
New York to London in an hour - by train - tnhu
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/new-york-to-london-in-an-hour-by-train/16456?tag=nl.e550
======
jaysonelliot
As a longtime gamer, this article really struck a chord with me. _Dragon_
magazine used to print playable adventures, and in August 1981 (I just went
and looked it up), there was a Gamma World adventure called "Cavern of the
Sub-Train."

The player characters in their post-apocalyptic world come across a abandoned
series of tunnels they can't explain, but which are described for the game
master in the notes:

 _The system once spanned the North American continent and was used primarily
as a method of high-speed transportation of freight. The sub-train system is
something like a 20th-century subway system, in that it consists of a self-
propelled train moving through an underground tunnel. Unlike the 20th- century
system, however, the “trains” moved through a vacuum while being supported on
super-conducting magnetic rails at very high speeds._

~~~
paulsutter
Thanks for your post. Having big dreams of the future is crucial to making
that future happen.

Many posts below are trying to prove how smart they by focusing on near term
impracticalities. Sure it's impractical today. That's already proven by the
fact that it is not already under construction.

The surest way to be wrong is to say something can never be done. I'm not even
advocating this is a good solution. I have no idea if it will ever be
possible. But I enjoy seeing that some people are thinking big.

------
ChuckMcM
Good luck holding a vacuum under the ocean. I read stuff like this and I
think, "Gee, I don't think these people have actually built anything." because
if they had they would realize that if it costs $1M a foot too build subways
[1] in cities with moderately skilled labor, its going to cost $10 - 25M/ft to
build something like this. That's half a quadrillion dollars (448 trillion
dollars). What sort or rate of return do you think you would need to make that
feasible?

I'd love someone to actually do a credible cost analysis of an evacuated
tunnel train. Unfortunately I don't think Oster did.

[1] [http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/01/14/the-costs-of-
second-...](http://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/01/14/the-costs-of-second-ave-
construction/)

~~~
United857
Indeed, there's already a vacuum we already have above our heads that could be
used for this purpose... i.e., suborbital space flight.

I can't imagine it'd be more expensive than tunneling 3000 miles under an
ocean.

~~~
usaar333
I doubt it is a tunnel. I imagine it'd be more like this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immersed_tube>

(San Francisco's rail connection across the bay uses this technique)

~~~
jimworm
At a fixed depth, so probably more like this:
[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Submerged_flo...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel)

------
charliepark
A much tastier version: Maciej's "Alameda-Weehawken Burrito Tunnel":
[http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda-
weehawken_burrito_t...](http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda-
weehawken_burrito_tunnel.htm)

------
ctdonath
Another megaproject supporting my theory there's a market for promoting - not
building, just promoting - projects so large, expensive and outlandish that a
small team can make a decent buck thereon. A miniscule percentage of half a
quadrillion dollars nets a few million for research, marketing & salaries.

------
_delirium
This idea's been proposed on and off for some decades, and is definitely
intriguing. The crucial problem, though, doesn't seem to be the technology per
se (though there are undoubtedly large risks there, too), but the back-of-an-
envelope economics being anywhere _near_ sensible enough for someone to
dedicate serious money to it. Before anyone is going to build a London-to-NYC
line, my guess is that you'd have to first show some kind of much smaller-
scale demonstration, like how there were test maglev lines built.

In a quick Google Scholar search, I turn up a 1974 article on "Surface-guided
transport systems of the future" (<http://dx.doi.org/10.1049/piee.1974.0277>,
unfortunately not open access), where evacuated-tube transport gets a mention,
but under this less-than-enthusiastic banner:

 _A brief mention is given of other less likely transport systems, such as
travel in an evacuated tube beneath or above the ground._

------
koenigdavidmj
Link to the BBC article instead of the blogspam:
[http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-
pipedrea...](http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-pipedreams)

Also, easy terrorist target.

~~~
geekam
What makes current train system a more difficult target than these tubes?

