Re: (Tunnel) "...is designed to handle modern transportation demands." Does verticle tunnel height allow for double-decker passenger train carriages, also double-stack cargo trains?
European double-decker passenger trains are not significantly higher than regular passenger trains. Double-decker cargo trains are rare to non-existent in Europe. Those trains that are already running fit the current bridges and tunnels. By simply following the existing standards there never will be an issue. And besides that; with a project of this scale, do you REALLY think they haven't thought about that?
Every country has a "loading gauge" for their railway system. It defines maximum height, width etc for trains on that system. With the possible exceptions of very old segments or rare special cases, tracks in a specific country are built to those specifications. (Maximum allowed axle load can vary within a country, depending on eg the quality of the trackbed and tracks etc). Loading gauges are mostly similar in most European countries (Great Britain being an exception with a substantially smaller load profile - for historical reasons.) It makes little or no sense to over-dimension one small segment of a rail system compared to the rest of the system, as any train utilising this larger load profile would not get far before it encounters a point where the standard load profile holds. Updating the load profile for a whole country, or even large parts of Europe, would be extremely costly. Extremely! The cost of the Femarn belt connection, even with an enlarged load profile, would be pocket change compared to making a meaningful enlargement of the load profile over a larger region. There are special cases where an upgrade makes sense- typically where there is bespoke rail traffic over a shorter distance. Prime example is the Iron Ore Line in Sweden, which carries Iron ore and iron sinter from the mines in the north of Sweden to the harbours of Narvik in Norway and Luleå in Sweden. The whole line is 398 kilometers long. It has been upgraded several times, eg to accept a higher axle wheight (highest in Europe) and longer trains. But a fully loaded iron ore train can not venture beyond the Iron Ore Line - those trains stay on those 398 kilometers. There are already double-decker passenger trains running in many European countries, and if they fit the German and Danish loading gauges they will fit in this new tunnel. I'm not sure about double-stacked containers, but a quick look at eg the German loading gauges suggests that the "rectangular section" that could accommodate eg a container has useable height not greater than 3 meters or so - so no double stacking there. And so it makes no sense to build the tunnel to bigger dimensions, unless there is an enormous need to haul massive amounts of containers the 20 or so kilometers between Rødby and Puttgarden. There isn't. So, how do they get away with double stacked containers in the US? Answer: Diesel locos. No overhead electrification. Loading gauge is 6 meters high or more where they can do double-stacking. For anyone interested, there's lots of info in the English Wikipedia article "Loading gauge".
@@davebowman6497 The country of India has recently been able to run electrified double-stack container freight trains on specially prepared rail lines.
Have travelled to Germany for almost 60 years never depending on a ferry. So your text is somewhat wrong. Not revoluuutionary as you express it. Denmark is connected with motorways and bridges and has a north-south bound motorway leading directly on A7 through Germany crossing the landborder. But it'll shorten the traveltime for some Scandinavians, though most Danes don't live in Copenhagen. And the idea for a connection doesn't only date back to the 1960's. It was discussed in connection with the big 'H' plan back in the 1930's, -the future infrastructure plan for Denmark. Though at that time it was downgraded to establishing a ferry connection instead.
During building/assembly: Special anchors, mentioned in the video. After building: The whole thing is sunk into a deep dredged "ditch" and covered by rocks and soil. This can be seen in the video. I think it was mentioned that the ditch is 20 meters deep (not gonna re-watch - you do that if you want to verify). The elements have a height of 10(ish) meters so there will be maybe 10 meters of rubble on top of them. The technique is not new. Same thing was done on the tunnel in the Øresund connection between Denmark and Sweden which was inaugurated year 2000, and those elements have not surfaced yet 😅.
18Km The World's Longest tunnel? According to info readily available on the internet the Japanese Seikan tunnel is 53.85Km and the Channel Tunnel is 50.46Km
@@BJHolloway1Well, it says at the beginning “the longest underwater road and rail connection”. Which is true in the sense that it will be the longest combined road and rail tunnel (below the sea). But there aren’t that many combined tunnels anyway, at least with any significant lengths.
Good video. Too bad that the german side(DB) is stalling the completion of the project. There ism't even a startdate for the constuction of the final link between Femern island and the german mainland. So far they just upgades the old one-track and two-lane bridge from 1963.
