Tunnel from Dublin to Holyhead

18MonthsaSlave

The Irish sea between Dublin Holyhead and Rosslare Pembroke and Larne Cairnryan is quite deep.
The rock beneath the Irish sea isn't as easy to work with as it was for the English channel.
As Freight Transport is increasingly hubbing through airports rather than seaports I don't see the business model which would underpin this project.

http://loneswimmer.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/irishseareliefmap.jpg

People in the US, mainland Europe and Asia choose to fly between locations despite there being no water obstacle in their way.
Now that humans can fly, they fly between large population centres irrespective of whether the surface of the Earth is covered in water or soil beneath them.

monument

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

As Freight Transport is increasingly hubbing through airports rather than seaports I don't see the business model which would underpin this project.

Do you have anything to back that up?

For example, how much cargo is being imported and exported via Dublin Airport vs Dublin Port?

And you're talking about relatively light-weight and small stuff... Right? No much good for bulk in size or weight.

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

The Irish sea between Dublin Holyhead and Rosslare Pembroke and Larne Cairnryan is quite deep.
The rock beneath the Irish sea isn't as easy to work with as it was for the English channel.

http://loneswimmer.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/irishseareliefmap.jpg

The Channel Tunnel is -75m deep at its deepest point and, that map you linked to, shows a wide area for a route which is no more than -100m deep between Holyhead and Dublin. Not sure how -100m is "quite deep" in the grand scale of things.

The Seikan Tunnel railway tunnel in Japan has a track level of about 100m below the seabed and 240m below sea level.

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

People in the US, mainland Europe and Asia choose to fly between locations despite there being no water obstacle in their way.
Now that humans can fly people fly between large population centres irrespective of whether the surface of the Earth is covered in water or soil beneath them.

Err... High-speed rail is on the rise in Europe and Asia, and even the US is trying to get in on the act.

Slots in the main UK airports are limited and only going to get more valuable.

18MonthsaSlave

You seem intent on ignoring population or lack thereof in Ireland.
What's at the end of the tunnel here in Ireland? A highly dispersed low population density Island.

cgcsb

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

People in the US, mainland Europe and Asia choose to fly between locations despite there being no water obstacle in their way.
Now that humans can fly, they fly between large population centres irrespective of whether the surface of the Earth is covered in water or soil beneath them.

That's increasingly untrue in western Europe where more and more high speed rail routes are opening up. TGV killed air France's intercity routes within France. I expect that manchester-London flights will go the same way once hs2 opens. Same thing happened to futura airlines in Spain when they built more high speed track.

cgcsb

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

You seem intent on ignoring population or lack thereof in Ireland.
What's at the end of the tunnel here in Ireland? A highly dispersed low population density Island.

Irrespective of the population, journeys across the Irish sea, both by people and bulky goods are extremely common. Dublin London being the second busiest international air route on earth and half of the flights from Dublin are to the UK. So it's a small population with 6-7 million people who travel across the sea quite frequently.

monument

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

You seem intent on ignoring population or lack thereof in Ireland.
What's at the end of the tunnel here in Ireland? A highly dispersed low population density Island.

I'm not "ignoring" anything, I was replying to your post -- you did not mention it before now. Did you forget to mention one of your central points?

Close to the other end of the tunnel is a place called Dublin and down the line from that is Northern Ireland. Dublin and Belfast are not that highly dispersed, and the trend across the island is growing population and a growing percentage of the population living in urban centres.

Air traffic for passengers has the issue of restrictive number of slots in the main airports in the south of England -- unless you're going to try to make out that a flight into the midlands and north and then taking a train to the south will be very attractive.

BTW: Were your other points that poor that you now can't defend them? You have not defended a single one of your points which I challenged already. Re your claim about airports vs ports: Do you have anything to back that up? For example, how much cargo is being imported and exported via Dublin Airport vs Dublin Port?

18MonthsaSlave wrote: »

People in the US, mainland Europe and Asia choose to fly between locations despite there being no water obstacle in their way.
Now that humans can fly, they fly between large population centres irrespective of whether the surface of the Earth is covered in water or soil beneath them.

