Irish Sea tunnel between Ireland and UK

davepatr07

I was just having a look around at transport systems worldwide and came back to a page closer to home on Wikipedia.

I know there is much debate about the Metro North and whether it should go ahead or not, but was also interested in seeing from Wikipedia that there has been a case or a need in the past to have a tunnel (similar to the Channel tunnel) built between Ireland and the UK..

Even if we had 20 billion (prob cost more now) to spend wouldn't it be a good idea to have an integrated rail network link to mainland Europe via the UK?

What are your thoughts on this and can you see it happening in the future?

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

TheUsual

How much would it cost to go from Dublin to say Austria by rail ?

How much time would it take ?

How often would the trains run ? And would there be a lot of change-overs and waiting times in between ?

People can fly to their destinations at a fraction of the cost in 2 hours at the moment, unless they need a connecting flight.
I don't see the case for a rail connection with Britain and then onto France using the Eurotunnel. The time it would take to get to your holiday destination would put everyone off.

CIE

Not really practical to think of a rail connection between Ireland and any part of Britain unless the Irish track gauge is changed from 1600mm to 1435mm. Given how skeletal the Irish railway system is now (and continues to shrink, something that ought to be anachronistic), such an expense ought to be minimal, and could start out as dual-gauge if really necessary. (Anyone who points out Spain ought to note that RENFE's international AVE high-speed network is not 1668mm broad gauge, never mind FEVE's extensive metre-gauge network.)

Such a rail connection would serve better for freight transport rather than passenger, albeit the passenger potential is still high. Speed would not be the overriding factor for the percentage of population (as high as 40 percent) that are apprehensive about flying, although speed would attract those with no such fear; and those that suffer from seasickness as well as fear flying would eschew the ferries.

oharach

TheUsual wrote: »

How much would it cost to go from Dublin to say Austria by rail ? How much time would it take ?

How much would it cost to go from London to say Hungary by rail? How much time would it take?

That journey would be just as unattractive by rail as Dublin-Austria, but it didn't stop them building the Channel Tunnel.

The main passenger market would be Dublin-London of course. Some passengers would change for Paris/Brussels, which would take about 6 hours – realistically the maximum time people will travel by train (e.g. new London-Frankfurt connection from 2012.)

Of course London – Paris/Brussels/Frankfurt/Amsterdam is a much bigger travel market than Dublin – London/(Brussels)/(Paris), so the cost-benefit would depend heavily on the freight contribution

It's probably a long way off from being viable.

dlofnep

Do we really need it? Seems like a waste of money. We have ferries and flights to get us there. We can't afford such an infrastructure.

crow_eat_crow

I suppose we would be digging ourselves out of a hole...:P

Fattes

Would we really need to change all the Gauge in the country? Have a station in say Rosslare / Dublin Port that connects via tunnel to UK using European Guage and then have feeder lines from there.Only problem would be the high speed rail across the uk to make it worth while.

loyatemu

yeah, the gauge thing is irrelevant - it would be an extension of the UK high-speed network with Dublin as a terminal station, there wouldn't need to be through-running to anywhere else on the island. Moot point really, no prospect of it ever happening unless peak-oil destroys the airline industry.

dubhthach

loyatemu wrote: »

yeah, the gauge thing is irrelevant - it would be an extension of the UK high-speed network with Dublin as a terminal station, there wouldn't need to be through-running to anywhere else on the island. Moot point really, no prospect of it ever happening unless peak-oil destroys the airline industry.

In which case Peak oil would also destroy our ability to run an electric high-speed rail (most of our electricity comes from oil or Gas). I recall a number years ago that a price of 25-50billion was floated for cost of tunnel between Dublin and Wales (direct). Awh well just as well we have Anglo to eat up such a budget!

PCPhoto

dlofnep wrote: »

Do we really need it? Seems like a waste of money. We have ferries and flights to get us there. We can't afford such an infrastructure.

please don't mention this to ANY irish politician or council official !!!! pretty please !!!

we both know thats like a red rag to a bull ..... we dont need it and it seems like a waste of money .... the alarm bells are going off in Dublin Civic Offices as we speak - they like the idea and wish to subscribe to your newsletter !!!

veryangryman

oharach wrote: »

How much would it cost to go from London to say Hungary by rail? How much time would it take?

