Geologists get high-speed look at future transportation

Maskhadov

Geologists get high-speed look at future transportation
Frank McDonald, Environment Editor




High-speed trains will whisk passengers between Dublin, Cork and Belfast in 2050 when the population of Ireland reaches eight million, while some four million "smart" cars will be catered for on automated motorways, it was predicted yesterday.

David Waters, former managing director of Iarnród Éireann and joint chairman of a future think-tank at the Irish Academy of Engineering, also forecast that Dublin's eastern bypass motorway would be built on an embankment along Sandymount Strand.

He told a conference organised by the Institute of Geologists of Ireland (IGI) that this would be unavoidable if houses in Sandymount were to be protected from rising sea levels as a result of climate change; ie the motorway would provide their flood defence.

Mr Waters also predicted that an under-sea tunnel would be built between Rosslare and south Wales, and the Shannon estuary would be developed to cater for ever-larger container ships linked by high-speed freight trains to the heart of Europe via the tunnel.

He said new motorways would become more automated with the aid of Galileo, a European satellite navigation system. This would be linked to an in-car traffic information manager (TIM) enabling motorists to travel on "auto-pilot" at a constant speed.

TIM would pay tolls electronically, and give drivers updates on journey time, weather and likely delays.

Cars would be powered by non-polluting hydrogen fuel cells in 2050. The use of petrol and diesel would be banned because oil would be in such short supply. The world economy would have moved away from fossil fuels as part of the drive to combat climate change.

However, Eddie O'Connor, chief executive of Airtricity, said there was still a long way to go.

"As things stand, we will not meet the targets we have agreed for renewable energy" - 13.2 per cent of production by 2010.

He said Ireland would also fail to meet its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, adding that the urgent need to "decarbonise" electricity production was "going to cost a lot of money".

Extolling the virtues of wind power, Mr O'Connor said it was a natural source of energy that emitted no noxious gasses, was fuel free, needed no supply chain and had the potential to "introduce a totally new dimension into energy policy" in Ireland.

IGI president Gareth Jones said rocks were "at the heart of every big infrastructure development". Understanding sub-surface geology was "critical to the delivery of large projects on time and within budget".

He quoted Tim Brick, Dublin City Council's deputy city engineer in charge of the Port Tunnel, as saying that "all civil engineering is a risk; it is not an exact science. The trick is risk management." Central to this was an understanding of rocks and soil.

Seán Finlay, managing director of TES Consulting Engineers, cited the November 2003 landslide in Derrybrien, Co Galway, as an example of a high-profile project - it involved the development of a wind farm - where geological issues became controversial.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/1112/1093516952HM5GEOLOGISTSCONF.html


© The Irish Times

Not that we will see any of it but there are some great projects there. Very expensive too :eek:

SeanW

Cars would be powered by non-polluting hydrogen fuel cells in 2050. The use of petrol and diesel would be banned because oil would be in such short supply.

Hydrogen is b******s. It takes more energy to refine it from sources such as water than is created as a result of production. That means for every unit of hydrogen refined, we need well over an equivalent of coal burned, uranium processed etc. It will never happen.

Realistically we're looking at Biodiesel as the best solution we've got to the need to power mobile items such as cars, trucks, and trains. It's totally sustainable and the switch to it can be made much easier by the fact that most diesel engines and facilities can work with it without any/much modification, and that such engines can employ petroleum diesel and biodiesel in any mixture.

Maskhadov

i wonder how much a high speed Cork (via Shannon) Dublin, Belfast, rail line would cost and how much a underground tunnel to Wales from rosslare would cost too ? It wouldnt be too expensive in the future when you consider all the advances that are being made.

Shannon would be a strategic location for Ireland and Europe. Similar to the ports in the Nederlands. It may be of big enough importance to act as a counter balance for Dublin (which will be 2+million by then probably).

The other thing they forgot is the new outer ring road that is being planned. There are some mountains near Wicklow that will stop the new motorway but a tunnel will be needed to complete the C to the N11 or whatever it is.

dowlingm

Well, if Shannon and Foynes were on the same side of the estuary it would be a start

As for Rosslare-Wales tunnel, remember the Chunnel?

