# The Transatlantic Tunnel **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 18, 2006, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925 "2006-03-18T19:42:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/21 "2006-03-18T22:02:52Z")
> [@gazpacho](#): > > Does the british really not call it the Chunnel? I see articles on the BBC calling it the chunnel. > [BBC NEWS | Business | Warning on Channel rail link cost](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4701801.stm) > [BBC ON THIS DAY | 6 | 1994: President and Queen open Chunnel](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/6/newsid_2511000/2511653.stm) Interesting, hadn’t come across such usage before…although I notice that in those examples, it’s being used within short headlines rather than in general writing ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2006, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/22 "2006-03-18T22:03:13Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Off-topic, but I don’t understand why the Channel Tunnel has acquired this name across the Atlantic, when it’s never called it here. Really? I’ve called it the Chunnel and people around me seem to use both terms interchangeably since the time they were raising funds. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2006, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/23 "2006-03-18T22:11:20Z")
Well, ‘channel tunnel’ wins a UK-specific Googlefight by a ratio of about 12:1. And I don’t think I’ve ever heard it in conversation, and given the way it stood out to me in this thread I’d have thought it would have jarred if I’d heard it, too. Also, googling turned up the use of the name in an episode of Seinfeld, which might explain a greater popularity in the USA. ---
**Author:** ![Tevildo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Tevildo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tevildo)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2006, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/24 "2006-03-18T22:20:22Z")
> [@gazpacho](#): > > Does the british really not call it the Chunnel? I see articles on the BBC calling it the chunnel. “Chunnel” was the common name for the previous attempt, begun in 1973 and abandoned in 1975, but I’ve never heard anyone referring to the actual tunnel by this name. That’s not to say that nobody ever has, but it was only a common word some 30 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2006, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/25 "2006-03-18T22:35:50Z")
The segments between New Jersey and Manhattan and between UK and Europe are complete. Only the last Manhattan/UK segment remains so it’s pretty much almost finished. I think it’s certainly possible from an engineering standpoint, it’s just not worth it as it can’t compete with air travel on cost or bulk shipping on bulk shipping. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/26 "2006-03-18T23:03:51Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The segments between New Jersey and Manhattan and between UK and Europe are complete. Only the last Manhattan/UK segment remains so it’s pretty much almost finished. > I think it’s certainly possible from an engineering standpoint, it’s just not worth it as it can’t compete with air travel on cost or bulk shipping on bulk shipping. “Bartender, I asked for a Beefeater martini, _dry_, not _extra dry_. This drink doesn’t have a hint of vermouth in it!” Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/27 "2006-03-18T23:08:11Z")
> [@Terminus Est](#): > > Beaten three times, dammit! Beaten _four_ times… ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2006, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/28 "2006-03-18T23:47:09Z")
> [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > Passenger tolls would be so high (in order to pay for the tunnel costs) that nobody would ever want to pay. Next problem, are you going to have fueling stations and rest stops every 100 miles (at least 45 pit stops total)? What about pumping auto exhaust out and fresh air in? > > A train going mach 6 though a vacuum tunnel would remove the need for fueling stops and such, but that just increases the technological hurdles. Would it have to go all the way across the atlantic, I was thinking England to Ireland , then to Greenland/Iceland and then probably Newfoundland Declan ---
**Author:** ![sunacres](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4491bb/32.png) [@sunacres](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sunacres)\ **Post date:** [March 19, 2006, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/29 "2006-03-19T00:22:57Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > If nothing else, the fact that the Atlantic spans at least two continental plates which are in motion relative to one another would make it nearly impossible. Of all the difficulties facing such a strange proposal, that’s among the least challenging. This problem has been solved in numerous ways already. Oil pipelines that cross thermal-buckling arctic tundra use expansion loops every thousand meters or so (square offsets in the pipeline act like springs to absorb expansion and contraction). Similar but larger scale deviations from a straight-line tube would allow for several centuries of continental separation along the Atlantic rift, easily. The Bay Area Rapid Transit tube under SF Bay is designed to withstand some pretty dramatic displacements, both longitudinal and lateral. No big. If the proposed tube doesn’t even rest on the sea floor, then cabled anchorages would insulate the structure even further from tectonic shifts. From a civil engineering standpoint, only the smallest man-made structures being built today assume zero relative displacement of the foundation. ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/30 "2006-03-20T18:51:15Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The segments between New Jersey and Manhattan and between UK and Europe are complete. Only the last Manhattan/UK segment remains so it’s pretty much almost finished. Thanks - that made my day! ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/31 "2006-03-20T19:26:42Z")
I saw the TV show about this. one thing I wonder about-the cables that secure the hollow-tube tunnel to the seabed-what are they made of? The bouyancy force of such a tunnel would be enormous-and the lenth of the cables might be as long as 3 - 4 MILES (in the mid-Atlantic). I don’t think such a project is feasible at all-before long, we will have virtual reality, 3-d holographic emails via the internet. Don’t commute-communicate! ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/32 "2006-03-20T19:29:33Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > before long, we will have virtual reality, 3-d holographic emails via the internet. Don’t commute-communicate! Or: “don’t invest in transport - invest in porn!” ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/33 "2006-03-20T19:39:40Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > one thing I wonder about-the cables that secure the hollow-tube tunnel to the seabed-what are they made of? The bouyancy force of such a tunnel would be enormous-and the lenth of the cables might be as long as 3 - 4 MILES (in the mid-Atlantic). They needn’t be all that strong individually. The buoyancy force can be largely countered with ballast. You’ll still have tidal, current and storm surge forces to deal with, but by spreading the load over multiple cables you can reduce the forces on each individual cable to an easily manageable amount. It would be much like an inverted suspension bridge; the seabed would bear the upward force like the main cables of the bridge, while the individual suspension cables spread the force among themselves. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/34 "2006-03-20T19:41:20Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > The bouyancy force of such a tunnel would be enormous… I don’t think so. The tunnel structure would probably be made of steel or reinforced concrete. Even though it’s a hollow tube, it may be pretty close to being neutrally buoyant. If not, it would be trivial to put weights on the tunnel to reduce stress on the cables. You may not need the cables at all, where the ocean floor is too deep. Active control using electric motors may be enough to keep it in place, like oil rigs. Unlike oil rigs, a tunnel would be mostly isolated from wind and waves. ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/35 "2006-03-20T21:16:52Z")
Beaten 5…oh, hell, what am I saying, I never heard of the book. I have seen the Seinfeld ep featuring “Chunnel” though. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/36 "2006-03-20T21:53:56Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Off-topic, but I don’t understand why the Channel Tunnel has acquired this name across the Atlantic, when it’s never called it here. I know for a fact that it’s been called the Chunnel over there by some people! But it was me and my yank friends that did so. 😉 –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![slaphead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@slaphead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slaphead)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/37 "2006-03-21T13:51:50Z")
> [@OttoDaFe](#): > > The only link that seems promising is broken, but I seem to recall seeing a segment about a tunnel under construction to connect Denmark to Sweden. It used the proposed trans-Atlantic technology (submerged tube anchored to the floor). Could that be what he was thinking of? I was going to say that you are thinking of the proposed Ireland/mainland UK tunnel, but according to [this](http://www.enerpac.com/html/Projects/Oresund/Home.html) part of the Øresund bridge scheme does involve such a tunnel. Those whacky civil engineers, eh? Apparently this is called [Immersed Tunnel](http://www.ita-aites.org/cms/411.html) technology. I want to join the International Tunnelling Association now, because it sounds like fun. Also a handy society to be a member of if you ever find yourself in a POW camp or something. And yeah, while in general a trans-atlantic tunnel does sound like a good idea, I think it will happen after the Space Elevator is up and running, if ever. Too much complicated engineering for too little gain. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/38 "2006-03-21T14:35:42Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > They needn’t be all that strong individually. The buoyancy force can be largely countered with ballast. You’ll still have tidal, current and storm surge forces to deal with, but by spreading the load over multiple cables you can reduce the forces on each individual cable to an easily manageable amount. It would be much like an inverted suspension bridge; the seabed would bear the upward force like the main cables of the bridge, while the individual suspension cables spread the force among themselves. Engineers could easily negate the tidal forces you cite, by simply moving the Moon from Earth to Mars. BTW, instead of “chunnel,” why not call it the “chube”? Words well in Brit advertising jingles: “Don’t be a rube, take the koo koo ka chube.” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Hampshire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hampshire/32/4887_2.png) [@Hampshire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hampshire)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/39 "2006-03-21T14:36:04Z")
With all this discussion about the problems of cost, engineering issues, and feasability, I find it amusing that **$tretch’s** boyfriend thinks it already exsists. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925/40 "2006-03-21T15:00:48Z")
> [@slaphead](#): > > … while in general a trans-atlantic tunnel does sound like a good idea, I think it will happen after the Space Elevator is up and running, if ever. Too much complicated engineering for too little gain. Hmmm. So if one wants to drive from NYC to London, just wait! Once one space elevator is built, I assume others will be built, for convenience. Then, using the same technology, one can string them together using an orbital tether that goes all the way round the earth. Once that is complete, just drive from NYC down to Ecuador (I assume the Pan American Highway will go through by then), pack your car aboard a space cargo pod (or whatever they’ll call it), have it transported to orbit, across the Atlantic to an African elevator, then drive up through Egypt to Turkey and across Europe to London. Simple! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-transatlantic-tunnel/348925.md?page=3)