Discussion on:

New York to London in an hour - by train

check out the Extreme Engineering video about this subject, program entitled "Transatlantic Tunnel"

The company claims that "construction would cost a tenth of high-speed rail and a quarter of freeways", and if you believe that, I have an evacuated bridge to sell you!

Care to explain?

It should seem obvious to even the casual observer. You just have to make a grade and lay some track for a high speed rail (concrete and/or asphalt for a highway). An evacuated transatlantic tunnel costing LESS?!?! C'mon.

It should just be common sense. No issues about pressure, weather, ocean currents, new technology, etc., with a high speed rail or highway.

I'd be nervous riding in a vacuum tunnel across the ocean. One little leak and you're in trouble. The safety standard would be so much higher compared to any issues regarding rail or highways that it would dramatically increase costs. That's not to mention the massive equipment needed to keep the tunnel in an evacuated state.

Even not accounting for the cost of developing the new technology, even if you just compare cost of construction, there's no way you'll ever convince me that such a project could be accomplished for less per mile than laying track or highways, let alone one quarter to one tenth the cost.

These sound like short sighted numbers cooked up by someone with a stake in the project. As I said, common sense would suggest otherwise.

Your assumptions put no value on the cost of the travelers time or on the environmental costs of large heavy trains on large heavy tracks that are exposed to the elements. Or the immense complexity of building ever larger, heavier, slower jets which require ever larger airports burning kerosene in the upper atmosphere and necessitate a hub and spoke topology that virtually insures that smaller markets will bear the largest costs.

The maglev technology has been in use since the 1960s. The control systems to regulate a segmented evacuated tube would not be that difficult to implement.

The Boeing 707-320 went into commercial service in 1959. It cruised at 540 kn/hr, burned 6.4 gal/mi carried 202 people, had a range of 3800 mi and its cost in 2011 dollars was $35.5M.
The Boeing 787-8 went into commercial service (sort of) in 2011. It cruises at 490 kn/hr, burns 4.4 gal/mi carries 280 people, has a range of 7800 mi and its cost in 2011 dollars is $194M.

So after 52 years and $32B in development costs (just on the 787 project not counting the 727, 737, 747, 757 767 and 777 development costs) Boeing has succeeded in building a plane that is 10% slower with 2x the range and carries 80 additional people using 49% of the fuel per person as the 1959 707.

That is pathetic. If you would have proposed that to the engineers that built those 707s back in 1959 they would have laughed you out of the freaking building.

My question to a naysayer like yourself is, ???What is your brilliant alternative plan to move people at 3-4X the speed of present day transportation at ten percent of the cost in the most environmentally safe way????

The solution certainly isn't this. And I'm all for moving people for less cost, but why does it have to be at the 3-4x the speed of present day conveyances? Nowadays we can transmit information at the speed of light. Why should we invest our limited human resources just so the 1 percent can cross the pond in less time?

You are correct transatlantic ET3 (tm) will be expensive, however more than 95% of the ET3 network will operate at 200mph to 600mph design speed, and across land -- not water. Only if ET3 networks are built to the same standard in every country can they eventually be networked together with a global backbone operating at 4k mph. This will only cross less than 100 miles of ocean (between Alaska and Siberia).

An $20k automobile with 5 seats = $4k/seat. HSR (high speed rail) costs $60k/seat. A 747 jet costs $462k/seat. The 6 seat ET3 capsules (not a train) can be mass produced using 1/8th as much material as an automobile, and cost even less on a per seat basis. HSR must be elevated for safety and air-blast issues. Elevated double track must withstand the mass of two 100 ton locomotives passing each other. Elevated double tube ET3 infrastructure must bear the weight of two 1200lb capsules for only a little over a ton of live-load. For this reason ET3 guideway requires 1/35th as much material to build as HSR infrastructure. Tubes are produced using automated equipment for much less labor cost per mile than all the "false work" needed to assemble and unassembled forms for making HSR. Detailed cost comparisons have been done between ET3 and maglev trains, ask for the spreadsheet by sending an e-mail to: et3 (at symbol) et3 (dot) com.

...with some interesting challenges as well. For example, how does one construct a deep-underwater structure that can maintain a near-complete vacuum without being crushed? Also, in order to achieve the speeds described without crushing the occupants, the path traveled would have to be almost perfectly straight. Even landscapes that are flat enough for conventional HSR would not be flat enough for this.

Planes already achieve that pressure differential. Underwater, for every 10 meters of depth you are adding one atmosphere to the pressure, the vacuum doesn't make much of a difference. You are right about the path: This contraption would only work in water.

The Transatlantic "vactrain" advocated by Frank Davidson (the founder and long time chair of the English Channel Tunnel project from start till completion), along with expert ocean engineer Ernst Frankel DOES NOT ADVOCATE DEEP WATER TUBES -- they advocate SFT "submerged floating tunnel" technology. They admit the horrific expense.