1. Estimate tunnel cost
2. Build tunnel
3. Holy crap! It cost that much more???
4. Holy crap! How can revenues be that low?
5. Go bankrupt and screw the creditors.
6. Profit!!!!

Capt'n Midnight

It's longer and IIRC deeper than the chunnel. Also there is no soft chalk to ease through.

Maskhadov

but cant they just use the technique that sits on top of the ocean floor ? its not that deep there and it should be a straightforward job. It looks like it is twice the distance that the Chunnel. Nothing world breaking about that.

At the end of the day, if shipping could offload their goods at shannon somewhere in a deep port and those 40 foot containers could fit on a high speed train there would be enough revenue to eventually pay for the line. The nederlands is stuck for space.

The problem with the chunnel is that there doesnt seem to be a massive amount of freight going between the two capitals. Its more luxury travel AFAIK.

garthv

He said Ireland would also fail to meet its target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, adding that the urgent need to "decarbonise" electricity production was "going to cost a lot of money".

........
Seriously here, of course its going to cost a lot of money you plank....

Capt'n Midnight

GaRtH_V - attack the post not the poster, don't forget that thw quote wasn't the posters words


High Speed rail - major problem is you have to go through the rail mess that is the UK. - And it would probably be cheaper to build the two tunnels from Japan to Sakhlin (SP) and to the Russian Mainland. Once that starts running the Bearing Strait Bridge looks attractive - maybe twice the distance of an Irish tunnel (will check atlas) and that would mean you could rail stuff from US to EU.

Maskhadov

but doesnt britain seperate H.S.R from the rest of its (crappy) rail network ?? I thought it did. So in effect it would just be like relaying new track and it didnt matter what was there before. The H.S.R would have to go to london though.

The hypotethical tunnel from between Rosslare and south Wales would be far easier to build than any bridge across the baring straights or any japanese tunnel. Its only (Rosslare- Pembroke) 260km and it doesnt freeze half the year and the region doesnt suffer from massive storms.

dowlingm

If Iarnrod Eireann can't be @rsed putting track on Rosslare portside I'm not sure how much of a goer a tunnel would be - especially since the train would still have to change at the Ireland end or use those Talgo bogies, presuming using European gauge (1435mm) for the tunnel for commonality with Chunnel/UK network and not 1600mm.

You are looking at an undersea distance of about 90-100km depending on where landfall is - the longest tunnel currently is half that in all of which only about 25km are undersea. The planners of the Japan-Korea tunnel foresee using existing and artificial islands to break the journey - there's only Tuskar Rock between Rosslare and Fishguard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel#The_longest
http://photo.hankooki.com/gisaphoto/20040816/sian10082004081619402200816g.jpg

Maskhadov

You are forgetting the fact that any HSR in Ireland will be totally seperate from Irish rail lines. So it really doesnt matter what gauge has to be used.

I think it is a lot to do with , how deep the seabed is between Rosslare and Pembroke (or where ever in south wales). What kind of weather conditions affect the region. Plus it would depend a lot on the soil beneath the sea bed and how even the surface bed is(if they were to use the method that floats down the tunnel in sections).

Capt'n Midnight

dowlingm wrote:

You are looking at an undersea distance of about 90-100km depending on where landfall is - the longest tunnel currently is half that in all of which only about 25km are undersea. The planners of the Japan-Korea tunnel foresee using existing and artificial islands to break the journey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin

The idea of building a fixed link between Sakhalin and the Russian mainland was first mooted in the 1930s. In the 1940s, an abortive attempt was made to link the island via a 10 km long undersea tunnel. The workers supposedly made it almost to the half-way point before the project was abandoned under Nikita Khrushchev. In 2000, the Russian government revived the idea, adding a suggestion that a 40 km long bridge could be constructed between Sakhalin and the Japanese island of Hokkaido, providing Japan with a direct connection to the Euro-Asian railway network. It was claimed that construction work could begin as early as 2001. The idea was received skeptically by the Japanese government and appears to have been shelved, probably permanently, after the cost was estimated at as much as US$50 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_Peace_Bridge
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/tunn-j05.shtml

dowlingm

Capn M

I'm not talking about here
http://local.google.com/maps?ll=45.821143,141.778564&spn=3.244035,4.456604&hl=en
I'm talking about here
http://local.google.com/maps?ll=34.170908,129.144287&spn=3.850878,4.456604&hl=en

Lennoxschips

it's all pie in the sky, let's get the existing rail network working properly first

with a bit of investment you could do 150 km/hr on the dublin cork line. as long as it's faster than the car and decent value that's the main thing. we don't need bullet trains or tgv's

David Waters, former managing director of Iarnród Éireann and joint chairman of a future think-tank at the Irish Academy of Engineering, also forecast that Dublin's eastern bypass motorway would be built on an embankment along Sandymount Strand.

