Slashdot Mirror
Russia Approves Siberia-Alaska Railway
An anonymous reader writes "In what could easily be one of the boldest infrastructure developments ever announced, the Russian Government has given the go-ahead to build a transcontinental railway linking Siberia with North America. The massive undertaking would traverse the Bering Strait with the world's longest tunnel – a project twice the length of the Chunnel between England and France. The project aims to feed North America with raw goods from the Siberian interior and beyond, but it could also provide a key link to developing a robust renewable energy transmission corridor that feeds wind and tidal power across vast distances while linking a railway network across 3/4 of the Northern Hemisphere."
do I watch instead of Ice Road Truckers?
A $65 Billion rail tunnel. I can dig it.
In C++, your friends can see your privates.
Didn't the Discovery Channel have an Extreme Engineering episode covering such a thing, like, 10 years ago?
If that's the case, I cannot frickin' wait to see the mile-high tower/city complex in Tokyo.
One question, though... who the hell is footing the bill for this thing, and what is the expected ROI timeline?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
I thought they were more broke than we are (perhaps it is indeed the other way around for USA, USSR went broke after nearly 10 years in Afghanistan). This railway looks like a interesting challenge in civil engineering and in some ways, I'd like to see it built. Hope this is not a bunch grandstanding and PPT documents. Disclaimer: I did not RTFA.
mfwright@batnet.com
. . . to see bearded guys in furs hanging around in Penn Station, waiting for the track announcement for the train to Moscow (first stop Secaucus Junction, of course).
Damn that Putin - always spoiling the prospects for global thermonuclear anihilation
He wanted to go for a suspension bridge and a maglev train, but he can support the puny humans building a tunnel instead, however his Neo-Lords can just fly across on their own, so he scoffs at their pitiful ways.
The US really does need a high-speed freight transportation system with Asia. Right now, shipping to China can take weeks for heavy freight. It really needs to come down to days, maybe even 1 day if we can get a nice 300mph system.
Should be far more energy efficient (->cheaper) than boat as well.
#1 It involves Russia. There are too many people who will be worried about pinko-commies invading the American Heartland.
#2 it involves rail. Yes, freight-rail primarily, which has some presence in the US. But there's no way that the US will build the kind of rail network that will link a tunnel on the far-western side of Alaska with the rest of the US in order to import Russian goods.
#3 It will cost money. Considering that our lovely congress-critters are willing to blow up the US over money that has already been spent on previously approved projects, I can't see how the US government will spend even a penny on this completely pie-in-the-sky project.
#4 It requires significant infrastructure projects in Alaska to link a tunnel ending at an uninhabited point in Alaska with places that can actually use all the stuff coming through. Not gonna happen, for the reasons listed above.
Nice dream, but not gonna happen. Even (I would say especially) if Russia funds the entire cost of the tunnel.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
but it could also provide a key link to developing a robust renewable energy transmission corridor that feeds wind and tidal power across vast distances
*sigh* No, it will not happen. No one is going to be building "tidal power transmission lines' considering there is no viability to tidal power generation. Same for wind power. It is supplemental to gas generation at best.
You may as well have written that purple fairies will greet us when we land on Mars and that there is a secret alien base on the far side of the Moon.
Finally, the entire railway project is kind of ill thought out in the first place. Why build a railway when you can just use the sea to move stuff? Considering there is not that much traffic between US and Russia, railway like that is kind of an overkill. This is especially in light that the even Euro-tunnel is not the financial success that it was thought to be.
The cold war truly is over. I wonder how long until the US and Russia have a relationship like Britain and France.
Also: In Post-Soviet Russia, you link up transcontinental railway. In America, transcontinental railway links up you!
Demented But Determined.
The future of energy in the north is still natural gas and to a lesser extent, oil.
Projections for a natural gas pipeline in the state of Alaska foresees 100%-500% income over the oil pipeline.
http://www.adn.com/2011/08/22/2026719/report-shows-value-of-all-alaska.html
Siberia, the Russian Far East, Alaska and northern Canada are all rich with natural gas. And no one knows what is out in the Arctic Ocean.
On the one hand, I'm worried about the environmental damage that such an endeavor would do. On the other hand, in the long run if done properly this could save on a lot of shipping that would be more environmentally damaging. Also there are serious issues with lack of infrastructure in the US. This isn't within the US itself but would help solve some of the same problems that such infrastructural collapse is causing. The system will link into the larger North American rail system which is in decent shape as far as moving freight is concerned (I'd like more investment in it in directly in the US but that seems unlikely right now). The price tag on this project is massive, TFA says $65 billion for the whole project with around $10 billion for the main tunnel. That's a lot of money, and I can't help wonder if there aren't a lot of small projects that would have a better return. In general small projects have a very high rate of marginal return, but that may be more true in the sciences than other areas. I don't know how true that is for something like this. And TFA correctly points out that this could give a lot of economic stimulus in terms of jobs, which is something that both the US and Russia sorely need right now. TFA doesn't address what American permits are needed for this. I would imagine that state and federal approval would be necessary but the article doesn't discuss that at all. Overall, I'm skeptical that this will end up going through successfully anytime soon. But the idea of being able to take a train from Boston to Moscow certainly sounds appealing.
If Ted Stevens were still around this would be a done deal.
It's going to connect to that bridge to nowhere in Sarah Palin's Alaska and they will have to defend themselves from the millions of Soviet Russians coming through the tunnel.
