Underground tunnel to Britain

carlowplayer

Just came back from a trip in London to visit my sister and while on the plane back I got the idea what if they built an underwater tunnel underneath the Irish Sea like the one under the English Channel it would make travel to Britain easier as you could bypass the trouble at airports and also not worry about stuff like delays and plane crashes. Also you could drive from Dublin to France as part of a holiday trip etc.would this be econmically feasable

Hollister11

I don't know if we would ever do it, but it would be such a good idea. You could commute to England via car and save a ton of dough on flights.

Tony Beetroot

Never happen, plus emerge at mainland and 4-5 hours driving to London no thanks.

Peregrine

carlowplayer wrote: »

would this be econmically feasable

No, it will cost as astronomical amount of money (few tens of billion €) and our passenger and shipping numbers would never sustain it.

SpaceTime

Financially the Eurotunnel has been touch and go and that links a population of 64 million to a population of hundreds of millions.

Also Southern England - NE France - Benelux - West Germany is one of the most densely populated and busiest areas on the planet.

Tony Beetroot

There is already a ferry to France so why would you want to go to the UK to go to France?

And planes crashing seriously, we should live in a cave.

SpaceTime

Em.. you're probably more likely to be killed on a train in a tunnel than on a commercial airliner.

If you're worried about plain crashes, your priorities of worrying are all wrong!

You can currently drive from Ireland to France very easily!

From Cork to France for example... drive about 4km down the road.
Get on ferry, chill out, catch a movie, go for a swim, walk around and enjoy the view from the deck, go to a nice restaurant, do a bit of shopping, chill in the bar, go to bed.. wake up in France.

I'd prefer that to going by tunnel to the UK, driving the full length of England (and possibly Scotland depending on where it lands in Britain) and then taking another train and ending up in France eventually ..

Tony Beetroot

Hollister11 wrote: »

You could commute to England via car and save a ton of dough on flights.

I can fly from cork to Heathrow for €40, how could a tunnel save a ton of dough on that?

sdanseo

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

Never happen, plus emerge at mainland and 4-5 hours driving to London no thanks.

I'm sorry, the mainland?

Fame and Demise

I'm not a fan of flying at all, nor am I a fan of boats, so I wouldn't mind a tunnel one bit. After a recent had-to-be-done trip to Liverpool I started doing a bit of research to see if the powers that be have even discussed it. It turns out the idea of a bridge between Howth and Holyhead has been floating around since as far back as the 18th Century, and the discussion of a tunnel as far back as the late 19th Century.

The Channel Tunnel has been a financial failure, so I'm sure that has been taken into consideration when these things have been discussed in recent years.

cgcsb

Such a tunnel wouldn't be one you could drive through, rather it would be an extension of the UK's high speed rail. A Dublin-London Train could do the journey in 3 hours.

However the capital cost would be astronomical. Also it would benefit Ireland A LOT more than the UK so we'd be expected to bare most of the cost.

loyatemu

cgcsb wrote: »

Such a tunnel wouldn't be one you could drive through, rather it would be an extension of the UK's high speed rail. A Dublin-London Train could do the journey in 3 hours.

However the capital cost would be astronomical. Also it would benefit Ireland A LOT more than the UK so we'd be expected to bare most of the cost.

I'd expect the EU would bear most of the cost, if it survives long enough for such a project to become semi-viable.

thomasj

carlowplayer wrote: »

Just came back from a trip in London to visit my sister and while on the plane back I got the idea what if they built an underwater tunnel underneath the Irish Sea like the one under the English Channel it would make travel to Britain easier as you could bypass the trouble at airports and also not worry about stuff like delays and plane crashes. Also you could drive from Dublin to France as part of a holiday trip etc.would this be econmically feasable

Would be a good idea. But if the rail interconnector is anything to go by it would require a century of planning

Hilly Bill

Its been planned before but shelved because of it being too deep or the bed is not solid enough or something along them lines.

Chris_5339762

A nice bridge/tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead (road please, with rail also, like Oresund in Denmark) would be fantastic. Economic benefits would be phenomenal, provided the UK updated the A55 a bit too.

The main reason the Channel Tunnel is touch-and-go is because its a rail tunnel. If it was a road/rail tunnel like the original proposals it would have been better.

Strumms

carlowplayer wrote: »

Just came back from a trip in London to visit my sister and while on the plane back I got the idea what if they built an underwater tunnel underneath the Irish Sea like the one under the English Channel it would make travel to Britain easier as you could bypass the trouble at airports and also not worry about stuff like delays and plane crashes. Also you could drive from Dublin to France as part of a holiday trip etc.would this be econmically feasable

Seriously ? I'd advise thinking a bit less if I were you...