It's kind of worrying when a guy who used to be in charge of the railways is advocating building a motorway across Dublin bay. Makes you wonder what kind of decisions he made when he was in charge of the railways.

Maskhadov

i think they can get the existing infastructure up to scratch by 2050 EVEN if the FFailers are in power...

saobh_ie

I spotted the misprint... 2050 should read 2500.

That's science fiction pure and simple. It's simply too far fetched on too short a time scale... I seriously doubt anywhere in the world will see motorways for computer controlled cars... its insanity.

Maskhadov

Europe is building a HSR from Portugal to Estonia, Italy to London FACT. The Nice Turin is under construction at the moment and is costing €20 billion. What will we have ? a few motorways/carparks and a souped up dublin port.

We should be aiming to be bring our infastructure in line with Europe but a tunnel under the irish sea would probably be too much for any irish politican to stomach.

Would a tunnel from N.Ireland to Scotland be cheaper ? Would it be acceptable for the Republic of Ireland ? I think it would be a loss of pride

morlan

2050: Transport 21 finally delivered. TBH

Capt'n Midnight

Maskhadov wrote:

Would a tunnel from N.Ireland to Scotland be cheaper ? Would it be acceptable for the Republic of Ireland ? I think it would be a loss of pride

It would be a lot shorter and not as deep. The shortest link is to the Mull of Kintyre but the you have a huge detour. So Larne instead, but a lot of UXB's and other nasties dumped in the sea there after the war. Great for NI but for us it's an extra few hours up and back down again to get to England ( & Chunnel) where most of the high speed traffic would be to. And there won't be two tunnels.

But how much would Anglesy be worth if it was an hour by train from Dublin City Centre ?

The cost of a ROI to Wales tunnel would probably cost more than linking Japan to Asia. If that were to happen it could lead to a Russia-Alaska link in which case Ireland would not be that interesting for trans-atlantic traffic. So if 110 Million people can't get a tunnel yet then 4 Million will probably have to wait to get one that costs more.

dowlingm

Lennoxchips (bloody mean name is that - I'm starving and 4800km from Lennox's)

Cork-Dublin is supposed to be able to do 150km/h now - it's 150mph is the problem

Maskhadov

Tunnelling will get cheaper though. That is guaranteed. 45 years ago no one would have thought the channel tunnel would go ahead. Who knows what the situation will be like in another 45 years.

Just to point out dowlingm, its irrelevant what speeds the trains can or are going at now. Any H.S.R developments will be an entirely new development and the track will have to be completely segregated

LFCFan

SeanW wrote:

Hydrogen is b******s. It takes more energy to refine it from sources such as water than is created as a result of production. That means for every unit of hydrogen refined, we need well over an equivalent of coal burned, uranium processed etc. It will never happen.

Going by todays Technology it's a non runner but who's to say they won't come up with a cheap and non polluting way to extract Hydrogen in the near future? Who's to say it's not already a possibility. You never know if there are some fuel technologies being sat on by the Oil companies!!

dowlingm

Maskhadov

not really - as you say it's not relevant to judge future developments by current infrastructure, and some HSR technologies do not need completely new alignments but simply more tracks on the same alignment. Building completely new stations is not, I submit, feasible given the size of the communities you are linking and the distance involved. You are talking about billions of euro to construct a route to cut an hour (maybe) off travel time between Cork and Dublin down to 1.5hrs which will still be beaten by Aer Arann (55 mins) and Ryanair (30mins) and which will probably do little or nothing to improve links to Galway, Limerick, Waterford and Kerry.

Maskhadov

I just know the Spanish run their HSR in the center with ordinary rail on the outer two lines. But the rail is segregated... i.e an ordinary loco couldnt go on the HSR lines and vice versa.

