Jump to content

Talk:Bering Strait crossing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.127.119.21 (talk) at 07:23, 11 May 2014 (→Waste rock?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Euros to Dollar

Should we change the €60b $100b change to the original €60b, and in turn 77 billion US dollars because the dollar has strengthened significantly since the last change? Justinba1010 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Gate Designer

I believe Strauss is not the designer... and that Charles Alton Ellis is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.229.224.50 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Quality and Name

Article has some serious issues, both overall quality and point of view(it seems to be written by someone who is clearly a proponent of the project). I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable doing the work myself, but it needs to be done.Arvis21 18:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should rename the article to "Bering Strait Bridge". The bridge has been proposed a few times. One of the proposals used the name "Intercontinental Peace Bridge", to promote it, but I don't think that is the best name for us to use for the proposed bridge. I will change the name one week from now if no objection. A link from "Intercontinental Peace Bridge" will be kept. BIL 15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead. Makes sense to me. Jarfingle 17:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title should be changed (if not deleted), since this uses the name of a well-known book on the subject c. Sept. 2006 "The Bering Strait Crossing" - the WikiPedia page (appeared shortly thereafter) changes this only to the extent of a lower case "c" for "crossing" and clearly this is not a book review. The content comes about as close as you can get to plagiarism of the book and the original research on which it is based; whoever set up the page has no authority to do so, and has no connection with the author, the publisher of the book, or indeed those involved with the Beringia tunel link proposals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.91.44 (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Bering Strait crossing" is standard language, and the fact the there is a book (by James Oliver) with that name does not alone disqualify that name. There are two movies called Australia and we don't change the name of the article Australia for that sake. I don't really believe that the article is copied from the book. In early September 2006 this article was well developed, see link and many parts of today's version was there already.--BIL (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add more info on the possible plans of contructing a tunnel and/or bridge across to the other side elsewhere? I am quite curious as to whether any steps have been taken to decide to build infrastructure links across the:

Anyone with inside knowledge on any of these? I've posted similar requests elsewhere. Gruesome Twosome! 8v] //Big Adamsky 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do it now?

Since there isn't a bridge right now, how do you travel over the land between Alaska and Russia with your car or motorhome? Could a boat or ferry pick up something as large as a motorhome? Zachorious 12:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer, you don't at all. There is no road from the Bering strait to major cities of Alaska. Same on the russian side. There are tourist flights in the summer, but before about year 2000 that did not exist because it is a Russian military sensitive area. BIL 15:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tongue-in-cheek answer: jump in your DeLorean, set the dial for eastern Asia at about 60,000 BC, and start walking... Good grief. It's like Bubba taking a flight into Toronto and wondering why it would be a bad idea to take a cab to Banff, or showing up at a US/Canada border crossing and wondering where is all the snow and why can't I find any polar bears for his toddler to ride on... Garth of the Forest (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see what the ranges on both sides, the people and the strait itself actually look like, get hold of the photographic book Divided Twins by Boyd Norton and Yevgeny Yevtushenko. Absolutely breathtaking photos, powerful poems (by Yevtushenko) and informative captions.Strausszek (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple method, though there might be some security issues. Asia ships an enormous number of shipping containers to North America, and while a lot of them just don't come back, many are shipped back empty. It is possible to buy passage on a freighter to get across the ocean (significantly cheaper than air fare or a liner, but far less comfortable). It's reasonable to assume you'd be able to rent space in one of those cargo containers for your car, too. These days dock authorities might gripe about it, but it may well be possible. That said, you won't be seeing the Bering Strait itself, but you can get your vehicle to Asia that way. Rashkavar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.164.143 (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox available

Copy and paste this: {{User:UBX/Bering Strait Bridge}}

--One Salient Oversight 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's Tunnel

