Could an Undersea Hyperloop Train Tunnel Offer One-Hour Trips From London to New York? (newsweek.com) 168
"Proposals for a tunnel connecting the U.K. to the U.S. underneath the Atlantic Ocean have resurfaced," reports Newsweek, "but with a price tag of almost $20 trillion, the project is a big ask."
With the two global cities being over 3,000 miles apart, construction would take several years — the 23.5-mile Channel Tunnel linking England and France took six years to construct — and require significant investment. Estimates over the cost have reached as high as £15.5 trillion, the equivalent of $19.8 trillion.
However, developments in vacuum tube technology have made the concept more viable. By creating a vacuum within the tunnel and using pressurized vehicles, trains traveling along the structure could theoretically reach speeds of more than 3,000 mph, making the journey between London and New York barely an hour long. This is because trains would not face any air resistance within the tunnel, allowing them to reach higher speeds than unconventional trains. This design, which has seen new development in Indian transportation, is sometimes called a "hyperloop". Cutting the intercontinental journey down to a matter of minutes means that for the first time, the Transatlantic Tunnel justifies the hefty price tag that undersea construction comes with, as it would become significantly more efficient and environmentally friendly than flying.
While no plans are underway, it's interesting to ask whether it could even be done. Weighing in, Elon Musk "has suggested the idea of building a '£20 trillion' underground tunnel link from London to New York appears to be a genuine possibility," according to the site LADbible, "although he says he could do it for less." (On X.com Musk posted that his Boring Company "could do it for 1000X less money.") This comes after the SpaceX boss, 53, who promises to revolutionise the way we travel, said his 'Starship' rocket could be used to transport passengers to any city in the world in under an hour.
However, developments in vacuum tube technology have made the concept more viable. By creating a vacuum within the tunnel and using pressurized vehicles, trains traveling along the structure could theoretically reach speeds of more than 3,000 mph, making the journey between London and New York barely an hour long. This is because trains would not face any air resistance within the tunnel, allowing them to reach higher speeds than unconventional trains. This design, which has seen new development in Indian transportation, is sometimes called a "hyperloop". Cutting the intercontinental journey down to a matter of minutes means that for the first time, the Transatlantic Tunnel justifies the hefty price tag that undersea construction comes with, as it would become significantly more efficient and environmentally friendly than flying.
While no plans are underway, it's interesting to ask whether it could even be done. Weighing in, Elon Musk "has suggested the idea of building a '£20 trillion' underground tunnel link from London to New York appears to be a genuine possibility," according to the site LADbible, "although he says he could do it for less." (On X.com Musk posted that his Boring Company "could do it for 1000X less money.") This comes after the SpaceX boss, 53, who promises to revolutionise the way we travel, said his 'Starship' rocket could be used to transport passengers to any city in the world in under an hour.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
/betteridge
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not at the Budget Quoted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not at the Budget Quoted (Score:3)
The summary says no such thing. It says the estimates for this proposed new tunnel is $20 trillion.
The Channel Tunnel project cost a total of roughly £23 billion (2023 GBP) which is about $29 billion, i.e. 0.15% of the cost of this proposed tunnel.
Now, even considering that, it will absolutely not be a feasible project and would never recoup the investment. Ever.
We are better off spending $2 trillion into e-fuel for airliners, hypersonic travel, battery-technology and other ways to reduce emissi
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No. [And who needs it?] (Score:3)
Okay FP, but it should have been modded Funny, not insightful. Even better if there was a "too obvious" mod point.
A number of jokes got modded Funny, but the story had much larger potential for humor. Actually almost all the potential was for humor because the idea is so fundamentally stupid. Whatever the ticket costs, it will be vastly more expensive that a virtual visit. I suppose it can be VR if someone insists.
I think the insightful joke would have involved something about "And why do you think you are
One foot every 6 years (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: One foot every 6 years (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just the mid ocean ridge systems that are moving apart. Even of they weren't, it will cost much more than estimated.
