TransAtlantic MagLev (is real)

You missed it, on the 21 of October ATSNN members road free!

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
of course an earthquake will effect it

you needs supports for the tunnel or it would just snap like a twig if a 200 ton train went over it

What are you talking about?
How the hell is a train gonna run over it when its in the damn ocean?
Are you refering to the little part on land or the majority of it in the ocean?

Murc, I may be mistaken, but isn't it built so that trains can run over it?

Originally posted by shbaz
Murc, I may be mistaken, but isn't it built so that trains can run over it?

of course, which is why I dont understand what he's talking about.

He's talking about the need for support on the ocean floor lest the whole thing just bend down under the weight of the train and collapse. You can't float it because of the weight, unless it were really flexible, which would still be a problem because the train would constantly be fighting the bend that it forms in the tube.

Originally posted by shbaz
He's talking about the need for support on the ocean floor lest the whole thing just bend down under the weight of the train and collapse. You can't float it because of the weight, unless it were really flexible, which would still be a problem because the train would constantly be fighting the bend that it forms in the tube.

It wouldn't have much give, because it wouldn't be made to, because if your going 5000mph, turns=bad.

The tube will float, and the sections of it would be anchored to the ocean floor (by big cables) so there would be no bending. Your making it sound like its a underwater bridge, its just a dig tube held underwater by the cables.

and if your argument is "how will it float if theres no air in it". Then hears you answer, the only chamber that will be airtight is just the train area, but above and below the train would be work/maintainence area which would be airfilled.

Originally posted by Murcielago
its just a dig tube held underwater by the cables.

That sounds fabulously expensive. Some Oil rigs are anchored to the ocean floor, but it seems like actually digging a tunnel underground would be more efficient that having this suspended tube. Eitherway, earthquakes would affect it.

Of course, It couldn't be underground the whole length, what with the MOR and all.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Murcielago
its just a big tube held underwater by the cables.

That sounds fabulously expensive. Some Oil rigs are anchored to the ocean floor, but it seems like actually digging a tunnel underground would be more efficient that having this suspended tube. Eitherway, earthquakes would affect it.

Of course, It couldn't be underground the whole length, what with the MOR and all.

Yes it would be ubber expensive, nut could pay itself off eventually.

Oil platforms have long legs, and so they basically stand on the ocean floor, and they cannot bend and so they have no give.

You think instead of having it be 200 ft below water level (which divers can get to), that it should be under the ocean! are you insane, that would be absolutly rediculous.

If it was tethered to the floor earthqaukes would do nothing to it, and that of course if it was in a hot spot which it wouldn't be.
BTW how many quakes has New York had?

[edit on 28-10-2004 by Murcielago]

Yes it would be ubber expensive, nut could pay itself off eventually.

Saying that it could pay itself off without considering the millions of dollars even one of those hundreds of miles will cost is a pipe dream (no pun intended).

Oil platforms have long legs, and so they basically stand on the ocean floor, and they cannot bend and so they have no give.

Some of them float, and anything has give no matter how rigid it seems. The next time you go over a bridge look at the concrete sections and the metal jaws between them that allow them to expand and contract as they heat/cool.

You think instead of having it be 200 ft below water level (which divers can get to), that it should be under the ocean!

are you insane, that would be absolutly rediculous.

So are tether points that are hundreds of feet below with pressures that humans or even machines can't withstand.

If it was tethered to the floor earthqaukes would do nothing to it, and that of course if it was in a hot spot which it wouldn't be.
BTW how many quakes has New York had?

I think it's time for you to do an experiment. Get a helium balloon and tie it to the ground. You are simulating floating air inside of water now. Shake the tether and watch the balloon carefully. Hopefully you can guess what is going to happen, but with what I've read on this forum nothing really surprises me anymore. Consider also that this is a tunnel crossing the ocean not just NYC. It would go directly over the mid-Atlantic ridge.

It's wonderful that you have such an imagination, but try to apply some practicality with that dreaming. A lot of things are possible, but you can't just say something and have it magically be the way things work in the real world.

Yes, it would be very expensive, but even if you only have a total of 2 trains it could pay itself of eventually, remember that this thing would last centries, and not decades. If you put the ticket price at the same as a airliner flight you will put the airliner out of business, which you could then up the prices a little every year.

shbaz
So are tether points that are hundreds of feet below with pressures that humans or even machines can't withstand.

If your refering to the connection between the cable and the tunnel, then that would be around 200 ft, which again divers can work at. and if your talking about the cables anchored to the floor then obviously thats not a job for humans, we would use unmanned subs with arms to do all the work.

I just thought of something, there is a fault line in the atlantic somewhere and the plates are slowly moving apart. So if there is a tunnel that goes there, the tunnel will be slowly stretched...meaning it will break. That might not happen for a while, but it will happen me thinks.

Originally posted by Murcielago
Yes, it would be very expensive, but even if you only have a total of 2 trains it could pay itself of eventually, remember that this thing would last centries, and not decades. If you put the ticket price at the same as a airliner flight you will put the airliner out of business, which you could then up the prices a little every year.

What about maintenence, and who is going to invest in something that could take 50 years before it starts making a profit? What happens when it becomes the expensive alternative and sea shipping prices plummet due to low demand? You can't just say that something that will cost 10-50 million a mile over thousands of miles will simply pay itself off.

shbaz
So are tether points that are hundreds of feet below with pressures that humans or even machines can't withstand.