That journey would be just as unattractive by rail as Dublin-Austria, but it didn't stop them building the Channel Tunnel.

The main passenger market would be Dublin-London of course. Some passengers would change for Paris/Brussels, which would take about 6 hours – realistically the maximum time people will travel by train (e.g. new London-Frankfurt connection from 2012.)

Of course London – Paris/Brussels/Frankfurt/Amsterdam is a much bigger travel market than Dublin – London/(Brussels)/(Paris), so the cost-benefit would depend heavily on the freight contribution

It's probably a long way off from being viable.

The Channel Tunnel was built in the pre-Ryanair low-fares market. Bad comparison IMO

And it makes a loss anyway

dRNk SAnTA

veryangryman wrote: »

The Channel Tunnel was built in the pre-Ryanair low-fares market. Bad comparison IMO

And it makes a loss anyway

Exactly, if a shorter tunnel between Paris and London isn't economical then one between Dublin/Rosslare and Wales is hopeless. And as others have said, who does it really benefit?

dubhthach

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Exactly, if a shorter tunnel between Paris and London isn't economical then one between Dublin/Rosslare and Wales is hopeless. And as others have said, who does it really benefit?

I would think the bulk of tunnel use would be freight not passengers. Currently every product for export has to be shipped out of Ireland. Most of it via Dublin Port. Given that they run freight via Chunnel you could technically ship containers directly from Dublin to the continent by rail thus saving considerable amount of time. One of reasons Dell moved to Poland (other then cheaper salaries) was that it allowed them reduce delivery time to continental customers by a day!

loyatemu

dubhthach wrote: »

In which case Peak oil would also destroy our ability to run an electric high-speed rail (most of our electricity comes from oil or Gas).

well I'd expect the exhaustion of gas and oil supplies would lead to a major uptake of nuclear. Even if we didn't build our own reactor(s) the the juice for the link would probably come from the UK grid.

oharach

veryangryman wrote: »

The Channel Tunnel was built in the pre-Ryanair low-fares market. Bad comparison IMO

And it makes a loss anyway

dRNk SAnTA wrote: »

Exactly, if a shorter tunnel between Paris and London isn't economical then one between Dublin/Rosslare and Wales is hopeless. And as others have said, who does it really benefit?

Maybe get your facts straight first:

Eurotunnel turned a profit in 2008, and even in 2009 with a massive downturn in the economy, and several tunnel fires

http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcFinancialData/ukcKeyFigures/

That profit will only increase as the Channel Tunnel begins to be used to its full capacity (Note Eurotunnel recently said it was only being used to about 50% capacity and could easily accommodate the new Amsterdam/Cologne/Frankfurt service.)

I'm not advocating that we rush into this without a thorough cost-benefit analysis, but it does make me mad when people make bald assertions that they can't back up.

[Edit: as of 14.35 the Eurotunnel corporate website is down. Hopefully the link will work later]

cnocbui

An interesting interpretation of 'facts'. It cost €10.8 Billion to build, lost €1.05 Billion in it's first year of operation - and an indeterminate amount for each and every of the following 11 years.

Then it only made a profit of a whopping €1 million in 2007 - whoop de doo - a year when it received further loan guarantees of of a further €3.18 Billion.

So, if you take the amount invested - about €14 Billion - vs the amount of profit generated so far - probably less than 100m (1m 2007, 40m 2008, ? 2009/1010) I fail to see anything remotely resembling a profit and scant prospects of the original investment being repayed within the remaining lifetime of the original investors.

As for a tunnel linking Ireland and the uk - LoL.

Seriously, a fleet of Antonnov AN-124s and two purpose built airports would be cheaper, quicker and more practical. Not really advocating that, but if you are talking daft ideas, it would be slightly less daft.

oharach

I don't think it was right to saddle Eurotunnel with the debt for constructing the tunnel. That's a failed model, and it would not be applied to the (admittedly fictional) Irish Sea tunnel. Almost every railway line in the world is massively unprofitable to build, and then profitable to run* – do you think Irish Rail would still be pro-Interconnector if it wasn't being financed by the government?

Eurotunnel has been turning an operating profit almost every year since at least 2001 (as far back as the financial statements online go).


*Some Irish lines are not even profitable to run..

cnocbui

oharach wrote: »

I don't think it was right to saddle Eurotunnel with the debt for constructing the tunnel. That's a failed model, and it would not be applied to the (admittedly fictional) Irish Sea tunnel.

