View Full Version : Trans-Atlantic Tunnel
Ok - you have to read this!
Just watched an 'Extreme Engineering' programme about this on Discovery...
The first commercial means to cross the Atlantic was by shipâ₠¬Ã‚¦ taking about 6/7 days...the jet engine knocked this down to about 7/8 hours...Concorde cut this down to 3 hours....
...imagine taking a train from London to New York in 54 minutes! ....travelling at 5,000mph at 3 times the speed of sound (Concorde being 2 times, but now discontinued).
You have to read more and see if you can catch this programme again on the discovery channel! Read up on their website and other extreme engineering feats here (http://discoverychannel.co.uk/extremeengineering/home.shtml).
54 minutes!...you could conceivably have a night out in New York... or even a day shopping! The mind boggles! :p
Although I do find it hard contemplating travelling half way around the world in less than 1 hour!...crossing many time zones...what would this do to out bodies!
idi banashapan
11-10-2003, 15:33
yeah - i saw that a while ago. I sure as hell know I wouldn't be going on that. I've managed to avoid the channel tunnel so far, so b*gger a trans-atlantic one!!!!!!
isn't the trans-atlantic one going to be built in such a way that the tunnel is a vaccum, thus less / no friction on the train???... Very clever but I feel it is an engineering feat that we could not complete in this day and age. Not so much due to technology, but cost. who would pay to build that??? and if they did, how much would tickets be to make back the money?????
The tunnel is indeed a vaccum, but only to increase the speed of the train, due to cancelling out any air resistance.
The actual train is magnetically levitated to remove any friction from the tracks.
They say that building this tunnel is not that technically advanced, and no where near as complex as space travel, and we've been doing that a few years!
Cost wise...yep heres the killer...they say that every steel factory in the world would need to work 24/7 for one whole year to out put the required amounts of steel...overall costs is unknown, to us, but is estimated to run into the tens fo trillions!...
Commercially speaking...well it costs about £400-£600 to fly to NY...I would say they'd either try to beat that, to appealt to the money spenders or match it to appeal to the time savers...either way....54 minutes!!! :p
keithwalton
11-10-2003, 16:03
5000 mph lmao :rofl: thats just comedy, the bullet train can only manage less than 1/10th that speed
Putting that speed in perspective thats 2235 m/s
Assuming you can manage it accelerating at 1G (which is no mean feet) would take 228 seconds ~ 4 minutes. not to mention how long it would take to stop.
They would have to remove the air in the tunnel as the air would produce hughe amounts of resistance in front of the train.
To create a vacuum effect they would have to have air locks on each side of the tunnel.
As for propulsion the only viable thing i can think of is a jet / fan engine that runs on hydrogen fuel cell, although if it was a true vacuum you wouldnt get anything to push, though this would help with the build up of air infront if your shoving it behind.
But still those sorts of speeds is just dreaming.
also the legnth of the tube will be over 3000 miles long and just look at what things happend with the channel tunnel and thats 100x shorter.
and then there is air supply to passangers, if your using a fuel cell engine that would consume large amounts of oxygen as well.
its a good idea with plenty of flaws that would need to be worked out, and some serious rethinking of top speed would need to be done, as a) you need to get there, b) maglev is not completly rolling resistance free c) getting a vacuum in a small space is hard never mind 3000+ miles of tunnel
K
It'll use airlocks.
And a maglev to travel, so no need for fuel cells or propulsion.
I think they said for the vacuum it'd take X number of Jumbo jet engines working solidly for 2 weeks.
I still can't see people giving financial backing to it.
I saw this advertised along with other " feats ".
A lot of valid points by Keith but don't forget that our great grand parents would have laughed at the idea of flight, the 10 mph speed limit ( on a horseless carraige ) etc etc.
As time and technology progress who's to say what can and cant be done.
The world has and is becoming a smaller place thanks to the boffins of the world
I can't wait around forever, bring it on ..... lol
Atomic22
12-10-2003, 19:35
has anybody watched "the seven wonders of the industrial world" on bb2 thursday nights?
some of the stuff the victorians built and the way they achieved it makes todays feats of engineering look like kiddies stuff and we would struggle to replicate what they created using todays technology...