Your right about the main stations though. It would have to go through connolly (probably) and Belfast and Cork.

High-speed trains vs. automobiles or airplanes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_speed_rail

There are constraints on the growth of the highway and air travel systems, widely cited as traffic congestion, or capacity limits. Airports have limited capacity to serve passengers during peak travel times, as do highways. High–speed rail, which has potentially very high capacity on its fixed corridors, offers the promise of relieving congestion on the other systems. Prior to World War II conventional passenger rail was the principal means of intercity transport. Passenger rail services have lost their primary role in transport since, due to the small proportion of journeys made by rail.

High–speed rail has the advantage over automobiles in that it can move passengers at speeds far faster than those possible by car, while also avoiding congestion. For journeys that do not connect city centre to city centre, the door to door travel time and the total cost of high–speed rail can be comparable to that of driving, a fact often mentioned by critics of high–speed trains. However, supporters argue that journeys by train are less strenuous and more productive than car journeys.

While high–speed trains generally do not travel as fast as jet aircraft, they have advantages over air travel for relatively short distances. When traveling less than about 650 km (400 mi), the process of checking in and going through security screening at airports, as well as the journey to the airport itself makes the total journey time comparable to HSR. Trains can be boarded more quickly in a central location, eliminating the speed advantage of air travel. Rail lines also permit far greater capacity and frequency of service than what is possible with aircraft.

Its a good clip from wiki .. Rail is the best form of transport over any other.. be it bus, boat, car, aeroplane. Thats why it has (especailly HSR) a massive future even though its very expensive. Personally I would rather take a train than a plane

Victor

Maskhadov wrote:

I just know the Spanish run their HSR in the center with ordinary rail on the outer two lines. But the rail is segregated... i.e an ordinary loco couldnt go on the HSR lines and vice versa.

Spain has its own railway gauge, the HSR is being built to Standard Gauge

Maskhadov

I guess any HSR built would have to be to same specifiction as the rest of Europe's HSR or the whole exercise would be daft.

My main point about the existing rail network and segregation is valid.

Victor

Maskhadov wrote:

45 years ago no one would have thought the channel tunnel would go ahead. Who knows what the situation will be like in another 45 years.

Oddly, someone tried it 100+ years ago.

Chris_533976

High-speed trains will whisk passengers between Dublin, Cork and Belfast in 2050 when the population of Ireland reaches eight million, while some four million "smart" cars will be catered for on automated motorways, it was predicted yesterday.

No there will be no high speed trains between Dublin & Cork in 2050. The same lines will be used, but there will be a few more trains, possibly painted a new colour.

No there wont be smart cars on automated roadways. I reckon in 2050 there will still be a section of single carriageway on the Cork-Dublin route.

No there wont be a tunnel between Rosslare and Wales. Forget it.


Sorry to be negative, but thats the reality here. No forward thinking, just foot dragging, overbudgeting and fixing problems only when they absolutly have to be fixed.

SeanW

How about from Dublin to Holyhead?

Capt'n Midnight

Chris_533976 wrote:

No there wont be smart cars on automated roadways.

lets not forget that in Dubai all new cars have GPS and the UK will be doing this soon.

Technology for cars automatically staying a short distance from the car in front have been around for decades (and tested). The problems are not technical. The main problem is who pays out if there is an accident, and until the car manufacutrere, the insurance companies and the road authorites can sort out that one it ain't going to happen. One of the issues is maintainance of the system in older cars, and interaction with cars without the technology.

The Millau bridge over the River Tarn in the Massif Central mountains is more than 300m (984ft) high - taller even than the country's Eiffel Tower.

Maybe something like this based on used oil rig platforms when the north sea runs dry ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condeep

Maskhadov

Chris_533976 wrote:

No there will be no high speed trains between Dublin & Cork in 2050. The same lines will be used, but there will be a few more trains, possibly painted a new colour.

No there wont be smart cars on automated roadways. I reckon in 2050 there will still be a section of single carriageway on the Cork-Dublin route.

No there wont be a tunnel between Rosslare and Wales. Forget it.


Sorry to be negative, but thats the reality here. No forward thinking, just foot dragging, overbudgeting and fixing problems only when they absolutly have to be fixed.

