Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

European Mega Train Network (Dublin to Cork)

Options
13

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    bk wrote: »
    That is why it is like that with Eurotunnel. The passport isn't the major issue, checking bags, vehicles, etc. for explosives is.

    Whenever I got the chunnel, the only checks were for british immigration. no car checks on luggage.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    Whenever I got the chunnel, the only checks were for british immigration. no car checks on luggage.

    https://help.eurostar.com/faq/us-en/question/What-security-checks-are-there-at-the-station


  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ncounties


    bk wrote: »

    There's literally no checks on cars using the tunnel. It's like getting the ferry from Larne to Cairnryan.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,460 Mod ✭✭✭✭bk


    ncounties wrote: »
    There's literally no checks on cars using the tunnel. It's like getting the ferry from Larne to Cairnryan.

    https://www.eurotunnel.com/uk/travelling-with-us/about-my-journey/
    Drive straight through to the British and French frontier controls where your passport, vehicle and official documentation will be checked.

    The process has changed over time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    The costs would be astronomical for a 100km tunnel to Holyhead and then the other side of it is the British would have to build 150km odd of high speed track from Holyhead to Chester which would be of very little benefit to themselves and pretty expensive to build going through the mountains. Even if they got HS2 finished to Leeds & Manchester by 2040 at that point there would be pressure to extend the line up to Newcastle and into Scotland, theres no way I could see a Holyhead to Chester line being built before Scotland is connected.

    I wonder could new technologies reduce the costs of tunneling under the sea bed between Dublin and Holyhead. I saw a video where the Japanese are working on a new type of sea tunnel system that is modular sections then lowered, connected and pressurised to give neutral buoyancy. The tunnel lies about 50 metes below the sea level to allow shipping continue overhead and is then secured to the sea bed using cables. Not sure if their intention is to run trains through it or just cars but its an interesting idea and sounds like it would be cheaper than sending a TBM a few hundreds metres below sea level. Dont ask me how such a tunnel would stay in place with the strength of the sea, I just saw a clip somewhere on the Tube illustrating how it might work.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,749 ✭✭✭Smiles35


    Nermal wrote: »
    It's concievable that at some point there will be no flights for an extended period (Eyjafjallajökull-type event) and that flights may become prohibitively expensive (environment-related taxation).

    Is that not an argument in favour of building the NI tunnel that we know can be built, even though we know it will not give a positive return in normal conditions? Redundancy and anti-fragility are important.

    I'd like to see a plane engine developed that can go through those conditions. Could be a commercial return on the investment as airlines would like to keep some of them in reserve.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Smiles35 wrote: »
    I'd like to see a plane engine developed that can go through those conditions. Could be a commercial return on the investment as airlines would like to keep some of them in reserve.

    We have ferries that can cross that water reasonably quickly. So rather than use them. the UK Gov should spend the astronomical cost of a tunnel from a remote minor part of the UK to a remote place on the edge of Scotland. And all on the off chance that a volcanic eruption will disrupt travel?

    I don't think so.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    Out of curiosity, what's the furthest distance that a high-speed ferry operates across, around the world?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭Brian CivilEng


    I've been searching online for that, quite difficult as a lot of fast ferries aren't operating at the moment due to Covid. Longest I could find was Hirtshals in Denmark to Kristiansand in Norway. 130km in 2 hours 15mins.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    I've been searching online for that, quite difficult as a lot of fast ferries aren't operating at the moment due to Covid. Longest I could find was Hirtshals in Denmark to Kristiansand in Norway. 130km in 2 hours 15mins.

    That would suggest a 9 hour transit from Ireland (Rosslare) to Roscoff. It certainly might be a proposition for freight, with a 6 hour onward drive to Paris.
    _____


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 978 ✭✭✭riddlinrussell


    I've been searching online for that, quite difficult as a lot of fast ferries aren't operating at the moment due to Covid. Longest I could find was Hirtshals in Denmark to Kristiansand in Norway. 130km in 2 hours 15mins.

    Cork-Roscoff is about 580km according to Google Maps (I assume this is a specific shipping lane and you cant just bomb straight across) so that would be 10 hours minimum crossing still, not exactly practical for 'fast' transit


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    It looks like the Stena HSS used to operate Harwich, UK to Hook of Holland, which is about 195km. What a shame those ships never remained economically viable. I absolutely loved travelling on them in my early teens!


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    10 hours maybe not fast but if that service existed I would be a lot more tempted to go to France on a ferry, its the 22 hour ferries that put me off. With 10 hours you could have a sleep and wake up in France.

    Why dont the ferry companies run high speed ferries on that route? Is it the cost of fuel or high speed ferries being really expensive to purchase or something?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭Brian CivilEng


    I think the fast ferries are hampered not just by cost of fuel but also by not being able run in rough seas (the catamarans anyway). Most of the ones that are in operation today seem to run in very sheltered or calm areas. In my own experience about half the time I rocked up for the Swift to Wales I was transferred onto the Ulysses.

    Pretty much rules out an open seas trip from Cork to France.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    10 hours maybe not fast but if that service existed I would be a lot more tempted to go to France on a ferry, its the 22 hour ferries that put me off. With 10 hours you could have a sleep and wake up in France.

    Why dont the ferry companies run high speed ferries on that route? Is it the cost of fuel or high speed ferries being really expensive to purchase or something?

    The HSS ones are tied up, so cost of purchase is moot.

    They cut the speed of the Holyhead to DL to save fuel, so I would imagine fuel cost is horrendous.