Russia's idea of a tunnel has made pretty big news recently. Just wondering if it's worth some mention here. Here's a link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a5OJJzlp0xwM&refer=canada Yubimusubi 04:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Stuky created TKM-World Link Yubimusubi 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally new idea, there is a link here to a news article from 2001. The russian wiki-article linked from here is actually about the tunnel not a bridge and relatively long also. -- BIL 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Bering Strait Tunnel redirects to Bering Strait bridge. Does it make sense to direct to TKM-World Link instead?--mikeu 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TKM-World Link got copied into Bering Strait Tunnel, which got copied into Bering Strait bridge. It is possible that the final connection will be a tunnel for the two long sections and a bridge between the two islands (the short section). 199.125.109.84 22:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Railroad tunnel 64 miles, highway tunnel both 25 miles, highway bridge between the two islands. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles need to be unmerged immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukaribe (talk • contribs)

Which articles? There isn't enough material for TKM-World Link, and there is no way that the Bering Strait tunnel is a separate project from the Bering Strait bridge. 199.125.109.84 23:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting sentences?

...including continuations on land, at $105 billion. This excludes the cost of new roads and railways to reach the bridge.

Aren't the continuations on land the same thing as the roads and railways to reach the bridge? DallasEpperson 03:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See also

Bering Strait Tunnel has been merged into Bering Strait bridge. For discussion there see talk:Bering Strait Tunnel. 199.125.109.84 22:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worth it?

So give a summary if it is worth the cost or not. Jidanni 14:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, no. The amount of goods and people that would need to be taken that way is minimal and there aren't even any continuous networks of road up to the Bering Strait. On the Russian side, no roads apart from local trails for thousands of miles; you have to go to go something like 2.500 miles to the southwest before you reach a steady road or railway network. There are no real access roads on the American side either, and upkeep of roads in those climate conditions would be extremely difficult. To make it better, the Bering Strait area is occasionally seismically active isn't it? Air or sea transports are much cheaper and require much less investments.Strausszek (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was also no link between east and west Canada until someone built it. Economically, this would be a godsend since it would bridge Europe, Asia and the Americas via terrestrial transport so expensive shipping would not need to be used. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a recent study of the carbon costs of transportation modes. It reached the surprising conclusion that air travel had less total emissions than either road or train travel due to the enormous investment in the infrastructure.   Will Beback  talk  07:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The question was, "worth the cost or not?" Carbon isn't a cost, it's Global Warming propaganda. Costs are in dollars, not Carbon. You guys are really programmed.98.165.15.98 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given the current trend, it's likely that carbon emissions may cost money. But the reason I brought it up is that maintaining infrastructure requires work. Work that emits carbon and costs money. The study was about carbon emissions, but the point is the same.   Will Beback  talk  02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you shouldn't count infrastructure into the cost of transportation because the cost of the infrastructure pays for itself in a few years by the cheaper transport 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was the point. The tens of thousands of miles of road require continuous repair. According to this study, the combined carbon output of airports and airplanes is less than that of roads and cars or rails and trains, given their assumptions and parameters. I can't recall if they covered sea shipping but I believe it's quite low too. It's counterintuitive. I mentioned it to point out that a railway with a long tunnel and at least hundreds of miles of rail over perma(?)frost, all requiring considerable maintenance, might not not have lower carbon emissions than other forms of transportation. I'll see if I can find it and add something here if it mentions this proposal.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here's a study on linking Alaska by rail to Canada and the lower 48 states. Alaska Canada Rail Link.   Will Beback  talk  00:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, no it is not worth it. For freight, shipping is less expensive, since hte sea is already there, and you don't have to build expensive roads, railways and bridges. For passenger travel, air is better. Faster which is important with the long distances. Cheaper since you don't have to build expensive roads, railways and bridges. What they should build in Alaska is local roads so that transportation of supplies is easier. Today food and other supplies to western Alaska is transported by air which is expensive. --BIL (talk) 10:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, about the so called 'propaganda' on our rising carbon emissions and deforestation, that is a big issue as we have seen a vast number of studies that this is a problem. Anyway wouldn't this also lower the price of international travel? Setting up a bisectional bidirectional tunnel, one side for electric train, and the other for freight and cars with great care for the set ups in emission release, carbon monoxide is extremely poisonous.[1] This would also create more economic stability in impoverished areas of the world like east Russia, and Alaska. Justinba1010 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel proposals

Is anyone interested in Rev. Sun Myung Moon's proposal for a "World Peace King Tunnel" across the Bering Strait?