You dont really know Chris.. its all speculation at the end of the day. We could all be wiped off the face of the earth by 2020.

spacetweek

Chris_533976 wrote:

No there will be no high speed trains between Dublin & Cork in 2050. The same lines will be used, but there will be a few more trains, possibly painted a new colour.

No there wont be smart cars on automated roadways. I reckon in 2050 there will still be a section of single carriageway on the Cork-Dublin route.

No there wont be a tunnel between Rosslare and Wales. Forget it.

The Cork-Dublin road will be entirely a DC/Motorway within 5 years.

Don't be so negative Chris. Remember all European countries were like Ireland once in terms of infrastructure, and now look at them. You have to start somewhere. We're talking about 2050 here! That's like someone in 1960 going "Ireland won't have any motorways within the next 50 years." At the time it seemed hard to imagine Ireland having things such as those. Yet here we are.

Capt'n Midnight

spacetweek wrote:

That's like someone in 1960 going "Ireland won't have any motorways within the next 50 years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_motorway_%28Northern_Ireland%29

The M1 motorway in Northern Ireland runs for 61 kilometres (38 miles) from Belfast to Dungannon, bypassing Lisburn, Lurgan, Craigavon and Portadown on the way. The road was constructed in stages between 1962 and 1968

How much will it cost to go to Cork via motorways ?
Just another stealth tax/backhander to private industry unless there are very clear conditions about maximum queue length and a buy back clause.

Maskhadov

I thought the road network in Northern ireland (to british standards) was inferior to Ireland's standard so i dont know if it would be fair to compare the two.

But this thread is about future infastructure. It wouldnt be a pipe dream to expect a HSR network to be built in ireland by 2050 when you consider there is 35 years to do it after this T21.

sceptre

dowlingm wrote:

As for Rosslare-Wales tunnel, remember the Chunnel?

1. Estimate tunnel cost
2. Build tunnel
3. Holy crap! It cost that much more???
4. Holy crap! How can revenues be that low?
5. Go bankrupt and screw the creditors.
6. Profit!!!!

It really shouldn't have come as news to the chunnel investors in the first place - financing any deep bore tunnel has always been a matter of starting the dig and then pouring money into it until it hopefully comes out the other end.

Maskhadov

Can anyone on this board say whether or not its engineering possible or not to build a tunnel from Rosslare to Wales ??

Capt'n Midnight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Ireland

Several potential Irish Sea tunnel projects have been proposed, most recently the "Tusker Tunnel" between the ports of Rosslare and Fishguard proposed by The Institute of Engineers of Ireland in 2004. IEI report (pdf) BBC report A different proposed route is between Dublin and Holyhead, proposed in 1997 by a leading British engineering firm, Symonds, for a rail tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead. Either tunnel, at 80 km, would be by far the longest in the world, and would cost an estimated €20bn.

IEI report - 2MB PDF (attached text export)
http://www.iei.ie/Publications/GetPublicationDetails.pasp?PublicationID=69&Module=Papers&txt_freetext=&RecordsPerPage=1000&PageNumber=1&MenuID=24
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/4121001.stm

€20Bn ? - the chunnel cost €9Bn so ...

Maskhadov

Fantastic work Capt'n Midnight. I didnt know there were actual documents on it. Im just going to read through them now.

i see the Chunnel is £9 billion GBP Pounds which is about €13 Billion Euro. Over a decade thats peanuts between the two countries.

I have to question some of the math though. If there are already 5.7 million people on this island, i'd say there would be more than 8 million in 45 years. with all the immigration thats here.

Victor

Maskhadov wrote:

Can anyone on this board say whether or not its engineering possible or not to build a tunnel from Rosslare to Wales ??

Technicly its possible (no major geological faults, etc.), its more a matter of is there an economic way of doing it.

SeanW

I imagine it's possible. It would cost a packet though.

John R

The areas in the direct catchment on both sides of the channel tunnel have in excess of 10million people each and the journey time from London-Paris is competitive with the airlines.

A link to Ireland will at best have 2million in close proximity on one side and 100,000 on the other. Both Anglesey and Pembrokeshire are at least 4 hours from London by rail and there is little chance of that improving much in the forseable future. New HSR lines have been ruled out in the UK for linking their major population centres which have the potential for far more traffic than a link to Ireland ever would.

