Trans-Atlantic Supersonic Maglev Vacuum Tube Train

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by philvia

professionals estimated that it would cost between $88-175b to build... unless you're an experienced professional estimator who works these kinds of projects, then there's no reason not to believe what they say. I know many projects often times come in way over budget, but who is to say this one will? obviously the doom and gloom, half glass empty types will because it's in their nature.

i chose $100b because it was a nice even number that fell between the expected range sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo if you are a professional estimator, i welcome your honest opinion.

I'm not a "doom and gloomer," as I constantly am making the exact same defense of the California High Speed Rail cost predictions. However, plenty of HSR systems have been built around the world. No one's built an underwater vacuum tube. I'm a just a bit more skeptical.

If it can really be done for $100 billion (or even $200 billion), we should start tomorrow.

[M II A II R II K]

$4 Billion per mile, $12 trillion total.

[aic4ever]

I think the more interesting tunnel option from an engineering standpoint, since we're talking mag-lev, vacuum tube type of stuff, would be the old idea that Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke bandied about of a gravity train. The idea is that if you could create a frictionless environment, you could simply drop the train down the hole at one end, and have it come out at a stop at the other end, with trips taking about 45 minutes, regardless of distance.

It would seem to me that we'd generally have an easier time figuring out the tunnel boring for something like this, than we would have for figuring out the relentless dynamics of a suspended tunnel through the ocean. Which is not to say it doesn't present its own ridiculous problems (heat, plate tectonics, etc.), but it's another interesting thought.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by aic4ever

I think the more interesting tunnel option from an engineering standpoint, since we're talking mag-lev, vacuum tube type of stuff, would be the old idea that Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke bandied about of a gravity train. The idea is that if you could create a frictionless environment, you could simply drop the train down the hole at one end, and have it come out at a stop at the other end, with trips taking about 45 minutes, regardless of distance.

It would seem to me that we'd generally have an easier time figuring out the tunnel boring for something like this, than we would have for figuring out the relentless dynamics of a suspended tunnel through the ocean. Which is not to say it doesn't present its own ridiculous problems (heat, plate tectonics, etc.), but it's another interesting thought.

Uhhh... so... you actually think it would be easier to dig out millions of tons of dirt, hundreds of miles below the surface for the entire distance of the tube, than to simply anchor a preconstructed structure to the ocean floor?

[Alpha]

The problem is that so far as I know no floating under water tunnel was built. Such objects are subject to corrosion, streamings and are affected by vibrations caused by vehicles. Why not to build first a maglev train for express goods through a 50 kilometres long tunnel for example between Germany and Sweden or Japan and South Korea? The experiences made by such systems would be well for later man-transporting device!

[M II A II R II K]

The Transbay Tube is in water and seems to be doing just fine.

And yea to dig under the sea would be too expensive, too dangerous, and far too much pressure to survive down there.

[Rail>Auto]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Interesting details in this episode.

$12 Trillion, a century to build, work in one country and live in another on the same day.......



• Video Link

That's a great video. Thanks

Yea there really is no way of digging under the ocean straight across New York to London due to the fact that there is a massive volcano in the middle.

Personally I like the idea of going through Greenland and Ireland ( I believe that proposed route went through both). It said the major problems would be ice weather and strong winds. Wouldn't an electrified rail melt all snow and ice? Why not just build a covering around the rail through there that would shield it from the ice and wind?

I believe the video said 60 billion people travel this route today. Seems like enough to me to pay off this project.

[M II A II R II K]

All 5 parts of the episode covers every angle, it was decided that the direct NYC - London route would be best and it be a tethered floating tunnel.

Supports holding it up was rejected due to some would have to be miles high which would make the supports a bigger project than the tunnel itself, and floats holding it up would get swept away in storms and stuff.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Rail>Auto

I believe the video said 60 billion people travel this route today. Seems like enough to me to pay off this project.

60 million per year, not billion. 60 billion would mean that every person on the planet travels the route every five to six weeks.

[PartyLine]

It looks cool but I doubt it will get built in our lifetime

[aic4ever]

Originally Posted by JordanL

Uhhh... so... you actually think it would be easier to dig out millions of tons of dirt, hundreds of miles below the surface for the entire distance of the tube, than to simply anchor a preconstructed structure to the ocean floor?

Structurally speaking, yes. Finding somewhere to put the dirt and rock wouldn't be nearly as hard as you'd think. Think how many more Hong Kong Airport-like islands could be created. You'd easily create new real estate world-wide.

You'd also be dealing with much easier structural calculations. While you'd be dealing with massive pressures and obscene temperatures, those are things that are relatively easily accounted for if/when the technology becomes available. You are far closer to a static condition overall.