ET3 by contrast is NOT a train. The tubes are less than 1/3rd the diameter (less than 1/30th the cost) as "vactrain" tubes, and mostly will cross dry land (as most roads and railroads do). When ET3 must cross water, it could use SFT tech, OR more likely will be underground underwater (as the Chunnel is).

Even if the landscape were perfectly "flat" - conforming to the surface of the Earth - it has a radius of curvature of ~4400 miles. This works out to a constant acceleration of about .02G

Any conceivable change in altitude of the tube (short of a vertical transition) would be swamped out.

It's the stopping.

handling breakdowns, multiple capsules on the line...will the capacity be worth the construction?

ET3 is NOT a train, the design philosophy is more like an automobile operating on a freeway; but automated so the vehicle frequency can be much greater. (Just as automated telcom has much more capacity than human switchboard operators of 100 years ago). At 350mph, a single 5' (1.5m) diameter ET3 tube has the passenger capacity of 20 lanes of highway traffic (over 10 capsules per second). This is also 10 times the capacity of a high speed rail line.

Your destination will be known before you leave so they will just slow you down at the halfway point. You wouldn't only touch your top speed for a certain amount of time. Stopping shouldn't be hard.

It seems that passengers with certain health issues could be at risk. How might the technology change the precision of mechanical pumps, nano-drug delivery or effect vascular systems of compromised passengers?

Very interesting to consider the possibilities!

It wouldn't affect those devices because the passenger compartments would have to be pressurized like an airplane. If it lost pressurization, everyone would die from oxygen starvation.

The bigger problem for a system like this would be how expensive, large walled, well anchored, and straight the tunnel would have to be to prevent the passenger compartment from hitting the sides of the tunnel or subjecting the occupants to many times the force of gravity as the train went around curves at thousands of miles an hour.

I think you can solve the 'straight tunnel' problem with magnets. If the train levitates inside the tunnel, it can never hit a bump in the wall.
Concerning bends: just slow down I guess?

This thing would have to have some kind of seals to make the vacuum effective. Wondering how advanced seal technology is for something traveling that fast.

Also agree with another post that the vacuum pump would have to be huge!

There are many proven vacuum sealing and pumping technologies for ET3. Instead of large pumps, many small pumps will be used for cost scale factors, and also safe redundancy and ease of replacement without interrupting operation. Once almost all the air is removed, only some of the pumps operate intermittently to remove any air that leaks in.

If seals aren't available, then dolphins will happily help out. Besides, they are smarter than seals, so I would guess that dolphin technology is much more advanced than seal technology. And they work for fish and occasional applause!

Most (over 95%) of the global ET3 network will operate at 200mph to 600mph speed, and be above ground for much less cost. Underground ET3 is at least 3 times the expense of elevated structure. At higher speed than about 600mph, most ET3 will be underground to achieve the straightness required for passenger comfort. Higher speed ET3 must be actively aligned to automatically compensate for normal earth movements, for these reasons the cost will be much greater, (but the capacity will also increase by approximately the same factor).

It would seem that maintaining the vacuum would consume a lot of energy, and you'd have to do it throughout the entire length of the tube at all times.

how much the cost of electricity would be to run the magnetic rails in the tube as well as the vacuum pump. That is one heck of a carbon foot print for only six passengers.

Cars in the US move over 50 times more passengers than trains, and over 10 times more passengers than jumbo jets (typically 1 to 6 people at a time). The carbon production can be virtually eliminated by using renewable energy sources. ET3 can provide 50 times more transportation per unit of carbon production than electric cars or trains. For the record, ET3 uses HTSM (high temperature superconductor maglev). HTSM suspended ET3 capsules will require less than 10 cents worth of cooling per hour per capsule for the maglev energy cost.

It's like those bank teller tubes! Except really long and with people!

Cool concept, but I doubt the execution will be cost-effective for long distances.

Twice my money got trapped inside one of those tube transport at Providence Savings Bank, not a very good experience. I can just imagine what it would be like for human occupants riding in one of those cars. Sort of like being trapped on top of a burning sky scrapper waiting to be rescued.

http://www.davidevans.googlepages.com

Teller tubes use air pressure differences to propel the capsules. You are correct to guess they are not effective over distance over a mile or so. ET3 by contrast relies on elimination of virtually all air in the tubes, and is propelled by LEM (linear electric motors).

This is an economic problem not technical.

Passenger trains have been mostly displaced by the much better VALUE (benefit/cost ratio) offered by automobiles/roads, and aircraft. Passenger trains would not survive in the market except for gross government subsidy that props up the failed economics.

