Eurostar at 20: Should Ireland have a eurostar service with the U.K?

Geuze

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It's not actual railfreight with the Eurostar. The lorries drive on to special carriages, the train just brings them across the channel.

There are regular freight trains using the tunnel, as well as trucks carried on the Eurotunnel shuttle trains.

Geuze

keithclancy wrote: »

Nah.

Most people I know don't take the Eurostar anyway, its expensive.

Much cheaper to take DFDS/Stena, crossing is only 55 minutes vs 35 minutes for the Chunnel with Car.

I might take it once, but it would mostly be for novelty value.

Plus investing that amount of money to reach an Island of only 4.2ish million people wouldn't make financial sense.

The Eurostar is the PASSENGER train from London to Paris / Brussels.

Fares start from 59stg return.

You may be thinking of the Eurotunnel shuttle trains that carry cars through the tunnel.

Eurostar is a customer of Eurotunnel.

Geuze

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Spend a fraction of the billions it would cost for a tunnel on developing super fast ferrys.

Irish ferries swift travels at 40 knots/75kph/46mph, sure you'd probably only average about that speed if there was a land link and you could drive there. (holyhead).

Spend a percentage of the cost of the tunnel on getting the ferry up to 50 knots/92kph/57mph.

You'd be there in just over an hour. No need for a tunnel at that speed.

Not a bad idea.

Faster ferries combined with faster trains from Holyhead to London.

The Backwards Man

If we started a tunnel to Newfoundland from Donegal then the Brits would have to come on board to link up New York and London.

Mint Sauce

Geuze wrote: »

Not a bad idea.

Faster ferries combined with faster trains from Holyhead to London.

That too would take investment. The train line is only electrified as far as Crewe or Chester. Say if you are traveling with Virgin, once it goes into North Wales it requires a Locomotive to pull it the rest of the way. Different times of day requires a change of train to an (I think) Aviva Wales train, which too is Diesel/Loco driven/pulled.

BBJBIG

BBJBIG wrote: »

Jayzus - shure if Paddy was buildin it, it would chost a fortune to build and I guarantee yis that the Roof would be leakin 5 minutes after the opening ceremony ...

If Paddy was digging it, it would end up in New Zealand!

kowloon

fryup wrote: »

but we'll be no longer an island

and it'll make this song kinda obsolete ....

If Kerry can declare itself an island...

Mezcita

Sh1t idea is sh1t.

keithclancy

Geuze wrote: »

The Eurostar is the PASSENGER train from London to Paris / Brussels.

Fares start from 59stg return.

You may be thinking of the Eurotunnel shuttle trains that carry cars through the tunnel.

Eurostar is a customer of Eurotunnel.

Yes. Intercity to turnout, then to Brussels, change to Eurostar. Its usually around 80 - 200 return. A flight from Eindhoven to stansted is around 50 - 80 Euros return.

I'm aware

keithclancy

keithclancy wrote: »

Yes. Intercity to turnout, then to Brussels, change to Eurostar. Its usually around 80 - 200 return. A flight from Eindhoven to stansted is around 50 - 80 Euros return.

I'm aware

ICE from London to Amsterdam and Frankfurt is also planned to go into operation with the train splitting in half at Brussels

Buona Fortuna

Birneybau wrote: »

A big, inflatable bridge!

Maybe Angela would buy for us to say "Sorry for all that $hit with the banks and stuff. Friends?"

Richard

Dravokivich wrote: »

Isn't our closest land to land point with the UK between Northern Ireland and Scotland?
.

No, both those places are in the UK. This isn't just me being pedantic - having a link from the Republic to Wales would presumably qualify for more European funding as it's cross border. NI to Scotland would be internal.

cart man

There are almost no circumstances that this would be economically viable as things stand.

There was a report prepared that suggests a superport could be built in the southwest and then building on this the UL economist Dr Stephen Kinsella proposed that a tunnel could then be a possible option for the goods to go from that port to mainland europe.

http://www.euro-case.org/publications/transport/TransportIreland.pdf

Obviously this would take 10's of billions we currently don't have and many many years to construct, and given the strategic vision of our politicians, I can confidently say it won't happen.

