Trans-Atlantic Supersonic Maglev Vacuum Tube Train

[M II A II R II K]

Trans-Atlantic Supersonic Maglev Vacuum Tube Train

http://www.impactlab.com/2008/06/27/...um-tube-train/



The idea is as wondrous as it is audacious: Get on a train at New York City’s Penn Station and hit Paris, London or Brussels just an hour later. “From an engineering point of view there are no serious stumbling blocks,” says Ernst Frankel, retired professor of ocean engineering at MIT.

As envisioned by Frankel and Frank Davidson, a former MIT researcher and early member of the first formal English Channel Tunnel study group, sections of neutrally buoyant tunnel submerged 150 to 300 feet beneath the surface of the Atlantic, then anchored to the seafloor–thereby avoiding the high pressures of the deep ocean. Then air would be pumped out, creating a vacuum, and alternating magnetic pulses would propel a magnetically levitated train capable of speeds up to 4,000 mph across the pond in an hour. As Frankel and Davidson say, it’s doable. “We lay pipes and cables across the ocean every day,” says Frankel. “The Norwegians recently investigated submerged, floating tunnels for crossing their deep fjords, and were only held back by the costs.”

Ah, the costs: Estimates range from $25 million to $50 million per mile. Another hurdle: safety. But Davidson believes a test case might mitigate concerns. “Maybe a tunnel across Lake Ontario would show how it reacts to dynamic conditions and give us a better understanding of the costs,” he muses. “A transatlantic tunnel will be done. We just have to be as interested in it as we are in getting to the Moon.”

What: Submerged OCEANIC tunnel and supersonic train

WHERE: New York – London

Cost: $88 billion – $175 billion

Crux: Neutrally buoyant vacuum tunnel submerged 150 to 300 feet beneath the Atlantic’s surface and anchored to the seafloor, through which zips a magnetically levitated train at up to 4,000 mph.

[You Need A Thneed]

If this project ever went ahead, I'd imagine it would have to go ahead with as much cost savings as possible, and I think that would mean cutting up along the NA coast, through Massachussetts, Nova Scotia, and Labrador for as much as possible.

The direct route is close enough to the coast anyway, why not just build the track on land while you can? Of course they still could have the train in the vacuum tube.

Such a project would provide lots of construction jobs in Canada.

I also doubt the $25-50 million estimated cost per mile, considering that laying light rail tracks costs around that much. My guess would be $100-200 million per mile.

[M II A II R II K]

It's hard to say, maybe with a tunnel that long it can be arranged to have some kind of bulk discount on materials.

However if sub-orbital flights that can go from London - Sydney in just 2 hours becomes more common they may not be a need for this type of tunnel, maybe shorter ones where space travel between short distances is not practical.

[JDRCRASH]

I actually posted this a while back; don't see it happening for a LOOONG time.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

If this project ever went ahead, I'd imagine it would have to go ahead with as much cost savings as possible, and I think that would mean cutting up along the NA coast, through Massachussetts, Nova Scotia, and Labrador for as much as possible.

The direct route is close enough to the coast anyway, why not just build the track on land while you can? Of course they still could have the train in the vacuum tube.

Such a project would provide lots of construction jobs in Canada.

I also doubt the $25-50 million estimated cost per mile, considering that laying light rail tracks costs around that much. My guess would be $100-200 million per mile.

I seriously doubt that laying high-speed maglev tracks along a coastline would be any cheaper whatsoever than $100 million/mile, and it would be indirect. Like with air flight, you want to go from your highest-use hub in one geography to your highest-use hub in another geography.

Plus, 4,000 mph vs. max 400 mph, for, say, 400 miles, means adding an hour to your travel time, just to stay on land a little longer.

I would guess you'd construct it by building out your anchors, with a support system for the main tube, while building temporary support rails leading into the sea and feeding the tube into the sea via the feeder rails as it's constructed. That way you can construct it all in one spot on land, and just push-pull it into place. If you kept a constant pace and momentum, it should work without excessive energy.

[Rail>Auto]

I like this idea, I like it a lot! If would be a great idea and unlike airplanes, it would be on a controlled automated rail instead of just in the air like an airplane that relies too heavily on human error to fail... Even if it's a trillion its still worth the costs... Think about how much it costs to fly over there right now... Now think about all of that being poured into this tunnel... It will pay for itself!

