Irish Sea tunnel between Ireland and UK

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

pigtown

Deleted User wrote: »

Why are you even contemplating this? Ireland cannot afford this and went be able for at least 2 generations. Private funding will not happen as it would not generate a return on investment for decades.
The only potential is around UK/IRL import and exports to each other. In 20 years when flying will be unaffordable due to fuel costs, there might be a case to think about it. Also by then Ireland could be back in the markets and the austerity measures might be relaxing slightly.

There's no harm in the guy doing some research. It may not be needed or viable now but who know's what might happen in the future?
At the moment trends point to higher fuel prices meaning eventually flying could be unaffordable for many. Trends also point to more and more people moving to towns and cities which could make trains to such a tunnel viable. The way I'd imagine it operating is a direct Belfast-Dublin-UK train with a connection on the line for Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford and Sligo services. More people living in the cities could mean more passengers having to make fewer connections.

pigtown

pigtown wrote: »

There's no harm in the guy doing some research. It may not be needed or viable now ...

True but you have to be careful because of the eejit politicians who could be reading this and the next thing you know several millions of our hard earned income tax €s will be spent on a feasibility study into a fruitless project.

LK_Dave

Deleted User wrote: »

In 20 years when flying will be unaffordable due to fuel costs, there might be a case to think about it. Also by then Ireland could be back in the markets and the austerity measures might be relaxing slightly.

A project of this type and scale would probably take a large portion of that amount of time to plan, build and implement. If as you say fuel prices push air travel beyond most then the cost of a tunnel may also be prohibitive in 20 years time so now would be a goot time to start. If course being Ireland – no political party or Government plans beyond the next election!!!

corktina

Deleted User wrote: »

True but you have to be careful because of the eejit politicians who could be reading this and the next thing you know several billions of our hard earned income tax €s will be spent on a feasibility study into a fruitless project.

fyp...

royboymaps

The Dublin-Holyhead route definately has a good business case

Gotthard Base Tunnel, 57km - CHF 9.74 billion (€8.1 billion)
High Speed 2, 530km - £32.7 billion (€40.8 billion)

In comparison to them:
Irish Sea Tunnel, 105km - €15 billion
High Speed line from Holyhead to HS2, 170km - €13 billion
Total Cost - €28 billion

10 million passenger a year x average fare €50 = €500 million a year
€500 million x 60 years = €30 billion

The project would pay for itself in 60 years, this is the same timeframe for HS2. This is only based on passengers using the tunnel. I would expect a lot more freight trains to use the tunnel if a new deepwater port was built in the Shannon Estuary. This would bring in even more revenue and would cover any other costs not taken into account here.

Jayuu

royboymaps wrote: »

The Dublin-Holyhead route definately has a good business case

Gotthard Base Tunnel, 57km - CHF 9.74 billion (€8.1 billion)
High Speed 2, 530km - £32.7 billion (€40.8 billion)

In comparison to them:
Irish Sea Tunnel, 105km - €15 billion
High Speed line from Holyhead to HS2, 170km - €13 billion
Total Cost - €28 billion

10 million passenger a year x average fare €50 = €500 million a year
€500 million x 60 years = €30 billion

The project would pay for itself in 60 years, this is the same timeframe for HS2. This is only based on passengers using the tunnel. I would expect a lot more freight trains to use the tunnel if a new deepwater port was built in the Shannon Estuary. This would bring in even more revenue and would cover any other costs not taken into account here.

You're not including any costs for 60 years of operation (staff costs, rolling stock costs, fuel costs, maintenance costs and general operating costs). I would suggest any profit would be minimal from such a service so there would be probably no hope in ever paying off the infrastructure investment.

Also your figure of 10 million passengers is wildly optimistic. Eurostar between London and Paris hasn't reached 10 million passengers (as of 2010) and that despite it being a direct link between two of Europe's largest cities.

royboymaps

I don't have any figures at the moment for operating costs, but I will try and find some.

I don't think that 10 million passengers is wildly optimististic. You are right that Eurostar haven't reached this, they carried 9.6 million passengers in 2011. But you are not taking into account passengers being carried through Eurotunnel Shuttles, 7.8 million in 2011. This gives an overall figure of 17.4 million passengers through the Channel Tunnel.

http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uk/eurotunnel-group/operations/traffic-figures/

In 2007 21.3 million people travelled between the islands of Ireland and Great Britain, according to the UK Civil Aviation Authority and the UK Department for Transport. I know that this takes into account a lot of routes which wouldn't be competitive with air or sea, such as Northern Ireland to Scotland, but 12.5 million of these passengers travelled by air to/from London, Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool, routes HSR would be very competitive with, and a further 2.3 million travelled by ferry from Dublin/Dun Laoghaire to Holyhead/Liverpool, which HSR would also be very competitive with. The Dublin - London air route is the busiest in Europe, mainly because it doesn't have a high speed rail link.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

dam099

Jayuu wrote: »

You're not including any costs for 60 years of operation (staff costs, rolling stock costs, fuel costs, maintenance costs and general operating costs). I would suggest any profit would be minimal from such a service so there would be probably no hope in ever paying off the infrastructure investment.

