Engineering Topic #9: Irish Sea Tunnel

To get this started again, and in light of recent copyright regulations I'll be brief in what I'll be reproducing from other websites.

What do people think about the prospective of an Irish Sea Tunnel connecting Ireland to Britain? Before we've heard of a tunnel directly of a tunnel connecting Ireland to Fishguard in Wales (here) but given discussion from 2011 about how Victorian Engineers proposed a 20 mile crossing between Scotland & the North of Ireland I thought it would be interesting to revisit it to look at four possible options.

Engineering Topic #9: Irish Sea Tunnel

North Channel (Kintyre) route

This is the shortest route at around 19 km (12 mi), from the Mull of Kintyre to County Antrim but is very unlikely to be adopted. It would mean constructing a railway or improved roads (or both) following a roundabout route through some mountainous terrain, mainly in Scotland, but to some extent also in Northern Ireland, and also needing further undersea tunnels in Scotland. If it ever were adopted, passengers would to a high degree still use ferries and aircraft, since it would be a big detour for trains from England. Trains would have to go via Glasgow and around 250 km further to reach Belfast. Even if the High Speed 2 railway is fully built, the travel time London-Belfast would not be below 4 hours. Car travellers from England would have much shorter driving distance when using the traditional ferry routes.

North Channel (Galloway) route
This route has been proposed both as either a tunnel or a bridge.[1]
If a tunnel was chosen, this would mean tunnelling from near Portpatrick to a point north or south of Belfast Lough.

This would result in a shorter tunnel than the southern routes (34 km (21 mi)), and one within the United Kingdom, though the Irish government and the European Union might contribute funds, nevertheless. However, because of the Beaufort's Dyke sea trench, this route would be deeper than the southern routes.

In general, travel to Belfast would benefit from this route. The London to Belfast distance would be about 750 km, taking about 3½ hours on a high-speed train. This route would improve travel from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Liverpool, Manchester, and most English cities, to Belfast and Dublin.

The Dublin-Belfast-Glasgow-Edinburgh route would be possible. However, the route between the two capitals (London-Dublin) would be indirect. If a high speed Dublin-Belfast railway (160 km) is also built, this route would take four to five hours, making it hard to compete with air travel.

It is believed[2] that such a project was considered by railway engineer Luke Livingston Macassey in the 1890s as "a rail link using either a tunnel, a submerged "tubular bridge" or a solid causeway".[3]

Irish Mail route
Another option is to follow the traditional route of the Irish Mail steamers from North Wales (Holyhead) to Dublin (Dún Laoghaire). This tunnel would be about 100 km (62 mi) long. The main London-Dublin route is more direct and high-speed trains would be competitive with airlines. Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham are on this route. The distance from London to Dublin would be 550 km, taking 2½ hours on high-speed trains. While this competes well with air travel, the trains would need to compete with budget airline prices.

The British portal of this route would connect to the North Wales Coast Line around Anglesey. The North Wales Coast Line connects North Wales to Crewe (and the West Coast Main Line) via Chester. It runs along the North Wales Coast for most of its length, parallel to the A55 road. The transport corridor is constrained by mountains to the south and by several seaside resort towns.
Increased traffic would mean that capacity along the transport corridor would need to be increased. There are two options for the location of the terminals:
In Wales near the tunnel portal, with the A55 road being widened to motorway standard. In England near the M6 motorway, with rebuilt large loading gauge railway between tunnel portal and terminal.

There are no major population centres along this route (for this reason there have been no container trains from Holyhead Port for some years), therefore, most traffic would be between Ireland and England. An English train terminal would be better for the environment than roads, however, a Welsh terminal would bring development opportunities to North Wales. Either option would probably require a dedicated high-speed railway line.

Most of the route between Crewe and Llandudno Junction is flat along the coast and would be easy to rebuild. However, further west, there would be some problems. At Conwy, the line skirts Conwy Castle before crossing the River Conwy on the Conwy Bridge, and would probably have to be tunneled under (also making grade separation at Llandudno Junction easier).

