Transatlantic Rail Tunnel?

[Manchester77]

So I saw this program about possible transatlantic rail tunnels and it got me thinking, will he ever actually be one? It's a hell of a distance and all it ever seems to be is New York to London then continental Europe via Chunnel.
So my questions are:-
In your opinion will there ever be such a tunnel?
Will there ever be the need for one?
Where will it run to and from?
What speeds, style of trains etc do you think it'd have?

I just wanted to see people's views on it.
Thanks
M77

 

[Jordeh]

I think there's a far greater chance of me seeing people on Mars in my lifetime than this, or even flying to New York on concorde and I'm incredibly sceptical of both despite being born in the 1990s. Right now we don't even have a tunnel to the Isle of Wight or Ireland so this is just unimaginable.

- The economic cost would probably be something like all the money in the world
- There is no need for it freight-wise, imports (and exports) are generally from Asia and Europe, less so with the USA (and I expect this trend to continue)
- Passenger-wise it is not feasible as it would presumably take days even with the fastest high speed rail system in the world right now. No one wants to spend 3 days or so on a train under the ocean when there's far quicker alternatives which don't involve being in pitch black. Flying is relatively cheap anyway.
- The technology isn't there anyway regardless of the fact it's unaffordable in every sense of the word and there's absolutely no need.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Well, it's roughly 3,500 miles from London to New York, assuming any such tunnel - which would have to be a suspended tunnel within the water - was built it would very likely start from somewhere near Weston ( for ease of through running to / from London ) and finish more or less at New York itself.

Now, it is obvious that this would be non stop all the way and would be pretty much straight meaning that you would be on high speed cruise for virtually the entire distance, most likely at next generation TGV speeds of 250mph.

This, assuming the high speed running was only within the tunnel and that Weston to Paddington ( or wherever ) was at present line speeds, would yield a journey time of just over 15 hours.

So if the cost and technological challenges of the construction ( including making it proof against collision with submarines and ships dropping anchor on it ) could be overcome then the journey itself is certainly feasible.

But, and I stress this, it's the money that will be the killer factor. It won't happen!

We also have the interesting effects of the 5 hour time difference as well; a westbound service would cover 10 clock hours while an eastbound would cover 20 clock hours. So an 09.00 departure from London would arrive at New York at 19.00 local the same day but an 09.00 from New York would reach London at 05.00 local the next morning.

This gives a clue as to potential timetabling; departures from London would probably be half hourly between 07.00 and 12.00 for conventional services ( which would arrive between 17.00 and 22.00 local ) and hourly between 20.00 and 23.00 for a Sleeper service ( arriving between 06.00 and 09.00 local ), both types having the same journey duration. That's 15 services.

Eastbound would probably be hourly from between 11.00 and 01.00 ( arriving between 07.00 and 21.00 local ) - but in this direction each service would need a Sleeping element! That's 15 services, so the daily diagrams are balanced but the fleet ultilisation would be relatively low as the timing imbalance requires more trains to be available at each end than you might at first think; they can't just work on a turn and turn about basis.

That throws up a lot of challenges, not least that each rake would probably need to be of couchette type to accomodate the different demands of crossing the time zones in each direction and making sure that both departures and arrivals are at reasonable hours at each end! You'd probably also need a fairly long turnaround for those trains that can make a return trip; possibly as long as two hours.

Let's see what the diagramming fraternity on here can do with those timings... What would the fleet size need to be?

*throws down gauntlet*

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Where the mid-Atlantic ridge is, there is currently:-

1)...A gradual widening of the Atlantic Ocean sea-bed.
2)...Unstable geological substrates.
3)...Some rather outpouring of magma that solidifies into pillow lava outcrops.
4)...The water-pressure to be taken into account.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Paul, a suspened submerged tunnel ( which is what most of these proposals that crop up every couple of years involve ) would only be a couple of hundred feet down at the most, nowhere near the ocean floor; the biggest hazard would be a submarine ramming it or a ship sinking on top of it.

 

[Clip]

In all honesty a plane is and always will be the betetr mode of transport across the Atlantic.

 

[Kali]

And if not a plane -if you're not *that* concerned with speed, assuming flying becomes enormously expensive again - nothing much wrong with ocean liners; it's easy to provide hotel facilities on something that large, and fast large-ship construction is still studied for aircraft carriers. The last of the old liners were capable of doing the trip in 3 & 1/2 days or so, I'm sure a nuclear powered modern vessel could improve on that.

As for a train; maglev and removing a lot of the air from the tunnel would improve matters significantly.

