It's a show about the engineering involved in building a train tunnel from New York to Europe.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
Last time I checked, Miss Vickie, God does not assess user fees on vessels traversing the high seas.
Maritime operators measure their operating costs in "MILLS (less than one cent) per ton mile', rail measures theirs in Cents, but many less cents than do motor carriers.
In short, any such project would be quite cost ineffective, but I guess from an engineering viewpoint the show (produced during 2003) is addressing 'it could be done",
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
Uhm and what would the view look like? would it be quicker then a jet? anyone remember "Super Train" The TV show from the 70's? Was Tesler involved?
Vicki Member # 3410
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tanner929: Uhm and what would the view look like? would it be quicker then a jet? anyone remember "Super Train" The TV show from the 70's? Was Tesler involved?
5000 MPH. Faster than a speeding bullet. . .
Geoff M Member # 153
posted
Yeah, I recall it. Running in a semi-vacuum in a tube suspended X feet above the ocean floor. About as far under the surface as the pigs were flying above the surface.
If the Channel Tunnel (only 31 miles) cost so many billions to build, I'd hate to think how much a trans-Atlantic tunnel would cost (2000 miles minimum).
There was also a similar program about crossing the Bering Straits - though this time on a floating bridge.
Geoff M.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
If you think the survival rate for airline accidents is low, wait until this thing goes into service. It would be safer to go into space.
I would consider this thing totally impractical and non-viable in every sense of those words.
Actually, there was a group seriously promoting a Bering Strait tunnel a few years ago. It is probably much more practical than a fixed bridge, in the sense that it is quite feasible to build and operate from an engineering perspective, but economically, no way. As for economics there are two things against it: First the tunnel itself would be small in cost compared to what it would take to get roads and rails to connect up to it. Anyone who has ever flown over Alaska gets a picture of how much rugged uninhabited roadless country there is up there, and it is high density compared to the Siberian side. Second, see Mr. Norman's comments on shipping costs.
George
Vicki Member # 3410
posted
Gosh, I only asked if anyone saw it-not that I thought they were starting construction! I just thought it was an interesting concept.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
OK, Vicki:
Yes I saw the program. Probably quite a few others here did also. Discovery does have some quite interesting things on it. They have a program on the English Channel Tunnel that is quite interesting, but has been disparaged in several of its statements by those that I know that have worked on it. For the Atlantic Vacuum Tube People Express: Quite interesting. Probably do-able if money and practicality are no objects. Pause a moment and think about the various countries operating submarines. If this thing every were built I don't think you could pay me enough to get me inside it.
George
Tanner929 Member # 3720
posted
Was this "concept" thought up when trains ruled the roost and airplanes where novelties and flying death traps and luxery liners where considered slow?
posted ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)