[BlueCam]

Originally Posted by royboymaps

Just out of interest, is there anybody posting on this thread who is actually an expert in something related to this, eg. Transport Planner, Engineer, Economist, Traffic Modeller?

I majored in Transport Economics at Trinity. I worked on research projects on the LGV Est in France and the financing of the Channel Tunnel.

The Channel Tunnel was a disaster from an economics perspective. It opened a year late and its costs spiraled from an estimated £4.9bn in 1987 to £10.5bn in 1994, due to increased tunneling, rolling stock, and financing costs. At today's prices that's about £25bn. It is unlikely the British government would put up any of this - they didn't for the Channel Tunnel. No private investor would touch it either. (Oh also, the Bering Strait tunnel hasn't been built yet, and probably won't ever be. $10bn for that is a laughable Russian estimate to try to get the US on board - the same US where the closest thing to high-speed rail is a plan for a train from Las Vegas to somewhere in the Californian desert.)

Revenues and passenger numbers were far below those which were expected. Eurotunnel Group had to be restructured twice and several billion pounds of its debt were written off by the investment banks underwriting it. Projected passenger figures for 2003 were 2.8m. They were actually 1.4m. Bear in mind the cross-Channel passenger market was 32m in 1994 (don't have updated figures but the increase would have been very gradual). This was greater than the entire market between Ireland and Britain today. Of that market, only Dublin-London/Manchester/Birmingham would be competitive with air travel, and when the average fare from Dublin to London is already just €40 (and you're basing your revenue estimations on an average fare of €50?!), the economies of scale needed to make a train operation viable would be abortive.

Listen mate, an Irish Sea tunnel is a lovely dream but it's nothing more than that. It's nice to be optimistic but you need to cop on and put this idea to bed. It will never, ever happen in my lifetime nor yours.

[royboymaps]

BlueCam,

Thanks for letting me know about your experience with tunnels and HSR. Can you please give me more detailed information about why an Irish Sea Tunnel wouldn't work? How much would you roughly estimate a Dublin - Holyhead Tunnel would cost (including a HSR link to HS2), and how many passengers at what fare / how much freight would be needed to pay for it?

Would you also be able to give me some info on LGV Est, such as cost / passenger numbers / average fares, so I can compare them.

Thanks,
Roy.

[Losty Dublin]

Originally Posted by royboymaps

BlueCam,

Thanks for letting me know about your experience with tunnels and HSR. Can you please give me more detailed information about why an Irish Sea Tunnel wouldn't work? How much would you roughly estimate a Dublin - Holyhead Tunnel would cost (including a HSR link to HS2), and how many passengers at what fare / how much freight would be needed to pay for it?

Would you also be able to give me some info on LGV Est, such as cost / passenger numbers / average fares, so I can compare them.

Thanks,
Roy.

Geez man, have you not read any of the answers on the thread?

In short....

1. Too little traffic to make it worthwhile.
2. Cheaper and more practical alternatives out there competing with it.
3. Economically stupid a price to contemplate and no comparable project to even guesstimate it off and nobody to pay for it.
4. Phyisically it's almost impossible to do.

[monument]

Originally Posted by Losty Dublin

Too little traffic to make it worthwhile.

That's likely the killer.

Originally Posted by Losty Dublin

Cheaper and more practical alternatives out there competing with it.

That was said about the Channel Tunnel.

Originally Posted by Losty Dublin

Economically stupid a price to contemplate and no comparable project to even guesstimate it off and nobody to pay for it.

There are comparable, as much there is for any such large project.

Originally Posted by Losty Dublin

Phyisically it's almost impossible to do.

Anything to back that up?

Originally Posted by BlueCam

I majored in Transport Economics at Trinity. I worked on research projects on the LGV Est in France and the financing of the Channel Tunnel.

Lectured by Dr Sean Barrett? The same Sean Barrett who is/was against Luas, Dart etc?

[steamengine]

I notice there is a surge in this thread on wet bank holiday weekends when the grass can't be cut !!!

[Losty Dublin]

Originally Posted by monument

That's likely the killer.

It sure it

Originally Posted by monument

That was said about the Channel Tunnel.

Given the choice, do you think it would be built again? I sincerely doubt it. Even in the heights of 80's Thatcherite UK and it's capital growth, it had no hope. The only thing going for it is that it's there; otherwise it would have been abandoned years ago.

Originally Posted by monument

There are comparable, as much there is for any such large project

There are small ones but none are close to 60 mile transport tunnels under the sea.

Originally Posted by monument

Anything to back that up?

Aside from finding somewhere to land the tunnel in the Dublin area or Holyhead that won't interfere with sea navigation, this is fraught with nightmares that, based on any other tunnel, will be nightmarish at best. I'm no engineer but alone the time spent on any other massive drilled tunnel project is years; this one will be longer and deeper and it will take more time to undertake.