From Bangor, the line rises from just above sea level and runs through tunnels before turning sharply to cross the Menai Strait via the single-tracked Britannia Bridge, 100 feet above the strait. Even if some trains were diverted by reopening the line to Caernarfon, a new crossing of the Menai Strait would probably be required, possibly in a tunnel, too.

Presently, Holyhead-Liverpool trains follow a circuitous route from Chester to reach Liverpool. The Wirral Line offers a more direct route via the Wirral peninsula but is a commuter line and would be unsuited to very high speed trains. The Borderlands Line crosses the North Wales Coast Line at Shotton station, but this terminates on the Wirral and does not reach Liverpool; current plans see it being integrated into the Wirral Line. Journeys would be shorter using a new rail line through a tunnel under the Dee Estuary, across the Wirral (probably partially in a tunnel) and in a tunnel under the River Mersey to connect to Liverpool Lime Street. This could be a possible second phase project after the main works.

Tuskar route
The Institute of Engineers of Ireland's 2004 Vision of Transport in Ireland in 2050 imagines a tunnel to be built between the ports of Fishguard and Rosslare[4] along with a new container port on the Shannon Estuary, linking a freight line to Europe. This report also includes ideas for a Belfast-Dublin-Cork high-speed train, and for a new freight line from Rosslare to Shannon.
Although London-Dublin and London-Belfast routes would be competitive with air travel, subject to ticket prices, routes from central and northern England and Scotland to Ireland would probably not be competitive.

On the British side, a high-speed line duplicating the Great Western Main Line has been proposed.[5][6][7] However, this would be likely to be a lower priority than one running between London, Birmingham and the North West, duplicating the West Coast Main Line. Congestion through the Severn Tunnel is already so great that much freight from the Welsh ports travels a circuitous route via Gloucester; the increased traffic generated by an Irish Sea Tunnel would demand a new crossing of the Severn Estuary.

Recent proposals for a barrage across the mouth of the River Severn have included the option of running a new road and rail crossing between Cardiff and Bristol, which would help this issue.

The M4 motorway ends near Llanelli. Any motorway extension would pass through rural areas and close to the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, which would generate opposition, however, terminals could be located further inland.
As the IEI's report notes "[This report's object] was to cast a vision, essentially an optimistic vision, of transport in Ireland in the middle of this twenty-first century". It also includes a second English Channel Tunnel.

With increased advancements in MagLev technology in the last decade as seen in Japan, trains can travel at speeds of over 350 mph. Do you think this is something that will ever happen between Ireland and Britain? Do you think it makes sense to invest billions into a sea crossing which would likely never pay back the capital investment?

***

Photos and texted taken (with permission having checked the commons licence) from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Sea_Tunnel.

Other details:
1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_west/4121001.stm
2) http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Attempt-to-build-railway-tunnel-between-Scotland-and-Ireland-discovered-131415528.html

Old discussion here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=56005973

Good article on maglev here: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120504-the-floating-future-of-trains

Turbulent Bill

Dónal wrote: »

Do you think this is something that will ever happen between Ireland and Britain? Do you think it makes sense to invest billions into a sea crossing which would likely never pay back the capital investment?

In short, no and no. There's obvious parallels between this and the Channel Tunnel, but the latter connects two major world capitals across a shorter sea crossing, under one of the busiest shipping routes in the world. There were strong political/cultural reasons for the Chunnel too (UK's link to mainland Europe) that were a big factor in it's construction, don't think the same would apply here.

The techie in me loves these big-scale projects, but it would be an enormous waste in reality.

Love these Engineering Topic posts BTW, keep it up!

Irish Steve

This needs to happen, with the main emphasis being not on passengers, but on freight, but its not a short term project, this needs to be looked at with a view and attitude that goes way beyond the capacity of any of the current politicians to deal with it.