That's a lot scarier than nukular subs...
After being a Russian citizen for 30 years, I can tell you right away that this will be one of the most spectacularly disgraced projects in history. There are oh so many ways to screw this up and for Russians one is usually enough.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Finally, they build one of the massive "what-if" projects.
Isn't there a fault line between Alaska and Russia?
Look, a jobs program!
And paid for by someone else!
That will never see the light of day.
In soviet russia Government railroads you!
That would be cool as hell, but damn... you'd better be single.
I say this because when you're single, long road trips are liberating, exciting, and just plain damned fun. Marriage and kids turn that idea into a grueling endurance run, complete with large numbers of restroom, tourist-trap, and restaurant stops.
Then again, Siberia would be an excellent place to hide a body, no?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
As western Europe shuts down their nuclear reactors they become more dependent upon Russian fossil fuels. Russia has made a lot of money off of energy exports and is likely to see this increase.
I can't wait until I can take a train from Moscow to Moscow.
If they can pull this off, I think it would be amazing. What I'm wondering about is how far they're going to have to go. The last time I took the train we ended up spending the night just outside Havre, MT, because the train wasn't able to handle the cold. Granted it would have been a different story had it been properly winterized, but still, given how much nothing there is out there during winter.
But my rail-freight-delivered Russian caviar will have to pass through CANADA to get from Alaska to the mainland!
Seems like a customs nightmare to get from China > Russia > Canada > US, but taking a train from New York to London, the long way, would be a fun trip.
Seems a natural enough idea for something useful.
If memory serves, there's a tectonic plate or two thereabouts, so I'd expect some interesting engineering as well.
Hmm. One planet, one dominant species (apologies to e. coli et al), one future - so to me it makes sense to plan for some of the better parts of it.
There are a lot of transcontinental railroads in the US. I'd assume they have some in Russia too. This would be an 'intercontinental' railroad.
(It's possible it could be called 'trans-oceanic' but that would be only a technicality.)
--Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
You won't have to worry about converting from dollars to roubles... by the time this tunnel is finished, Bitcoins will be the worldwide currency.
Let me know when they announce the completion.
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
The real article is from 2007, the other link is to a recent blog post that paraphrases the 2007 article.
Nice idea, but if it was true, they'd be drilling by now.
[insert comment about slashdot only posting old news and not mattering anymore]
I understand the freight transport bit, but there is a missing detail here.
WTF happens when the freight makes its way to the Seward Peninsula via Little Diomede? It is still 500 miles as the crow flies over to Fairbanks. Exactly how much will it cost and how long will it take to build that section?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Umm, which track gauge will they use? North American or Russian? If the Russians agreed to use North American gauge and run the line all the way to China (which uses the same gauge as North America and Europe), well, that'd be convenient for us...
Yet another proud power point presentation from the Russians about their Brave Future Plans. Seriously, how do these announcements keep making the news? Russia announces bold plans regularly, and equally regularly they vanish into the recycling bin after a few weeks.
Not to mention, this is like me approving a bridge across the Puget Sound. Not only do I not have the money - the government of King County has no idea that they're party to this plan.
Then again, Siberia would be an excellent place to hide a body, no?
Nah, it's hard to dig permafrost, and bodies end up preserved pretty well otherwise.
Being that I live in Anchorage, I would think someone in Alaska would talk about this. Not so, it's all quite on the Alaska news front. In fact I just drove the Alcan for my 17 time. FYI, it's still not "done". They are still working to finish paving above Destruction Bay. Why is it a bunch of people who have never set foot in the Yukon think that they can put a rail in? Then the miles in Western Alaska that has never seen a road. I would love to see land based access open up in western AK, but I see this project as wishful thinking based on the current admin in power in Alaska.
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
Since there is no rail link between Alaska and the rest of North America (see here), this seems like an incredibly unwise project. And if the Russians are waiting for Americans to complete the rail link on their side of the tunnel so that it connects with the US network, then they're seriously overestimating us. Doing so would probably cost more than the tunnel itself, and would be a political non-starter for at least three different reasons (cost being the primary one).
Yes, there are pollution problems, because they're typically not run cleanly, but ships are efficient. has figures that say that "domestic waterborne" shipping uses about 50% more energy per ton*km than "Class 1 rail", but domestic waterborne shipping is going to be less efficient than international, because it uses smaller ships than the container ships that have revolutionized global commerce. A more important issue is really how far you have to haul goods using the two different methods - Vladivostok to Los Angeles is probably a lot closer by water than by rail, and certainly Shanghai to LA is closer by water.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Russia made their rails incompatible with the rest of the world so that a foreign military could not just rail on into mother Russia.
That means they have a track width (called gauge in rail language) which is 4 foot 11 inches. While the US has 4 foot 8½ inches. Enough difference to instantly derail the train. The good part is that most of Europe and China uses the same gauge as US. I'm curious if they will modify their tracks or make new rail wheels which covers both sizes. Being that this is bound to open up a massive amount of shipments. Imagine if China joins in. Rail would see an amazing comeback. Next we would have Japan make a tunnel to join the Russian rail. I suspect that this would also make foreign countries more accessible and lower the desire to kill the "different" people "way over there".
(Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge)
I like the green energy angle. Wind and tidal power? Really? I notice that the US didn't agree to the project, a small detail. Cooperation with Russia is long overdue, considering that they occupy Georgia, and enable a nuclear Iran. If we do build a bridge to Russia it will be to move our battle tanks into Siberia.
an ill wind that blows no good
. . . that all of us live to see this. We will celebrate /. being 100, too.
These kinds of declarations of monumental projects have a habit of dying early. I'll believe it NOT when ground is broken, but when the first trucks start rolling through. I'd like to see it happen, but I doubt it will have a major impact on our (USA) economy soon and not as big as people think. Simply because shipping is quite efficient and cost effective. Largest freighters now can carry about 15,000 TEUs. Perhaps enough to fill 7,500 tractor trailers. And there are plans to build 20,000 TEU ships. The shipping costs you incur for buying Chinese products is quite negligible thanks in great deal to the monstrous size of these ships and the economy of scales they engender. Our biggest pacific trading partner is China, so hauling cargo from China to California is roughly a half circle. Contrast this to going in a straight line. The economics of this suggest it's not going to happen. A bigger impact on the global economy is the melting polar ice cap, and the increasing year round access of the Northwest Passage in Canada.
California's high-speed rail project didn't involve any radical engineering like building a tunnel under the Bering Straits or building railroads across frozen parts of Alaska, just a simple system upgrade from San Francisco to Los Angeles and San Diego along existing rights of way, and the price has already gone from the $30B low-ball price sold to the voters ($10B in bonds and $20B in magic money falling from the sky) to somewhere around $40-50B.
There are other differences - it's possible that this is being proposed for the purposes of actually building a railroad and shipping goods on it rather than for spending money and paying off every rich community along the way, by I'm skeptical about claims that you can build a tunnel under the Bering Straits for less than you can build a surface railroad from LA to Bakersfield, or that Russian corruption is any less than the polite Californian version.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
If the predictions come true and Siberia slowly becomes fertile farming ground such a link could be very beneficial to both countries. But yeah, considering how many people freak out when the Mexico-USA-Canada highway is brought up I just don't see any way the Republicans allow the border to be opened with Russia. Americans are currently trying to build walls, not knock them down.
Still, anyone bored and looking for entertainment should listen to Limbaugh/Beck and the right-wing chat machine when this comes across their news feed. If you are looking for a brief synopsis: "yada yada, Obama's fault, yada yada, communism, yada yada, muslims, yada yada..."
Technology! We should be using a space elevator for this!
Hans Reiser, is that you?
The Chunnel is one thing; Great Britain is on the same geological plate as Europe. This is something else entirely, trying to link two continents on separate moving plates, in a region that's notorious for earthquakes, underwater.
Completely aside from political and monetary problems, this just isn't a good idea.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
So Russia approves this, ha?
I guess they figured out a way to suck more oil/tax money out of the system and spread the wealth around. Not too far around, at this scale it's going to be 5-6 thousand people sucking on this cash pipe.
Do you know how much money road construction costs in Russia? Right now the numbers are anywhere between 190 Million and 8 Billion rubbles per kilometer, depending where construction is taking place (and the closer to the center of Moscow it is, the more expensive it becomes actually. No, really, the 8 Billion / km is in Moscow and 190 Million is some far away region. 30 million rubles is 1 million dollars by the way (roughly speaking).
They are talking about 6000km of rail road of-course, not a highway. But let's look at their numbers. The tunnel is 103km, the rail is 6000km, their estimation is 65 Billion USD.
There is no way that the tunnel per km will be lower cost than asphalt road in Moscow, which is 8Billion rubbles/km.
8Billion divided by 30 is $266,666,667. Multiply by 103km, that's $267,466,667,000 for the tunnel alone.
Now if you even say that the 6000km of rail is going to be only approximately 25% of cost of cheapest road built in Russia, that's 6000km * 50Million rubbles. That's 300,000,000,000 rubbles, or 10,000,000,000 USD.
OK, so maybe if they just build the railroad (which I probably underestimated by a factor of TEN, it's 10 Billion USD. That sounds ridiculously low by Russian standards in terms of costs for such things. But even if I overestimated the cost of the tunnel by the same factor of 10, then let's see, it's then a total of $36,746,666,700.
So with all the guesses based on construction costs in Russia and then dividing the likely costs of tunnel by factor of 10 and leaving the railroad costs to be 25% of cheapest construction costs found in Russia, I get to a number which is only about half of the number given for this project in TFA.
But don't forget that any road built in Russia is built somewhere near a town or a city, and this will have to be built in the wild Siberian forests and the same trick that worked for BAM in the days of Stalin, Kruschev and Brejnev, when they used prisoners to do the work (and it still took over 20 years in total time to do for only 3000km) is not going to work.
The amount of work required was officially underestimated only by a factor of 4 in those times. Of-course today there is much more technology to do this, but will there be the same amount of work force available?
I am likely severely underestimating the costs per km, because none of those roads that are built at those costs are built in conditions that these roads would have to be built. It's not just brutal, it's really deadly conditions, I lived in Yakutia for 6 years, that's way North of this proposed rail, but the difficulty of the work will really have to be compensated in these time not with a prison sentence, but with actual money, and I don't think it's going to be that easy to get people to do this work cheaply.
The important thing to remember, is that those 8,000,000,000 rubles for a km of road in Moscow are not really spent on construction, they are spent lining up bank accounts for all the parties involved.