A 5 hour rail trip Dublin-London via Holyhead or 6-7 Hours via Rosslare, how attractive is that?

Hotblack Desiato

Exactly. Traffic to and from Ireland is all but irrelevant to UK road or rail planners. Took them long enough to build the dual carriageway A55 as a decent route between Holyhead and the motorway system.

The A5 through mid-Wales is a lovely scenic route on a nice day, but not when you're stuck in a snail's pace convoy of artics and caravans and have a ferry to catch... it used to be the main route.

Maskhadov

I just read through that .pdf file on ireland by 2050. One massive point that you are missing is the fact that Rotterdam is going to reach capacity and there is huge scope for a deep port in Shannon. There are very few of them in the world.

As far as I'm aware the government is pressing ahead with trying to get Shannon as a major strategic air hub for frieght among other things. Well that was the case when Romani Prodi was over (i think when we had the presidency).

If the air hub went ahead combine with the deep port in Shannon the freight moved in by rail across the Tuskar (Rosslare - Pembroke) tunnel would be massive. One of the biggest in Europe and a strategic location in the world. The freight alone would be a case for the Tuskar tunnel and could probably pay for the whole thing itself.

I would imagine that the tunnel would have to be high speed rail only. A H.S.R network running from Belfast, Dublin, near Waterford, Cork and Shannon would take in the vast majority of the (future) population of Ireland. the line would run across the Tuskar tunnel into Wales then London and then across into mainland Europe. So the popluations on both side of the tunnel would be extremely high.

As for cost, well the Chunnel was built over a decade and was financed by two governments. It cost €13bn Euro which isnt a massive amount when you divide that by two and then pay for it over an extended peroid of time. It would be in the UK's intrest to have excellent access to a major shipping hub and they would build a HSR from London to meet the tunnel.

They are building a 50km tunnel somewhere on mainland Europe through the Alps or somewhere. The cost of that must be massive but its being done.

Capt'n Midnight

Maskhadov wrote:

I just read through that .pdf file on ireland by 2050. One massive point that you are missing is the fact that Rotterdam is going to reach capacity and there is huge scope for a deep port in Shannon. There are very few of them in the world.

I refer you to my earlier post about it being cheaper to build a railway to Japan than to our deep ports and that a Japan to Russia link would probaly pump-prime a link to Alaska, thus meaning that train would be the fastest way to get stuff from the Pacific rim. (Large container ships tend to run at 25Kts - the bigger they faster they go to offset increased time loading/unloading - so no overall speed improvement with larger ones) reducing Rotterdam traffic.Also the Gibralter tunnel would cut down on some African traffic. And you can get a lot of dredging for €20Bn you could even make an artifical island like the Japanese airport.

If the air hub went ahead combine with the deep port in Shannon the freight moved in by rail

eh no it would be flown in to the nearest airport. Planes can move things that are too big to fit on a train. Also if they could wait for a train to arrive then they wouldn't use a plane in the first place. oddly enough the record for the heaviest payload in a plane was a CIE locomotive flown in from Canada in an Antonov, to give you an idea of how few trains would be needed.

They are building a 50km tunnel somewhere on mainland Europe through the Alps or somewhere. The cost of that must be massive but its being done.

The population of Central Europe is about 50 times the population of Ireland. AND the existing tunnels are at capacity so there is a guaranteed market. Also tunneling on land is a tad easier than at sea. One advantage is that you can halt work for a couple of years if there are funding/technical problems with less maintainance costs than a sea tunnel. AND there is no alternative route since they are at capacity, the Irish Tunnel would have to compete with ferries. If you price the tunnel too high people won't use it - c.f. a big bridge in Japan (not sure if it's the one that is now 1m longer since the Kobe earthquake) that was built after a ferry accident killed a lot of people in the Inland sea. The ferry gets used in good weather because it's cheaper.

Maskhadov

Regarding Shannon. Europe is setting out a number of strategic air transport hubs. Shannon is aiming to be that one. I dont have the exact details in front of me but the government was really pushing for it.

This is Europe not Asia. There isnt a whole pile of major deep ports serving Europe with a whole pile of capacity left. There are numerous countries in northern Europe that are landlocked and the north sea is very shallow. Shannon would be able to help serve all of them providing the Tuskar tunnel went ahead.