Just to firm up the point I already made on this, Paris-London:


(source)

Madrid-Seville:

(source)

US examples, note high rail percentage with high speed rail:


(source)

Even some in the US get it, we're behind here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/business/hassles-of-air-travel-push-passengers-to-amtrak.html?pagewanted=all

Aard

How much would such a project cost the exchequer (as opposed to private investment)? Would it make any sense to use that money to improve the air offering? For example, mainline railway station at Dublin Airport would cost much less but would deliver huge numbers of passengers to flights not only in UK but much further afield too.

I can't help but think that the tens of billions that this would cost might be better spent on improving on existing infrastructure.

monument

Aard wrote: »

How much would such a project cost the exchequer (as opposed to private investment)? Would it make any sense to use that money to improve the air offering? For example, mainline railway station at Dublin Airport would cost much less but would deliver huge numbers of passengers to flights not only in UK but much further afield too.

I can't help but think that the tens of billions that this would cost might be better spent on improving on existing infrastructure.

Sorry, but "apples and oranges" springs to mind.

A tunnel offering would offer more secure, less weather dependent, less environmentally damaging and overall improved connectivity between Ireland/NI and the UK mainland for goods and passengers.

Improved rail connectivity to Dublin airport is hardly comparable.

cgcsb

Aard wrote: »

How much would such a project cost the exchequer (as opposed to private investment)? Would it make any sense to use that money to improve the air offering? For example, mainline railway station at Dublin Airport would cost much less but would deliver huge numbers of passengers to flights not only in UK but much further afield too.

I can't help but think that the tens of billions that this would cost might be better spent on improving on existing infrastructure.

I don't think anyone would contest that building a tunnel to the UK is more important than the urgent need to modernise our current system to some standard approaching first world. A tunnel to the UK is future speak, obviously.

Aard

monument wrote: »

Sorry, but "apples and oranges" springs to mind.

A tunnel offering would offer more secure, less weather dependent, less environmentally damaging and overall improved connectivity between Ireland/NI and the UK mainland for goods and passengers.

Improved rail connectivity to Dublin airport is hardly comparable.

I agree that it's an apples and oranges comparison, and that's my point. It is literally going to be so expensive that it is worth asking if it is worth it at all. Yes the return may be there (none of us know either way). But securing all that money for one project would be problematic to say the least. Getting a couple of billion for underground rail in Dublin is proving hard enough.

I'd like to know exactly what problem the tunnel would be solving. Could it be solved by other means? What would be so bad about investing the same amount of money or less in airport/port upgrades, along with their improved road/rail access?

Aard

cgcsb wrote: »

I don't think anyone would contest that building a tunnel to the UK is more important than the urgent need to modernise our current system to some standard approaching first world. A tunnel to the UK is future speak, obviously.

Of course.

And in a sense I am playing devil's advocate: I think such a connection would be an incredibly interesting project that would prompt significant reorganisation of the UK-Ireland economy, most likely in our favour. So much so, that I don't think London would be too happy about it.

cgcsb

Indeed that's an interesting point. Does the UK government want British companies to have rapid access, in terms of people and heavy goods, to a Lower tax economy that uses the Euro and is well connected to international markets. The manufacturing based economies of Northern England could find themselves in a right pickle.

Sam Russell

Is a bridge possible, like the Malmo - Copenhagan one? Maybe part bridge, part tunnel?

Judgement Day

Sam Russell wrote: »

Is a bridge possible, like the Malmo - Copenhagan one? Maybe part bridge, part tunnel?