By contrast ET3 is focused on maximizing transportation value for most passenger AND cargo transportation. As a result of greater value, ET3 will naturally displace cars and jets, just as cars and jets displaced trains (and as trains displaced muscle power 150 years ago). It's all about the economics!

How are the passengers maintained at normal atmospheric pressure and air flow, the slightest over or under pressure would destroy their lungs instantly. to have a self contained independent air supply would be heavy and bulky even for emergency use. Which brings to the point of breakdown 500 miles + from either end with no access points say within 100 miles how do you get them out as the tube would be blocked by their car( mechanical stuck fast) so air powered car of similar type would not work to get to it and even if you did get to it how do you get in and get passengers out. No insurance company would touch it without these answers so back to the drawing board as they say.
While I am here This may interest London underground users that travel to terminal 4 at London Heathrow airport (LHR). I was told by an electronic systems suppler at the time of building, that the surrey fire brigade( not London) rescue service did an exercise to get to people trapped in a train in the tunnel if the incident was half way along the firemen would not have enough air in their breathing apparatus to get to the train and BACK again. It would not be possible to carry extra cylinders due to weight of other equipment they would have to take with them and would not be able to give air to passengers. So smoke filled train no survivors. It was kept quite at the time but I wonder what the plan is now???.

While "vactrains" do not address the issue of passenger escape and rescue from long tunnels, ET3 does -- read the patent !

I'd be real nervous a thousand feet underwater in a vacuum tube. What happens if a ship sinks and falls right on the tube?

What happens if a plain crashes and falls right on a tunnel?
Nothing, it's underground

I hope you are not serious when you make this comparison. The sinking ship can settle directly onto the tube. The crashed "plane" will still be on the top of the mountain or on the side of the mountain. Although the integrity of the tunnel may also be compromised.
Between the cost of the development, cost of building, maintenance issues, emergency issues, this will not happen in our lifetimes.
What about the faults, earthquakes, tsunamis, fire in that oxygen rich atmosphere? Great idea, logistically not feasible.

To set the record straight, neither the transatlantic "vactrain" proposal, or ET3 advocate deep water tubes. Aim first, then fire (research and learn before commenting).

Well, before speculating on the doability of a 2500mph train, get your facts right about todays' trains. Just under 200mph, hmm?? In the US, maybe, but trains travel way faster than that in civilized countries (France, Germany, Japan, even China). 200+mph was was could be done some 60+ years ago in Europe... Wake-up America !!

There few trains that regularly approach 200mph, and when they do it's only for short periods of time. And in case you weren't paying attention, China's much ballyhooed HSR project is a scandalous tragedy with massive fraud and poor technology. In the "civilized" countries, HSR is subsidized at great cost, allowing the wealthy speed and comfort paid for by the humble masses. Whenever I travel in Europe, I thank the European taxpayers with a much lower standard of living than I who subsidized my ticket.

As far as I am concerned, railroads and public transportation are a public matter, much like roads. If I follow your reasoning, I am using my bike to commute, so why should my taxes pay for the decent roads you drive on? Same reason as European taxpayers are paying for decent railroads.

HSR is a very expensive way to get around. (Don't confuse HSR with traditional rail, which is very efficient; most HSR fans like to tout traditional rail stats in place of real HSR figures)

Don't get me all wrong; I love to travel via rail and wish it did exist in the US. The problem is that the promoters of HSR rain here have to lie, cheat, and steal in order to sell it which tells me that it's wrong. If it was such a great deal, that wouldn't be the case.

Take the "public transportation" they are attempting to build in California from LA to SF; on a per-passenger basis it would be cheaper just to buy every person a first-class ticket on an airline, and get between the two places in a third of the time.

If "public transportation" didn't universally equate "inefficient" and "expensive boondoggle", I'd be more likely to agree with you.

I don't know much about the LA-SF HSR, but in France, railroad companies are making lots of profits. In Europe again, a 600mi trip by train is ~50euros. The same trip by plane is 3 to 4 times more expensive. And for reasonably short distances (600miles), I'd rather take a fast train at 250mph (2h30 - 3h trip), with Wifi connection, more leg room etc, than go to the airport, and the hassle of check-in procedures, security check-points, tiny seat, no signal, etc... The flight itself is faster, but door-to-door, it's pretty much the same (not for longer distances like NY-LA, I agree). But again, the railroad network is much denser in Europe.

Not to mention that trains use a lot less energy than planes (specially electric trains)

Again, advocates of HSR tout the efficiencies of conventional rail when selling HSR. You might be able to take a conventional coach train for 50 euros, but I usually pay much more to go far shorter distances on HSR.

Obviously you missed the news a few months ago about the TSA expanding their mission into other forms of transport beyond just airports. It's only a matter of time until they make taking a train as miserable as they make taking a plane.