Plus the fact that any financing for the project will be done over more than the lifetime it took to construct it. A major peice of infastructure like that would have a lifetime of a 100 odd years. So any payment would be spread out. The tunnel is only 60 km not 500 / 600 FFS. (**edited, its 60km not 60 miles)

Once your down that deep it doesnt make a whole pile of difference. Its still ultra hot, the only advantage is that its quicker because you can tunnel from more than two ends. They managed fine with the Chunnel although it took a decade.

We will be lucky to have any ferries left so I dont know how that is relevant.

At the end of the day, there will be a need to develop Shannon and the Tuskar tunnel. It will be enginerring and financially feasible. Its just a matter of when.

Victor

Maskhadov wrote:

If the air hub went ahead combine with the deep port in Shannon the freight moved in by rail across the Tuskar (Rosslare - Pembroke) tunnel would be massive.

Air and sea ports rarely handle the same cargoes. It costs to much to fly coal from Australia and it takes too long to ship computer parts from the Far East.

Of course the problem with Shannon as a port for Europe is it is 500km too far away. And given that one ship can carry many times more than a train, I'm not sure if its worthwhile.

Maskhadov

Yes it does cost more to fly goods but that hasnt stopped the EU pressing ahead with strategic hubs across Europe for this purpose.

At the end of the day, the fact that most of the ports in the belalux region will reach capacity in the next half of this century highlights the fact that somewhere else needs to be found. Distance isnt a major issue when you measure it in time.

Capt'n Midnight

Re: Northern ports at capacity. The Baltic and North seas are very shallow so not much they can do there. However, Norway has deep water ports and a rail link to Denmark and so is better placed for a large part of Europe than we are. The Gibralter tunnel would be more cost effective than the Irish one if anyone needs a deep water port 500Km away from Europe. Planning laws / Cheap Labour in North Africa means this is also doable.
- Point being that Shannon is with a tunnel is no more attractive than existing ports or those likely to be on line in the near future.

Also why is there a port in Rotterdam, because it's close to where the goods need to go to. Shannon would not be.

Maybe they could offload the oil trading to Bantry and use pipelines to France. This would free up a lot of traffic/tonnage/space in Rotterdam. And pipelines are cheaper than tankers. It was done for D-Day back in '44 c.f. PLUTO pipeline under the ocean. Do I think they will move the oil imports there - no, but its a far more feasable way of getting extra capacity than a irish sea tunnel.

Don't get me worng I'd like to see one, but I think a lot of other mega projects will get done first.

Metrobest

Ireland is playing catch-up with the rest of Europe. While we concentrate on mickey mouse road and rail projects that Europe completed decades ago, the scale of projects happening in mainland Europe is mind-boggling. The high speed rail line that will allow you to travel from Paris to Barcelona in two hours, for example,

Rotterdam and Antwerp are mega huge ports in the centre of Europe with the infrastucture in place to make distribution simple. I believe that solutions will be found to increase their capacity. I don't think Ireland, sited on the fringe of Europe, has much potential to capture any of that business.

Maskhadov

I agree with your analysis about this Island being decades behind the rest of mainland Europe when it comes to infastructure and we couldnt plan a picnic let alone any major peices of infastructure of any significance.

Still, the fact remainds that there isnt a whole pile of options for a deep port to serve the north of Europe. The nordic countries are pretty far away and the the whole debate was based on the fact that existing ports will run out of capacity.

Rotterdam and Antwerp are mega huge ports in the centre of Europe with the infrastucture in place to make distribution simple. I believe that solutions will be found to increase their capacity. I don't think Ireland, sited on the fringe of Europe, has much potential to capture any of that business.

Yes they are, but they WILL run out of capacity. The IEI arent clowns and based their report on this fact.

At the end of the day, 2050 is a very long time away and no one really knows what will take place between now and then.

Metrobest

I just cannot see the Netherlands allowing Rotterdam lose out to a new port...In Shannon! A solution to increase capacity at Rotterdam will be found. Netherlands is a country of engineering innovation, down through history. The visionary nature and scale of the housing project on the river Ij in Amsterdam is a prime example.

Rotterdam is too big an asset for Holland to let slide away.