Not in the middle, hence why islands like Asencion exist.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Trans-Atlantic railway tunnel
- Thread starter Philip
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Transatlantic Tunnel will never happen as far as I'm concerned. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge and shifting of tectonic plates has already been cited as a reason it would be difficult to dig under the ocean floor, but other methods such as using immerse tunnels where the tunnel sits on the ocean floor itself (similar to the BART system in San Francisco) wouldn't be feasible either due to the immense pressure that would crush the concrete tunnel sections into dust. Then there is using a floating tunnel anchored to the ocean floor needing to be able to deal with ocean currents, submarines and large animals. Even assuming you managed to overcome the engineering hurdles you need to present the business case for it, and simply put high-speed trains, while a viable alternative for domestic and intercontinental European travel, simply could not compete with long-haul air journeys.
As such you would need to use something such as hyperloops so the vehicles can reach a fast enough speed inside the tunnel without air resistance to slow it down, which is all well and good until something goes wrong and you need a way to evacuate the passengers out of this submerged vacuum tube thousands of miles from civilisation in case of an emergency. Therefore why should anyone as a smart investor even consider pouring capital into such a difficult and potentially dangerous project when it would be more ideal to invest in more feasible alternatives? Quite simply, I would rather they tried to make air travel faster and greener than think about a Transatlantic Tunnel. Having not long been on a short-haul flight myself, I still dislike air travel as it is and would genuinely welcome not having the better half of my day taken up by such a daunting experience.
As such you would need to use something such as hyperloops so the vehicles can reach a fast enough speed inside the tunnel without air resistance to slow it down, which is all well and good until something goes wrong and you need a way to evacuate the passengers out of this submerged vacuum tube thousands of miles from civilisation in case of an emergency. Therefore why should anyone as a smart investor even consider pouring capital into such a difficult and potentially dangerous project when it would be more ideal to invest in more feasible alternatives? Quite simply, I would rather they tried to make air travel faster and greener than think about a Transatlantic Tunnel. Having not long been on a short-haul flight myself, I still dislike air travel as it is and would genuinely welcome not having the better half of my day taken up by such a daunting experience.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,406
Absolutely zero chance of happening, but in the words of Stanley Tucci in 'The Core' (the only actor who clearly understood just how ridiculous the film was) - "yes, but what if we could?"
Crossing the ridge itself could probably be avoided by routeing across a transform fault:
2.5cm movement a year is not out of the ordinary for tunnels in seismically active areas. The Chengdu - Tibet railway currently under construction probably has to handle similar movements. Heck, thermal expansion of long span bridge decks is in the order of metres. So crossing the MAR would be the least of the project's problems.
Crossing the ridge itself could probably be avoided by routeing across a transform fault:
2.5cm movement a year is not out of the ordinary for tunnels in seismically active areas. The Chengdu - Tibet railway currently under construction probably has to handle similar movements. Heck, thermal expansion of long span bridge decks is in the order of metres. So crossing the MAR would be the least of the project's problems.
If the goal is an America-Eurasia rail link, the Bering Strait is probably the most realistic option - it's "only" 50 miles, or two 20-mile spans via the Diomedes. I don't think, engineering-wise, there's anything particularly novel required.
Of course, that's even worse for travel times between basically anywhere populated, not to mention the small cost of building several thousand miles of (probably high-speed) line through Siberia and Alaska. I'm not saying this is a good idea (as much as I'd personally enjoy for it to happen)!
There's also the political issues, though geopolitics tend to upend themselves every few decades anyway.
Of course, that's even worse for travel times between basically anywhere populated, not to mention the small cost of building several thousand miles of (probably high-speed) line through Siberia and Alaska. I'm not saying this is a good idea (as much as I'd personally enjoy for it to happen)!
There's also the political issues, though geopolitics tend to upend themselves every few decades anyway.
There have been plenty of replies here that in no uncertain terms explain why there is no chance of such an underwater tunnel being built. My reply is why would it ever be seen as necessary? Since the days of Walter Raleigh, there has been a continuous stream of vessels carrying goods materials and people across the Atlantic in both directions. It is only in the last 60-70 years that any significnt amount of goods have made the journey by air, and for people with information, there have been telecommunications, (telegraph, telephone, radio, internet etc.), providing far lower carbon modes that are easily better than moving human bodies.
So that mainly leaves just migration and leisure travel. They can both be satified by surface travel, in the not too distant future, probably nuclear powered cruisers.
philosopher
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2015
- Messages
- 1,439
If you were going to build a trans Atlantic tunnel, it could be routed via Iceland and Greenland. Obviously this would be a longer route, but perhaps not too much longer as it would take a great circle route that takes advantage of the earth’s curvature.
The tunnel could then pass over the mid Atlantic ridge in Iceland. There would be the issue of ice sheets in Greenland though, but if say such a tunnel is constructed in the second half of the millennium, melting ice sheets due to climate change would make this less of an issue.
A whole new angle on railway preservation.
Maybe go via Stranraer and through Beaufort dyke, I believe theres a few particle accelerants there which if disturbed may speed up the journey considerably.
birchesgreen
Established Member
In the movie i mentioned earlier the problem of the mid-atlantic ridge was solved through sheer British grit by men in overalls.
If the Greenland ice sheets are ‘less of an issue’, then it’s fair to say that there won’t be a New York or London to connect, as they’ll both be underwater!
Or on stilts.
At which point, Skynet will be a bigger problem to solve than transatlantic connectivity.
Merthyr Imp
Member
Yes - engineered by a descendant of Brunel if I remember right, and set in an alternate history where America lost the War of Independence and was still part of the British Empire.