@@TecraTube Umm, Just as cars have to enter a tunnel on both ends, so does the air. Let's think about this for a second. You really think they would come up with this type of solution if they didn't think it could work? I'll trust the engineers instead of some random person on youtube. Continue your fight though.
@@TheRailwayDrone Re: "I'll trust the engineers....." granted that your thought process is valid. Hover, engineers are not always the decision makers. Recalling a report years ago by a Consultant group, the recommendation of a roadway tunnel was presented for a short, time-limited review. Part of the tunnel proposal included: # Cross-traffic signal that would have caused vehicle back-ups into the tunnel. # No fan or forced-air ventilation; motor vehicles would "push air" through by their movements. # Adjoining walkway would feature illuminated signs when carbon monoxide levels would "exceed normal" level (Woe to motorists or wheelchair users who have a medical condition!). # No mention of emergency pump system to de-water since location is near sea level. After a final public hearing at the Convention Center, a bascule bridge design was decided upon and approved. It was claimed by some that the choice taken was mainly financial since a bridge structure cost less than a tunnel
Again: There are many tunnels using fans like that. And the tunnels under water are just as airtight as the ones under land. I.e. not. And there are already other tunnels under water using fans for exactly the purpose of ventilating bad air out and fresh air in. On the subject of these fans, the engineers are definitively the decision makers. Your "air tight" amply demonstrated your level of expertise. But as others said - do continue your fight.
The tunnel elements are of reinforced concrete. They are submerged in a ditch and covered by 10 or so meters of rock and rubble. An anchor dragged by a ship won't work. If someone wants to attack this tunnel there will be both more effective and simpler ways.
Fantastic video. Takes an in-depth approach to describing this project.
I like trains
Germany is not upsetting
In Denmark the max speed in tunnels is usually 80 to 90 km an hour for cars - so it will take way more than 10 minuttes to pass 18 km. of tunnel.
Great 🎉
Re: (Tunnel) "...is designed to handle modern transportation demands." Does verticle tunnel height allow for double-decker passenger train carriages, also double-stack cargo trains?
European double-decker passenger trains are not significantly higher than regular passenger trains. Double-decker cargo trains are rare to non-existent in Europe. Those trains that are already running fit the current bridges and tunnels. By simply following the existing standards there never will be an issue.
And besides that; with a project of this scale, do you REALLY think they haven't thought about that?
Every country has a "loading gauge" for their railway system. It defines maximum height, width etc for trains on that system. With the possible exceptions of very old segments or rare special cases, tracks in a specific country are built to those specifications. (Maximum allowed axle load can vary within a country, depending on eg the quality of the trackbed and tracks etc). Loading gauges are mostly similar in most European countries (Great Britain being an exception with a substantially smaller load profile - for historical reasons.)
It makes little or no sense to over-dimension one small segment of a rail system compared to the rest of the system, as any train utilising this larger load profile would not get far before it encounters a point where the standard load profile holds. Updating the load profile for a whole country, or even large parts of Europe, would be extremely costly. Extremely! The cost of the Femarn belt connection, even with an enlarged load profile, would be pocket change compared to making a meaningful enlargement of the load profile over a larger region.
There are special cases where an upgrade makes sense- typically where there is bespoke rail traffic over a shorter distance. Prime example is the Iron Ore Line in Sweden, which carries Iron ore and iron sinter from the mines in the north of Sweden to the harbours of Narvik in Norway and Luleå in Sweden. The whole line is 398 kilometers long. It has been upgraded several times, eg to accept a higher axle wheight (highest in Europe) and longer trains. But a fully loaded iron ore train can not venture beyond the Iron Ore Line - those trains stay on those 398 kilometers.
There are already double-decker passenger trains running in many European countries, and if they fit the German and Danish loading gauges they will fit in this new tunnel.
I'm not sure about double-stacked containers, but a quick look at eg the German loading gauges suggests that the "rectangular section" that could accommodate eg a container has useable height not greater than 3 meters or so - so no double stacking there. And so it makes no sense to build the tunnel to bigger dimensions, unless there is an enormous need to haul massive amounts of containers the 20 or so kilometers between Rødby and Puttgarden. There isn't.
So, how do they get away with double stacked containers in the US? Answer: Diesel locos. No overhead electrification. Loading gauge is 6 meters high or more where they can do double-stacking.