HSR uses far more energy than conventional rail. In fact, HSR is more carbon-intensive than even automobiles. A British Department of Transport study from 2007 (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/researchtech/research/newline/carbonimpact.pdf/) found that when all factors are considered, on a per-seat basis HSR is no more carbon efficient than automobiles. (Inter-city buses won out on efficiency) The more carbon-efficient rail is traditional rail, but then again mostly not in Europe but in Japan. And the only reason that it is so in Japan is because they literally cram people on trains like sardines. (That's hardly a selling point that would go over well in America)

Correct - but in America you would be packing them in like hippopotamus's...

What are you, like 5 years old?...ok, now go play and let the grown ups talk.
And btw plural for hippopotamus is either hippopotamuses or hippopotami not hippopotamus's.

Why on earth are you comparing HSR, where you can travel large distances in about 1/4 of the time you could by car, with driving?

Driving isn't an alternative in these scenarios, and I didn't see anybody claiming that HSR is more efficient than driving either....

If you're going to make comparisons, compare to EQUIVALENT services, not services which take you there in 4x the time and cost you far more (petrol and car maintenance will far outweigh any rail costs).

What's more, the study you linked (which I haven't looked at) you claim only says that HSR is AS EFFICIENT as driving - I'd say that's damn good since it's also cheaper and faster - where's your point? Here's a quick counter point:

'Even using electricity generated from coal or oil, high speed trains are significantly more fuel-efficient per passenger per kilometer traveled than the typical automobile because of economies of scale in generator technology'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#cite_note-28

Lets make a comparison with services which are actually equivalent shall we, such as flying? I've already provided some stats for that so I think we know where that discussion is headed.

When traveling in Europe I always prefer the trains over planes. In most cases it saves me a whole lot of wasted time, energy and cost of commute to and fro the airport.

What with the current anti-terrorist check-in requirements of 3 hours before flight time, having to pay $ 60/- for checked in luggage, not being able to carry with me half the stuff I need for my trip. I can go on and on.

You spout absolute drivel.

Since I actually live in a country with HSR and use it weekly, I am far more informed than you about the costs. You can go to other countries, return, (lets say 5 hour journey) by train for less than 40 Euros with a weeks notice. A comparable flight cost would be 150-200 EUR. It's cheap, it's fast, it's convenient, and like the other poster stated door-to-door it's actually as good or better than flying.

By comparison, the US (And I see I was correct in my assumption you were from there - lol) has an absolutely atrocious train network and relies on planes for travelling similar distances. I wonder if you even remember that the original comment was simply a perfectly logical, correct guy just pointing out that lots of trains go over 200 MPH regularly. He didn't say it was the most efficient, he didn't say the promoters were angels who never lied, he didn't say it has a low carbon footprint, he didn't comment on which taxes paid for it, he didn't bring up standards of living. You're on a completely irrelevant rant, and what's worse is - all of your ranting is completely incorrect.

A useful comparison in terms of efficiency is Eurostar vs Flying (UK to Paris). The journey by train consumes 22 KG C02 per customer. The journey by plane consumes 244 KG C02 per customer. So you're ranting on about efficiency, carbon footprint, costs, taxes and standard of living yet your own system is more expensive, less efficient, larger carbon footprint, and your country has a lower Consumer price index than the majority of Europe. You need to get yourself educated before you continue spouting such uninformed nonsense.

Don't you meant that both train and aircraft PRODUCE CO2 in emissions since Carbon dioxide is a by by-product of use of fossil fuels and not CONSUMES? if aircraft or trains would Consume CO2 or any combustion engine as a matter of fact we would have a much cleaner environment don't you think so?

What is the real per ticket cost when all of the government subsidies are factored in?

You are correct the US passenger rail is pathetic compared with Europe and Asia rail. And this is one reason the US economy is more favorable (witness the lower CPI, and greater GDP). The US has waisted less than $40B on train subsidy, while EU and Asia spend far more per passenger to subsidize train passengers.

Passenger trains in the US carried over 90% of intercity travel in 1910, now they carry less than 2%. In spite of much greater government subsidy for passenger trains in Europe and Asia, rails market share continues to shrink. Cars now are over 70% of passenger miles in EU, and 60% in Japan in spite of the governments spending over 50 times more per passenger mile for train travel than for road and air travel.

Private industry requires positive ROI (return on investment) to survive. Negative ROI is why passenger rail systems are not privately funded, built, and owned .(as they where 150 years ago when they offered better value than the alternative -- muscle power).

Government pays 100% of the construction cost, 100% of the vehicle cost, and typically from 1/3 to 2/3rds of the operating expense. The ONLY HSR (high speed rail) in the world recovering more than 100% of it's operating expense is in Japan (and this is only because the government wrote off 100s of billions in debt, AND punishes car owners with 100% vehicle tax, and 300% fuel tax and road tolls that recover more than the road cost (and still cars gain market share in Japan too).