Failed model?

I want to make some money off traffic needing to cross the Shannon, by building a toll bridge. Would you please finance it's construction for me so I can collect the tolls. I won't pay you back, of course.

Almost every railway line in the world is massively unprofitable to build, and then profitable to run* – do you think Irish Rail would still be pro-Interconnector if it wasn't being financed by the government?

If it was up to me, I would pave over every rail corridor in the country and run Australian style road trains for freight and articulated buses for passengers on the resulting isolated road network, so you are asking the wrong person.

Eurotunnel has been turning an operating profit almost every year since at least 2001 (as far back as the financial statements online go).

Following the restructuring, Eurotunnel was able to announce a small net profit - €1 million for 2007 - for the first time in its existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel quoting:

1. ^ "Pour la première fois de son histoire, Eurotunnel est devenu bénéficiaire". Le Monde. 2008-04-08. http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2008/04/08/premiers-benefices-pour-eurotunnel_1032093_3234.html. Retrieved 2008-07-19.
2. ^ "PEurotunnel reports first profit". BBC News. 2008-04-08. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7335991.stm. Retrieved 2009-10-28.

*Some Irish lines are not even profitable to run..

Nothing surprises me about rail, except it's continued existence.

oharach

cnocbui wrote: »

Failed model?

I want to make some money off traffic needing to cross the Shannon, by building a toll bridge. Would you please finance it's construction for me so I can collect the tolls. I won't pay you back, of course.

Do you think the motorway toll operators entirely paid for the motorways? Do you think the Severn crossing was paid for by its toll operators?

There is a difference between building infrastructure (usually government funded and expensive) and running it (can often be made to turn a profit).

The Chunnel will benefit the UK and France for generations, which is why I think more of its cost should have been publicly funded.

cnocbui wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel
Following the restructuring, Eurotunnel was able to announce a small net profit - €1 million for 2007 - for the first time in its existence.

Thanks, I'm quite aware that 2007 was the first time they made a net profit. I was talking about the operating profit. Basically that's what they would be making if they didn't have to pay back the cost of building the tunnel. And it's usually in the order of a couple of hundred million a year.

davepatr07

CIE wrote: »

Given how skeletal the Irish railway system is now (and continues to shrink, something that ought to be anachronistic)

I would have had the idea it was somehow growing (new rail line to Dunboyne, reopening of Western Rail Corridor Limerick to Galway, new rail stock etc)

See from an operating prospective it would have to match the UK rail track with new realignments. Forgive me for being noneducational in rail operations but I had the impression the Irish tracks were similar to UK and European track width?

I noticed both here in NZ and in Canada where I used to live the track width is tiny compared to home.

L1011

davepatr07 wrote: »

I would have had the idea it was somehow growing (new rail line to Dunboyne, reopening of Western Rail Corridor Limerick to Galway, new rail stock etc)

The South Wexford line closure brings the track levels to much the same as they were before the reopenings.

Stonewolf

davepatr07 wrote: »

I would have had the idea it was somehow growing (new rail line to Dunboyne, reopening of Western Rail Corridor Limerick to Galway, new rail stock etc)

See from an operating prospective it would have to match the UK rail track with new realignments. Forgive me for being noneducational in rail operations but I had the impression the Irish tracks were similar to UK and European track width?

I noticed both here in NZ and in Canada where I used to live the track width is tiny compared to home.

The distance between tracks is known as gauge.

One upon a time Ireland had loads of different gauges, but then (1840s) a politician was asked to standardise the gauge so the mainline railways would be interoperable. He decided to dismiss the smallest and largest gauges being considered and split the difference between what remained. We thus ended up with a gauge of 5'3 which by law all mainline railways in Ireland were required to use.

Meanwhile in England they standardised on 4'8+1/2 which is an old mining cart gauge (incidentally this was the smallest gauge that was dismissed out of hand by our fellah) and most of the rest of the world including America and Europe followed suit with some notable exceptions (Russian gauge is sufficiently different to standard as to be uninteroperable for military reasons).

corktina

the distance between the RAILS is the Track Guage but more importantly there is the loading guage which enables considerably wider and higher trains to run in much of Ameriaca and Europe (etc)

(A lot of Africa as well as p[arts of South America and The Antipodes run on 3'6" or Metre gauage too btw)

ClareVisitor

This would be a great idea for someone like me who comes back to Ireland periodically by car (I'm thinking taking the car on the train like le shuttle). An hour or so on the train versus 3 on the boat, no seasickness (affects the wife), no weather delaying things, no bother.