~~~
archangel_one
Strikes me more that the potential for damage is higher here. A pretty small
explosive charge would compromise part of the tube, and then what happens to
the pods zipping along at 2,500mph inside them when the air comes rushing in?
For that matter, if they did have an underwater tube connecting London and
NYC, the _water_ would come rushing in and you know that's not going to end
well.

It sounds pretty cool - it's the kind of sci-fi thing I'd love to see in the
real world, but I can't believe it's as easy or as cheap as they're making it
sound here.

~~~
corin_
We already have underwater tunnels for trains, such as the one between England
and France - water would come crashing in regardless of whether there is air
or a vacuum in the tunnel.

It's not _actually_ Futurama, the tunnel won't be train-sized and made of
glass.

~~~
tedunangst
The chunnel is technically under rock, not under water. It's not exposed to
the ocean.

~~~
corin_
Surely any tunnel built will be surrounded with rock/concrete as its
structure, ultimately it will still be a case of people surrounded by solid
material surrounded by water.

~~~
archangel_one
They aren't going to dig a tunnel through rock all the way underneath the
Atlantic - that's many times further than the Chunnel, and that was a serious
undertaking. The article implied it'd be underwater.

~~~
corin_
The tunnel itself will be formed of solid material, they don't need to go
underneath the sea bed they will put their own construction in. That is what
the tunnel will be, it's not just a vacuum in the middle of the water.

------
moocow01
I never have understood people's fears about getting on an airplane... this
though I'd be scared to death of. You have any unfortunate shift in the
tectonic plates (which happens daily and unpredictably) and you could be dead
in an instant.

~~~
DeepDuh
Here's how the Japanese high speed trains deal with earthquakes: They have
emergency break systems (I think its small ceramic globuli or something of the
sort) and a really good forewarning system. 2011-3-11 all Shinkansen were at a
halt when the big one hit and noone was harmes on them. I don't see why you
couldn't do the same here.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Because if the rail line cracks (which probably did appen in Japan), water
floods into your tube. Then it becomes a question of "can they rescue you
before your air supply ends" (since they would require an air supply for the
vacuum)?

~~~
DeepDuh
Oh, this post was in reply to the underwater part? Yes, I also think that this
one isn't feasible for quite some time. My reply was in response to vacuum
tubes over sea level. Right now we can't even have floating tubes anchored to
the sea ground yet; storm waves rip every anchor we can build apart (it has
been tried for wave power generators).

Vacuum tubes could probably be built deeper down where the waves aren't
strong. I actually think that earthquakes wouldn't necessarily be a problem at
that level, since everything would have to be quite flexible anyway. In order
to elevate security, I could imagine making tube sectors detachable and having
safety shutters. This way, if one sector is breached it could be sealed and
detached such that it floats to sea level. The train could even be inside if
you can control the pressure differences well enough to not kill everyone
inside (something that is well understood for jet planes).

------
kaffeinecoma
My first reaction to this was that they'd never be able to engineer a
sturdy/safe tube across the ocean. Then I thought about the transatlantic
telegraph cable
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_telegraph_cable)-> it was first
built way back in 1858. That blows my mind.

------
arjunnarayan
Much cheaper to go the suborbital flight route. Anywhere on earth to anywhere
on earth in 2 hours. Less infrastructure required. (And today anything
requiring massive governmental infrastructure commitments is doomed to fail)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-point_sub-
orbital_spac...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-to-point_sub-
orbital_spaceflight)

~~~
btilly
Cheaper? You have much greater energy losses from atmospheric drag, firing hot
gas out of your back end is far less efficient method of acceleration than
electromagnetic propulsion, and you can use regenerative braking.

In theory setting this up should be much cheaper than high volumes of
suborbital flights.

Of course neither is actually feasible.

------
ableal
The book title _A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah!_ has stuck to my memory. It's
a 1972 SF (alternate history branch) novel by Harry Harrison, featuring a
vacuum/maglev system.

