The Evolution of Tunnel Boring Machines(construction-physics.com)
construction-physics.com
The Evolution of Tunnel Boring Machines
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/the-evolution-of-tunnel-boring-machines
122 comments
We had nuclear tbm's in the early 70's, but nobody thought to develop them further than a few prototypes.
They worked though, and were very fast for their time, still quite fast even by today's standards.
They worked though, and were very fast for their time, still quite fast even by today's standards.
We didn't have them we had non nuclear test instances and patents, and nobody ever scaled it up to use nuclear power.
[deleted]
This was a great article but sad that they didn't mention the top secret nuclear powered plasma tunnel machines that you just know they actually have:
https://www.wired.com/story/new-tech-cuts-rock-without-grind...
Here is a very interesting video of the challenges of digging a new pump station tunnel at a steep angle and all the unknown difficulties that can show up.
https://youtu.be/6AV2NcyX7pk?si=cGvHD4eUp6zQSef2
https://youtu.be/6AV2NcyX7pk?si=cGvHD4eUp6zQSef2
+1 for that video. I've discovered it accidentally and was blown away. Then I watched the other videos by Marti Group and was continued to be impressed. Unfortunately they don't have many videos on YT (there are not many projects of that size I guess)
And no mention of nuclear tbm's, even though NTBM's were remarkably fast and fixed many of the issues with traditional tbm's...
Were any of these ever built? Googling suggests Los Alamos patented one, but I can't see examples of one being built and tried. How bad is the resulting contamination, and how do you keep it out of the groundwater?
Couple prototypes from what I gather. No contamination because it's a sealed system, and they're flowing molten salt through the working end to melt the rock in front of the machine as it pushes through.
[deleted]
related: documentary on the Gotthard base tunnel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaYtrsvzfh0
better video, only German though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93O7YmBEb7A
The last video is also interesting to watch today because they mention a lot of the safeguards they put into the system (such as measuring the temperature of the train axles some km before they enter the tunnel and redirect the train to the old Gotthard track if the temperature higher than some threshold).
But still recently on August 23 there was this accident where a freight train derailed inside the tunnel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaYtrsvzfh0
better video, only German though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93O7YmBEb7A
The last video is also interesting to watch today because they mention a lot of the safeguards they put into the system (such as measuring the temperature of the train axles some km before they enter the tunnel and redirect the train to the old Gotthard track if the temperature higher than some threshold).
But still recently on August 23 there was this accident where a freight train derailed inside the tunnel.
Tangential, is Elon Musk's idea of small diameter tunnels constructed rapidly a currently unviable idea or the future of the industry?
I know it's a big ask to send you a 40 min youtube video, but grab some popcorn and enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dn6ZVpJLxs
TL;DW No. Tunnels are hard to rapidly dig (esp. in the US where property rights exist underground), they require safety elements like proper ventilation, and they are still subject to congestion at the destination exits.
TL;DW No. Tunnels are hard to rapidly dig (esp. in the US where property rights exist underground), they require safety elements like proper ventilation, and they are still subject to congestion at the destination exits.
this is likely to become critical tech in the coming years.
How is this not already critical tech?
we dont have to abandon the surface quite yet, but soon
If you're talking about climate change, the number one threat is going to be food.
Climate change is correlated with worse crops because it brings more droughts and harsher weather extremes and this will become a real problem.
Climate change is correlated with worse crops because it brings more droughts and harsher weather extremes and this will become a real problem.
yes crops will have to be included, as well as a, cohort of supportive biotypes.
very much a noahs ark scenario, but we may best use a number of avenues, such as exoplanetary colonies.
very much a noahs ark scenario, but we may best use a number of avenues, such as exoplanetary colonies.
There is nothing that we can do to this planet that would render the environment a tenth as inhospitable as any known other planet.
IIRC we've not even found one that has free oxygen in the atmosphere yet. Even if we did, anything with that and water would be extremely exiting by the standards of exoplanets, even if it had an average temperature of 75 C which would kill humans.
IIRC we've not even found one that has free oxygen in the atmosphere yet. Even if we did, anything with that and water would be extremely exiting by the standards of exoplanets, even if it had an average temperature of 75 C which would kill humans.
Being the splendidly reactive stuff that it is, molecular oxygen doesn't survive very long in any atmosphere: generally there's always something that needs oxidising. So it's thought to be a good indicator of life, only arising on Earth after photosynthesis began:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event
Oh, we can do a lot to make that planet inhospitable. You are right that it would take quite a while to reach anything resembling martian levels and we still have a magnetic core which helps with many things.
But I wouldn't underestimate the multitude of ways in which this planet could be made inhospitable by us.
We are trusting a lot on the self-correcting power of nature on this planet, but we just don't know if there isn't some tipping point after which there is no return.
But I wouldn't underestimate the multitude of ways in which this planet could be made inhospitable by us.
We are trusting a lot on the self-correcting power of nature on this planet, but we just don't know if there isn't some tipping point after which there is no return.
> There is nothing that we can do to this planet that would render the environment a tenth as inhospitable as any known other planet
That's yet to be proven - although not in my lifetime, I hope. One would hope that humankind would finally manage to do something before it gets as bad as on Venus, but I wouldn't bet on it...
That's yet to be proven - although not in my lifetime, I hope. One would hope that humankind would finally manage to do something before it gets as bad as on Venus, but I wouldn't bet on it...
Getting as bad as Venus would require as a minimum crashing a quarter of the entire asteroid belt into planet Earth, and that's assuming there's enough oxygen and carbon in those rocks.
Even if we burned 100% of all biomass on Earth, leaving it dead, it's still not close to Venus, where the "air" is so thick it's passed the critical point and no longer distinguishable from a liquid.
Even if we did that, the day length on Venus is longer than its year.
Even if we burned 100% of all biomass on Earth, leaving it dead, it's still not close to Venus, where the "air" is so thick it's passed the critical point and no longer distinguishable from a liquid.
Even if we did that, the day length on Venus is longer than its year.
Free oxygen is not something that happens naturally, it requires a specific kind of life to constantly replenish as it gets consumed by surface oxidization.
No. We need to get our shit together.
It becomes really tangible just how much we drank the kool aid of capitalism when people can more easily imagine moving ontonexoplanet colonies than a future where the gain of the few capitalists isn't literally priorized above the survival of the human race.
Why do you think the next planet won't fall victim to the same mechanisms?
It becomes really tangible just how much we drank the kool aid of capitalism when people can more easily imagine moving ontonexoplanet colonies than a future where the gain of the few capitalists isn't literally priorized above the survival of the human race.
Why do you think the next planet won't fall victim to the same mechanisms?
That was an entertaining and educating read. I had not realized just how relatively recent rock tunneling advancements were.
Also the idea of adding grout between the rough bored tunnel and the tunnel lining - what a great way to create a full physical connection given the probable irregularities of the tunnel.
Also the idea of adding grout between the rough bored tunnel and the tunnel lining - what a great way to create a full physical connection given the probable irregularities of the tunnel.
> During construction of the Hudson River Tunnel in 1889, 25% of the workers died from decompression sickness.