Also your figure of 10 million passengers is wildly optimistic. Eurostar between London and Paris hasn't reached 10 million passengers (as of 2010) and that despite it being a direct link between two of Europe's largest cities.

Interest alone on the €28 billion (which would have to borrowed) would easily be close €1bn a year (assuming a rate of 3%, which is about what we got the bailout reduced to, I get €840m and thats probably wildly optimistic). Therefore in an operating loss position immediately.

royboymaps

Plowman,

It would probably take 2 hours on a non-stop train from Dublin to London. It takes about 80-90 mins on a flight. Although it also takes 40 mins on the 747 bus to Dublin Airport, minimum check-in time of 45 mins (although longer recommended), 15 mins to disembark and collect baggage, 45 mins on train to London city centre. An overall journey time of 3 hrs 45 min to nearly 4 hrs. On a train, 5 mins walk to station, 20 mins check-in, 2 hrs journey and 5 mins walk to city centre, a total of 2hrs 30mins, definately high speed enough compared to air.


dam099,

You might be right about the interest rates, although not all of this will be borrowed. Some of it will probably come from government and EU capital funding. The rest will probably come from a PPP scheme. As far as I know, PPP consortiums always include a bank or financial company. A bank is hardly going to charge itself interest rates?

monument

royboymaps wrote: »

You might be right about the interest rates, although not all of this will be borrowed. Some of it will probably come from government and EU capital funding. The rest will probably come from a PPP scheme. As far as I know, PPP consortiums always include a bank or financial company. A bank is hardly going to charge itself interest rates?

The vast bulk of such projects are -- one-way or another -- borrowed.

NITransport

If the government cant get a 10km tunnel in Dublin built/right, I find it highly improbable that they'd be able to plan/build a trans-irish sea tunnel.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

corktina

they cant and never will manage two hours Dublin to Cork so I doubt we'll ever see 2 hours by trian to London.

How do you propose to fill a non stop train to London when many passengers currently using ferries might not want to go there.

royboymaps

Plowman,

I know that not many people live in the city centre next to Heuston or Connolly stations. However, British people visiting Ireland are likely to stay in a city centre hotel close to the train station. Connolly station is also next to the Financial Services Centre, which would be useful for business travellers. I agree that somewhere with good motorway connections is a lot easier to drive to than the city centre. Iarnrod Eireann are planning to build a new Intercity Parkway Station on the M50 (where junction 8 should be). It is possible that Irish Sea Tunnel trains could serve this.

corktina,

You have to stop focusing on the ferries. Most people using the ferries bring their cars, so they would using car carrying shuttle trains, not High Speed passenger trains. The majority of passengers travelling between Ireland and Britain are by air. There are about 43 departures every day from Dublin airport to London. The majority of these are B737's & A320's (180 seats). This would give enough traffic for ten 750 seater trains per day in each direction. I shouldn't have said non-stop because none of the trains would be non-stop. All trains using HS2 will be requiered to call at the Crossrail / Heathrow Express Interchange at Old Oak Common, to prevent overcrowding of passengers in Euston. I would also expect that most of the trains would also call at another stop along the way, such as Birmingham Interchange. By adding the Birmingham passengers onto the London services, more trains would be needed and a more frequent service could run.

BAA would probably support the idea of a tunnel, as they are trying to reduce congestion in Heathrow. A tunnel would allow them to remove the busiest route out of Heathrow, relieving congestion and allowing space for extra long-haul services.

Alun

royboymaps wrote: »

There are about 43 departures every day from Dublin airport to London.

But not all of those actually have London as their final destination. The London airports, esp. Heathrow, act as hubs for many international destinations not served by Dublin. I can't see anyone switching modes of transport like that for an international journey. Once you're at an airport anyway, the easiest option for your continuing journey is another air journey.

royboymaps

Alun,

Forgot to mention that. The second phase of HS2 includes a direct connection to Heathrow airport (and possibly extended to Gatwick). This would allow direct trains run from Birmingham / Manchester / Glasgow to Heathrow airport. The reason for this is to reduce domestic flights going from these places into Heathrow and leave space for more long-haul services. I would expect that the same would happen for Dublin, with some direct services from Dublin to Heathrow at busy times (such as early morning), and maybe connections off other Dublin - London services at somewhere like Birmingham Interchange for times which aren't as busy for flights.

