Slashdot Mirror
Alaska To Siberia... By Rail?
SlushDot writes:This article describes an unbelievably ambitious project that would make the "the chunnel", the underwater tunnel connecting England and France, look like a high school science project. Russia wants to build a tunnel from Eastern Siberia to Western Alaska, right under the Bering Sea. At a projected cost of 1.7x10^12 Russian Rubles (That's 4x10^10 GBP or $6x10^10 USD), I'm not sure where Russia will get this money, but wouldn't it be fun to ultimately travel from Tierra del Fuego to Johannesburg by train?"
$60 billion US.
... put all that money into an investing account, then use the interest to build big ferries, drive all the trains onto those ferries, and shuttle everything back and forth.
this would have a drastic impact on the world's view of russia, and may be worth that price in publicity alone.
:-)
remember that labor is dirt cheap for russia, so the dollar figure is a bit misleading. (that's how muc the labor it "worth", but not how much it costs) they'll part with much less cash in that, paying for raw materials and equipment, but equipment will also be made russian so that's cheap as well.
not much of a touristy idea tho (unless you like the coal trains of west virginia!
http://kered.org
Yeah, its a neat idea, and perhaps it could pave the way for things like space elevators and the like, but, is it REALLY cost effective to build a tunnel of that size and scale and length -- in such a remote place?
I'd think that the cost of shipping things/people to Alaska and Russia to get them somewhere they wanted to go (Say... Moscow, or China, or whatnot) would outweigh the cost of airplanes or large ships.
This is a cool idea, but the locale doesn't have the traffic to support it.
Poor little no puppy toe!
http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?3357354385
C'mon... it's just a quick way to start shipping their armored divisions over... ;-)
-- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -A.Einstein
Unfortunately, the death of communism hasn't done much to improve Russia's economy; there's still a lot of hungry people that must be fed, buildings that must be repaired, and pollution that must be removed (the Communists weren't too good about picking up after themselves). $60 billion would go a long way to repairing Russia's economy and fighting the rampant corruption there.
Engineering marvels and feats of science are cool and all, but I think it would be foolish to forget that technology is designed to serve the people, not enslave them. For a country as impoverished as Russia, the first order of business should be to help the many poor and/or depressed families get back on their feet.
Yu Suzuki
Yu Suzuki
Deamcast. It's thinking.
According to the Academie Francaise and the various defenders of the French language, it is "Le Shuttle", a politic compromise. The press and public generally contract "Channel tunnel" to "Chunnel".
The French don't like "Chunnel" because they call the body of water la Manche, and not the English Channel.
And it isn't the salmon in the north pacific.
It seems to me that this project will probably be funded by U.S. dollars and not Russian rubles. Although russia may be the face behind the operation, I'll bet that there are either plenty of U.S. investors involved, or the U.S. Federal Gov. will be willing to back the project with good-old taxpayers dollars (we weren't gonna use it anyhow...)
Either way, I hope the project manages to inject decent cashflow into the Commonwealth of Independent State's economy, God knows they need it.
The map in the article shows Fairbanks to the East of the US/Canadian Border. I know that Alaska is remote, but I think we would miss that much of it if the Canadians start redrawing maps to their own advantage! On a different note, the article mentions a tunnel to the Sakhalin (sp?) Islands, enthusiastically funded by Japan. In the 20 year time frame for the Bearing Strait tunnel, extending a tunnel all the way to the Japanese Mainland (Nippon) doesn't seem too far fetched. Forget Tierra Del Fuego to Johanesburg, try New York to Tokyo! -no sig is good sig
I'm a lawyer with excellent karma. Something's gotta be wrong.
First, let me mention that The Times should stick to buying maps, not drawing their own. Fairbanks is in Alaska, folks, not the Yukon...and Prince George is not ~300 miles inland.
That said, Alaskans (at least the environmental ones) will not be keen to have a road, or even a rail, from Nome to Fairbanks. Alaska includes an immense amount of undeveloped and inaccessible land, and even pro-oil folk want to see this continue.