  • One of Reverend Moon’s newest and most important initiatives, the Bering Strait project proposes the construction of the "World Peace King Tunnel" under the Bering Strait, an 85-kilometer, $200 billion link to connect Russia and the United States, East and West, the Americas and Asia. Free trade can occur around such an international link, and the economic and cultural exchange would help foster a common community. Reverend Moon says that he envisions the project as a "Peace Tunnel" that will include passenger facilities, encourage tourism, and even cross-cultural marriages between people along the route. [1]

Should we omit this because he's only a religious leader, or include it anyway? --Uncle Ed 13:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen any objections, so here is some more info:
Rev. Kwak said that a bridge and tunnel can contribute to the UN's millenium goals:
  • ... please support Rev. Moon's three core strategic initiatives: ... and the Bering Strait Peace King Bridge and Tunnel Project, not merely for the sake of trade and development, but for the sake of peace and cooperation between East and West; in fact, this project can contribute to the achievement of the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals. [2]
What's the best way to describe Rev. Moon's initiative? --Uncle Ed 17:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying "moonmadness" or "lunacy"? :D /Strausszek (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tunnel distances

How far is it from Siberia to Big Diomede? And how far from Little Diomede to Alaska? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - about 40 km (25 miles) for both distances. -- BIL (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road

Are there any plans to build a road from Anchorage or Fairbanks to the Bering Strait? I have tried to find info about an extension of the Elliott Highway, a good starting point for a road between Fairbanks and Nome. Nothing found. Googling about "road nome fairbanks" finds very little. A NY Times article from 1908 (!) about winter dog trails. Nothing else. Anyone knows? -- BIL (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less than a year after the above comment, things started to happen. Googling about "road nome fairbanks" now finds a lot since the governor of Alaska did in January 2009 put forward a proposal about a road. Russia has repaired the Kolyma Highway to Magadan and is interested in extending it. Possibly roads to both sides of Bering Strait are open within a decade or two. --BIL (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual purpose

I think it would be good to make it clear what the actual purpose of such bridge would be. I don't think its obvious to most people that going through the bering straight is much closer than going over the pacific ocean. On a standard map, it looks like a detour, while on a globe, its obvious that it's a straight path. It would be nice to have a map of the pacific ocean that shows how ships travel from guangzhou to san francisco in what appears to be an arc and some explanation of that.

Also, much of chinas production happens inland, meaning that trains first have to tranport goods to the coast, and then have it transfered to ships. Once the ships are in the US, the cargo is once again transfered to trains or whatever and transportet to the east where most americans live. These changes of means of transport are very expensive.

So thats two suggestions for where the article could head in the future.81.235.136.245 (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WWII reference

Deleted the sentence referring to WWII. Since American aid to Russia was by plane, I don't see how it's relevant to the proposed bridge/tunnel. It'd be different if there was a sense that a bridge or tunnel was discussed by either party. Louiebb (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush/Putin meeting

The article states that George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin discussed the proposal at their meeting in Sochi in April but I can't find any references to confirm that the topic actually made the agenda. I'm pretty sure it didn't. Anyone know for certain? ProgHead777 (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Britain/Channel Tunnel

I've removed all references to Great Britain from the lede. As a purely technical point, yes the Bering Strait crossing would create a land route from my home in London to North and South America, and also the two American continents would for the first time have land route to Asia, Africa and Europe, of which Britain is an offshore island accessible in turn by road tunnel.

