The Bering Express

electricron wrote:

steamal wrote:The Bering Strait is six miles wide. How wide is the English Channel? Also, in response to another opinion that has been voiced on here: A railroad does not necessarily need passengers to survive. Most of the Class I railroads in the US seem to survive without passengers. And the first railroad traffic EVER was freight, with passengers as an afterthought.

True. But I'll ask would the Chunnel had been built without relatively high fares from passenger trains?
At the Chunnel, there had been and are still ferries to gauge the amount of traffic - both passengers and freight. The historic traffic between Siberia and Alaska doesn't exist.

No one spends $Billions on what might be, they spend $Billions on what is.

There are four types of paying traffic for Eurotunnel.
1) Lorries (trucks in the US).
These are the largest traffic. One can see vehicles that have come from as far east as Bulgaria. Probably even further.

2. Cars - private road vehicles. These are priced keenly with higher costs at peak times, such as school holidays and in the middle of the day
3. Eurostar trains. These are true High Speed trains at present to Paris and Brussels. Next year there may be trains to Germany also and Amsterdam, using the various high speed routes that have been built.
4. Freight trains. This traffic has been very disappointing and they are far below the capacity allowed for. Eurotunnel now has its own freight company for traffic within Britain and also on the "other side". They hope to increase this traffic by offering simplified procedures. One of the main hindrances has been France with rules designed apparently (contrary to EU
rules) to keep non-sncf companies off their tracks. Possibly this has now been sorted. Another problem is still frontiers where years after there was supposed to be a Single market trains are still held up. This makes lorries look more attractive to transporters.
5. Other sources of income: water supply, phone communication,

Note that even with all these businesses the Tunnel only started paying a dividend more than 20 years after initial offering.

The Tunnel has to compete with ferries which have made themselves more competitive and improved their procedures, but they are still vulnerable to winds on the sea, and their oil fuel is continually rising in price. The tunnel buys power from a nuclear station in France.

Sure, it's possible. On the North American side, BC Rail graded all the way up to Dease Lake in far northern British Columbia, and there are still plans underway to finish the line from there to Delta Junction, AK. On the Russian side, a line is being constructed to Yakutsk, and have considered an eventual extension northeast towards Magadan and the Bering Strait. Icebreaker ferries from the Russian to the American side would solve the expense of bridges at first, and containerized shipment would spare the hassle of a gauge break between Russian 1520 mm (4' 11.85") and North American 4' 8 1/2" (1435 mm). As for the bridges themselves, proposals online involve creating new islands to reduce the length of the bridges.

The economics are iffy though. The bridge traffic from China to North American markets would depend heavily on Sino-Russian relations, the value of the American and Canadian dollars versus the yuan, the ruble, the yen, and several other Eurasian currencies, as well as the relative cost of ocean shipment and the time-value of items being shipped. Until the combined railways were able to secure on-line industries (mines, lumber operations, wells, etc.) it'd be very difficult to justify several thousand miles of track from Fairbanks to Yakutsk.

As for high speed rail, that's unlikely at first if ever. Most of the traffic will be either raw or semi-finished materials like coal, lumber, oil and metal traveling slowly, or finished goods at a steady speed under 100 mph. The amount of passengers willing to travel this line on a regular basis would be next to none, though I'm sure service would have to be offered if governments were involved, and tourists would enjoy it.

steamal wrote: The Bering Strait is six miles wide.

You mean sixty don't you? http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/bering.htm says 58 miles, which I assume is at its narrowest, not necessarily the best place to cross.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/buildingbig/won ... annel.html says the Chunnel's 31 miles

steamal wrote:The Bering Strait is six miles wide. How wide is the English Channel? Also, in response to another opinion that has been voiced on here: A railroad does not necessarily need passengers to survive. Most of the Class I railroads in the US seem to survive without passengers. And the first railroad traffic EVER was freight, with passengers as an afterthought.

Interesting comparison. The Chunnel is 32 miles long, 23 miles of it under the English Channel. It looks like the tunnel would be about 50-60 miles long (see Wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing. As far as the relevence to money is concerned (and it's connection to building such a system), an American connection to an unlimited source of petroleum would be, as they say in the commercial, "priceless".

RailroadNet wrote:The Bering Express Discussion has been posted onto our Official Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/RailroadNet
Come and discuss your thoughts on this topic!