Reading between the lines, the real benefit wouldn't be to tunnel cars, but trains. I can't imagine lots of immediate tourism, but trade would certainly develop.
The thing is, someone needs to do some analysis: is this really better than shipping by sea or air freight? (Anchorage is already one of the world's busiest cargo airports.)
The bottom line, as usual, is money. The Alaskan Oil Pipeline was an incredible feat of engineering, but was built for money. Who's going to see the money in a Trans-Bering tunnel?
Isn't this a fairly active volcanic area? I know I wouldn't want to be in the middle of the 23 mile stretch when a little one hits, let alone the big one.
I don't ever see this getting off the ground (or under it).
I used to live in Alaska. I moved there just before the pipeline went in. I remember what *that* took. This is a much bigger project with some bigger obsticles.
First - They are going to have to deal with the environmentalists. That alone is going to be a big task. When the pipeline was built, the various pro-environment groups were not nearly as strong as today. Getting them to even remotely buy-off on this is going to be next to impossible, if not totally impossible.
Second- They are going to have to figure out a way to make this thing work in tempitures that range from 60 below zero f to +90f in the summer. The climate is not hospitable to things that have moving parts or that can get buried.
Third - Much of the land is covered in permafrost. In order to build anything on it that will last, you have to dig to bedrock and fill with some other material. (Permafrost melts into a mud/jello-like substance in the summer. Outside Fairbanks you can see roofs of sunken houses that were built on it by foolish settlers.)
Fourth - There is absolutly NO economic reason to build the thing in the first place. Who is going to use it? The population density in Alaska and Siberia is very close to empty. There are not many people there. For the amount of track you would have to lay for so few people, what is the point?
Fifth - Good luck trying to get the governments of the US, Russia and Canada to agree on any of the details. I expect the wrangling by them, as well as the unions and other people who would want a peice of this to eat up 60 billion just amongst themselves. And that is before any track is laid.
Just because you can do a thing, does not mean you should.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
Yes, math is different there ^^
Considering they'd ever do this and get the trains running etc. It wouldn't do much good for transportation of people.
Sure, in most of the east you can ride a train just about anywhere. But when people get to alaska, they're going to have to get on a plane because of the lack of any popular or intricate american train system.
I mean, who *wouldn't* want to ride a train to Siberia?
:-)
Actually, thinking a bit more, it may be a good idea. Rail transport is surely cheaper than freighter. And there are a pile of Chinese folk just starting to get their shit together to become the biggest consumer market in the world. Might be nice to transport stuff to them cheaply.
On the other hand, I don't recall there being many rail lines from North America to South America, or a (productively working) rail line from Europe to India, the second-largest mass o' peeples. Or perhaps our media doesn't like reporting on it.
Except for the Aussies, the major landmasses would all be interconnected by road/rail. That'd be interesting. And what with global warming and all, maybe Siberia ain't such a bad spot to visit after all.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Weird, I had that same idea when I was 10 years or so... then I started calculating how long the tunnel would have to be. I remember thinking this is way too long for a tunnel and forgot about it again.
Anyway, isn't there seismological activity in this area ?
These costs have a way of rising. Also, Alaska has a way of rising... and falling... and swaying side-to-side. I'm referring to the tremendous quake that struck the area... in the 1960s was it? What would that have done to a tunnel?
Build the connecting lines, run some good, sturdy, Ice-breaker ferries for a while. See if they turn a profit, then get back to us. OK?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Matthew Vanecek For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me. I'm always getting i
Yep, it's true. Here's one link I know of which explains this phenomenon: A concise reference to the Metric System (SI)
--
It actually makes some sense.. For non-timing-sensitive cargo -- i.e. not people -- a train is damn efficent. And if you run it through Russia for a small cost, they'll make money on the market going between the US and Asia.
Gentoo Sucks
Sell the rights to the Major Motion Picture. That's probably what they're planning on to pay back the 60 gigadollars.
Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.
