Trans Atlantic Tunnel?

Ironstark · Oct 27, 2012

Pretty much what the title says.

Is it possible to link London (and possibly, the rest of Europe via a channel tunnel) and New York by rail before 2012?

Here is a link to the wiki page.

So how much would it cost? How long would it take to build? When could it be built at the earliest (obviously post 1900)? If built, how would it effect politics, trade and all that jazz now that the old and new world are linked?

This isnt a suggestion that you just dig straight through the north atlantic, this train could go through the arctic via norway or anything like that. Its essentially just meant to connect Europe with North America

Nickyr · Oct 27, 2012

This might interest you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frYWTrEfPRs

Anaxagoras · Oct 27, 2012

I would move this to Future History.

Cool idea, I think.

mowque · Oct 27, 2012

By the time tech would allow you, you'd hardly need it.

Tallest Skil · Oct 27, 2012

Anaxagoras said:
I would move this to Future History.

To ASB, you mean.

Ironstark · Oct 27, 2012

This might interest you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frYWTrEfPRs

Just watched it

very interesting! At least it shows the idea is plausable

I would move this to Future History.

Cool idea, I think.

Very cool idea, and the technology shows it is possible now, possibly has been possible for a couple of decades, so not future history. The inflatable tunnel seems to be the easiest option. Dunno if there are any cheaper or faster options?

By the time tech would allow you, you'd hardly need it.

Indeed, though this is AH so we could see some justification for building it rather than follow OTL reasons

What exactly, I have no idea

To ASB, you mean.

Already suggested to be possible, so no need to be negative as far as I can tell

Astrodragon · Oct 27, 2012

Tallest Skil said:
To ASB, you mean.

Why? Its possible - not easy, but possible.

Anaxagoras · Oct 27, 2012

Tallest Skil said:
To ASB, you mean.

There's nothing inherently impossible about it. It's rather like the space elevator concept.

Mike Stearns · Oct 27, 2012

Anaxagoras said:
There's nothing inherently impossible about it. It's rather like the space elevator concept.

I don't see a reason why it couldn't be done. The question why do you need it?

Anaxagoras · Oct 27, 2012

Mike Stearns said:
I don't see a reason why it couldn't be done. The question why do you need it?

If it were accomplished, it would be much more economical than air travel.

RMcD94 · Oct 27, 2012

Anaxagoras said:
If it were accomplished, it would be much more economical than air travel.

That seems unlikely.

Initial capital will make it incredibly expensive, long journey time, limited volume movement.

When are trains ever better than ships? Across land...

The Chunnel apparently is struggling to recoup it's costs according to that wiki link.

To make it happen it needs to be:

Physically possible (is it even possible with today's tech)
Productively possible (can you produce the tech and resources required for it)
Economically viable (is it a sink of trillions of dollars or will it actually make money)

With 3 you can get away with it being a sink of money if you make it viable for cultural reasons or something like that.

Luath · Oct 27, 2012

Well I wondered in my youth about a Transatlantic Railway that used bridges linking Scotland, Iceland, Greenland and Canada. Is that anyway plausible? Bridge vs Tunnel.

Dathi THorfinnsson · Oct 27, 2012

A transatlantic tunnel that ran mach 5 (or what would be that in an atmosphere, since mach numbers are meaningless in a vacuum) maglev trains would be very competitive, imo, if you could get enough customers.

The capital costs would be astronomical, though.

A tunnel with regular trains? Nope. No way they could compete with jumbo jets.

Tallest Skil · Oct 27, 2012

Luath said:
Well I wondered in my youth about a Transatlantic Railway that used bridges linking Scotland, Iceland, Greenland and Canada. Is that anyway plausible? Bridge vs Tunnel.

Movement of plates makes both of them impossible. Why doesn't anyone else see that?

Luath · Oct 27, 2012

Tallest Skil said:
Movement of plates makes both of them impossible. Why doesn't anyone else see that?

Yeah there is that, are there any engineering methods around it?

MUC · Oct 27, 2012

Air travel is cheaper and faster.

Ship transportation is cheaper but slower.

The costs of the construction are immense and imagine what would happen in case of an accident with a tunnel closure... It would take days or weeks to clear a small accident and the resulting impact to a global economy, which would have adapted itself to rely on such a tunnel would mean an economic meltdown.
If a ship is sunk or a pier has to close, there are always alternative ships or piers. What would the alternative to this tunnel be?

JacktheCat · Oct 27, 2012

Luath said:
Yeah there is that, are there any engineering methods around it?

Yes.

And it's already been done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio–Antirrio_bridge

".... for these reasons, special construction techniques were applied. The piers are not buried into the seabed, but rather rest on a bed of gravel which was meticulously leveled to an even surface (a difficult endeavor at this depth)...The bridge parts are connected to the pylons using jacks and dampers to absorb movement...There is provision for the gradual expansion of the strait over the bridge's lifetime."

Mike Stearns · Oct 27, 2012

Dathi THorfinnsson said:
A transatlantic tunnel that ran mach 5 (or what would be that in an atmosphere, since mach numbers are meaningless in a vacuum) maglev trains would be very competitive, imo, if you could get enough customers.

The capital costs would be astronomical, though.

A tunnel with regular trains? Nope. No way they could compete with jumbo jets.

Yes and no. An Acela-style bullet train would be able to travel from New York to Los Angeles in under 12 hours, which is ALMOST fast enough to compete aircraft, and for frieght, you might get a lot of customers. Being able ship cargo across the Atlantic Ocean in bulk, in less than a day would have shipping lines flipping through the Yellow Pages for Assassins-R-Us, but having said that, a passenger maglev train doing mach 5 would make that trip in under an hour, which fundamentally change the way people live their lives.

Devvy · Oct 27, 2012

You'd have difficulty getting ultra-high speed passenger trains and lower speed freight trains to co-exist on a line of that length.

That said, I think there would be enough demand for a freight-only link. Suddenly containers can be shipped from anywhere in North America (which already has a freight orientated railway system!) to anywhere in Europe without needing to waste time sitting in shipping yards, then on the long journey across the Atlantic, and then sitting in shipping yards on the other side before onwards journeys.

Using a conventional railway in a tunnel, let's say a 100mph line for freight trains, it'd only take 30-36 hours or so to get from one side to the other - but without any need for changing transportation mode on either side. Freight trains could run directly from places in the US/Canada to anywhere in Europe. As you say, freight shipping companies would struggle to compete on speed, they'd have to slash prices a lot to compensate for the additional time.

Mike Stearns · Oct 27, 2012

Devvy said:
You'd have difficulty getting ultra-high speed passenger trains and lower speed freight trains to co-exist on a line of that length.

Not in the same tunnel, no. That would be very problematic, but with a four tunnel set-up each with two tracks, I think it could be done. You'd be able to have a maximum of four trains running in each direction at the same time on dedicated track.

The other thought that occurred to was that even if you decided to build your freight line with conventional technology, it wouldn't be that hard to automate your locomotives, or run them by telepresense.