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
Really? I’ve called it the Chunnel and people around me seem to use both terms interchangeably since the time they were raising funds.
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.
“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.
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
Beaten four times… 
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
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.
Thanks - that made my day!
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!
Or: “don’t invest in transport - invest in porn!”
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.
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.
Beaten 5…oh, hell, what am I saying, I never heard of the book.
I have seen the Seinfeld ep featuring “Chunnel” though.
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
I was going to say that you are thinking of the proposed Ireland/mainland UK tunnel, but according to this part of the Øresund bridge scheme does involve such a tunnel. Those whacky civil engineers, eh?
Apparently this is called Immersed Tunnel 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.
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.”
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.
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!