The fact is that passenger trains only survive due to gross government subsidy, AND oppressive fees on cars, roads, and air travel.

ET3 offers much greater value than ships, trains, cars and jets for about 90% of passenger and cargo transportation. For this reason ET3 will displace cars and aircraft just as cars and jets have displaced passenger trains.

VACUFLOW Technology
The vacuum sewerage system is a dry weather system which means that rain water may not be connected. The VACUFLOW System requires no use of so called inspection points. The most characteristic features of the VACUFLOW Technology is the guaranteed simultaneous suction and transport of sewage and air through a closed pipe network under constant negative pressure and its highly sophisticated, empiric adjusted, friction and static loss calculations in pipe lines.
In addition, the VACUFLOW system is virtually maintenance and because it operates within a closed and leak proof vacuum system, the environment will benefit too. No sewage can escape to pollute surrounding areas.
The vacuum system is perfect for a wide range of applications, particularly where expensive and tractate construction work is to be avoided. Think of areas under ground fill or shallow topsoil as well as areas with a high water table or where the environment is fragile.
For more please contact : http://www.quavac.com

Such ignorance. There are numerous trains in several countries which regularly go over 200 mph and they do so for sustained periods of time. Noting China (one of the several) and any flaws in their 'project' is completely irrelevant to the original point.

Talking about tax, standard of living, and comparing countries could also not be any more irrelevant and ignorant.

Since you began the discussion, lets clarify that the cost of living in the majority of European countries is far, far lower than that in the United States, I am assuming that's where you live since you have unbelievably unfounded and incorrect arrogance and make such false assumptions? Feel free to correct that if I'm wrong. To clarify, Norway, Switz, Denmark, Belgium, Ireland, Netherlands, Iceland, Sweden, UK, Finland, France, Austria, Italy, Greece, and Germany all have a better Consumer Price Index than the USA - and most of them better than Canada too.

Now Cost of living, while being the primary factor, is clearly not the only factor in 'Standard of living' - which actually has no technical definition, but take any given European country that you've been travelling and 'thanking their tax payers' and the chances are they have a higher standard of life than you do.

Not quite.

Post WW II rail in Europe was dominated by express trains running between 90 and 110 mph. The legend of affordable, fast European rail was built on these trains.

The fastest and most widely used of the day were the A4s which ran until the mid 1960s. They had a top speed of 126 mph that left the record holding engine damaged. They could do 100 mph with a full train on a regular schedule. The last, the Perigrine, retired in 1966.

Many diesel/electrics built in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s were capable of doing better than 120 mph, but none were verified faster than one that did 148 mph in 1987.

There was the electric French Jeumont-Schneider BB 9004 that did 206 mph in 1955 pulling only 3 cars. It was incapable of doing over 200 mph with a full size train. The 206 mph run was a publicity stunt. Only 2 were ever built.

200 mph was not broken by a train again until the first TVG in 1981 did 236 mph. It was the first train model that could do just over 200 mph on a regular basis.

The BB 9004 that reached 206mph was pulling 3 cars only, each with 50-100 people, true. The advertised 2,500mph train is actually a 6-person pod. More like a big car than a train really...

Not to mention the technical challenges to be expected (cf the difficulties to built the LHC ring). All this in less than 10 years for a tenth of current costs?? How could a train based on magnetic levitation and a vacuum tube be less expensive than normal magnetic trains, which are already a lot more expensive than "regular" trains ?? When it looks too good to be true, it probably is... very unfortunately I must say.

I'm sure that terrorists would find this a very inviting target. Security would be most difficult to monitor. No thanks, I'd rather fly.

A bomb on a plane is going to ruin your day just as much as a bomb on the vacuum train will.

a lot harder to bring a bomb aboard an aircraft then it would be to place one somewhere along the tube, it would not take that much of a charge to implode a tube that contains a vacuum.

Because airplanes don't have exactly the same pressure differential?

It doesn't take much of an explosion to cause the same havoc on an aircraft either. The difference is, an aircraft fuselage has to be lightweight - a tunnel like that being suggested would be substantially more robust.

Furthermore - the security checks in terms of bombs will certainly be at least as stringent as they are for planes.

A vacuum in a tube that has to pull a "car" across the Atlantic would have much greater outside force of pressure than an aircraft has inside "cabin" pressure. So of course the tunnel would be more robust, that does not change the fact that it is more vulnerable to hostile intentions than an aircraft. and I never said that the security at the stations would be less stringent that that of an airport! I was saying that that security pretty much ends after the station once the tube descents into the depths of the ocean.

Also we do NOT advocate crossing deep oceans with ET3. The best place to cross is the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia. It is less than 100 miles, and less than 100 m deep. ET3 will be underground at this point (just like the Chunnel, and the bigger tunnel from Japan to Hokido).

