4 ms·

I’m a little surprised that a road link didn’t get at least slightly more serious consideration when the existing tunnel was planned. Certainly, in light of re

I’m a little surprised that a road link didn’t get at least slightly more serious consideration when the existing tunnel was planned. Certainly, in light of recent politics, I can’t help thinking that a road link would make “middle England” feel connected to Europe in a way no amount of rail traffic can.

rwmj 9y ago
Plans for a long bridge were considered, eg: https://youtu.be/r_HN26VVXAk?t=9m15s https://youtu.be/r_HN26VVXAk?t=9m15s I also remember at the time a (pretty crazy) plan for a partial road bridge going out for a few miles from each side that then turned into a tunnel by way of a long corkscrew-style descent under the sea. I can't imagine that would have been practical ... Edit: Wikipedia has the details. Apparently the bridge plan was called "Eurobridge", and I wasn't imagining the bridge/tunnel hybrid either, it was called "Euroroute". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Initiation_of_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Initiation_of_p... Edit #2: Euroroute video: https://amisduvieuxcalais.com/index.php/calais-video/calais-en-video https://amisduvieuxcalais.com/index.php/calais-video/calais-...
- schoen 9y ago
  Apparently the combination of bridge and tunnel to cross a body of water has been used quite successfully in several places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge%E2%80%93tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge%E2%80%93tunnel I don't know if it would have been helpful in this case, though.
maxerickson 9y ago
Sitting on a rail car sounds a lot more pleasant than driving through a tunnel for 30-60 minutes. Do you think there is enough demand to justify a road link in addition to the vehicle transport trains?
- dazc 9y ago
  There is certainly demand for more freight capacity; the ferries seem to be the biggest problem with regular delays. When these delays occur it's not unusual for the serving motorway to double as make-shift lorry park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Stack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Stack For regular passenger cars, I'm not so sure as it's mostly holiday traffic. Most people travelling for business would use the Eurostar (a regular passenger express) and I don't see much complaints about the capacity of this?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
    The channel tunnel trains are apparently at 54% capacity, so clearly no, at current prices there is no more demand for transport of that mode. https://twitter.com/Ben_e_lux/status/954467087975673857 https://twitter.com/Ben_e_lux/status/954467087975673857 Dropping that price in the near future a bit seems like a much better use of funds than a prolonged and vastly expensive engineering project. But, there's no glory for Boris in that plan. He picks attention-grabbing, simplistic and iconic over quietly getting on with it, sound management and details every time.
tgb 9y ago
There are difficulties with combustion engines in enclosed areas - namely a lack of oxygen. The ventilation would be a challenge. I see that the longest road tunnel in the world is Lærdal Tunnel which is 15 miles instead of the 20ish for the Channel. It also appears to not be under water and hence ventilation is probably easier.
- lorenzhs 9y ago
  The tunnel is over 30 miles long, 31.4 miles or 50.5 km. The tunnel must first go deep enough to go under the sea on either side, adding to its length.
johannes1234321 9y ago
The issue with road traffic in such a tunnel (or also on such a bridge) is the emergency procedure. If there's an accident on the end cars turn around wild and block the passage etc. The trains are operated with an engine and driver on each end. In case of emergency the rear can take over immediately and return to the other end of the tunnel.
- lorenzhs 9y ago
  Very true. However, a train on fire usually can’t turn around, but there are several emergency stations in the tunnel with emergency evacuation for people (via the service tunnel) and automated high-pressure water droplet extinguishing systems. This was installed in response to a fire in 2008 iirc. It facilitated rescue and fire fighting (because the exact position of the fire is known) and the automated system also helps minimise damage to the tunnel infrastructure.
toyg 9y ago
Consider the original project was politically debated in the early ‘70s. It was another era. A lot of the marvellous bridges we now have around Scandinavia and so on, did not exist; and people were skeptical a bridge could survive the Channel weather (which can be pretty bad) - plus, of course, nobody wanted to disrupt one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. In the end, anyway, even through the tunnel a road was ditched, mostly because people in charge simply didn’t trust private drivers to be good enough. An accident down there would be a nightmare, the security issues were huge. Rail can be controlled fairly effectively.
igravious 9y ago
@edf13 recently posted this 2007 BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6517611.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6517611.stm “ Cross-Channel bridge bid revealed Plans for the Anglo-French bridge have been preserved People could have driven between England and France across a huge suspension bridge if plans had been approved, records show. A submission for a £3bn three-lane motorway link was made to transport officials in April 1981, files released by the National Archives show. Engineering group LinktoEurope estimated motorists would pay a £5.60 toll charge and lorries £8 to cross. The records did not show how seriously the government considered the plans. Margaret Thatcher's government was discussing the Channel Tunnel project when the bridge plan was submitted for consideration. […] ”
lorenzhs 9y ago
The trains are much faster than cars (160km/h or 100mph in the tunnel), and it’s a lot easier to ensure fire safety. It’s a 50km tunnel! That requires a lot of precautions. There haven’t been any fatalities, and one of two fires was caused by vandalism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/67950.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/67950.stm Oh and the capacity of a rail tunnel is higher, too. The Gotthard Street tunnel has around 17.5k vehicles per day, whereas the Eurotunnel averages “50,000 passengers, 6,000 cars, 180 coaches and 54,000 tonnes of freight” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france/articles/The-Channel-Tunnel-20-fascinating-facts/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france...) Lastly, as other have mentioned, driving 50km in a tunnel would not be pleasant. The passenger train is much nicer, and the car shuttle is very low-stress, too.