Discovery's extreme engineering series is great. Has anyone seen the Boston episode? Or the bridge between Alaska and Russia?
homealone
12-10-2003, 22:34
Discovery's extreme engineering series is great. Has anyone seen the Boston episode? Or the bridge between Alaska and Russia?
last one I watched was the Seoul tallest building one.
I think a transatlantic "tunnel" is not feasible if it needs to be anchored at the bottom - why not think of it as a tube that needs to be stretched between the two points? - the outer casing could even be weaved/woven, so that it becomes rigid and water proof under tension. Think of the chinese finger trap?
Inside a tube like that we could build what we want?
I still can't see people giving financial backing to it.
Branson'd Be involed :)
timewarrior2001
13-10-2003, 09:13
The scope for a massive distaster would be too great.
Imagine the energy required to stop the train, even a sudden slow down at 5000mph would cause serious if not fatal injuries.
What would happen if the trainleft the permitted "track" instant death to a few hundred people, immessurable damage to a hefty section of the 3000 miles tunnel, fire???? a trip of 1500 miles for the emergency services that couldnt travel at 5000mph so anyone lucky enough to survivive th eimpact would almost certianly die waiting for help.
Its not like the passengers could even walk out like the channel tunnel.
Then we have to think of how many years it would take for a tunnel boring machine to move 1500 miles (assuming they meet up in the middle). How many accidents there would be.
I dont think anyone is stupid enough to put any money forward for this one......not even Richard branson.
Then we have to think of how many years it would take for a tunnel boring machine to move 1500 miles (assuming they meet up in the middle). How many accidents there would be.
Whilst I agree with your other comments timewarrior, I don't actually think it would be necessary to 'drill' under the Atlantic seabed for the majority of the distance, in fact most of it would be built as a tube on stilts, which thinking about it would bring its own problems of corrosion and structural stability !! :rolleyes:
Just spent the weekend in Wales passing, on the way, twice throught the tunnel that bypasses Conway (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=278500&Y=378500&A=N&Z=3). This was built nearby in a dry dock that, I think, is now the marina, floated out across the river, sunk, sealed up and then pumped out.
Or of course we could just prefer to stay in the UK :D
SMHarman
13-10-2003, 11:21
Just spent the weekend in Wales passing, on the way, twice throught the tunnel that bypasses Conway (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=278500&Y=378500&A=N&Z=3). This was built nearby in a dry dock that, I think, is now the marina, floated out across the river, sunk, sealed up and then pumped out.
This is how they built the Williams Tunnel in Boston also.
www.bigdig.com
Or of course we could just prefer to stay in the UK :D
Personally that is not an option I relish for my old age !! :walk:
SMHarman
13-10-2003, 11:34
Its interesting that when we built the first supersonic transport we were worried that it would crush the passengers.
But it's very difficult to crush something thats 80% water.
Theodoric
14-10-2003, 20:17
Whilst I agree with your other comments timewarrior, I don't actually think it would be necessary to 'drill' under the Atlantic seabed for the majority of the distance, in fact most of it would be built as a tube on stilts, which thinking about it would bring its own problems of corrosion and structural stability !! :rolleyes:
The reason for digging a straight tunnel under the seabed is that it wouldn't require any driving power if there is no resistance, hence the vacuum and magetic levitation. If you construct a straight tunnel from point A to point B through the earth then gravity provides all the power you need. From rest, the train accelerates under the action of gravity until it reaches the mid-point of the tunnel (when it is travelling at maximum speed), after which gravity then gradually slows the train down until it comes to rest at the far end of the tunnel. In fact, if my extremely rusty memory of this problem serves me right (and I stand ready to be corrected), the time for the journey is independent of the length of the tunnel so, if you have a good enough tunnel lining, here to the Antipodes in the same time as here to New York.
PS #1 IIRC, Harry Harrison wrote an SF novel on this subject with a title something like 'An Atlantic Tunnel, Hoorah!".
PS #2 There is an old physics demonstration of a similar effect of gravity. In the school gym, attach a long rope to the ceiling. To the end of the rope attach a very heavy object. Stand a volunteer against the gym wall and pull back the weight until it just touches his nose. Tell the volunteer to stand completely still and then let go of the weight. On the return journey it will come to a complete stop just as it touches his nose. Honest! The law of conservation of energy guarantees that his nose won't be squashed. Of course, if he faints and falls into the path of the returning weight . . .
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.