Damming each end of the Irish Sea and pumping out the water would make more sense. This is a continuation of every town must have a hospital, bypass, holy grotto taken to another level.

braddun

50 miles across


channel tunnel was only about 31 miles



Holyhead to Dublin is about 50 miles of water, Fishguard to Wexford is about 45 miles and Stranraer to Belfast is about 20 miles


Rail tunnels cost about £60m pounds a kilometre

18MonthsaSlave

None of those distances are correct.
There is no average cost per kilometre for tunnels.
Wicklow Mountains and Snowdon are mainly volcanic rock. What type of rock do you think they'll find between the two.

cgcsb

braddun wrote: »

Rail tunnels cost about £60m pounds a kilometre

Based on what tunnel type in what location?

patrickbrophy18

As much as the wishful-thinking side of me would like to believe that this is economically viable, the over-powering skeptic in me thinks otherwise. Let's not forget that two of the biggest infrastructure projects in the Transport 21 plan, Metro North and DART Underground still remain on the drawing board. Neither project has yielded physical signs of progress such as a tunnel boring machine or piece of track. Both projects combined are an after thought and the tip of the ice berg when compared to a sub-sea tunnel between Ireland and The UK. If we can't even construct two significantly shorter tunnels, how will we ever construct a tunnel spanning 50-60 miles?

If a project like this was ever built, it's only claim to fame would be that it is the longest sub-sea rail tunnel in the world.

monument

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

If a project like this was ever built, it's only claim to fame would be that it is the longest sub-sea rail tunnel in the world.

Surely -- if built -- the claim to fame would be getting over the Irish government's ultra short-term thinking?

...actually, scrap that, it will only be built after something critical happens like another enegry crisis which affects relatively fast shipping, or we start losing slots into London and/or there's a massive growing need for more slots.

Sam Russell

The only time the tunnel will be built is if the EU funds it fully - two chances.

monument

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only time the tunnel will be built is if the EU funds it fully - two chances.

Well, scepticism was also strong with the Chunnel before it was built and even for a good deal after it was built.

There's a good chance of the EU helping but Ireland and the UK would have a large input. Ireland might be down out at the but hopefully we're not going to stay that way, and there's UK self interest in the project.

Judgement Day

monument wrote: »

Well, scepticism was also strong with the Chunnel before it was built and even for a good deal after it was built.

There's a good chance of the EU helping but Ireland and the UK would have a large input. Ireland might be down out at the but hopefully we're not going to stay that way, and there's UK self interest in the project.

I suppose if Ireland undertakes to let in another 20 million badly needed immigrants. :rolleyes:

monument

Judgement Day wrote: »

I suppose if Ireland undertakes to let in another 20 million badly needed immigrants. :rolleyes:

Judgement Day wrote: »

Damming each end of the Irish Sea and pumping out the water would make more sense. This is a continuation of every town must have a hospital, bypass, holy grotto taken to another level.

God loves anybody who takes such over-the-top posts seriously.

ClovenHoof

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dublin is not a small city.

It's a large city. It is not a SUPERCITY like London. Dublin is roughly comparable to Amsterdam, Boston, Oslo, Helsinki, Vienna, Prague and Barcelona.



Enough of this 'Dublin Small City 1970's Sean Barrett' mantra.

^^^ This 'small city' outdated mantra is the reason why Dublin does not have the vast public transport systems of Amsteerdam, Boston, Oslo, Helsinki Vienna, Prague and Barcelona

cgcsb

There is more office space in Dublin than the greater Manchester area with its 5 million population. There certainly is demand to travel between Dublin and London. It is the second busiest international air route on earth. So certainly there is significant demand there. That demand will become increasingly squeezed as slots in the London airports become harder to get. Also consider travel between the rest of Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The demand is strong, the problem is massive costs, long timeline to delivery and engineering challenges. If those things can be significantly reduced then there's no reason it wouldn't work.

donkey balls

As Freight Transport is increasingly hubbing through airports rather than seaports I don't see the business model which would underpin this project.

