Trans-Atlantic railway tunnel

[Philip]

What do you think is the likelihood of an electric railway tunnel being built between England and the USA, under the Atlantic Ocean, within either the next 50 or 100 years?

The 'special relationship' is still there and as international business continues to develop, there will probably be stronger links in the future between England and America. However, air travel could eventually start to reduce until it is no longer seen as a viable transport option, because of concerns about pollution. This is where electric rail links could be a solution, and the only obvious way to link England with America is by a tunnel under the Atlantic, with dual-gauge trains.

Could this be the next major project after HS2? In 2123, could we have a 10:00 London Paddington to Manhatton via Cardiff and Nantucket Island?

What are your thoughts? It might seem crazy now, but then the Channel Tunnel idea would have probably seemed crazy in 1900!

 

[randyrippley]

likelihood is nil

 

[GRALISTAIR]

1/(100^100)

 

[CBlue]

What are your thoughts? It might seem crazy now, but then the Channel Tunnel idea would have probably seemed crazy in 1900!

Given that there was quite serious attempts in 1882, with a concept proposed and documented as far back as 1802...perhaps not seen as crazy as you'd think.

Crossing the Atlantic however is a totally different matter, a railway wouldn't be competitive on journey times in the slightest given its already ~7 hours by air depending on destination.

 

[Philip]

Given that there was quite serious attempts in 1882, with a concept proposed and documented as far back as 1802...perhaps not seen as crazy as you'd think.

Crossing the Atlantic however is a totally different matter, a railway wouldn't be competitive on journey times in the slightest given its already ~7 hours by air depending on destination.

That would depend on line and train speed; if the technology in 100 years is such that a project like this could be undertaken, it's reasonable to think the technology could also allow trains to run at speeds through the tunnel which reduce the current air journey time, possibly by hours.

 

[Bald Rick]

Checks date, pinches self, presses refresh…. No this really happened….

 

[birchesgreen]

There is a great film from 1935 called Transatlantic Tunnel about the building of such, though at the end (when the tunnel finally opens) it looks like they are running (1930s style) cars though it, can't imagine how long that would have taken.

Its an idea that has often popped up in sci-fi, though with ultra-fast trains running on something like maglev in a couple of concepts i've seen. I don't think it'll ever happen though.

 

[Philip]

Checks date, pinches self, presses refresh…. No this really happened….

Transatlantic tunnel - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Not quite a novel concept and again, go back to the early 18th century and the idea of the UK rail network which existed 150 years later would have seemed like a fantasy as well.

 

[yorksrob]

How would they deal with the mid-Atlantic ridge !?

 

[Philip]

How would they deal with the mid-Atlantic ridge !?

Suppose they'd either have to bore through or construct a water-tight tube to cross over the ridge, before dropping back under the sea bed.

 

[zwk500]

Suppose they'd either have to bore through or construct a water-tight tube to cross over the ridge, before dropping back under the sea bed.

You are aware the rock is splitting apart?

Likelihood in the next 50 years is 0!, likelihood of it being built in the next 100 years is the width of a human hair higher than that. Most reasonable suggestion I saw was to have a positively-buoyant tube anchored at a fixed depth by tethers at regular intervals, but how you get that stiff enough for railway operation yet flexible enough to deal with ocean currents, vessels (which could be hostile) and wildlife I don't know.

A transatlantic fixed link isn't going to happen any quicker than an Irish Sea fixed link.

 

[Philip]

You are aware the rock is splitting apart?

In that case the best way round would be a tube going over it.

Likelihood in the next 50 years is 0!, likelihood of it being built in the next 100 years is the width of a human hair higher than that. Most reasonable suggestion I saw was to have a positively-buoyant tube anchored at a fixed depth by tethers at regular intervals, but how you get that stiff enough for railway operation yet flexible enough to deal with ocean currents, vessels (which could be hostile) and wildlife I don't know.

A transatlantic fixed link isn't going to happen any quicker than an Irish Sea fixed link.