Less interesting but of far greater value to humanity has been the innovation in heath and safety regulations.
According to this article [1] one worker died per foot of the Hudson River Tunnel.
> In 1906, attitudes toward the sandhogs changed after a series of accidents beneath the East River. Blown-out tunnels put the dangers of the profession on display in a way few New Yorkers could ignore, and the Progressive-Era press worked to publicize them. Suddenly, sandhogs were big news, and people started to complain about their high death rates.
[1] https://daily.jstor.org/the-sandhogs-who-built-the-new-york-...
Less interesting but of far greater value to humanity has been the innovation in heath and safety regulations.
According to this article [1] one worker died per foot of the Hudson River Tunnel.
> In 1906, attitudes toward the sandhogs changed after a series of accidents beneath the East River. Blown-out tunnels put the dangers of the profession on display in a way few New Yorkers could ignore, and the Progressive-Era press worked to publicize them. Suddenly, sandhogs were big news, and people started to complain about their high death rates.
[1] https://daily.jstor.org/the-sandhogs-who-built-the-new-york-...
That 25% statistic is unreferenced (or else I'd have to read all the sources to find where he got that from). It's sort of difficult to imagine it being true. Because you'd also have to factor in all the people who got decompression sickness but didn't die of it, but who couldn't work anymore—you'd think that would be even higher. I have to believe that it's to be interpreted as "of the many workers who died during this project, 25% died from decompression". Maybe I'm too skeptical, but that makes more sense to me.
My grandfather was for a short time in the railroad construction business under Japanese leadership about 50 years after the Hudson project. I have never met him, but I can imagine he would be delighted if the death rate would just be 25%.
IIRC for the Indonesian, voluntary workers the death rate was 80%. For the prisoners like my grandfather the rate was lower, simply because they started working later (and perhaps some racism from the leadership).
IIRC for the Indonesian, voluntary workers the death rate was 80%. For the prisoners like my grandfather the rate was lower, simply because they started working later (and perhaps some racism from the leadership).
This was not so much health and safety regulation-related, but simple ignorance. The dangers of rapid decompression were not recognized until early 20-th century when underwater construction became more common.
That's why "decompression sickness" is called "caisson sickness" in several languages.
That's why "decompression sickness" is called "caisson sickness" in several languages.
I don’t buy it. 25% of workers is a lot of workers for a megaproject of this scale. This would either have to be a single devastating week, in which case they would learn about it really quickly and would probably still be the collective memory, or O'Rourke Engineering Construction Company willfully allowed their workers to die out of mysterious causes and opted not to investigate.
The latter is actually more likely but not really. There is no way the tunnel would have been finished if a quarter of the workforce was dying and the company just allowed it to continue happening.
Compare this to the Panama Canal which started construction under US supervision the same year as the Hudson North River tunnel. They didn’t know much about the spread of tropical deceases but they knew enough to supply their workers with mosquito nets etc. The French effort to build the canal totally failed, primarily because of the high death toll among workers. When the US took over preventing the spread of deceases was a primary concern. And this project now lives in our collective memory as one that costed so many lives.
Now there is no doubt in my mind that working condition for the Hudson North River tunnel were horrendous, and that far too many unnecessary deaths resulted from total disregard of worker safety by the construction company. That this number was 25% and that it was because they didn’t know about decompression sickness... That I don’t buy, dozens of workers dying from the construction company cutting corners, overworking their workers, setting harsh deadlines, not providing safety gears, and (yes) not treating sick workers, that is far more plausible.
The latter is actually more likely but not really. There is no way the tunnel would have been finished if a quarter of the workforce was dying and the company just allowed it to continue happening.
Compare this to the Panama Canal which started construction under US supervision the same year as the Hudson North River tunnel. They didn’t know much about the spread of tropical deceases but they knew enough to supply their workers with mosquito nets etc. The French effort to build the canal totally failed, primarily because of the high death toll among workers. When the US took over preventing the spread of deceases was a primary concern. And this project now lives in our collective memory as one that costed so many lives.
Now there is no doubt in my mind that working condition for the Hudson North River tunnel were horrendous, and that far too many unnecessary deaths resulted from total disregard of worker safety by the construction company. That this number was 25% and that it was because they didn’t know about decompression sickness... That I don’t buy, dozens of workers dying from the construction company cutting corners, overworking their workers, setting harsh deadlines, not providing safety gears, and (yes) not treating sick workers, that is far more plausible.
It seems plausible to me and the Panama canal is a good comparison. 30,000 workers dies building the canal, which was 40% of the workforce.
It is a lot easier to replace a few dozen men digging tunnels in New York, than find 30,000 replacements in a swamp and jungle.
Life was simply cheap. If you go back 75 years further, you had pretty similar documented death rates for sailors - especially in the slave trade where a 25-50% death rate during Atlantic slave crossings was pretty common.
It is a lot easier to replace a few dozen men digging tunnels in New York, than find 30,000 replacements in a swamp and jungle.
Life was simply cheap. If you go back 75 years further, you had pretty similar documented death rates for sailors - especially in the slave trade where a 25-50% death rate during Atlantic slave crossings was pretty common.
Deaths during construction of the Panama Canal were overwhelmingly from tropical diseases, notably yellow fever and malaria:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_con...>
The transmission of yellow fever by mosquitos was established by Maj. Walter Reed, US Army, the physician for whom Walter Reed Hospital is named:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed>
The shear lethality of tropical diseases to Europeans prior to the 20th century really cannot be overstated. I'd run across a statistic that the life expectancy of a British soldier stationed to Africa was on the order of six months:
In 1824 half the 600 soldiers garrisoned in the Gold Coast died within a few months, and the House of Commons was told in 1826, that of 1,567 troops sent out in the previous two years, 905 had died. Europeans died mainly from malaria and yellow fever - or from the “cures” which were nearly as dangerous as the ailments. Blood-letting was common. Leeches were standard colonial surgical equipment, being placed on the patients shaved head to “suck out” the fever. Great blisters were raised with steaming cloths or mustard packs and then broken to drain away the fever. On the same principle, salivating was induced by calomel, often at the expense of the victim’s teeth, or by quicksilver and mercury, an even more drastic “treatment” that inflamed the mouth and sometimes caused the sick man to suffocate on his own swollen tongue.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20070106173014/myweb.tiscali.co....>
Drawing a distinction between death by disease and by accident may be somewhat arbitrary, but still seems a distinction worth noting.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_measures_during_the_con...>
The transmission of yellow fever by mosquitos was established by Maj. Walter Reed, US Army, the physician for whom Walter Reed Hospital is named:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Reed>
The shear lethality of tropical diseases to Europeans prior to the 20th century really cannot be overstated. I'd run across a statistic that the life expectancy of a British soldier stationed to Africa was on the order of six months:
In 1824 half the 600 soldiers garrisoned in the Gold Coast died within a few months, and the House of Commons was told in 1826, that of 1,567 troops sent out in the previous two years, 905 had died. Europeans died mainly from malaria and yellow fever - or from the “cures” which were nearly as dangerous as the ailments. Blood-letting was common. Leeches were standard colonial surgical equipment, being placed on the patients shaved head to “suck out” the fever. Great blisters were raised with steaming cloths or mustard packs and then broken to drain away the fever. On the same principle, salivating was induced by calomel, often at the expense of the victim’s teeth, or by quicksilver and mercury, an even more drastic “treatment” that inflamed the mouth and sometimes caused the sick man to suffocate on his own swollen tongue.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20070106173014/myweb.tiscali.co....>
Drawing a distinction between death by disease and by accident may be somewhat arbitrary, but still seems a distinction worth noting.
