These are deep thoughts and I like the direction this is going. Whether you see this as a virtual community or as a real community, the members who are here, communicating thoughts, ideas, plans, concerns with one another; a community is developing here.

Of course, if helping one another is not on your priority list........maybe lawn chairs, a beer, snackies and big fireworks show is the way to go!

Mountainman.

ok, just about peed myself reading this last line.. too funny

I really like the way this is coming together as well. The concept of a network to get people out of a besieged area and to a safer location would go a long way toward a regional disaster plan. For me the thought of emerging from underground after a "big bang" and finding no one would be such an overwhelming lonely feeling that I am not sure I can even comprehend. Knowing that others have survived and finding a way to rejoin a community would make all of that worthwhile and helping along the way is what people should be doing anyway. I find a lot of the outside attitudes where everything is someone else's fault and that someone (the Government or whomever) should make it all better and make more rules to keep us safe isn't bringing out the best in people, and the disturbing part is that people give this all away so willingly. Glad I found this group who believe in being responsible for your safety, security and well-being and to help others who are on the same path.

Without that I agree... bring out the chairs with the beer and munchies!

Hey all,
Been a while since I was able to dedicate some time to the forums. We're not done unpacking yet but almost 🙁

The idea of community here really ties into the thoughts some of you were posting under another thread related to ham radios and regional communication networks.

I'm a philosophically left-leaning person; not in the big government sense, but in the help out your neighbour, even when they're a stranger sense. I pay school taxes happily eventhough I don't have kids because I know that I want my neighbour's kids educated and in school. It's in my best interest. Same goes for a village that may have someone who cannot contribute equally in a financial sense but they have some great rebuilding skills. I want that person in my village more than a millionaire who has a chip on their shoulder and a sense of entitlement because they invested more financially.

In a perfect world I would see a collection of landing zones developed by like-minded individuals but with the ability to communicate with and assist each other if the time came. Such communities may or may not be geographically seperated; they may simply be made up of people who agreed to disagree on how to do things but still respected each others' efforts and beliefs. In a perfect world, you'd have a village near Calgary and another near Edmonton, then they would have the ability to communicate with the village in Christina Lake that the other fellow is hoping to develop, Etc...

It would be nice to have a path home if you were caught in Ontario and had to get back to AB. Ranger could radio ahead and let family know using the 'grapevine'.

Like MountainMan, just some rambling thoughts after so long away from the keyboard 😳

Howdy Folks,

Things have cooled here a bit so I have come to stoke the fire. This thread and this one: http://internationalpreppersnetwork.net/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1192&start=10 Have some points in common. I have posted at both. I have suggested at the other one that a RV village be created with onsite secure self-storage. For those considering an underground village, a good starting point maybe a self-storage facility onsite. At least then, members of your underground village will be able to store and stockpile their gear at the site. Even if the underground part does not get built til later, you will have your supplies onsite waiting for you.

Just a few more rambling thoughts,

Mountainman.

I have seen online where people have dug and buried C-cans/or old car trains for underground shelters.

Dont forget Bruce Beach who is a designer of private underground shelters and has built the largest underground shelter in N.America. In fact its in Ontario. For anyone who is serious about an underground shelter I would and have contacted him. Nice man, he has been featured in 3 magazines.

Read the Book;
The $50 and up Underground Shelter

Also look up;
Salish Pit Houses
Expedient Shelters
Infantry Trenches

Bruce Beach is an incredible resource. And, yes, he seems like a very nice man. I have seen him on a few tv shows and read his books. His design is well thought out and seems to work very well. I am sure that if Bruce had to design a new shelter today, he would incorporate a few changes that would reflect the availabilty of many new building materials but you must admit, for a shelter using buried school buses and concrete, he made an awesome and extensively networked modular complex. The designs I have for an underground shelter were designed with input from two companies and THEY got some of their design ideas from Bruce Beach. He has indeed built quite a legacy and his influence reaches far and wide. For those who may not be familiar, Bruce Beach's underground fortress is massive and even includes a dental clinic amongst several other inventive and well planned 'modules'. The capacity of his shelter numbers in the hundreds. The plans I have are nowhere near as extensive - there is no dental clinic, for example, and the capacity maxes out at about 20 but the ventilation/filtration and humidity control along with the water/sanitation plans come, from what I can determine, directly from Bruce Beach's design. And, like Ranger said, he is a Canadian. Well done, Bruce!

Large capacity underground shelters come with a number of large issues that require massive power considerations to address those issues. It is much easier to deal with such problems as humidity with smaller shelters designed for fewer people.

Bigger is not necessarily better.

