China to USA....
- Thread starter Stationbeem
- Start date
We have to look at what the Chinese did to connect Tibet via rail. Their new line runs on very deep pylons and the ground is kept cool by blowing air through the embankments and ballast. The biggest problem they are facing now is black snow which is coal soot and pollution that has settled on the snow and permafrost causing the ground to soften and melt up as the black soot absorbs the heat from the sun.
http://youtu.be/Yo7FBo4mLgU
This may provide the solution to navigate around the steep mountains and the permafrost conditions.
John
http://youtu.be/Yo7FBo4mLgU
This may provide the solution to navigate around the steep mountains and the permafrost conditions.
John
Hi John and everybody.
Well, I would be the last to claim that I have any great knowledge of permafrost. However, if the earth substance beneath the permafrost is as soft and gooey as stated would not the best solution be to simply tunnel under it?
It must be over 15 years ago that the channel tunnel was built between Britain and France. The boring machines they used for that project not only cut through the soft chalk substance under the English Channel but also at the same time inserted the concrete sections that line the walls of the tunnel as the boring machines moved forward.
Once started the Channel Tunnel construction was completed much quicker than expected even though there were times when the boring was stopped due to financial problems with the construction company. I would have thought that any Alaskan/Siberian railway could have large sections of it constructed in similar fashion to the Channel Tunnel. It could well prove much cheaper and need much less maintenance than trying to build a railway across the top of the permafrost and with modern boring machines working in the very soft substance I would have thought a couple of miles per day building could be achieved.
As for the poster who stated that he did not like the thought of Alaska being connected to any were else other than the United States, well, there was much publicity prior to the Channel Tunnel being constructed that the French (England’s ancient enemy) would undoubtedly invade by way of the tunnel. After it opened they did in their hundreds of thousands. They have come not as an army but travelling in a peaceful manner on the high-speed trains through the tunnel. Some work in London travelling back to France at the end of each day. Through the foregoing old enmity has been forgotten making both countries more secure.
Bill
Well, I would be the last to claim that I have any great knowledge of permafrost. However, if the earth substance beneath the permafrost is as soft and gooey as stated would not the best solution be to simply tunnel under it?
It must be over 15 years ago that the channel tunnel was built between Britain and France. The boring machines they used for that project not only cut through the soft chalk substance under the English Channel but also at the same time inserted the concrete sections that line the walls of the tunnel as the boring machines moved forward.
Once started the Channel Tunnel construction was completed much quicker than expected even though there were times when the boring was stopped due to financial problems with the construction company. I would have thought that any Alaskan/Siberian railway could have large sections of it constructed in similar fashion to the Channel Tunnel. It could well prove much cheaper and need much less maintenance than trying to build a railway across the top of the permafrost and with modern boring machines working in the very soft substance I would have thought a couple of miles per day building could be achieved.
As for the poster who stated that he did not like the thought of Alaska being connected to any were else other than the United States, well, there was much publicity prior to the Channel Tunnel being constructed that the French (England’s ancient enemy) would undoubtedly invade by way of the tunnel. After it opened they did in their hundreds of thousands. They have come not as an army but travelling in a peaceful manner on the high-speed trains through the tunnel. Some work in London travelling back to France at the end of each day. Through the foregoing old enmity has been forgotten making both countries more secure.
Bill
Last edited:
cascaderailroad
New member
Last I checked the last US mainland is 59 miles from Russia ... That's a long Chunnel !
The distance from the two inhabited islands Adak to Russia is also 59 miles.
True the two smallest uninhabited islands claimed by Russia and the US on the Aleutian chain, are only 2 1/2 miles apart
And how many hundreds of miles are you going to tunnel under permafrost in Alaska alone ... That's a really, really, long Chunnel through the permafrost, the consistency of semi slurpy poo.
We don't really have good relations with Russia, Mongolia, Siberia, North Korea, nor China ... and to make a rail connection would only prove to make a good invasion route to the US. What if they sent an armed A Bomb on a train, or an invasion force of saboteurs ? Once you leave the US, Aus, UK, you find what an uncivilized brutal world this really is in foreign countries.
