I believe you just agreed with everything that **anson ** just said.
One current example that might be instructive is the New York-Boston corridor. I can vouch from personal experience that the three current technologies (air, rail, bus/car) all take virtually the same amount of time, city center to city center.
And I don’t think Amtrak is doing so hot financially.
Again, the biggest problem with a New York-London tube would be the finances. It would not be commercially profitable. Look at the Chunnel–a disaster for the companies behind it. It would be expensive–look at the Big Dig in Boston. It would have to be govt.-subsidized, and I don’t think anyone’s got the spare cash to get behind such a boondoggle.
I think SavageNarce is assuming that the vast majority of people riding that train would be neither New Yorkers nor Londoners. If someone is traveling from Washington, D.C. to Edinburgh via that train, they’re increasing congestion in both NY and London.
Thought I would throw in this interesting Flash presentation on the Discovery website.
And for those really interested in this subject, here’s an old archived discussion on the subject on another site where lots of similar advantages/disadvantages were talked about.
Was that the one where merry old England started merrily sailing around the Atlantic? London Underway? London Calling? No, wait, that was a song. I think…
This sort of enormous application of maglev technology would be done quite differently, I think. It probably wouldn’t be able to compete with a scramjet on sheer speed and versatility, but it might revolutionise light international freight (parcels etc), and bigger, urgent freight (similar to stuff taken in cargo planes now). I don’t think it would be able to charge competitive rates for passenger travel (look at what air did to ocean liners and long distance rail).
I’d visualise it starting in Los Angeles with its next stop being Vancouver (where it would connect with a Chicago (possibly Toronto) and New York branch. From Vancouver, straight up the west coast, through Alaska, and across the Bering Sea to Russia, where one branch would take the line to Japan, and another to China. The main line would then continue on to the UK via several major Russian and European cities.
The route would be longer, but have a minimum of undersea crossing, and would have a bigger potential market. It would find a market niche between hypersonic air transport (which we will likely have by then), and ocean transport (which may not be much faster than it is now). 747-type subsonic air travel would probably no longer exist due to costs, so this would fill that role - the 747’s originally intended role of air freight, as it was designed for in the 60s.
If it were going to happen at all, that is. It probably won’t.
Since the Channel Tunnel’s been mentioned, it’s worth noting that the Chunnel carried three types of traffic:
- train passengers (on Eurostar);
- freight; and
- car passengers, who drive into train cars at Ashford and off again at Lille (or vice versa). Theoretically you could “drive” from England to New York the same way you can “drive” from England to the Continent.
Not that that’s enough of a financial incentive to build a transcontinental train link, but it’s something to think about.
Anybody got enough physics to figure out how many G’s it is to accelerate/decelerate to 5000 mph in 18 minutes?
That seems like it might be a tad uncomfortable…
The Big Dig in Boston cost 15+ BILLION dollars with a few billion on the way to fix faulty construction. That was for a few miles of tunnels and associted roadways parts of which tunnel under the Boston waterways. I shudder to think what a multi-thousand mile tunnel under the Atlantic would cost.
It’s not that complicated. A not-that-fast car might take 10 seconds to go 0-60, which is 6MPH/sec. If you were able to sustain that acceleration to 5000MPH, it would take under 14 minutes.
You mean they aren’t now? 
Velocity=acceleration*time
5000mph is about 2200m/s, divided by 1080 seconds equals 2m/s[sup]2[/sup]. Gravity is 9.8, so this would be about 0.2Gs of acceleration. No big deal if you can spin your chair around halfway so the deceleration isn’t trying to pull you forward out of your chair.
It hard to understand that through all this discussion, we haven’t considered the difference in impact of an accident.
If a single airlane or ship crashes, burns, sinks…it have little effect on the rest of the transportation system.
If you crash a train at 5000 mph, your tunnel is destroyed and all traffic stops for years.
Doesn’t matter if they develop the technology, it shouldn’t be built.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the overall conclusion that such a scheme would not be viable, but comparing it to Concorde isn’t appropriate.
Concorde was tiny, carrying very few passengers and little if any freight, yet used enormous resources every flight. Leading to an extremely high cost per unit of payload carried.
The massive cost for a very high speed train would be laying on the infrastructure. You could then build large numbers of trains, many of which could be using the infrastructure at any given time. The payload per train could be very high, with hundreds of tonnes of freight and thousands of passengers.
Again, I’m not saying that overall the scheme is viable, but the mere fact that one very fast method of transport didn’t work doesn’t mean that another method, with potentially entirely different logistical characteristics, wouldn’t.
You think that a maglev train wouldn’t use enormous amounts of resources? One way or another, you’re going to have to cough up the energy necessary to accelerate the train up to 5000 mph. Plus, you have to maintain a vacuum in the tunnel (no small feat, given that the tunnel is thousands of miles long) and maintain the tunnel itself, including the parts that are way out in the middle of the ocean. How do you even get electrical power out to the middle of the ocean? IANAElectrical Engineer, but I’d think that you’d need to get something like an old nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to serve as a “booster station” and permanently moor it out at sea above the tunnel. On a per-unit basis, the tunnel could very easily end up being way more expensive than the Concorde.
hangs head in shame
Thats what I get for posting at 3 in the morning
slinks out of thread
But once you’ve got it to that (in a vacuum) things get pretty damn efficient.
Cables. Tricky, huh?
You don’t address the key point which is how much can be carried. Trains carry loads measured in the 10’s of thousands of tonnes, and if you have several of them you could be running dozens of them a day. Yes the cost of maintaining the whole thing could be high, but my point is that the yields likewise, whereas with Concorde you are talking about putting massive resources in, and getting a child’s toy payload out.
Wouldn’t it just be easier to fold the Earth so that London and New York were next to each other?
A tunnel would also imply transatlantic cables (or optical lines) and pipelines. Pipe carry lots of stuff.
Maybe we could sell Canadian water to Europe? Maybe pulp for paper? It would make no economic sense by itself, but if you are going to build a tunnel anyway …
Technically it may be possible at huge costs. I don’t know if it would survive a benefit cost analysis. We have the means to get from NY to London at the moment without undertaking a colossal engineering project. I can’t believe the savings in time would begin to justify the enormity of the cost.
Moreso than the cost, I don’t think it should ever happen for one reason: terrorism. Such a project would be far to inviting a target.