Maybe if they can hire Chinese and go with the old half joke:
A German and a Chinese company are trying to get a tender to build a structure in Russia, and Germans want 2 Million to build the thing really well and Chinese want 1 Million. So a Russian guy bets on the tender for 3 Million. When asked why is his bet higher than any other, he says: 1 Million is for you, 1 Million is for me and Chinese will build it for 1 Million.
You can't handle the truth.
Don't get me wrong; as an Alaskan, I'd love to see this go in, but it's not going to happen.
First, the seas of the Bering Strait makes the English Channel look like a backyard swimming pool, especially in the winter months - that is, most of the year. Boats simply don't go there. Good luck operating any kind of floating construction equipment with colder than -100F wind chill, ice bergs, and 1-2 knot constant water currents.
Don't underestimate the difficulty in putting a rail system across the land in those areas either. Between Fairbanks and Nome is literally five hundred miles of permafrost, swamps, silt, fault lines, rivers, lakes, mountains, and simultaneous combinations of the above. There isn't any infrastructure or construction-friendly ground here. Even with ten thousand people living in Nome we can't even build a dirt road out there. I can't imagine the other side of the Strait being any better.
And let's not forget the environmentalists. If we can't drill ANWR, then this rail is out of the question.
To call this a pipe dream would be an understatement, especially for a measly $65 billion.
not true , they are going to print on the trees they cut down along the way.
I can think of two major obstacles right off the top. First unlike the English Channel , this is an incredibly seismically active region building it along the ring of fire. Second the environmental impact on such a pristine area would be horrendous and would face huge obstacles on the environmental front.
coming up the movie that will bring the fear to the american people, the russian are building a secret tunnel under the train to be able to invade the USA! those guys are genius.. God bless the communiste
You don't dig anything, drop it somewhere and let the wild life take care of it. Just burn the clothes and remove any piercings/jewelry first (and do something about those teeth, just in case.)
You can't handle the truth.
The article is dated 2007. Why is this news now?
If it was underground! "Mind explodes"
The US spent more than a trillion bailing out the bankers....
I'd be more concerned about permafrost, and possibly glaciers. Especially glaciers -- they're the one surface terrain where we're still pretty much in the stone age insofar as the construction of permanent precision infrastructure is concerned. You can't sink pilings down to the bedrock, because glaciers flow (slowly) and would eventually shear them away at "ground" level. You can't treat ice like bedrock, because pressure liquefies it and causes whatever you built on top to slowly sink. To cross a glacier field, you'd literally have to blast a canyon into the ice down to the permafrost, THEN build it on refrigerated concrete pilings to keep the ground around it frozen forever. Or maybe build a long multi-span suspension bridge whose support columns rested on concrete foundations big enough to flow the ice around them (with occasional seismic-like activity when the ice briefly prevails and manages to shove the concrete artificial island a few inches). Even if the environmentalists didn't go into convulsions, I'm sure it would be so cost-insane it would almost make sense to build the whole thing in a deep bored tunnel instead.
That said, if they can solve the civil engineering problems in a way that won't bankrupt the venture, it would be pretty cool. If nothing else, it would mean there would eventually be cheaper transportation links between Alaska and the lower 48 + Canada as well, so the state of Alaska would no longer have to budget enough food stamps for indigenous people who insist on living 500 miles from the nearest Wal-Mart and pay something like $12 for a box of Rice Krispies.
up to Alaska. If only a new compelling reason to make this happen would present itself to us.
I can think of some things in Alaska that we could do without... Of course we'd probably have to ship them with payment to convince the Russians to take them.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
OOOOOOOOL
Consider: from Los Angeles to London.
Or Top Gear from London to Tierra del Fuego! On Harley's!
Citation is a factless regurgitation. See The Sunday Times for the original source.
The real reason why the Russians want to build this is to funnel troops and supplies through it, so they can RED DAWN our asses. And this time Charlie Sheen and Patrick Swayze are in no shape to save us...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Ah, but when you're married, they can be a deliverance from insanity.
You are welcome on my lawn.
To make this work requires Canadian cooperation. The most likely near term benefit once completed would be to subject Canadian raw materials to Russian competition.
Luke, help me take this mask off
and just sell alaska back to russia. or china. or canada. they'll get a gasbag mama grizzly as a bonus, you betcha
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Tolls for other countries to use it might be worth while. For example asian countries using the Russian end to get stuff to NA but still in terms of actual benefit to the two countries based on their trade with each other I don't see it. Trade between the countries is only 32B, and a lot of that could be coming to or from the east coast from parts of Russia near Moscow so train wouldn't help. Sure trade would probably grow, but how much will it grow? Alaska has a tiny population as does Russia near where the tunnel is going to be (two closest "states" have a combined population of 450k). So I doubt there will be a lot of tourist travel. After all if you live in that part of Russia it looks a lot like Alaska and vis versa. If you live elsewhere in Russia/America you want to see something else likely in the respective country (Las Vegas, LA, NY, etc, and Moscow St. Petersberg etc the other way).
#5 It involves Canada. They probably wouldn't mind that much; but it's still another jurisdiction.
#6 It involves a vast region of mountains, permafrost, and seismicity. There's a reason that small planes, boats, and snowmobiles are common forms of transportation in Alaska. Yeah, there's a highway but it's not for the faint of heart. Bringing anything other than slow freight with tight curves through there sounds like as big an achievement as the tunnel. Let's get an estimate from the Swiss before we try this. They've got exerpience with that and will probably come up with a number that will make all parties think twice.