It would also allow the opposite. If flights couldn't land in Heathrow for some reason, they could be diverted to Dublin with passengers brought by train back to London.

corktina

why would they divert them and their revenue to another country when there is Manchester, Glascow et al to divert to?

dear oh dear, you do love to dream up scenarios to support your vision of an Irish Sea Tunnel which will never happen. High Speed rail links to the ferry ports or , more likely , airports perhaps but noone in their right mind will invest in a tunnel with such little potential (as a rule of thumb, Ireland has about a tenth of the population of the UK and therefore something like a tenth of the potential usage). The Chunnel is only just about holding its own , how the devil would a vastly more expensive Irish Sea Tunnel cover its costs?

royboymaps

corktina,

I do not expect that there would be many passengers using an Irish Sea Tunnel because their flight was diverted to Ireland. Dublin and Shannon have been used before to divert flights travelling to London, instead of other British airports. I am not completely sure why, but I think it is because we are closer to the atlantic and get milder weather. Britain is further away from the Atlantic and gets more severe weather than Ireland. It has happened before where Britain and Europe have been covered in snow, and we only got mild weather.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

corktina

so what if they were? you can't include provision for a rare event such as that (during the two worst winters on record) in your business plan to build a multi-billion tunnel!

bk

One thing you seem to be ignoring, Ryanair.

You seem to be assuming that all the people who currently fly to the UK, will just switch to rail.

Do you really think Ryanair, Aerlingus, etc. would sit still for this. You can be guaranteed that Ryanair, et al. will cut ticket prices drastically to compete. Tickets to London on Ryanair are already €30, how do you expect rail to compete and pay back it's operating and construction costs with such low ticket prices?

And that is ignoring the fuss and noise Ryanair would create to fight this even getting started.

marknjb

what if we got the money from fhe eec they then told us to both do half
paddy would be still at the planning stage waiting for a report from the consultants and the brits would be sitting 20 000 leagues under the sea wondering where the f**k is paddy

caff

What about not bothering with passengers at all and have a freight only tunnel linking to a port on the shannon?

Markcheese

caff wrote: »

What about not bothering with passengers at all and have a freight only tunnel linking to a port on the shannon?

??? Or u could save money on the tunnel cost and put the freight on a ferry ... Where could u get one of those ??
Why Shannon , a long way from britain , wrong gauge track to just put containers on train and then ro/ro ferry from east coast to Britain or Europe ...

patrickbrophy18

While I would love to think that there is demand for such an ambitious piece of infrastructure, the skeptic in me is finding it very difficult to see any viability with it. To save time, I will quote myself from another thread with arguments for and against the notion:

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

There are certain aspects of this plan which could make it viable and others which won't. Let's start with the aspects that wouldn't make it viable:

1. The fact that the project is €15 billion in a conservative cost to construct. If the infrastructure is only serving those who go to London and back, it will obviously be nonviable. Currently, the numbers doing this trip is 8,000,000 annually. It is pretty hard to grasp the idea of making the construction costs back without having high price fares attached. Let's assume the fares are €100. Even then, it would still take about 20 years at least to get the money back. Let's not forget that the these fares would also be taxed which would further delay the returns of the project cost bringing it up to 30 or possibly 40 years.

2. Another factor making the project nonviable is the bail out of Anglo Irish Bank which is one of the governments high priorities. This would also put tax hikes on the fares system of the infrastructure in question.

3. Let's not forget the fact that the Irish Planning Board effectively took 5 years to receive the plans for Metro North and give it the green light. If this is the case and with the scale of The Tuskar Tunnel, it would probably be at least a decade before construction would begin from a conservative estimate.

4. As pointed out by other people, the current state of the national rail infrastructure is laughable with the mostly single track nature of it ergo, making it very difficult for sub-sea trains to reach their desired speed without some sort of delay. If the Tuskar Tunnel were to be built, it would have a knock on effect whereby most of the single track lines would have to be doubled or possibly quadrupled and then dual-gauged. By extension, this would bring the price of the Tuskar Tunnel project up to roughly €30 billion.

I am probably missing a lot of other factors against the proposal as well so feel free to enlighten me!:D As I have said, there are certain purposes which could be attached to the proposal that might make it work. Might is the operative word in this case and a big one at that. Let me explain:

1. If the line became part of an extension to existing inter-rail routes, it might work. The may involve making a through route on the London side of things to remove the need to change trains. There may also need to be two types of passenger train, one which negotiates it's way to popular Irish tourist destinations and one which would be express for business customers.

2. If Galway or Shannon were to be used as one of the major Trans-Atlantic freight ports, the level of freight traffic could very well lead to extremely high use of the Tuskar Tunnel ergo, speeding up the rate of returns of its cost. This is assuming that other Atlantic freight ports from France, Spain and England don't compete.

3. Also, from the Irish side, we would need to give potential foreign users an incentive to use the route. This may involve anything from the construction of Theme Parks along the rail route to seaside resorts like those seen in the Balearic Islands and Spain. However, these would need to be located in key locations. Otherwise, the train may end up taking to many stops which would be off-putting to potential users.

I've said it once and I'll say it again:

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I can't see this being feasible even a century down the road.