Could a Russia-US rail tunnel be built?

reply to post by pause4thought


You do however raise a very good point. Natural forces like earthquakes can screw with even the best plans of mice and men. However if you construct a tunnel, or other infrastructure with articulated and flexible "joints", and provide enough soft "mushy mass" between each segment, at least in theory, if the structural joints cant deal with the shift in location, then the rest of the material can absorb the impact. Look at it this way. An earthquake of about 6.4 or above on the richer scale can actually throw objects in to the air. Don't believe me? Then test it yourself. Find a table and place an object on top of it. Then strike the table with your fist from underneath. (Please be careful, I don't want you to break any bones in your hand)

Yes we can even today design large structures to deal with earthquakes. As far as I know, we can (again this is all theory), deal with an earthquake up to about 7.2 or so. Above that the joints and inter connective structures will experience catastrophic shear forces. Thats why you have to build a large, long structure like a tunnel with enough of the so called "mushy mass" to accommodate what our current technology hasn't figured out how to handle yet. Its called insurance. In one hundred years, waiting for our "technology" to solve all the problems, we will still be here, with nothing built. So it seems logical to me we build what we can now, with enough "fudge" added to the equation to anticipate all the questions which today were not smart enough to ask.

reply to post by ArMaP

Isn't that area too seismically active to build a tunnel?

Technically, the Bering straight is north of the "Ring of Fire" in the pacific... so the proposed subterranean line would not pass through the subduction zones, merely skim along the edges...

Which may become a problem in about 100,000 to 1,000,000 years...

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should, and this is a good case in point for that argument.

The population in that neck of the woods doesn't warrant the need for something like this, and how much cargo can possibly be impoted/exported via the Bering Strait that can't go to Seattle, or even Nome for that matter. instead? I hear tell they have some pretty sophisticated docking systems in Seattle these days . If economic feasability is what is on peoples' minds here, what is more feasible? To pay shipping vessels to dock in Seattle, which they do anyway, or pay upwards of 15 Billion dollars so you can ship the goods underwater in order to save a little time? And the key word here is A LITTLE. The time it would take to pay back that 15 Billion dollars via the savings incurred by way of time saved would be as astronimcial as the cost itself.

I've been scratching my head on this one and I'm not seeing any practical purpose for this whatsoever. The only thing I can think of is that the russians thought of this simply to do a chain rattling. I think that because of all the media attention focused on Greece, Libya and the U.S., the Russians were starting to feel a little left out. So they came up with something as absurd as this to get people talking about them.

Kind of like Charlie Brown in a way. " Are you girls talking about me?"

"No Charlie Brown, we're not"

"Why doesn't anyone ever talk about me?"

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Technically, the Bering straight is north of the "Ring of Fire" in the pacific... so the proposed subterranean line would not pass through the subduction zones, merely skim along the edges...

You don't need to be on a subduction zone to be affected by big earthquakes, as you can see here.

Which may become a problem in about 100,000 to 1,000,000 years...

I live in a region that has some earthquakes (I remember some 5 or 6, the last one was something like a 6.5) and the biggest European earthquake ever recorded, and we are not on the Ring of Fire or any of those very active regions, earthquakes can be a problem anywhere, any time.

Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
I've been scratching my head on this one and I'm not seeing any practical purpose for this whatsoever. The only thing I can think of is that the russians thought of this simply to do a chain rattling. I think that because of all the media attention focused on Greece, Libya and the U.S., the Russians were starting to feel a little left out.

So they came up with something as absurd as this to get people talking about them.

This is not a new idea, and, as strange as it may look now, it was an American idea.

The concept of an overland connection crossing the Bering Strait goes back before the 20th century. William Gilpin, first governor of the Colorado Territory, envisioned a vast "Cosmopolitan Railway" in 1890 linking the entire world via a series of railways. Two years later, Joseph Strauss, who went on to design over 400 bridges, including the Golden Gate Bridge, put forward the first proposal for a Bering Strait railroad bridge in his senior thesis.[6] The project was presented to the government of the Russian Empire, but it was rejected.[7]

A syndicate of American railroad magnates proposed in 1904 (via a French spokesman) a Siberian-Alaskan railroad from Cape Prince Wales in Alaska through a tunnel under the Bering Strait and across northeastern Siberia to Irkutsk via Cape Deshnev, Verkhnekolymsk and Yakutsk. The proposal was for a 90-year lease, and exclusive mineral rights for 8 miles (13 km) each side of the right-of-way. It was debated by officials and finally turned down on March 20, 1907.[8]

Czar Nicholas II approved a tunnel (possibly the American proposal above) in 1905.[9] Its cost was estimated at $65 million[10] and $300 million including all the railroads.[9]

Source

A tunnel would be the worst idea..

But a semi floating tube might work even better.

Take a tube with joints that are semi flexible and anchor it with massive anchors to the sea bed so that it is below the level of any ice passing over it.

With the right flotation on tanks the tube sections you should be able to shuttle short electric trains for say 10 hours in one direction and 10 in the other direction. By spacing these trains a mile apart you would not put to much weight on any part of the tube at one time and because the driving engines are electric you would not need that much ventilation. If done right you might not even need humans to run the trains.

Another way would be to use very large hovercraft and go on the surface between shores.
Something about 5 to 10 times the size of the US Navy LCAC rigged for 40 foot shipping containers.
abqscalemodelers.com...

Originally posted by ANNED
Take a tube with joints that are semi flexible and anchor it with massive anchors to the sea bed so that it is below the level of any ice passing over it.

Considering the lowest point on the Bering strait is only 55 metres, I don't think that would work either.

reply to post by ANNED


The seas get really big in that neck of the woods, no way a floating tunnel would work.

Even if it was slightly under the surface it would be torn to shreds by the first storm.

Unfortunately, this is just such a bad idea all the way around that it simply has to be built. The engineers of the world *must" have mastery over the Earth! There is no practical reason for it, no justifiable political or financial reason for it, it will surely get a lot of people killed during the building and utilization of it, and it will be fraught will problems, delays, mounting costs during building and use. It will probably cost more to use than anyone can afford. It just has to be built!

And guys, the Kalashnikov was just patched together rip-offs from other weapons. It's not a Russian design in any strict sense. Credit only where it's due.