 

[starrymarkb]

Would it be worth the cost, something like that would take a very long time to construct as well as being technically difficult (the Atlantic is getting wider all the time)

Given the cost and likely emissions from construction maybe it is worth leaving Transatlantic to the airlines. Especially as new aircraft designs come online that offer far lower fuel burns and emissions (I believe the 787 is about 20% more efficent then the A330 which in turn is somewhat more efficient then the previous designs)

You are getting near taking 250 passengers and a lot of Cargo across the Atlantic on about 26 tonnes of fuel, I don't know the consumption of larger aircraft (777/A380) but they use even less fuel per passenger (An A380 has the lowest cost per passenger mile at the moment, as long as you can fill it to a reasonable level)

 

[blackfive460]

Already been done - but in a different reality.

See; A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah! by Harry Harrison, ISBN 0765327864

Quite a good read if you like that sort of thing.

 

[Kali]

It's a lot easier to electrically power an airship also, although a high-capacity airship would be *enormous*. There may be alternative sources of hydrocarbons available soon ( I think I read something about synthesizing them from water recently ) but I also think we should always look for alternative solutions.

Blackfive: must admit that was the first thing I thought of . It features Brunel & descendents, also.

 

[Chris125]

A much more realistic way of connecting Europe with North America by rail would be a tunnel under the Bering Strait - it wouldn't be cheap, and a rail connection from Alaska to the rest of the american rail network would still be needed, but it would be a far more interesting way to connect London and New York by train than 15 hours in a tunnel

Chris

 

[EM2]

Can't we just have ekranoplans instead?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

 

[b0b]

The tunnel could go a similar route to this, to minimize the tunnel construction costs...

http://paladinplanet.blogspot.com/2009/06/dangerously-fun-flight-across-atlantic.html

 

[341o2]

A better proposal was made by the Monster Raving Loony Party back in the eighties that if they were elected, the channel tunnel would be diverted to the Falklands
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think there's a far greater chance of me seeing people on Mars in my lifetime than this, or even flying to New York on concorde and I'm incredibly sceptical of both despite being born in the 1990s. Right now we don't even have a tunnel to the Isle of Wight or Ireland so this is just unimaginable.

Around 100 years ago, there were reasonably serious attempts to link the IOW railways with the mainline system.

One proposal was that the Lymington branch would itself have a branch line to Keyhaven, which would tunnel under the Solent to connect to the Freshwater branch.

This line would have to be rebuilt, as it could only accommodate the lightest of stock. It would also be interesting to speculate how the island would have developed should this line have been constructed.

Objections from rival companies plus the Great War seem to have put paid to such schemes

refhttp://www.historicrydesociety.com/show.php?contentid=378

 

[Kali]

Can't we just have ekranoplans instead?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Nu94khHoo

They're fine until the waves arrive... I don't fancy running into a north Atlantic storm in one.

 

[Ploughman]

For a route with minimal digging.
Scotland, Iceland, Greenland then Canada.
It also gets away from the Mid Atlantic ridge problem by crossing it on the surface.

As for Transatlantic flights the last time I flew to Toronto it was 18 hours flying time.

 

[Clip]

A much more realistic way of connecting Europe with North America by rail would be a tunnel under the Bering Strait - it wouldn't be cheap, and a rail connection from Alaska to the rest of the american rail network would still be needed, but it would be a far more interesting way to connect London and New York by train than 15 hours in a tunnel

Chris

Hunt down Mega Engineering on the web and watch the episode where it spoke of tunneling the Bering strait.

 

[jopsuk]

For reference, the fastest crossing by a commerical vessel (Eastbound as that's quicker) stands at 2 days, 20hrs, 9 minutes- I think this might be over the course of the sailing record, i.e. Ambrose Lighthouse to the Lizard. this is the holder; it had only delivery crew onboard.

 

[Smethwickian]

it would very likely start from somewhere near Weston ( for ease of through running to / from London ) and finish more or less at New York itself.

So for visitors emerging from the tunnel, their first welcome to the UK is a view of the delights of Weston-super-Mare.... All of a sudden the massive technical and financial hurdles don't seem to be the most discouraging.....

 

[Eire Sprinter]

Hypothetically the transatlantic tunnel would begin on the west coast of Ireland! Very much doubt it will ever happen though.

 

[Deerfold]

As for Transatlantic flights the last time I flew to Toronto it was 18 hours flying time.

Which way did you go? Last time I went it was 9. Or was yours just a long time ago?

 

[Ploughman]

Flew in a Hercules from Lyneham to Gander 12 hours then Gander - Toronto 6 hours.
I didn't say I flew commercial did I?

 

[Jonny]

I think there's a far greater chance of me seeing people on Mars in my lifetime than this, or even flying to New York on concorde and I'm incredibly sceptical of both despite being born in the 1990s. Right now we don't even have a tunnel to the Isle of Wight or Ireland so this is just unimaginable.