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by Rail>Auto

I like this idea, I like it a lot! If would be a great idea and unlike airplanes, it would be on a controlled automated rail instead of just in the air like an airplane that relies too heavily on human error to fail... Even if it's a trillion its still worth the costs... Think about how much it costs to fly over there right now... Now think about all of that being poured into this tunnel... It will pay for itself!

Uhhhh..... I don't think ROI and cost-effectiveness would be the drums I'd beat to support this project...

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by emathias

I seriously doubt that laying high-speed maglev tracks along a coastline would be any cheaper whatsoever than $100 million/mile, and it would be indirect. Like with air flight, you want to go from your highest-use hub in one geography to your highest-use hub in another geography.

Plus, 4,000 mph vs. max 400 mph, for, say, 400 miles, means adding an hour to your travel time, just to stay on land a little longer.

I would guess you'd construct it by building out your anchors, with a support system for the main tube, while building temporary support rails leading into the sea and feeding the tube into the sea via the feeder rails as it's constructed. That way you can construct it all in one spot on land, and just push-pull it into place. If you kept a constant pace and momentum, it should work without excessive energy.

I didn't say to change the vacuum tunnel technology.

The direct route from NY to London pretty much follows the coast line I talked about exactly, it would maybe add 5% (probably more like 1%) of the total distance to follow along the coast, but could easily make the project 10-25% cheaper.

[M II A II R II K]

To get more use out of it they could have it branch out at it's ends and have exit apertures in Paris and Brussels as well.

Then there could be a Trans-Pacific tunnel from L.A. to Shanghai, and perhaps Hong Kong.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

To get more use out of it they could have it branch out at it's ends and have exit apertures in Paris and Brussels as well.

Then there could be a Trans-Pacific tunnel from L.A. to Shanghai, and perhaps Hong Kong.

Actually... think about this: a transatlantic maglev supersonic tunnel might very well be cost effective... for freight.

[JDRCRASH]

^ And now that you say that, a LA/HK route would be even BETTER.

[theWatusi]

Sure, you just have to make the tube tall enough for double stacked containers.

[Rail>Auto]

Originally Posted by JordanL

Uhhhh..... I don't think ROI and cost-effectiveness would be the drums I'd beat to support this project...

Why not? CA is building a $40-$80 billion HSR and it will pay itself off with round trip fares being around $100.... This is 4-5 times more yet it usually costs over $1000 to fly from NY to London which is 10 times more.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by Rail>Auto

Why not? CA is building a $40-$80 billion HSR and it will pay itself off with round trip fares being around $100.... This is 4-5 times more yet it usually costs over $1000 to fly from NY to London which is 10 times more.

The volume on a trans-California route are going to be orders of magnitude higher.

[philvia]

assuming the tube cost 100b and 10,000 travelers used it per day at $500 per ticket, it would take almost 55 years to pay off. of course that doesn't include operating costs. although i dont have the flight data for passengers between NYC -> London, it could very well be more than 10,000/day.. and with service between the cities just around an hour, you bet the ridership will greatly increase.

but after it's paid off... wow! insane profits.

[Gordo]

^If you believe this thing can really be built for $100 billion I've got a couple bridges to sell you.

[M II A II R II K]

There would probably be alot of countries paying for it. Between Canada and the U.S. there's about $2 Billion worth of trade passing through the border every year. Imagine how much more trade there'd be with this tunnel, which is another payoff.

[philvia]

Originally Posted by Gordo

^If you believe this thing can really be built for $100 billion I've got a couple bridges to sell you.

professionals estimated that it would cost between $88-175b to build... unless you're an experienced professional estimator who works these kinds of projects, then there's no reason not to believe what they say. I know many projects often times come in way over budget, but who is to say this one will? obviously the doom and gloom, half glass empty types will because it's in their nature.

i chose $100b because it was a nice even number that fell between the expected range sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo if you are a professional estimator, i welcome your honest opinion.

[M II A II R II K]

And I imagine to go to London some of the tunnel would have to be elevated above ground.

[M II A II R II K]

Interesting details in this episode.

$12 Trillion, a century to build, work in one country and live in another on the same day.......



• Video Link