have rats in spacesuits!
Space Rats - coming to a theatre near you this Summer...
I like how the train has made the jounery around the world from NY to London, then stops, as if there the railway is so bad in the UK, it cant go any further, what about NY to Scotland?
That sid obviously the NY to London trip is going to use many differnt trains, rather than 1 single train, but its cooler if its all one train.
Also shouldnt we also build a train tunnel to Ireland? is Ireland really so far that its beyond us.
That sid obviously the NY to London trip is going to use many differnt trains, rather than 1 single train, but its cooler if its all one train.
Also shouldnt we also build a train tunnel to Ireland? is Ireland really so far that its beyond us.
Actually, I'd have guessed that rail is more fuel-efficient than ships, what with there being far less resistance/lost inertia due to tides, water mass, and what-not. Isn't a well-maintained rail line pretty much the closest one can come to a vacuum in everyday life?
That said, your explanation does make sense also.
It's more expensive to move a ship than a train, but you can pack a LOT more containers on a ship than behind a (typical) locomotive, so the "cost per shipment tonne per unit distance" is lower for a container ship than for rail.
But which is actually cheaper for the shipment journey you want to calculate depends on the distance of the two routes, from A to B. A short rail journey will be cheaper than a circuitous ship, for example. In truth, modern logistics involves a lot of different methods e.g. road haulage from factory to port, ship from port to port, then rail to central distribution hub, then road to local depot, etc, etc, so exact comparisons are very difficult. This is what keeps brokerages in business.
Well, doesn't London have rail access of its own to the rest of Europe? I've never been there, but I'm guessing it does. So if it's a major rail hub or anything like that, simply getting to that place would be enough.
I just think its interesting that the story is NY to London, when NY to Glasgow would be a longer journey.