Go to China and take photographs of their trains ... and you'll end up in a dungeon, for life in prison, or face the death penalty, for espionage, as a foreign spy.
It just ain't gonna' happen ... not in a hundred years !
The distance from the two inhabited islands Adak to Russia is also 59 miles.
True the two smallest uninhabited islands claimed by Russia and the US on the Aleutian chain, are only 2 1/2 miles apart
And how many hundreds of miles are you going to tunnel under permafrost in Alaska alone ... That's a really, really, long Chunnel through the permafrost, the consistency of semi slurpy poo.
We don't really have good relations with Russia, Mongolia, Siberia, North Korea, nor China ... and to make a rail connection would only prove to make a good invasion route to the US. What if they sent an armed A Bomb on a train, or an invasion force of saboteurs ? Once you leave the US, Aus, UK, you find what an uncivilized brutal world this really is in foreign countries.
Go to China and take photographs of their trains ... and you'll end up in a dungeon, for life in prison, or face the death penalty, for espionage, as a foreign spy.
It just ain't gonna' happen ... not in a hundred years !
Last edited:
Railwoodman
Well-known member
From what I've read the strait isn't a great depth, but a tunnel as you are describing isn't the kind that was proposed for this project. A new concept of traversing great distances is a submerged rail tunnel. 100 to 150 below the surface. The big thing with this area is the sea current, ice and earthquakes. I wish I hadn't thrown out my books and magazines on this:hehe: From what I've found so far, Russia has no desire to attempt this at all either, due to the vast differences in ideas and cost just to get to the location. I can't remember where, but China is planning to build this concept of tunnel. And Germany and UK were working a slightly different design .
Matt
Matt
Hi everybody.
As several forum members have stated, building a railway across the permafrost and Bering Straits would be extremely difficult if not impossible using today’s technology. With that in mind I looked further into the suggestion and viability of building a tunnel under both the above.
It would seem that the longest tunnel so far constructed is in Finland being 74 miles long and was built many years ago. Therefore I feel that the channel tunnel built between England and France would be the best one to draw statistics from in relation to later constructed tunnels.
The channel tunnel is 31 and a half miles long and consists of two running tunnels with a central service tunnel. The cost was four and a half billion pounds (equivalent to 12 billion today) and opened in 1994. The foregoing may seem a very high cost but the returns on the investment since it opened are equally spectacular.
The channel tunnel is solely a rail transport system carrying both freight and passenger. Latest figures show that 400 trains per day pass through the tunnel carrying 56,000 passengers and 54,000 tons of freight in each 24 hour period. Running speeds of trains in the tunnel are set at 99 mph while travelling in the section of the tunnel under the English Channel. I think many people would feel that the foregoing results are excellent and a good return on the four and a half billion construction costs.
At its lowest point the tunnel is 250 feet below the surface and runs at that depth for over two thirds of its distance. It took six years to construct but a considerable amount of that time work was stopped or boring reduced due to financial problems with the construction company. When working at full capacity the tunnelling machines could move forward at the rate of twenty feet per hour which included setting into the walls the precast concrete mouldings which line the tunnel to this day. Therefore the workers following the machines would walk forward through a basic completed tunnel structure.
I believe the above figures demonstrate that long-distance tunnel boring operations can be hugely successful. Maintenance can easily be carried out in the unchanging environment within the channel tunnel and have proven to be extremely low.
Therefore, could not the same endeavour be carried out to cross the Bering Straits and under the permafrost of Siberia. Why not have a four running tunnels within the overall construction again with a central service tunnel between the chambers. Yes, the construction costs will be huge but the return when construction is completed could be gigantic. All the above was achieved with technology which is now over 25 years old. That said, what rates of boring could be achieved with today’s technology in both computers and mining.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Bill
As several forum members have stated, building a railway across the permafrost and Bering Straits would be extremely difficult if not impossible using today’s technology. With that in mind I looked further into the suggestion and viability of building a tunnel under both the above.