In the long term, oil will not be available in the ways it has been previously, so even things like long haul ships are going to be under pressure. So will long haul flying. Properly structured and managed, the Shannon Estuary and airport area could become as significant a portal for goods as is Rotterdam now, not because the population is there around Shannon, but because the cost of moving the goods by sea will become less competitive, and an electric powered rail network will have advantages over an oil powered equivalent. Not just for Ireland, but for the UK, and the States, and many other countries,

Equally, Trans Atlantic flying will have to change, while airlines like Ryanair, Easyjet and all the other low cost carriers have grown exponentially over the last number of years, they will also have to decline as oil becomes a resource that can only be used for essential, or at least important purposes. If it is possible to get from Eurrope to Ireland by rail in a sensible time scale, and only then transfer to an air connection for the section that can't be done by rail, that will be a factor, though there are futuristic discussions of ultra high speed trans atlantic rail, using very different and not yet built technology.

The two problems are the neanderthal tunnel vision of our politicians, who can't see beyond the next election in many cases, and the funding of such a scenario, it will require an Europe wide funding at the least, much wider than just the EU.

The Chinese have ploughed massive funds into a rail link from China to Europe. That's no accident, they can see the way this is going to go in the long term, and they already have an energy deficit, maybe if this part of the world woke up to the real situation, things might improve, its not going to be that long before the "fast" lane of most motorways have rail tracks laid on them to facilitate moving freight more economically than can be done using trucks.

The ONLY thing that will change this is if a viable long term alternative to oil is found, and so far, there's been no evidence of a suitable and cost effective alternative that is or will be widely available.

Rosslare to South Wales would be a viable route, as would be the Dublin Anglesey route, especially as the UK are moving towards having a high speed rail route from London to the North and North West, though it's not clear if those routes will also be carrying freight, and to be viable, that will be fundamental to the success of the venture.

The key factor in all of this will be energy cost and availability. There will be massive NIMBY battles to be fought, both here in Ireland and in the UK, and using whatever route is built will have to be affordable.

There is of course a fundamental issue with the rail concept at this moment, Ireland is the only country in Europe that uses anything other than "standard gauge", and ideally, this high speed system needs to be capable of operating on both high speed tracks and "normal speed" tracks, so that rules out using any of the existing Irish structure, or it means completely regauging the entire Irish network and rolling stock.

Just getting that decision made will probably take the next 50 years to happen, given the nature of Irish politics, and yes, before anyone asks, I am so disillusioned with politicians, it's not funny any more, given the number of fundamental and disastrous decisions they have made over the last 20 years, while at the same time making very sure that they personally were extremely well looked after, at this stage, I despise the politicians and their advisers, and the people at the top of "the system" that have allowed them to get away with the rape of this and other countries without saying anything.

So, bottom line, this needs to happen, and the planning for it should have already been started, so that it can happen in a sensible time scale, for the good of both Ireland and Europe.

I doubt I wll see even the planning for this in my remaining lifetime, simply because we've lost the sense of adventure and challenge that persuaded people like Brunel, and so many others, to design and build canals, and railways, and bridges that others said were not possible, and that same spirit and drive that made Kennedy decide that America WAS going to the moon is no longer seen as being good.

Now, we have committees, too often stuffed with bean counters and lawyers who spend the vast bulk of their time looking for reasons not to do something, and the rest of their time justifying their decisions. At a local level, I first came to Ireland in 1986, and the route of the M50 was agreed at that stage, and it's only in the last number of years that the thing has actually been built, and we all know about the problems with that, we already need an "outer" M50 or a rail equivalent to cope for the longer term, and the mistakes made in junction design and the whole Toll system are only bizarre.

Forget "expansion", and growth, this is about survival, the cost of just about everything in this island is already orders of magnitude dearer than the same item in Europe, and a lot of that is to do with the cost of getting those items across that stretch of water from the UK to Ireland, and a more cost effective and timely system is long overdue to redress the balance.

We need to have something to offer to Europe for this to happen, and that is our position at the edge of the Atlantic, and the ability to provide the massive infrastructure that will be needed to support Europe in the new scenario without cheap and easy oil. We need people at all levels of our society that believe that Ireland can do this, and can make a difference, and can make it happen. That group of people doesn't exist right now, and without it, nothing will happen, which will be bad for Europe and Ireland in the long term.

bawn79

Was reading a book the weekend called "the origin of the irish" and they discussed the possibility of ireland being originally populated via the isle of man. It got me thinking of using this route for an irish sea crossing. If it went from south of belfast and joined up at either blackpool or around liverpool you would be linking into the existing motorway structures of ireland and the uk. Probably totally not feasible but I said id put it out there as a brain storming point.

