Trans-Atlantic Supersonic Maglev Vacuum Tube Train

[Bootstrap Bill]

THe one big reason this probably won't be built this century - terrorism. This would be a big target for them. Even bigger than the WTC. There's a lot of water between NYC and London to patrol.

[Bootstrap Bill]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

No kidding.

Tunneling with a TBM? The channel tunnel cost $15-20 Billion of today's dollars, that to go 50 km. New York to London is approximately 100 times as long, and thus would cost at least 100 times as much and take 100 times as long (I'm sure the actual amounts would be significantly more than that. Also, how could you possibly get enough oxygen down the tunnel to provide life support for workers 2500 km away? The idea of tunnelling is absurd.

A cut and cover tunnel at the bottom of the ocean would be easier and cheaper, and we aren't even close to having the technology that would be required to do a cut and cover tunnel.

Using some method that can allow for offsite construction of the tunnel sections is the only possible way to go.

They could build the same kind of tunnel that was used for BART in San Francisco. The tunnel pieces were built on dry land and sunk in place. But it would cost about 1,000 times as much as the BART tunnel.

Once built, it could operate 24/7 as often as every ten minutes, allowing for 288 trips per day (144 each direction), say with a capacity of 200 passengers for 57,600 per day or 21,024,000 per year, or over one billion passengers over a 50 year period.

Problem - there is no way you could sell enough seats to run this system at full capacity. It would go broke even if you charged $1,000 per trip.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill

They could build the same kind of tunnel that was used for BART in San Francisco. The tunnel pieces were built on dry land and sunk in place. But it would cost about 1,000 times as much as the BART tunnel.

Once built, it could operate 24/7 as often as every ten minutes, allowing for 288 trips per day (144 each direction), say with a capacity of 200 passengers for 57,600 per day or 21,024,000 per year, or over one billion passengers over a 50 year period.

Problem - there is no way you could sell enough seats to run this system at full capacity. It would go broke even if you charged $1,000 per trip.

If they sunk a tunnel like that there's no way it could operate at over a thousand miles per hour as the OP suggests, simply because of grade.

If you're going to build a train line that spans the Atlantic, why would you do it on the cheap?

As I said before, I think such a line would be more of a boon for freight. Transporting thousands of tons from Europe or Asia the North America, and visa versa, in hours instead of weeks, and for a comparable cost would be absolutely insane.

[M II A II R II K]

Originally Posted by Bootstrap Bill

They could build the same kind of tunnel that was used for BART in San Francisco. The tunnel pieces were built on dry land and sunk in place. But it would cost about 1,000 times as much as the BART tunnel.

That was covered in the video and not feasible. The surface is by no means flat, it's geologically active and far too much pressure to survive down there.

I doubt they'll bother building this thing, sub-orbital flights that can travel to anywhere in the world in an hour or two would be easier and do the job much better.

[PartyLine]

The alternate route through Greenland and Iceland would make more sence to me.