What the hell?

As the Wiki article displays, two tunnels would actually each be shorter than the Chunnel, due to the presence of the Diomede Islands in the middle of the Strait. A 25 foot tunnel to the first island, an island to island bridge, and a 25 foot tunnel from the second island to Russia would be required.

3rdrail wrote:As the Wiki article displays, two tunnels would actually each be shorter than the Chunnel, due to the presence of the Diomede Islands in the middle of the Strait. A 25 foot tunnel to the first island, an island to island bridge, and a 25 foot tunnel from the second island to Russia would be required.

Two 25 feet tunnels or two 25 mile tunnels? You have done more to confuse everybody in this thread than anyone else? Are you proud of that accomplishment?

Where would you place the custom house? Inside the tunnel out of the weather or in a blizzard outside in the middle of nowhere? Who would you get to man it everyday in the middle of nowhere?

As for oil and gas, it's far cheaper to ship them in pipelines. What do you think they ship Alaskan oil and gas on/in now? Haven't you heard of the difficulties the pipelines have had over the years to get environmental clearance? Do you really believe a railroad would ever get an environmental clearance? Why do we need to get raw minerals and natural resources from Siberia when there's plenty in Alaska?

There have been railroads in Alaska for over 100 years, from the Gulf of Alaska north to Fairbanks, via Anchorage. If there was the slightest economic possibility of turning a profit, railroads would have already been built from Fairbanks or Anchorage west to Nome. That hasn't happen and it won't for a long-long time. If you really believe it can, I have a few bridges you can buy between Manhattan and Brooklyn.

electricron wrote:Two 25 feet tunnels or two 25 mile tunnels? You have done more to confuse everybody in this thread than anyone else? Are you proud of that accomplishment?

Yes, electricon, I can see how you would be confused by my typo indicating that a tunnel not long enough to hold two automobiles would be installed. Clearly, I meant miles and my suspicion is that everyone but you realized it. So, in fact, most likely only you were confused. If I may offer a word of suggestion, you might want to take up a physical activity to relieve yourself of that pent-up frustration and anger. It doesn't bode well for you, nor is it conducive to an enjoyable discussion. In answer to your question, I am neither proud or displeased with my typo - it happens to everyone, electricon.

Sound like a great idea, especially if global warming is kicking in and the weather won't be that severe. But there will be times during the winter when the line would be impassable, as well as the earthquake risk. But it could open up both tremendous freight advantages including hauling oil and other hot commodities, as mentioned. Perhaps too, a connection for the Chinese market. I wouldn't envision more than a single-track line, with sidings. Radio works well even over big distances on certain bands. As mentioned BCR has tackled some of the areas up there, but never connected to Alaska yet, which should be done first. I was up in Alaska about 4-5 years ago one time, and the population is fairly low. I guess the summer traffic (RV-er's) is brisk, but when we were there in April, the car traffic even between Anchorage & Fairbanks was sparse, even more sparse on the eastern alternative route. Another thing I read in the news lately, not sure how it's related, is that the Alyeska pipeline level is getting lower and lower, and eventually may get shut down as the current oil fields produce less without new exploration.

I agree, Frank. It's nice to hear from someone who's been up there. I was unaware that there were islands smack dab in the middle of the Strait prior to these posts, which would seem to be a blessing for any construction connecting the US and Russia there. Russia seems to be all for it, as they have made a commitment already to build it, which surprised me. Under the old regime, the U.S. was kept as far from sight from the Russian people as possible, so it would appear that the time is right. I also like the alliance of the two super-powers in a common endeavor that I believe might bridge (no pun intended) trust and cooperation. Russia needs a boost but so do we. Everytime I gas up the Benz for $60, I'll think of that train !

3rdrail wrote:Urbey - you're in China ! Come up northeast about 5,000 miles to the Bering Strait ! (Pick me up some mushi shrimp while you're there !)

I know I'm talking about China, but I am talking about going from China to the US via the Bering Strait.

According to my measurements, Beijing to Seattle by rail via the Bering Strait would be 6000 miles, which is comparable or shorter than shipping routes! Coupled with the fact that cargo ships average out at maybe 30 MPH (and I believe the container ships are even slower) I don't know why China, the US, and Russia and numerous private interests aren't all over this. Could we not get a train averaging out 70 MPH from Beijing to Seattle? This sounds like an opportunity for revolutionizing transpacific freight! I can't even imagine how much could be generated from all the oil and intermodal running from China to the US.