Turbulent Bill

Irish Steve wrote: »

So, bottom line, this needs to happen, and the planning for it should have already been started, so that it can happen in a sensible time scale, for the good of both Ireland and Europe.

I doubt I wll see even the planning for this in my remaining lifetime, simply because we've lost the sense of adventure and challenge that persuaded people like Brunel, and so many others, to design and build canals, and railways, and bridges that others said were not possible, and that same spirit and drive that made Kennedy decide that America WAS going to the moon is no longer seen as being good.

It doesn't need to happen - existing transport links are sufficient and flexible enough for what we require. I'd say any cost/benefit analysis would conclude that building a tunnel would be financial insanity, at least in the short and medium term. If oil prices and availability go as you describe then you could re-look at it with the options then available.

Brunel reinvented how transport could be used; building an Irish Sea tunnel (which is perfectly possible) would do nothing of the sort.

Irish Steve

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

It doesn't need to happen - existing transport links are sufficient and flexible enough for what we require. I'd say any cost/benefit analysis would conclude that building a tunnel would be financial insanity, at least in the short and medium term. If oil prices and availability go as you describe then you could re-look at it with the options then available.

Brunel reinvented how transport could be used; building an Irish Sea tunnel (which is perfectly possible) would do nothing of the sort.

Cost benefit analysis, short medium term, exactly the sort of thinking that has destroyed so much. Kennedy didn't care what acheiving his goal of a man on the moon was going to cost, and the long term spin off benefits of that space program have been significant in so many areas. Can we say the same about the massive sums being spent on various wars around the world? Can we really justify huge social welfare spends on unemployment long term when some of those people could be working to produce a long term result.

No one seems to be willing to look LONG term. Oil is finite, so which is better, carry on using it regardless, or plan a future that's not so dependent on oil, which in passing might make some at present difficult countries slightly more amenable to being part of the rest of the world, or pretend that there's no need to change things.

At present, Ireland is a small peripheral low population country on the edge of Europe, and without some creative thinking that will produce benefits for ALL of Europe, we're not going to see the gravy train of recent years repeated, and grants etc from Europe will not be so easy to come by.

The Domestic economy has been well and truly screwed in recent years, and getting things back on to any sort of reasonable track, some very creative and long term thinking that seems to elude the people that we elect to make decisions on our behalf is long overdue.

Building houses is not an option, new and better roads are only a local benefit, what's desperately needed now is a project that will be a real benefit to both Ireland AND Europe, so that Europe will see gains for them in investing heavily in it.

It could be massive tidal electricity generation, as that's reliable, wind generation is becoming controversial, both reliability wise and location wise, and if the Shannon Estuary could become a replacement for Rotterdam, and Shannon Airport become a hub for Trans Atlantic travel, with the correct levels of rail based interlinking to Europe, we have something to offer Europe, which has to be better than looking for yet another bail out, or subsidy, or hand out, however you want to describe it.

To me, given the long term oil scenario, these 2 possibilities have the best chance of persuading Europe to put significant long term investment into Ireland, which we desperately need in order to get out of the shambles that previous administrations and policies have dropped us in to.

Our labour cost base and peripherality mean that things like manufacturing are not an option, there are too many other countries with much lower costs than Ireland, and transporting goods out of Ireland at the moment in large quantities is NOT cheap, or convenient, or adequate. For the Shannon concept to work, there has to be a large 2 way flow of goods (and if possible passengers) which is not possible without the total involvement of Europe.

The Shannon electification project and electricity for Rural Ireland worked, a project for Europe now would have advantages, but its LONG term, way beyond parish pump levels, or next election benefit levels, what I'm trying to look at here are projects and directions that will ensure that my grandchildren's children are not doomed to spend half of their lives living on state benefit or emigrating because there's no demand based economy worth talking about in Ireland.

To achieve that, Ireland has to be providing value to Europe. so that Europe is happy to invest in encouraging ongoing development. For me, however unpalatable that might be, without Europe, Ireland will decline into being the equivalent of a banana republic, and as times get harder, without something to offer Europe, bluntly, Europe won't care.

