Bridge from Scotland to Northern Ireland

Sam Russell

Because there is a very deep trench full of unexploded bombs from WW II.

muppetshow1451

Sam Russell wrote: »

Because there is a very deep trench full of unexploded bombs from WW II.

There are other options and depending how deep you go with the tunnel.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/norway-could-build-the-worlds-first-floating-tunnel

Sam Russell

muppetshow1451 wrote: »

There are other options and depending how deep you go with the tunnel.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/norway-could-build-the-worlds-first-floating-tunnel

Reading the article above leads me to think it has little validity.

1 The length of the tunnels is given in feet (4,000 ft). And then only 1.2 km long but costing 15 billion GBP. Norway does not use feet nor GBP.

2. It reads like an article from a tabloid web site - short on specifics like costings, plans, timescales.

3. It will be the Worlds First Floating Bridge. Yea, call us when it opens.

Nonsense.

JohnC.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Reading the article above leads me to think it has little validity.

1 The length of the tunnels is given in feet (4,000 ft). And then only 1.2 km long but costing 15 billion GBP. Norway does not use feet nor GBP.

2. It reads like an article from a tabloid web site - short on specifics like costings, plans, timescales.

3. It will be the Worlds First Floating Bridge. Yea, call us when it opens.

Nonsense.

It's from Business Insider UK which itself also quotes and converts US units from Wired.

Sam Russell

JohnC. wrote: »

It's from Business Insider UK which itself also quotes and converts US units from Wired.

It is still nonsense. 4,000 ft (1.2km) for 15 billion GBP. How much for 35 km?

And what about the weather and currents in that part of the Irish sea?

muppetshow1451

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is still nonsense. 4,000 ft (1.2km) for 15 billion GBP. How much for 35 km?

And what about the weather and currents in that part of the Irish sea?

They can probably combine the two,with bridges and floaters,or simply go deeper with a tunnel.
They managed it between Denmark and Sweden.
And yes everything has its price.
And since you dont like feet or GBP how about meters and NOK.
And 26 km isnt bad i am sure 35 km isnt impossible either and 290 meters deep.

https://www.tunneltalk.com/Norway-Nov17-Ryfylke-Ryfast-road-tunnel.php

http://www.worldhighways.com/categories/road-highway-structures/features/norways-record-breaking-undersea-road-tunnel/

Sam Russell

muppetshow1451 wrote: »

They can probably combine the two,with bridges and floaters,or simply go deeper with a tunnel.
They managed it between Denmark and Sweden.
And yes everything has its price.
And since you dont like feet or GBP how about meters and NOK.
And 26 km isnt bad i am sure 35 km isnt impossible either and 290 meters deep.

https://www.tunneltalk.com/Norway-Nov17-Ryfylke-Ryfast-road-tunnel.php

http://www.worldhighways.com/categories/road-highway-structures/features/norways-record-breaking-undersea-road-tunnel/

They are not 'floating' tunnels. The sea between NI and Scotland is too deep, full of bombs from WW II, they do not have the money and they do not have the traffic.

muppetshow1451

Sam Russell wrote: »

They are not 'floating' tunnels. The sea between NI and Scotland is too deep, full of bombs from WW II, they do not have the money and they do not have the traffic.

How deep do you think a norwegian fjord is?And yes its an expensive project,but not impossible.
And yes they are not floating,but they are deep,so you dont have to worry about any bombs on the seabed.

Sam Russell

muppetshow1451 wrote: »

How deep do you think a norwegian fjord is?And yes its an expensive project,but not impossible.
And yes they are not floating,but they are deep,so you dont have to worry about any bombs on the seabed.

Unless you hit one.

It is a daft idea to even think about such a project.

Even if it could be done, and the money found, there just is not the demand for it. The Channel Tunnel turned out to be a massive waste of money that needed several bail outs and still is not profitable. That tunnel was through chalk, but you are proposing one through granite and below a deep trough.

How can a tunnel from NI to Scotland possibly be economic?

Sam Russell

muppetshow1451 wrote: »

How deep do you think a norwegian fjord is?And yes its an expensive project,but not impossible.
And yes they are not floating,but they are deep,so you dont have to worry about any bombs on the seabed.

Unless you hit one. Bang. Hole in tunnel roof, tunnel flooded, all workers drowned. Who would have thought that could happen?

It is a daft idea to even think about such a project.

Even if it could be done, and the money found, there just is not the demand for it. The Channel Tunnel turned out to be a massive waste of money that needed several bail outs and still is not profitable. That tunnel was through chalk, but you are proposing one through granite and below a deep trough.

How can a tunnel from NI to Scotland possibly be economic?

afatbollix

Sam Russell wrote: »

Unless you hit one.

It is a daft idea to even think about such a project.