Yes, water transport is cheapest, but it's also the slowest. In fact, in the US the big railroads carry quite a bit of container traffic for the shipping companies like Maersk and APL. The ships call at Seattle or Portland or Oakland or LA and the railroads carry them to Boston or New York and the containers are put back on a ship to get to Europe. It's a lot faster than going all water via the Panama Canal.
60 billions bucks is not that much. After all, some oil company in Siberia generates so much money quite quickly and if this project is serious, I would not be suprised to hear about some Siberian Oil export.
BTW, I am a bit afraid of the human issues, especially when we know about what happened to Tchernobyl or the Koursk craft.
Maybe they'll have to prepair a rock-solid hi-tech project so that they can safely proceed ?
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Last I heard, Russia was facing severe unimployment, economic trouble, a suffering economy, and so on. One way to solve these problems is to get some really huge project that will need massive ammounts of manpower, and this tunnel seems like it will fit the bill. Some thoughts as to what it would need: Basic Labor (digging, hammering) Skilled Labor (Rivitting, welders, engineers, masons) Surveyors Logistics People Mess Crews (since we can assume they'll work on site) Tents and houskeeping Drivers Heavy Machinery Operators The people back at farms or foundries to provide materials As you can see, the list is enormous, and everybody's being paid, boosting their economy. In principle, it would be like the public works projects of the Great Depressions.
I can finally ship packages via UPS Ground to Asia and Europe!!!
Zetetic
Seeking; proceeding by inquiry.
Elench
A specious but fallacious argument; a sophism.
This is a brilliant idea for the Russians.
They just need to get the United States to partner with them, and then when they fail to meet their financial obligations, the US will cover for them.
It's working for the space station, why not a tunnel?
Split $60 billion (£40 billion) three ways and you have $20 billion (£13 billion). Assuming Russia gets a nice loan from the World Bank to help them cover their share, this could easily be pulled off. $60 billion to the US is like $6,000 to your average computer programmer. Sure it's a lot of money, but you could afford to spend it if you really wanted to.
--
There is no way anyone could build a tunnel here. Take a look at the earthquake record here and 5.0 magnitudes are very common in the region. In the 1960's Alaska had a 9.0 quake that destroyed hundreds of miles of the sea bed and the shore. NO WAY!
Will the last company to abandon Linux please turn off the lights??!
Alright I will weigh in because I think this is an interesting idea and it needs the right business model.
First, this project would not cost $60 billion, in fact, I would peg it at $180 before $60 because people tend to TOTALLY underestimate these types of projects. Since I'm not doing this study we will peg the total costs at $120 billion.
Second, economics. It must be cheaper for consumers of natural resources to build this tunnel rather then import oil, natural gas, and coal from this region rather then from traditional sources. Honestly, I would say there is an extremely good chance this could happen within the next 20 years. (Think LONG timetable to complete something like this and Alaska isnt too damn forgiving and neither is Siberia). With the uppidtyness of OPEC, deregulation of the power industry in the US and abroad, the instability of the MidEast and South America and increased enviormental conciousness in the US towards offshore drilling getting oil out of the ground in Siberia cheap to the US could stablize energy prices not just in the US but worldwide. Also, international oil and energy concerns (Shell, Texaco, ExxonMobil, Enron, Williams) would be more apt to develop the Siberian oil fields if they had an easier way of transporting oil out of the region.
Side note: I really wouldn't worry about terroist, reactionary, enviormental concerns on the Russian side of the line because quite frankly this thing would be generating so much hard currency for Mother Russia anyone would be shot dead if they looked at the tunnel crosseyed. Can you say Spentaz --sp commandos patrolling the tunnel.
Food for thought - PG&E, the California Electric company has taken out $4 billion worth of debt THIS YEAR to cover the spread between consumer prices and actual prices of energy. PG&E could be bankrupt just because of the destablizing nature of the commodity market when it comes to outside forces such as OPEC.