The closest example is the Channel Tunnel. It experienced a 80% cost overrun. The cost overrun was partly due to enhanced safety, security, and environmental demands. Financing costs were 140% higher than forecast.
Now look at the California Bullet train. When Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his scaled for he proposed project, it was going to cost $33 billion. Now the latest estimate is $133 billion. Projected ridership is 25% less than anticipated.
So take the $20 trillion estimate and once you account for so called unforseen cost escalation and financing difficulties, it will cost the equivalent of $120 trillion. The extra interest costs are a big part of this too.
We could use the money in much more productive ways.
And when the project goes bankrupt the rest of us will have to bail it out.
Re: One foot every 6 years (Score:5, Funny)
The Titan submersible implosion is going to sound like a cod fart in comparison
Further increases - not by much (Score:2)
I doubt that going from 5,600 PSI to 5,615 is going to change much - that's only a 0.3% increase. The engineering safety factor should be around 3X anyways.
Though I'm getting closer to 5200 psi than 5600 looking at online calculators.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One foot every 6 years (Score:5, Interesting)
If, of course, you're building it on the seabed. When the extra pressure engineering needed to maintain a vacuum against water pressure will change the structural problem from one of 500 atmospheres to one of 501 atmospheres.
A slightly less insane design, avoiding having to design and build "tunnel segments" proof to 100 atmospheres, others to 200 atmospheres ... down to whatever the route's maximum depth will be, would be to "float" the tunnel segments at a convenient depth below wave-base, and at a constant pressure design for 90% + of the route. As a corollary, the consequence of an earthquake rupture at seabed (or even a surface lava eruption) would be a mild tremor running up the anchor chains, and possibly sensible to passengers through whatever "suspension" the system has. Incorporating a [design life+50%] of allowance for continental drift would be three segments with curvature greater than the great circle rate, which could be straightened at increments as the drift rate required it.
Not that the thing would get built anyway. The mythical "hour of transit time" would need an hour, minimum, at each end to go through security. By which point, you're into a time scale that Concorde couldn't make a profit at.
Same comment for freight. The engineering costs of the infrastructure would be far more expensive then the cost of putting it onto a ship with a 50 year slipway-to-scrapyard lifetime.
Re:One foot every 6 years (Score:4, Interesting)
We're probably better off trying to build an over-land route via series of man-made islands from the UK to Iceland to Newfoundland, and then only tunnel under the Atlantic coast.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That would increase the trip from about 5500 km to about 6300 km, travel time would increase from 68 minutes to 78 minutes.
Re:One foot every 6 years (Score:5, Insightful)
You would not be building an "underground" tunnel under the Atlantic ocean (or any ocean) because the pressure would crush the tube. You'd think we'd not forget what happened to OceanGate already. A Vacuum tube would be under even more pressure.
The most likely scenario is an under-water tube 100 meters down (so only 10 atmospheres, rather than the bottom of the ocean which would be 3682m or 368 atmospheres of crush depth, PLUS the vacuum.)
So this would be like connecting the UK under Iceland, through newfoundland Canada to New York. Like even one of the illustrations has the tube ABOVE the bottom of the ocean.
There is no way to build a tunnel under or on the ocean floor. The best case scenario is a floating tunnel that is ballasted to stay 100m deep, and assembled in 20m segments between land points. There would need to be concrete pillars to anchor every 250m or so to ensure the tunnel doesn't start drifting from sea currents.
Unless there is some fantastic new innovation in materials that can't be crushed, "sea floor" won't happen. Even then the mid-atlantic ridge would require one segment to flexible at all times and made of a material that can stretch and bend without affecting the train.
Like best case scenario is you have a tube-inside-a-tube. You have a concrete exterior tube underground, and then have an inner-tube that can be pressurized made out of a material that won't be crushed. Then you fill that space with a gel that will survive the crush depth, but keep the innertube from being crushed.