As for the cost, IMO, the role of governments in things like this is to provide the infrastructure for people to use, that's what we pay taxes for. Say it will cost half as much again as mentioned in the first post of the thread, £30bn is nothing to find between the two governments if they really wanted to. They should then run it also so that if it does make money the cost is recouped, but if not, some private operator isn't constantly being bailed out.

ClareVisitor

On the same theme:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/fast_track/9131046.stm

veryangryman

ClareVisitor wrote: »

On the same theme:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/fast_track/9131046.stm

One thing that this does highlight for me is this...

Low cost airlines do get someone somewhere for cheap. However...

Lets pretend the tunnel gets built. High speed railway Dublin-London vs Ryanair Dublin-Gatwick/Heathrow

Forgetting about cost, rail takes you city centre-city centre very quickly.

Dubliner who lives near city (say Inchicore) trip consists of ...

~15 minutes to Heuston/Connolly
~3-4 hours to London city centre

Compare with airlines where there is....

~30 minutes to airport
~at least 1 hour waiting at check in - almost 2 if bringing bags
~Flight itself # 1 hour
~Passport control/baggage reclaim then getting the train ~30 mins~
~Train itself journey times to London 30mins-1 hour

Comparing the 2, the train is definitely quicker when bringing alot of baggage (probably cheaper too with Ryanair/EI baggage costs). Bringing a family would be alot less stressful also - none of this "stranded at the airport" crap that has happened to us all, no waiting around - your always moving.

That said, it would be even better to have a road tunnel between the 2 countries. I would happily pay a €50 toll to cross, knowing that i could bring as much as i like and be across the pond within the hour. Sure id be in Wales at that stage :eek: but id be on the mainland anyway!

mgmt

veryangryman wrote: »

One thing that this does highlight for me is this...

Low cost airlines do get someone somewhere for cheap. However...

Lets pretend the tunnel gets built. High speed railway Dublin-London vs Ryanair Dublin-Gatwick/Heathrow

Forgetting about cost, rail takes you city centre-city centre very quickly.

Dubliner who lives near city (say Inchicore) trip consists of ...

~15 minutes to Heuston/Connolly
~3-4 hours to London city centre

Compare with airlines where there is....

~30 minutes to airport
~at least 1 hour waiting at check in - almost 2 if bringing bags
~Flight itself # 1 hour
~Passport control/baggage reclaim then getting the train ~30 mins~
~Train itself journey times to London 30mins-1 hour

Comparing the 2, the train is definitely quicker when bringing alot of baggage (probably cheaper too with Ryanair/EI baggage costs). Bringing a family would be alot less stressful also - none of this "stranded at the airport" crap that has happened to us all, no waiting around - your always moving.

You're not including check in times for the train.

Eurostar:

This depends mainly on what ticket you have. Unless you’ve been advised otherwise please check in at least 30 minutes or up to 90 minutes before your scheduled departure. You’ll see the full details below but remember that if in doubt, arrive with time to spare. And have a croissant.

dubhthach

Dublin <-> London is probably abit borderline, however high-speed rail would definitely compete on such routes as Dublin <-> Liverpool or Dublin <-> Manchester -- that is if the Tunnel was a direct connection from Dublin to North Wales.

Also if there is a car shuttle service run like with the Chunnel it would definitely beat the ferry to get to North Wales.

veryangryman

dubhthach wrote: »

the Chunnel

Stop it. Please

oharach

mgmt wrote: »

You're not including check in times for the train.

Eurostar check-in times are long because the journey is between Schengen and non-Schengen countries, so passport and security checks are more rigorous.

Check-in time for Dublin-London could be as low as for the Enterprise in theory, i.e. ticket barriers close 5 minutes before departure.

Any tunnel would probably go to North Wales to link with the planned HS line to Birmingham and most of the mooted HS line to Manchester. That is, unless we fancy forking out for HS line down to Rosslare.

The UK would probably want a contribution for the North Wales HS line, since there's nothing worth linking there past Chester.

mgmt

oharach wrote: »

The UK would probably want a contribution for the North Wales HS line, since there's nothing worth linking there past Chester.