Finally, this is only the pipe that would run along with the tunnel itself. Trade in coal, manufactured goods (previous post talking about a Tokyo bridge), and a host of other materials could make this a viable project. However, the governmental (US-Russo relations), enviormental (what happens if earthquake), political (OPEC, budgetcutting), human (Who the hell wants to work in Alaska in -60F), and technical (permafrost, LONG tunnel, harsh conditions) are much tougher to overcome then the economic ever thought about being.
BC Ferries has three catamarans for sale. The PacifiCat Explorer, and the PacifiCat Discovery are currently in service in British Columbia. They're the second-largest aluminum-hulled catamarans in the world, and can do 34 knots. They'd probably run you about $200 million (Canadian) a piece.
$600 Million (Canadian, or about $400 million US) is a hell of a lot cheaper than $60 billion, and you can take your car onto the ferry... The ferries are almost new, and, while I don't like the decor too much, they're not bad.
This is actually a pet project of a group calling itself The Global Railway, which believes rail is a sustainable transportation technology that will assist development while keeping hydrocarbon emissions and depletion of non-renewable energy resources low. The fellow Razbegin has been pumping for the Bering Project for some time. This is getting some press not only because of the push forward on the Sakhalin Island fixed link, which the Russians believe to be a precursor to a rail link with Japan, but also because the former railways minister Aksyoneyev has become an influential big-shot in Putin's government (allegedly as a tool of Boris Berezovsky).
----
lake effect weblog
{Network engineer in Chicago--looking for work!}
There are some other perspectives on this project:
- the engineering experience of this project could be worthwhile for other projects (perhaps on a smaller scale) around the planet.
- the use of the line for goods transport is likely not to be economic. shipping is the number one intercontinental transport medium, and so pervasive and well defined that a long train trek across the north is not likely to be cheaper.
- it would be fantastic for tourism, because i could see many people wanting to take the journey, but the tourism is not going to cover the massive cost. not just to build it, but to maintain it.
in short, it is a "neat" project, but ultimately the stuff of dreams.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
I am not sure about the width of the track being different in the US and russia, but it seems logical. international trains from the netherlands to germany (or was it belgium..not sure) have to switch locomotives, and it's not much of a problem.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Well, sort of. When Stalin was in power, Russia attempted to dig a tunnel from the mainland Siberia to Sahkahlin island which (if I recall correctly) is about 20 or so miles from shore on the Pacific side. They used prisoners from forced labor camps (aka the Gulag) to dig this but they didn't get very far. In fact, I don't think they got more than a few hundred feet. You can read about this in a recent issue of National Geographic. I believe the article was about the Amur river but I may be wrong on this one... It was about the river that divides northeastern China from Russia.
Thousand million == 000 000 000 == billion
Million million == 000 000 000 000 == trillion
Thousand million million == 000 000 000 000 000 == quadrillion
Is the correct answer. England and indeed the whole of the UK and EC/EU standardised on these in the early 70's as part of the Standard Units / Metric system.
Some old fogies still use British Billion (and ounces and gallons, for fuck's sake...) but anyone aged under 30 will have been taught ONLY Standard Units / Metric at school.