GusB
Established Member
Fabulous idea! When the tunnel is complete we can run steam specials through it. 
Brassey-Brunel? sounds familiar anyway.
And indeed the US gets it's independence at the end of the book. IIRC the tunnel went to the Azores first? also I think some of the shifting floor issues were "solved" by having the tunnel float ( underwater, obviously ). It had nuclear-powered reciprocating steam locomotives, so that is the level of reality we're talking
also the enitre tunnel is in a vacuum, which a) precludes through running and b) the insanity of a deep submarine tube with a vacuum in it boggles my mind a bit, as does the logistics of pumping out several thousand miles of tunnel.If planes disappear we're back to ships, they are a somewhat proven technology. Perhaps airships at a push.
Brassey-Brunel? sounds familiar anyway.
And indeed the US gets it's independence at the end of the book. IIRC the tunnel went to the Azores first? also I think some of the shifting floor issues were "solved" by having the tunnel float ( underwater, obviously ). It had nuclear-powered reciprocating steam locomotives, so that is the level of reality we're talking
Yes Brassey-Brunel.
I do not think that the book was meant to be taken particularly seriously.
But if you were going to build such a tunnel and could manage the Hyperloop style technology described, I think you'd happily forgo through running for the speed benefits.
Of course ideally you'd go for a large enough loading gauge on the main section so the regular train could run into train carrying shuttles then everyone can stay in their seats - which isn't a lot more daft than having the tunnel in the first place.
About a million times more likely than one for a steam railway.
Tbf the only existing technology that has a hope of competing time-wise is Maglev (although that's technically electric in a sense I guess).
Everyone ignoring the logical option which is freight. A freight railway only has to compete with slow boats, not planes. Also boats are even dirtier than planes, so the green credentials of the build go up.
Still probably best to use land masses like Iceland to help bridge the gap. It just makes more economic sense.
Still probably best to use land masses like Iceland to help bridge the gap. It just makes more economic sense.
mike57
Established Member
Current longest undersea tunnel ~30 miles, Ireland - Newfoundland would be more like 1800 miles.
Mid Atlantic ridge, earthquake, potential volcanoes, drifting apart.
Evacuation, imagine something like the Channel Tunnel fire 900 miles in.
Cost
Provision of power, you will need a full blown supply infrastructure
Ventilation
Each of these issues would present challenges to which proven solutions do not currently exist, add them all together and it falls into the 'not in the foreseeable future' category. Even the tunnel link between England and Ireland would be level up from anything currently achieved.
If flying is limited then surface crossings will become the norm.
Loading gauge differences at each end would be the least of the issues, as would freight/passenger priority, to work I think freight and passenger speeds would have to be the same.
Mid Atlantic ridge, earthquake, potential volcanoes, drifting apart.
Evacuation, imagine something like the Channel Tunnel fire 900 miles in.
Cost
Provision of power, you will need a full blown supply infrastructure
Ventilation
Each of these issues would present challenges to which proven solutions do not currently exist, add them all together and it falls into the 'not in the foreseeable future' category. Even the tunnel link between England and Ireland would be level up from anything currently achieved.
If flying is limited then surface crossings will become the norm.
Loading gauge differences at each end would be the least of the issues, as would freight/passenger priority, to work I think freight and passenger speeds would have to be the same.
You could evacuate the tunnel in front of the train, saves pumping it out behind!
I'm quite interested in what a modern take on an ocean liner would be like ( a serious take, not a QMII "we still have an ocean liner!" version ). Not sure how big you can scale an Incat-style catamaran, or how much power you can get from the sort of wind tubines ( flettner rotors etc ) you can stick on a ship.
Vespa
Established Member
It may be superseded by teleportation technology straight out of Star Trek 
In all seriousness that has been explored in Europe where they successfully beamed atoms from one location to another, we are still decades away from beaming a whole person and reassembling them without anything being out of place, like your eyes on your shoulder or your nose on your backside.
In all seriousness that has been explored in Europe where they successfully beamed atoms from one location to another, we are still decades away from beaming a whole person and reassembling them without anything being out of place, like your eyes on your shoulder or your nose on your backside.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
For power you'd surely use nuclear, like modern aircraft carriers do?
Willy Wonka managed it... and things turning up smaller on the other end would solve the loading-gauge discrepancies... at least in one direction!It may be superseded by teleportation technology straight out of Star Trek
In all seriousness that has been explored in Europe where they successfully beamed atoms from one location to another, we are still decades away from beaming a whole person and reassembling them without anything being out of place, like your eyes on your shoulder or your nose on your backside.
SuspectUsual
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2018
- Messages
- 4,984
The only thing I can think of that would make the chances of this happening reduce from one in a billion to zero would be Boris Johnson announcing he supports it
NS Savannah suggests that wouldn't be overly popular.
Cracking effort for originality.
Once that’s built, years late and over budget, the-more-ambitious-HS2-equivalent could be an asbestos lined tunnel through the Earth’s core to Australia!?
Last edited:
43096
On Moderation
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2015
- Messages
- 16,718
We'll send an HST down and meet an XPT coming the other way...Cracking effort for originality.
Once that’s built, years late and over budget, the-more-ambitious-HS2-equivalent could be an asbestos lined tunnel through the Earth’s core to Australia!?
We'll send an HST down and meet an XPT coming the other way...
And an “age of the train - Australia” advert, posthumously voiced over by Rolf Harris.
What could possibly go wrong.
Last edited:
and that one in a billion chance might still need the help of aliens, especially if within the 100 year timescale.
- Status