This doesn't solve undersea earthquakes. This doesn't solve the mid Atlantic ridge movement. Those two parts have to be solved with flexible segments (as I describe above) where you have a larger outer tube across those segments that acts like a " joint" segment. So basically instead of trying to move straight accross the ridge, you curve from west/east to a north-south and cross it in the same direction the ridge moves, so every year you can add a new segment.)
Re:One foot every 6 years (Score:5, Insightful)
Big problem is defending it. One "accidentally dragged anchor" or such and it is fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
^^^^ MOD parent up
Bigger and Stronger than a Cable (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is that, to be sure.
But I laughed when I read the headline; they couldn't manage to do make a practical, functional hyperloop on flat, dry land, but now they're going to do it underwater in the ocean, one of the most destructively harsh environments on the planet?
I mean, it's just so hilariously stupid and ungood. I wonder how much funding will be pissed away on this bullshit pie-in-the-sky scam.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much funding will be pissed away on this bullshit pie-in-the-sky scam.
Now now, this might be legitimate money laundering, give them some credit, ok?
Please stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Please stop (Score:4, Insightful)
Harry Harrison wrote about this in 1972 (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (Also published as "A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!", which is the title I remembered when I read this post.)
Spacing from Paris to New York (Score:2)
Silver sunglasses, silver phone.
Connects to someone who doesnt know, that these feelings we cant control
How many transatlantic airline tickets (Score:3)
Felon Musk is a failure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The existing Hyperloop tech is terrible and was probably just a way of derailing more light rail and subway talks.
For reference [9cache.com] about that tunnel.
Re: (Score:2)
and was probably just a way of derailing more light rail and subway talks.
This crap again?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the Boring Company didn't quite work out, so he's not batting .1000 now is he?
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean 1.000, not .1000
That said, for startups, batting .3333 is considered an excellent success rate. He's at around 0.500 I'd say.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean boring company didn't work out? I don't think that he has given up on it. You can only fail when you stop trying.
No (Score:2)
We already know hyperloop was a trick to shut down high speed rail. So what are they trying to shut down this time?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, high speed rail *should* be shut down. What should be supported is medium speed rail. Say 90-100 mph with separate grade near population centers. Aiming for "fastest possible" is a mistake. What should be aimed at it "faster, more reliable, and also more frequent:", This means that stations are no on the track, but on a side loop off the track, so you don't need to slow down if you aren't going to stop.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese high speed rail is a creation of their command economy, and it may collapse if things don't turn around:
https://eng.mizzima.com/2024/1... [mizzima.com]
Maybe I'm wrong (Score:2)
But I expect most people would be put off by the idea of being under thousands of feet of water when something goes wrong.
I don't know that it is practically different than being thousands of feet in the air when something goes wrong... but I'm betting people won't see it the same way.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost always when something goes wrong at high altitude it's the engines at fault, not major structural failure. (The Aloha Airlines "rag top" flight being both a counter-example, and a pro-example - while the roof ripped off, the rest of the structure held together until after landing and evacuation.)
Which is why aircraft extended operations over water require a minimum of two engines, and half
Re: (Score:2)
(The Aloha Airlines "rag top" flight being both a counter-example,
Others: the Swissair fire at cruise altitude, the Airbus tail snapping off in wake turbulence departing JFK, the 747 empty center fuel tank explosion, and the Germanwings pilot suicide.
Why limit ourselves to physical forms of travel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could Teleportation Offer Ten-Second Trips From London to New York?
See? It's just as likely to happen as an undersea hyperloop, but it's more fun to dream about!
Re:Why limit ourselves to physical forms of travel (Score:4, Funny)
Which form of teleportation? Magic? The elves will never allow humans to use that again..... Transporter? You'll never get FDA approval. Too many accidents. Plus the security is easily bypassed by even the most ignorant of people. Asgard Beaming Device? The licensing issues from CBS/Paramount will take decades to sort out and that's before you have a chance to convince the Asgard that we won't use it to beam a nuke somewhere.....
