Tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead

Curly Judge · 30-10-2014 2:47pm

cgcsb wrote: »

HS2 can get a passenger between London and Birmingham in 49 minutes. If a line between Birmingham and Hollyhead could be constructed and connections were well timed, that could be London-Dublin in 4 hours and arguably a nicer way to travel. Flying, including security queues and transferes to the city centre, means you couldn't really do the same journey by air in under 3:30 minutes(that's if you're fast). So yes I'd consider that to be competitive, the price is key though, especially since the UKs rail is privatised(and heavily subsidised, go figure).

I flew to Paris last year and took the Chunnel train back to London.
The security process in Paris was almost as delaying and intrusive as the air travel experience.
I'm not complaining, a terrorist setting off a bomb on a crowded train under 250 feet of water is hardly less devastating than blowing up an airliner.

monument · 30-10-2014 3:13pm

Jim Martin wrote: »

Doesn't maglev use an inordinate amount of power/electricity compared with trad rail contact?

It was half a joke... yes, but it is said to be offset by less power required to move forward, more.

Problem is the cost of the tech and the infra.

monument · 30-10-2014 3:20pm

lucernarian wrote: »

Shouldn't the person asserting the fact be the one to prove it?

To a point.

When it gets down to train powered by the effectiveness of a power plant and the grid vs a engine on of a car or truck, you really need to have some kind of basic level of understanding or have a good argument detailed.

Carawaystick wrote: »

I can't believe a car with driver only uses more fuel, than a train with only a driver and passenger. Even if it was just a single carriage.

I've never seen any intercity train with such loads, never mind on the Cork-Dublin route.

And: Did we not mainly start talking about trucks vs trains?

Carawaystick · 30-10-2014 4:32pm

monument wrote: »

I've never seen any intercity train with such loads, never mind on the Cork-Dublin route.

I think Galway Limerick isn't far off it....

cgcsb · 30-10-2014 5:55pm

corktina wrote: »

Source?

All well known facts. Easily googled. Also, the sky is blue.

cgcsb · 30-10-2014 5:58pm

Carawaystick wrote: »

I can't believe a car with driver only uses more fuel, than a train with only a driver and passenger. Even if it was just a single carriage.

Are you being obtuse or did you genuinely not understand what I meant?

Obviously not 1 passenger on an otherwise empty train, I was comparing one passenger on a train (with other people) to a single occupant car. Of course you knew what I meant.

cgcsb · 30-10-2014 6:01pm

Curly Judge wrote: »

I flew to Paris last year and took the Chunnel train back to London.
The security process in Paris was almost as delaying and intrusive as the air travel experience.
I'm not complaining, a terrorist setting off a bomb on a crowded train under 250 feet of water is hardly less devastating than blowing up an airliner.

The common travel area between Ireland and the UK would mean less of a delay. See rail services between schengen countries as an example.

ClovenHoof · 08-11-2014 12:44am

FFS they can't even build a rail tunnel under Dublin.

Sam Russell · 08-11-2014 10:11am

I think if they start the Dublin Underground, they will just keep going east.

Curly Judge · 08-11-2014 11:40am

ClovenHoof wrote: »

FFS they can't even build a rail tunnel under Dublin.

I agree, the whole idea is a non starter.
We'll have a nuclear power plant at the bottom of Eamon Ryan's back garden before this becomes feasible.

D.L.R. · 08-11-2014 5:46pm

I think an Irish Sea Tunnel is, for us, what the Channel Tunnel was to the Victorians. Tantalising, but still not quite do-able.. yet.

NZ_2014 · 09-11-2014 3:55pm

D.L.R. wrote: »

I think an Irish Sea Tunnel is, for us, what the Channel Tunnel was to the Victorians. Tantalising, but still not quite do-able.. yet.

I could envisage it happening by 2275.

Banjoxed · 09-11-2014 4:26pm

monument wrote: »

And for heavy cargo... Mag-lev...

Any examples?