Steel wheel trains can be derailed by terrorists without explosives, for instance with a bar of thick steel cut into a wedge shape (placed on a curve), or a portable cutting torch -- no illegal explosives needed. Roads, tunnels, and bridges are all at similar risk to explosives as ET3. Fortunately over 99% of transportation death is NOT due to terror.

I wonder how many more times the 'BBC' could have been mentioned in the article.

This reminds of that Donald Fagen song IGY.
"90 minutes from New York to Paris"

With the federal regulations and everything...this will never leave the speculation stage...at least not for a hundred years or so!
And come-on folks...Here in the shadow of the Nation's capitol, we are trying to extend the Metro rail 8 miles....8 miles people...and already cost over-runs are going to push this out past 5 billion (that's BILLION...with a "B") dollars! By the time it is all said and done, there is speculation that this 8 mile over land low-speed commuter rail will cost in excess of 1 billion dollars per mile...
With this kind of cr@p, how the heck are we to take a story like this seriously? Impossible I say...

Getting to 2500 mph in 2 minutes, cruise at 2500 mph for about 56 minutes and then slowing down for another 2 minutes is reasonable. Electrically driven linear motors could do it. The vacuum can be created and maintained without too much trouble, just have a large turbine engine suck the air out. The tube would have to be pretty straight and very gently curved. My guess is that like the English tunnel it is 3 side-by-side two larger ones and one smaller service tunnel. Not sure what that buys you with the vacuum though.

the real question is what are the economics of building it and operating it compared to the next best thing, like airplances. Jets require no tube, rails and vacuum, only endpoint services like an airport. I am thinking an advanced semi-ballistic rocket flight up 20 miles or more and then gliding to a landing might be cheaper.

I like this discussion on cost, terrorism tunnel etc. while simple mecanic show that this project is unrealistic.
Distance NY to London 3475 miles. In 56 minutes you cross only 2333 miles at 2500m/h
To reach the speed of 2500 m/h in 2 minutes, the acceleration should be in the range of 1117m/s??, that is 113 times the earth acceleration. Who can stand that acceleration?
Form me this project is totaly unrealistic and it is good fun to read the discussions.
Jacques

We will do 1 G of acceleration for 120 seconds.
1 G = 32 feet/sec/sec
So 32 * 120 = a velocity of 3,840 ft/sec
or
13,824,000 ft /hour
or
2,618 MPH

Perhaps 1 G is too high an acceleration.
If we instead do 1/2 G then it takes 4 minutes to reach 2,618 MPH

I believe my calculations are correct

Yes, you are right about acceleration. To reach 2500m/h in 120 sec. the acceleration is 9.31m/s*s. When up tospeed, the train has crossed 41.66 miles.
However the distance from London to NY is 3475 miles. Obviously you cannot cover this distance in 56 minutes at 2500m/h. Right ?
Jacques

I read this story. It was by Jules Verne and was called "An Express of the Future". He came up with the idea of the transatlantic tunnel. Wikipedia has the details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_tunnel

How can you patent an idea that belongs to Jules Verne's from 1888?

However, building Jules Verne's idea and being the owners and sellers of it makes sense. I just wouldn't give out a patent.

You ask how can he patent an idea of a transatlantic tunnel? The answer is he can't, which is why he didn't..

What he DID patent is the specific technology being suggested to make this idea a reality - one of several technological methods which could be used.

I remember this from an old sci-fi film - Genesis II by Gene Roddenberry. Any movement in the Earth's crust would move the tunnel. If the passenger compartment slams into the break, forget about it.

Thousands of roads and bridges cross fault lines. Occasionally an earthquake (plate tectonic movement) occurs that causes one to fail, and a few people to die. The amount of deaths is less than a 0.01% as much as annual automobile accident deaths. The major safety focus of ET3 is doing something about want kills 99.9% of people in transportation -- failure to control the vehicle, and failure to control the conditions of travel.

One of the experts on the ET3 design team is Dr. Kumada a top physicist in Japan. He has studied the ample quake data and concures that ET3 can be actively aligned faster than the earth is capable of moving, and that while crossing fault lines with ET3 will cost more, it will not represent great risk. (NOTE: the Alaska pipeline crosses the Danali fault, there was a major movement (over 1 meter) and no oil was spilled.

And just how do you handle seafloor spreading??

Systems like this have been proposed since the 1930's. This one will probably go down with the rest.

You can build a 6 person maglev for much less than a full size maglev train. The 5' tube is about the size of some neighborhood drainage pipes.