To mention the British connection in the lede is, I feel, distracting and unnecessary. I don't think the transatlantic freight and passenger aircraft businesses will be worrying about millions of people streaming up through Alaska across the Bering Strait, across Russia, through Europe to France to the Pas de Calais and onto the EuroTunnel just to avoid a grueling air flight or boat journey. --TS 00:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be almost twice as cheap to take the tunnel from LA>Anchorage>Vladivostok>Moscow>Berlin>Paris>London than taking a first class flight from say LA>London. I'm guessing if it's a train line it would be about a days travel while if it's a car it would take a few days. I doubt it would be used for passengers as much as for freight and petrol pipe through since it costs about 500$ per 100 kilos to do it by plane and 100$ per 100 kilos to do it by boat (a pipe would cost .15$ per gallon of crude to transport 90km) 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The distance London-LA over Russia would be at least 18,000 km (12,000 miles) and it would take at least three weeks to drive with a realistic distance per day. The trains could do it in one week, if the speeds are raised a lot. Cost aware people would not use first class flights so flying would probably be cheaper anyway, and much more compfortable. --BIL (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using current trains and schedules, it takes three days to get from London to Moscow (with a couple of changes of train) at a cost of about $455,1 and another week to get to Vladivostock, for $1600 1st class.[3] It's 36 hours (and about 1000 miles) from Seattle to Los Angeles, with a seat costing $128.[4] It's roughly 3,000 miles from Seattle to Vladivostok overland. If it makes the same speed as the Amtrak train then it would take another 4.5 days. So without major upgrades to other segments, it would take over two weeks to go from London to L.A., with many train changes along the way. The current segments would cost about $2200 (plus food), and presumably the fare for a Bering Crossing would also be considerable. The current cost of flying nonstop is about $1000 for economy, and $5000 for business class, and it take about 18 hours.   Will Beback  talk  21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleanup: Citations and original research

I've removed uncited materials, and added cited information. I've also removed wp:or. The article as it stood made uncited claims, as well as creating original research by sythesizing conclusions from cited sources. Specifically, I've deleted statements about rail gauges, alternative access routes, possible sources of income, etc which are not cited from studies specific to the construction of the bridge --Work permit (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not just a bridge, it could also be a tunnel, either for trucks or for trains. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, the crossing.--Work permit (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

synthesis

Please provide references to technical defficulty of guage differences that specifically discuss the proposed bering straight crossing--Work permit (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not debating that russia uses different guages. You need a reference that states this is a major issue, a minor issue, no issue, or any issue as it relates to the bering straight crossing.--Work permit (talk) 07:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will try do do it or consider rubbing out this section. Of course, I can be wrong writing of incompatible sizes here. Presently, refernces to the facts of mentioned incompatibilities were only provided. Should I also proof that railway gauge is main factor that minimal diameter of the tube depends on (isn't this obvious)? Next question; is it not any issue at all (economical at least), the compatibility of two different rail systems? This makes some issue on CIS/EU ant the Spanish borders but there are no need for tunnels or bridges. On the other hand, existing railway tunnels, e.g. under Alps in Switzerland, connact railway systems with the same UIC-based dimensions. This can be referenced easily. I will take all critical remarks with pleasure. Algernon NS (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a notable issue, then you should be able to find a relaiable source that says so. The key to wikipedia is verifiability.--Work permit (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Work permit, The notability policy is about whether or not wikipedia should have an article on a topic. The important thing in terms of whether or not the article should mention a particular issue is WP:Undue weight. Yaris678 (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North America got proposed by Russia

US and Canada should convert from 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge to 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV AC electrification before they have their high-speed trains.

Proposed gauges and voltages (in North America):
  1. Bering Strait crossing: 5 ft (1,524 mm) Russian gauge and 25kV 50Hz alternating current
  2. Alaska: 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV 50Hz aternating current
  3. Canada and continental United States: 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV 60Hz alternating current
  4. Mexico and Central America: 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge and without overhead lines

121.102.47.39 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North America got proposed by Russia. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russia plans the TKM-World Link and proposes the railway networks in Canada and the United States to convert from standard gauge to broad gauge. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This IP number is used by someone infamous for adding own suggestions to Wikipedia.--BIL (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gauge choice