Statistically you'd be more likely killed in the tunnel then an aircraft.

Have you looked at some of the air fares between Ireland and the UK ? vs the petrol money you would spend flying would be cheaper. Same with train ticket, lost take a look at most Eurostar fares.

Why would you want to drive to France when you could take a ferry from Ireland faster and cheaper, and most likely fly cheaper too.

Any idea who would invest the billions required ? Last time I looked the old economy was slowly turning but erm, not to the point of building big tunnels between Ireland and the UK....

devwa

Best advantage of the Tunnel over the ferry is rotation speed.
One every 45 minutes (IIRC) and if you miss the one you're booked on you can often take the next one (or the previous one if you're early).

But it will most probably never be economically viable.

GreatDefector

Hollister11 wrote: »

I don't know if we would ever do it, but it would be such a good idea. You could commute to England via car and save a ton of dough on flights.

Liverpool, Manchester, currently loads on Ryanair for €20 return

I fly to Birmingham for €50 (got it for €20 before)

London is cheap too

Roughly 110km dublin to holyhead (average €15 e/w in petrol) added with the fact your in the arse end of Wales..... You wouldn't build a tunnel from new York to dingle

Just fly! Cheaper, faster, you can have a few beers while your at it

Wanderer78

grab a shovel op and start digging, as you ll find it hard to get an investor for your venture. nice idea though

SummerSummit

We should fix the intercity train lines firsts. No point building a tunnel to Britain when the Stena HSS to Holyhead has a higher average speed then the Dublin/Sligo train. (No joke - 75km/h vs 66km/h)

Jamie2k9

SummerSummit wrote: »

We should fix the intercity train lines firsts. No point building a tunnel to Britain when the Stena HSS to Holyhead has a higher average speed then the Dublin/Sligo train. (No joke - 75km/h vs 66km/h)

The HSS is removed from service but I agree we need to fix what we have and not expand until then.

Generally I am not really sure about a tunnel but it can't be seriously considered until HS2 opens in the UK.

Victor

sdanseo wrote: »

I'm sorry, the mainland?

Folks. take this line of discussion elsewhere.

Moderator

---

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3188177,-4.6199245,173m/data=!3m1!1e3

For those of you not aware of your geography, when you get off Irish Ferries at Holyhead, you are on a big pier, which has all but obliterated Salt island, you then go to Holy Island, hence to Anglesea (another island, aka Anglesey), hence to mainland Britain.

Victor

SpaceTime wrote: »

Financially the Eurotunnel has been touch and go and that links a population of 64 million to a population of hundreds of millions.

Part of that is down to using a financial (Eurotunnel only) analysis instead of an economic (whole economy) analysis. Landing the company with loads of debt didn't help either.

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

There is already a ferry to France so why would you want to go to the UK to go to France?

Maybe you don't like ferries? Different part of France?

SpaceTime wrote: »

Em.. you're probably more likely to be killed on a train in a tunnel than on a commercial airliner.

Railways are exceptionally safe and tunnels likely more so than other parts of railways (no trespassers, fallen trees, landslides, etc.). Note that the dangerous parts of flying are taking off and landing, so the safety benefit of flying is in very long flights. On such a trip, I suspect the train would be safer.

Strumms wrote: »

Why would you want to drive to France when you could take a ferry from Ireland faster and cheaper, and most likely fly cheaper too.

That depnds on where you are coming from / going to.

devwa wrote: »

Best advantage of the Tunnel over the ferry is rotation speed.

Do you mean the channel tunnel?

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

A nice bridge/tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead (road please, with rail also, like Oresund in Denmark) would be fantastic.

- fantastically expensive.

The main reason the Channel Tunnel is touch-and-go is because its a rail tunnel. If it was a road/rail tunnel like the original proposals it would have been better.

Not necessarily. Construction cost would have more than doubled and the number of incidents would be phenomenal.

Alun

savagethegoat wrote: »

really? I mean really?

Yes, really. Easily verified by looking at Google Maps satellite imagery.

cgcsb

Strumms wrote: »

Seriously ? I'd advise thinking a bit less if I were you...

Statistically you'd be more likely killed in the tunnel then an aircraft.

Have you looked at some of the air fares between Ireland and the UK ? vs the petrol money you would spend flying would be cheaper. Same with train ticket, lost take a look at most Eurostar fares.