I think this further supports the point about the unfathomable cheapness of life before the 1900's.
I would put that date a little closer in time actually. And I actually have a precise date. I think that labor was unfathomably cheap until July 6th 1935, when the National Labor Relation act was enacted.
Both the tunnel and the canal (under USA supervision) didn’t start construction until 1904.
But that said, by far the majority of the deaths during the construction of the Panama Canal were under French supervision, in the 1880s. This effort failed primarily because of the heavy toll on human lives. While people did die under the Americans, and while labor conditions were horrendous, it was nowhere near on the same caliber as the decades prior. Further indicating that you cannot just disregard human lives completely and still get the job done (you could only do that to an extend; until July 6th 1935 that is).
Both the tunnel and the canal (under USA supervision) didn’t start construction until 1904.
But that said, by far the majority of the deaths during the construction of the Panama Canal were under French supervision, in the 1880s. This effort failed primarily because of the heavy toll on human lives. While people did die under the Americans, and while labor conditions were horrendous, it was nowhere near on the same caliber as the decades prior. Further indicating that you cannot just disregard human lives completely and still get the job done (you could only do that to an extend; until July 6th 1935 that is).
It has never been practical to simply disregard the practical financial and labor implications of human life and get the job done. If all your workers starve, they wont shovel. If there are no replacements, work stops.
I think what is interesting is the expansion from purely logistical/financial implications to include other considerations.
These other considerations including legal ones, as labor laws were passed, civil liability law developed, social sentiments changed, and welfare increased so that people didnt have to choose be 50% chance of death or starvation.
I think what is interesting is the expansion from purely logistical/financial implications to include other considerations.
These other considerations including legal ones, as labor laws were passed, civil liability law developed, social sentiments changed, and welfare increased so that people didnt have to choose be 50% chance of death or starvation.
There's a key distinction that I'd like to point out.
Operational safety based risks, such as experienced in direct earthworks, blasting, transport, etc., disproportionately affect front-line workers.
Infectious disease based risks are largely indiscriminate between front-line and managerial staff. That is, unskilled labourers and administrative, clerical, officer, etc., staff all largely face a similar threat against vector-transmitted diseases. The only option for the latter is to avoid the location or posting entirely.
That may be a subtle shading, and points about the US NRL made by runarberg are well taken, but again, it seems significant.
Note that tropical diseases were an issue across the Panamanian isthmus for travelers and transport workers (sailors, teamsters, railroad) who traversed the region even before the canal was built, as an overland leg in the East-to-West-coast route which avoided both the time and perils of going 'round the Cape, encircling all of South America.
A railroad was opened across the isthmus in 1855. That effort cost 5-10k workers' lives itself.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Railway>
And, somewhat supporting your viewpoint, Adam Smith describes the career duration of workers at his time (~1750--1775): "A carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not supposed to last in his utmost vigor above eight years."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 8, "Of the Wages of Labour"
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/...>
Similarly, prior to the development of modern sanitation and hygiene (fresh water supplies, sewerage systems, regular bathing, handwashing), cities were net population sinks and relied on in-migration from surrounding countryside (often driven by limited employment and income potential there) in order to simply maintain population levels. Infectious disease deaths within cities could top 50 thousand per year in 19th century London and New York, out of populations of 1 million or fewer.
Operational safety based risks, such as experienced in direct earthworks, blasting, transport, etc., disproportionately affect front-line workers.
Infectious disease based risks are largely indiscriminate between front-line and managerial staff. That is, unskilled labourers and administrative, clerical, officer, etc., staff all largely face a similar threat against vector-transmitted diseases. The only option for the latter is to avoid the location or posting entirely.
That may be a subtle shading, and points about the US NRL made by runarberg are well taken, but again, it seems significant.
Note that tropical diseases were an issue across the Panamanian isthmus for travelers and transport workers (sailors, teamsters, railroad) who traversed the region even before the canal was built, as an overland leg in the East-to-West-coast route which avoided both the time and perils of going 'round the Cape, encircling all of South America.
A railroad was opened across the isthmus in 1855. That effort cost 5-10k workers' lives itself.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Canal_Railway>
And, somewhat supporting your viewpoint, Adam Smith describes the career duration of workers at his time (~1750--1775): "A carpenter in London, and in some other places, is not supposed to last in his utmost vigor above eight years."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 8, "Of the Wages of Labour"
<https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/...>
Similarly, prior to the development of modern sanitation and hygiene (fresh water supplies, sewerage systems, regular bathing, handwashing), cities were net population sinks and relied on in-migration from surrounding countryside (often driven by limited employment and income potential there) in order to simply maintain population levels. Infectious disease deaths within cities could top 50 thousand per year in 19th century London and New York, out of populations of 1 million or fewer.
>cities were net population sinks and relied on in-migration from surrounding countryside.
Now that's interesting. I consider myself dark realist when it comes to history but I haven't read that. I'm guessing it must be constrained to some pretty specific circumstances and period in time.
Now that's interesting. I consider myself dark realist when it comes to history but I haven't read that. I'm guessing it must be constrained to some pretty specific circumstances and period in time.
Gregory Clark cites this fact in his book A Farewell to Alms:
<https://archive.org/details/farewelltoalmsbr00clar/page/92/m...>
Specifically, that situation prevailed from the 16th through 19th centuries. That's a brief period from a geological standpoint I suppose...
<https://www.worldcat.org/title/farewell-to-alms-a-brief-econ...>
<https://archive.org/details/farewelltoalmsbr00clar/page/92/m...>
Specifically, that situation prevailed from the 16th through 19th centuries. That's a brief period from a geological standpoint I suppose...
<https://www.worldcat.org/title/farewell-to-alms-a-brief-econ...>
"Infectious disease based risks are largely indiscriminate between front-line and managerial staff."
Not at all. When you are a worker in the jungle, you will get biten by way more mosquitos, than when you are sitting in a office protected by mosquito nets.
Not at all. When you are a worker in the jungle, you will get biten by way more mosquitos, than when you are sitting in a office protected by mosquito nets.
I can believe it, and I can believe it is still in the collective memory of the relevant unions since it is apparently partly the reason for their existence. From NY Time Archive: [1]
> In 1890, 68 sandhogs died as they bored a gas tunnel under Welfare Island, now Roosevelt Island. A Manhattan coroner estimated that at least 50 sandhogs died in the first five months of 1906 in the construction of Pennsylvania Railroad tunnels. Thirteen sandhogs died building the Holland Tunnel between 1921 and 1924.
