Train submarine

Well .. in all cases i think finding some one to pilot and actually get on it is going to be a bigger challenge. It seems so unpractical.

The biggest submarine in the world is the typhoon class built by the USSR and its 170 meters by 23 meters and its 47,000 tons submerged displacement and you want to build a submarine bigger than that and costs less than a small countries entire GDP?

 

It doesn't matter much how thick the plating is. A rod this size and length of solid steel would still be a fraction the stiffness of a larger tube. To gain stiffness you have to increase the diameter of the tube significantly, since stiffness increases with the square of the thickness for a tube for the square of the diameter.

 

Increasing stiffness is one thing, to keep it from breaking is another animal.

And waves are one thing, but encountering a crosscurrent would be another other animal.

 

No argument, I was just trying to get this down to a single major issue to explain the difficulty of the project. I wouldn't even begin to guess just what the engineering cost of something like this would be.

 

Vulkyn
The trainsub with train would displace 28,000t submerged and because it would have living quarters and control room for a crew of perhaps six, that could be detached and used as a large lifeboat in case of emergency, I see no problem in getting the crew.
I would imagine it to only cost twice a conventional small ship but would do twice the work, under $10m at a guess.

Stumble
So what if it flexes a bit so do tall buildings and as it would have the propellers along the side towards the front the rest would follow like a plane in a crosswind.

SamSam
That you have got me on as I am not at all conversant with them. I have seen very strong currents near shore on TV but all I can suggest is a thicker hull and a more suitable railhead. Maybe that would be the thing that proves the concept a failure.

 

My advice is build a 1:100 scale model, and test it on the local lake or river, you can put a wind-up toy train inside. I foresee no shortage of problems !

 

Mr Efficiency
Could you list the problems you foresee please?

 

We're not talking about a small deflection, we are talking about the thing folding up like an accordion. The difference between designing buildings and ships is the difference between designing buildings and airplanes.

I am really curious where and how you are making these estimates? 10 million isn't enough to pay for the designing of this thing, let alone the construction.

 

As it would be mainly to ensure our fuel supply so we do not starve I would imagine that the Australian navy would design and build it whatever the cost.

It would be far cheaper and less threatening than high tech subs that they want but cannot afford to keep our sea lanes open.

 

We could always go back to charcoal-burners mistereddb, don't worry your head about fuel shortages, takes some of the bloody traffic off the road !

 

If the worry is fuel, just build a couple of large diesel carriers. Or build a pipeline to some oil producing country.

Either one would be cheaper.

 

and less dangerous ... i would not walk into that death trap if you payed me 10 Million $ ...

So my advice is to open your excel, start doing some calculations. Realise that its going to be easier to build a giant robot to carry the train than it is to build a submarine 1 km long.
After that realisation i am sure there are forums for robot constructions that could be interested in the prospect of a giant robot that is capable of carrying trains.
Of course it could also float as well striking 2 birds with on stone.

For the robot to be functional it will require tracks as we do not have the means to efficiently use legs for robots as of yet. The propulsion and power needed must be considered as well as it will require a very powerful engine.
The train can be carried on large round like track that could be raised after the train is on the track to prevent any damage in transportation.
The body would enclose the engine and fuel tanks, nuclear propulsion is also a possibility with the proper connections.

Submarines are inherently extremely complicated, navigation, sonar, ballast tanks, trimming, buoyancy, propulsion etc. That is why there are thousands of home made boats but a handful of home made subs.

After reviewing the matter i believe a robot is a better course of action ..... certainly makes more sense than a 1 km submarine carrying a train ....

 

This is an extremely expensive solution looking for a problem.

 

The 'need' has morphed from helping the disadvantaged worldwide to 'We're in danger here of running out of supplies'.

The implication is if supplies were cut off, you'd be out of food and fuel in two weeks. I don't see where there'd be any difference with sub trains. They wouldn't be 'stealthier' than ships, and Australia would still be living paycheck to paycheck but getting paid by a much shakier bank.

Australia already has all the ports and infrastructure needed for existing efficient transport ships, so what's needed to help the alleged problem is storage facilities, so ya'll can stock up now for future shortages. You might also want to re-examine your links with China. Aside from supplying them the technical expertise which will allow them very soon to control the majority of the Pacific Basin, you are co-operating with them over agriculture situations. I can't imagine them exporting food to you, so it will be them exploiting your fisheries, them buying and controlling your land to grow their food and there won't be anything you can do about it. Just like Brazil and Africa. Whether you know it or not, ya'll are in the process of switching sides, from the Western to the Eastern.

As far as fuel and sub trains, they've sort of been already invented.

http://www.desmi.com/UserFiles/file... Sheets/Info_sheet_4_Towed_Flexible_Barge.pdf


.

 

Well, I used to laugh when my late father would say 30 years ago that the Chinese would end up taking over the place (Australia), but it might prove less inaccurate than it sounded at the time. In those days China was far from becoming the economic titan it now is.