Alun

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Spend a percentage of the cost of the tunnel on getting the ferry up to 50 knots/92kph/57mph.

You'd be there in just over an hour. No need for a tunnel at that speed.

The Stena fast ferry can travel a lot faster than it does, but swallows fuel (aviation fuel for the gas turbines) in the process, so they've deliberately slowed it down to make the route even vaguely economical.

Lapin

BBJBIG wrote: »

Jayzus - shure if Paddy was buildin it, it would chost a fortune to build and I guarantee yis that the Roof would be leakin 5 minutes after the opening ceremony ...

Deleted User wrote: »

If Paddy was digging it, it would end up in New Zealand!

Is this the same Paddy who built most of Britain, The US and everyhere else on the planet including the Channel Tunnel?

I think he did a great job.

I wouldn't let him run it though.

Another thing - If we did build a tunnel between Dublin and Holyhead, what would be the official language on the service? Irish? Welsh? neither of which are worth a damn and only a tiny minority can understand. Or English, which everyone understands but isn't the language of either country served by our new tunnel. You can be guaranteed that this is the kind of shít that would take up a lot of time in the decision making behind the tunnel.

English and French are the joint official languages on the Eurostar, but from my own experience, you'd get served a lot quicker if you were fluent in Polish.

V_Moth

keithclancy wrote: »

ICE from London to Amsterdam and Frankfurt is also planned to go into operation with the train splitting in half at Brussels

Unfortunately that idea has been shelved indefinitely - mainly due to delays in DB receiving new trains plus complications with safety standards.

Lapin wrote: »

Is this the same Paddy who built most of Britain, The US and everywhere else on the planet including the Channel Tunnel?

I think he did a great job.

I wouldn't let him run it though.

Another thing - If we did build a tunnel between Dublin and Holyhead, what would be the official language on the service? Irish? Welsh? neither of which are worth a damn and only a tiny minority can understand. Or English, which everyone understands but isn't the language of either country served by our new tunnel. You can be guaranteed that this is the kind of shít that would take up a lot of time in the decision making behind the tunnel.

English and French are the joint official languages on the Eurostar, but from my own experience, you'd get served a lot quicker if you were fluent in Polish.

Train services across borders in (mainland) Europe are multilingual, in some cases involving four languages - the annoucements on the train between Barcelona and Marseille are in Spanish, Catalan, French and English. As far as I can remember, only English is used on the North Wales line. I don't see how this would be an issue.

The tunnel has some advantages and disadvantages. On the pro side, it would reduce the Irish Sea crossing by at least half and make it much less weather dependent (HSS/Swift are regularly cancelled). It would also provide an easier alternative if/when there is another major volcanic eruption in Iceland or if there is an oil crisis.

On the downside, it would be twice the length (100km) of the current longest rail tunnel, the Gotthard Base Tunnel (50km - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel), which will cost around 10 billion. There would also have to be significant improvement on the current North Wales line, especially between Bangor and LLandudno, as well as between Chester and Crewe. At least from Crewe it could tap in to the proposed HS2 line.

Much as I would like to see this happen, I don't think it is currently feasible.

wildefalcon

Of course it's not feasible, but doesn't stop us dreaming, planning and hoping! New materials, new practices and new methods of finance may change all that!

Tail Docker

Deleted User wrote: »

If Paddy was digging it, it would end up in New Zealand!

Paddy dug most of the Channel tunnel. And Paddy wired it too. Paddy does good holes. Paddy also built most of Londons infrastructure. Don't be knocking Paddy, he's some goer for his size.

WoollyRedHat

Mezcita wrote: »

Sh1t idea is sh1t.

Interesting replies, but this absolutely tops it, he has spoken, close the thread!

rossie1977

the time to build all of the stadiums, motorways, tunnels, bridges and high speed rail was during the tiger...too late now

when the port tunnel was built it cost 700 million. try building something of that scale for 700 million today!