L1011 · 09-11-2014 6:09pm

Banjoxed wrote: »

Any examples?

Well, the people of Birmingham aren't *that* heavy, but there has been a Maglev relatively nearby to here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirRail_Link#Maglev

xper · 10-11-2014 5:51pm

L1011 wrote: »

Well, the people of Birmingham aren't *that* heavy, but there has been a Maglev relatively nearby to here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirRail_Link#Maglev

Whatever about the kudos of being a world's first, a 600m people mover that lasted 11 years before being closed as uneconomic is hardly a poster child for maglev.

GerardKeating · 12-11-2014 11:25am

BBC talking about it now.

cgcsb · 12-11-2014 2:26pm

I wonder where the £15bn figure comes from. Perhaps some prefabricate tubular structure sunk to the bottom of the sea bed.

Orchard Rebel · 12-11-2014 3:09pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

BBC talking about it now.

I journeyed to and from the Netherlands by train last week and it was noticeable how the quality of service deteriorated the closer I got to Ireland. The Thalys and Eurostar trains I took from Rotterdam, via Brussels to St Pancras were top class.

However, the classic inter-city line from Euston to Chester was riddled with points problems and beyond Chester, the regional line to Holyhead stopped at every hole in the hedge.

I can see why Wales would want to develop a tunnel across to Ireland, as it would give them the potential to plug into HS2, which currently passes it by. It might also appeal to Liverpool which is not set to be an HS2 hub as things stand.

A Dublin-Liverpool line via North Wales could both plug Ireland into the European high speed network and give it a direct connection to the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-Sheffield conurbations.

Whilst the cost (even with UK input) may be prohibitive, I think it is at least worth exploring whilst the UK's future transport plans are still very much up in the air.

xper · 15-11-2014 4:26pm

GerardKeating wrote: »

BBC talking about it now.

£15 billion is a huge whack of money, despite what Prof Cole says. More importantly, would the return on investment justify the project? HS2 will serve a much bigger population than a Dublin-Hollyhead-Liverpool branch from HS2.

Key sentence from that report for me is...
"The Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT) Cymru Wales thinks the tunnel could be ready by the end of the century."

Probably a realistic timeline. The state and cost of the construction and transport technology in the latter half of this century would probably determine whether this undertaking would be feasible and that's very hard to predict.

Markcheese · 16-11-2014 9:32am

Where would a tunnel go to and from ?
Obviously the shortest crossing would be from the north to Scotland but that's a long way from London (or even Manchester/Liverpool ) mightn't be the end of the world for rail/freight though .
Rosslare to pembrook is shorter distance, and closer to the south east of uk/ and their ports...no idea how good/congested the rail system is in South Wales ....

18MonthsaSlave · 16-11-2014 12:22pm

The Irish sea between Dublin Holyhead and Rosslare Pembroke and Larne Cairnryan is quite deep.
The rock beneath the Irish sea isn't as easy to work with as it was for the English channel.
As Freight Transport is increasingly hubbing through airports rather than seaports I don't see the business model which would underpin this project.

http://loneswimmer.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/irishseareliefmap.jpg

People in the US, mainland Europe and Asia choose to fly between locations despite there being no water obstacle in their way.
Now that humans can fly, they fly between large population centres irrespective of whether the surface of the Earth is covered in water or soil beneath them.

monument · 16-11-2014 1:24pm

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

As Freight Transport is increasingly hubbing through airports rather than seaports I don't see the business model which would underpin this project.

Do you have anything to back that up?

For example, how much cargo is being imported and exported via Dublin Airport vs Dublin Port?

And you're talking about relatively light-weight and small stuff... Right? No much good for bulk in size or weight.

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

The Irish sea between Dublin Holyhead and Rosslare Pembroke and Larne Cairnryan is quite deep.
The rock beneath the Irish sea isn't as easy to work with as it was for the English channel.

http://loneswimmer.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/irishseareliefmap.jpg

The Channel Tunnel is -75m deep at its deepest point and, that map you linked to, shows a wide area for a route which is no more than -100m deep between Holyhead and Dublin. Not sure how -100m is "quite deep" in the grand scale of things.

