schlimm Phoebe Vet henry6 But doesn't talk of this project surface every ten or so years and has since 1900? It came up in 1967: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061387/ The Channel ("Chunnel") Tunnel idea started out as a fantasy in Napoleon's time (1802) and finally was completed in 1994. It serves freight and HSR and auto trains.
Phoebe Vet henry6 But doesn't talk of this project surface every ten or so years and has since 1900? It came up in 1967: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061387/
henry6 But doesn't talk of this project surface every ten or so years and has since 1900?
But doesn't talk of this project surface every ten or so years and has since 1900?
It came up in 1967: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061387/
But it wasn't as ambitious as the tunnel in that movie.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Convicted One Lyndon Larouche must be hiding out in china these days.
Lyndon Larouche must be hiding out in china these days.
Good one...
That guy has some pretty far out ideas, though he does have an occasional useful insight. Saw one of his infomercials late '78 or early '79, one of his comments was that India would become a major technical power.
- Erik
Just to add a liittle perspective, here's how the subject is being discussed at a general-interest forum which I tend to hold in higher regardthan most of its kind; note the immediate description of the project as "High Speed Rail" and the assumption of passenger capability by most of the posters.
http://www.city-data.com/forum/current-events/2114340-china-considers-high-speed-rail-canada.html
The revival of an industry which (at least by private-sector standards) was on the verge of nationalization in the early Seventies is an event those of us partial toward the industry and familiar with its technology have to regard as the greatest success within"our time", but the public, and the politicians who seldom plan beyond the next election, clearly have a lot to learn.
China has a real appitite for metal ore.
There is a lot of metal ore and wood in the section of Canada and Eastern Alaska that the line would pass through, I'm not sure if there is much else.
The idea would be more practical if coupled with development of resources along the route. What minerals and ofher products can be obtained from what is now wilderness? Ports, temporary or permanent, coujld be developed to unload supplies during the summer months when navigation is possible.
billio If China really wants to do a first class job, they'll build directly to the "lower 48" and bypass Canada completely.
If China really wants to do a first class job, they'll build directly to the "lower 48" and bypass Canada completely.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Some fear that the newly enlarged Panama Canal may take some of the China- US East Coast business away from US Transcon railroads, to an all water route. It's hard to see how an all rail route around the the top of the Pacific would be competitive..
another link
http://qz.com/208119/china-is-reportedly-thinking-about-building-a-bullet-train-that-reaches-america/#/h/67921,1/
Paul_D_North_Jr A logistics problem during the 1860's U.S. Civil War was that mule or horse-drawn supply trains were limited to about 100 or 150 miles, because by that distance the animals and their 'drovers' would have had to consume all they could have hauled simply in order to survive (assuming no foraging possible from adjoining lands or towns). Notably, the application and use of the railroad in military transport solved that problem. For a more stark example, think of hauling supplies to crews in the Arctic regions - how much fuel can a snowmobile carry in order to get there and back ? For this, the similar obstacle will not be physical supplies, but financial. It may be the type of project where the construction time is so long and the cost is so large that the resulting accumulated 'debt service' (principal and interest) is so high that there will never be enough earnings to repay or even justify it, regardless of how low the operating costs are (even if zero or 'free'). The project may be so expensive that the ongoing interest consumes all of the projected revenues, and it can never break even or get ahead - a 'downward spiral of debt', as it would be. "Feeding the beast" would be a never-ending proposition - it will only get bigger and hungrier. (Think of a loan shark or payday loan operation on a much larger scale.) Don't think you'll find many investors or even governments to back such a venture - there have to many other opportunities with a better return (however any of that might be measured). - Paul North.
A logistics problem during the 1860's U.S. Civil War was that mule or horse-drawn supply trains were limited to about 100 or 150 miles, because by that distance the animals and their 'drovers' would have had to consume all they could have hauled simply in order to survive (assuming no foraging possible from adjoining lands or towns). Notably, the application and use of the railroad in military transport solved that problem. For a more stark example, think of hauling supplies to crews in the Arctic regions - how much fuel can a snowmobile carry in order to get there and back ?
For this, the similar obstacle will not be physical supplies, but financial. It may be the type of project where the construction time is so long and the cost is so large that the resulting accumulated 'debt service' (principal and interest) is so high that there will never be enough earnings to repay or even justify it, regardless of how low the operating costs are (even if zero or 'free'). The project may be so expensive that the ongoing interest consumes all of the projected revenues, and it can never break even or get ahead - a 'downward spiral of debt', as it would be. "Feeding the beast" would be a never-ending proposition - it will only get bigger and hungrier. (Think of a loan shark or payday loan operation on a much larger scale.) Don't think you'll find many investors or even governments to back such a venture - there have to many other opportunities with a better return (however any of that might be measured).
- Paul North.
The interesting thing about that argument is that time provided the answers. Picture trying to sell the idea of a ship that can carry more than 1,000 truck size containers to those people pulling barges on the canal. Picture the economic arguments around the discussion of fleets of 300 passenger airliners presented to stage coach companies.
There are people who say it cannot be done and people who do it. I doubt this project will be done in the near future, but I would not be so arrogant as to say "never".
