London to New York in 54 minutes!

[Brown, Jon Brow]

So, if you could take the train from New York and in less than an hour reach London, would you do it? What if you had to make the journey through a tunnel 150 feet under the Atlantic? And on a magnetically levitated train traveling at 5,000 mph?

I think it's an incredible idea. The 'tunnel' would be a 3,100-miles long. At top speed, the train would travel faster than a bullet fired from a gun. The train would be able to reach such a high speed as a result of the lack of friction and air resistance.

Problems? Well it would cost *cough* around $12 trillion :eek: and take decades to build. Also, in this computer age we live in we can go across the Atlantic in less than a second via the internet.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_tunnel
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/engineering/transatlantictunnel/interactive/interactive.html

[555-04Q2]

Problems?

Well yeah! If the brakes fail, you're F*&^%d !!!!!

[BDunnell]

You bet I'd go on it, although it's a shame that you wouldn't see much. Perhaps they could have big screens instead of windows, showing moving pictures of a slow journey through the English countryside, or the Swiss Alps, or something as you actually travelled at 5,000mph.

[PuddleJumper]

I hear Connex are bidding to operate the franchise. :p :

[Mark in Oshawa]

I am all for it...other than the cost, what is really the negative here?

[Sleeper]

No, I'd wait untill they finnish developing the Scram jet, you'll get their just as fast but you'll be able to see more (like half the world). It should be cheaper to develop as well.

[luvracin]

Well yeah! If the brakes fail, you're F*&^%d !!!!!

And can you guess what would be the last thing to go through you mind if that happened??....

Yep thats right... Your AR#E!!!!!! :D

[Erki]

Where's the hurry?

[tinchote]

Where's the hurry?


That's the point. At a certain point, you start thinking how much is people's time worth. How much would a ticket cost in that thing?

Reducing the trip from almost a month to 5 days was a huge improvement. Reducing it from 5 days to 6 hours was a huge improvement. I'm not sure if reducing it from 6 hours to 1 hour is really worth it.

[jim mcglinchey]

mmm can't see it featuring on Great Railway Journeys of the World...besides is it actually possible to comfortably accelerate to 5000 mph and then to decelerate to 0 mph in 54 mins while enjoying a few cocktails in the bar?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

mmm can't see it featuring on Great Railway Journeys of the World...besides is it actually possible to comfortably accelerate to 5000 mph and then to decelerate to 0 mph in 54 mins while enjoying a few cocktails in the bar?

Because it would be a maglev train it would be as smoother than flying. It would take 18minutes to accelerate and 18 minutes to decelerate in order to reduce the G-forces, plus the chairs would be specially designed to reduce G-forces.

[tinchote]

mmm can't see it featuring on Great Railway Journeys of the World...besides is it actually possible to comfortably accelerate to 5000 mph and then to decelerate to 0 mph in 54 mins while enjoying a few cocktails in the bar?


(sorry, this will be metric, too lazy too translate to imperial)

If you accelerate at one g, that's 9.8m/s per second, or 35km/h per second. So, to achieve a speed of 8000km/h you need 8000/35=228 seconds (less than four minutes). If they were going to accelerate in 18 minutes, they can achieve that with less than .25g, I don't think you need special seats for that. Were are talking about way less than the acceleration of a sports car.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Where's the hurry?

If mankind took that attitude to everything then we would still be living in caves and still be afraid of fire ;)

[Erki]

If mankind took that attitude to everything then we would still be living in caves and still be afraid of fire ;)

What's wrong with living in caves? :) And were we afraid of fire? (I'm not too good at history)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

What's wrong with living in caves?

They don't have front doors, so bears can walk straight in ;)

[Drew]

Smells like the Channel tunnel all over again.

Can we really travel that fast in a train? ;)

I guess it would certainly do alot for global warming and if it were between London and New York it would pump even more money into both cities.

[Mark in Oshawa]

(sorry, this will be metric, too lazy too translate to imperial)

If you accelerate at one g, that's 9.8m/s per second, or 35km/h per second. So, to achieve a speed of 8000km/h you need 8000/35=228 seconds (less than four minutes). If they were going to accelerate in 18 minutes, they can achieve that with less than .25g, I don't think you need special seats for that. Were are talking about way less than the acceleration of a sports car.