Re: (Score:2)
Nanny Ogg explained it best. It's quantum!
Great idea! (Score:4, Funny)
A tube maintaining an internal near-vacuum against the incredible pressures at the ocean's bottom sounds like a trivial, non-scary thing to put people inside.
I think we should give free tickets to everyone stupid enough to think it was a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
A tube maintaining an internal near-vacuum against the incredible pressures at the ocean's bottom sounds like a trivial, non-scary thing to put people inside.
I think we should give free tickets to everyone stupid enough to think it was a good idea.
Kind sir, I have witnessed your wisdom and influence among the good people and as such, an investmenter myself, have constructed a deep sea vessel for miraculous pricing and would like to offer you two free tickets to spread the joy of adventure! What do you say?!?
Will not be built anytime soon (Score:5, Interesting)
Discovery Channel had a series called "Extreme Engineering" about 10-15 years back and one of the episodes explored this idea, except the tunnel would not be the entire way but be under the surface of the water, tethered to the seafloor so it doesn't surface.
It would take time to get up to speed on the way out and then to slow down on the other end, and would add time onto the total travel time. A 10 minute acceleration to 3000 MPH from 0 would impart about 0.23g on the passengers. A 20 minute acceleration would impart about 0.11g, but would reduce the distance you'll be going at 3000 MPH. That acceleration/deceleration shouldn't be too uncomfortable for passengers ( see https://rechneronline.de/g-acc... [rechneronline.de] ).
The biggest hurdle after the massive cost of construction and maintenance, is what happens if there is an accident with a train going 3000 MPH in a tube that is in vacuum. That is a whole lot of kinetic energy that would need to go somewhere. The over-engineering required to handle just about any kind of accident, not to mention handling a leak somewhere, would be massive and expensive. Have an accident 1500 miles in, under the seafloor (assuming its buried)? Whats the contingency for something like that? Cannot evacuate to the tunnel because its a tube in vacuum. Pressurize the tunnel so passengers can transfer to some other train, and then you'll need to depressurize the tube when done. Could segment the tunnel into chunks that could be pressurized and depressurized in a reasonable time frame, but that adds complexity of airtight doors between segments that need to open/shut as trains pass through, and so forth.
And it won't be built because it will never recoup its cost. How long would it take to recoup the 20+ trillion price tag? How expensive will be the tickets? It will be competing with $1000 airline tickets from New York to London. At $1000 a ticket, that would be 20 billion tickets to make up the $20 trillion cost. Even at $2000 a ticket, that is still 10 billion tickets.
The Channel is about 24 miles long. This would be 120 times longer.
Re: (Score:3)
And one more reference. The new (well, 8 years since opening) Gotthard Base Tunnel in Switzerland took 7 years to excavate at a cost of about $10 billion USD, The boring machines started from both ends and the middle, otherwise it could have taken 10+ years. And this is a 35.5 mile tunnel, the longest railway tunnel in the world. One crossing the Atlantic would be about 85 times longer than this one.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So, no, this will never be built.
Re: (Score:3)
You'd want it under significant wave activity. The highest (non-tsunami) wave of which I'm aware was almost 200' high. To avoid that kind of wave activity, you'd need your tunnel to be anchored 600' under water or the first rogue wave to cross the ocean is going to flex your tunnel into bits. The pressure at that depth is around 270psi (if you trust Google).
The good news is that surface currents only go down to about 300', but there are deeper currents and they can have chaotic interfaces around undersea
Re: (Score:3)
That would be the "Ramopo" wave, mid-1930s? My memory is havering between 120 and 150ft (50-odd metres in real money).
There was a monster recorded on one of the North Sea platforms - Brent A? Auk? I forget. (I always found the "A" to be a wobbly fucker, no wonder it was the first of the Brents to be decommissioned.endless problems with pipe flanges springing leaks When I was on it.) Whatever, that was in the same range. Of course, all th
Re: (Score:3)
I did a quick Google, I saw one that was measured against a cliff face it happened to strike. Which honestly doesn't seem right, but yeah, there were multiples in the 100' and a couple in the 150' range if I recall correctly. I didn't dive into how they were authenticated.