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
The TV reports I have seen on this project illustrate a high speed passenger line, while I think the Chinese intention is to build a heavy duty freight hauler running at conventional (freight) speeds. The same line can't do both!
Then again, how long have the Swiss been working on that tunnel under the Alps - 30+ years now ?
And the Japanese on the Hokkaido tunnel and bridge system ?
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/seikan-tunnel/
How are/ were those projects managed to avoid this problem ?
Another link. Many comments but only about 25% stick to the actual problems of building such a link. Biggest problem would seem to be providing the many construction materials plus all facilities for construction workers. Problem of supplies appears greater than the transcontinental RR ? Access points are only China, Trans Siberian RR, Bearing straight ( only part of any year ) , Alaska RR, CN RR.
Leaving money and tunnel design to others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/09/china-may-build-an-undersea-train-to-america/?hpid=z4
This is a little late . . . "April Fool's Day" was about 5 weeks ago.
Have fun with your trains
May I stop laughing now?
This reminds me of a situation from the darkest days of WWII. The British government asked citizens for ideas for new weapons to be used in defense of the home islands. Any number came through with an idea to somehow solidify the light of an AA searchlight. When asked for details, the universal answer was, "I gave you the idea. Get the engineer boffins to work out the details..."
As I stated in an earlier, "Bridge over the Bering Strait," thread, I expect that humans will be mining asteroids and launching interstellar probes before flanged wheels roll from North America to Asia on steel rails. Sea transport is still the cheapest way, and nowhere near capacity maxed.
Chuck (ex sailor, ex aircraft mechanic)
The Chinese are building railroads elsewhere because they have companies who do that. We have, too, and they build and operate railroads elsewhere. We just don't have a media that goes out looking for such stories.
Maybe the Chinese government is looking around for places they can use the employes that were laid off from Chinese shipyards because of excess shipping capacity and we all know that marine transportation is cheaper than rail.
I think picking gauge, etc. is premature to begin with, but also, that with the size of this concept and project nothing should be taken for granted or assumed. A lot will depend on what is planned to be moved from one continent to the other and how frequently. After the nature of the commodities and the end points of the trips and the frequency(ies?) then the political wrangling can and will commence. Shooting for a plan by 2020 and construction start by 2025 is probably the absolute shortest time we could see something firm if what is said today is true today. While I think it is a fascinating and probably a good economic idea, I know I probably won't get to know anything more than I know about it now in my lifetime.
blue streak 1 Murphy Siding Well, if it's a railroad to haul mountains of freight traffic from China to the USA, why not a wide gauge? 6-7-8 feet maybe? I Wide gauge means heavier loads per foot of train. How can you overcome the approximately 70,000 # maximum axle load ?. Wheel sizes are almost at their maximum sizes.?
Murphy Siding Well, if it's a railroad to haul mountains of freight traffic from China to the USA, why not a wide gauge? 6-7-8 feet maybe? I
Well, if it's a railroad to haul mountains of freight traffic from China to the USA, why not a wide gauge? 6-7-8 feet maybe? I
Wide gauge means heavier loads per foot of train. How can you overcome the approximately 70,000 # maximum axle load ?. Wheel sizes are almost at their maximum sizes.?
Wide gage means heavier loads per foot of train. How can you overcome the approximately 70,000 # maximum axel load ?. Wheel sizes are almost at their maximum sizes.?
The Russo-Japanese War developed out of the rivalry between Russia and Japan for dominance in Korea and Manchuria. In 1898 Russia had pressured China into granting it a lease for the strategically important port of Port Arthur (now Lü-shun), at the tip of the Liaotung Peninsula, in southern Manchuria. Russia thereby entered into occupation of the peninsula, even though, in concert with other European powers, it had forced Japan to relinquish just such a right after the latter's decisive victory over China in the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. Moreover, in 1896 Russia had concluded an alliance with China against Japan and, in the process, had won rights to extend the Trans-Siberian Railroad across Chinese-held Manchuria to the Russian seaport of Vladivostok, thus gaining control of an important strip of Manchurian territory. However, though Russia had built the Trans-Siberian Railroad (1891-1904), it still lacked the transportation facilities necessary to reinforce its limited armed forces in Manchuria with sufficient men and supplies. Japan, by contrast, had steadily expanded its army since its war with China in 1894 and by 1904 had gained a marked superiority over Russia in the number of ground troops in the Far East. After Russia reneged in 1903 on an agreement to withdraw its troops from Manchuria, Japan decided it was time to attack.
http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/romeo/russojapanese1904.htm
A region rich in resources, sparsely populated and of great strategic value has conflicting border claims where major powers grate. One power builds a railroad of extreme national interest through the region.
Nobody will much take note.
Well, if it's a railroad to haul mountains of freight traffic from China to the USA, why not a wide gauge? 6-7-8 feet maybe? I know what you're saying, but consider this: To make this work, you would need an eastbound lane, a westbound lane, and a passing lane. You'd also need sidings, division point, stations, shops, MOW facilities, etc. By the time you've overcome the financial, political, environmental, geological, weather, language, cultural, and seismic issues, the difficulties of wide gauge would be small potatoes. I say, by the time you have the route ready for rolling stock, you have spent more money than has ever been printed in all of history. A couple more billions for wide gauge locomotives and cars is a drop in the bucket.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.