• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Transatlantic Rail Tunnel?

Status
Not open for further replies.

dangie

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,180
Location
Rugeley Staffordshire
Extremely doubtful of couse but Never say Never..!!
I'm sure pre Wright Brothers if someone suggested that in the future we'd be flying the world in a bird shaped metal object they'd soon have been carted off to the funnyhouse.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Well if we assume conventional wheel on rail technology....

Four track railway with overhead line equipment rated for the full 50kV (as used in parts of the US and Africa) to reduce the number of substations in cooperation with autotransformer feeding.
I would suggest a double deck arrangement with two levels for a pair of tracks each with other equipment mounted in the areas above or below these levels.

Loading gauge should allow for AAR Plate H (20' 3" vertical clearance plus OLE) to enable double stack container trains on all lines.

As the internal volume of the train's running spaces is defined primarily by air displacement, I would recommend grouping lines on each deck by direction to reduce the overpressure caused by a very fast train passing another very fast train.

This also means that the space that is normally used to disperse the overpressure can be used for the compact container based VSC HVDC solutions used to power the substations. (~100 feet stretches of restricted tunnel are not considered to be enormously important in power requirement or comfort terms).

As the power will be provided by a redundant pair of >300kV HVDC "Light" circuits fed from both ends, there is also scope to include an ultra high voltage "Conventional" HVDC circuit in the >800kV range, which should potentially allow transfer of power some ~3500km from the Hydro Labrador grid to the British one.
Obviously include space for lots of power lines for up to ~10GWe potentially.

And lots and lots of fibre optics lines, since this is the only transatlantic fibre circuit where the lines can easily be repaired, so you can go for far higher data throughputs.
 

MK Tom

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
2,421
Location
Milton Keynes
Out of interest has a 'suspended tunnel' ever been built? I mean for rail or road; not counting aquarium walkways here.
 

LexyBoy

Established Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,478
Location
North of the rivers
Apparently not. The Wikipedia page has some interesting links to proposed tunnels.

I would have thought that in open ocean the forces such a tunnel would be subjected to would be absolutely phenomenal, and I'd be interested to hear suggestions on how it would cope.
 

Kali

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2012
Messages
180
It might have to bear more resemblance to a submarine, complete with active positioning & bouyancy systems rather than being just a floating tube ( and I hate to think of the maintenance costs... I'd presume you could use steam jets, which don't need moving parts ). Ocean currents are relatively predictable though, it's not the same as the surface.
 

b0b

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,329
There's also talk about building a serbia to russia tunnel, though not such an engineering feat, as its supposedly only twice the length of the chunnel.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
At 50m depth or whatever (I would assume 100m depth would be more likely for clearance purposes) there are hardly any currents beyond those that are already well known.

Storms won't touch them at that depth, and you can simply position your anchor cables to support the tunnel against the projected currents.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
Siberia is part of Russia... I think you're thinking of a Russia - Alaska tunnel, under the Bering Strait
 

Ploughman

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2010
Messages
2,882
Location
Near where the 3 ridings meet
At 50m depth or whatever (I would assume 100m depth would be more likely for clearance purposes) there are hardly any currents beyond those that are already well known.

Storms won't touch them at that depth, and you can simply position your anchor cables to support the tunnel against the projected currents.

Might be a bit of a problem for the odd submarine or maybe even whales.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Might be a bit of a problem for the odd submarine or maybe even whales.

Wales are active sonar so should be able to see the tubes/cables and avoid swimming into them.

And submarines that are not using Sonars still have access to incredibly accurate inertial navigation systems that should stop them crashing into the tube by accident.
 

Kali

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2012
Messages
180
Put some - quiet, so it doesn't affect whales other than "don't come here" - sonar on the tunnel, subs will easily pick that up even if the tunnel's drifted. Or there's probably a few other nav systems subs yse we don't know about...
 