So they lost 10 per month building the Pennsylvania Railroad tunnels. The 25% probably refers to the underground workers, not everyone employed on the project. Either there was greater automation, or by the 1920s the numbers lost decreased substantially.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/28/nyregion/tunneling-into-w...
> In 1890, 68 sandhogs died as they bored a gas tunnel under Welfare Island, now Roosevelt Island. A Manhattan coroner estimated that at least 50 sandhogs died in the first five months of 1906 in the construction of Pennsylvania Railroad tunnels. Thirteen sandhogs died building the Holland Tunnel between 1921 and 1924.
So they lost 10 per month building the Pennsylvania Railroad tunnels. The 25% probably refers to the underground workers, not everyone employed on the project. Either there was greater automation, or by the 1920s the numbers lost decreased substantially.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/28/nyregion/tunneling-into-w...
25% of underground workers is a far more reasonable number, and I can actually believe that. Don’t get me wrong, companies during the guilded age had no respect for their workers, and if they had to choose between worker’s lives or company profit, they choose profit 100% of the time.
I just think that even during this horrible time period, you still couldn’t get away with loosing 25% of your workers while still getting the job done.
I just think that even during this horrible time period, you still couldn’t get away with loosing 25% of your workers while still getting the job done.
They did know migrant workers were dying, they thought it was a sickness caught being below ground so they kept them in dorms away from everyone else.
When you are hiring new people each day, to replace the ones who died, knowing that a quarter will lose their life, ignorance around exactly how they died is no excuse.
Today in my country at least a single workers death is not acceptable. Accidents happen but prosecution happens if everything was not done by the book.
When you are hiring new people each day, to replace the ones who died, knowing that a quarter will lose their life, ignorance around exactly how they died is no excuse.
Today in my country at least a single workers death is not acceptable. Accidents happen but prosecution happens if everything was not done by the book.
> Today in my country at least a single workers death is not acceptable
Tolerance for workers death is highly related to location and time. We used to have large families for a reason!
N=10, but nevertheless a comparison on the difference in location at exactly the same time was the Channel [0], of the 10 deaths, 8 were in Britain.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#:~:text=At%20th....
Tolerance for workers death is highly related to location and time. We used to have large families for a reason!
N=10, but nevertheless a comparison on the difference in location at exactly the same time was the Channel [0], of the 10 deaths, 8 were in Britain.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#:~:text=At%20th....
I mean, I don't think we really invented safety regulations. I am not sure if a regulation existed that could have allowed the HRT to be built safely with the technology of the time.
I think technology is inherently linked with standard of living which is inherently linked to the value of a life.
I think technology is inherently linked with standard of living which is inherently linked to the value of a life.
You’d think that they’d stop working if they saw 1/4th of their compatriots just drop dead.
It was a well-paid job for the time. Most of dangerous or otherwise physically taxing construction jobs still are well-paid, and for good reason.
They were paid $2.50 a day. Which is around $91 in today dollars. On top of that wage theft was all too common. And that's a wage that they had to fight to unionize to get up to
Assuming I am reading this right in 1905 1/4 of male workers over 16 made 8$/week or less. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nnc1.cu56779232&seq=1...
For unskilled labor 6 days a week at 2.50/day = 15$/week which would have been quite tempting especially if the risks where unclear.
It’s worth remembering when doing inflation calculations just how poor people used to be. Take the average person’s budget today and remove their car, gadgets, AC, subscriptions, most of the pricy food options, etc. Healthcare was cheap and largely ineffective, collage was rare and minimalist by todays standards. Most of what people spend money on today simply didn’t exist so not having it was normal.
For unskilled labor 6 days a week at 2.50/day = 15$/week which would have been quite tempting especially if the risks where unclear.
It’s worth remembering when doing inflation calculations just how poor people used to be. Take the average person’s budget today and remove their car, gadgets, AC, subscriptions, most of the pricy food options, etc. Healthcare was cheap and largely ineffective, collage was rare and minimalist by todays standards. Most of what people spend money on today simply didn’t exist so not having it was normal.
> It’s worth remembering when doing inflation calculations just how poor people used to be.
And also, how much of the wealth created by the employees ended up in their pockets vs. the pockets of the owners, and how the standards of living were. Basically, back then with such a job you could afford a place to live, to have kids, a wife to take care of housework and, post 1930-ish, a car. Today? Most of my generation struggles to make rent because we're being bled dry.
And also, how much of the wealth created by the employees ended up in their pockets vs. the pockets of the owners, and how the standards of living were. Basically, back then with such a job you could afford a place to live, to have kids, a wife to take care of housework and, post 1930-ish, a car. Today? Most of my generation struggles to make rent because we're being bled dry.
Lifestyle inflation, urban planning, and choices makes living a quality life more difficult than it should be.
You're able to afford a larger house and a car or two, but you're also spending more money than necessary on transportation and housing. Buying a car is expensive and so is the road built for cars. Trains are more expensive than a car, but its cost can be amortized across many riders.
Housing is a problem of both government and market dysfunction and is directly tied to our transportation woes. People are tied to the idea of real estate as an investment which means they often opposed development. Planners continued to zone only SFH, and made middle housing illegal. They also don't do mixed zoning which improve efficient utilization of land.
I supposed if income goes to workers more, they would just push the housing price higher. It can't be fixed unless we build sufficient housing.
You're able to afford a larger house and a car or two, but you're also spending more money than necessary on transportation and housing. Buying a car is expensive and so is the road built for cars. Trains are more expensive than a car, but its cost can be amortized across many riders.
Housing is a problem of both government and market dysfunction and is directly tied to our transportation woes. People are tied to the idea of real estate as an investment which means they often opposed development. Planners continued to zone only SFH, and made middle housing illegal. They also don't do mixed zoning which improve efficient utilization of land.
I supposed if income goes to workers more, they would just push the housing price higher. It can't be fixed unless we build sufficient housing.
Lifestyle inflation is why people don’t feel so much wealthier than their grandparents, but housing isn’t the economic drain it seems like because so much of its value doesn’t require resources to create. It’s mostly redistribution of income from workers to other people and as such it gets into politics.
Well that and the giant ball of suck associated with long commutes, but I am kind of hoping there’s going to be more pushback on that due to people working from home during COVID. Even those who still needed to go in had vastly less traffic.
Well that and the giant ball of suck associated with long commutes, but I am kind of hoping there’s going to be more pushback on that due to people working from home during COVID. Even those who still needed to go in had vastly less traffic.
If you increases the income of workers that's going to go to right back into housing, unless you made changes on how the housing market works.
We've got richer while food has got relatively cheaper, transport has got relatively cheaper, all the things you need to live have got relatively cheaper, so it isn't really surprising that all the extra money is going towards people's homes.
On top of that all the nice things have gotten cheaper. Listening to music is now cheap. Books, news, entertainment are cheap.
Yes you may have had a car (24 million cars in 1940 v 135million population) but then you wouldn't have had a fridge, TV.
And youre comparing someone relatively wealthy, to someone who can't afford rent. If you were poor you probably didn't have electricity, indoor toilet, more than one heated room in the house, and probably lucky if you could afford enough food.