More at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_tunnel>, including
reference to Goddard patents on the subject.

~~~
cpeterso
_Transatlantic Tunnel_ is a 1932 SF film about a strong-willed engineer
determined to complete an underwater train route from London to New York.

<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027131/>

------
Schweigi
There was already a proposal to do this in Switzerland. A Maglev train driving
in vacuum. Unfortunately they are not really progressing because of money and
politic reasons.

General: <http://www.swissmetro.ch/en/home> Technology:
<http://www.swissmetro.ch/en/content/technology>

------
melling
I live in NJ, about 4 miles away from my office in Manhattan and I have a 45
commute. Can anyone figure out how to solve that problem? It's a lot of fun to
kill the afternoon talking about something that's never gonna happen. In the
meantime, millions of people are wasting days a year crawling to and from
work.

~~~
DanBC
Get a pushbike. Persuade everyone you know to get a pushbike. Make them
persuade everyone they know to get a pushbike.

Start a campaign for people to only use their cars if they i) Have to or ii)
are travelling over 10 miles.

Make workplaces have facilities for cyclists. (Perhaps going as far as
treating car-parking spaces as a taxable perk). Make schools have facilities
for cyclists. Make shops have facilities for cyclists.

Persuade the bad cyclists to stop being idiots. etc.

~~~
iwejfweoifjweif
There is a river in between. You would need to bike up to the George
Washington assuming he lives in Hoboken and commute to Midtown. Either way you
go from a 45 minute commute to maybe a 2-3 hour commute if you are lucky. Even
worse since now using a bike his commute is ~20 miles instead of the 4 in the
first place.

~~~
mertd
Excuses... I don't even live in NYC and yet it took me 1 minute to find a
better option: take the ferry (bikes are allowed). <http://goo.gl/maps/ssB0>.

I bet on a good day you can cycle this route under 30 minutes including the
ferry ride.

~~~
melling
That'll cost 3x more than the bus, and it doesn't scale.

<http://www.nywaterway.com/hoboken14throute.aspx>

There are hundreds of thousands of people who cross the river every day.
Thanks for taking 1 minute. Can anyone solve the real problem?

~~~
mertd
Monthly bike pass is surely cheaper or comparable to whatever he is paying for
parking. I solved his problem.

~~~
melling
You are responding to me, the person whose problem you think you solved. I
take a bus that costs $98/month. The ferry is over $300 for a monthly pass. If
I want to take the ferry tomorrow, with my bike, for example, it'll be about
$20 for a daily round trip. My best option would be to taking a folding bike
so I can take a train. That would work on nice days.

However, what I'm really asking for is to solve the problem for the millions
of commuters. It's crazy that people waste so much time commuting.

~~~
DanBC
Cycling does not work for you because of your weird river situation.

Cycling is a solution for the millions of people who have commutes of 4 miles
without rivers in between. It's a solution for most people in most other
situations.

------
StephenFalken
I remember seeing a Discovery documentary named "Extreme Engineering: Trans-
Atlantic Tunnel" that precisely details this concept. It's available online in
five parts:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frYWTrEfPRs>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKaVQ5Tt_Zk>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zci_6AOCAo>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2c6vzcmULU>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoPI2doRkgA>

------
netrus
The Concorde made day-trips US/Europe possible, but had to face the fact that
there simply is no satisfying market for such high prices. And submarine
vacuum trains would be much more expensive than a plane on steroids.

------
mukaiji
if we can't get our shit together to connect SF to LA with what amounts to
40-years-old-bullet train technology, what makes this people think they can
get this crazy stuff done between NY and LA?

sounds a lot like my research group meetings. Lots of fascinating stuff. Zero
chance of ever making it out of the lab in the near future.

------
theallan
> In the BBC story, Oster says the train could be ready in less than 10 years.

Haha! No chance. We might not even see the new link between London and
Birmingham (HS2) before 2035, never mind one to New York!

------
Jabbles
I feel that the headline would be better if phrased as a question.