[Judgement Day]

I don't understand what it is that people don't get about this proposal - Britain is a highly populated island (60 million approx) close (31 miles by tunnel) to a continent with a huge population. Britain still has (by comparison to Ireland) a large manufacturing base and needs to export and import large quantities of material to and from mainland Europe. Ireland on the other hand is a sparsely populated island on the edge of Europe with tiny population (approx. 4.5 million), little manufacturing, and at its closest practical distance to Britain (Dublin/Holyhead) a serious 60+ miles length for a tunnel. Also Britain's rail gauge is the same as that of the continent to which it is linked - Ireland's is not! A primary school kid would see the idea is nonsensical.

[monument]

Originally Posted by Losty Dublin

Given the choice, do you think it would be built again? I sincerely doubt it. Even in the heights of 80's Thatcherite UK and it's capital growth, it had no hope. The only thing going for it is that it's there; otherwise it would have been abandoned years ago.

Yes! If it could be built in the height of Thatcher-lead anti-public transport or 'anything that's not private road transport' era, it could be built today and in the future.

Originally Posted by Losty Dublin

There are small ones but none are close to 60 mile transport tunnels under the sea.

You can estimated based off what has been done, the information you have of what's out there and the costs of the methods you're going to use.

Originally Posted by Losty Dublin

Aside from finding somewhere to land the tunnel in the Dublin area or Holyhead that won't interfere with sea navigation, this is fraught with nightmares that, based on any other tunnel, will be nightmarish at best.

But by no means imposable. I would guess it would be a tiny dream compared to the other challenges of such a project.

Originally Posted by Losty Dublin

I'm no engineer but alone the time spent on any other massive drilled tunnel project is years; this one will be longer and deeper and it will take more time to undertake.

No a reason not to look into something, never mind not a reason not to built it.

Originally Posted by Judgement Day

I don't understand what it is that people don't get about this proposal - Britain is a highly populated island (60 million approx) close (31 miles by tunnel) to a continent with a huge population. Britain still has (by comparison to Ireland) a large manufacturing base and needs to export and import large quantities of material to and from mainland Europe. Ireland on the other hand is a sparsely populated island on the edge of Europe with tiny population (approx. 4.5 million), little manufacturing, and at its closest practical distance to Britain (Dublin/Holyhead) a serious 60+ miles length for a tunnel. Also Britain's rail gauge is the same as that of the continent to which it is linked - Ireland's is not!

If we're talking about and comparing islands, then you're talking about around 6.5m, heavily focused on the east coast on both sides of the boarder. That's the population today, you're highly unlikely to base something on this just on today's population.

Things like gauge would be a small problem in the overall picture given that you would also be looking at upgrading Belfast-Dublin-Cork. Or just have dual-gauge trains.

With the "little manufacturing" I'm guessing you're going after the general 'Ireland is too small for cargo rail' (it depends on the idea of a lack of heavy manufacturing) which does not really work when you're talking about long distance which includes roll on roll off trucks.

Again, I would need to be convinced there is a need for the tunnel, but those dismissing the idea are doing so all too easily. You see it time and time again in history -- people say it's imposable until somebody comes along and does it.

Originally Posted by Judgement Day

A primary school kid would see the idea is nonsensical.

If you tried explaining it to them a primary school child would also see that the world's economic system is little or no better than gambling.

[royboymaps]

monument, you are right about needing to be convinced there is a need for the tunnel. Nobody here is focusing on why we actually need to build this.

Ireland is an island, only accessible by air and sea. We can't rely on sea because boats regularly have to be cancelled in bad weather. We thought we could rely on air, but after the ash clouds from Iceland, we now know that we can't. If there is another eruption, which there certainly will be, and we get a storm in the Irish Sea, then Ireland becomes an inaccessible island. A large eruption could last for years. International companies are not going to set up in an inacessible place. Factories will close down and move to other places. Tourists will not come to Ireland and hotels, gift shops and restaurants will have to close. The cost of imported goods will increase because it will be more expensive to transport goods to Ireland. Unemployment and emigration will be a lot higher than it is now.

Ireland would be ruined. The cost of building a tunnel would be tiny compared to the costs incurred from becoming inaccessible. We can't take the risk. A large eruption will happen in the future, maybe not in our lifetimes, but it will happen someday.

If we build a tunnel we could become a link between Europe and North America. An ash cloud could cover the whole of Europe. The most likely place to be clear of the ash cloud is the west coast of Ireland, because the Gulf Stream will blow the ash inland. Shannon could become the most important airport in Europe, with flights to North America and shuttle trains running to Great Britain and Europe. If there is an ash cloud or not we will still become a link between North America and Europe for sea freight. Rottordam is the only port in Europe deep enough to handle MalaccaMax size ships, and it is at capacity. Companies are being forced to run a few smaller ships accross the Atlantic instead of one large ship. The Shannon Estuary is deep enough to take MalaccaMax ships, but it only gives access to Ireland, a small market. An Irish Sea Tunnel would give access to the British and European markets. Fewer ships would have to cross the Atlantic because larger ships could be used.

A lot of this might seem unrealistic, but it is certainly possible. We can't take the risk of not building a tunnel under the Irish Sea. We need it.