Tail Docker

Feck a tunnel. If they'd open the Newlands cross flyover I'd be bloody delighted. GET ON WITH IT!!!!!!FFS, it's done, open the damn thing!!

alan4cult

I can't believe nobody has mentioned this:

Irish Railway tracks are wider than UK Railway Tracks so UK Trains cannot run on our lines and vice versa.

Irish Tracks - 5ft 3 in
UK Tracks - 4ft 8.5 in

KomradeBishop

Nevermind building a tunnel to the UK - Dublin doesn't even have a proper underground railway service yet, and is very limited/restricted in development, due to inadequate public transport and property planning in general; start with resolving all of that.

Until Dublin is around 2-3x it's current population, it's not going to be even remotely worth it economically - Ireland actually has a long way to go still, in terms of economic work/development/reform, and we should focus on investing in our own infrastructure and industry, before trying to boost trade with another country, through a high-tech/high-cost trade route, that is totally disproportionate to what our economy/industry has to offer.

Tail Docker

Tail Docker wrote: »

Paddy dug most of the Channel tunnel. And Paddy wired it too. Paddy does good holes. Paddy also built most of Londons infrastructure. Don't be knocking Paddy, he's some goer for his size.

I think that the joke has gone over a few heads, :rolleyes:

Buona Fortuna

alan4cult wrote: »

I can't believe nobody has mentioned this:

Irish Railway tracks are wider than UK Railway Tracks so UK Trains cannot run on our lines and vice versa.

Irish Tracks - 5ft 3 in
UK Tracks - 4ft 8.5 in

Good point.

We'll just have a station half way across and people can just change trains

Buona Fortuna

Buona Fortuna wrote: »

Good point.

We'll just have a station half way across and people can just change trains

Not that big a deal, use rolling stock that can automatically change gauge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_gauge

alan4cult

Convert every single carriage? This would cost quite a bit no?

oppenheimer1

alan4cult wrote: »

I can't believe nobody has mentioned this:

Irish Railway tracks are wider than UK Railway Tracks so UK Trains cannot run on our lines and vice versa.

Irish Tracks - 5ft 3 in
UK Tracks - 4ft 8.5 in

So what is your point? If this tunnel was ever built it would be guaged to match the UK system.

A rail link from Dublin to London would only be viable if the UK had a high speed train from Holyhead to London. There is no reason for the UK to build such a line since Ireland isn't large enough economically and the route would disproportionally benefit the Irish over the UK economy. This would be despite the majority of the huge cost being shouldered by the British.

alan4cult

alan4cult wrote: »

Convert every single carriage? This would cost quite a bit no?

First of all you only need one fleet of rolling stock for the journey and secondly, relative to the cost of the rest of the project, it's peanuts.

alan4cult

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So what is your point? If this tunnel was ever built it would be guaged to match the UK system.

A rail link from Dublin to London would only be viable if the UK had a high speed train from Holyhead to London. There is no reason for the UK to build such a line since Ireland isn't large enough economically and the route would disproportionally benefit the Irish over the UK economy. This would be despite the majority of the huge cost being shouldered by the British.

So please explain to me how you would move freight from one train to another in Dublin / Holyhead? Passengers are easy to move, freight not.

end of the road

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Whats in London anymore? They just push money around in the Financial services sector and that will soon all belong to the Chinese and the Russians. We dont import anything from London that's worth building a tunnel for.


Could they not build a tunnel and just let cars drive through it?

no .

end of the road

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Have you ever been on a first capital connect train? Irish rail would actually put them to shame.

exactly. the grass isn't always greener on the other side

end of the road

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

Spend a fraction of the billions it would cost for a tunnel on developing super fast ferrys.

Irish ferries swift travels at 40 knots/75kph/46mph, sure you'd probably only average about that speed if there was a land link and you could drive there. (holyhead).