Why would you want to drive to France when you could take a ferry from Ireland faster and cheaper, and most likely fly cheaper too.

Any idea who would invest the billions required ? Last time I looked the old economy was slowly turning but erm, not to the point of building big tunnels between Ireland and the UK....

chill dude. It is a hypothetical discussion.

sdanseo

On an as-requested different line of discussion, a tunnel would be hugely faster than the ferry or possibly aircraft depending on your destination - Wales, for example, especially the North, has very few airports.

If you factor in average fast-ferry travel time from Dublin to say Holyhead of about 100 mins, then add an hour realistically to cover check in and arrival for even the quickest traveller, you're looking at the guts of 3 hours for a journey across the Irish Sea.

The distance is 64 miles or 100km - at motorway speeds that's less than 45 minutes. Even at a tunnel speed of 80km/h, it's still only 1 hour 15 minutes. Much, much quicker.

If they put a train in it, you can comfortable halve that travel time (Eurostar does 160km/h= in the Channel Tunnel)

share_bear

How about a tunnel from northern Ireland to Scotland - a gap so small I might as well dig it myself!

Or from Northern Ireland to Isle of Man to the "Mainland".

In both cases UK would pay, but we could take the benefit. Yet the Unionists would luv it!

Dr_Bill

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

A nice bridge/tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead (road please, with rail also, like Oresund in Denmark) would be fantastic. Economic benefits would be phenomenal, provided the UK updated the A55 a bit too.

The main reason the Channel Tunnel is touch-and-go is because its a rail tunnel. If it was a road/rail tunnel like the original proposals it would have been better.

This has been discussed in the Engineering forum: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056827972

The cost would be prohibitive and would have to be be tolled in order to fund it, would people seriously want to pay say €100 each way to use it?

The logistics of moving man and materials to construct such a thing would be massive. 100-150 bridge pylons & caissons is a serious undertaking never mind delays due to bad weather, what is certain is the cost overrun is likely to be huge.

The Oresund is a nice bridge thou!

Geniass

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

If it was a road/rail tunnel like the original proposals it would have been better.

That would be a nightmare. The amount of cars breaking down or running out of petrol, car accidents would grind it to a halt far too often.


The risk of massive damage due to tunnel fires and horrific deaths would be massive.

Whatever about the possibility of a rail link there is zero chance of an underground road used by cars/trucks.

Dr_Bill

share_bear wrote: »

How about a tunnel from northern Ireland to Scotland - a gap so small I might as well dig it myself!

Or from Northern Ireland to Isle of Man to the "Mainland".

In both cases UK would pay, but we could take the benefit. Yet the Unionists would luv it!

The problem at the moment is when you get to Scotland road infrastructure is not great, think Wild Atlantic Way which is fabulous for tourism but at odds to moving traffic efficiently.

At least it would be easier for some people to attend the Glasgow OrangeFest :rolleyes:

Geniass

Dr_Bill wrote: »

The problem at the moment is when you get to Scotland road infrastructure is not great, think Wild Atlantic Way which is fabulous for tourism but at odds to moving traffic efficiently.

At least it would be easier for some people to attend the Glasgow OrangeFest :rolleyes:

The closest connections to Scotland are also to the middle of nowhere.

And apart from a couple of novelty trips who in Ireland would use it to get to England? Would anyone below Dublin go all the way up north to get to Scotland only to drive back down to England?

cgcsb

I don't think a road tunnel is the remotest possibility. The economics favour a rail connection because it's cheaper to build, and there are less safety concerns. With only one or 2 train drivers in the tunnel at a time as opposed to thousands of car drivers, the scope for human error is greatly reduced, especially on a fixed track system as opposed to dotted lines on a road.

With high speed rail in the UK becoming a reality, a Dublin-London train could be as short as 3 hours. Where as by plane you're talking at least an hour in the air plus 40 mins minimum getting from airport to city centre on either end. Factor in getting through security, walking to pier D etc. rail would be the faster option. If you were trying to reach other regions of the UK, Manchester, Birmingham, Wales etc. it'd definitely be preferred option in terms of speed and comfort.

Cost would be a decisive issue. Rail fares in the UK are absolutely eye watering, the highest in Europe.

p.s. nobody want's to go to Scotland.

OU812

The most logical route is what's called the "Mail Route", I'm guessing from postal boats. It's about 100km and goes from Howth Head to Holyhead. It's about 100km wide.

Logically it would be shifted a couple of km down the road to Dublin Port as that's already set up for large volume traffic & wouldn't create a bottleneck.