Someone understands scale cost factors! An $20k automobile with 5 seats = $4k/seat. HSR (high speed rail) costs $60k/seat. A 747 jet costs $462k/seat. The 6 seat ET3 capsules (not a train) can be mass produced using 1/8th as much material as an automobile, and cost even less. HSR must be elevated for safety and air-blast issues. Elevated double track must withstand the mass of two 100 ton locomotives passing each other. Elevated double tube ET3 infrastructure must bear the weight of two 1200lb capsules for only a little over a ton of live-load. For this reason ET3 guideway requires 1/35th as much material to build as HSR infrastructure. Tubes are produced using automated equipment for much less labor cost per mile than all the "false work" needed to assemble and unassembled forms for making HSR.

I am continually amazed at all the "experts" who comment about the impossibility of ET3 on online blogs (notice that very few of them use their real names). If they would just read the et3 websites (dot com and dot net) and or look up the first patent (US 5,950,543) they would be able to make credible arguments. I am also amazed at the poorly researched "reporting", and the dozens of "reporters" who have never talked with me (including the BBC "reporter" referenced in this article. et3 (at symbol) et3 (dot) com

i just wish there WAS a train here, i have to drive 109 miles every day, id gladly take an old steam train if it meant i didnt need to drive as much.

sure trains go through town all the time...carrying grain, or semi trailers, or livestock...no people.

as for this train, sounds nice but ocean pressures already pose the risk of implosion, increase the pressure differential and you increase the risk. add to that the need to keep this tube air-tight at all times (hence why they dont wanna go places that get hot and/or freeze bad on rubber o-rings) and the process of constantly pumping out the air (as an aside though subways have similar issues...constantly fighting against encroaching groundwater)

as for getting in and out of the train, probably have an air-lock.

overall kinda nice but a maintenance nightmare

O-rings in jet engines occasionally fail and have lead to explosions or fires resulting in crashed aircraft. This is one reason they will not likely be used for ET3 seals. Have you ever considered how the old style "picture tube" type of TV could maintain 10ee-7 Torr vacuum (a thousand times higher quality vacuum than needed for ET3) for 30-40 years with only rare failure?

Unless I missed it, no one seems to have considered what it would do to the human bodies in this train to be traveling at 2,500mph for an hour. This would go way beyond jet lag! I can't imagine anyone voluntarily signing up for this transport, or am I suffering from a lack of imagination?

Remember that what affects a body in motion is relative changes in motion. We're all travelling thousands of miles an hour already through space, and we're fine

In other words, it is acceleration or deceleration which we actually feel, not the constant speed we're travelling at. The only exception is when you can feel the consequences such as air resistance. So, if this train were to accelerate gradually, lets say at the same rate as a car would (but for longer) - it would expose you to forces no stronger than a car.

Also, Jet lag has nothing to do with how fast you travelled - jet lag refers to being exposed to the time difference when you go from one country to another (so what was your night becomes day - so you're tired).

This train idea sounds way more expensive than they are saying BUT it would be the perfect transport system if you are worried about terrorism. Right now, it is impossible to protect the thousands of miles of track a conventional train uses and it is prohibitively expensive to install anti-missle systems on every aircraft. This train would only have to be protected at the stations.

Ya, and the same TSA agents at our airports would be screening rail passengers in these train stations. Why the author brought mentions "and getting to, from and through airports is very time consuming" seems stupid. This technology offers nothing new ito solve those head aches.

With ET3, small access portals are distributed along the tubes like exits on a freeway. It is said that 90% of Americans reside within 15 minutes of a Walmart store. A typical international airport serves a population of about 5 million people. 100 ET3 access portals can be economically distributed over the same 5 million population for one access portal for 50k people (about like the frequency of Walmart stores).

A typical American is more than an hour from an airport, and the last airport built in the US was DIA at a cost of $4.8B

$4.8B could build as much as 1600 miles of double tube ET3 system with a 400mph design speed-- serving a larger area than the typical airport.

security would be a huge issue, not just around the stations, it is fairly easy and inexpensive to create a charge and take it down to a depth of 1000ft, remember that it will only take a detonation anywhere near the tube to cause a catastrophic implosion, it does not have to be so precise as to detonate it on the tube.

You're right but you forget that this tube wont just be sat on the ocean floor, it'd be 10's, 100's of meters underground, and probably reinforced with metres and metres of outer material to act as a shield against what you describe. It will probably also have constant surveillance.

to destroy than an airway route. However surveillance of a trans Atlantic tube would be nearly impossible and even if so trying to respond to a threat that is a 1000 miles from any shore is all but impossible, there is not enough manpower to respond to a threat, and I am not so sure about it being underground in the Atlantic ocean where depths can reach several thousand meters.

High Speed Rail (and super motorway and bridge) infrastructures are easier to target than ET3. For starters, a single 1200 passenger train has 200 times more people on it than a single ET3 capsule. At the same passenger/hour use factor, ET3 has less than 1/30th the concentration of passengers exposed to a localized event (like a bomb). A terrorist cannot target a specific capsule with a high-power rifle or SAM missile) (as they can a train or jet). All modes are exposed to terror, fortunately terror is responsible for less than 1% of transportation fatalities. All this has been discussed in detail by experts on the "International Maglev Board".