It would seem that the longest tunnel so far constructed is in Finland being 74 miles long and was built many years ago. Therefore I feel that the channel tunnel built between England and France would be the best one to draw statistics from in relation to later constructed tunnels.
The channel tunnel is 31 and a half miles long and consists of two running tunnels with a central service tunnel. The cost was four and a half billion pounds (equivalent to 12 billion today) and opened in 1994. The foregoing may seem a very high cost but the returns on the investment since it opened are equally spectacular.
The channel tunnel is solely a rail transport system carrying both freight and passenger. Latest figures show that 400 trains per day pass through the tunnel carrying 56,000 passengers and 54,000 tons of freight in each 24 hour period. Running speeds of trains in the tunnel are set at 99 mph while travelling in the section of the tunnel under the English Channel. I think many people would feel that the foregoing results are excellent and a good return on the four and a half billion construction costs.
At its lowest point the tunnel is 250 feet below the surface and runs at that depth for over two thirds of its distance. It took six years to construct but a considerable amount of that time work was stopped or boring reduced due to financial problems with the construction company. When working at full capacity the tunnelling machines could move forward at the rate of twenty feet per hour which included setting into the walls the precast concrete mouldings which line the tunnel to this day. Therefore the workers following the machines would walk forward through a basic completed tunnel structure.
I believe the above figures demonstrate that long-distance tunnel boring operations can be hugely successful. Maintenance can easily be carried out in the unchanging environment within the channel tunnel and have proven to be extremely low.
Therefore, could not the same endeavour be carried out to cross the Bering Straits and under the permafrost of Siberia. Why not have a four running tunnels within the overall construction again with a central service tunnel between the chambers. Yes, the construction costs will be huge but the return when construction is completed could be gigantic. All the above was achieved with technology which is now over 25 years old. That said, what rates of boring could be achieved with today’s technology in both computers and mining.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Bill
Last edited:
France? Invade? After the previous hundred years? LOL!
As for economic benefits, you have a very high population concentration and a rather short distance, as stated only 31 miles of tunnel, and 200-300(?) miles between London & Paris? We got thousands of miles between the factories of China and the population centers of America, and I highly doubt we could accommodate even thirty more transcontinental trains a day, so tight is capacity across the board. North Platte's Bailey Yard can at peak handle 120-130 trains a day, and it is the largest in the world. BNSF can't handle all the oil coming out of the Bakken. CP is having no fun getting heckled by the government and farmers for not being able to move grain fast enough. NS will be running out of space soon enough as the Crescent Corridor comes on line. KCS is having a field day getting more than half of their revenue from Mexico shipments. CN can't keep The Canadian moving due to the number of freights out their. I haven't listed any particular problem for CSX, but they have them.
So in summary, you can't just look at the cost of the spanner, you have to see what it takes to go beyond the shore.
As for economic benefits, you have a very high population concentration and a rather short distance, as stated only 31 miles of tunnel, and 200-300(?) miles between London & Paris? We got thousands of miles between the factories of China and the population centers of America, and I highly doubt we could accommodate even thirty more transcontinental trains a day, so tight is capacity across the board. North Platte's Bailey Yard can at peak handle 120-130 trains a day, and it is the largest in the world. BNSF can't handle all the oil coming out of the Bakken. CP is having no fun getting heckled by the government and farmers for not being able to move grain fast enough. NS will be running out of space soon enough as the Crescent Corridor comes on line. KCS is having a field day getting more than half of their revenue from Mexico shipments. CN can't keep The Canadian moving due to the number of freights out their. I haven't listed any particular problem for CSX, but they have them.
So in summary, you can't just look at the cost of the spanner, you have to see what it takes to go beyond the shore.