Interestingly plans for an oversea route go back 200 years when they wanted to build a land bridge on that same line.

I'd like to see something like a double deck seven mile bridge in Miami but with a double train line on the lower deck and cars on the upper deck. This could be pre cast off site & work completed very quickly.

Ferry companies could be brought in as the finance partner & operate it as a tolled service for 50 years or so (we all know what happens after that, right?) as it would kill their business. Would cost several billion euro though so I can't see it getting off the ground (pun intended)

Geniass

Question, how high would an over ground bridge across the Irish sea need to be to avoid the largest/freakiest waves?

cgcsb

Agreed, we'd need to have a serious fuel crisis to make the plane and ferry options more hassle than they are currently. It would be the longest under sea tunnel in existence afaik. Japan and Korea are considering such a tunnel, but it's a long way off.

OU812

Geniass wrote: »

Question, how high would an over ground bridge across the Irish sea need to be to avoid the largest/freakiest waves?

We don't get extremely large or freaky waves there. We get large ones sure, but seven mile bridge is far more susceptible.

Geniass

OU812 wrote: »

We don't get extremely large or freaky waves there. We get large ones sure, but seven mile bridge is far more susceptible.

How about a 62 mile bridge? :eek: :pac:

I think the largest cross sea bridge is only about 17 miles long.

We'll not see this in our life times.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

OU812

Geniass wrote: »

How about a 62 mile bridge? :eek: :pac:

I think the largest cross sea bridge is only about 17 miles long.

We'll not see this in our life times.

Obviously it wouldn't be on one straight stretch. I could imagine at least two turn off "rest areas" along it.

They'd have to provide for emergency services and possibly a breakdown, fuel & services in both direction. - Applegreen in the sea

Victor

Geniass wrote: »

Question, how high would an over ground bridge across the Irish sea need to be to avoid the largest/freakiest waves?

You don't worry about the waves. You worry about the ships on top of the waves. :eek: It seems the air draught under the Øresund Bridge is 55-57 metres.

OU812 wrote: »

Obviously it wouldn't be on one straight stretch. I could imagine at least two turn off "rest areas" along it.

They'd have to provide for emergency services and possibly a breakdown, fuel & services in both direction. - Applegreen in the sea

Surely Snotgreen?

OU812

OU812 wrote: »

Obviously it wouldn't be on one straight stretch. I could imagine at least two turn off "rest areas" along it.

They'd have to provide for emergency services and possibly a breakdown, fuel & services in both direction. - Applegreen in the sea

As others have already said, such a long road tunnel or bridge would have so many risks that it would never happen. It could never happen due to the costs involved.

CelticRambler

Victor wrote: »

Railways are exceptionally safe and tunnels likely more so than other parts of railways (no trespassers, fallen trees, landslides, etc.)

You're obviously excluding the Channel Tunnel from your sweeping statement there, which isn't the best way to win the argument.

Trespassers - they call them "illegal immigrants" in Kent/Calais and there are whole camps of them attacking the Tunnel site every single day. My crossing last month was delayed while the riot police chased a bunch that got into the tunnel; several years ago, another shuttle we were on was stopped in the tunnel while security hunted for a group of "hitchhikers" that had forced the door ...

Fallen trees and landslides, no, but falling snow's messed up the system (caused all the locos to overheat a few years ago) and (yet another trip) I was delayed while each individual vehicle was cleared to take a run at the exit ramp. Once our train was emptied, they shut down the terminal ...

Then you've got the fires and other in-tunnel breakdowns = more opportunity for delay.

None of that stops me from using the Tunnel, but out of ferries, 'planes and trains, more than half the disruption I've experienced has been on the trains.

cgcsb

Deleted User wrote: »

As others have already said, such a long road tunnel or bridge would have so many risks that it would never happen. It could never happen due to the costs involved.

There are longer tunnels in the world, granted none under sea and containing high speed railways. The Seikan tunnel in Japan is about 25km long. We'd need about 3.5 times that length.

From an engineering point of view there is no obvious reason why it CAN'T be done. Tunnelling techniques and technologies are evolving quite rapidly. The cost of tunnelling solutions is coming down. Clearly the main barrier is the costs it would incur and the time it would take to complete.

From an economic point of view, it's definitely a hard sell. However as the technology improves and the cost comes down, who can tell what the future holds. If such a tunnel were going to happen anywhere in the world it's a pretty good location. The Irish Sea is one of the busiest in terms of shipping and passenger traffic. Half of all air routes out of Dublin airport are to the UK, not to mention that such a tunnel could open up direct rail connections to Paris and Brussels.

