If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Count On...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:03:04 -0000, "Traveller"
wrote: "Olivers" wrote in message ... If that's within your conceptual parameters of a "more serious note", I've this bridge.... "More serious" in that at least I was putting forward some kind of theory (albeit shaky) about how this might work 1. MAG-LEVving along at 1K mph far beneath the waves might be fun, but intensely claustrophobic. People use Eurotunnel every day. OK, you're only in the tunnel for 25 minutes or so but the concept is already out there and attracting passengers. On a longhaul flight there's generally sod all to see once you're at cruising altitude anyway and it certainly wouldn't bother me if I was seated in a large, comfortable train carriage - remember one of the big advantages of train vs. plane is that there is, generally, more space and comfort for passengers. Is everyone aware that the Atlantic mid-ocean ridge is the site of magmic upwelling and seafloor spreading? Not a very good candidate for a tunnel. ************* DAVE HATUNEN ) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Count On...
Olivers wrote:
1. MAG-LEVving along at 1K mph far beneath the waves might be fun, but intensely claustrophobic. Why more claustrophobic than on a plane ? 2. A minor mechanical failure of the Lucas Electrics somewhere out about "Ocean Midpoint" provides the prospect of "relief trains" and Hollywoodian scenarios far beyond "The Poseidon Adventure" or "Airplane", depending on how long the battery back-up lights function. It was "Airport '77" that had the sunken 747, not "Airplane !!!". "Airplane" had the inflatable auto-pilot. 3. Only Halliburton's well-connected enough to provide the tunneling machines. Nop. It is the ennemy of the USA: France which has tunneling technology. (Remember the Chunnel ?) But in reality, such a tunnel is more likely to be above ocean floor, with positive bouyancy and cables keeping it firmly near the ocean floor. This would be a prefabricated tunnel, laid in sections. 6. Project seems likely to draw low priority, somewhere below the R&D to develop big clamps to firmly attach California to the rest of the Continent. Well, then perhaps they should forego those clamps and start the tunnel at Las Vegas ? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Count On...
Ok serious question about that tunnel that is being built between LAX and SYD.
If it takes more than 24 hours of train travel, are airline reservation systems able to deal with this ? If you are train #5 leaving LAX january 1st, there is going to be a train #5 leaving on january 2nd, which means that you'll have 2 train #5 operating at the same time. (in the same tunnel, no less !). When Untied had its round the world flight (was it flight #1 ?), how did they deal with multiple instances of the flight being in the air at the same time ? Did they ensure that the europe-usa flight arrived well after the usa-asia flight had left to ensure there were no "#1" in USA air traffic control at the same time ? ) (or did they use fake numbers while in the air ?) And from an operations point of view, if flight #1 was late that left yesterday was late, did the airline computer systems have the ability to differentiate between yesterday's flight #1 that was still in the air over central asia and today's #1 that has just left LAX ? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Count On...
Traveller muttered....
"Olivers" wrote in message ... Interesting, but not serious....on a mile per year basis, if we use Napoleon's perspective as a starting point for the Chunnel, 200 years +/- for 20 miles +/-, the LAOahu leg's going to take a few aeons. How does 1 mile a year equate to 200 years for 20 miles? I wrote naught of a mile per year, but of 20 miles in 200 years, from planning to opening, and that's .1 mile per year, a long time for Transpacific tunneling. Even at a mile per year, it's slow. Take 10 miles per year, or even 100 miles per year, and you'll still encountered dissatisfied bond holder with nothing upon which to "foreclose". Anyway, why would we have to tunnel? If the materials technology was there, the tunnels could be prefabricated and sunk, and attached to the sea bed without having to actually drill into the ocean floor... Hast thou contemplated the depth of the Pacific and the structure of a tunnel required to resist the pressures of such depth, far far more, exponentially more than in the shallow almost estuarine waters of La Manche, hardly even a creek as bodies of water go. Only specially designed research craft, in some cases little more than reinforced spheres, operate w/humans aboard in depths routine in the Pacific or MidAtlantic. The most modern submarines barely skim the immediate subsurface layer. After having designed and spent untold zillions emplacing your tunnel, have you contemplated the problem inherent in moving a bit of air for the passengers down to its level. Air travel is so many times cheaper than any potential analysis of tunnel or ocean floor tubes as to make the entire process laughable. Obviously, the Chunnel currently has not matched the predictions of its developers and certainly has fallen below the hopes of its financiers. A causeway/bridge combination would have been far cheaper, more effective, cost less to upkeep and operate and be a notable sight on the horizon, although the number of groundings and collisions might rise along with the choleric temperament of the xenophobic and Colonel Blimpish of Merry Old England. A simple drawbridge would serve to prevent rapid, unplanned assaults by Wogs and Franks.... TMO |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Count On...
"nobody" wrote in message ... Ok serious question about that tunnel that is being built between LAX and SYD. If it takes more than 24 hours of train travel, are airline reservation systems able to deal with this ? If you are train #5 leaving LAX january 1st, there is going to be a train #5 leaving on january 2nd, which means that you'll have 2 train #5 operating at the same time. (in the same tunnel, no less !). This happens all the time. BAsomething will leave LHR for MEL this evening. It will still be flying when the same BAsomething leaves LHR for MEL tomorrow... |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
JFK Airtrain: Good News, Bad News, Good News and Bad News | Arnold Reinhold | Air travel | 103 | June 30th, 2006 05:59 PM |
Count On... | Steve Austin | Africa | 10 | June 18th, 2004 07:33 AM |
Count On... | Steve Austin | Africa | 0 | April 27th, 2004 11:00 PM |