Too black and white? Maybe, but we can either ignore that risk, or act now to try and make sure that Ireland remains involved with Europe.

Turbulent Bill

Irish Steve wrote: »

Cost benefit analysis, short medium term, exactly the sort of thinking that has destroyed so much. Kennedy didn't care what acheiving his goal of a man on the moon was going to cost, and the long term spin off benefits of that space program have been significant in so many areas.

What other metric do you suggest we use for these kinds of projects - 'build it and it might be used'? When it boils down to it, a tunnel would just replace/supplement existing transport links, and if it doesn't pay it shouldn't be built.

Kennedy was as driven by Cold War politics and the need to develop his ICBM programme, as he was high-minded exploration.

Irish Steve wrote: »

No one seems to be willing to look LONG term. Oil is finite, so which is better, carry on using it regardless, or plan a future that's not so dependent on oil, which in passing might make some at present difficult countries slightly more amenable to being part of the rest of the world, or pretend that there's no need to change things.

Are you talking about the Middle East, and if so why would they care what a small European nation does?

Irish Steve wrote: »

At present, Ireland is a small peripheral low population country on the edge of Europe, and without some creative thinking that will produce benefits for ALL of Europe, we're not going to see the gravy train of recent years repeated, and grants etc from Europe will not be so easy to come by.

The Domestic economy has been well and truly screwed in recent years, and getting things back on to any sort of reasonable track, some very creative and long term thinking that seems to elude the people that we elect to make decisions on our behalf is long overdue.

Building houses is not an option, new and better roads are only a local benefit, what's desperately needed now is a project that will be a real benefit to both Ireland AND Europe, so that Europe will see gains for them in investing heavily in it.

It could be massive tidal electricity generation, as that's reliable, wind generation is becoming controversial, both reliability wise and location wise, and if the Shannon Estuary could become a replacement for Rotterdam, and Shannon Airport become a hub for Trans Atlantic travel, with the correct levels of rail based interlinking to Europe, we have something to offer Europe, which has to be better than looking for yet another bail out, or subsidy, or hand out, however you want to describe it.

To me, given the long term oil scenario, these 2 possibilities have the best chance of persuading Europe to put significant long term investment into Ireland, which we desperately need in order to get out of the shambles that previous administrations and policies have dropped us in to.

Our labour cost base and peripherality mean that things like manufacturing are not an option, there are too many other countries with much lower costs than Ireland, and transporting goods out of Ireland at the moment in large quantities is NOT cheap, or convenient, or adequate. For the Shannon concept to work, there has to be a large 2 way flow of goods (and if possible passengers) which is not possible without the total involvement of Europe.

Agreed on Ireland needing a USP, but putting billions of Euro into a hole in the ground (literally) isn't it. I can't see any European government funding a Shannon cargo gateway, not least because it would restrict their access to trade.

Irish Steve wrote: »

The Shannon electification project and electricity for Rural Ireland worked, a project for Europe now would have advantages, but its LONG term, way beyond parish pump levels, or next election benefit levels, what I'm trying to look at here are projects and directions that will ensure that my grandchildren's children are not doomed to spend half of their lives living on state benefit or emigrating because there's no demand based economy worth talking about in Ireland.

To achieve that, Ireland has to be providing value to Europe. so that Europe is happy to invest in encouraging ongoing development. For me, however unpalatable that might be, without Europe, Ireland will decline into being the equivalent of a banana republic, and as times get harder, without something to offer Europe, bluntly, Europe won't care.

Too black and white? Maybe, but we can either ignore that risk, or act now to try and make sure that Ireland remains involved with Europe.

My kids are already saddled with massive debts caused by uncontrolled spending, and I'm not willing to add any more to this without a concrete reason. An Irish Sea tunnel would be an enormous vanity project, and a clear sign we don't know what we can offer the rest of Europe.

Irish Steve

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

What other metric do you suggest we use for these kinds of projects - 'build it and it might be used'? When it boils down to it, a tunnel would just replace/supplement existing transport links, and if it doesn't pay it shouldn't be built.