Someone else please try to figure this out, the numbers I have just make this look too good to be true. We can cut the freight shipping time in half by going via a Bering Strait railway.

BostonUrbEx wrote: I know I'm talking about China, but I am talking about going from China to the US via the Bering Strait.

According to my measurements, Beijing to Seattle by rail via the Bering Strait would be 6000 miles, which is comparable or shorter than shipping routes! Coupled with the fact that cargo ships average out at maybe 30 MPH (and I believe the container ships are even slower) I don't know why China, the US, and Russia and numerous private interests aren't all over this. Could we not get a train averaging out 70 MPH from Beijing to Seattle? This sounds like an opportunity for revolutionizing transpacific freight! I can't even imagine how much could be generated from all the oil and intermodal running from China to the US.

Someone else please try to figure this out, the numbers I have just make this look too good to be true. We can cut the
freight shipping time in half by going via a Bering Strait railway.

Freight trains don't average 70 mph. They average more like 45 mph, which is still faster than <20 mph by merchant ships.

Today's largest Merchant ships can carry 14,770 containers (Maesk). A double stack container freight train will need to have 3,692 quad container cars. At 85 feet per car, that's a train of 313,820 feet, or 59.4 miles in length. One ship, or 59 one mile long trains, which do you think is cheaper?

Now you know why Florida's governor is more worried about dredging ports so these huge container ships can port in Florida, and why Panama is building new larger locks for the canal.

Ouch! 59 miles! Hadn't thought about the length, lol....

As for the 45MPH average, this is how I figure it: there will be little to no grade crossings for nearly the entire route. Once you get all the slack out and are haulin', you can get those speeds right up there. Any curves could be as wide and sweeping as feasible since there's little population at all. Seeing as it's out in No Man's Land, we could perhaps get some nice long straight sections up to 80 or 90?

As for length, break it down into multiple smaller trains? I'm not prepared to figure out the most efficient specifics, but I imagine there is a really nice way to profit off this somewhere, even if it only puts a dent in shipping.

Remember too that we are talking about the shipment of the worlds most valuable commodity sponsored by at least, two of the worlds super powers. Who's to say that a cutting edge technology might not go well here, particularly in the two tunnels ? Mag-lev ?

BostonUrbEx wrote:Ouch! 59 miles! Hadn't thought about the length, lol....

As for the 45MPH average, this is how I figure it: there will be little to no grade crossings for nearly the entire route. Once you get all the slack out and are haulin', you can get those speeds right up there. Any curves could be as wide and sweeping as feasible since there's little population at all. Seeing as it's out in No Man's Land, we could perhaps get some nice long straight sections up to 80 or 90?

As for length, break it down into multiple smaller trains? I'm not prepared to figure out the most efficient specifics, but I imagine there is a really nice way to profit off this somewhere, even if it only puts a dent in shipping.

Grade crossings wouldn't a big issue, no. Rock slides, whiteout blizzards, flooding, frost heaves, and large animals on the right-of-way would definitely be issues. The cross-Bering bridges and tundra would have especially high winds as well, enough to tip double-stacks into the ocean. No reason you can't engineer windbreaks on the bridge and tundra (or use tunnels, as suggested earlier), but it's one more thing to take into account. Also, you'd be lucky to average 45 mph using conventional technology, 79 mph max average speed and electric traction. For an average North American mainline railroad, assume that for every hour that the train is moving at top speed, it'll be traveling at half speed for another hour, and stopped for an additional half an hour.

This trans-Bering railroad might be different - aside from service to industries in Russia and Canada, and interchange from the Alaska Railroad, nearly all trains will have the same consist all the way from southeastern Russia to British Columbia. The only stops would need to be for train inspection and repair, gauge change between 4' 8.5" and 1520 mm, customs, fueling (if diesel), and crew changes. They could even skip the crew changes if there was a crew car coupled behind the locomotives. Again assuming 79 mph MAS and low ruling grades, you might get an average closer to 55 mph between customs stops. Assuming 110 mph MAS, you'd even be able to reach 65-70 mph average, but at the expense of greatly increased energy costs. It'd be hard to make a case for anything faster than 79 mph really, with the increased regulation in this country and the high cost of electricity or diesel fuel worldwide.