The Seikan Tunnel railway tunnel in Japan has a track level of about 100m below the seabed and 240m below sea level.

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

People in the US, mainland Europe and Asia choose to fly between locations despite there being no water obstacle in their way.
Now that humans can fly people fly between large population centres irrespective of whether the surface of the Earth is covered in water or soil beneath them.

Err... High-speed rail is on the rise in Europe and Asia, and even the US is trying to get in on the act.

Slots in the main UK airports are limited and only going to get more valuable.

18MonthsaSlave · 16-11-2014 1:50pm

You seem intent on ignoring population or lack thereof in Ireland.
What's at the end of the tunnel here in Ireland? A highly dispersed low population density Island.

cgcsb · 16-11-2014 4:42pm

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

People in the US, mainland Europe and Asia choose to fly between locations despite there being no water obstacle in their way.
Now that humans can fly, they fly between large population centres irrespective of whether the surface of the Earth is covered in water or soil beneath them.

That's increasingly untrue in western Europe where more and more high speed rail routes are opening up. TGV killed air France's intercity routes within France. I expect that manchester-London flights will go the same way once hs2 opens. Same thing happened to futura airlines in Spain when they built more high speed track.

cgcsb · 16-11-2014 4:47pm

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

You seem intent on ignoring population or lack thereof in Ireland.
What's at the end of the tunnel here in Ireland? A highly dispersed low population density Island.

Irrespective of the population, journeys across the Irish sea, both by people and bulky goods are extremely common. Dublin London being the second busiest international air route on earth and half of the flights from Dublin are to the UK. So it's a small population with 6-7 million people who travel across the sea quite frequently.

monument · 16-11-2014 5:01pm

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

You seem intent on ignoring population or lack thereof in Ireland.
What's at the end of the tunnel here in Ireland? A highly dispersed low population density Island.

I'm not "ignoring" anything, I was replying to your post -- you did not mention it before now. Did you forget to mention one of your central points?

Close to the other end of the tunnel is a place called Dublin and down the line from that is Northern Ireland. Dublin and Belfast are not that highly dispersed, and the trend across the island is growing population and a growing percentage of the population living in urban centres.

Air traffic for passengers has the issue of restrictive number of slots in the main airports in the south of England -- unless you're going to try to make out that a flight into the midlands and north and then taking a train to the south will be very attractive.

BTW: Were your other points that poor that you now can't defend them? You have not defended a single one of your points which I challenged already. Re your claim about airports vs ports: Do you have anything to back that up? For example, how much cargo is being imported and exported via Dublin Airport vs Dublin Port?

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

People in the US, mainland Europe and Asia choose to fly between locations despite there being no water obstacle in their way.
Now that humans can fly, they fly between large population centres irrespective of whether the surface of the Earth is covered in water or soil beneath them.

Just to firm up the point I already made on this, Paris-London:

(source)

Madrid-Seville:

(source)

US examples, note high rail percentage with high speed rail:

(source)

Even some in the US get it, we're behind here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?pagewanted=all

Aard · 16-11-2014 5:19pm

How much would such a project cost the exchequer (as opposed to private investment)? Would it make any sense to use that money to improve the air offering? For example, mainline railway station at Dublin Airport would cost much less but would deliver huge numbers of passengers to flights not only in UK but much further afield too.

I can't help but think that the tens of billions that this would cost might be better spent on improving on existing infrastructure.

monument · 16-11-2014 6:36pm

Aard wrote: »

How much would such a project cost the exchequer (as opposed to private investment)? Would it make any sense to use that money to improve the air offering? For example, mainline railway station at Dublin Airport would cost much less but would deliver huge numbers of passengers to flights not only in UK but much further afield too.

I can't help but think that the tens of billions that this would cost might be better spent on improving on existing infrastructure.

