NI to Scotland tunnel?

deandean

Not worth it.
Forget about it.
Mainly since it became uneconomic for Irish people to import a used car from GB.

RandomViewer

Aegir wrote: »

This isn’t Boris saying this, it’s the rail planners.

Fossil fuels are only going to get more and more expensive and development of alternative powered planes and ships seems to be somewhat lacking at the moment.

Hydrogen paste looks like a possible replacement
https://newatlas.com/energy/powerpaste-hydrogen-fuel-paste/

Polar101

Just to put things into perspective, the length of this new tunnel would be the same as the Channel Tunnel (which is world's 3rd longest railway tunnel). That cost about £8.5 billion in today's money.

While this is a better plan that the Boris Bridge, and might actually be possible to build - how realistic is it financially? Not very, seems to be the obvious answer.

Donald Trump

Five Eighth wrote: »

Could they build it so that they could jump the pillars?

Didn't Boris de pfeffel spend loads of taxpayers dosh on some kind of garden bridge in London that was never built?

Maybe he could just two two big pillars, one on each side, and an oul' zipline between them

jmlad2020

Sure the IRA would blow it up anyways. They would need to make it Terrorist proof adding a few more Billion to it. Not feasible really.

Imagine spending all that money on something only to be ruined in a day.

Tyrone212

RandomViewer wrote: »

Channel tunnell is 50k and they built that in 5 years in the 1980s

Yeah but it only serves trains. This is supposed to be road and train so a much bigger operation.

statesaver

Foreign country wants to build a tunnel, why should we care ?

gozunda

Darc19 wrote: »

April fools Day has started early this year.

Usual Boris bluster and some eejits in Scotland and NI will actually believe it.

Reality will set in at some point

I've heard the Scunnel (Scottish/ Northern Ireland Tunnel) would help facilitate the annual migration of the Haggis from the mountain regions of Scotland to the Antrim Hills.

To date the poor wee buggers have to swim across - braving the dangerous currents between Scotland and Northern Ireland. Many are sadly drowned during this annual migration

I'd give it a thumbs up if even just to help save the lives of these much maligned creatures

OneEightSeven

The sea there is about 150 meters deep; whereas, it's 50 meters deep between England and France, so the tunnelling costs will be higher. It took 13 years for the Channel Tunnel to turn a profit and that's with 14 - 18 million passengers and 18 to 20 million tonnes for freight a year. You would have to massively increase the population density on each side of the coast to make this viable.

If I was a Unionist on either side of the sea, I would be offended by this feeble attempt to persuade me the English and the Tory's care about Northern Ireland and Scotland. You also have to wonder why the Tory's and the English bother with the Union, the Tory's would have won a majority in 2010 if Scotland was independent and Northern Ireland drains about £13bn a year from the UK's tax money.

John Doe1

John Doe1 wrote: »

It will be a grand piece of infrastructure for the Celtic Union to inherit.:P

Would you be happy to inherit the related debt?

bob mcbob

OneEightSeven wrote: »

The sea there is about 150 meters deep; whereas, it's 50 meters deep between England and France, so the tunnelling costs will be higher. It took 13 years for the Channel Tunnel to turn a profit and that's with 14 - 18 million passengers and 18 to 20 million tonnes for freight a year. You would have to massively increase the population density on each side of the coast to make this viable.

If I was a Unionist on either side of the sea, I would be offended by this feeble attempt to persuade me the English and the Tory's care about Northern Ireland and Scotland. You also have to wonder why the Tory's and the English bother with the Union, the Tory's would have won a majority in 2010 if Scotland was independent and Northern Ireland drains about £13bn a year from the UK's tax money.

Not that this is ever going to happen but let's pretend.

The rock between Dover and Calais is mainly chalk so relatively soft.
There was a lot of volcanic activity around that area in the past so the rock is likely to be hard igneous rocks. Not a geological expert but that should make tunnelling a wee bit tricky.

Still why let reality get in the way of political posturing.

trashcan

Donald Trump wrote: »

Maybe he could just two two big pillars, one on each side, and an oul' zipline between them

Arlene, Sammy or Gregory to test it out.