If your refering to the connection between the cable and the tunnel, then that would be around 200 ft, which again divers can work at. and if your talking about the cables anchored to the floor then obviously thats not a job for humans, we would use unmanned subs with arms to do all the work.

shbaz
So are tether points that are hundreds of feet below with pressures that humans or even machines can't withstand.

Originally posted by Murcielago
If it was tethered to the floor earthqaukes would do nothing to it,

It'd snap the cables. Not to mention what waves and submarine landslides are going to do to it. I honestly don't think that a train route could possibly make the kind of money required to effectively have thousands of oil rigs lined up in a row, partly underwater nonetheless. I agree drilling thru the ground wouldn't be much better either, but any water crossing train, if its more than a short distance, travels underground in tunnels, not floating a mid-depth in the water.

pay itself of eventually,

THis is nt the sort of thing that can be built and then accumulate money. It has to turn profit immediately. Thats why oil companies don't throw rigs out there and keep them there until they find oil. They are wildly expensive per day to maintain.

and that of course if it was in a hot spot which it wouldn't be.

I don't think that there are any 'hot spots' proper in the north atlantic. But there is the spreading ridge.

BTW how many quakes has New York had?

New York has earthquakes, very moderate ones tho. Why does that matter? Had you said it was going to be in NY? You're talking about stretching it over the length of the atlantic. How many submarine earthquakes do you think go on out there?

we would use unmanned subs with arms to do all the work.

Deep sea building robots are an unrealized technology. IOW they don't exist, and even oil rigs, I beleive, don't use this sort of thing.

shbaz
What about maintenence, and who is going to invest in something that could take 50 years before it starts making a profit? What happens when it becomes the expensive alternative and sea shipping prices plummet due to low demand? You can't just say that something that will cost 10-50 million a mile over thousands of miles will simply pay itself off.

The start up cost would be huge, but the governments could help pay for it.

Nygdan
Deep sea building robots are an unrealized technology. IOW they don't exist, and even oil rigs, I beleive, don't use this sort of thing.

machines can go as deep as you want, i know that pressure increases the deeper you go but we have the technology to go to the ocean floor.
and i'v seen i video on a oilm platform that when they had a problem towing it out to see they used an unmanned sub with arms to do some work. So yes, they do exist.

Nygdan
New York has earthquakes, very moderate ones tho. Why does that matter? Had you said it was going to be in NY? You're talking about stretching it over the length of the atlantic. How many submarine earthquakes do you think go on out there?

Yes New York does have some moderate quakes. and it matters because one of the 2 stations for this thing would be in New York.

Nygdan
It'd snap the cables. Not to mention what waves and submarine landslides are going to do to it. I honestly don't think that a train route could possibly make the kind of money required to effectively have thousands of oil rigs lined up in a row, partly underwater nonetheless. I agree drilling thru the ground wouldn't be much better either, but any water crossing train, if its more than a short distance, travels underground in tunnels, not floating a mid-depth in the water.

It will be able to sway back and forth from the currents, and you dont want it to deep because of pressure, but you want it deep enough that large container ships can still pass over it without any concern. one problem that could occur is a submarine running into it, but even that would (hopefully) not break its super strong hull.
and given the fact that it would have thousands of cables, even if some broke it would do nothing to it overall.

OK, now i'm not saying that I think its feasible to build this transatlantic tunnel, i'm just saying that its 100% possible. But i'm no fool, and I relize that in the future there is is a very high chance that our transportation needs will be provided by very fast planes and sub-orbital passenger crafts.

Geting from France to USA, throught UK in 2 and a half hours will be very sweet, but not feasable, from economic standpoint. The world is ran by $, sorry.


By the way its not from UK to USA, it would of started in France. And most of you are total idiots, you have no idea what you are talking about.



[edit on 6-11-2004 by Pavel]

Originally posted by Pavel
Geting from France to USA, throught UK in 2 and a half hours will be very sweet, but not feasable, from economic standpoint. The world is ran by $, sorry.

By the way its not from UK to USA, it would of started in France. And most of you are total idiots, you have no idea what you are talking about.
[edit on 6-11-2004 by Pavel]

Hey genius, its spelled engineer.

US to France? the site (which is bogus) didn't say france. As the pic shows its the UK.


What 2 hours are you talking about? By MagLev or Sub-orbital plane?
1. the maglev didn't say 2 hours, it said 9 hours.
2. and the sub-orbital flight would vary, but I am not talking modernday terms, that flight wont be available for a couple decades.

Murc Have you ever seen the discovery channel show called "Extreme Engineering"?? If you havn't, it's basically a Vacuum tunnel from New York to London then onto France. Top Speed would reach 5000 mph(or kph cant remember). New York to France would take about an hour.

Originally posted by sardion2000
Murc Have you ever seen the discovery channel show called "Extreme Engineering"?? If you havn't, it's basically a Vacuum tunnel from New York to London then onto France. Top Speed would reach 5000 mph(or kph cant remember). New York to France would take about an hour.

ahhhhh, thats what he was referring to, thanks. and yeah i've seen it. I recorded that one on my pc.