However in terms of spending on infrastructure, it's distant future stuff. We still only have a tiny section of our railways electrified. A Dublin to Cork express train still takes over 2 hours end-to-end. The Dublin-Belfast and Dublin-Galway service is laughable. These things could be corrected with mere tens of millions as opposed to the many billions that'd go into an experimental tunnel across the Irish Sea.

cgcsb

CelticRambler wrote: »

Trespassers - they call them "illegal immigrants" in Kent/Calais and there are whole camps of them attacking the Tunnel site every single day. My crossing last month was delayed while the riot police chased a bunch that got into the tunnel; several years ago, another shuttle we were on was stopped in the tunnel while security hunted for a group of "hitchhikers" that had forced the door ...

I've always wondered what the motivation is to illegally get from France to the UK? are the two countries all that different in practical terms? off topic though.

blinding

I am working on my Star Trek beam me here , beam me there.

Its not really worth yere while starting that tunnel but if ye need the exercise why not make a start !

cgcsb

Japan and Korea are putting serious thought into beating us to it so I don't see any reason why the issue shouldn't be given some consideration/discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan%E2%80%93Korea_Undersea_Tunnel

Also it's worth noting that Ireland and the UK compare well with Japan and Korea. Similar number of passsenger journeys between them. Similar amount of containerised trade.

monument

blinding wrote: »

I am working on my Star Trek beam me here , beam me there.

Its not really worth yere while starting that tunnel but if ye need the exercise why not make a start !

Let's stick to constructive comments.

-- moderator

Riskymove

cgcsb wrote: »

I've always wondered what the motivation is to illegally get from France to the UK? are the two countries all that different in practical terms? off topic though.

it is more that the French wish someone else to deal with the problem and somehow such immigrants are able to escape their camp (amazingly located next to the tunnel) in France

BoatMad

cgcsb wrote: »

There are longer tunnels in the world, granted none under sea and containing high speed railways. The Seikan tunnel in Japan is about 25km long. We'd need about 3.5 times that length.

From an engineering point of view there is no obvious reason why it CAN'T be done. Tunnelling techniques and technologies are evolving quite rapidly. The cost of tunnelling solutions is coming down. Clearly the main barrier is the costs it would incur and the time it would take to complete.

From an economic point of view, it's definitely a hard sell. However as the technology improves and the cost comes down, who can tell what the future holds. If such a tunnel were going to happen anywhere in the world it's a pretty good location. The Irish Sea is one of the busiest in terms of shipping and passenger traffic. Half of all air routes out of Dublin airport are to the UK, not to mention that such a tunnel could open up direct rail connections to Paris and Brussels.

However in terms of spending on infrastructure, it's distant future stuff. We still only have a tiny section of our railways electrified. A Dublin to Cork express train still takes over 2 hours end-to-end. The Dublin-Belfast and Dublin-Galway service is laughable. These things could be corrected with mere tens of millions as opposed to the many billions that'd go into an experimental tunnel across the Irish Sea.

Ahem, not to mention a completely different rail gauge, preventing inter working of trains , unless of course you send LUAS trams to London !!!

BoatMad

Riskymove wrote: »

it is more that the French wish someone else to deal with the problem and somehow such immigrants are able to escape their camp (amazingly located next to the tunnel) in France

There is a perceived view amongst immigrants That the uk , with free health, and generous benefits is more attractive to illegal immigrants . Not to mention the English language

Victor

CelticRambler wrote: »

You're obviously excluding the Channel Tunnel from your sweeping statement there, which isn't the best way to win the argument.

I was comparing railway tunnels against (a) other sections of railway, (b) aircraft and (c) road tunnels.

Trespassers - they call them "illegal immigrants"

No, I was talking about trespassers. The largest groups of people who are killed on Irish (and probably British) railways are various categories of trespasser - people who are intoxicated, suicidal or criminally-minded - none of which could be categorised as illegal immigrants.

Fallen trees and landslides, no, but falling snow's messed up the system (caused all the locos to overheat a few years ago)

That was down to a surplus of snow on the trains, that melted when the trains entered the warm tunnels, causing water to end up where water doesn't normally end up, which in turn caused electrical problems.

Then you've got the fires and other in-tunnel breakdowns = more opportunity for delay.

And for those advocating a road tunnel, the numbers of fires and other in-tunnel breakdowns would rise exponentially.

None of that stops me from using the Tunnel, but out of ferries, 'planes and trains, more than half the disruption I've experienced has been on the trains.

But it would potentially be much worse with a road tunnel.