Eventually air travel will go into decline (albeit not within the next 30-40 years) as there won't be a suitable method of plane propulsion using renewable and non-polluting energy sources, so the three outcomes could be either a return to how things were before the 20th Century (very little travel between the Continents), shipping taking over from air travel, or railway tunneling under the seas.

 

[zwk500]

In that case the best way round would be a tube going over it.

That doesn't really help when you try and burrow back into the seabed. The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is a mountain range half the height of the Alps, and it is spreading apart at 2.5cm/yr.

Eventually air travel will go into decline (albeit not within the next 30-40 years) as there won't be a suitable method of plane propulsion using renewable and non-polluting energy sources, so the three outcomes could be either a return to how things were before the 20th Century (very little travel between the Continents), shipping taking over from air travel, or railway tunneling under the seas.

No it won't, New planes with much lighter construction and hybrid propulsion systems will be introduced before a rail tunnel becomes viable, especially for intercontinental travel.

You might get an Irish Sea Tunnel in 100 years, but you won't get a tunnel to Iceland and Canada in 250.

 

[dosxuk]

A very rough line between London and New York is 3500 miles, including a 1800 mile sea crossing.

To get a journey of that length under the current 7.5 hour flight times requires an average speed of over 450 miles per hour, or nearly 100mph faster than we've ever made a train go before.

Sure, you might say you wouldn't have to deal with the airport at each end - but I suspect the security, immigration and boarding experience of such a journey would be far more like an international airport than a trip by train from Crewe to Chester.

 

[Bald Rick]

In that case the best way round would be a tube going over it.

It’s the earth‘s crust that is splitting apart - at a rate of 25mm a year. Any fixed would have to allow for that. And thus be not fixed…

Eventually air travel will go into decline (albeit not within the next 30-40 years) as there won't be a suitable method of plane propulsion using renewable and non-polluting energy sources, so the three outcomes could be either a return to how things were before the 20th Century (very little travel between the Continents), shipping taking over from air travel, or railway tunneling under the seas.

Suggest you do some research on that. Including relative carbon emissions from passenger shipping, air, and the construction of a 5000km fixed link.

Then there’s the time. The Gotthard base tunnel took 8 years to bore a tunnel about 2% the length of any Atlantic crossing. It also had the benefit of being excavated from points along the tunnel as well as the ends. Obviously not easily done in the North Atlantic. It’s reasonable to assume that a construction period for such a link would be measured in centuries.

This is not going to happen. Never.


The only chance of a fixed link from Europe to North America is to go east and via Alaska.

 

[zwk500]

A very rough line between London and New York is 3500 miles, including a 1800 mile sea crossing.

Indeed, a projected route might look something like this: (shown linking into HS2 at Crewe as a tease)

 

[JonathanH]

Eventually air travel will go into decline (albeit not within the next 30-40 years) as there won't be a suitable method of plane propulsion using renewable and non-polluting energy sources, so the three outcomes could be either a return to how things were before the 20th Century (very little travel between the Continents), shipping taking over from air travel, or railway tunneling under the seas.

There isn't a sustainable method of building tunnels either.

 

[Intercity110]

How would you evacuate this? All the trains going though would certainly have to be sleepers, there's the difference between loading gauges, the US prioritises freight over passenger, there's the lack of electrification in the US which means it'd have to either be a bi-mode or loco-hauled, and freight would be an impossibility, there's too many problems and i don't think you'd get a 92 down there anytime soon.

 

[Philip]

Whilst the points in response to the idea are all reasonable, you can therefore ask the question of why the Eurotunnel was built when the markets for both air and sea travel were in a boom at the time. Even allowing for the Channel Tunnel not being as long as a Trans-Atlantic would be, and that it doesn't cross a ridge, the costs and scale of engineering for the Channel Tunnel were huge and was it necessary to build a fixed link to France at the time?

 

[D6130]

the only obvious way to link England with America is by a tunnel under the Atlantic, with dual-guage trains.

Why dual-gauge trains? UK and US both use the same gauge.

