8 ms·

They've also proposed a China-Russia-US Railway that have an under water channel between Russian and Alaska. That would be the longest under channel if it were

by ethana 12y ago

They've also proposed a China-Russia-US Railway that have an under water channel between Russian and Alaska. That would be the longest under channel if it were to be built.

yc1010 12y ago
That would make little economic sense since shipping is cheaper than trains, and container ships keep getting bigger and more efficient.
- privong 12y ago
  Are ships still cheaper if one considers the time and expense of loading/unloading the ship, plus taking containers off and putting them back on rail cars? It seems like the switching of modes could contribute non-negligible overhead. I suppose the impact of the overhead depends on the distance though. China – US might be far enough that the overheads do not matter.
  - mynameishere 12y ago
    I think it usually goes ship -> truck rather than ship -> train -> truck. Example at 8:00 here (Turn volume off) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYBImNhYO5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYBImNhYO5U
    - privong 12y ago
      The wikipedia article on intermodal transport suggests close to 70% of intermodal goes on railroads in the US[0]. I am not sure what the breakdown is in terms of origin (ship vs truck) before it gets on the railway, but it seems reasonable that the ship -> train is at least comparable to, if not larger than ship -> truck. But I imagine it depends on cargo and its final destination. If it's more than a day's drive and is a larger shipment (more than 1 container), I suspect that makes it more likely for a train to get involved. The same wiki article later says trucks are often used to go between ships and rail[1]; depending on what fraction of shipments experience that, it might be an even stronger argument for rail the whole way, if it saves 2x loading/unloading from trucks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport#Containerization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport#C... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport#Trucks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport#T...
- tormeh 12y ago
  Depends on how fast you want them there. That it's economically senseless is not a done deal.
seanmcdirmid 12y ago
I doubt they'll do that anytime soon. There are no continental railways to connect to in Alaska, and not much demand for one.
- jrockway 12y ago
  Freight? Whenever I have something shipped from China, the tracking shows something like China -> Alaska -> California. (Of course, bulk goods go by boat, but a train could be a nice middle ground.)
  - privong 12y ago
    I wasn't sure if "Fright?" was meant to ask if there was a freight rail line with a connection or if you were suggesting that freight traffic would provide the demand.. If the former, the Alaska railroad does not have a rail connection to other railroads in North America. It looks like barges are used to link it to the North American rail network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Railroad
    - jrockway 12y ago
      Basically, I'm guessing that people in this thread assumed "rail = passengers" but I'm guessing that's not why a rail link was proposed, that's all. Passenger rail barely makes money (in the US) running tiny distances between population centers. It's probably not going to make money going from the middle of nowhere Alaska across an ocean. But clearly the idea came from somewhere.
  - smeyer 12y ago
    But is there actually enough demand to justify the middle ground?
    - jrockway 12y ago
      Seems like the US imports quite a bit of stuff from Asia.
ghaff 12y ago
If you're into reading plans for pie-in-the-sky projects that will never [1] happen, you can read about it here. http://www.interbering.com/ http://www.interbering.com/ $134 billion price tag and apply the usual multiples including not only the tunnel but lots of connecting rail through what I imagine is pretty difficult-to-build territory. (UPDATE: Of which it seems about 4,000 miles worth is needed.) Fun read though. [1] for interesting timeframes to contemplate
- grecy 12y ago
  This article [1] has the tunnel at only $10 to $12 billion, and the whole rail interconnect at around $65 billion. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0bsMii8oKXw http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0bsM...
  - jrockway 12y ago
    Meanwhile, over in the real world, it's cost 4.5 billion to build a tunnel in Manhattan from 63rd St. to 96th St.
    - evanb 12y ago
      Building under Manhattan is a little bit more complicated, since slight vibrations / rumblings can cause buildings to come deviate from plumb. http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-6-7-2009.html http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-6-7-2009.html http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-29-2009.html http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-29-2009.html http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120821/upper-east-side/huge-second-avenue-subway-blasts-rock-rattle-upper-east-side http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120821/upper-east-side/hug... http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130911/upper-east-side/second-ave-building-evacuated-after-facade-cracks-found http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130911/upper-east-side/sec...
    - grecy 12y ago
      If you think far Northern Alaska or Russia are anything like "The Real World" (as you call Manhattan), you need to get out more.
grecy 12y ago
What's cool about it is that from an engineering perspective, it's not even hard. We easily have the tech to build it right now, it's more a question of economics. I believe the price tag has been revised a few times too, as a Japanese company seriously underbid the competition to dig the actually tunnel. This article [1] lists the tunnel as only $10 to $12 billion. (I live in the Yukon, right near Alaska) Unfortunately, it likely won't happen until there are very good high-speed trains from that part of Alaska down to the lower 48, and from that part of Siberia over to Moscow, otherwise you'd have an awesome tunnel that goes literally from nowhere to nowhere. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0bsMii8oKXw http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0bsM...
- ghaff 12y ago
  A simple matter of programming :-) It's easy to lose track of the distances in that area of the world. According to the site, there would be something like 4,000 miles of track required to connect to existing conventional rail. I doubt the whole project would be "easy" but economics is a showstopper in any case. Any any rate, Russia would need to be a much larger trading partner and--even if they were--it's not clear that easier routes from eastern Russia to the US would be a big win.
  - grecy 12y ago
    > It's easy to lose track of the distances in that area of the world. Not when you live here :)
    - ghaff 12y ago
      I live in the eastern US and I constantly have to remind myself when I'm planning trips out West--even in the lower 48--just how big the relative distances are :-) I'm better at it than I used to be, but it's easy to plan "short" drives that are actually 6-8 hours.
      - grecy 12y ago
        Hahaha. A 6-8 hour drive is short. It takes a 12 hour drive for me to get to a city bigger than the one I'm in, and it's in another country :) The closest next-biggest one in the same country is something like 18 hours drive.