------
drudru11
This is just like Gene Roddenberry's old show Genesis II from 1973.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_II_(film)>

I saw it when I was a kid and I thought it was awesome!

~~~
gojomo
Yep, globe-spanning underground maglev/vactrains, which in the future-history
of _Genesis II_ (1973) and _Planet Earth_ (1974) had been built in the late
20th-century and survived world war to be still working over a hundred years
later.

The sci-fi of the past was way too optimistic about giant-scale engineering
projects at the same time it was blind to advances and trends in
communications and computer-mediated collaboration.

------
VDegesys
I'm absolutely fascinated by the difference in responses I see on HN versus
talking to my friends (liberal arts). They were concerned with the future
implications for cultural integrity as well as how it would effect labor
forces and capitalism as a whole. Any thoughts?

I, for one, think this technology is awesome and think it could follow the
progression that the train system went through in the US (transcontinental
railroad, expanding, webbing out, lightrail, subways, trams, metros, etc) and
see this as a possible next step in the evolution of transportation.

~~~
gaius
What is "cultural integrity"?

~~~
VDegesys
the idea of maintaining your cultural identity, rather than completely
assimilating to a dominant culture.

------
patrickgzill
No mention of nuclear-powered "subterrenes"? I am disappointed ...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subterrene>

------
flyinRyan
It seems the media blitz in the west has had the intended effect when so many
people respond to such an idea with "but turrerists!". Driving cars on the
highway is a much higher risk to your safety than terrorists ever were or ever
will be. Don't give up on the future because of paranoia and irrational fear.

------
UIZealot
Doesn't a gravity train actually seem more appropriate here? It doesn't need
to go through the center of the earth in this case, and is shorter distance
than a tunnel. The only problem is it probably takes a lot longer to build.

------
mokkai
Oh Dear! Does this mean I can no longer have quality time listening to music,
reading, watch birds etc.. during my long distance journeys.

------
akavel
Oh, sweet, a chance to link to xkcd: Researcher Translation again :D
<http://xkcd.com/678>

------
WalterBright
I wonder how they'd deal with crossing between the continental plates - the
movement of the plates, the magma, etc.

------
gouranga
When that breaks, it's going to make a mess. 6 humans in, various bits of
popped human coming out...

~~~
marshray
At 4000 MPH? There probably wouldn't be anything left. The kinetic energy in a
train going that fast would likely have military scale destructive power.

------
DHowett
Wouldn't transporting humans at 2,500 - 4,000 mph kill them? It seems like the
body would not react well to beginning or ending transit at such velocities.

~~~
techiferous
Velocity is imperceptible, since it depends on a frame of reference. For
example, I'm traveling at about 700mph around the center of the Earth because
of the Earth's rotation.

Acceleration is perceptible, because it is felt as a force. So it really
depends on how quickly people are accelerated to 2500mph. If you accelerate at
22mph per second, this is equivalent to 1G, which could be relatively
comfortable. It would take 2 minutes to reach 2500mph.

------
kleiba
What could possibly go wrong?

------
mkramlich
I've met Daryl Oster, the guy behind ET3, even contributed a few ideas crudely
sketched out on a notebook -- stuff I'm sure somebody involved had already
considered. Anyway, he seemed nice, smart, legit. I really love the basic idea
and goals of ET3. I was a little bit concerned that it wasn't farther along in
terms of implementation versus theory. But he did say that he's worked with
folks in China and they were generally much more receptive to it there,
whereas in the US there's more bureaucracy and legacy inertia. There's right-
of-way issues, NIMBY, legal stuff. I think all the edge case scenarios are
riskiest -- those need to be addressed in the design, if they can be, things
like what happens if a tube is pierced, what happens if a passenger has a
crisis and needs to get out of it quickly, etc. But the basic physics of it
are pretty attractive because of the efficiencies and economies of scale.

------
rorrr
Considering all the problems BP had plugging one hole during Deepwater Horizon
oil spill at the depth of only 1,100 m, I'd say this project is currently
science fiction.

------
jboggan
gem 'maglev', '2.3.1' gem 'vacuum', '0.2' gem 'unicorn-skittles', '3.1.4'