I'm from the UK and we went through this a bit later so it's still within living memory. My dad remembers getting an indoor toilet an plumbed in bath for the first time, that was late 50s/ early 60s.
On top of that all the nice things have gotten cheaper. Listening to music is now cheap. Books, news, entertainment are cheap.
Yes you may have had a car (24 million cars in 1940 v 135million population) but then you wouldn't have had a fridge, TV.
And youre comparing someone relatively wealthy, to someone who can't afford rent. If you were poor you probably didn't have electricity, indoor toilet, more than one heated room in the house, and probably lucky if you could afford enough food.
I'm from the UK and we went through this a bit later so it's still within living memory. My dad remembers getting an indoor toilet an plumbed in bath for the first time, that was late 50s/ early 60s.
And if we are talking late 1800's/early 1900's, Taxes were essentially non-existent, so people kept and spent more of their money. Taxes as a % of GDP was in the 5-10% range, opposed to ~40% today.
They also didn't have to worry about the same healthcare costs, as they were healthier in general, and the options were far fewer when sick.
They also didn't have to worry about the same healthcare costs, as they were healthier in general, and the options were far fewer when sick.
>as they were healthier in general
Source? Survivorship bias?
How many people do you know who've had polio? Small pox? Rubella? Mumps? Died from a bacterial infection? Blinded from cataracts?
Source? Survivorship bias?
How many people do you know who've had polio? Small pox? Rubella? Mumps? Died from a bacterial infection? Blinded from cataracts?
You failed to quote the critical part of the sentence.
>They also didn't have to worry about the same healthcare costs, as they were healthier in general, and the options were far fewer when sick.
People were less obese, spent less time battling disease, and died younger.
It's somewhat similar to survivorship bias, but it is a real effect.
You can look up population incidence and prevelance rates for diabetes, obesity, alzheimer's, and cancer yourself.
>They also didn't have to worry about the same healthcare costs, as they were healthier in general, and the options were far fewer when sick.
People were less obese, spent less time battling disease, and died younger.
It's somewhat similar to survivorship bias, but it is a real effect.
You can look up population incidence and prevelance rates for diabetes, obesity, alzheimer's, and cancer yourself.
That isn't the critical part of the sentence, which is why you didn't spend any time mentioning it.
Yes they were less obese, the issue was the more likely to be the opposite, malnutrition. I dispute they spent less time battling disease, but if they did, it's because they died quicker.
Alzheimers is a disease of the old, and cancer tends to be also.
So all you're left with is obesity and the closely correlated diabetes.
Yes they were less obese, the issue was the more likely to be the opposite, malnutrition. I dispute they spent less time battling disease, but if they did, it's because they died quicker.
Alzheimers is a disease of the old, and cancer tends to be also.
So all you're left with is obesity and the closely correlated diabetes.
Polio etc survivors may have been less obese but they didn’t spend less time battling disease.
Often someone would be dealing with the consequences of childhood illnesses or injuries for decades.
Often someone would be dealing with the consequences of childhood illnesses or injuries for decades.
Indeed, but I am talking about the sum of all disease.
Polio is a good example of the opposite, because polio today is effectively zero. Most other types of disease trend the other way with much more significant margins.
Polio lead to some level of paralysis in somewhere between 0.5-0.2% percent of people, many of whom died and needed no further healthcare.
Today, a far larger percent of Americans have lost the ability to walk due to obesity and diabetes.
Polio is a good example of the opposite, because polio today is effectively zero. Most other types of disease trend the other way with much more significant margins.
Polio lead to some level of paralysis in somewhere between 0.5-0.2% percent of people, many of whom died and needed no further healthcare.
Today, a far larger percent of Americans have lost the ability to walk due to obesity and diabetes.
Polio is just one success story among many. Sanitation, vaccination, and antibiotics don’t just cut down on Cholera but a huge range of diseases.
Tuberculosis, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Cholera, Polio, Smallpox, Tetanus, Varicella(Chickenpox> shingles), etc didn’t individually leave large segments of the population with serious lifelong issues, but collectively they added up. Add in a little cut or malnutrition and even diseases we don’t normally consider serious would more frequently have huge long term health impacts.
Very few young people lose the ability to walk from obesity, that’s generally something that impacts older people who were able bodied up to that point. Infectious diseases however generally hit the young harder more than people with fully developed immune systems.
Tuberculosis, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Cholera, Polio, Smallpox, Tetanus, Varicella(Chickenpox> shingles), etc didn’t individually leave large segments of the population with serious lifelong issues, but collectively they added up. Add in a little cut or malnutrition and even diseases we don’t normally consider serious would more frequently have huge long term health impacts.
Very few young people lose the ability to walk from obesity, that’s generally something that impacts older people who were able bodied up to that point. Infectious diseases however generally hit the young harder more than people with fully developed immune systems.
> Today? Most of my generation struggles to make rent because we're being bled dry.
As a kid I remember visiting a friend who lived in an old workers house. I was in awe to see such a small house, and in shock to learn they actually bought two houses and connected them.
As a kid I remember visiting a friend who lived in an old workers house. I was in awe to see such a small house, and in shock to learn they actually bought two houses and connected them.
Why can’t we copy how tree roots or worms tunnel?
Because biology is hard to replicate with machines. But even if we could, it wouldn't be useful, because we want to burrow where we choose and leave behind a usable tunnel.
The article addresses this. The early tunnel boring machines were inspired by worms that bore through wood.
Well, shipworms, which are actually clams.
Because we need a straight tunnel in a year and not a winded one in a few decades?
We probably can if you want to build 1 inch tunnels that go in random directions...
Very cool article as someone who has had little to no exposure on this topic.
A very interesting youtube channel [1] I recently came across is Cutting Edge Engineering Australia - they do mostly heavy equipment repair/fab.
Some common tools used are air-arc gougers for clean and rapid removal of material along with mill/lathe machining. Had never really considered the conceptual transfer over to something like tunnel boring (air powered debris and rotational removal) but it seems similar.
[1] Repair & Upgrade DAMAGED Bucket for 30T Excavator | Gouging & Welding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzi7eOr-3lA
A very interesting youtube channel [1] I recently came across is Cutting Edge Engineering Australia - they do mostly heavy equipment repair/fab.
Some common tools used are air-arc gougers for clean and rapid removal of material along with mill/lathe machining. Had never really considered the conceptual transfer over to something like tunnel boring (air powered debris and rotational removal) but it seems similar.
[1] Repair & Upgrade DAMAGED Bucket for 30T Excavator | Gouging & Welding: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzi7eOr-3lA
Holy cow it's a small world. I just subbed to that channel last week. Love seeing someone so practical and capable and the bloopers at the end are a lot of fun.
Funnily enough, my father is at the 11th international symposium on “Ground Freezing” in London at this very moment. Most of the time you have to freeze the ground before you can drill.
He has been working in specialist civil engineering for many years and builds tunnels all over the world. He has told me many exciting and hard-to-believe stories about tunnel construction and tunnel boring machines.
E.g. during the work on the Eurotunnel. Here the British tunnel boring machine was diverted into the rock near half the length of the tunnel and left there. It was cheaper than somehow taking it out again.