Hollow out a cannon projectile. Put live mouse inside. Shoot the the projectile 20 miles into a lake. Find the projectile. Open the projectile . Examine the mouse. Ha Ha Ha.

Okay, you say accelerate slowly... Fine. If the tube is not straight as a gun barrel, the passengers will be squeezed against the cabin walls by g-force during any bends in the tube.

Keep dreaming... Better yet... Buy their stock... Buy their licenses.

As you said - a train would accelerate slowly, so cannon example is irrelevant.

Chances are they WOULD build it straight too, so that eliminates g-force as a problem.

So what's the problem?

Don't open the window! If the car you're in starts leaking, say goodbye to your blood supply.

Think about building this train like any other train has ever been constructed. This will be a whole new animal. It will not be so far underwater that it will be crushed, but it will be deep enough to avoid surface disturbances. It will make use of simple bounacy compensators to maintain equalibrium.

The major problem will be economics and terrorism. How many people can they move with one tunnellvision even if it has two trains moving opposite directions 24/7. Will people pay? What will the ROI be even with full ridership and will it come close to the R.O.I? Sticky widget.

:

Money, money, money, makes the world go around.

I understand there is a hotel named London right in New York city. There must also be several "Londons" (towns and cities) in USA and
Canada (e.g. London, Ontario),

Hi,
GoogleEarth tell me the distance between thos 2 towns : 3475 miles.
How come a train running 2500 m/h can join the 2 cities in ONE hour ?
Did I miss something ?
Jacques

Needs to be train size tunnel - the capital cost is huge and you need to shift thousands of posteriors per hour to pay. And ideally it does freight containers too.

Will need aircraft standard safety engineering for leak detection, power failure, pressurisation on vehicle.
Speed - supersonic and complete vacuum could be stage 2 after 1psi and 600 mph which aerodynamic design easier and standard aircraft pressurisation kit.
And lets build one on land first for a few years testing.

What a great idea...I hate traveling...


http://www.freeinventions.info/

Will they also supply the TSA service that you get at the airports?? i like to get a nice feel up before my flight

Will i get the TSA service???????? at the airports you get a nice feel up before your trip

This article is poorly researched; ET3 is NOT a train (or vactrain). The article also improperly uses ET3 artwork to illustrate the work of others.

The focus of ET3 is on travel over distances of 200 to 600 miles. Only if all nations build ET3 to the same standard can it be networked together with a backbone built across the Bering Strait.

ET3 does not advocate deep water tubes to cross oceans. We suggest reading et3.com and et3.net and also look up US patent 5,960,543 BEFORE making comments about what ET3 is NOT.

A maglev train costs about 20% more than conventional HSR (high speed rail), and a "vactrain" (like swissmetro for instance) costs about three times more than a maglev train. ET3 by contrast costs less than 1/10th as much as conventional HSR, 1/13th the cost of maglev trains, and 1/35th the cost of a vactrain.

Donald Fagen's penned 'I.G.Y' (International Geophysical Year), describing a utopian view of the world from 1957. The lyrics:

On that train all graphite and glitter
Undersea by rail
Ninety minutes from New York to Paris
Well by seventy-six we'll be A.O.K.

He was a few years off in the prediction (I'm still waiting for maglev cars myself), but he got the basics right.

Great. The world is ready for fast efficient inter-continental train travel, and here in the US we have made the train look like a dinosaur. Still disinterested? Still confused about the trains future?

Train technology needs to be supported on a bi-partisan level for our nation to move forward. Politics it seems has destroyed our country. Please wake up.

While I think long distance travel is a nightmare with jets spewing their pollution at high levels. They should be looking at fixing the problem of Work Commuters, you want to talk about sucking fuel and pollution to move one person to work (in the West) and our antiquated Rail (in the east) They should be investing in systems like Skyweb Express by Taxi 2000 why aren't our powers to be investing in systems like this where you control your carbon output at a single source and move millions of people efficiently. People have many reasons for long distance travel, I feel that solution is the real vacuum of Space, Up then down at your destination. I think Virgin-Atlantic is at the forefront of this, he is playing with it now but the studies with propulsion are advancing quickly. Especially when they figure out Higgs-Boson, moving atoms through atoms without damage.

Its a technology which will overcome technical complexities such as magnetic levitation, ocean currents & pressure, sea traffic movements, massive infrastructure, complex vacuum systems, extreme emergencies, massive rescue efforts, an unknown number of engineers, cost overrun, unforeseen events. Still it may be achievable, but let us first implement Maglev tech in existing rail network by making it cheap.

but I wouldn't want to be the guy taking the first ride.