4 ms·
From an engineering perspective how much harder would be to do a cross Atlantic high speed rail: Norway <-> Canada ? Politically, it would probably be possible
by jopsen 9y ago
From an engineering perspective how much harder would be to do a cross Atlantic high speed rail: Norway <-> Canada ?
Politically, it would probably be possible due to cost and risks.
- hengheng 9y agoTectonics would like a word with you
- zdkl 9y agoYou don't have to bolt it to the ground though!
- tonyedgecombe 9y agoAt it's deepest point it's about 8.5km down, for every 10 m of depth you add one atmosphere of pressure ... It would probably make more sense to go overland in the opposite direction, through Russia, Alaska and Canada.
- pacaro 9y agoHarry Harrison covered this idea in “A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!” [1], which only had to compete with coal powered flying boats and nuclear trains. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_Through_the_Deeps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_Through_the_Deeps
- wongarsu 9y agoThe tunnel could be partially floating (or rather bridging over deep parts of the sea floor). Continental drift shouldn't be a big problem over a few decades, you will need some expansion joints anyways.
- pjc50 9y agoThe Channel Tunnel cost ~£200m per mile. The Atlantic is ~4000 miles across. That implies the Atlantic crossing would cost £800bn, slightly more than a trillion dollars and roughly the cost of the Iraq war and occupation.
- gsnedders 9y agoEven at 350km/h, you're talking an 18 hour train journey. It's just too far, really.
- wongarsu 9y agoThe idea is full of problems, but what is the argument against 18 hour train journeys? Traveling to anywhere in Siberia involves longer train journeys. Space is much cheaper in trains than it is in airliners and sleeping wagons with beds are relatively cheap in both European and Siberian trains. Restaurants are common in high speed trains. A 18 hour train journey can be vastly more comfortable than a 7 hour flight.