What a shame the US can't get its act together and teach ONLY SU/Metric at THIER schools, eh? :-)
Speaking as a 29 year old Brit.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
Back a looooong time ago (more than 4 years) there was alot of talk about an Alaska-Siberia bridge that would carry automobile, train, and data traffic across the frozen expanse of ocean to Asia. Why might one ask if one were so inclined? Well Asia happens to be a pretty large producer of items that are often sold in places like America. While Russia (especially Siberia) might seem like a rather bland place to run railroads, Asia is exciting and warm. Not only could you run things like rail and data lines you could run another thing people like. Yes you may have guess, oil! Say you were a small-ish island nation with a heavy dependence on foreign oil imports vis a vis Japan. You help fund a solid transportation route between Asia and America, run some piping to somewhere like Korea (where you've got decent export agreements) and blamo you can lower the price of your oil a great deal. Korea and China also get the benefit of the foreign exported oil (and thus contributing to the effort to build such a solid transportation route between continents). Russia invested in rail transport instead of road transport (as opposed to the US) during the cold war and have a huge rail coverage area. If you connect this to the North American continent you suddenly have a fairly inexpensive route through which you can ship manufactured goods and consumables. A Chunnel (or bridge) would not only symbolically link the two continents but would also benefit anyone interested in international trade. The Pacific ocean is pretty fucking big and huge container ships are very expensive (especially when compared to rail transport). If you could start shipping goods from here to Asia by an inexpensive means (rail) you can lower the costs (great for cash starved economies) and increase volume. This of course is not a business plan or idea where to get money to build it (hint: get anyone who can benefit from a land route between continents to chip in some cash) but it is a reason (I think it's a decent to good reason) why would you even WANT to get from Alaska to Siberia by rail. Oh yeah, if suddenly vast amounts of exports started going through Alaska people might remember that it is indeed a state of the Union.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Before we get too fired up about this, there are
a lot of things to think about. For one,
rail is not of uniform guage (distance between
rails) worldwide. Locomotives and cars designed to operate on one guage will not work on another, period. The best one could do with current technology would be to unload and reload all passengers and cargo at each guage change.
Secondly, standards differ significantly even within North America on things like in-cab signaling (yes, they have that), procedures, etc. While this is not as difficult a problem to deal with (locomotives and operators can be switched), it exists nonetheless.
Finally, I think a much better investment of capital would be to improve the USA's own rail system, which has been terribly ignored by the government for decades now.
"Telecom cables are flexible, trains dont usually like it when their tracks start to change shape."
Within a reasonable limit (say a couple of meters per kilometer), railroads are actually quite flexible. Think about the differential expansion on the rails in a mountain railroad when the temperature goes from -15 deg.C to 10 deg.C between dawn and noon, for example.
Earthquakes are another matter...
sPh
"Trains are among the most inexpensive, most environmentally friendly, and most efficient ways to transport large amounts of anything (people, goods, etc)"
True in many circumstances when compared to road transport (automobiles, trucks), but not compared to ships. Ships are many times more efficient than trains. Think about the Norfolk Southern shipping coal overseas from the Virginia ports - it takes dozens of unit trains to fill one cargo ship. And the per BTU efficiency of movement is much higher for a ship.
The Burlington Northern RaiLink, where goods moving from EU to Asia are dropped off at a North American east coast port, shipped by train to Seattle or LA, then put back on a ship for the rest of the journey, is used to save time, not money. The rail part cuts 2-3 weeks off the total transit time.
sPh
The Russians are experts as dealing with different guage tracks, as they have to deal with it already. Just a matter of putting different wheels under the cars. (Note the cars have to be built to support it, which isn't a problem excpet for US cars, but we can solve the problem)
I cannot belive that there is any railroad in the world that isn't an expert as switching cars around. Taking electric through the tunnel (dealing with exhaust means that electric is the likely choice) and then swithing to american diesel is a trivial task, just get out of the tunnel, stop (you have to stop for customs anyway), unhook, move the electric engine of the way, and hook on a diesel. More engines are needed to get up a mountain then across the great plains, so it is common to have a few extra engines that you hook on just before entering mountains, and dropping them off as you leave.
There are problems of course. Difficult problems in fact. However there are no problems that cannot be solved. The biggest is not digging the tunnel, but getting lines to the tunnel. Everyone wants to say they were a part of digging the great tunnel. Building anouther railroad line isn't as exciting. There are others.
Then, Michael Palin could do another travelogue.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Frankly, after all of the points I can't see what the tunnel would be for. Planes move folks more efficiently (a detour through Alaska & Siberia is not going to be popular for most of the travelling population!) and specialized ships handle the various cargos, again more directly. While the tourist market might be considerable I can't see it justifying a US$60-billion expenditure on something as fragile as a tunnel through a seismically active area fed via high-maintenance tracks in ecologically fragile land against widespread public opposition & likely govermental non-support.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
For those of you outside the UK, Railtrack are the company that took over the running of the railway tracks during privatisation. There was a fatal accident a few months ago, then it was realsised that Railtrack had not been performing enough preventative maintenance over the years. Consequentially we had 20 mile-an-hour limits placed on many sections of track. I recently took 4 hours to complete a journey that usually takes less than two.
