Transatlantic Tunnel

[All Seeing Eye]

Do you think with technological advancements this tunnel will ever be started on within our lifetimes?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I hope so. I saw the special on Extreme Engineering.
I think we have the technology to do it, just the money and time would be a problem. The usefulness is obvious - imagine being able to catch a train from New York to London in ONE HOUR?

 

[Mr. B]

I'm sure the technology will be there... but the motivation... I doubt it. By the time a project like that could be brought to fruition, we'll probably have supersonic air travel for the masses.

 

[Roger Wilco]

What's the point? Who wants to ride 4000km or whatever it is on a train when you can fly especially when it will be ridiculously expensive to build the thing?

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I was wondering, are their any alternative ideas to an underwater tunnel/tube?

What's the point? Who wants to ride 4000km or whatever it is on a train when you can fly especially when it will be ridiculously expensive to build the thing?

The tunnel would allow travel of just 1 hour, it takes planes far longer and I personally am more likely to catch a train to New York from London rather than catch a plane. It's just more appealing and more convenient.

I would LOVE to be able to visit New York for the day or weekend via Train. Imagine the tourism boost on each side.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Really? How many trains are on land yet that can break the speed of sound? Oh right, none, not even close.

 

[Canadave]

Really? How many trains are on land yet that can break the speed of sound? Oh right, none, not even close.

The idea, as I generally understand it, is that since you basically have to make a long air-tight tube for this sort of thing to work, you might as well depressurize it to a near-vacuum and put maglev trains inside so there's next to no friction. Bam, super-fast trains.

Personally, I don't think it's anywhere near feasible—perhaps technologically, but almost certainly not financially—but it is an interesting idea nevertheless.

 

[JarodRussell]

Never going to happen.

I'm not an engineer/architect/whatever, but I highly suspect that it's impossible to build a tunnel across the Atlantic because of the continental plates drifting away from each other. 2cm per year. 20cm in ten years. Vulcanic activity everywhere across the mid-oceanic ridge. 500 degree hot water.

The Channel tunnel is the longest underwater tunnel in the world, altogether 50 km (FIFTY) long, took 6 years to build and cost 16 billion USD (adjusted to inflation). And you want them to build a SIX T H O U S A N D KILOMETER long tunnel across the Atlantic?!

 

[Verteron]

Never going to happen.

It really bugs me when people say that - sure it might never happen in our lifetimes, but who's to say what the preferred method of transport will be in 2210? 2510? 3010? It's just short sighted to write anything technological off as "never" IMHO.

What is true is that it's not a very practical proposition with any current technology.

I wonder if it would be cheaper to lay an airtight floating bridge or a tunnel built in sections along the sea floor than it would be to drill?

This way nearly all the advantages of vacuum trains could be achieved at a fraction of boring through rock, and you can let the sections move relative to eachother with a few degrees of freedom provided you allow the rails to flex and use technology to ensure a smooth run for a maglev train would always be achieved...

A second alternative would be to take the tunnel along the surface using oilrig type platforms, hopping via Iceland and Greenland before arriving in Northeastern Canada, or go through Russia and across the straights to Alaska.

 

[JarodRussell]

Never going to happen.

It really bugs me when people say that - sure it might never happen in our lifetimes, but who's to say what the preferred method of transport will be in 2210? 2510? 3010? It's just short sighted to write anything technological off as "never" IMHO.

What is true is that it's not a very practical proposition with any current technology.

I wonder if it would be cheaper to lay an airtight floating bridge or a tunnel built in sections along the sea floor than it would be to drill?

This way nearly all the advantages of vacuum trains could be achieved at a fraction of boring through rock, and you can let the sections move relative to eachother with a few degrees of freedom provided you allow the rails to flex and use technology to ensure a smooth run for a maglev train would always be achieved...

A second alternative would be to take the tunnel along the surface using oilrig type platforms, hopping via Iceland and Greenland before arriving in Northeastern Canada, or go through Russia and across the straights to Alaska.

What about the storms?

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

I don't think storms would have any effect that far down, would they?

If such a thing is ever feasible, I think having it on the sea floor would be the only option.

There is an Atlantic Tunnel mentioned in the Dictionary of Imaginary Places.

The original story looks to be Il tunnel sottomarino by Luigi Motta (1927). I can't find too many English references.

 

[JarodRussell]

I don't think storms would have any effect that far down, would they?

His second alternative was on swimming platforms.


The ocean floor itself is a mountain range with hundreds of meters elevation differences. So simply laying a tunnel on the sea floor isn't an option either.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Extreme Engineering suggested the tunnel will be airtight (vacuum sealed for maximum speed of trains, and to eliminate fire risk) and would be suspended about halfway up from the seafloor.

 

[diankra]

It's a nice dream, but a sub-orbital passenger spaceplane would capture the market for fast transatlantic travel better, and would be less technically difficult and less expensive (though still very pricey) to develop.

 

[Christopher]

Will you settle for the reprint of Harry Harrison's A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah! in January?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

a sub-orbital passenger spaceplane would capture the market for fast transatlantic travel better, and would be less technically difficult and less expensive (though still very pricey) to develop.

And would be less convenient to use.

 

[Jetfire]

a sub-orbital passenger spaceplane would capture the market for fast transatlantic travel better, and would be less technically difficult and less expensive (though still very pricey) to develop.

And would be less convenient to use.

Like flying today...

 

[STR]

a sub-orbital passenger spaceplane would capture the market for fast transatlantic travel better, and would be less technically difficult and less expensive (though still very pricey) to develop.

And would be less convenient to use.

I don't see how an(y) aircraft would be less convenient than an undersea tunnel, especially one as exotic as proposed on the TV show. You have the same security concerns, in fact they'd be magnified since a bomb on a plane will generally blow up just that plane. Put a bomb in a tunnel and you risk every person in the entire tunnel. You have an even greater maintenance concern, since you have to monitor the vehicles and the tube.

It's duplicating functionality that already exists, and I really don't see a reason WHY you would build a tunnel that long, when the economics of shipping and long haul aircraft are already really good. Cost per seat-mile on an intercontinental flight is tiny.

 

[scotpens]

. . . A second alternative would be to take the tunnel along the surface using oilrig type platforms, hopping via Iceland and Greenland before arriving in Northeastern Canada, or go through Russia and across the straights to Alaska.

In that case, it wouldn't be a tunnel; it would be an enclosed bridge or elevated tube.

It's a nice dream, but a sub-orbital passenger spaceplane would capture the market for fast transatlantic travel better, and would be less technically difficult and less expensive (though still very pricey) to develop.

Plus it would be way cooler looking.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It's a nice dream, but a sub-orbital passenger spaceplane would capture the market for fast transatlantic travel better, and would be less technically difficult and less expensive (though still very pricey) to develop.

It's kind of surprising that Richard Branson hasn't realised the potential of that option rather than the billionaires' fairground attraction that he and Burt Rutan are building. I expect the old objections from Concorde's early days against sonic booms would kill that use case stone dead.