PH Science forum - Blue sky project

[Nom de ploom]

Having just got back from Paris and having travelled, trouble free on the Eurostar - Quick and easy check in, prompt service, comfortable, quiter than I thought it would be and friendly staff and travellers.

It got me thinking. I really hate flying and I thought how feasible would it be to construct a tunnel for road or rail or both from say, London to Sydney?

What route would it take?
How many stops along the way?
How long to construct?
What would it cost?
Would you build in subterreanean stopping points?
How long would it take to get there i.e. if it were rail based, how fast would it conceivably need to be to make it worthwhile?

like I said, a bit blue sky but not improbable or impossible?

lets get our creative geological and mechanical juices flowing...

[Simpo Two]

Sitting in an aeroplane seat for 20 hours is bad enough.

If your train travels at 150 mph (in a tunnel the diplaced air has to go somewhere) and Australia is 10,000 miles away I wouldn't want to be sitting in a train seat for 66 hours in a tunnel. It would be much like an aeroplane trip only 3.3x longer and you can't see out of the windows. Claustrophobes need not apply!

[mondeoman]

Stick it in a vacuum - speeds can go supersonic then.

You'd be kinda fked if anything went wrong though.

[Nom de ploom]

make it go faster then, say 200+ mph?

nuclear powered trains....

[Nimby]

Simpo Two said:

Sitting in an aeroplane seat for 20 hours is bad enough.

HOTOL would have done London to Sydney in five hours.

[ewenm]

Gravitube concept as used in the Jasper Fforde novels.

or

Avatar in Sydney, so you send your mindstate electronically, not your body physically.

[RealSquirrels]

tunnel would go deep in crust (so under oceans) and should be evacuated for maximum speeds. stopping points, a few per continent.

[The Black Flash]

You want The Fall from Total Recall, surely?

[Simpo Two]

RealSquirrels said:

tunnel would go deep in crust (so under oceans) and should be evacuated for maximum speeds. stopping points, a few per continent.

Probably easier/cheaper to cut Australia and NZ from the base rock and tow them closer to the UK!

[Nom de ploom]

[Hooli]

Simpo Two said:

RealSquirrels said:

tunnel would go deep in crust (so under oceans) and should be evacuated for maximum speeds. stopping points, a few per continent.

Probably easier/cheaper to cut Australia and NZ from the base rock and tow them closer to the UK!

Good plan, we'll put them where africa is & displace france (because they deserve it).

[Simpo Two]

Better still, cut off the whole of bloody Europe and tow it to Antarctica, then bring up the Aussies and Kiwis to fill the gap. Then they're no more than 2hrs flying time away and Brussels can spout Directives without bothering anyone.

[maffski]

Simpo Two said:

RealSquirrels said:

tunnel would go deep in crust (so under oceans) and should be evacuated for maximum speeds. stopping points, a few per continent.

Probably easier/cheaper to cut Australia and NZ from the base rock and tow them closer to the UK!

To be fair the Ausies already tried that themselves - http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/australia.sht...

This journo did NZ to London by train http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11929967, that came in at about 19,500km of train travel. The French have run a train at 574km/h in tests, so upgrade the entire track to that spec and you could do the journey in a couple of days. Use sleeper compartments and add some time for extra stops and you've got a four day 'trip of a lifetime', no exotic new technologies needed.

Plus it proves Europe is good for something. It makes a great bridge to more interesting places.