I'd say the Irish government could put the case for majority UK funding, given that it would strengthen the link between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This could be a important selling point given the slimming majority of unionism in the North.

oharach

mgmt wrote: »

I'd say the Irish government could put the case for majority UK funding, given that it would strengthen the link between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. This could be a important selling point given the slimming majority of unionism in the North.

On some sites this would get me in trouble for crayonism, but...

In an ideal world, it would be great to have the tunnel make landfall near Portmarnock. The route would continue to the airport, and on a new alignment into Dublin.

Trains from Dublin to Belfast would use the new alignment (dual gauged) as far as the airport, and then a link back to the mainline (or better still a HS line all the way to Belfast avoiding Lurgan)

Pax from Britain would change at Dublin Airport for Belfast.

[/Crayonism]

ClareVisitor

oharach wrote: »

The UK would probably want a contribution for the North Wales HS line, since there's nothing worth linking there past Chester.

I don't think so, they'd call it a regeneration project for North Wales.

There must be some Eu cash out there for this kind of thing also, linking the only part of the union that doesn't currently have a land link to the rest?

L1011

ClareVisitor wrote: »

There must be some Eu cash out there for this kind of thing also, linking the only part of the union that doesn't currently have a land link to the rest?

Malta. Cyprus.

Greece requires going through non-EU states

Not sure if Sweden is bridged to Denmark yet? If not it and Finland require a VERY long way round through non-EU status.

ClareVisitor

MYOB wrote: »

Malta. Cyprus.

Greece requires going through non-EU states

Not sure if Sweden is bridged to Denmark yet? If not it and Finland require a VERY long way round through non-EU status.

Good points. I didn't know Malta was in. And my Dad is from Cyprus, shouldn't have forgotten that!! :rolleyes:

Sweden is bridged to Denmark alright.

dubhthach

MYOB wrote: »

Malta. Cyprus.

Greece requires going through non-EU states

Not sure if Sweden is bridged to Denmark yet? If not it and Finland require a VERY long way round through non-EU status.

Greece has a land border with Bulgaria which is a member state. As for Sweden there is the Øresund Bridge. There are some proposals out there to build a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland to connect Helsinki with Tallinn in Estonia.

alex73

Great idea, But with no money don't see who is going to pay the 20 billion.

L1011

dubhthach wrote: »

Greece has a land border with Bulgaria which is a member state. As for Sweden there is the Øresund Bridge. There are some proposals out there to build a tunnel under the Gulf of Finland to connect Helsinki with Tallinn in Estonia.

I forgot about the 2007 expansion

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 unviable. 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 unviable 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!:D 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. The 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.

veryangryman

Rosslare-Fishguard anyone?

Direct link between irelands 2nd and 3rd largest cities (400K people) with London (7m people) and Cardiff (1m)

Better than the Dublin link in terms of people it serves conveniently while also of course allowing the truckers the chance to take a right at Rosslare if needs be

And of course, the most direct irish road link with Europe mainland

Im not saying we should build it, but id sooner have it there than Dublin or Larne. More potential users IMO. If this ever were to become more than a dream, it would have to have the UK onboard. Quickest direct route to London and Europe would be the best idea

Actually you know what? This is never gonna happen. The Channel Tunnel for all its "potential" is the second longest tunnel in the world and is infinite times more of a tapped market. Irish tunnel 3-4 times longer so...

There will be monorail in Athlone before this gets built

paulm17781

As much as I think something like this would be nice, I also think the WRC would be nice. Sadly I don't think either deserve to be built. As said already, if the channel tunnel isn't that great a success, this can't be. Ryanair etc. are far too competitive for this work, the infrastructure would never be paid back.

oharach

veryangryman wrote: »

Rosslare-Fishguard anyone?

Direct link between irelands 2nd and 3rd largest cities (400K people) with London (7m people) and Cardiff (1m)

But this would require much more track on the British side, since they have no high-speed line planned even as far as Cardiff. We would also have to build a HS link to Dublin through Wicklow, which would seem to involve a lot of expensive tunnelling. I don't see how this could be a better use of money, when it's already going to be a challenge to make the business case.

Your route would definitely not have more passengers, but would attract more freight if the mooted plan to put a deep port on the West coast went ahead.