Sorry, but "apples and oranges" springs to mind.

A tunnel offering would offer more secure, less weather dependent, less environmentally damaging and overall improved connectivity between Ireland/NI and the UK mainland for goods and passengers.

Improved rail connectivity to Dublin airport is hardly comparable.

cgcsb · 16-11-2014 7:07pm

Aard wrote: »

How much would such a project cost the exchequer (as opposed to private investment)? Would it make any sense to use that money to improve the air offering? For example, mainline railway station at Dublin Airport would cost much less but would deliver huge numbers of passengers to flights not only in UK but much further afield too.

I can't help but think that the tens of billions that this would cost might be better spent on improving on existing infrastructure.

I don't think anyone would contest that building a tunnel to the UK is more important than the urgent need to modernise our current system to some standard approaching first world. A tunnel to the UK is future speak, obviously.

Aard · 16-11-2014 7:29pm

monument wrote: »

Sorry, but "apples and oranges" springs to mind.

A tunnel offering would offer more secure, less weather dependent, less environmentally damaging and overall improved connectivity between Ireland/NI and the UK mainland for goods and passengers.

Improved rail connectivity to Dublin airport is hardly comparable.

I agree that it's an apples and oranges comparison, and that's my point. It is literally going to be so expensive that it is worth asking if it is worth it at all. Yes the return may be there (none of us know either way). But securing all that money for one project would be problematic to say the least. Getting a couple of billion for underground rail in Dublin is proving hard enough.

I'd like to know exactly what problem the tunnel would be solving. Could it be solved by other means? What would be so bad about investing the same amount of money or less in airport/port upgrades, along with their improved road/rail access?

Aard · 16-11-2014 7:37pm

cgcsb wrote: »

I don't think anyone would contest that building a tunnel to the UK is more important than the urgent need to modernise our current system to some standard approaching first world. A tunnel to the UK is future speak, obviously.

Of course.

And in a sense I am playing devil's advocate: I think such a connection would be an incredibly interesting project that would prompt significant reorganisation of the UK-Ireland economy, most likely in our favour. So much so, that I don't think London would be too happy about it.

cgcsb · 16-11-2014 7:52pm

Indeed that's an interesting point. Does the UK government want British companies to have rapid access, in terms of people and heavy goods, to a Lower tax economy that uses the Euro and is well connected to international markets. The manufacturing based economies of Northern England could find themselves in a right pickle.

Sam Russell · 16-11-2014 10:28pm

Is a bridge possible, like the Malmo - Copenhagan one? Maybe part bridge, part tunnel?

Judgement Day · 16-11-2014 10:32pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is a bridge possible, like the Malmo - Copenhagan one? Maybe part bridge, part tunnel?

Damming each end of the Irish Sea and pumping out the water would make more sense. This is a continuation of every town must have a hospital, bypass, holy grotto taken to another level.

braddun · 16-11-2014 10:44pm

50 miles across

channel tunnel was only about 31 miles

Holyhead to Dublin is about 50 miles of water, Fishguard to Wexford is about 45 miles and Stranraer to Belfast is about 20 miles

Rail tunnels cost about £60m pounds a kilometre

18MonthsaSlave · 16-11-2014 11:05pm

None of those distances are correct.
There is no average cost per kilometre for tunnels.
Wicklow Mountains and Snowdon are mainly volcanic rock. What type of rock do you think they'll find between the two.

cgcsb · 16-11-2014 11:52pm

braddun wrote: »

Rail tunnels cost about £60m pounds a kilometre

Based on what tunnel type in what location?

patrickbrophy18 · 17-11-2014 12:00am

As much as the wishful-thinking side of me would like to believe that this is economically viable, the over-powering skeptic in me thinks otherwise. Let's not forget that two of the biggest infrastructure projects in the Transport 21 plan, Metro North and DART Underground still remain on the drawing board. Neither project has yielded physical signs of progress such as a tunnel boring machine or piece of track. Both projects combined are an after thought and the tip of the ice berg when compared to a sub-sea tunnel between Ireland and The UK. If we can't even construct two significantly shorter tunnels, how will we ever construct a tunnel spanning 50-60 miles?

