A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Count On...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 21st, 2004, 06:27 PM
Hatunen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 21st, 2004, 10:07 PM
nobody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 21st, 2004, 10:27 PM
nobody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 22nd, 2004, 05:15 PM
Olivers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old March 24th, 2004, 02:21 PM
Traveller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.