Anyways, since my dad is always very stressed due to his job, I am happy to have gained a foothold in IT and not tunnel boring :D
He has been working in specialist civil engineering for many years and builds tunnels all over the world. He has told me many exciting and hard-to-believe stories about tunnel construction and tunnel boring machines.
E.g. during the work on the Eurotunnel. Here the British tunnel boring machine was diverted into the rock near half the length of the tunnel and left there. It was cheaper than somehow taking it out again.
Anyways, since my dad is always very stressed due to his job, I am happy to have gained a foothold in IT and not tunnel boring :D
> E.g. during the work on the Eurotunnel. Here the British tunnel boring machine was diverted into the rock near half the length of the tunnel and left there. It was cheaper than somehow taking it out again.
Dara O`Briain has a hilarious stand-up about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFglJ3DyqK0
Dara O`Briain has a hilarious stand-up about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFglJ3DyqK0
Burying TBMs is not uncommon. The HS2 ones are being buried for an indefinite period due to UK government flipflopping. https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/hs2-will-bury-two-tunne...
There's one in New York. https://untappedcities.com/2017/02/09/the-200-ton-tunnel-bor...
There's one in New York. https://untappedcities.com/2017/02/09/the-200-ton-tunnel-bor...
> E.g. during the work on the Eurotunnel. Here the British tunnel boring machine was diverted into the rock near half the length of the tunnel and left there. It was cheaper than somehow taking it out again.
AFAIK it was not just the cost, but the problem of two TBMs (British and French) meeting head to head. The british were driven out of the way so that the French ones could proceed.
AFAIK it was not just the cost, but the problem of two TBMs (British and French) meeting head to head. The british were driven out of the way so that the French ones could proceed.
I wonder how many political meetings were had, to decide who got out of the way of who.
Or maybe it was the toss of a coin? But then a franc or a pound?
Or maybe it was the toss of a coin? But then a franc or a pound?
Sometimes when I'm stuck in construction traffic I wish someone would invent the Highway Widening Machine. A machine that in one fell swoop can grind, grade, prep, pour and paint a new lane into a road.
Would be a lot cheaper and more permanent to just have other modes of transportation.
Unfortunately just severely less useful in the majority of the US.
The majority of people in the US live in urban and suburban areas. There’s plenty we can do in these areas to reduce car-dependency instead of paving more roadway (which ends up as waste of time due to induced demand).
I think you misunderstand induced demand. The increased demand when you add more capacity, simply means even more utilisation is achieved -> increased productivity. This is not a waste of time.
The correct comparison should be comparing for each area and situation, which type of transport investment results in the greatest utility. The objective is not to minimise traffic, but to maximise peoples ability to get where they need to be.
The correct comparison should be comparing for each area and situation, which type of transport investment results in the greatest utility. The objective is not to minimise traffic, but to maximise peoples ability to get where they need to be.
By that logic: How can you actually increase utility for trains if you don't build a train? If public transportation is eschewed in favor of more roadways, then unsurprisingly the utility of the roads increases.
But, many studies have shown that building more roads does not reduce congestion. Congestion is not function of roadway space-- other factors like accidents, merging, exiting, peak travel capacity, etc greatly impact congestion. Building another lane on a highway doesn't solve the problem.
But, many studies have shown that building more roads does not reduce congestion. Congestion is not function of roadway space-- other factors like accidents, merging, exiting, peak travel capacity, etc greatly impact congestion. Building another lane on a highway doesn't solve the problem.
No, it just makes things farther apart, and more people sit in traffic jams. That's decreased productivity.
But very useful in the places where you'd get stuck in a traffic jam.
We need a lot more than one more lane. Traffic continues at high speeds long after it isn't safe. You are supposed to see 2 seconds between cars, yet when I get on a busy road and do that I often see 5 cars in the lane next to me in that distance. Little des moines where I live needs Huston levels of lanes to allow for safe travel. For a city with significant population you need a lot more.
Or of course better public transit. The vast majority of what people are driving for could be done without driving if transit was better.
Or of course better public transit. The vast majority of what people are driving for could be done without driving if transit was better.
car travel would be a lot less appealing in throughput if subject to the same stringent separation requirements as rail travel.
The stringent separation requirements are because of the long braking distances of trains, cars have much shorter braking distances - however even those are routinely violated by drivers. In Germany, the rule of thumb is "half your speed", i.e. 25 m for 50 km/h, 50 m for 100 km/h etc.
The US used to use a rule of thumb like that, but counting seconds is a lot easier than estimating distances.
A common but misguided desire.
Of course, but it would be fun to design and build. And since it will obviously never happen it seems pretty harmless to think about?
As an engineering challenge, yeah, the machine itself is super interesting. But "more road" isn't the answer to road congestion so it's a machine without a purpose (unless the purpose is propping up the oil & auto industries?).
It's essentially a long ad for the company that makes the machines, but this video (and some of the others they've put out) are fascinating and describe the whole process of tunnel making (with a very high production value):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AV2NcyX7pk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AV2NcyX7pk
A subterranean submarine: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Thanks for sharing this was fascinating. Some of the music is very heist-movie.
Marti is unmatched. Herrenknecht also puts out some nice material
Wow, as someone who follows the construction progress of Los Angeles' Purple Line (the only heavy rail transit line currently in active boring in the US) I did not know how fast that even reaching the speed of a snail would be:
If we assume the tunnels are being bored at somewhere near the average of ~100meters/week, and the snail is about ~1000meters/week, that's a 10x speedup in the time to dig right there!
The total length of the three segments is about 9 miles (~14,500 meters)[1], with the last segment projected to open in 2027. Digging started in Fall of 2018[2]. Los Angeles is using what looks like 6 TBMS, two for each segment, to dig parallel tunnels. Segment one completed digging in January of 2022[3], and as of August 2023 Metro has delayed full completion of segment one to 2025[4], therefore it appears that even though digging is not the end-all-be-all, it does take up >50% of the entirety of the construction timeline (~4 years digging + 3 years other construction for segment 1, including stations, track, electrical, and testing).
Using the article as a guide, then, somehow speeding up the digging by a factor of 10 would mean digging could take as little as 21 weeks or ~5 months months, rather than ~4 years, and reduce the project timeline by 50% from 7 years to 3.5 years!
This would be huge for when Los Angeles eventually begins to bore the heavy rail tunnel under the Sepulveda mountain pass, which would be 14 miles, most of it likely tunneled [5].
[1] https://www.metro.net/projects/westside/ [2] https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/10458317962341130... [3] https://thesource.metro.net/2022/01/31/purple-line-tunneling... [4] https://twitter.com/numble/status/1709258555117777016 [5] https://www.metro.net/projects/sepulvedacorridor/
If we assume the tunnels are being bored at somewhere near the average of ~100meters/week, and the snail is about ~1000meters/week, that's a 10x speedup in the time to dig right there!