If a project like this was ever built, it's only claim to fame would be that it is the longest sub-sea rail tunnel in the world.

monument · 17-11-2014 1:40am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

If a project like this was ever built, it's only claim to fame would be that it is the longest sub-sea rail tunnel in the world.

Surely -- if built -- the claim to fame would be getting over the Irish government's ultra short-term thinking?

...actually, scrap that, it will only be built after something critical happens like another enegry crisis which affects relatively fast shipping, or we start losing slots into London and/or there's a massive growing need for more slots.

Sam Russell · 17-11-2014 9:55am

The only time the tunnel will be built is if the EU funds it fully - two chances.

monument · 17-11-2014 2:02pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only time the tunnel will be built is if the EU funds it fully - two chances.

Well, scepticism was also strong with the Chunnel before it was built and even for a good deal after it was built.

There's a good chance of the EU helping but Ireland and the UK would have a large input. Ireland might be down out at the but hopefully we're not going to stay that way, and there's UK self interest in the project.

Judgement Day · 17-11-2014 2:28pm

monument wrote: »

Well, scepticism was also strong with the Chunnel before it was built and even for a good deal after it was built.

There's a good chance of the EU helping but Ireland and the UK would have a large input. Ireland might be down out at the but hopefully we're not going to stay that way, and there's UK self interest in the project.

I suppose if Ireland undertakes to let in another 20 million badly needed immigrants. :rolleyes:

monument · 17-11-2014 3:04pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

I suppose if Ireland undertakes to let in another 20 million badly needed immigrants. :rolleyes:

Judgement Day wrote: »

Damming each end of the Irish Sea and pumping out the water would make more sense. This is a continuation of every town must have a hospital, bypass, holy grotto taken to another level.

God loves anybody who takes such over-the-top posts seriously.

ClovenHoof · 17-11-2014 10:31pm

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dublin is not a small city.

It's a large city. It is not a SUPERCITY like London. Dublin is roughly comparable to Amsterdam, Boston, Oslo, Helsinki, Vienna, Prague and Barcelona.

Enough of this 'Dublin Small City 1970's Sean Barrett' mantra.

^^^ This 'small city' outdated mantra is the reason why Dublin does not have the vast public transport systems of Amsteerdam, Boston, Oslo, Helsinki Vienna, Prague and Barcelona

cgcsb · 18-11-2014 12:14am

There is more office space in Dublin than the greater Manchester area with its 5 million population. There certainly is demand to travel between Dublin and London. It is the second busiest international air route on earth. So certainly there is significant demand there. That demand will become increasingly squeezed as slots in the London airports become harder to get. Also consider travel between the rest of Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The demand is strong, the problem is massive costs, long timeline to delivery and engineering challenges. If those things can be significantly reduced then there's no reason it wouldn't work.

donkey balls · 18-11-2014 11:19pm

As Freight Transport is increasingly hubbing through airports rather than seaports I don't see the business model which would underpin this project.

[90% of exports and imports including airfreight are trucked between Ireland and the UK by road,Airfreight in particular is transported to the likes of MAN & LHR for onward connection through out the world, And the same goes for imports with the planes landing in the above airports with freight for Ireland.

patrickbrophy18 · 19-11-2014 12:27am

I still can't see how this is economically viable despite the fact that the Dublin to London air route is the 2nd busiest in the world. While 8,000,000 yearly passengers might make it appear viable, the cost of such a mammoth undertaking is €15,000,000,000. Assuming that every passenger in this list switches to the extremely hypothetical rail route, it would take roughly 19 years to make any return on the costs at €100 per head. If you don't believe me, calculate it:

15,000,000,000 (cost)/8,000,000 (patronage) = 1875 years at €1 each (before overheads for staff, electricity, maintenance and taxes). As a rule of thumb, I have assumed a €100 per person per ticket to speed up the process to 18.75 years which I then rounded off to 19. Throw in all of the extra costs in bold and the process is many times longer. In reality, a very small fraction of that 8,000,000 patronage would make the switch. Other factors such as journey length would need to be taken into account. Not to mention, the knock effects in the way of infrastructural improvements this side of the pond would add an exponential amount of extra costs indirectly.