#7. OMG! Wildlife. How many Greenpeace lawsuits per mile of track?
#8. When you finally reach the US, where are you? Seattle? Chicago or Denver might be be a better destination since you need to get out of the Canadian Rockies anyway; but are the swampy/icy northern planes of Canada any less challenging? Something makes me think they're not.
Everyone is always going just "Oil-oil-oil...". Whatever the political or economical issue may be everyone just jumps on the oil bandwagon as if that's the only possible answer.
How about food instead?
~312 mil people on one end of the line, holding top spots in world's production of corn and soy and in arable and permanent cropland.
~2.7 billion people on the other side of the line. Including world's largest producer of meat - China.
As for Russia... Selling oil is not their priority.
They'd much rather corner the world market on natural gas.
And naturally, as the article mentions - they plan to be selling electricity from renewable resources.
And there's no need to even start talking about all the stuff that gets imported into USA from China.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Russia has pretty extensive experience with rail transportation, including some of the world's deepest subways. I'd go so far as to say Moscow's subway system is the most stunning in the world-- much moreso than the DC Metro or anything in Germany.
FWIW, Russia's subway construction has certainly continued through the collapse of the Soviet Union to the present day. If you want some eye candy, Google for the Cosmonaut Avenue station.
Russia's top exports currently are, iirc, petroleum and minerals, both of which this would facilitate the export of. This could be quite beneficial in lowering or at least helping to stabilize domestic oil prices by giving us high-volume, low-cost access to a very large supply. And distribution from Alaska to the lower 48 is already a solved issue. Russia maintains rail trade with China and again, track gauge switching is something that's already been done for a long time.
And yes, you really can see Russia from Alaska. It's not altogether a bad thing.
If I am not mistaken, I think that train rails are a different distance apart in Russia than in the West. They were afraid that, were a war to break out, we might use the rail infrastructure to invade their country. This would make it difficult if not impossible to get our goods into their country beyond their end of the tunnel (presuming our standards are followed) or theirs beyond our end if the alternative happened - unless the goods were unloaded and placed on adjacent train tracks with trains that can run within that nation's system. Sounds trivial but think of the cost to replace an entire rail system to make it compatible.
it would almost make sense to build the whole thing in a deep bored tunnel instead.
I know this is /. and all, but it's in TFS.
The massive undertaking would traverse the Bering Strait with the world's longest tunnel
This should make it easier to get all all those Russian mail-order brides into the US at a significantly lower cost!
Take that, Philippines!
#DeleteChrome
At the rate USA is going, it is only a matter of time before it sells Alaska to China...
People? They fly, it's faster that way.
Goods? Sea transport is much cheaper.
Plus, the infrastructure from from Bering strait to Trans-Siberian railroad and China down south simply does not exist (in U.S. terms.)
This will cost way more than the 65bn estimated. The Chunnel was approximately 17 billion in todays dollars. This is twice as long. And the Chunnel went through a layer of chalk almost all the time. This is going through mainly igneous rock. Hard hard rock. 1 trillion dollars might be a lowball estimate for the cost. They will essentially have to stockpile 9 months of supplies in a huge building or well designed set of buildings at each end to accommodate construction through the winter. It needs to cover equipment and people, all the resources and tools. The chunnel was about 5 million a day in operating expenses. Work stoppages just have to be avoided. So you have to over buy equipment and have extra people around to mitigate that because 9 months of the year you are crippled in logistics from the outside world.
On the other hand, is it worth it? Likely, but the Russians will be surprised that most of the trucks will have Chinese drivers that arrive to offload. If they are smart they will do a design that accommodates a double deck 4 lanes each way auto tunnel at the same time. And just for me they'd put an underwater office and hotel in two spots along the tunnels.
If they think they can submerge tunnel sections and then join them underwater and clear the water after construction; well, they haven't watched what the crab boats do on "Deadliest Catch". Note to self: Underwater Hotel roof must have extra heavy glass, and triple hull even at windows.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Russia is planning to extend the Trans-Siberian Railway to the Pacific Ocean by 2030. Only then is a tunnel worth considering. Also, there's no rail connection on the US side.
Reasons why this railroad won't run:
1. There aren't any roads, rail or otherwise, between Nome and Anchorage, a distance of ~1000 miles. Google Maps won't even give walking directions, and "Your search for transit directions from Anchorage, AK to Nome, AK appears to be outside our current coverage area. Please consult our list of participating public transit agencies."
2. Train tracks are a different, narrower gauge in the U.S. (and in every country except Russia). So you'd need to change trains, probably across the platform in Nome.
3. The proposed train route ends in Victorville, CA. Who the hell wants to have to get off the train in Victorville?
"...but it could also provide a key link to developing a robust renewable energy transmission corridor that feeds wind and tidal power across vast distances while linking a railway network across 3/4 of the Northern Hemisphere." ...but it could also provide a key link to developing a robust bullshit transmission corridor that feeds windbags.
Rail died back in the USA with cheap road transport. More expensive fuel provides another reason to use rail since locomotives can shift more for the same fuel as even the biggest rig.
The other reasons may well kill it.
Just saying...