Even if it could be done, and the money found, there just is not the demand for it. The Channel Tunnel turned out to be a massive waste of money that needed several bail outs and still is not profitable. That tunnel was through chalk, but you are proposing one through granite and below a deep trough.

How can a tunnel from NI to Scotland possibly be economic?

It made E200 million profit in 2016 and it's moving to a train every 2 minutes 24 hours a day this year. It is so successful that they are starting to look at digging another!


On topic, A high speed from Edinburgh to Glasgow to Belfast to Dublin to Cork To Cardiff to London Would make a great High speed 3. The UK is going to have to do something to keep the fringes in jobs.

muppetshow1451

Sam Russell wrote: »

Unless you hit one. Bang. Hole in tunnel roof, tunnel flooded, all workers drowned. Who would have thought that could happen?

It is a daft idea to even think about such a project.

Even if it could be done, and the money found, there just is not the demand for it. The Channel Tunnel turned out to be a massive waste of money that needed several bail outs and still is not profitable. That tunnel was through chalk, but you are proposing one through granite and below a deep trough.

How can a tunnel from NI to Scotland possibly be economic?

http://www.rockmass.net/ap/38_Palmstrom&Naas_on_Norwegian_subsea_tunnelling.pdf

What do you think Norway consist of?Granite?mountains and rocks.
Couldnt be a better choice for a tunnel to be honest.Seen any tunnels in Switzerland lately?
And i doubt any bombs will go off if you go deep enough,i dont think you will notice the vibrations on richters scale from the tunnel digging.
And with todays technology i doubt it you will go many inches wrong.
If not there is always finding and destroying the bombs before the job starts.
Norwegians dont seem to worried about it.

https://defpost.com/nato-ships-locate-mines-world-war-ii/

And economic,well everything pays itself over time,even a motorway across Ireland.

Skedaddle

The question is simple: who would pay for it?

Northern Ireland's already in receipt of a multi billion annual subvention from the UK and there's significant political irritation about that anytime it comes up, as it's seen as unfair.

I can't see the UK throwing billions at Northern Ireland for this.

There are also very significant, rather badly needed, big spend infrastructure projects in England that haven't been touched due to fiscally conservative Tories.

Even things like public transport, especially outside London is very poor in large English cities other than London, when you compare it to continental counterparts that would often have full metros. Many of those cities have millions of Tory & Labour voters.

Then add local NI politics. In the normal course of events it has very, very little influence in Westminster because it runs with its own parties. The current anomalous situation where the DUP landed upon being in a mathematical position to support a UK minority government may never occur again in any of our lifetimes. It

Then add in Brexit. That's EU funding for any TEN Trans European Networks etc etc absolutely off the cards, even if the UK ultimately stays in the customs union, it's gone from the EU, so it's no longer going to be in anyway eligible for funding for pan European projects.

Then you've also just cut off the largest potential user base : the 4.7m+ in the Republic due to customs barriers.

Brexit may also yet cause an economic crisis in the UK as things tumble and stumble on this year.

Then add that it connects to a very poorly connected part of Scotland that would necessitate major roads projects, which might not even be welcome, given the area's very spectacular.

CatInABox

afatbollix wrote: »

It made E200 million profit in 2016 and it's moving to a train every 2 minutes 24 hours a day this year. It is so successful that they are starting to look at digging another!

Considering the history of the tunnel, with bankruptcy, debt restructuring and a mountain of debt still left over, the chances of anyone being stupid enough to actually build another tunnel is next to nil.

Of course, there's always Boris Johnson, but he's burnt his political capital so badly that he'll never be taken seriously again.

Idbatterim

The notion of it is beyond laughable! Comparisons with the channel tunnel, connecting two world cities and countries with a combined population of what? Over 120,000,000?! And connecting it to the continent!

Skedaddle

Even with the relatively enormous population that's in reach of the Channel Tunnel, it took 26 years for the operating company to make a profit.

cgcsb

Sam Russell wrote: »

Reading the article above leads me to think it has little validity.

1 The length of the tunnels is given in feet (4,000 ft). And then only 1.2 km long but costing 15 billion GBP. Norway does not use feet nor GBP.

2. It reads like an article from a tabloid web site - short on specifics like costings, plans, timescales.

3. It will be the Worlds First Floating Bridge. Yea, call us when it opens.

Nonsense.

Norway is fond of splashing it's oil cash on projects in the back end of nowhere but this really taking the p!ss. an extreme version of the WRC with even lower usage.

cgcsb

It's more likely that a future independent Scotland will want a tunnel-bridge to Ireland and it'll be rail if anything. Even so we're a long way off it.

muppetshow1451

cgcsb wrote: »

Norway is fond of splashing it's oil cash on projects in the back end of nowhere but this really taking the p!ss. an extreme version of the WRC with even lower usage.