Essexman

Established Member
Joined
15 Mar 2011
Messages
1,380
Just sprinkle a few ashes and bits of brushwood on the Atlantic Ocean and float the line over like the Victorians did on Rannoch Moor. With no tunnel trains could be steam and use the supply of sea water for their boilers. Due to the curvature of the earth once they got half way it would be downhill so trains could coast to New York and wouldn't need as much coal. Oh and trains would have full restaurant facilities, specialising in fresh fish, with the chef using a rod & line line out the window.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Well, I echo many people here by saying 'great idea, but...'. To improve the economic situation, linking HS2 to Liverpool, a short tunnel to Prestatyn via Birkenhead, a new bridge over the Menai Strait and another tunnel from Holyhead to Dun Laoghaire might make a good start. That gets you to Dublin. Borrow a piece of either the Galway or the Sligo lines, then that shortens the distance still further. The nearest place you can reach on the other side is St John's in Newfoundland. It's about 1,900 miles (I don't know the exact distance). You then cross Newfoundland on the surface, a last section of tunnel to Cape Breton Island, bridge to Nova Scotia, call at Halifax, run down to Yarmouth, another bridge or tunnel to Portland and you're onto the US rail system. Link up the two stations in Boston, and I reckon you would be able to make the entire journey in less than 24 hours with about seven stops. It also links in with Via Rail at Halifax and ropes in Ireland, so adding the potential for additional funding.

The fact that I'm part Irish and have friends in Halifax has absolutely nothing to do with my ideas, of course. ;)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
I think Labrador is a better choice than Newfoundland, it avoids the need for an annoying tunnel from Newfoundland to the Mainland.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I think Labrador is a better choice than Newfoundland, it avoids the need for an annoying tunnel from Newfoundland to the Mainland.

Although you then have to decide whether to cross the St Lawrence to New Brunswick (allowing you to serve Portland and Boston) or head all the way upstream to Quebec City and Montreal (a nice little 1,000 mile diversion if the target is New York, but it does give you access to the interior). I reckon a high-speed route from Quebec to Toronto via Montreal and Ottawa with a connection over the border at Niagara Falls is justified in its own right, but it seems a bit out of the way for a transatlantic route.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Although you then have to decide whether to cross the St Lawrence to New Brunswick (allowing you to serve Portland and Boston) or head all the way upstream to Quebec City and Montreal (a nice little 1,000 mile diversion if the target is New York, but it does give you access to the interior). I reckon a high-speed route from Quebec to Toronto via Montreal and Ottawa with a connection over the border at Niagara Falls is justified in its own right, but it seems a bit out of the way for a transatlantic route.

I make New York to the 'end' of Labrador via Montreal and Quebec city at something on order of 2075-2100km.

I put the straight line route between the same two points at something on order of 1900km.

So you are looking at 30-40 minutes of extra travel time at 320kph.
Its not much really considering it saves multiple extra tunnels.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I make New York to the 'end' of Labrador via Montreal and Quebec city at something on order of 2075-2100km.

I put the straight line route between the same two points at something on order of 1900km.

So you are looking at 30-40 minutes of extra travel time at 320kph.
Its not much really considering it saves multiple extra tunnels.

Actually, I'm beginning to think the idea might work, especially as it opens up access to the interior without the need to run via New York (if I want to go to Chicago for instance). Quebec City is the easternmost practical crossing point, and a good access point for both Via Rail and Amtrak.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Why?
Slab track and properly designed overhead equipment is extremely resistant to temperature and other extremes?

Building a line into the far north isn't going to be that expensive, especially as there is no-one around to care that much if you put it on a viaduct or a huge embankment or whatever.
 

dstrat

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
194
How about building the tunnel and making it a vacuum with pressurised trains running...no air resistance - super duper fast speeds?

To all the naysayers...it is a question of priorities. If profits from lets say extracting the world's resources was put towards projects of such a nature instead of divesting amongst a few..or all the resource that we put into building and using things to kill each other with, projects like this -engineering difficulties aside - could be a reality.

But we can only achieve such a reality if we drop the pessimistic attitude of simply accepting the status quo :)
 

Kali

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2012
Messages
180
Well... you don't actually necessarily need a vacuum, the resistance is because the air isn't travelling as fast as the train. Ergo instead of the incredible awkwardness of sealing the tunnel, if you just sucked air out of one end you'd both possibly lower the pressure and reduce air resistance without having to mess around sealing it for vacuum. Of course you'd need seperate tunnels for either direction but I'd think that'd be a given anyway or you'd get some strange pressure issues.

I think maglev - to the point of carrying conventional trains completely - would really make more sense given it has very little that can wear out. As you have an enclosed shape the guideway can make full use of tunnel geometry for better stability too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top