I am a bit on the fence with respect to whether larger or smaller is better. Each has advantages and problems. I cannot see that large shelters suffer from massive power considerations (not exactly sure what you mean by that, actually). Of course, lighting and ventilation/dehumidification will be a bigger issue with a larger shelter simply because of the larger number of occupants. It would certainly not be an insurmountable problem though. To offset that problem, a larger battery bank would do the trick. Overall though, I think ventilation would be simpler and much less power consumptive simply because only a slight increase in the amount of equipment would be required to tackle the problem. The cost of equipment would be shared amongst more shelter occupants so it would certainly be cheaper. So much so, in fact, that redundant systems and improvements/upgrades could be installed. The inside of the shelter modules (which are completely waterproof shells) will be fully insulated and vapour-barriered so condensation and water buildup will not be an issue. If the shelter was simply designed and built with no consideration for insulation and a vapour barrier, then yes, it might pose problems. In fact, I think that a larger shelter with communal cooking, sanitation and recreation areas would solve some of the power issues. With everything concentrated in a few areas, the consumption would be decreased overall. It would become much more efficient. Also, if one module was used for cooking and recreation, more storage space would be opened up within each individual residence module for storage of food, tools, batteries, equipment etc.

The only advantages I can see with a small individual shelter would be privacy, operational security (because fewer people would be aware of it) and the freedom to cook, eat and entertain at will with no consideration for the schedules of others. Even those advantages are only slightly more advantageous over a larger shelter. There would be enough cooking facilities within a larger shelter to accomodate everyone with no/minimal waiting. Of course, a smaller shelter with all the equipment necessary for survival would result in the cost being borne by one family. Several shelters sharing one NBC filtration/ventilation system, one communications monitoring area, one recreation/workout area, one weapons storage area, one sanitation area and one cooking area would result in a far lower equipment cost shared amongst several families.

The money saved with the purchase of a network of connected shelters, as I said, would enable several redundancies/improvements to be built in. Also, one acre of land could easily hold the network of shelters so land costs would be divided amongst all of the occupants too resulting in even greater savings.

One shelter + equipment = $35,000. Land = $100,000. Total = $135,000
8 shelters + 1 common connecting module + equipment = $300,000. Land = $100,000. Total = $400,000 or $50,000 each.

Building a network of shelters would be a far more complicated construction process since the ground would need to be more fully excavated but it would enable it to be constructed to a much higher quality since access to the ground under the shelters would be easier. A more extensive plumbing/septic system would be easier to install. A central well system would be easier to install. Exterior waterproofing and concrete footers would be more extensively enabled and a poured concrete slab foundation for the entire system would provide much greater stability.

Of course, these costs are rough estimates and will vary over time and the land costs may be much higher or somewhat lower depending on the selected site.

Again as I have stated before, if you want a good multi unit UG shelter, there are professionals out there. One of them whom I respect the most is Bruce Beach, he has built over a hundred shelters and has built the largest private underground shelter in N. America up by Horning Mills ON. He will only charge a nominal fee for his advice or in some instances free. You just need to tell him for how many people you'll need it for, and how much your willing to spend for it. He made his out of 42 school buses, real cheap. My self, I would op for O/S containers (tall if possible), more room and has a higher structural strength, plus in most cases water proof. They come in 10,20 and 40 ft length, 8' wide, 8' exterior height and the tall ones are 10 ft high( preferred for extra storage and plumbing).

.

Ranger, I get the feeling that you think we are proceeding without the benefit of professional consultation. I have to be honest with you, the thought of putting myself under 20 feet of packed earth scares the crap out of me. There is no way I would do that unless I had expert advice on the matter. I started consulting with two companies over two years ago. Interestingly, one of the things that BOTH companies warned about was the use of shipping containers for an underground shelter. Since their strength is focused in the corners to support vertical loads, the top and sides have a tendency to buckle and collapse when buried. Also, as you said, they are waterproof in most cases. Anything going underground needs to be guaranteed to be waterproof. Unless you have spent lots of money and time on reinforcing and waterproofing your shipping container, I would not bury it very deeply. Just my two cents...

I was daydreaming about what I would want for an ideal underground shelter, when I drove past a large concrete yard. this may be a silly round of questioning... but does anyone know if those large sewage pipe style concrete tubes would be useful in constructing a shelter? you could use them on their sides in a tunnel style dwelling, or even have them lay flat, pour a base, and fix together some sort of supported roof?

really, if it worked, you could make a somewhat elaborate shelterusing different sizes of concrete pipes to make a sort of tunnel network shelter... think vietnam war. Different bunker sections, attached by the piping, reinforced where needed. Maybe its just wishful thinking, but it seemed a good idea at the time lol. Any thoughts? anyone aware of pricing on these units?

(they could also be used in unison with a reinforced shipping container (with considerations to the above buckling comments of course), perhaps large enough for several groups, or one extremely well stocked and prepared group.)

I used a sec can for my bunker. You MUST properly reinforce the sides and roof. This will vary on how deep of cover and ground conditions. The water table here is below the bottom of my excavation so not much problem there but I did put a sump in. They are alot of work and need good research done first but do work very well.