From reading the fleet specs on Irish Rails website, their Intercity and Commuter trains can reach a comparatively modest 120-160 Kilometers Per Hour. Given the windy, single-track nature of the bulk of the existing network, trains would be doing well to reach these speeds. For the idea being mooted on this thread, bullet type trains traveling at least twice or even three times these speeds would be needed to make for an attractive alternative to the plane. The entire railway network would have to be given an enormous upgrade which would almost certainly require double tracking every route radiating from Dublin at a very minimum.

I could go on for ages......

cgcsb · 19-11-2014 10:58am

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I still can't see how this is economically viable despite the fact that the Dublin to London air route is the 2nd busiest in the world. While 8,000,000 yearly passengers might make it appear viable, the cost of such a mammoth undertaking is €15,000,000,000. Assuming that every passenger in this list switches to the extremely hypothetical rail route, it would take roughly 19 years to make any return on the costs at €100 per head. If you don't believe me, calculate it:

15,000,000,000 (cost)/8,000,000 (patronage) = 1875 years at €1 each (before overheads for staff, electricity, maintenance and taxes). As a rule of thumb, I have assumed a €100 per person per ticket to speed up the process to 18.75 years which I then rounded off to 19. Throw in all of the extra costs in bold and the process is many times longer. In reality, a very small fraction of that 8,000,000 patronage would make the switch. Other factors such as journey length would need to be taken into account. Not to mention, the knock effects in the way of infrastructural improvements this side of the pond would add an exponential amount of extra costs indirectly.

You have assumed that the state would be looking to recover 100% of the capital costs from ticket sales. That could not be the case. The ticket sales would cover the operational cost of the railway and a small dividend split between the Irish and UK govts along with any private investors. As a state run project there would be no need for a fast return on the capital. That's the key difference between the public and private projects. The state spent €8bn on the motorway network between 2000 and 2010 without any hope of recovering any capital.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

From reading the fleet specs on Irish Rails website, their Intercity and Commuter trains can reach a comparatively modest 120-160 Kilometers Per Hour. Given the windy, single-track nature of the bulk of the existing network, trains would be doing well to reach these speeds. For the idea being mooted on this thread, bullet type trains traveling at least twice or even three times these speeds would be needed to make for an attractive alternative to the plane. The entire railway network would have to be given an enormous upgrade which would almost certainly require double tracking every route radiating from Dublin at a very minimum.

I could go on for ages......

Clearly such a link would have to be an electrified route and high speed standard British gauge. Current Irish rolling stock couldn't operate on the route anyway. The Irish terminus would be in Heuston or Stephen's Green and people travelling from the rest of Ireland would be required to change there. If we were to have onward services to Cork, for example, we would need some special trains that could change their gauge between Irish and British. Altogether it'd be very complicated. Overall it'd be better to have the service terminate in Dublin.

Sam Russell · 19-11-2014 11:12am

cgcsb wrote: »

Clearly such a link would have to be an electrified route and high speed standard British gauge.

Perhaps it could run on the Luas lines!:D

Judgement Day · 19-11-2014 11:13am

By the time such an enthusiasts wet dream is built the Irish railway system will have been cut back to a bare Greater Dublin Commuter network: Dublin/Bray; Dublin/Dundalk (maybe); Dublin/Kildare and Dublin/Maynooth. Of course the resulting greenways could then be taken back from the cyclists/walkers etc. and turned into high speed 4ft 8.5" gauge lines.......

Tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead

Comments