h a l f b a k e r y
Bone to the bad.
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
|
Trains are long skinny worms and have a small frontal area/volume ratio. Because of this, they're pretty efficient in the fluid dynamics department.
So why not build submarine trains? Not in a tunnel, but directly in the water. Surely the resistance through water wouldn't be too bad either. If trains
on land can ride at 190 mph, they must be able to travel at 60, 80 mph or even more underwater?
Advantage:
We can have transatlantic and transpacific railroads that use a fraction of the vast amounts of fuel that airplanes use.
Implementation:
Tracks could oviously not be "chemin de fer". Iron, or steel would rust quickly. Perhaps ultra high density polyethylene would be suitable. Propulsion can't be overhead electric or diesel. It could be nuclear, but that's a little risky. I think ideal would be a large battery bank in the front of the train together with electric propulsion. The train can maintain a constant speed over its entire trajectory, so unlike with airplanes the extra weight of batteries is of little consequence. It might even be beneficial in holding the train down.
These trains could be outfitted with all the abundant luxury of great trains like the Orient Express. Surely people would like this.
In shallower waters, passing aquatic life can be observed.
Cable Ferry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_ferry
[DrCurry, Oct 07 2006]
[link]
|
| |
Unfortunately, your plastic trains would float off the tracks and become boats. |
|
| |
Silly! The trains run UNDER the tracks. |
|
| |
Hmm, an electric train, now the fastest submarine in the world... |
|
| |
Hey, I wanted to make the tracks of plastic, not the trains! The trains are made of cast ir..fiberglass. |
|
| |
And ultra high molecular weight polyethylene is only slightly lighter then water. Surely it won't float up when solidly bolted to railroad ties made from recycled rubber. |
|
| |
Perhaps it's possible to shape the cross-section of the train in such a way that it's pushed onto the rails by a side current, some sort of wing shape. |
|
| |
So you don't use rails, you use a cable or chain that the submarine train hauls itself along, the way some ferries do. Then it doesn't matter if currents push the train sideways - the cable goes with it. |
|
| |
3600 miles / 60 miles n hour = 60 hours underwater - any thought to food fresh water or AIR ? back to the drawing board, i think. |
|
| |
Air? There's no air, that would make it too buoyant. Unless you use Caeli's suggestion and run the train under the rails. The rails could be fastened to the bottom of giant pontoons and stretched across the surface of the Atlantic. Then the buoyant train cars could run upside down underwater, but not so far that you couldn't run a snorkel to get air. As for water, there's a bar on board, of course, where you can water down your Scotch. |
|
| |
No. Buoyancy is not an issue. Our train can be made arbitrarily heavy to weight it down. It doesn't need zippy acceleration: it's speed is constant for most of the trip. Also we have room to bring a large volume of liquified air. Fresh water either be brought or made with a water maker. |
|
| |
I like the steampunk aspect. Bun. |
|
| |