Bering Strait Tunnel should choose broad gauge at least Russian gauge. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP number is used by someone infamous for adding own suggestions to Wikipedia.--BIL (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting my comment from talk @ Eurasian Land Bridge:
'The project, as envisioned, would connect the Trans-Siberian via Komsomolsk-on-Amur/Yakutsk in Siberian Russia with the North American rail network (gauge to be widened) at Fort Nelson, British Columbia, Canada, a distance of 3,700 miles (5,950 km).'
'Gauge to be widened'? The american network is in standard gauge. Standard gauge on a worldwide basis is 3 times the length of the russian gauge. Look on a map and you will see: Russian gauge is little more than a large stumbling block in northern hemisphere railway relations.
Almost everything talks in favour of constructing this line in 1435. In general, russians should start on the long journey to gradually convert their network, instead of drivelling about a so-called 1520 strategic partnership, which is a euphemism for attempts to enforce their undesired gauge on more countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
USA and Canada should be converted from standard gauge to broad gauge. 101.128.196.252 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rail networks in USA and Canada have bad quality tracks and non-electrified now. Bering Strait tunnel link is originally proposed as 1829 gauge. (which is a broad gauge can be 3-rail dual-gauged with 1520 gauge) 101.128.196.252 (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possible 3-rail dual-gauge: 1435 and 1676, 1520 and 1829
Impossible 3-rail dual gauge: 1435 and 1520, 1520 and 1676
101.128.196.252 (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
101.128.196.252:
Of the world's 1.2 million km of railway, 60 % = 720 000 km is in standard gauge. The length of the russian gauge is 220 000 km = 18 %. The tendency for standard gauge is growing: Europe is predominantly standard and growing (Spain), so are Northern and Central America and Australia, plus many parts of Asia (the west and the east, including China, Korea and much of Japan) and northern Africa.
The further outlook for standard gauge is good, as Africa is formally committed to standard gauge, and South America seems to follow this same course. China is pushing for standard gauge in its regional railway ventures.
Last not least: All the groundbreaking technical developments have been made in standard-gauge countries.
You display post-soviet thinking. Get used to western thinking, you're fighting a loosing battle.


PS The US standardised its network to standard gauge - from BTW russian gauge, where it was necessary - after the Civil War. Why should they revert - just to please your narrow-minded imperialistic ambitions? There are worldwide railway maps. I suggest you get one and have a close look at it, to finally become aware of your country's embarassing position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Civil War is in the 19th century. Very long time ago. Current North American (USA and Canada) network is too bad. Standard gauge is too narrow, linking to Bering Strait is too long distance and too harsh climate for standard gauge railway, should be built at broad gauge with concrete sleepers sometimes ballastless tracks. USA and Canada should be converted from 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge to 1676 Indian gauge and electrified at 25kV AC overhead lines. (see Indian gauge#North America)
While standard gauge (1435mm) network is growing, Cape gauge (1067mm) network is rapidly shrinking. Narrow gauge railways are bad, rather than standard gauge is good. In Africa, Cape gauge networks are rapidly converted to standard gauge. 180.199.55.183 (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track gauges:
    • Russian side - Norilsk/Yakutsk/Okhotsk: 1520 Russian gauge and 25kV 50Hz AC overhead lines
    • Norilsk/Yakutsk/Okhotsk - Fairbanks (Alaska): 1676 Indian gauge and 25kV 50Hz AC overhead lines
    • New lines Fairbanks (Alaska) - Canada and Lower 48 States: 1676 Indian gauge and 25kV 60Hz AC overhead lines
    • Rail network in USA and Canada: Track gauge should be converted from 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge to 1676 Indian gauge
    • Mexico - Bolivia: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge
    • Argentina and Chile: 1676 Indian gauge