The total length of the three segments is about 9 miles (~14,500 meters)[1], with the last segment projected to open in 2027. Digging started in Fall of 2018[2]. Los Angeles is using what looks like 6 TBMS, two for each segment, to dig parallel tunnels. Segment one completed digging in January of 2022[3], and as of August 2023 Metro has delayed full completion of segment one to 2025[4], therefore it appears that even though digging is not the end-all-be-all, it does take up >50% of the entirety of the construction timeline (~4 years digging + 3 years other construction for segment 1, including stations, track, electrical, and testing).
Using the article as a guide, then, somehow speeding up the digging by a factor of 10 would mean digging could take as little as 21 weeks or ~5 months months, rather than ~4 years, and reduce the project timeline by 50% from 7 years to 3.5 years!
This would be huge for when Los Angeles eventually begins to bore the heavy rail tunnel under the Sepulveda mountain pass, which would be 14 miles, most of it likely tunneled [5].
[1] https://www.metro.net/projects/westside/ [2] https://twitter.com/metrolosangeles/status/10458317962341130... [3] https://thesource.metro.net/2022/01/31/purple-line-tunneling... [4] https://twitter.com/numble/status/1709258555117777016 [5] https://www.metro.net/projects/sepulvedacorridor/
L.T.C. Rolt's biography of I.K Brunel is in its first section really a biography of Marc, the development of one of the worlds first production lines (the block factory at the Portsmouth docks, some of the machines are now in the Science Museum london and the factory is a grade I listed building. His boot factory cost him big-time when the war ended) -And covers the thames tunnel digging in some detail.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1828514
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1828514
What an awesome writeup. Just wanted to add a link to a good website tracking the progress of the Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel expansion project, something near and dear to me as someone who has suffered much frustration driving through the current one. The three bridge tunnels around HR themselves are pretty cool engineering feats. I found the explainers at this website about the TBM in use quite interesting.
- the main project site: https://hrbtexpansion.org/
- TBM page: https://hrbtexpansion.org/tunnel-boring/
I can no longer find the exact page there that has the details of the TBM but these are pretty close:
- good slide with diagram: https://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Business/asset_upload_file1...
- some cool stuff but lots of broken links: http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/hrbt.html
- the main project site: https://hrbtexpansion.org/
- TBM page: https://hrbtexpansion.org/tunnel-boring/
I can no longer find the exact page there that has the details of the TBM but these are pretty close:
- good slide with diagram: https://www.virginiadot.org/VDOT/Business/asset_upload_file1...
- some cool stuff but lots of broken links: http://www.virginiaplaces.org/transportation/hrbt.html
Does anyone know why such machines aren't being used to create artificial rivers? It seems civilization and therefore economic activity follows where fresh water sources are. And there is already a problem in the US west with water shortage.
I assume it’s easier not to. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueduct_(water_supply)
If all you care about is delivering to the destination I guess that makes sense, but since it aims to minimize water loss, it does not enrich the environment along the path. Normally, sediment and other things get transported downstream and the arid landscape in the path might get greener and attract wildlife and eventually people.
A river is mostly its watershed and not the waterway which while very visible doesn't matter that much. No amount of machines would help create the watershed, so no, there's no point.
There are lakes such as superior in michigan or even mammoth lakes in cali. I also wondered why not instead of recycling desalinated water after use, have it fill up a lake. Use nuclear powered (dedicated power plant) desalination to fill up artificial lakes.
People talk about colonizing mars but if we can't even do this on earth then how is that more practical?
People talk about colonizing mars but if we can't even do this on earth then how is that more practical?
> There are lakes such as superior in michigan or even mammoth lakes in cali.
Yes. Lakes as a concept exist. There are many examples. What are you proposing?
> I also wondered why not instead of recycling desalinated water after use, have it fill up a lake.
Okay. Just for the aesthetic value? Or to evaporate it?
Let me get it straight: you are proposing to pipe the output of wastewater treatment plants to an open basin (also known as artificial lake). Ones whose waste input was generated by humans drinking desalinated water. So your proposal is to desal, consume water, turn it into waste, clean waste, fill lake. Do I understand you well?
And you are asking “why not”. Let me turn it around: why exactly?
> People talk about colonizing mars but if we can't even do this on earth then how is that more practical?
It is not.
Yes. Lakes as a concept exist. There are many examples. What are you proposing?
> I also wondered why not instead of recycling desalinated water after use, have it fill up a lake.
Okay. Just for the aesthetic value? Or to evaporate it?
Let me get it straight: you are proposing to pipe the output of wastewater treatment plants to an open basin (also known as artificial lake). Ones whose waste input was generated by humans drinking desalinated water. So your proposal is to desal, consume water, turn it into waste, clean waste, fill lake. Do I understand you well?
And you are asking “why not”. Let me turn it around: why exactly?
> People talk about colonizing mars but if we can't even do this on earth then how is that more practical?
It is not.
> Yes. Lakes as a concept exist. There are many examples. What are you proposing?
Rivers from the lakes to unpopulated arid or drought striken parts of the country.
> Okay. Just for the aesthetic value? Or to evaporate it?
To use it to create a fresh water source that will feed a river. The evaporation I perhaps wrongly assumed will become rain somewhere relatively near by? But even without that, my assumption is most arid places were green at some point, re-introducing water will green them up and make them habitable for humans and generate economic activity. Salton sea in california, as disastrous as it is for example, you will see a lot of farms next to it in the middle of the desert!
> Okay. Just for the aesthetic value? Or to evaporate it? Let me get it straight: you are proposing to pipe the output of wastewater treatment plants to an open basin (also known as artificial lake). Ones whose waste input was generated by humans drinking desalinated water. So your proposal is to desal, consume water, turn it into waste, clean waste, fill lake. Do I understand you well?
Minus the last cleanup part (except for debris). Our "waste" (not trash but toilet waste), can fertilize soil but also st high enough desalination volumes we wouldn't need to recycle water. But to meet the aforementioned need of artificial fresh water generation, we can use our waste. In cities we are already doing this except it mostly just feeds into the ocean or a bigger existing natural river, instead of that, we fill up waste lakes that drain into artificial rivers and now that water and nutrient helps grow plants, farms,etc...
If we make it work, everybody wins. More green, cooler planet, better economy, more housing along artificial river paths, transport,etc...(my original idea was actually to create these rivers next to interstate highways and gradually build high speed rail as well.
Much of the US is empty and unpopulated because there is no fresh water supply or doil that can sustain crops of any kind and we have growing national and planetary crises that might be alleviated by this including jobs,housing, climate, wars over resources,etc...
Rivers from the lakes to unpopulated arid or drought striken parts of the country.
> Okay. Just for the aesthetic value? Or to evaporate it?
To use it to create a fresh water source that will feed a river. The evaporation I perhaps wrongly assumed will become rain somewhere relatively near by? But even without that, my assumption is most arid places were green at some point, re-introducing water will green them up and make them habitable for humans and generate economic activity. Salton sea in california, as disastrous as it is for example, you will see a lot of farms next to it in the middle of the desert!
> Okay. Just for the aesthetic value? Or to evaporate it? Let me get it straight: you are proposing to pipe the output of wastewater treatment plants to an open basin (also known as artificial lake). Ones whose waste input was generated by humans drinking desalinated water. So your proposal is to desal, consume water, turn it into waste, clean waste, fill lake. Do I understand you well?