Reasons why this railroad won't run:
1. There aren't any roads, rail or otherwise, between Nome and Anchorage, a distance of ~1000 miles. Google Maps won't even give walking directions, and "Your search for transit directions from Anchorage, AK to Nome, AK appears to be outside our current coverage area. Please consult our list of participating public transit agencies."
I thought the dog sled race was to commemorate the Great Race of Mercy and of mushers in general.
Though I have to admit I'm really just for the bush pilot's racing league. (Assuming it exists. And if not, why not!)
3. The proposed train route ends in Victorville, CA. Who the hell wants to have to get off the train in Victorville?
After being stuck on a train all the way across Siberia and Alaska, who wouldn't want to get off? I'm willing to bet every man, woman, and child on the train would sell their soul to never see a train again.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Your ideas are interesting and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter. Whats is your .onion hash again?
The GHG footprint of marine shipping is roughly 10 g carbon / tonne cargo / km. The cost for rail is about 18g. And that's for roughly straight-line distances with minimal handling. They're similar, but only for cargoes that don't have to go very far out of their way to cross at the Bering strait. Just not seeing the benefit, myself.
*Figures derived from this CN rail advertisement.
http://www.cn.ca/en/corporate-citizenship-environment-greenhouse-gas-calculator.htm
I cant wait to ride. I will be headed back to the Orchestra car to listen to Christmas music.
Why would the tunnel be longer than the Chunnel? According to Wiki, the Chunnel is ~53 miles, which is about the distance from San Francisco to San Jose. The sea part of it, build it from Cape Dezhnev to Nome, and on land, on either side, they can do what's needed. On the Russian side, branch the Trans-Siberian railway to this place, while on the North American side, have a combination of railways and freeways run to Anchorage, and from there, branch out to Canada - Yukon and BC, while running all the way to Seattle.
I'm very glad at this development, since it allows Americans to buy energy from Russia that's largely unused (since Russia's population is half that of the US, and the bulk of it lives west of the Urals.) It would also open up more development in Siberia, resulting in more people settling there, instead of already overcrowded metros like Moscow. If Russia has a labor shortage while developing these energy resources, it could import jobless people from the US to man such facilities.
I can't wait until I can take a train from Moscow to Moscow.
If they can pull this off, I think it would be amazing. What I'm wondering about is how far they're going to have to go. The last time I took the train we ended up spending the night just outside Havre, MT, because the train wasn't able to handle the cold. Granted it would have been a different story had it been properly winterized, but still, given how much nothing there is out there during winter.
Are one of the Moscows you referred to in ID? And is there a train on the North American side that would take you to the Bering Strait?
Presently, I don't think there is, I can't imagine why we would have one at present. But ultimately there kind of would have to be otherwise this would be a really stupid idea.
Soon enough the Arctic will be free of ice year round. Shipping by boat will be wildly cheaper and more direct. Besides, in a few hundred years, the only humans left will be living around the arctic circle or on the fringes of antarctica.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
There are other differences - it's possible that this is being proposed for the purposes of actually building a railroad and shipping goods on it rather than for spending money and paying off every rich community along the way, by I'm skeptical about claims that you can build a tunnel under the Bering Straits for less than you can build a surface railroad from LA to Bakersfield, or that Russian corruption is any less than the polite Californian version.
Why would it have to be 'under'? They could build a 80 mile bridge from Naukan to Tin City/Wales Airport over the Bering strait. This is described in Wiki rather well.
Since the two Diomede Islands are between the peninsulas, the Bering Strait could be spanned by three bridges. Two long bridges, each almost 40 kilometres (25 mi) long, would connect the mainland on each side to one island, and a third much shorter one between the two islands, giving a total distance of about 80 kilometres (50 mi). Such length is not unprecedented as the two long bridges would each be shorter than the 41.58-kilometre (25.84 mi) Jiaozhou Bay Bridge, currently the longest sea-crossing bridge in the world, though the construction of a Bering Strait crossing would face exceptional engineering, political, and financial challenges.
There have been several proposals made by various persons, TV-channels, magazines, etc. The names used for such bridges have included The Intercontinental Peace Bridge and Eurasia-America Transport Link. Tunnel names have included TKM-World Link and AmerAsian Peace Tunnel. In April 2007, Russian government officials told the press that the Russian government will back a $65 billion plan by a consortium of companies to build a Bering Strait tunnel. On 22 August 2011, the Daily Mail reported that the Russian government had approved a £60bn tunnel across the Bering Strait. The £60bn comes from a rough Russian estimate of $100bn
As far as the costs go, the Russians would presumably bridge their end, and if it's from Naukan to their Diomede island, it would be some 20 miles, and if on the US side, a bridge was built from Tin City, AK to Little Diomede, it would be another 20 miles funded by AK or the US government (maybe divert the Bridge to Nowhere funds to this project?) The US & Russia could then split the cost of the third bridge b/w the 2 Diomedes, which would be ~ 3 miles apart. The Russian island had all its civilians relocated to mainland Siberia during the Soviet era, and only has a military presence there. Those 2 islands would be ideal for keeping all the personnel of both countries responsible for the maintenance of that bridge.
On the Russian side, both the Trans-Siberian Highway as well as the Railway run to Vladivostok on the Amur river, and therefore, a whole new highway/railway would have to be made from the Amur to the Bering straights, to the mainland Chukotka side of that bridge. On the American side, the bigger issue is that a new highway/railway would have to be built from either Anchorage or Fairbanks to Tin City. On both the Russian as well as the American sides, these highways won't be cheap, and what makes it even less sellable is that the population that will be serviced by setting up such roads will be minuscule, both in Alaska and in Siberia.