[Capt'n Midnight]

You do know that Easyjet tested infra red detectors so they could simply avoid ash clouds. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16077139

How many days a year is shipping cancelled ?

It should be noted that we have bigger ferries and better weather forecasting than in the past , so they should be able to operate for longer.


I'll say it again a tunnel isn't suitable for bulk cargo

It's not fast or cheap enough to attract much traffic from air travel

And even if did attract all the containers to this island and all the passengers it still would be extremely unlikely to pay off construction and financing debts.

And of course most megaprojects have serious cost over runs

[robd]

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight

You do know that Easyjet tested infra red detectors so they could simply avoid ash clouds. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16077139

How many days a year is shipping cancelled ?

It should be noted that we have bigger ferries and better weather forecasting than in the past , so they should be able to operate for longer.

To add to this. Irish Ferries Ulysses ferry was designed to operate in all weather. Think it's only missed 1 day in all it's operating time due to weather.

And as you rightly point out, technology will fix the ash cloud problem if indeed it became frequent enough to need to do something about it.

[patrickbrophy18]

While I would love to think that there is demand for such an ambitious piece of infrastructure, the skeptic in me is finding it very difficult to see any viability in it. To save time, I will quote myself from another thread with motions for and against the proposal:

Originally Posted by patrickbrophy18

There are certain aspects of this plan which could make it viable and others which won't. Let's start with the aspects that wouldn't make it viable:

1. The fact that the project is €15 billion in a conservative cost to construct. If the infrastructure is only serving those who go to London and back, it will obviously be nonviable. Currently, the numbers doing this trip is 8,000,000 annually. It is pretty hard to grasp the idea of making the construction costs back without having high price fares attached. Let's assume the fares are €100. Even then, it would still take about 20 years at least to get the money back. Let's not forget that the these fares would also be taxed which would further delay the returns of the project cost bringing it up to 30 or possibly 40 years.

2. Another factor making the project nonviable is the bail out of Anglo Irish Bank which is one of the governments high priorities. This would also put tax hikes on the fares system of the infrastructure in question.

3. Let's not forget the fact that the Irish Planning Board effectively took 5 years to receive the plans for Metro North and give it the green light. If this is the case and with the scale of The Tuskar Tunnel, it would probably be at least a decade before construction would begin from a conservative estimate.

4. As pointed out by other people, the current state of the national rail infrastructure is laughable with the mostly single track nature of it ergo, making it very difficult for sub-sea trains to reach their desired speed without some sort of delay. If the Tuskar Tunnel were to be built, it would have a knock on effect whereby most of the single track lines would have to be doubled or possibly quadrupled and then dual-gauged. By extension, this would bring the price of the Tuskar Tunnel project up to roughly €30 billion.

I am probably missing a lot of other factors against the proposal as well so, feel free to enlighten me! As I have said, there are certain purposes which could be attached to the proposal that might make it work. Might is the operative word in this case and a big one at that. Let me explain:

1. If the line became part of an extension to existing inter-rail routes, it might work. This may involve making a through route on the London side of things to remove the need to change trains. There may also need to be two types of passenger train, one which negotiates it's way to popular Irish tourist destinations and one which would be express for business customers.

2. If Galway or Shannon were to be used as one of the major Trans-Atlantic freight ports, the level of freight traffic could very well lead to extremely high use of the Tuskar Tunnel ergo, speeding up the rate of returns of its cost. This is assuming that other Atlantic freight ports from France, Spain and England don't compete.

3. Also, from the Irish side, we would need to give potential foreign users an incentive to use the route. This may involve anything from the construction of Theme Parks along the rail route to seaside resorts like those seen in the Balearic Islands and Spain. However, these would need to be located in key locations. Otherwise, the train may end up taking to many stops which would be off-putting to potential users.

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

Originally Posted by patrickbrophy18

I can't see this being feasible even a century down the road.

[Capt'n Midnight]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicily

population of Sicily is 5 million , distance to Italian mainland 3km

cost of a bridge €6Bn

it's construction has been announced many many times, don't hold your breath

[Solair]

The argument for an Ireland - Britain tunnel really doesn't stack up at all.

When you look at the channel tunnel, which incidentally had huge financial problems, you have to remember that it interlinks some of the most densely populated and wealthiest parts of the world.

London & Southeastern England

Paris & Northeastern France

Belgium and the Netherlands with high speed links into the some of the most industrial parts of Germany.

Connecting Dublin, with a population of just over a million people to the UK via rail simply does not make any sense at all.

We'd be better off looking for alternative ways of fueling aircraft!

You could put a bridge or something between Larne and Stranraer, but it's connecting one of the most remote parts of Ireland with one of the most remote parts of the UK. From a practical point of view, it's not very useful to someone say going from Dublin to London and even less so if you're going from Cork to London.

As for freight, we don't produce anything that requires bulk freight transport!
Most of our goods are high-value added, low weight, time-sensitive products that need to be gotten to places quickly and securely.
Rail freight makes more sense with heavy industry.