First off, my hat is off to you to do the math on that for us non-calculus gifted souls. It would be one heck of a ride.....

As for those who think it isn't worth cutting down the time, you obviously would miss out investing in such ideas such as tires, gas engines and airplanes as ideas then? I suspect not.

If you can take a trip to NYC from London in less than an hour, then there is a lot of demand that would come from this from business people. Interpersonal business transactions work so much better when people are not linked through a modem. I suspect teleportation would be the only thing better......

[schmenke]

Heck, I'd be happier if one of these tunnel thingies could be built from my neighbourhood to my office :s

[schmenke]

(sorry, this will be metric, too lazy too translate to imperial)

If you accelerate at one g, that's 9.8m/s per second, or 35km/h per second. So, to achieve a speed of 8000km/h you need 8000/35=228 seconds (less than four minutes). If they were going to accelerate in 18 minutes, they can achieve that with less than .25g, I don't think you need special seats for that. Were are talking about way less than the acceleration of a sports car.

I think the 18 minute acceleration time has more to do with overcoming the vehicle inertia rather than human G-load limitations.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I think the 18 minute acceleration time has more to do with overcoming the vehicle inertia rather than human G-load limitations.

the Machinery can take it easier than the people. No, the limitation on this super train would be the forces on the people in the tube......

[BDunnell]

the Machinery can take it easier than the people. No, the limitation on this super train would be the forces on the people in the tube......

Indeed, just as most dedicated aerobatic aircraft could fly even more unbelievable manoeuvres than they already do were it not for the pilot in the cockpit.

[tinchote]

the Machinery can take it easier than the people. No, the limitation on this super train would be the forces on the people in the tube......


Absolutely not. It's not about resistance, it's about energy. The amount of energy necessary to accelerate - even with no air resistance - a train at 0.25g is huge.

In any case, the amount of energy required to accelerate the train is probably nothing compare to the energy necessary to create a vaccum of such magnitude.

[Erki]

This whole thing is more a demonstration of what technology could do, than a viable plan to put into practice.

[CarlMetro]

I took me long enough to travel through the Channel Tunnel, I doubt whether I'd be taking up one of the first seats on this thing either :s Then there is the cost of a ticket. With something costing trillions of dollars, someone's going to want to see a return on their money and the only source they'll have to make that return is from fare-paying passengers.

If I remember correctly British Airways reckoned that every Concorde flight made a loss and often flew with half empty planes and that was (only) £3500 one way.

[Storm]

If mankind took that attitude to everything then we would still be living in caves and still be afraid of fire ;)
And probably not have destroyed half the earth's natural resources....

I am all for technology where its useful, but a 54 min train ride costing trillions isn't my definition of useful or necessary either.

[Mark in Oshawa]

And probably not have destroyed half the earth's natural resources....

I am all for technology where its useful, but a 54 min train ride costing trillions isn't my definition of useful or necessary either.

Storm, this guilt about the human race using up resources is all well and good, but as someone who is using the internet to chat, living in a society that is rapidly industrializing, to bleat about the earth's resources is a little much. Fact is, we have over 6 Billion people on this earth. To feed, house and make a life worth having, we need technology, and to use what we have to make it all go. That means at some point in theory we could run out. I am an optimist in that I know we will find the technology to recycle more, and use more enviro friendly technology to make it all happen. Until that day, I refuse to speculate in guilt for how the world is being "used up". Using your logic, go find an outlet in a tree to plug your computer into......because you obviously feel guilty someone is burning something to make electricity.....

[Erki]

Storm, this guilt about the human race using up resources is all well and good, but as someone who is using the internet to chat, living in a society that is rapidly industrializing, to bleat about the earth's resources is a little much. Fact is, we have over 6 Billion people on this earth. To feed, house and make a life worth having, we need technology, and to use what we have to make it all go. That means at some point in theory we could run out. I am an optimist in that I know we will find the technology to recycle more, and use more enviro friendly technology to make it all happen. Until that day, I refuse to speculate in guilt for how the world is being "used up". Using your logic, go find an outlet in a tree to plug your computer into......because you obviously feel guilty someone is burning something to make electricity.....