If you're building a tunnel that is going to literally float in water, you've got an endless, unpredictable dynamic condition, where the tunnel is going to be constantly moving.

Now, they are building in water tunnels. But they are sinking them to the bottom, to a static condition. As close as it may SEEM like we are to being able to do something like a floating tunnel, you have to understand that the actual feasibility of overcoming a dynamic condition is so outlandish that it's unlikely ever to happen.

[M II A II R II K]

A floating tunnel hasn't been built anywhere yet. The tethered system looks promising especially since they'd have shock absorbency if anything struck.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by aic4ever

Structurally speaking, yes. Finding somewhere to put the dirt and rock wouldn't be nearly as hard as you'd think. Think how many more Hong Kong Airport-like islands could be created. You'd easily create new real estate world-wide.

You'd also be dealing with much easier structural calculations. While you'd be dealing with massive pressures and obscene temperatures, those are things that are relatively easily accounted for if/when the technology becomes available. You are far closer to a static condition overall.

If you're building a tunnel that is going to literally float in water, you've got an endless, unpredictable dynamic condition, where the tunnel is going to be constantly moving.

Now, they are building in water tunnels. But they are sinking them to the bottom, to a static condition. As close as it may SEEM like we are to being able to do something like a floating tunnel, you have to understand that the actual feasibility of overcoming a dynamic condition is so outlandish that it's unlikely ever to happen.

I'm going to have to disagree. Call me crazy, but implementing a technology we've been using for almost a century in a stationary structure is going to be much easier than digging hundreds of times deeper than we've ever done before, into layers of the earth that we've never actually observed, and that we actually know very little about. The surveying on a Gravity Train would be done as it was being built.

[M II A II R II K]

Yea that has been cited as almost impossible to dig a tunnel under the Atlantic. May as well dig a tunnel through the Earth from the USA and end up in China!

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Yea that has been cited as almost impossible to dig a tunnel under the Atlantic. May as well dig a tunnel through the Earth from the USA and end up in China!

That's exactly what the guy I was responding too was suggesting. Read up on a gravity train, an idea by Newton.

[scalziand]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Yea that has been cited as almost impossible to dig a tunnel under the Atlantic. May as well dig a tunnel through the Earth from the USA and end up in China!

Think of the possibilities for geothermal energy with that.

[M II A II R II K]

I think a network of sub-orbital space flight would become mainstream to bother with any Trans-Atlantic passage to begin with.

As for the Gravity Train that would be more likely when dimensional phase shifting is mastered to pass through rock, heat, and friction and still be bound by the Earth's gravitational forces. Of course there's no need to tunnel anything at all either.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

I think a network of sub-orbital space flight would become mainstream to bother with any Trans-Atlantic passage to begin with.

As for the Gravity Train that would be more likely when dimensional phase shifting is mastered to pass through rock, heat, and friction and still be bound by the Earth's gravitational forces. Of course there's no need to tunnel anything at all either.

Dimensional phase shifting? What a weird name for quantum flux.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by JordanL

I'm going to have to disagree. Call me crazy, but implementing a technology we've been using for almost a century in a stationary structure is going to be much easier than digging hundreds of times deeper than we've ever done before, into layers of the earth that we've never actually observed, and that we actually know very little about. The surveying on a Gravity Train would be done as it was being built.

No kidding.

Tunneling with a TBM? The channel tunnel cost $15-20 Billion of today's dollars, that to go 50 km. New York to London is approximately 100 times as long, and thus would cost at least 100 times as much and take 100 times as long (I'm sure the actual amounts would be significantly more than that. Also, how could you possibly get enough oxygen down the tunnel to provide life support for workers 2500 km away? The idea of tunnelling is absurd.

A cut and cover tunnel at the bottom of the ocean would be easier and cheaper, and we aren't even close to having the technology that would be required to do a cut and cover tunnel.

Using some method that can allow for offsite construction of the tunnel sections is the only possible way to go.

[FIN_Ale]

What would you "experts" think about if the trains were several huge balls that would be capable of transporting people and other matter?
I've thought it to just run on individual balls, but they could be connected together with a "bulletjacket" that would sit with ball bearings on the balls.
It probably wouldn't necessarily need a vacuum tube to go fast, but to be most effective, it would run on a track that would remind about the pinball game or rolling ball track.
First, You'd simply roll the ball into high speed on a stand that has ball bearings and then slingshot(one like on a aircraft carrier) it into the tubes(vacuum or without).

I could go more on explaining of how my idea would work, but I just want to know first that what would you think about that?
I'm working on one drawing about the structure of the ball.

ps. English is my 2nd so just ask if there's any confusion