Engineerkenny
New member
Sorry if someone has already said this but the gravity train
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
Oh how ironic it is that we used to have the infrastructure to be able to have capacity for something like this, but alas, duplicate lines had to be eliminated. For instance, had Conrail kept the former EL lines running, and if NS had acquired them after the breakup, they would be able to use that main to handle overflow traffic. If MILW hadn't gone bankrupt, that mainline would possibly be able to split the oil traffic with BNSF. There would be more than enough to go around for a railroad occupying the former MKT and Rock Island lines that were abandoned after the MKT was merged and the Rock Island was dissolved, which would take some overflow off of the UP, BNSF, and KCS lines there. UP would love to have a second mainline out of Omaha, wouldn't they? Look no further than the former CGW main from Omaha to Chicago. We used to have the infrastructure, but the 70's weren't kind to the anthracite and granger roads, and we wound up abandoning most of it, and don't forget, those mainlines have yards too. Now, we would love to have that amount of mainlines and yards to increase capacity. Today, we have about a tenth of the capacity that we had in 1950, and we might pay for it.
As far as CN and CP, they are the only two roads out there, so there isn't much to be done. Perhaps they could undergo the task of double tracking more parts of their lines, but I doubt that that would help much. What they need is a third transcontinental route. There's plenty of traffic for it, but I think that the cost would be prohibitive.
Can't BNSF route some more traffic over MRL? Or are they at capacity too? The BNSF's entire system between Chicago and Seattle is a logjam anyway. No fix for that in the immediate future.
Last edited:
Railwoodman
Well-known member
It's my understanding that MILW line was closed due to high grades and cost of operation, ( love the high line) as to the rest I know they are all hard pressed for Engines power. And there's the fact that none have excess of car's for any cargo now, (backlog for months) and that's been for ten year now. I'd say investing in our infrastructure is way past due.:hehe:
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
With thousands of locomotives on their rosters, today's Class I railroads don't need more locomotives, they need to better organize their motive power pools. As far as the MILW line, the ICC originally was going to have them be a competitor to BN. The Pacific Extension was the only line on the MILW that made a profit, but they were unknowingly double taxed for that route, so they ripped up the track and the facilities, only to realize that the Pacific Extension was covering their deficit on their trunk lines. So I think that today it could be profitable, especially because it is the "Erie of the Northwest." By that I mean that it doesn't go through any metropolitan areas on the mainline, and in essence, it is a point to point route, which is good in this day and age. It's a direct route, albeit with steeper grades than the former NP and GN lines owned by BNSF and MRL. Nevertheless, with modern motive power, it shouldn't prove to be much of a problem. It would be a good overflow route.
Speaking of overflow routes, I think that if UP opened up Tennessee pass, they would have a good bypass in the event that the Moffat route gets stopped up (It's already running at capacity). It would cost a pretty penny, but I think it would be worthwhile.
Speaking of overflow routes, I think that if UP opened up Tennessee pass, they would have a good bypass in the event that the Moffat route gets stopped up (It's already running at capacity). It would cost a pretty penny, but I think it would be worthwhile.
Last edited:
Railwoodman
Well-known member
I would agree with your statement of the locomotive rosters, ( jacksonbarno ) but I have read that there is a lack of needed power due to age of the these are a issue for NS,UP,CNR BNSF and more due to maintenance and locations of needed work. Just a question, I live near the CSX and NEC lines. And over the last ten to fiveteen years both have announced plans to update and in CSX to double the line to Phil to Perryville, to closing part of that same line. The NEC has some ten bridges that are condemned or deficient as for weight and traffic. UP, NS, CNR are all in the same condition, so it' not just power. The cost of deferred maintenance is being piling up. And no ones up for paying the bill.
As a example there are parts of lines in my area I can't believe haven't had issues, and know have slowed fright speeds considerably due to condition. And other have posted pics of other areas having the same.