Regardless, my understanding is that rogue waves are probably a lot more common than we know and mostly go unnoticed because there aren't any humans around to get scared by them. A permanent tunnel would eliminate the option of missing
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't consider the question worth the effort of Googling - and I used to get paid to work out amongst these waves.
"Against cliff face" - therefore the seabed was shallowing, approaching said cliff, which meant the wave was "feeling bottom" and was in the process of breaking. Which are not how one normally measures waves at sea - because you're not at sea, you're on the coast.
Oh, hang on, you're probably talking
Re: (Score:2)
20 trillion just to build. Factoring in maintenance and operational cost (maintaining a vacuum that big is a very hard task)
A more conventional train moving at 200 mph moving freight might be worthwhile, but that's contingent on finding enough freight that isn't just as easily loaded on a cargo ship. A 15 hr ride could still command a ticket price, either by being cheaper than air, or providing room to lie down and sleep on the trip. I imagine an overnight train leaving NY at 9 or 10 AM and arriving at Lon
Re: (Score:2)
Whats the contingency for something like that?
Given the past history of similar engineering projects needing comparable funding I believe it would be to make off with the money somehow well before that stage.
Itâ(TM)s a money funnel not a train tunnel (Score:3)
Would have to peak at 3700 MPH. (Score:3)
questions (Score:2)
Some questions
Re: (Score:2)
The "rescue" part of the operation ... you'd need to make some of the cameras thoroughhhly crash resistant, so that the splashed people can be monitored for signs of being dead in the several days for the rescue equipment to get to the incident site.
Dead people don't need expensive hospital treatment, or support in th
Sorry (Score:2)
And then ... (Score:2)
A Chinese cargo ship drags its anchor over it [asiafinancial.com] ...
Re: (Score:2)
Earthquakes (Score:5, Interesting)
missing information (Score:2)
Yes, of course (Score:5, Funny)
With the excavated material we can build ten space elevators, become a multi-planet species, and travel from New York to London in one hour.
It's simple because we have 3D printers, and computers got better so we know it's possible.
uh huh (Score:3)
What happens when a 3,000 mph train in a tunnel has a malfunction?
Stories like this seem like trolls. Lazy ass reporters looking for clickbait.
Dipshit Elon says a lot of things... (Score:2)
How fun! (Score:2)
If Leon said it... (Score:2)
1000x less? (Score:3)
One of my pet peeves.
"could do it for 1000X less money."
If something costs $100, what would its cost be if it was 1x less? At 1x less, that would be 0, right? "1000x less" is nonsense.
Even without my pet peeve, 1000x less is deranged. He's saying he could do it for $20 billion? Clearly, he's smoking much better shit than I can get.
Estimated carbon emissions... (Score:2)
The evil geniuses in control are getting more evil and geniusy by the minute. Our lives are just games to them.
Learn to walk before you run (Score:2)
The US and the UK have trouble building high-speed rail...
I'd suggest figuring out why that isn't working before taking on a $20 trillion project.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not working because we're trying to build the high-speed rail through the English countryside. There's lots of people object to trains running past their house (and object even more to having their house demolished so trains can run through it). There's lots of interesting archaeology, ancient woodland, rare wildlife and so on. Dealing with this means lots of bureaucracy, and expensive solutions like tunnels so people can't see the trains, diversions around historic sites, wildlife bridges, planting ne
Unlikely (Score:2)
Technically, it may be possible. But I doubt such a project would make it past Elon's DOGE scrutiny.
First step would be to anchor proof it (Score:2)
Lest another Chinese ship " accidentally " drag an anchor over it like they do the undersea internet cables :|
How fast is it, again? (Score:3)
Regardless I'm more than a bit skeptical. Even if the technology existed to build this quickly, the $20 trillion price tag looks like something that will quickly kill it.