There are lots of ports, further south, where you can offload goods. I don't know of the Alaskan ports, but there are two ports in Canada (Prince Rupert and Vancouver) that are connected by rail (and yes sparky, those rail links are very well connected to the US rail system). The Vancouver route is heavily utilized. The Prince Rupert link is increasingly utilized. The Port of Vancouver has a 36 hour sailing advantage than California ports from Shanghai, and the Port of Prince Rupert, B.C., is the closest North American port to Asia (has a 59 hour sailing advantage than California from Shanghai; more than 1,000 nautical miles closer to Hong Kong than Los Angeles). By 2020, there will be a complete double-track rail link between Prince Rupert and Memphis Tennessee. There are no Canadian Rail links to Alaska (nor are there any to the Yukon). To ship goods, across this proposed Bearing Straight link, you would need to move goods a very long way north, across the link, then a very long way south. Rail is usually efficient, but the rail-to-ship connection is usually efficient too, and its cheaper to load containers onto ships than haul them a few thousand miles north, then a few hundred miles west (or east), then a few thousand miles south again.
In the 1950s, the U.S. and Europe moved roughly the same percentage of freight by rail; but, by 2000, the share of U.S. rail freight was 38% while in Europe only 8% of freight traveled by rail.
Despite having an population of roughly 3 times the US (taking all Europe, not just the EU) Europe is a lot more compact and accessible from the sea. As such the average distance travelled by freight is probably a lot less which would dis-favour rail. In addition Europe has used up a lot of its bulk raw materials which is another prime candidate for rail transport.
So really I would argue that these statistics do not _necessarily_ show that the US has a more advanced rail freight system than Europe, only that it has more use for one because it has larger distances to ship things over land and more bulk, raw materials to transport. If the system is more _advanced_ then you need evidence of new technology present in the US which makes rail freight cheaper/better/... than Europe. Needing to transport millions of tons of material overland for thousands of kilometres is not a technological advancement - its geography!
If you ever become interested in Siberia and need a guide, leave a comment in my journal.
You can't handle the truth.
Renewable energy transmission? From Russia??
As Russia uses 1,520 mm and the US uses 1,435 mm, there will be a compatibility issue.
Senator McCarthy, is that you?
I have no clue what Patrick Swayze is, or has been up to, but I think Charlie Sheen is the right man for this job.
1. According to TFA, fiber-optic will go in alongside the railway....enter Russian hackers and thus, Russian Mafia.
2. The railway is just a diversion.
Small teams of Spetsnaz will attempt infiltration into Alaska periodically....just to keep everyone edgy, and watching for them as the real threat.
Due to mistakenly paying attention to USA media/propaganda, they will attempt/takeover 'the Bridge to Nowhere', and Sara Palin's house.
Hmmm, reminds me of something...
*Hilarity ensues.*
3. Russian Mafia (and their drugs and hookers) + Charlie Sheen = Hilarity Ensues! 'nuff said.
4. ???
5. Profit!
BTW, 'Wolverines!' ??!?!!? What?
I confess:
I don't get it, but find myself indescribably intrigued...(as Spock would say, "Fascinating, Captain.")
Don't get me wrong, having seen the absolute destruction of a hunting cabin that a wolverine gained entry to; I find myself in awe of the smelly, furry little beasts! :-|*
Not to mention a fan of the Wolverine character of X-Men fame, and the Wolverine mod for the Fallout 3 game. *note: the site has changed a lot since I visited last, YMMV.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Patrick Swayze died just under 2 years ago but I'd still choose him over that lunatic Sheen in any fight.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
One more thing I thought of - if this is going to be more useful for US trade with Asia, as opposed to Russia itself, how about trade with Japan? You'd then need 2 bridges - one from Honshu to Sakhalin, then (assuming that Sakhalin has a reasonably good highway running from south to north) from Sakhalin to mainland Siberia at its closest point, then from there, have a highway that runs from Lazarev to Naukan and then to the tunnel/bridge.
There would be a great deal of labor required here - they'd have to import all the unemployed of China, India and US to build a highway over such a long distance spanning probably 3 time zones. Russia alone doesn't have the labor force to do it.
In Siberia, where much of the rail will have to pass, it'll already be running through forests, and so all that smoke that's let out will be absorbed by the trees. No environmental dangers or global warming will result.
I love driving, but it's past time for the highways to die. It would be interesting to see it happen but I believe the government will protect the auto industry for quite some time into the future.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I can't wait until we can have large HVDC lines running from Buenos Aires and Halifax to Cape Town and Dublin. Actually, make that latter one "Reykjavík". Heck, put "Reykjavík" on the other side of that statement, too ;)
I am a proud traitor to my species in alliance with my mother the Earth in opposition to those who would destroy her.
Perfect for carting in soldiers for an invasion.
Build two big pipelines. Put your cargo (including the self loading kind) in capsules inside the pipeline. Run the pipeline along the bottom of the Bering Strait.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I am sure there is some way to deal with tectonic movement over the long term and I would love to hear about it.