180.199.55.183 (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


As I said earlier, standard gauge is the gauge for the world - for the entire world. Get used to it. If you've committed an error earlier in your history, don't expect us to bear its consequences. A tunnel in standard gauge, plus a standard-gauge east-west line linking to America, China in the east, and Poland, plus Finland and the baltic states in the west, and the rest is a no-brainer. Just look at Spain how eager they have become in converting their broad-gauge network to standard gauge, once they realised the practical advantages. It's most of all that Russia doesn't want to 'lose again' to the west... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.228.89 (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now, both USA and Canada lose against Russia. A standard-gauge east-west line linking to America, China and Europe is just your dream.
transcontinental lines should be:
Russia-Americas: Russian gauge - Indian gauge - standard gauge - Indian gauge
India-Europe: Indian gauge - Russian gauge - standard gauge
Russia-China/Korea/Japan: Russian gauge - standard gauge
China-Southeast Asia: standard gauge
Europe-Africa (through Spain): standard gauge
180.199.61.236 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They should get broad-gauge low-platform-compatible rolling stocks. Broad gauge freight cars can carry standard gauge freight cars, but standard gauge freight cars cannot carry broad gauge freight cars. Spain have become in converting their broad-gauge network to standard gauge, once they realised the practical advantages, but Russia is opposed to Spain. Unlike Spain, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Finland and Baltic States should keep Russian gauge and Bering Strait Tunnel and Afghan network should be built at Indian gauge, and long-distance rail networks in USA and Canada should be converted from standard gauge to Indian gauge, which realised the practical advantages. 180.199.52.250 (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'A tunnel in standard gauge, plus a standard-gauge east-west line linking to America, China in the east, and Poland, plus Finland and the baltic states in the west, and the rest is a no-brainer'? Iran, China, Australia, New Zealand and southeast Asia are no-brainers. A tunnel in Indian gauge, plus a Indian gauge east-west line linking to North America, plus Argentina and Chile in the east, Pakistan, India in the south and Poland, plus Finland and the baltic states in the west, and the rest is a no-brainer. Unlike Spain, because Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Finland and Baltic States should keep Russian gauge and Bering Strait Tunnel and Afghan network should be built at Indian gauge, and long-distance rail networks in USA and Canada should be converted from standard gauge to Indian gauge, which realised the practical advantages. They should get broad-gauge low-platform-compatible rolling stocks. 180.199.45.110 (talk) 04:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now, long-distance rail networks in USA and Canada are bad. Long-distance rail networks in the USA and Canada should be converted from standard gauge to Indian gauge. 180.199.45.110 (talk) 04:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track gauges:
    • Russian side - Norilsk/Yakutsk/Okhotsk: 1520 Russian gauge and 25kV 50Hz AC overhead lines
    • Norilsk/Yakutsk/Okhotsk - Fairbanks (Alaska): 1676 Indian gauge and 25kV 50Hz AC overhead lines
    • New lines Fairbanks (Alaska) - Canada and Lower 48 States: 1676 Indian gauge and 25kV 60Hz AC overhead lines
    • Rail network in USA and Canada: Track gauge should be converted from 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge to 1676 Indian gauge
    • Mexico - Bolivia: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge
    • Argentina and Chile: 1676 Indian gauge
    • Russian side - Central Asia: 1520 Russian gauge and 25kV 50Hz AC overhead lines
    • Central Asia - Indian subcontinent: 1676 Indian gauge and 25kV 50Hz AC overhead lines (60Hz for Pakistan)
    • Rail networks in CIS states, Baltic States, Finland, Mongolia: 1520 Russian gauge and 25kV 50Hz AC overhead lines
  • Platform heights: 200mm, 380mm and 550mm above rail

180.199.61.236 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They should get broad-gauge low-platform-compatible rolling stocks. 180.199.52.250 (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ONE uniform gauge for (most of the) world, that's the formula. And that can only be standard gauge - 1435 mm, aka 4' 8 1/2". Can it really be so hard to comprehend? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: When I said '(most of the) world', this exception from the standnard-gauge rule referred to countries like New Zealand - certanly not to Russia and the other continental asian countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.120.231.38 (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
exception from the standard-gauge rule: Russian gauge, Indian gauge or another broad gauge (e.g. Russia and the other continental Asian countries)
exception from the standard-gauge or broad gauge rule: e.g. New Zealand and the Philippines
180.199.48.201 (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • certanly not to → not only to the countries like
  • another broad gauge → brand new broad gauge
  • Russia and the other CIS states, Baltic states, Finland and Mongolia should be retain 1520 Russian gauge.
  • India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should retain 1676 Indian gauge.
  • USA and Canada should be converted from 1435 standard gauge to 1676 Indian gauge.
  • Bering Strait Tunnel area and Afghan network should be built at 1676 Indian gauge.
  • Rail networks in Argentina and Chile should be 1676 Indian gauge, and the other Latin American networks (Mexico and further south, except Argentina and Chile) should be 1435 standard gauge.
  • African networks and southeast Asian networks should be 1435 standard gauge.
  • Platform heights should be 200mm (8"), 380mm (15") and 550mm (21.6").
  • They should get broad-gauge low-platform-compatible rolling stocks.

