Sam Russell wrote: » Because there is a very deep trench full of unexploded bombs from WW II.
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
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.
JohnC. wrote: » It's from Business Insider UK which itself also quotes and converts US units from Wired.
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?
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.phphttp://www.worldhighways.com/categories/road-highway-structures/features/norways-record-breaking-undersea-road-tunnel/
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.