by ethana 12y ago

They've also proposed a China-Russia-US Railway that have an under water channel between Russian and Alaska. That would be the longest under channel if it were to be built.

yc1010 12y ago

That would make little economic sense since shipping is cheaper than trains, and container ships keep getting bigger and more efficient.

privong 12y ago
Are ships still cheaper if one considers the time and expense of loading/unloading the ship, plus taking containers off and putting them back on rail cars? It seems like the switching of modes could contribute non-negligible overhead. I suppose the impact of the overhead depends on the distance though. China – US might be far enough that the overheads do not matter.
- mynameishere 12y ago
  I think it usually goes ship -> truck rather than ship -> train -> truck. Example at 8:00 here (Turn volume off) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYBImNhYO5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYBImNhYO5U
  - privong 12y ago
    The wikipedia article on intermodal transport suggests close to 70% of intermodal goes on railroads in the US[0]. I am not sure what the breakdown is in terms of origin (ship vs truck) before it gets on the railway, but it seems reasonable that the ship -> train is at least comparable to, if not larger than ship -> truck. But I imagine it depends on cargo and its final destination. If it's more than a day's drive and is a larger shipment (more than 1 container), I suspect that makes it more likely for a train to get involved. The same wiki article later says trucks are often used to go between ships and rail[1]; depending on what fraction of shipments experience that, it might be an even stronger argument for rail the whole way, if it saves 2x loading/unloading from trucks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport#Containerization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport#C... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport#Trucks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport#T...
tormeh 12y ago
Depends on how fast you want them there. That it's economically senseless is not a done deal.

seanmcdirmid 12y ago

I doubt they'll do that anytime soon. There are no continental railways to connect to in Alaska, and not much demand for one.