180.199.48.200 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard gauge (1435mm) should use to banish narrow-gauge mainline networks (e.g. 1067mm Cape gauge), not one uniform gauge. 180.199.56.43 (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rail networks in USA and Canada should be converted from 1435 standard gauge to 1676 Indian gauge. 180.199.56.187 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Platform heights should be 200mm (8"), 380mm (15") and 550mm (21.6"). 180.199.56.187 (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They should get broad-gauge low-platform-compatible rolling stocks. 180.199.56.187 (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough! Don't post anymore. 180.199.43.152 (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Force

"forces up to 5000 tons" tons is not a measurment for force. This should be converted to the International Newton of the USA/Burma/Liberia pound-force.94.145.236.194 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about tons of force? 2000 pounds of force is one (short) ton of force. Such units are used quite often in engineering, even if they're not technically correct. I'll add the appropriate SI units in parentheses (as the source likely refers to tons) 174.6.164.143 (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to clarification for "forces up to 5000 tons or more" being meaningless - nobody's taken the bridge project to the point of computing design parameters exactly. Some preliminary data suggests up to 5000 tons of shear force. However, because it's a preliminary report, they want to include the possibility that forces might be higher. There won't be any more specific data until and unless someone decides they want to build the bridges. Economically, that seems unlikely. Thus, I would suggest the clarification needed tag be removed. 174.6.164.143 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the above on board, I have simplified the wording to which could produce forces in the order of 5,000 short tons-force (44,000 kN; 10,000,000 lbf) on a pier., which uses the {{convert}} template to do the dirty work (at low precision - {{convert|5000|STf|kN lbf}}. I am assuming short tons-force as above; change "STf" to "LTf" or "tf" if needed.
An alternative wording might be which could produce forces exceeding 5,000 short tons-force (44,000 kN; 10,000,000 lbf) on a pier., but either way, I've removed the {{clarify}} tag along with the obtuse wording (less or more). Tim PF (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical ...

I think we are beyond the point of calling this hypothetical.. The project has been approved and has been worked out in detail. I sugest we move to calling it "Planned" instead of "Hypothetical" .

83.101.83.88 (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Approval is not boolean. Large infrastructure projects generally need approval from various different authorities (local, national, technical &c on both sides of the strait) and they need somebody to actually provide immense funding for construction. It would not surprise me that somebody has said "nihil obstat" to this project, but that does not mean it will actually be built any time soon as it's unlikely to be approved by all stakeholders, let alone funded, in the near future. "Planned" gives the impression that somebody's rolled out a full set of blueprints and the first shovel is about to dig next month or next year; if we told readers it was "planned" rather than "hypothetical" we would be giving them the wrong impression.
  • The BAM took eighty years and huge volumes of forced labour to build - a single-track, unelectrified railway. If the new project has been "worked out in detail", including details of how to fund something longer than the BAM and in harsher terrain, plus the world's toughest tunneling project on top of that, I would love to see that detail - it would really help expand this article. I would also like to see the financial detail too - even the marginal cost of running the BAM is a cash-sink, but presumably somebody has figured out how to make a much more expensive project pay its way despite having Russian border controls (the surest way of slowing and reducing traffic). Right now there isn't even enough traffic to sustain the most rudimentary ferry service; where's the demand for such a colossal infrastructure project? bobrayner (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jiaozhou Bay Bridge length

The actual length of the bridge section of the Jiaozhou Bay Bridge is 26.7 km (16.16 mi). The 42 km figure applies to the entire Jiaozhou Bay Connection Project, not of all of which is a bridge. The Lake Pontchartrain Causeway is the longest continuous bridge. Roches (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waste rock?

It's occurred to me that drilling the tunnel would create a very large amount of waste rock, which would probably need to be pulled out of the ends of the tunnels. Have there been any plans on what to do with the waste rock? Ship it out through the rail to disposal areas? Dump it in the ocean around the entrances? Fill in the space between the Diomede islands? 98.127.119.21 (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://mosenltd.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Tunnel-Air-Emissions.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bering_Strait_crossing&oldid=608018713"