The Old Train Tunnels of America Were Never Built for Trains — They Predate the Locomotive

Overview / Core Claim

The video argues that America’s major late-1800s railway tunnels were not originally built by 19th-century railway crews and technology. Instead, it claims the tunnels were largely reopened, partially cleared, or repurposed from pre-existing structures built earlier by an unknown, older civilization.

This idea is associated in the video with “Tartarian” / historical-revisionist researchers.

Main Points and Evidence Claims

“Unfinished tunnel” anomalies (case: the Hoosac / Berkshire Mountains)

• The host cites a moment from 1873 attributed to engineer Walter Shanley, describing an excavation shaft where crews found dressed granite with tight, squared masonry.
• According to the video’s interpretation of the official timeline, this stonework should not have been present yet.
• The video presents this as a key unresolved question: Who completed the tunnel before excavation began?

Official construction timelines don’t add up

• The video challenges the official chronology (roughly 1851–1875), including periods of little progress and issues such as bankruptcy/turnover.
• It claims the reported labor and excavation rates for multiple tunnels are physically implausible, given constraints like:
  • black powder
  • hand drills
  • limited ventilation

Alignment “too perfect to be believed”

• For example, the video claims the two Hoosac excavation headings met with less than 1 inch error over several miles.
• The host argues that, using period surveying methods, this is effectively impossible to reproduce without prior mapping or guidance (as described by modern tunnel-engineering standards).

Masonry styles contradict claimed methods

• The video contrasts:
  • sections showing carefully fitted, mortarless dressed stone with extremely tight joints
  • other sections that appear consistent with raw black-powder blasting
• It argues that reinforcement or additional work would typically be expected in weaker zones, but instead the dressed stone appears mainly in the hardest, most stable areas, which the host says runs counter to typical engineering logic.

Tunnel dimensions allegedly don’t match steam locomotives

• The host argues some major tunnels were oversized relative to the locomotive sizes of the era.
• This is presented as evidence that the bore may have existed already, rather than being newly cut for steam-era equipment.

Grades allegedly suggest a different transport mode

• The video claims many tunnel slopes are gentler than steam locomotives would require.
• It suggests the tunnel profiles fit systems relying on mechanisms referenced in the video’s revisionist theory, such as:
  • momentum
  • pressurized air
  • magnetism
  • atmospheric / “etheric” mechanisms

Sealed/forgotten tunnels interpreted as leftover older infrastructure

• The video claims there are hundreds of sealed tunnel mouths across the United States, emphasizing states such as Pennsylvania.
• It argues some sealed tunnels appear older than the railway system they are “supposed” to be associated with, including locations where:
  • no rail line ever ran, or
  • portal directions face away from any known right-of-way

Urban underground systems framed as inherited infrastructure

• The host claims multiple cities (including Boston, New York, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Portland, Seattle, etc.) sit atop older passage networks not shown in early city plans.
• Cited examples include:
  • Portland “Shanghai tunnels”: described as too engineered to fit smuggling or press-ganging explanations.
  • Seattle: argues the 1889 fire explanation is incomplete because underground passages reportedly predate it.
• A central question is posed: What if cities were built on top of an older underground system rather than constructing it from scratch?

Mechanism of “suppression”: rewriting rather than a single conspiracy

The video’s thesis is that the historical record was overwritten, for example:

• Credit was assigned to the people who reopened/modified tunnels.
• Stonework was attributed to 19th-century stonemasons.
• Dates were aligned with the railroad boom, when records and attention existed.

It also claims:

• Institutional archives (e.g., the Smithsonian) are opaque or not fully accessible.
• Some original surveying documents may be missing, lost, or not examined by mainstream historians.

Broader pattern claimed in Europe

• The host claims similar anomalies appear in European late-1800s railway tunnels.
• Examples named include:
  • Montseni / Montsine (Alps)
  • St. Gotthard (Switzerland)
  • a major English underwater/river tunnel
• The argument is that the same global pattern emerges: reopening rather than new excavation.

Conclusions Emphasized in the Video

• The video concludes that both American and European 19th-century rail tunnels show evidence consistent with an older, pre-locomotive transportation infrastructure.
• The “locomotive/steam era” is framed less as the origin of the tunnels and more as a convenient cover story enabling the reuse of surviving older structures.
• The “right question,” per the video, is not how 19th-century crews built them, but rather: who built them and how long ago

Presenters / Contributors

• Walter Shanley (referenced historical figure; not necessarily the video presenter)
• The host/narrator of the video (not explicitly named in the subtitles)
• “Tartarian researchers” / “Tatarian School of Historical Revisionism” (group referenced; no individual names given)