Spend a percentage of the cost of the tunnel on getting the ferry up to 50 knots/92kph/57mph.

You'd be there in just over an hour. No need for a tunnel at that speed.

its not the governments job to speed up the ferries or even pay toards it.

Donkey Oaty

end of the road wrote: »

its not the governments job to speed up the ferries or even pay toards it.

It is their job to do whatever we decide it is their job to do.

KungPao

If we were to do it, considering it's taking us years to link two bloody tramlines that are a 15 minute walk apart, the Irish Sea Tunnel should be completed in 3047.

Ah sure, it'd be something to look forward to.

Although everyone will have flying cars/teleporters by then.

end of the road

alan4cult wrote: »

Convert every single carriage? This would cost quite a bit no?

no, he means the trains can actually change the gauge themselves while on the move

Mint Sauce

KungPao wrote: »

If we were to do it, considering it's taking us years to link two bloody tramlines that are a 15 minute walk apart, the Irish Sea Tunnel should be completed in 3047.

Ah sure, it'd be something to look forward to.

Although everyone will have flying cars/teleporters by then.

Technically, they are still not linked. They intersect, there is still a minute or twos walk, under two different stops. A link up, would be an interchange, where you simply change platform's at the same stop.

If we left our planners in charge of a sea tunnel, foot passengers would probably have to change trains in Dun laoghaire, and get on a commuter service to bring them to Dublin. With the last train getting in10 minutes after the last commuter had left.

If this ever was to built it would probably be just for carrying cars/coaches/trucks between the two coasts.

IsaacWunder

The UK's rail infrastructure is a joke compared to continental EU. They are still arguing over plans to build high speed trains linking London to regional cities after only completing the channel tunnel high speed line linking London many years after the tunnel opened.

Not only would you have to build the tunnel you'd then have to get the British to build a high speed line through remote northern Wales to link up to their planned high speed line to Manchester (if it ever gets built). So any train would go from Dublin to London via Manchester thus making it slow compared to flying.

wildefalcon

I was just watching the Japanese maglev passenger trials on a vid a few hours ago - they hit 500kph with that thing. If we had a bridge with a train tunnel that was partially evacuated, and a maglev, the run to Manchester would only take an hour or so, and London an hour after that.

Give it 50 years or so and there's no reason, bar Irish politicians, that we can't do this.

Dream big.

IsaacWunder

wildefalcon wrote: »

I was just watching the Japanese maglev passenger trials on a vid a few hours ago - they hit 500kph with that thing. If we had a bridge with a train tunnel that was partially evacuated, and a maglev, the run to Manchester would only take an hour or so, and London an hour after that.

Give it 50 years or so and there's no reason, bar Irish politicians, that we can't do this.

Dream big.

There is plenty of reasons, primarily that it would be impractical, secondly that it would be incredibly expensive, and thirdly that it would be using technology that's not likely to be ready for a long time. Maglev trains can reach about 500 km/h top speed in a test track today. Anything that's in operation goes much slower than that. A Ryanair Boeing 737, which is based on 60's technology, can reach over 830 km/h. Needless to say aeroplanes go in a straight line.

The British aren't going to build maglev trains for themselves, never mind us. They considered the idea, and then rejected it in favour of conventional high-speed rail due to the fact that the technology just isn't ready yet, and that's for a line that won't start construction for at least 10 years. The optimistic estimate for completion of the London-Manchester high speed rail line is it'll be up and running 20 years from now, but it'll probably be a good deal longer than that.

For a train to be worthwhile it needs to be faster than aeroplanes over the same route for the entire travel time city centre to city centre (including check in, travel to/from airports at either end). The Eurostar, which travels in a roughly straight line from London to Paris, and hits a top speed of 300 km/h, takes about two and a half hours station to station, the plane takes 20 minutes airport to airport, but after travel to/from airports and check-in is factored-in it's a little slower than the Eurostar.