rwmj 9y ago

Plans for a long bridge were considered, eg: https://youtu.be/r_HN26VVXAk?t=9m15s https://youtu.be/r_HN26VVXAk?t=9m15s I also remember at the time a (pretty crazy) plan for a partial road bridge going out for a few miles from each side that then turned into a tunnel by way of a long corkscrew-style descent under the sea. I can't imagine that would have been practical ... Edit: Wikipedia has the details. Apparently the bridge plan was called "Eurobridge", and I wasn't imagining the bridge/tunnel hybrid either, it was called "Euroroute". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Initiation_of_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Initiation_of_p... Edit #2: Euroroute video: https://amisduvieuxcalais.com/index.php/calais-video/calais-en-video https://amisduvieuxcalais.com/index.php/calais-video/calais-...

schoen 9y ago
Apparently the combination of bridge and tunnel to cross a body of water has been used quite successfully in several places: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge%E2%80%93tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge%E2%80%93tunnel I don't know if it would have been helpful in this case, though.

maxerickson 9y ago

Sitting on a rail car sounds a lot more pleasant than driving through a tunnel for 30-60 minutes. Do you think there is enough demand to justify a road link in addition to the vehicle transport trains?

dazc 9y ago
There is certainly demand for more freight capacity; the ferries seem to be the biggest problem with regular delays. When these delays occur it's not unusual for the serving motorway to double as make-shift lorry park. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Stack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Stack For regular passenger cars, I'm not so sure as it's mostly holiday traffic. Most people travelling for business would use the Eurostar (a regular passenger express) and I don't see much complaints about the capacity of this?
- SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
  The channel tunnel trains are apparently at 54% capacity, so clearly no, at current prices there is no more demand for transport of that mode. https://twitter.com/Ben_e_lux/status/954467087975673857 https://twitter.com/Ben_e_lux/status/954467087975673857 Dropping that price in the near future a bit seems like a much better use of funds than a prolonged and vastly expensive engineering project. But, there's no glory for Boris in that plan. He picks attention-grabbing, simplistic and iconic over quietly getting on with it, sound management and details every time.

tgb 9y ago

There are difficulties with combustion engines in enclosed areas - namely a lack of oxygen. The ventilation would be a challenge. I see that the longest road tunnel in the world is Lærdal Tunnel which is 15 miles instead of the 20ish for the Channel. It also appears to not be under water and hence ventilation is probably easier.

lorenzhs 9y ago
The tunnel is over 30 miles long, 31.4 miles or 50.5 km. The tunnel must first go deep enough to go under the sea on either side, adding to its length.

johannes1234321 9y ago

The issue with road traffic in such a tunnel (or also on such a bridge) is the emergency procedure. If there's an accident on the end cars turn around wild and block the passage etc. The trains are operated with an engine and driver on each end. In case of emergency the rear can take over immediately and return to the other end of the tunnel.

lorenzhs 9y ago
Very true. However, a train on fire usually can’t turn around, but there are several emergency stations in the tunnel with emergency evacuation for people (via the service tunnel) and automated high-pressure water droplet extinguishing systems. This was installed in response to a fire in 2008 iirc. It facilitated rescue and fire fighting (because the exact position of the fire is known) and the automated system also helps minimise damage to the tunnel infrastructure.

toyg 9y ago

Consider the original project was politically debated in the early ‘70s. It was another era. A lot of the marvellous bridges we now have around Scandinavia and so on, did not exist; and people were skeptical a bridge could survive the Channel weather (which can be pretty bad) - plus, of course, nobody wanted to disrupt one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world. In the end, anyway, even through the tunnel a road was ditched, mostly because people in charge simply didn’t trust private drivers to be good enough. An accident down there would be a nightmare, the security issues were huge. Rail can be controlled fairly effectively.

igravious 9y ago

@edf13 recently posted this 2007 BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6517611.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6517611.stm “ Cross-Channel bridge bid revealed Plans for the Anglo-French bridge have been preserved People could have driven between England and France across a huge suspension bridge if plans had been approved, records show. A submission for a £3bn three-lane motorway link was made to transport officials in April 1981, files released by the National Archives show. Engineering group LinktoEurope estimated motorists would pay a £5.60 toll charge and lorries £8 to cross. The records did not show how seriously the government considered the plans. Margaret Thatcher's government was discussing the Channel Tunnel project when the bridge plan was submitted for consideration. […] ”

lorenzhs 9y ago

The trains are much faster than cars (160km/h or 100mph in the tunnel), and it’s a lot easier to ensure fire safety. It’s a 50km tunnel! That requires a lot of precautions. There haven’t been any fatalities, and one of two fires was caused by vandalism: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/67950.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/67950.stm Oh and the capacity of a rail tunnel is higher, too. The Gotthard Street tunnel has around 17.5k vehicles per day, whereas the Eurotunnel averages “50,000 passengers, 6,000 cars, 180 coaches and 54,000 tonnes of freight” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france/articles/The-Channel-Tunnel-20-fascinating-facts/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france...) Lastly, as other have mentioned, driving 50km in a tunnel would not be pleasant. The passenger train is much nicer, and the car shuttle is very low-stress, too.