I've a journey to make this weekend, from Leeds to Leicester and back. Railtrack are rebuilding Leeds station, and the work was supposedly to have been completed over the holiday period. It hasn't, resulting in trains being replaced by buses. I've no idea if my train will be running this weekend.
After all, what other state gives you a check every year after you fill out your tax form?
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
I actually live in Southeast Alaska and our ferry service (the Alaska Marine Highway System) sucks. It's expensive to keep those things running too! My home town (Juneau) actually does not have a road in/out. We rely heavily on Alaska Airlines and the ferries for travel.
Don't think that those in charge of this idea haven't thought of the ferry system before you! I'm sure they know much more about the weather considerations and the such than you do...
-DCookie
My Sig is a SG-552 Commando
My SIG is a SG-552 Commando
So, I suggest a modest investment of a fraction of the proposed cost in: CargoLifter. A decently large fleet wouldn't cost tens of billions, and would provide cheep fast enough cargo service. We could scrap the alaska-siberia issue (being close is not as nescesary), and concentrate on moving stuff between the pacific coastal areas (like San Francisco up to Vancouver (is it?) over to Japan, Hong Kong and some of China). See also: a summary of the cargolifter project.
Now I am a fan of both trains and airships, so ultimately I should like to see both come to pass. But before the bearing-tunnel is a good idea, I should like to see capable, speedy, regular, and affordable rail travel instituted between North American cities at least, then central america and south america too. By regular, I mean Boston to Chicago or Washington at least four times daily (one way), and close locations like Worcester to New York (or even just Boston), or Houston to Dallas, hourly or if they're really close (like an hour appart) then half hourly.
-Daniel
Ahhh. The Swiss Rail
1. Ice makes ferry and barge service impossible during some seasons.
2. The Bering sea is the home of the worst weather in the Pacific. And that's on a good day. Enough barges and cargo are lost in that area that the media doesn't even report them anymore. You just expect it. There is a Coast Guard vessel that does nothing but cruise back and forth whacking seventy millimeter shells through floating cargo containers so that they won't become nav hazards. People travel by air, and the only thing that goes on the barge is stuff that can be replaced.
On the other hand, If we really want to get to Siberia, we can fly out to Diomede and walk the rest of the way during the winter.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
I heard about a project for a tunnel Taiwan - mainland China. Would it be more difficult (technically / politically / economically)?
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I totally see their point of view. Just last week, I was playing CivII on King. I was having trouble defeating the Persians until I captured their first city (took 10 cannons to do it -- all their cities were walled). The problem was that I'd take a turn moving next to their city and they'd get a free shot on my cannons (with 1 defense). When I finally captured that city, I just railroaded in all my cannons to their other cities and captured them in maybe 5 turns.
Russia had a totally good reason to make railroads a different size -- so we couldn't roll our cannons in!
--
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
The Russians, who have lots of oil, are also the masters of oil pipeline technology, and build pipelines that make ours look downright silly. They have lots of transport for their oil. What they don't have are countries with hard currencies willing to purchase the oil.
If you think that drilling in Siberia is any less harmful to the ecology than Alaska, you have another thing coming. In Alaska, there are strict rules about how, where, when, and what happens in the oil patch, and there are a bunch of folks standing around to make sure the rules are followed. Penalties for infraction are severe. In Siberia, there are no such rules, and no folks watching, either.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
Everybody so far has it backwards. Water transport is the cheapest, followed by rail, road and air.
In the part of the world in question the sea is often covered with ice. Thus you'd need either a submarine or an ice breaker, which don't come cheap.
"Standard Gauge" in Australia is about 4ft8 (presumably that's the British standard which may or may not date back to Roman chariot axle widths), though Victoria uses 5ft3 or so.
(This is just from memory, so it may be wrong.)