How expensive would it be to connect the entire world with a train track?
>>16902552Avoid india
>>16902552>scientifically feasible>over icesheets that rise, shift, and melt>if made of metal theyll crumple>if made floating theyll split apartIndividual hovercarts, a floating barge if you will, may be of more feasibility.Aero-carriages are the future!
Feasibility of science is driven by economical reasons.
>>16902577That sucks, we already have air travel and it's way too slow to transport goods
>>16902611Air is faster than rail. Rail's advantage is it's the most energy efficient mode of transport (at large scales).
>>16902615Yes scale is important.
>>16902552Its dumb.
>>16902552this is a question for engineers, scientists don't build shit.also, it's retarded. of course it's feasible, though ptobably very expensive. the question is, who would need this shit in the first place?
>>16902552North and South America over the Darién Gap would be the easiest connection to make. Africa to Asia through the Middle East would be a simple engineering feat but a difficult one politically. Africa to Europe would be basically the Chunnel all over again but the economic and political need isn't there. The Bering Strait connection between North America and Asia has been studied. It has many difficult engineering challenges but would be doable. There's simply no economic case for it as it's not just the bridge that's the issue but lack of rail network connectivity on both sides. There's a strong economic case for connecting the two but it's already handled very well through ocean shipping.Asia and Europe are already connected. Australia to Asia, with some other islands as part of the connection, is impossible for both engineering and economic reasons. Of these, if the geopolitical situation remains on the current path, a connection across the Darién Gap, seems the most likely. The terrain is challenging but far from unique. The political situation is messy but only because there's no good reason to solve it now. If the Americas become more economically and politically integrated, the connection could make sense economically.
>>16902615>Rail's advantage is it's the most energy efficient mode of transport (at large scales).That would be boats.
>>16902615The rule of thumb is that ocean shipping is ten times as efficient per kg-km as rail shipping which is ten times as efficient as over-road shipping which is ten times as efficient as air shipping. Each comes with it's own set of time constraints and mode transfer costs. Every mode transfer costs time and energy, so ocean shipping, the most efficient form of shipping, isn't viable for places not next to a seaport. Bulk cargo is broken down at seaports and continues on with rail or road. Staying on rail most of the way can be better than ocean shipping if a mode transfer (or two mode transfers) can be avoided. But rail also doesn't go everywhere, so ocean-to-truck can beat out rail, depending on the specifics.
>>16902849>The rule of thumb is that ocean shipping is ten times as efficient per kg-km as rail shippingOther way around.
>>16902831>who would need this shit in the first place?Gigachads who are scared of flying
>>16902892No. Please stop your train autism until you've done further research. This is /sci/ not /n/. We work using facts, not feelings.
>>16902976So, do they ever lose some containers due to bad conditions? Not talking about sinking ship obviously, but when a tempest arise with its 10m waves and shit
>>16902960>who are scared of flyingso, absolute morons who have never heard of cars?>Gigachads are we really calling any retard that now?
>>16903034Did you have a stressful day? Wanna vent about it?It's called irony you autist>inb4 a (You) of the form "yes my day is stressful when I have to answer retarded questions yadayada"
>>16902978All the time, even at the docks there's tons of containers that go overboard. Thats the thing about insurance and having these things with ID out the wazoo.
>>16902552The segment between Canada and Russia doesn't make any sense. How would you build a train track over, or under, that much ocean?
>>16902976Does anyone else get freaked the fuck out at the size of these things?
>>16902552Cybernetics says, "technologically"