A non-stop Dublin-London train using experimental technology, and over a somewhat practical route (Dublin-London via Crewe as the crow flies) could do it in an hour. Over a realistic route, it could maybe do it in three hours non-stop and station to station. That makes it about as fast as flying is today city centre to city centre, so unless planes get slower in the future it makes no sense.

Capt'n Midnight

The current price of sail and rail from Dublin to London is €46 anytime to any UK mainline station. ( less if you are only going to the Midlands or Wales )

London to Paris is a lot more unless you book months in advance, and even then you'd probably find a cheaper flight.
http://www.seat61.com/London-to-Paris-by-train.htm#Eurostar%20train%20times,%20fares%20&%20buying%20tickets

How to find the cheapest Eurostar tickets: For the cheapest fares, book 1 to 4 months in advance (maximum 120 days ahead) and avoid Friday or Sunday afternoon trains when there are fewer cheap seats. Don't buy a ticket on the day of travel unless you have to. Fares start at £39 if booked in advance, a ticket bought on the day will be £141 to £179.

The problem is the same all over Europe. Over middle distances poor people take planes because they are cheaper, the wealthier go by train.


Tunnel would cost about €20Bn at the optimistic level and you'd need extra dosh to upgrade roads at both ends , especially in Wales.

http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-london-second-busiest-air-route-in-the-world-1616222-Aug2014/ London - Dublin carries 3.6 million passengers a year.

To pay for the tunnel over ten years with 3.6 million journeys a year would mean a extra cost of €555 per passenger journey, not including interest. Just isn't going to happen without the EU footing most of the bill.

You could propose the same for freight but for things like coal , grain and cement the cost is would be more than the stuff is worth.

In reality, such a project will never happen, the costs involved in shaving a few hours off the Dublin - London journey times will never be justified. Even if they go for the cheapest option of a floating bridge, the costs would still be prohibitive.

Ferries & planes will remain the preferred means of transport across the Irish sea for the foreseeable (more likely forever) future.

Akrasia

Hyperloop between Dublin and Liverpool with a further line between liverpool and London.

If we can build gas pipelines between Drogheda and Scotland, we should be able to build a slightly larger tunnel for the hyperloop.

Hyperloops are self contained vacuum tubes that can transport people at 800mph so it shouldn't matter too much if they're built over ground or under water (as long as they're reinforced to cope with the extra pressure)

wildefalcon

Akrasia wrote: »

Hyperloop between Dublin and Liverpool with a further line between liverpool and London.

If we can build gas pipelines between Drogheda and Scotland, we should be able to build a slightly larger tunnel for the hyperloop.

Hyperloops are self contained vacuum tubes that can transport people at 800mph so it shouldn't matter too much if they're built over ground or under water (as long as they're reinforced to cope with the extra pressure)

Careful, you'll be accused of dreaming about better things!

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man

howiya

Surely we'll need the tunnel for when the economy picks up and all the emigrants are returning home. F*ck it. We'll build two tunnels just in case

It wouldn't require a connection from Dublin to London.

Dublin to somewhere like Liverpool or Manchester would do the job just as well. You can get from there to London in around 2 hours as the train tracks are good quality for long distances like that.

To be honest if Ireland was to undertake a massive infrastructure project, my vote would be for either a bridge or tunnel across Dublin bay, from somewhere like Killiney or Dun Laoghaire on the south side to somewhere like Donabate or Howth on the north side. Possible with a turn off half way across for traffic to enter the city via the IFSC.

It would be more or less a completion of what the M50 started i.e. a complete ring around the city.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

It wouldn't require a connection from Dublin to London.

Dublin to somewhere like Liverpool or Manchester would do the job just as well. You can get from there to London in around 2 hours as the train tracks are good quality for long distances like that.

you'd need to upgrade the links from Anglesey either way

Lapin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Have you ever been on a first capital connect train? Irish rail would actually put them to shame.

Are you being serious here?

At least in relation to Thameslink?

end of the road

Lapin wrote: »

Are you being serious here?

At least in relation to Thameslink?

i believe Thameslink is now operated by govia