I'm also really curious as to how we can decelerate from 3,000 mph in a reasonable time. There may be some physics here that I'm not familiar with but considering the forces involved in decelerating quickly from even 100 mph I have a hard time seeing how we could easily handle a quick deceleration from 3,000 (let alone 5,000).
Re:How fast is it, again? (Score:4, Interesting)
600 planes per day between USA and Europe, if we assume 550 passengers per plane, that is 330000 passengers per day. If we assume 300 euros per ticket, that is about 100 million euros per day. For 20 trillion budget, it would take 547 years to cover the costs, assuming there are no operational costs.
It might be hard to earn back the money from this.
Nuts (Score:2)
Not this bullshit again (Score:2)
As per the title, not this bullshit again...
Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop with this hyperloop horsecrap.
Idea from the 60s, still not practical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think there is another problem with the "could" part. How much iron would this require, and where would we get it from?
Just like Vegas (Score:2)
The current state of the art of the promised Hyperloop is a couple of cars fucking about in a tunnel under Vegas that can't even compete with an underground metro. The London Underground was more technically advanced in 1863. It's amazing that -ELON doesn't get sued for fraud more often.
Supermarine (Score:3)
Proposals for a tunnel connecting the U.K. to the U.S. underneath the Atlantic Ocean have resurfaced
"resurfaced" - yeah, no, that's not good for a tunnel underneath the ocean.
Last I Checked, Hyperloop Was Toast (Score:2)
The conclusion was that there is no way that anyone is going to build so perfect a tunnel that small deviations from "straight" won't make passenger's sick from the small motions of following the tube, all the way up to killing them of the tube deviates more that a tiny amount. So, what is this tube about again?
As for high speed rail, the USA is not the place for it. Americans are in love with the clearly luxurious concept of getting in their cars, leaving exactly when they want, stopping when they want
Re:Last I Checked, Hyperloop Was Toast (Score:4, Insightful)
Americans are in love with the clearly luxurious concept of getting in their cars, leaving exactly when they want, stopping when they want,
The question is: why are Americans in love with the idea of getting stuck in traffic and deciding they wanted to stop in that traffic jam all along?
This idea is more than 100 years old. (Score:3)
Pressure... (Score:2)
Consider the pressure at the bottom of the Atlantic: something around 4000 meters down. You have to reckon with water intrusion at some point during tunneling.
Color me skeptical...
Re:wat (Score:4, Funny)
In all fairness, 400 atmospheres versus 401 atmospheres is not a big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the pressure differential, because you're right that's basically irrelevant. It's about the evacuated tunnel which is already a problem for passenger safety.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be stoned to the gills on ketamine, so they wouldn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be stoned to the gills on ketamine, so they wouldn't care.
Look, not everything you read on the internet is true. We just don’t have the technology to actually implement gills in people yet.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about the pressure differential, because you're right that's basically irrelevant. It's about the evacuated tunnel which is already a problem for passenger safety.
The funny thing is the more evacuated the tunnel is, the more dangerous should it need to be evacuated.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's the first mention of the "T" word, but for sure that would be a real concern - it already is on the Chunnel, which has an escape "service" tunnel between the two track-carrying tunnels. So, you can add an hour at each end for security, and also passport control and emigration/ immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
Could be worse - it could be the Barents Sea tunnel again - but this time they remembered the problem of people getting to each end of the tunnel.
Re: (Score:2)
Aircraft compete with double-stacked, 500 car freight trains in which alternate universe.
Airfreight is a thing for high-value-per-cubic-centimetre goods. For low value, million-tonne-per-year goods, it's less of a competitor.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Musk is literally what people think George Soros is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Betteridge (Score:2)
Re: Betteridge (Score:3, Interesting)
Studies showed that Twitter suppressed left wing speech more than right even before Leon bought it with Russian and Saudi money.