Norway is also leading the way for new engineering technologies.
And this wont be finished before 2035.
But they are also planning the first ship tunnel,planned to be finished in 2023.

https://www.livescience.com/55583-floating-underwater-tunnels-planned-for-norway.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/norway-to-build-315-million-ship-tunnel-in-world-first.html

Skedaddle

cgcsb wrote: »

It's more likely that a future independent Scotland will want a tunnel-bridge to Ireland and it'll be rail if anything. Even so we're a long way off it.

Why would an independent Scotland want that?

Pop Scotland: 5.295 million
Pop Ireland: 6.484 million (Republic 4.773m NI : 1.811m)

With 11.879 million in Scotland and Ireland, you're still looking at only the size of either Paris or London.

cgcsb

Skedaddle wrote: »

Why would an independent Scotland want that?

Pop Scotland: 5.295 million
Pop Ireland: 6.484 million (Republic 4.773m NI : 1.811m)

With 11.879 million in Scotland and Ireland, you're still looking at only the size of either Paris or London.

I didn't say it would happen only that it would be more likely to happen because London and the tories have no interest in peripheral regions of the UK, to the point that they are considered foreign.

The Chunnel example is one thing but that was planned and designed in the 1980s. If the issue of a fixed crossing comes up again in say 10 years you're talking an absolutely MASSIVE difference in the technology available and the scale of automation available.

Also it's not so much about populations as it is volumes of trade and volumes of passengers. Dublin-London is the second busiest international air route in the world after Tokyo-Soul despite Dublin being nowhere near mega city status. Japan and South Korea are giving very serious thought to a fixed link and the gap between them would be quite similar to the gap between here and Britain.

youreadthat

Skedaddle wrote: »

Even with the relatively enormous population that's in reach of the Channel Tunnel, it took 26 years for the operating company to make a profit.

It was a bit unlucky that low cost air travel exploded in the years following its opening. Plus for such huge projects you need to look at what it does over a much longer time period. Take away the Victorian rail infrastructure from Britain and it would be crippled!

Sam Russell

Maybe a link from Dublin to Holyhead which would be 95 km might be a better idea. So might be a better proposition, or Rosslare to St David's at 80 km. When the traffic gets to the UK side, it is not such a long way to centres of population and commerce.

The Dublin to Holyhead would make the most sense (except for Brexit).

Jawgap

There simply isn't the population, commercial or industrial density to justify this type of development at any point on the Irish sea, imo.

If you look at the construction history of the EuroTunnel it gives a fair idea of how, even with the best of funding models, these type of projects can spiral out of control.......and that was one to link two of the largest urban areas in Europe while running through some densely populated areas on their respective outskirts.

If we did it, it would hang like a millstone around our neck.

defrule

They building a massive bridge between Hong Kong and Macau. While it's cool I can't imagine driving on it, I'd get bored.

sdanseo

In theory a bridge would be simpler. Millau viaduct in France is up to 270m above the ground. Irish Sea / North Channel are 50-120m deep.

Only problem is the 90.1km from Howth to Holy Island. So um, around 40 of the same viaduct. €395m each gives a cost of €15.8bn

Let's assume the cost was €20bn as per the Wiki page (yes reliable I know)


There were 944k freight units shipped to or from Dublin Port last year, let's be conservative and say that's all the traffic that uses the bridge. Plus let's say 1m cars, going both ways.

If we charged a car €100 each way and a truck €200 each way

944,000 x 200 = €188m
1,000,000 x 100 = €100m

That's around €300m a year just in tolls

At a cost of 20bn it would pay for itself in 66 years. Not bad really. Especially when you consider 90km at 120km/h would take you about 45 mins vs 2 to 4hrs on a boat plus all the associated check in time etc

[Deleted User]

This whole thread is one big face palm....... and that's being kind

If you're looking for me, I'll be in the "Tunnel to Australia" thread

sdanseo

I forgot to add itll never happen, just had some time and was bored.

We cant even figure out a 6km tunnel for the DART. A 90km bridge to Wales is an absolute pipe dream.

prinzeugen

Doubt it will ever happen. Beaufort's Dyke is filled with WW2 live ammunition/bombs etc that was dumped in the late 40's, which will make any bridge/tunnel fun to build.

(1 million tons worth apparently)

I remember the amount of stuff that got washed up on the beaches when they laid the gas pipeline.

An old lad in Scotland went out and collected phosphorus shells/bombs to burn on his fire!

Edit- only read back a few posts. Has been mentioned.

sdanseo

So um...apparently its happening



(it's a stupid and misleading headline...says theyre thinking about figuring out whether its maybe feasilble)

https://www.irishpost.co.uk/news/scottish-government-gives-go-ahead-bridge-linking-northern-ireland-scotland-150679