    Also, they are quite small, so not enough scale to make them profitable for freight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    ah right thanks. I suppose the route is probably passing over the continental shelf where seas can get very choppy. Its a pity because a 10 hour ferry route to France would be very attractive.

    In terms of fuel we're always hearing of hydrogen as being the next leap forward and it cutting costs over fossil fuels. Is hydrogen as a fuel realistic within the next decade or so? Its one of those things that always seems to be around the corner.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    ah right thanks. I suppose the route is probably passing over the continental shelf where seas can get very choppy. Its a pity because a 10 hour ferry route to France would be very attractive.

    In terms of fuel we're always hearing of hydrogen as being the next leap forward and it cutting costs over fossil fuels. Is hydrogen as a fuel realistic within the next decade or so? Its one of those things that always seems to be around the corner.

    If you mean a fuel cell, then yes, that is a decade away - but not sure which decade. Hydrogen can be used a replacement for natural gas, which can be burnt in a modified ICE, but I would think it would not be cost effective.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    Yeah sorry hydrogen fuel cell is what i meant. So if it is cracked within a decade is it a massive game changer in terms of fuel costs? Cost wise where might it fit in comapred to using gas or diesel? Or is it more a game changer in terms of less carbon emissions and climate change targets?


  • Registered Users Posts: 270 ✭✭ncounties


    Would nuclear powered ferries not be the next step forward?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    I'd imagine nuclear ferries would be exceptionally expensive to run, but that's just a guess.

    The step forward for ferries is hybrids. Utilising the wind and solar power that's naturally available at sea, and powering onboard banks of batteries for electric propulsion.

    The high cost of fuel would likely make this a very cost efficient pursuit for ferry companies, even if there's a large upfront development cost.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I'd imagine nuclear ferries would be exceptionally expensive to run, but that's just a guess.

    The step forward for ferries is hybrids. Utilising the wind and solar power that's naturally available at sea, and powering onboard banks of batteries for electric propulsion.

    The high cost of fuel would likely make this a very cost efficient pursuit for ferry companies, even if there's a large upfront development cost.

    There used to be ferries powered by wind - the old tea cutters. I do not think that is what you meant though.

    Batteries on ships would be OK as the weight would not be a huge disadvantage. Unfortunately, batteries have a short life span - multiple years not multiple decades. If batteries could be re-manufactured at little cost, that might be a solution. Batteries could be unloaded for on shore charging while a fully charged replacement is loaded.

    In the mean time, heavy oil and its pollution and cost is the only game in town.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭Brian CivilEng


    I read that the high speed fast ferries use 5.3 tonnes of fuel per hour. So around 20 tonnes for the round trip of Dublin to Holyhead. Expensive to operate but weight wise less than a fully laden artic lorry. Nothing really.

    Sad to say it but can't see marine diesel being replaced any time soon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,016 ✭✭✭Brian CivilEng


    Interesting article here on the largest battery powered ferry in the world:
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50233206

    Range of about 22 nautical miles 40km for a 60m ferry, capacity of 30 cars and 200 passengers.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Review of €15bn high-speed rail line linking Dublin, Belfast, Cork
    Details on Dublin-Derry train line sought as part of recent government formation talks

    How about a high speed rail link from Dublin Airport to Sandyford - perhaps put it underground and call it a Metro or maybe call it Mertolink.

    More meaningless plans and studies but no real action. Get on with the boring stuff - tunnels.

    We need tunnel boring machines in the ground - now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    This is just a distraction from the lack of progress on other projects.


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 7,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭liamog


    Batteries on ships would be OK as the weight would not be a huge disadvantage. Unfortunately, batteries have a short life span - multiple years not multiple decades. If batteries could be re-manufactured at little cost, that might be a solution. Batteries could be unloaded for on shore charging while a fully charged replacement is loaded.

    A lot of smaller ferry's are switching over to lithium ion batteries. Here's an interesting study from Pacific Northwest https://www.ebdg.com/wp-ebdg-content/uploads/2017/02/Payback_Lithium-Ion_NWFerries_paper.pdf

    For marine use, LTO batteries make sense, they have lower energy density than other chemistries but make up for it in high cycle life and charging speed, by using a depth of discharge of 80%, the battery will have a usable 22,000 cycles. If the ferry is doing 4 sailings a day, then that's a 15 year lifespan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,610 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    This is just a distraction from the lack of progress on other projects.


    yeah its straight out of the Boris Johnson school of big announcements that will never come to fruition. Government gets to give the impression to voters that they are doing something while actually doing nothing.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    yeah its straight out of the Boris Johnson school of big announcements that will never come to fruition. Government gets to give the impression to voters that they are doing something while actually doing nothing.

    A high speed rail from Belfast - Dublin - Cork would only make sense if there was a united Ireland and someone else was paying for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,066 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Instead of spending 15 billion, how much would the following cost?

    Upgrade Heuston-Cork:

    200kph
    electrified
    all level crossings eliminated
    station upgrades
    bridges/tunnels all upgraded to allow 200kph all the time
    Journey time for 266km to be 2h on limited stop trains, so 133kph average speed, including the stops

    All to allow a mix of non-stop IC, limited-stop IC and stopping regional trains, for example:

    Limited stop IC would stop as follows:

    Portarlington
    Portlaoise (end of stopping trains from Dublin)
    LJ
    Mallow



    Upgrade Connolly-Belfast:

    200kph all the way, electrified
    Separate DART from IC
    (put new tracks in tunnel under DART tracks?)
    (or make the mainline a new line via Dub airport?)
    Journey time of 90 mins - might that be possible with stops at Drogheda, Dundalk, Newry, where else, ??


Advertisement