Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    cgcsb wrote: »
    No, a single occupant car driving from Dublin to Cork produces multiples more carbon emissions than a single passenger on a train doing same journey.



    They use a % of fossil fuels and a %renewables(and nuclear in some countries). Fossil fuels being burned in a power plant for energy is again many times more efficient than fossil fules that are burned for energy in a combustion engine.




    What about it? It'd be quickly offset by the passengers that'd switch from air travel(the most carbon intensive form of transport)
    Source?


  • Options
    #93
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    corktina wrote: »
    You could save more CO2 by not drinking Coke in the first place!

    In the same vain we could save emitting by not anything by stopping shipping anything anywhere.


  • Options
    #94
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    corktina wrote: »

    Electric trains use fossil fuels too

    They use a mix fossil fuels and renewables, and power plants and the grid is still far more efficient -- Google it if you want a source.
    corktina wrote: »
    ...and what about the carbon footprint of building the infrastructure?

    Far less that that of building motorway networks, and the ongoing maintaince of rail is far, far less.


  • Options
    #95
    corktina
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,733 ✭✭✭✭corktina


    monument wrote: »
    In the same vain we could save emitting by not anything by stopping shipping anything anywhere.

    not everything has CO2 added to it....


  • Options
    #96
    Jim Martin
    Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Jim Martin


    I think the only thing that can beat rail overland transport for economy are large canals with large barges (as on the Rhine)!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    Jim Martin wrote: »
    I think the only thing that can beat rail overland transport for economy are large canals with large barges (as on the Rhine)!

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


  • Options
    #98
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    cgcsb wrote: »
    No, a single occupant car driving from Dublin to Cork produces multiples more carbon emissions than a single passenger on a train doing same journey.

    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.


  • Options
    #99
    lucernarian
    Registered Users Posts: 9,235 ✭✭✭lucernarian


    monument wrote: »
    They use a mix fossil fuels and renewables, and power plants and the grid is still far more efficient -- Google it if you want a source.
    Shouldn't the person asserting the fact be the one to prove it? Exactly what that figure would be is somewhat more tricky to answer in Ireland - though I reckon electrification would be the more beneficial towards reducing CO2 emissions.

    In the context of building a huge and lengthy tunnel under the sea, the initial cost of carbon intensive resources would have to be noted if anyone wanted to compare with alternative solutions.


  • Options
    #100
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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).

    4 hours is hopelessly optimistic. Try loading a full train of passengers on to a boat in any short period.

    There is an airport in London city centre if you want to compare city to city times specifically. Rather a lot of passengers to the outlying airports are either going to somewhere closer to that airport or transferring to another flight out of the country anyway.


  • Options
    #101
    Jim Martin
    Registered Users Posts: 806 ✭✭✭Jim Martin


    monument wrote: »
    And for heavy cargo... Mag-lev...

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    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.


  • Options
    #103
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    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.


  • Options
    #104
    monument
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 14,072 Mod ✭✭✭✭monument


    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?


  • Options
    #105
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    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....


  • Options
    #106
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    corktina wrote: »
    Source?

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


  • Options
    #107
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    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.


  • Options
    #108
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    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.


  • Options
    #109
    ClovenHoof
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,121 ✭✭✭ClovenHoof


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


  • Options
    #110
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,415 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


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


  • Options
    #111
    Curly Judge
    Registered Users Posts: 2,708 ✭✭✭Curly Judge


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    D.L.R.
    Registered Users Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭D.L.R.


    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.


  • Options
    #113
    NZ_2014
    Registered Users Posts: 306 ✭✭NZ_2014


    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.


  • Options
    #114
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    monument wrote: »
    And for heavy cargo... Mag-lev...

    Any examples?


  • Options
    #115
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    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


  • Options
    #116
    xper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭xper


    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.


  • Options
    #117
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,542 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    BBC talking about it now.


  • Options
    #118
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,277 ✭✭✭cgcsb


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


  • Options
    #119
    Orchard Rebel
    Registered Users Posts: 241 ✭✭Orchard Rebel


    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.


  • Options
    #120
    xper
    Registered Users Posts: 1,064 ✭✭✭xper


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,431 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    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 ....

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



Advertisement