Minus the last cleanup part (except for debris). Our "waste" (not trash but toilet waste), can fertilize soil but also st high enough desalination volumes we wouldn't need to recycle water. But to meet the aforementioned need of artificial fresh water generation, we can use our waste. In cities we are already doing this except it mostly just feeds into the ocean or a bigger existing natural river, instead of that, we fill up waste lakes that drain into artificial rivers and now that water and nutrient helps grow plants, farms,etc...
If we make it work, everybody wins. More green, cooler planet, better economy, more housing along artificial river paths, transport,etc...(my original idea was actually to create these rivers next to interstate highways and gradually build high speed rail as well.
Much of the US is empty and unpopulated because there is no fresh water supply or doil that can sustain crops of any kind and we have growing national and planetary crises that might be alleviated by this including jobs,housing, climate, wars over resources,etc...
Most of whatever is now dry and unpopulated, including in the US is so because moisture is being pumped out of there by the atmosphere and sun. Not because someone forgot to drive some water there.
It is being moved out of there in such amounts that no economically possible diversion of water flow can overcome this. Cf the crazy and eventually buried USSR project of diverting north-flowing rivers water to the Kazakhstan from 80s.
That could not work even in theory, where the talk was about thousands of cubic meter per second and you suggest that some toilets can make this work. That is just not possible. Maybe if the climate actually changes, some of those lands will become good enough for agricultural use. But not now.
It is being moved out of there in such amounts that no economically possible diversion of water flow can overcome this. Cf the crazy and eventually buried USSR project of diverting north-flowing rivers water to the Kazakhstan from 80s.
That could not work even in theory, where the talk was about thousands of cubic meter per second and you suggest that some toilets can make this work. That is just not possible. Maybe if the climate actually changes, some of those lands will become good enough for agricultural use. But not now.
Potentially also of interest is this [0] article which describes the attempts to build a nuclear powered boring machine that worked by melting rather than cutting the rock.
[0] http://atomic-skies.blogspot.com/2012/07/those-magnificent-m...
[0] http://atomic-skies.blogspot.com/2012/07/those-magnificent-m...
Little or no mention of the back end of the machine. The front end, where cutting takes place, gets all the attention. The segment placing arm got a mention. But most of the length of the machine does other things.
The usual TBM setup has a two-track narrow gauge railroad behind it. Segment cars bring ring segments forward, and muck cars remove the spoil. Track cars bring more railroad track. Tool cars and worker cars are in the mix occasionally. All this is happening on an unfinished railroad, because the back end of the TBM has to lay the track and move cars from one track to the other. All the stuff for this takes up more length than the cutting part. A tunneling project is an entire construction site compressed into a long, narrow hole. So logistics in the tunnel are a big deal.
Now, this is where The Boring Company was expected to innovate. Something involving driverless Tesla chassis, maybe. But they never did. Others have built such systems.[1] But not The Boring Company.
[1] https://tunnelingonline.com/mobiletronics-demonstrates-auton...
The usual TBM setup has a two-track narrow gauge railroad behind it. Segment cars bring ring segments forward, and muck cars remove the spoil. Track cars bring more railroad track. Tool cars and worker cars are in the mix occasionally. All this is happening on an unfinished railroad, because the back end of the TBM has to lay the track and move cars from one track to the other. All the stuff for this takes up more length than the cutting part. A tunneling project is an entire construction site compressed into a long, narrow hole. So logistics in the tunnel are a big deal.
Now, this is where The Boring Company was expected to innovate. Something involving driverless Tesla chassis, maybe. But they never did. Others have built such systems.[1] But not The Boring Company.
[1] https://tunnelingonline.com/mobiletronics-demonstrates-auton...
Just curious, if the rails are such an issue, is it not just cheaper to drive the cars (no need for self driving?) or is paying someone to do it not worth the complexity savings? Or are there other downsides to not having the rail?
Either each car needs a driver or you need something to keep all the trailers precisely lined up. One new system has that; a human drives the "locomotive" and the trailers have automated steering to follow the lead vehicle precisely enough to not bump into traffic in the other direction. This is still experimental.
At the other end of the line, outside the tunnel, there's a whole rail yard. The different kinds of cars have to be sorted out, loaded, and unloaded. So there's a need for a big staging area.
Here's an overview of traditional tracked systems.[1] I've tried to find a video of the back end system and yard, but nobody seems to make such videos. It's too boring.
[1] https://www.robbinstbm.com/products/tunnel-boring-machines/b...
[2]
At the other end of the line, outside the tunnel, there's a whole rail yard. The different kinds of cars have to be sorted out, loaded, and unloaded. So there's a need for a big staging area.
Here's an overview of traditional tracked systems.[1] I've tried to find a video of the back end system and yard, but nobody seems to make such videos. It's too boring.
[1] https://www.robbinstbm.com/products/tunnel-boring-machines/b...
[2]
> Either each car needs a driver or you need something to keep all the trailers precisely lined up.
A perhaps very stupid question, but why not make the cars self-driving the way we built self-driving robots from LEGO as kids? That is, line-following cars. It's effectively a virtual track - but I imagine painting a line or building it from cheap plastic would be cheaper than putting actual rail tracks in, and unlike generic driving automation, line-following is an old, well-understood and solved problem.
A perhaps very stupid question, but why not make the cars self-driving the way we built self-driving robots from LEGO as kids? That is, line-following cars. It's effectively a virtual track - but I imagine painting a line or building it from cheap plastic would be cheaper than putting actual rail tracks in, and unlike generic driving automation, line-following is an old, well-understood and solved problem.
I guess I'm trying to understand how much of an opportunitythere is here, and assuming the existing tunnel boring companies have at least considered this, I guess the most possible gain you could get out of this would be whatever it would cost to pay people to do it manually (otherwise, the pros would out weight the cons, and a company would have done it that way). But I wouldn't have thought it would cost that much to have people do this, so Im left unsure how large the opportunity is here.
<rubber tired vehicle back-up systems
tired vehicles
tired vehicles
>It's too boring.
I see what you did there.
I see what you did there.
A tunnel is round, driving cars on that and passing is hard. Narrow tunnels especially
zinger
If the Boring Company mention was an attempt to combat the hype (“everybody is talking about yet another musk company”), you've contributed to the problem in much the same way as the saying regarding traffic: “You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic.”
Anyone else immediately search for Subselene, the nuclear-powered thermal tunnel boring idea proposed in 1986?
I tend to think they pretty heavily underbid how much heat input it would have taken? The design review for a 3m diameter tunnel going 30/m a day was 56 MW. I am not an expert, but a couple horsepower of thermal energy seems low to melt through the moon.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5262838
I tend to think they pretty heavily underbid how much heat input it would have taken? The design review for a 3m diameter tunnel going 30/m a day was 56 MW. I am not an expert, but a couple horsepower of thermal energy seems low to melt through the moon.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/5262838
75000 horsepower is more than a couple.
I wish we had the "Thunderbirds" Corkscrew TBM. Michael Moorcock writes about subterranian ground-melting craft too in his multiverse 'Oswald Bastable' series.