- The economic cost would probably be something like all the money in the world
- There is no need for it freight-wise, imports (and exports) are generally from Asia and Europe, less so with the USA (and I expect this trend to continue)
- Passenger-wise it is not feasible as it would presumably take days even with the fastest high speed rail system in the world right now. No one wants to spend 3 days or so on a train under the ocean when there's far quicker alternatives which don't involve being in pitch black. Flying is relatively cheap anyway.
- The technology isn't there anyway regardless of the fact it's unaffordable in every sense of the word and there's absolutely no need.

To pick up on one point - freight is largely from Asia which, in geological terms, is the same landmass as mainland Europe. A more sensible rail solution would be to have a freight line "the long way round" to bypass the Middle East and the pirate hotspots of East Africa and the South China sea, maybe a 'short hop' by sea to/from Vladivostok to Japan and (the virtual island of) South Korea. A link through Russia-Alaska-Canada-USA "bottom 48" would then also be potentially viable, with the possibility of completing the loop with shipping, or even unmanned trains in tunnels with improved aerodynamics and/or a (partial) vacuum across the North Atlantic.

 

[Deerfold]

Flew in a Hercules from Lyneham to Gander 12 hours then Gander - Toronto 6 hours.
I didn't say I flew commercial did I?

No, but it's the indirect route rather then the fact it wasn't commercial that added the time...

 

[HSTEd]

A tunnel crossing the Atlantic woudl likely come ashore far further north than New York. Probably somewhere in the vicinity of St Lewis, Labrador.

Then its only 3000km underwater to an portal somewhere near Bellmullet, County Mayo.

That would give you a line from New York to Labrador via Montreal at roughly 2100km (although the Montreal-NY section would likely be fundable seperately) and a Bullmullet-London via Dublin line (approximation of the Irish Mail tunnel route) at roughly 750km, but then I think the Dublin-London line can be partially self supporting on local traffic, certainly once it gets near Birmingham as it would then be running partially in support of HS2.

That gives a total 5850km line length, which is broadly comparable to the overall length of the direct almost all underwater option but actually picks up some secondary passenger flows and requires just more than half the length of the tunnel.

If the train runs at 320kph the entire way, that translates to a journey time of roughly 18 hours.

Which isn't absurdly bad, but it would need a Maglev to get anywhere near to challenging airlines (@505kph, 11hr30 or something), this would only you require to spend roughly half the journey in the tunnel which isn't so bad, the rest of the time you get various views of the UK, Ireland and the vast majority of the length of the Gulf of St Lawrence.

 

[Jonny]

Which isn't absurdly bad, but it would need a Maglev to get anywhere near to challenging airlines (@505kph, 11hr30 or something), this would only you require to spend roughly half the journey in the tunnel which isn't so bad, the rest of the time you get various views of the UK, Ireland and the vast majority of the length of the Gulf of St Lawrence.

If routed via Iceland, it is possible to even go above the Mid-Atlantic Ridge above ground, which makes it easier to solve problems arising from its movement. The other problem would be permafrost, which has scuppered many a conventional railway.

 

[Teaboy1]

About as likely as the tethered space elevator, fine in off-beat documentaries on DISCOVERY channel but not in the real world ever likely to happen. Moving on ...........

 

[HSTEd]

If routed via Iceland, it is possible to even go above the Mid-Atlantic Ridge above ground, which makes it easier to solve problems arising from its movement. The other problem would be permafrost, which has scuppered many a conventional railway.

Problem is that route is rather longer for no real gain.

The transatlantic spread is only 2.5cm per year, which means that 50m of extra tunnel tube on each end would last nearly four millenia at current spreading rates, assuming that all the tether lines were attached on collars that could be moved along the tube as required.

A bigger problem is the rails at each end, although 2.5cm per year would likely require only one possesion a year to add slightly longer CWR sections at each end if proper spliced expansion joints were used to join the tunnel rails to the normal line ones.


Its really an overstated problem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

About as likely as the tethered space elevator, fine in off-beat documentaries on DISCOVERY channel but not in the real world ever likely to happen. Moving on ...........

Tethered space elevator is probably rather more likely actually, since one can imagine an economic case for one.
Although the problem with powering the climbers is not going to go away any time soon.

 

[Ploughman]

To cope with the potential passenger and freight traffic etc I assume that it would have to be more than 2 track.
What would the ideal amount of tracks be?

 

[Kali]

Use container-sized maglevs for everything, then there's no issues of mismatched train speed. Hell you could use maglevs as Ro-Ro conventional train transporters.