As a example there are parts of lines in my area I can't believe haven't had issues, and know have slowed fright speeds considerably due to condition. And other have posted pics of other areas having the same.
jacksonbarno
Alco Spoken Here
More than anything, I think it is not efficiently using resources. Stevens Pass, for example, can only route a certain amount of trains over it per day because of the Cascade Tunnel and the ventilation issues, yet BNSF still insists on routing most of it's traffic over it because that's it's "main" route, even if it means backups. The entire system needs to be redone and upgraded, and it's just not possible with the current mindset of the management of these roads.
Hi everybody.
I believe the real-life circumstances surrounding this subject have developed rapidly while this thread has been going on. There was a lot of media attention given last week (certainly in Europe) to the fact that Russia and China signed an unparalleled trade agreement whereby Russia will supply China which huge amounts of gas and oil which will be obtained from Siberia which is now proven to hold the largest reserves of gas and oil in the world
Apart from the fact that China and Russia are now friends again after many years of hostility which should make everybody stop and think, it certainly means that the rail infrastructure in Siberia will receive a massive upgrade to enable the development of the newly discovered gas and oil reserves irrespective of the building of the Siberia to Alaska Link. Indeed, when Chinese officials spoke of the development of a railroad infrastructure between China and the USA they were undoubtedly aware of the impending agreement and upgrades to the Siberian transport infrastructure.
The foregoing will bring about the emergence of Russia as one of the world’s biggest economic powers. Rising living standards there will undoubtedly also make it a huge emerging market for other nations to sell into. Russia is not well served by seaports and therefore a railway infrastructure into those markets will be essential for all who wish to service that new sector.
With all the above in mind, the proposed rail link between Alaska and Siberia could give the United States a big competitive edge in the industrial development of Siberia and in servicing increasing markets throughout the whole of Russian. Therefore, will American industrialists be prepared to develop the rail infrastructure needed for the USA to benefit from what will be a new alignment.
As someone outside the United States looking in, the answer to the above question must surely be yes, as to do anything else would be a step down the economic ladder. I make no mention of politics in this posting as that would not be appropriate in this forum. However, there has always been one very true saying which states “always keep your friends close but your enemies even closer ”
Bill
I believe the real-life circumstances surrounding this subject have developed rapidly while this thread has been going on. There was a lot of media attention given last week (certainly in Europe) to the fact that Russia and China signed an unparalleled trade agreement whereby Russia will supply China which huge amounts of gas and oil which will be obtained from Siberia which is now proven to hold the largest reserves of gas and oil in the world
Apart from the fact that China and Russia are now friends again after many years of hostility which should make everybody stop and think, it certainly means that the rail infrastructure in Siberia will receive a massive upgrade to enable the development of the newly discovered gas and oil reserves irrespective of the building of the Siberia to Alaska Link. Indeed, when Chinese officials spoke of the development of a railroad infrastructure between China and the USA they were undoubtedly aware of the impending agreement and upgrades to the Siberian transport infrastructure.
The foregoing will bring about the emergence of Russia as one of the world’s biggest economic powers. Rising living standards there will undoubtedly also make it a huge emerging market for other nations to sell into. Russia is not well served by seaports and therefore a railway infrastructure into those markets will be essential for all who wish to service that new sector.
With all the above in mind, the proposed rail link between Alaska and Siberia could give the United States a big competitive edge in the industrial development of Siberia and in servicing increasing markets throughout the whole of Russian. Therefore, will American industrialists be prepared to develop the rail infrastructure needed for the USA to benefit from what will be a new alignment.
As someone outside the United States looking in, the answer to the above question must surely be yes, as to do anything else would be a step down the economic ladder. I make no mention of politics in this posting as that would not be appropriate in this forum. However, there has always been one very true saying which states “always keep your friends close but your enemies even closer ”
Bill
Last edited:
Railwoodman
Well-known member
Not to beat a dead horse, but all of the railroads named, have stated the opposite. And that the problem is due to high demand of traffic, lack of availability of power. ( not lack of efficiency of line ues )I don't personally know about western lines traffic, but the east rails have been dealing with this for longer than I can remember. It's one of the driving reasons for the merger talks. I guess it all comes down to what you believe of what's being said, read or witness.