 

[Bald Rick]

Whilst the points in response to the idea are all reasonable, you can therefore ask the question of why the Eurotunnel was built when the markets for both air and sea travel were in a boom at the time. Even allowing for the Channel Tunnel not being as long as a Trans-Atlantic would be, and that it doesn't cross a ridge, the costs and scale of engineering for the Channel Tunnel were huge and was it necessary to build a fixed link to France at the time?

The Channel Tunnel was built to link the fifth largest economy in the world with the largest trading block in the world (with which it conducts around half of all its international trade), and also covered the (then) busiest international air route in the world, and the busiest international sea crossing in the world.

Yes, it was expensive - around £20bn in todays prices for 50km. But the benefit is very substantial for that investment, and the not inexpensive cost of using the tunnel is valued by those who do so.

That is around 1% of the length of a U.K. to USA fixed link. As they say over there - do the Math - both in terms of construction cost and the cost of using it.

 

[zwk500]

Why dual-gauge trains? UK and US both use the same gauge.

Ireland doesn't, and the shortest route from London to New York (particularly the shortest sea crossing) runs through Ireland.

Although I do quite like the idea of a carriage that can expand once it gets to the US and pop out a second deck, harry potter style.

 

[Bryson]

In that case the best way round would be a tube going over it.

I hope your tube is well protected from molten rock. Just to ask - Do you have any idea what the Mid Atlantic ridge actually is?

 

[Philip]

I hope your tube is well protected from molten rock. Just to ask - Do you have any idea what the Mid Atlantic ridge actually is?

View attachment 135929

It separates the Eurasian and North American tectonic plates.

 

[Sm5]

How would you evacuate this? All the trains going though would certainly have to be sleepers, there's the difference between loading gauges, the US prioritises freight over passenger, there's the lack of electrification in the US which means it'd have to either be a bi-mode or loco-hauled, and freight would be an impossibility, there's too many problems and i don't think you'd get a 92 down there anytime soon.

Actually the only substantive section of ohle in the US is in the North East.
iirc Indeed the class 87 was even an early stage contender for its traction.

Whilst the points in response to the idea are all reasonable, you can therefore ask the question of why the Eurotunnel was built when the markets for both air and sea travel were in a boom at the time. Even allowing for the Channel Tunnel not being as long as a Trans-Atlantic would be, and that it doesn't cross a ridge, the costs and scale of engineering for the Channel Tunnel were huge and was it necessary to build a fixed link to France at the time?

Because distance between London, Paris and Brussels was / is more competitive in time, than by Air.

HS1 and WCML upgrades played a part in BMIs decline.

Amsterdam just about competes at the extremities, combined with removing other UK stops but Brexit will probably block further expansion.

Why dual-gauge trains? UK and US both use the same gauge.

Try putting a 1 mile long, double stack container train through Crewe with a bunch of SD90’s.

 

[zwk500]

there's the lack of electrification in the US which means it'd have to either be a bi-mode or loco-hauled

In the context of this scheme, Electrifying the required lines into New York would be among the least challenging elements to deliver.

It separates the Eurasian and North American tectonic plates.

The question was 'what' it was, not 'where'. It's a volcanic plume

 

[Sm5]

In the context of this scheme, Electrifying the required lines into New York would be among the least challenging elements to deliver.

The question was 'what' it was, not 'where'. It's a volcanic plume

By the time the tunnel was built, volcanic energy might be a thing.

 

[zwk500]

By the time the tunnel was built, volcanic energy might be a thing.

By the time the tunnel is viable, teleportation may be a thing

 

[Philip]

In the context of this scheme, Electrifying the required lines into New York would be among the least challenging elements to deliver.

The question was 'what' it was, not 'where'. It's a volcanic plume

Yes, but the magma from the volcanoes has solidified into rock to form this ridge, so a train tube going over the top would not be floating in extremely hot viscous liquid.

 

[JonathanH]

Yes, but the magma from the volcanoes has solidified into rock to form this ridge, so a train tube going over the top would not be floating in extremely hot viscous liquid.

Isn't there still a risk of further volcanic activity and intense heat in the region of the ridge?

Arguably you would want to build something like Iceland in the middle of the Atlantic really so that the spreading ridge could be managed above sea level.