[90% of exports and imports including airfreight are trucked between Ireland and the UK by road,Airfreight in particular is transported to the likes of MAN & LHR for onward connection through out the world, And the same goes for imports with the planes landing in the above airports with freight for Ireland.

patrickbrophy18

I still can't see how this is economically viable despite the fact that the Dublin to London air route is the 2nd busiest in the world. While 8,000,000 yearly passengers might make it appear viable, the cost of such a mammoth undertaking is €15,000,000,000. Assuming that every passenger in this list switches to the extremely hypothetical rail route, it would take roughly 19 years to make any return on the costs at €100 per head. If you don't believe me, calculate it:

15,000,000,000 (cost)/8,000,000 (patronage) = 1875 years at €1 each (before overheads for staff, electricity, maintenance and taxes). As a rule of thumb, I have assumed a €100 per person per ticket to speed up the process to 18.75 years which I then rounded off to 19. Throw in all of the extra costs in bold and the process is many times longer. In reality, a very small fraction of that 8,000,000 patronage would make the switch. Other factors such as journey length would need to be taken into account. Not to mention, the knock effects in the way of infrastructural improvements this side of the pond would add an exponential amount of extra costs indirectly.

From reading the fleet specs on Irish Rails website, their Intercity and Commuter trains can reach a comparatively modest 120-160 Kilometers Per Hour. Given the windy, single-track nature of the bulk of the existing network, trains would be doing well to reach these speeds. For the idea being mooted on this thread, bullet type trains traveling at least twice or even three times these speeds would be needed to make for an attractive alternative to the plane. The entire railway network would have to be given an enormous upgrade which would almost certainly require double tracking every route radiating from Dublin at a very minimum.

I could go on for ages......

cgcsb

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

I still can't see how this is economically viable despite the fact that the Dublin to London air route is the 2nd busiest in the world. While 8,000,000 yearly passengers might make it appear viable, the cost of such a mammoth undertaking is €15,000,000,000. Assuming that every passenger in this list switches to the extremely hypothetical rail route, it would take roughly 19 years to make any return on the costs at €100 per head. If you don't believe me, calculate it:

15,000,000,000 (cost)/8,000,000 (patronage) = 1875 years at €1 each (before overheads for staff, electricity, maintenance and taxes). As a rule of thumb, I have assumed a €100 per person per ticket to speed up the process to 18.75 years which I then rounded off to 19. Throw in all of the extra costs in bold and the process is many times longer. In reality, a very small fraction of that 8,000,000 patronage would make the switch. Other factors such as journey length would need to be taken into account. Not to mention, the knock effects in the way of infrastructural improvements this side of the pond would add an exponential amount of extra costs indirectly.

You have assumed that the state would be looking to recover 100% of the capital costs from ticket sales. That could not be the case. The ticket sales would cover the operational cost of the railway and a small dividend split between the Irish and UK govts along with any private investors. As a state run project there would be no need for a fast return on the capital. That's the key difference between the public and private projects. The state spent €8bn on the motorway network between 2000 and 2010 without any hope of recovering any capital.

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

From reading the fleet specs on Irish Rails website, their Intercity and Commuter trains can reach a comparatively modest 120-160 Kilometers Per Hour. Given the windy, single-track nature of the bulk of the existing network, trains would be doing well to reach these speeds. For the idea being mooted on this thread, bullet type trains traveling at least twice or even three times these speeds would be needed to make for an attractive alternative to the plane. The entire railway network would have to be given an enormous upgrade which would almost certainly require double tracking every route radiating from Dublin at a very minimum.

I could go on for ages......

Clearly such a link would have to be an electrified route and high speed standard British gauge. Current Irish rolling stock couldn't operate on the route anyway. The Irish terminus would be in Heuston or Stephen's Green and people travelling from the rest of Ireland would be required to change there. If we were to have onward services to Cork, for example, we would need some special trains that could change their gauge between Irish and British. Altogether it'd be very complicated. Overall it'd be better to have the service terminate in Dublin.

Sam Russell

cgcsb wrote: »

Clearly such a link would have to be an electrified route and high speed standard British gauge.

Perhaps it could run on the Luas lines!:D

Judgement Day

By the time such an enthusiasts wet dream is built the Irish railway system will have been cut back to a bare Greater Dublin Commuter network: Dublin/Bray; Dublin/Dundalk (maybe); Dublin/Kildare and Dublin/Maynooth. Of course the resulting greenways could then be taken back from the cyclists/walkers etc. and turned into high speed 4ft 8.5" gauge lines.......