What I'm saying is that the FULL analysis needs to be looked at, and not just a narrow view. I suppose my fear is that we will get the sort of analysis that says "Using external cleaners in the hospital will reduce our costs by 1%", which for that specific bean counter may well be true, but if the effect is that the cleaning is not as thorough, and results in things like MRSA and Colostrum Dificile being able to spread more readily, and cause re-admissions, or longer stays, that 1% saving on paper has been eroded significantly by the extra spend on longer stays, or repeat admissions.

When there's an agenda that says "We MUST reduce costs", how those cost reductions are achieved is sometimes less than optimal, and ends up costing more. If we'd employed more people in areas like planning, and supervision of building regulations, maybe many of the problems of pyrite, flooding, incorrectly fitted fire precautions and many other areas might well not have happened, but the concept of "light touch regulation" or "self regulation" doesn't work in a lot of cases, and we've seen what happened with "light touch regulation" on the developers and bankers, and our politicians are effectively unregulated, and look where that's got us! Expense fraud, and similar, and other aspects of the day to day conduct of TD's and the like is only the tip of that iceberg.

The same worries and arguments are happening in the UK at the moment about their proposed high speed rail. They already have a much larger and wider coverage of rail than in Ireland, and surprise surprise, they are rebuilding or reinstating some of the massive and widespread closures and reductions that were the result of the Beeching report, which decimated the rail network. The same is happening here, the Harcourt St line is now a LUAS, the Navan route has been partly reopened, and will likely be extended back to Navan, and there's a monumental thread running in transport forum about the Western Rail Corridor.

Pretty much most rail systems are state funded in some area or another, because they bring benefits that can't be quantified in direct profit and loss terms.

Kennedy was as driven by Cold War politics and the need to develop his ICBM programme, as he was high-minded exploration.

Very likely, but at least they spent a lot of money on something other than a war, and it made a lot of differences in many areas.

Are you talking about the Middle East, and if so why would they care what a small European nation does?

Yes, and while they don't care over much about Ireland, if they didn't have obscene levels of income from oil, they might have to be more aware of how to relate to the rest of the world.

Agreed on Ireland needing a USP, but putting billions of Euro into a hole in the ground (literally) isn't it. I can't see any European government funding a Shannon cargo gateway, not least because it would restrict their access to trade.

If the Shannon port concept came about as a result of having to reduce the usage of oil, Rotterdam wouldn't be happy, but the direct effect as such would only be that goods (and maybe passengers too) are transferred from one means of transport to another earlier than at present.

My kids are already saddled with massive debts caused by uncontrolled spending, and I'm not willing to add any more to this without a concrete reason. An Irish Sea tunnel would be an enormous vanity project, and a clear sign we don't know what we can offer the rest of Europe.

So am I, and yes, more debt without a return is pointless, but its the wider aspect of returns that are what I'm looking for. If my children and grand children are working on project that produce a benefit for the state and for Europe, that has to be better than paying them to stay at home because there's nothing to do, which is the risk of the present stagflation that's killing the domestic economy.

Ireland desperately needs a very large project that Europe can invest in and see a return from, and it needs to be something that will have long term benefits both locally and internationally. I've thought long and hard about it, and I can't think of anything big that fits this requirement other than the combined concept of faster communications combined with the Shannon super port concept. The tunnel is pointless without more traffic to fill it, and the Shannon Super Port can't work without fast direct connections to Europe. If I could think of another project that might produce a similar result, I'd put it forward, but right now, I can't. I wish I could, we need it desperately to get out of the loop we are trapped in now.

metrosity

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

In short, no and no. There's obvious parallels between this and the Channel Tunnel, but the latter connects two major world capitals across a shorter sea crossing, under one of the busiest shipping routes in the world. There were strong political/cultural reasons for the Chunnel too (UK's link to mainland Europe) that were a big factor in it's construction, don't think the same would apply here.

The techie in me loves these big-scale projects, but it would be an enormous waste in reality.

Love these Engineering Topic posts BTW, keep it up!

Yeah, it will be built as part of a link in the transatlantic tunnel linking Nova Scotia to northern Europe, sometime around the year 2050 or later.