To all the naysayers: of course this isn't going to happen any time soon, but what's the harm in discussing it? It at least gets over the barrier of 'conceivable' to justify being in the infrastructure forum.

dubhthach

People keep mentioning Ryanair. Last time I checked Ryanair didn't do Freight. Most usage of any proposed tunnel would be freight. Vast majority of what we produce in this country has to be exported via ship.

doolox

It all depends on how cheap the TBM's become over time and how dear fossil fuels for air travel becomes into the future.

At the moment our current financial systems require a quick payback and there isn't the compelling military/strategic reason for this like there was for the highway system in the U.S in the 50's which was a copy of the German scheme in the 30's.

Unless Global warming renders our waters more stormy and less predictable than now and unless air transport experts come up with a non-oil way of powering future transports (Hydrogen?) then there is no compelling reason for a tunnel. Even on their own island the Brits use air travel a lot for trips like Glasgow or Newcastle to London. The big handicap of air travel is check-in times but the terrorists could fix it so the tunnel would need 1 hour check-in and rigourous security as well thus negating any advantage in the first place.

Cheaper TBM's and automated tunnel boring/lining techniques might swing it if we were prepared to wait long enough for the eventual payback.
Unfortunately most modern societies want payback in 5-10 years and that would push up costs to too much.........

Irish and Proud

doolox wrote: »

It all depends on how cheap the TBM's become over time and how dear fossil fuels for air travel becomes into the future.

At the moment our current financial systems require a quick payback and there isn't the compelling military/strategic reason for this like there was for the highway system in the U.S in the 50's which was a copy of the German scheme in the 30's.

Unless Global warming renders our waters more stormy and less predictable than now and unless air transport experts come up with a non-oil way of powering future transports (Hydrogen?) then there is no compelling reason for a tunnel. Even on their own island the Brits use air travel a lot for trips like Glasgow or Newcastle to London. The big handicap of air travel is check-in times but the terrorists could fix it so the tunnel would need 1 hour check-in and rigourous security as well thus negating any advantage in the first place.

Cheaper TBM's and automated tunnel boring/lining techniques might swing it if we were prepared to wait long enough for the eventual payback.
Unfortunately most modern societies want payback in 5-10 years and that would push up costs to too much.........

If a rail tunnel was to be built from Rosslare to Fishguard, it would have to be part of a much bigger masterplan, such as creating a major deepwater europort in the Shannon Estuary with a high speed freight rail link (standard gauge) to Rosslare and another rail link under South Wales (all very expensive I guess). As Ireland is AFAIK one of only a couple of countries in Europe that can accommodate the very biggest freight ships, we could put up a very good case for EU support on trade cohesion grounds.

Regards!

corktina

dream on...

Jim Martin

There's another thread on this which I started back in April!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055895934

TimmyTarmac

Anyone remember the Heneghan Peng architects proposal for a rail bridge from Rosslare to Fishguard in 2006?

I'm sorry I can't find a link at the moment but I do remember their proposal having timetables from Dublin to London and Dublin to Paris (and timetables from Cork, I think).

It was a proposal for the 2006 Venice Biennale. They claimed a journey time Dublin to London of 2.5 hours and Dublin to Paris of 5 hours.
The bridge would have been built using oil -rig technology, and assumed other rail upgrades.
Don't remember any mention of how much. I don't think the folks at the Venice Biennale are too concerned with something as vulgar as money.
Maybe someone familiar with this new fangled internet business could find a link?

dubhthach

TimmyTarmac wrote: »

Anyone remember the Heneghan Peng architects proposal for a rail bridge from Rosslare to Fishguard in 2006?

I'm sorry I can't find a link at the moment but I do remember their proposal having timetables from Dublin to London and Dublin to Paris (and timetables from Cork, I think).

It was a proposal for the 2006 Venice Biennale. They claimed a journey time Dublin to London of 2.5 hours and Dublin to Paris of 5 hours.
The bridge would have been built using oil -rig technology, and assumed other rail upgrades.
Don't remember any mention of how much. I don't think the folks at the Venice Biennale are too concerned with something as vulgar as money.
Maybe someone familiar with this new fangled internet business could find a link?

A quick google finds the following brief document:
http://www.architecturefoundation.ie/vb06/spread/hp_spread.pdf

TimmyTarmac

Don't know how I missed it. Thank you.

mgmt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQrWIRYIk5A