Perhaps EM Could Sponsor This With His "Pay Rise"!
A Russia-USA railway-tunnel under the Bering Strait, that is.
Yes, this old chestnut, either tunnel or bridges, first proposed back in the early 1900s, resurfaces now and then. Bridges, plural, because they would presumably use two mid-Strait islands.
I was alerted to this by a brief item in the latest edition of geology magazine Down To Earth, which had been tipped off by a reader sending a Press cutting.
Why my headline? After one of Presidents Putin's & Trump's telephone chats, Karil Dmitri, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, suggested reviving the plan to Elon Musk. I can't see he could done so without Mr. Putin's approval or even instruction.
Twenty minutes' browsing revealed history and analysis, but only one website, that of a group called "Interbering", considered the little matter of the geology, and then only by a very simplified section. And as DtE editor Chris Darmon commented but the Interbering diagram omits, the tunnel would cross a continental plate boundary....
While building some thousands of miles of connecting railways and roads in both nations, across very remote, frigid, seismically-active regions topped by permafrost that climate-change could thaw, may cost even more than Dmitri's projected $8 Bn apparently only for the tunnel itself.
The railway would be electrically-powered of course; adding to the building and maintenance expense including Amtrak having to electrify its main lines, or at least those serving the tunnel.
The proponents also ignore another little matter in their enthusiasm for a complete USA - Russia -China - Europe railway line. Track gauge!
The USA's, Canada's and most of Europe's railways are to Standard Gauge: 4' 8½" (1435mm).
Finland, Russia and China use the Russian, 5' gauge (rounded to 1520mm).
It is that gauge commonality, as well as relatively simple, stable geology and ease of physical access - oh, and fairly simple, stable international politics - that allowed the Channel Tunnel (railway) to succeed. That is only about 25 miles long, as well, whereas the Bering Strait crossing, in a very remote, seismically active, Arctic area, would be around 75-80 miles long.
I think the loading gauges (rolling-stock maximum height and width) differ too.
Well, it would excite The Three Narcissists no doubt, but be practical technically? Not really. Financially? One analysis I read predicts a huge loss because the US / Russian trade was already small even before the present war, and it would be unlikely to compete with general international shipping sufficiently to recoup the enormous building costs likely to increase as time goes on. I think the main trade would be USA / China.
I did not find Mr. Trump's views on it - perhaps he'd call it "great" and "big" and "beautiful".
Perchance to dream....
.....
Some years ago, then-PM Boris Johnson suggested, or was taken by someone else's suggestion, a bridge from Northern Ireland to Scotland, across the narrowest part of the Irish Sea. This is the same Johnson who suggested a huge artificial island in the Thames Estuary, for an airport.
Don't politicians ever learn basic science including physical geography, let alone even lay-level engineering?
Yes, this old chestnut, either tunnel or bridges, first proposed back in the early 1900s, resurfaces now and then. Bridges, plural, because they would presumably use two mid-Strait islands.
I was alerted to this by a brief item in the latest edition of geology magazine Down To Earth, which had been tipped off by a reader sending a Press cutting.
Why my headline? After one of Presidents Putin's & Trump's telephone chats, Karil Dmitri, the head of Russia's sovereign wealth fund, suggested reviving the plan to Elon Musk. I can't see he could done so without Mr. Putin's approval or even instruction.
Twenty minutes' browsing revealed history and analysis, but only one website, that of a group called "Interbering", considered the little matter of the geology, and then only by a very simplified section. And as DtE editor Chris Darmon commented but the Interbering diagram omits, the tunnel would cross a continental plate boundary....
While building some thousands of miles of connecting railways and roads in both nations, across very remote, frigid, seismically-active regions topped by permafrost that climate-change could thaw, may cost even more than Dmitri's projected $8 Bn apparently only for the tunnel itself.
The railway would be electrically-powered of course; adding to the building and maintenance expense including Amtrak having to electrify its main lines, or at least those serving the tunnel.
The proponents also ignore another little matter in their enthusiasm for a complete USA - Russia -China - Europe railway line. Track gauge!
The USA's, Canada's and most of Europe's railways are to Standard Gauge: 4' 8½" (1435mm).
Finland, Russia and China use the Russian, 5' gauge (rounded to 1520mm).
It is that gauge commonality, as well as relatively simple, stable geology and ease of physical access - oh, and fairly simple, stable international politics - that allowed the Channel Tunnel (railway) to succeed. That is only about 25 miles long, as well, whereas the Bering Strait crossing, in a very remote, seismically active, Arctic area, would be around 75-80 miles long.
I think the loading gauges (rolling-stock maximum height and width) differ too.
Well, it would excite The Three Narcissists no doubt, but be practical technically? Not really. Financially? One analysis I read predicts a huge loss because the US / Russian trade was already small even before the present war, and it would be unlikely to compete with general international shipping sufficiently to recoup the enormous building costs likely to increase as time goes on. I think the main trade would be USA / China.
I did not find Mr. Trump's views on it - perhaps he'd call it "great" and "big" and "beautiful".
Perchance to dream....
.....
Some years ago, then-PM Boris Johnson suggested, or was taken by someone else's suggestion, a bridge from Northern Ireland to Scotland, across the narrowest part of the Irish Sea. This is the same Johnson who suggested a huge artificial island in the Thames Estuary, for an airport.
Don't politicians ever learn basic science including physical geography, let alone even lay-level engineering?