I meant, beyond the strait after it made landfall on the US side. Obviously the part under the strait itself is meant to be a tunnel. The specific obstacle I was referring to was not open water, but glacier fields where conventional civil engineering kind of falls flat on its face.
Historically railroads have been built either to exploit a resource (lumber, mining) or to connect regions of significant economic activity. (American midwest to California/Washington; In Canada it was a political move to prevent British Columbia from being annexed by the U.S.
The economics were marginal, and were financed by massive subsidies from the government, both as outright grants, as well as half the land for miles on either side. This was a huge incentive, as the rail companies could sell the land as homesteads, and they had a captive market until the roads caught up.
The land grant objective doesn't apply very well in North America. Neither Russia nor the U.S. has the financial resources to float this. And it's not clear to me how it would be a win. Rail is cheap compared to trucking, but expensive compared to ocean freight. Alaska has an awful lot of real estate in the way -- and a lot of it is less than friendly to laying rail, both in terrain and climate.
A fair amount of additional rail needs to be made in Canada. The nearest mainline is at Prince George. However I don't think that it has the capacity to absorb another continent's traffic.
The Chunnel was expensive to make, and it was able to connect two densely populated countries. Making it used materials that were near to hand. Workmen could live nearby. A Bering Straight chunnel would require bringing in the entire labour force from outside, and there is little in the way of support infra-structure. I bet the cheapest form of electricity there is diesel generator -- about 30 c /khr
Unless Siberia has a multi-trillion dollar resource to sell to the U.S. I don't see the economics of this working.
Thoughts?
"Wolverines" is a reference to the movie "Red Dawn" in which the USSR invades the USA.
I want my Cowboyneal
WOLVERINES!!!
Russia is tired of Mexico having the advantage in drug sales. Being able to send them in by train will significantly level the playing field.
Is the gauge of the rails going to be the same on both sides of the tunnel?
I believe Germany changed rail gauges specifically so Russian trains couldn't invade.
Nowadays, I suspect it will be more along the lines of a typical snafu, feet vs. meters.
Hans is a great man who was completely justified in his actions. You insensitive clod.
He was talking about the land portions. Though I believe that it is a solved problem as there is already rail connectivity in Siberia.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The obvious question is: who's going to use it? It'd be built in an area which is thinly populated on both sides and never has had much trade. The only way it can be worth it is if an entirely new movement of goods springs up after it's built. And does anyone really expect that to happen?
It doesn't make sense. It is like taking two roads to nowhere and connecting them, except they still go nowhere. Both side of the connection are too small of markets to be used for anything. There is barely a connection between Alaska and Canada, let alone the larger market of the rest of the US. So what is the point. It would be like building a multibillion dollar tunnel for the purposes of a few million in trade a year (maybe).
If it was opened up to the rest of Canada and the US, then yes, but now you are talking of even more billions of rail and road. The side benefit would be it would open up those areas for future development. All that said, I would be surprised if ANY of this ever happens in my lifetime.
The map in the article shows a proposed route going from Siberia through Alaska and Canada ending in New York. The problem is that there are huge engineering problems facing anyone trying to built that route and it would likely be more expensive than the Russian portion. Currently there is a sea link between Whittier, Alaska and Prince Rupert, Canada where there is a link to the CN rail line. A more direct route through the Yukon would be prohibitively expensive although perhaps this is what they need to open up the Yukon and Alaska economies.
you don't approve the Siberian Railway, the Siberian Railway approves you!
I am sure this will help canadian and american economy some as we are now allowing russians to have a border to our countries...
Ironic considering Amtrak is owned by the federal government.
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
Much of the world including North America has trains that run on tracks 1435mm (4' 8.5") apart. Russian trains run on tracks 1520mm apart. This has already hampered Russia's efforts to increase traffic on the Trans Siberian RR. It will doom this project. Cargo will need to be unloaded and reloaded at one end of the tunnel or the other, so why not just use ships?
Vancouver would die a quick death if it actually happened. Personally, I wouldn't have anything to do with it - aren't there regular earthquakes on both sides? I won't even use the Chunnel.
Make Fairbanks the capital (Russify the name a bit by calling it Fairbansk :-)), instead of either an already overcrowded Moscow or an already crime-ridden DC. Send the president & all Congresspeople there.
Personally, I'd prefer Volodaya Putin to Barack Obama any day.
Since rail is a more major transport in Russia than in the US, why not assume the Russian standard in AK as well? As it is, it's not like they have a rail system there, so just make a Russian-gauge tracks in AK, and terminate it say, @ Anchorage or Juneau. From there, goods can either switch trains, or get loaded on ships destined for Seattle, Oakland, Long Beach or San Diego.
Uh, 21st Century, Dude. The Cold War is over.
Maybe. However, reality seems to be strangely absent from the current discussion climate in the US. Considering who is being called a socialist, communist, marxist, etc, and the idiocy around immigration, I fully expect to hear that the Russians will use that tunnel to invade the good ol' USA.
Most of the people who are still locked on communist, socialist, liberal, et al are hostile not to the Russians, who they recognize as a new country completely different from the Soviet Union, but rather, to countries like Canada, most European countries, Mexico and some others, and that's due to the perception that European socialism/social democracy/whatever one calls it, is the philosophical force behind much of the advocacy in the US for things like more government regulations, free health care, medicaid, etc. While the C & S words are freely used, it's used w/ Europeans in mind, not so much the non-existent Soviets.