For anyone interested, there's lots of info in the English Wikipedia article "Loading gauge".
@@davebowman6497 The country of India has recently been able to run electrified double-stack container freight trains on specially prepared rail lines.
"The Impossible Build", so this project can't be done anyway !
Have travelled to Germany for almost 60 years never depending on a ferry. So your text is somewhat wrong. Not revoluuutionary as you express it.
Denmark is connected with motorways and bridges and has a north-south bound motorway leading directly on A7 through Germany crossing the landborder. But it'll shorten the traveltime for some Scandinavians, though most Danes don't live in Copenhagen.
And the idea for a connection doesn't only date back to the 1960's. It was discussed in connection with the big 'H' plan back in the 1930's, -the future infrastructure plan for Denmark. Though at that time it was downgraded to establishing a ferry connection instead.
When needed, the ferries are never there, during summer, so I do hope that I can drive under, though now soon to be 77?
Isn't Denmark already connected to Germany?
How are the sections anchored to the sea floor? What keeps them on the bottom?
During building/assembly: Special anchors, mentioned in the video.
After building: The whole thing is sunk into a deep dredged "ditch" and covered by rocks and soil. This can be seen in the video. I think it was mentioned that the ditch is 20 meters deep (not gonna re-watch - you do that if you want to verify). The elements have a height of 10(ish) meters so there will be maybe 10 meters of rubble on top of them. The technique is not new. Same thing was done on the tunnel in the Øresund connection between Denmark and Sweden which was inaugurated year 2000, and those elements have not surfaced yet 😅.
18Km The World's Longest tunnel? According to info readily available on the internet the Japanese Seikan tunnel is 53.85Km and the Channel Tunnel is 50.46Km
It will be the longest submerged tunnel in the world.
@@akyhne Not what the headline stated.
@@BJHolloway1Well, it says at the beginning “the longest underwater road and rail connection”. Which is true in the sense that it will be the longest combined road and rail tunnel (below the sea). But there aren’t that many combined tunnels anyway, at least with any significant lengths.
It will be the longest tunnel in the Fehmarn belt! 😅
@@micke3035 It's a record breaking tunnel, no matter what you say.
Good video. Too bad that the german side(DB) is stalling the completion of the project.
There ism't even a startdate for the constuction of the final link between Femern island and the german mainland.
So far they just upgades the old one-track and two-lane bridge from 1963.
large fans underwater sounds genius 😂
passed over that part real quick
Uhhh, there are many tunnels that employ the same air-management technique and those go underwater as well. I'm not sure what the issue is.
@TheRailwayDrone not under water and air tight, champion
@@TecraTube Umm, Just as cars have to enter a tunnel on both ends, so does the air. Let's think about this for a second. You really think they would come up with this type of solution if they didn't think it could work? I'll trust the engineers instead of some random person on youtube. Continue your fight though.
@@TheRailwayDrone Re: "I'll trust the engineers....." granted that your thought process is valid. Hover, engineers are not always the decision makers.
Recalling a report years ago by a Consultant group, the recommendation of a roadway tunnel was presented for a short, time-limited review.
Part of the tunnel proposal included:
# Cross-traffic signal that would have caused vehicle back-ups into the tunnel.
# No fan or forced-air ventilation; motor vehicles would "push air" through by their movements.
# Adjoining walkway would feature illuminated signs when carbon monoxide levels would "exceed normal" level (Woe to motorists or wheelchair users who have a medical condition!).
# No mention of emergency pump system to de-water since location is near sea level.
After a final public hearing at the Convention Center, a bascule bridge design was decided upon and approved. It was claimed by some that the choice taken was mainly financial since a bridge structure cost less than a tunnel
Again: There are many tunnels using fans like that. And the tunnels under water are just as airtight as the ones under land. I.e. not. And there are already other tunnels under water using fans for exactly the purpose of ventilating bad air out and fresh air in.
On the subject of these fans, the engineers are definitively the decision makers.
Your "air tight" amply demonstrated your level of expertise. But as others said - do continue your fight.
Till some ship drags an anchor over it and sabatoge like they did with the cables and gas lines...
Oh, Debbie.
The tunnel elements are of reinforced concrete. They are submerged in a ditch and covered by 10 or so meters of rock and rubble. An anchor dragged by a ship won't work. If someone wants to attack this tunnel there will be both more effective and simpler ways.