Matt
Matt
Railwoodman
Well-known member
The cost of any crossing is not just going to be the bridge or tunnel itself. What I have read and seen as to a proposal of these crossing is only a concept of design in the US, other are aggressively pursuing these designs. While other are actually doing research construction for these long deep and hard to build location. The concept of a Alaska to China crossing has more than it's fair share of hurdles.
cascaderailroad
New member
While this is an interesting discussion ... This extreme feat of engineering, in the most harshest of environments, will never, ever be done. It is totally ridiculous of a feat of engineering.
Never, ever, ever !
Have to ever been to the Aleutian islands or the continental tip of Alaska in the settlement called Wales, which is above Nome, or little/big Diomeade islands ... it is absolutely brutal weather there !
Can you see the public/political uproar, if this was ever proposed before Congress ... What a laugh !
Big question: could it be done: NO ! it is too extreme !
Never, ever, ever !
Have to ever been to the Aleutian islands or the continental tip of Alaska in the settlement called Wales, which is above Nome, or little/big Diomeade islands ... it is absolutely brutal weather there !
Can you see the public/political uproar, if this was ever proposed before Congress ... What a laugh !
Big question: could it be done: NO ! it is too extreme !
Last edited:
Railwoodman
Well-known member
Yea ( cascaderailroad ) But I know of at least three techniques that are used today in Alaska that could overcome these problems . And if a semi private investment backed by government funding is involved ? Not munch could be done to stop it, Like the beginning of the PRR. Many of these can't be done, or should be done . Have this in common .That and crossing the Rockies was once thought to be impossible. it's all in whose pushing for it. And as to whether it should, I give you the rail line to the Keys. A great achievement, but not a financial successes. But a road is there with no product that I'm aware of coming north?
cascaderailroad
New member
Do you realize just how cold it is there ?
Just keeping motor oil, and diesel fuel from gelling, not to mention the impossible feat of transporting fuel way out to the outer most harshest environments known to man, aside from Antarctica.
Condition 1 weather ... no one permitted outside ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz2SeEzxMuE
Even in summer the temps rarely get out of the mid 50F, for 3 months, and the rest of the long dark year are cold to sub zero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk3bT-_OK1w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bKiiiAF3mE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOTDXB5LNA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTa_suK-9Wk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTa_suK-9Wk"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTa_suK-9Wk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY-lnr98oBk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arf74iaacOQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBvcJ2Nj53E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpeYPMEaySI
Just keeping motor oil, and diesel fuel from gelling, not to mention the impossible feat of transporting fuel way out to the outer most harshest environments known to man, aside from Antarctica.
Condition 1 weather ... no one permitted outside ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz2SeEzxMuE
Even in summer the temps rarely get out of the mid 50F, for 3 months, and the rest of the long dark year are cold to sub zero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk3bT-_OK1w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bKiiiAF3mE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQOTDXB5LNA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTa_suK-9Wk"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTa_suK-9Wk"]www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTa_suK-9Wk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY-lnr98oBk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arf74iaacOQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBvcJ2Nj53E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpeYPMEaySI
Last edited:
Railwoodman
Well-known member
Yes I know how cold it get, and that it just not the cold to deal with. :hehe
not personally ) But did you know that the only factor that keep construction slow, is reliable transportation. The petroleum industry wouldn't have any down time if for this one reason And where there is reliable transportation, this isn't the case. And that they build there all year round now. I have worked through a bizaad in PA. Wasn't fun, but we got our cabin up.
18 inches at 18 degrees, so it's done.
Matt
not personally ) But did you know that the only factor that keep construction slow, is reliable transportation. The petroleum industry wouldn't have any down time if for this one reason And where there is reliable transportation, this isn't the case. And that they build there all year round now. I have worked through a bizaad in PA. Wasn't fun, but we got our cabin up. 18 inches at 18 degrees, so it's done.Matt