First you gotta go and find a tree... ;) And there are another ways to make electricity too, ya know. ;) Ways that could be integrated into the natural world more than burning something could. What is that "life worth having" you typed about? I don't think we need technology like water and air, it's not a necessity, it's just a little extension to our lives. Rapidly industrializing...or indus...trivializing society? We have over 6 billion people around here mostly only because of more tech... tech=people. :dozey: You seem to forget that you(and me too :) ) are part of the nature too, if you waste natural resources, you waste yourself too. :)

[Rollo]

mmm can't see it featuring on Great Railway Journeys of the World...besides is it actually possible to comfortably accelerate to 5000 mph and then to decelerate to 0 mph in 54 mins while enjoying a few cocktails in the bar?

This may surprise you:

If you could somehow bore a hole straight through the earth so that it went through magma and what not, and then dropped something down the hole, gravity would accerlerate the object all the way to the centre and as it passed halfway, then more of the earth would be pulling it back in the direction that it came from thus decellarating it to a dead stop at the other side, before gravity would pull back on it again.

The total journey would take 42 mins 8 seconds, since gravity accelerates all objects at the same rate regardless of size.

The straight line tunnel from New York to London would make use of cutting a chord across the circle; hence the time taken but the cost to build such a thing would be hideous.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

We have over 6 billion people around here mostly only because of more tech... tech=people. :dozey:

Well that not strictly true. In the more advanced nations in Europe we have declining populations ;)

[Erki]

Well that not strictly true. In the more advanced nations in Europe we have declining populations ;)

Maybe because people are advanced enough to realise that we don't need so many people around. :)

PS: how much of that declining population comes from emigration?

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Maybe because people are advanced enough to realise that we don't need so many people around. :)

PS: how much of that declining population comes from emigration?

Declining population comes from decreasing birth rate due to women pursuing careers instead of staying at home and looking after children.

[cosmicpanda]

Absolutely not. It's not about resistance, it's about energy. The amount of energy necessary to accelerate - even with no air resistance - a train at 0.25g is huge.

In any case, the amount of energy required to accelerate the train is probably nothing compare to the energy necessary to create a vaccum of such magnitude.

I wonder how much the theory of relativity would affect things at that speed? Perhaps it might be interesting.

[Erki]

I wonder how much the theory of relativity would affect things at that speed? Perhaps it might be interesting.

5000mph is 8000km/h is 2,(2)km/s is not much compared to 300,000km/s.

[tinchote]

I wonder how much the theory of relativity would affect things at that speed? Perhaps it might be interesting.

The "distorsion factor" in the Lorentz formulas (those used in relativity) is

1/SQRT(1 - (v/c)^2)

So, if v=8000km/h (=2.2km/s), the quotient v/c=2.2/300000, and the corresponding correction factor in the Lorentz equations is aproximately

1.00000000003,

so the relativistic distorsion is about 3/100,000,000,000.

Even if your speed is 10% of the speed of light (and this is about 67,000,000 mph :eek: ) the relativistic distorsion is around .5 percent (half of 1%).

[Drew]

Declining population comes from decreasing birth rate due to women pursuing careers instead of staying at home and looking after children.

It's not just that simple lol.

I think this thing will be like space travel in the 1920s. Impossible at the time and way to expensive, but eventually it happened.

[Malbec]

Storm, this guilt about the human race using up resources is all well and good, but as someone who is using the internet to chat, living in a society that is rapidly industrializing, to bleat about the earth's resources is a little much. Fact is, we have over 6 Billion people on this earth. To feed, house and make a life worth having, we need technology, and to use what we have to make it all go. That means at some point in theory we could run out. I am an optimist in that I know we will find the technology to recycle more, and use more enviro friendly technology to make it all happen. Until that day, I refuse to speculate in guilt for how the world is being "used up". Using your logic, go find an outlet in a tree to plug your computer into......because you obviously feel guilty someone is burning something to make electricity.....

Actually I quite agree with Storm's position. He doesn't advocate going back in time to some pre-industrial era, just that the energy and resources that it would take to build this tunnel would simply not be worth it. To his post I'd also add that the financial cost simply isn't worth it either.

Heck it obviously isn't even worthwhile building something much cheaper that could cross the Atlantic in a couple of hours whilst carrying some fare-paying passengers, hence the total lack of interest in building a Concorde replacement.

I don't know where the 12 trillion figure comes from but the benefits from crossing the Atlantic that fast simply isn't worth the cost counted on many fronts, whether financial, environmental or technological.