jrockway 12y ago
Freight? Whenever I have something shipped from China, the tracking shows something like China -> Alaska -> California. (Of course, bulk goods go by boat, but a train could be a nice middle ground.)
- privong 12y ago
  I wasn't sure if "Fright?" was meant to ask if there was a freight rail line with a connection or if you were suggesting that freight traffic would provide the demand.. If the former, the Alaska railroad does not have a rail connection to other railroads in North America. It looks like barges are used to link it to the North American rail network. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Railroad
  - jrockway 12y ago
    Basically, I'm guessing that people in this thread assumed "rail = passengers" but I'm guessing that's not why a rail link was proposed, that's all. Passenger rail barely makes money (in the US) running tiny distances between population centers. It's probably not going to make money going from the middle of nowhere Alaska across an ocean. But clearly the idea came from somewhere.
- smeyer 12y ago
  But is there actually enough demand to justify the middle ground?
  - jrockway 12y ago
    Seems like the US imports quite a bit of stuff from Asia.

ghaff 12y ago

If you're into reading plans for pie-in-the-sky projects that will never [1] happen, you can read about it here. http://www.interbering.com/ http://www.interbering.com/ $134 billion price tag and apply the usual multiples including not only the tunnel but lots of connecting rail through what I imagine is pretty difficult-to-build territory. (UPDATE: Of which it seems about 4,000 miles worth is needed.) Fun read though. [1] for interesting timeframes to contemplate

grecy 12y ago
This article [1] has the tunnel at only $10 to $12 billion, and the whole rail interconnect at around $65 billion. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0bsMii8oKXw http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0bsM...
- jrockway 12y ago
  Meanwhile, over in the real world, it's cost 4.5 billion to build a tunnel in Manhattan from 63rd St. to 96th St.
  - evanb 12y ago
    Building under Manhattan is a little bit more complicated, since slight vibrations / rumblings can cause buildings to come deviate from plumb. http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-6-7-2009.html http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-6-7-2009.html http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-29-2009.html http://thelaunchbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/june-29-2009.html http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120821/upper-east-side/huge-second-avenue-subway-blasts-rock-rattle-upper-east-side http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20120821/upper-east-side/hug... http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130911/upper-east-side/second-ave-building-evacuated-after-facade-cracks-found http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20130911/upper-east-side/sec...
  - grecy 12y ago
    If you think far Northern Alaska or Russia are anything like "The Real World" (as you call Manhattan), you need to get out more.

grecy 12y ago

What's cool about it is that from an engineering perspective, it's not even hard. We easily have the tech to build it right now, it's more a question of economics. I believe the price tag has been revised a few times too, as a Japanese company seriously underbid the competition to dig the actually tunnel. This article [1] lists the tunnel as only $10 to $12 billion. (I live in the Yukon, right near Alaska) Unfortunately, it likely won't happen until there are very good high-speed trains from that part of Alaska down to the lower 48, and from that part of Siberia over to Moscow, otherwise you'd have an awesome tunnel that goes literally from nowhere to nowhere. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0bsMii8oKXw http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a0bsM...

ghaff 12y ago
A simple matter of programming :-) It's easy to lose track of the distances in that area of the world. According to the site, there would be something like 4,000 miles of track required to connect to existing conventional rail. I doubt the whole project would be "easy" but economics is a showstopper in any case. Any any rate, Russia would need to be a much larger trading partner and--even if they were--it's not clear that easier routes from eastern Russia to the US would be a big win.
- grecy 12y ago
  > It's easy to lose track of the distances in that area of the world. Not when you live here :)
  - ghaff 12y ago
    I live in the eastern US and I constantly have to remind myself when I'm planning trips out West--even in the lower 48--just how big the relative distances are :-) I'm better at it than I used to be, but it's easy to plan "short" drives that are actually 6-8 hours.
    - grecy 12y ago
      Hahaha. A 6-8 hour drive is short. It takes a 12 hour drive for me to get to a city bigger than the one I'm in, and it's in another country :) The closest next-biggest one in the same country is something like 18 hours drive.