New York to London in an hour - by train
smartplanet.com
New York to London in an hour - by train
1–10 of 146 posts
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#2[deleted]
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#3Link to the BBC article instead of the blogspam: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-pipedrea...
Also, easy terrorist target.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#4Link to the BBC article instead of the blogspam: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-pipedrea... Also, easy terrorist target.
What makes current train system a more difficult target than these tubes?
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#5Link to the BBC article instead of the blogspam: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-pipedrea... Also, easy terrorist target.
What makes current train system a more difficult target than these tubes?
Not a more difficult target, just less of a damage multiplier, I suspect. Even in the high-speed train crashes of today deaths aren't too high. A train travelling at 2,500mph, however...
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#6Link to the BBC article instead of the blogspam: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-pipedrea... Also, easy terrorist target.
What makes current train system a more difficult target than these tubes?
Strikes me more that the potential for damage is higher here. A pretty small explosive charge would compromise part of the tube, and then what happens to the pods zipping along at 2,500mph inside them when the air comes rushing in? For that matter, if they did have an underwater tube connecting London and NYC, the water would come rushing in and you know that's not going to end well.
It sounds pretty cool - it's the kind of sci-fi thing I'd love to see in the real world, but I can't believe it's as easy or as cheap as they're making it sound here.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#7Link to the BBC article instead of the blogspam: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-pipedrea... Also, easy terrorist target.
in this case the blogspam serves a purpose, accessing the bbc.com story:
"We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee."
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes current train system a more difficult target than these tubes?
Strikes me more that the potential for damage is higher here. A pretty small explosive charge would compromise part of the tube, and then what happens to the pods zipping along at 2,500mph inside them when the air comes rushing in? For that matter, if they did have an underwater tube connecting London and NYC, the water would come rushing in and you know that's not going to end well. It sounds pretty cool - it's the…
Obviously the tube would have to be incredibly strong, since it will have to withstand the water pressure at whatever depth it's at. I'd be curious to see calculations on that, as well as repair costs. Also costs for land-based vs sea-based.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes current train system a more difficult target than these tubes?
Not a more difficult target, just less of a damage multiplier, I suspect. Even in the high-speed train crashes of today deaths aren't too high. A train travelling at 2,500mph, however...
Really, how is this any different from airplanes? Just use equivalent security measures.
Also, I wonder if it would be possible to have more frequent, smaller trains, e.g. airplane-sized. Then it doesn't seem like terrorism should be any "extra" consideration at all.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes current train system a more difficult target than these tubes?
Strikes me more that the potential for damage is higher here. A pretty small explosive charge would compromise part of the tube, and then what happens to the pods zipping along at 2,500mph inside them when the air comes rushing in? For that matter, if they did have an underwater tube connecting London and NYC, the water would come rushing in and you know that's not going to end well. It sounds pretty cool - it's the…
We already have underwater tunnels for trains, such as the one between England and France - water would come crashing in regardless of whether there is air or a vacuum in the tunnel.
It's not actually Futurama, the tunnel won't be train-sized and made of glass.