Big Ears

OneEightSeven wrote: »

The sea there is about 150 meters deep; whereas, it's 50 meters deep between England and France, so the tunnelling costs will be higher. It took 13 years for the Channel Tunnel to turn a profit and that's with 14 - 18 million passengers and 18 to 20 million tonnes for freight a year. You would have to massively increase the population density on each side of the coast to make this viable.

If I was a Unionist on either side of the sea, I would be offended by this feeble attempt to persuade me the English and the Tory's care about Northern Ireland and Scotland. You also have to wonder why the Tory's and the English bother with the Union, the Tory's would have won a majority in 2010 if Scotland was independent and Northern Ireland drains about £13bn a year from the UK's tax money.

There's no question that financially it just doesn't add up, and if you want to appease the people of North Ireland/Scotland you'd be better spending £5-10bn in each on infrastructure and jobs creation.

It is most likely bluster from Boris, however this is the country who recently voted and implemented Brexit and this is a man who'd love to stroke his own ego with a major infrastructural project being nicknamed after in, and being achieved in his time in power.
For those reasons while it would make no sense, and still seems unlikely, it is actually possible it could happen.

If it were to happen, It would require large improvements in rail on both sides to make the rail aspect any use, and people would have to change trains upon arrival to the other side.
The potential of driving between Belfast and Glasgow in 3 hours is appealing, and as we move more towards electric cars, being able to drive between Scotland and Northern Ireland would be a much greener way to travel than flying.
Ignoring the environmental impact of creating the tunnel in the first place that is

It probably won't happen, but seeing as it'd be Britain's money and not Ireland's, I hope they splurge on it anyway.

bob mcbob

It seems even some Tory MP's believe this proposal is nonsense

Conservative MP Simon Hoare, chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, yesterday dismissed the idea of an undersea tunnel as fanciful and said the government's focus should be on making the protocol work.

"The trains could be pulled by an inexhaustible herd of Unicorns overseen by stern, officious dodos," he tweeted.

"A PushmePullYou could be the senior guard and Puff the Magic Dragon the inspector. Let’s concentrate on making the protocol work and put the hallucinogenics down."

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19090665.put-hallucinogenics-down-prospect-undersea-tunnel-scotland-northern-ireland-debunked/

RandomViewer

Wicklow to Wales would make more sense,

LXFlyer

RandomViewer wrote: »

Wicklow to Wales would make more sense,

Ah yes, but that doesn't reinforce the Union which is what this bluster is all about.

gctest50

OneEightSeven wrote: »

The sea there is about 150 meters deep; whereas, it's 50 meters deep between England and France, so the tunnelling costs will be higher...........

Build a Submerged Floating Tunnel ?

Calahonda52

gctest50 wrote: »

Build a Submerged Floating Tunnel ?

WWII munition dump, including chemical weapons on sea floor

VinLieger

OneEightSeven wrote: »

The sea there is about 150 meters deep; whereas, it's 50 meters deep between England and France, so the tunnelling costs will be higher. It took 13 years for the Channel Tunnel to turn a profit and that's with 14 - 18 million passengers and 18 to 20 million tonnes for freight a year. You would have to massively increase the population density on each side of the coast to make this viable.

If I was a Unionist on either side of the sea, I would be offended by this feeble attempt to persuade me the English and the Tory's care about Northern Ireland and Scotland. You also have to wonder why the Tory's and the English bother with the Union, the Tory's would have won a majority in 2010 if Scotland was independent and Northern Ireland drains about £13bn a year from the UK's tax money.

Actually a straight shot between Larne and Stranraer can get as deep as 240 metres, so 4 times as deep as the euro tunnel

Aegir wrote: »

This isn’t Boris saying this, it’s the rail planners.

Fossil fuels are only going to get more and more expensive and development of alternative powered planes and ships seems to be somewhat lacking at the moment.

Ahh aegir the eternal union optimist.

So your trusting the rail planners who don't know what the hell they will be digging through and cant send anything down to check due to all the munitions that make the bridge impossible. Also this is absolutely coming from Boris as a distraction and it will never ever be built.

blanch152

RandomViewer wrote: »

Wicklow to Wales would make more sense,

The problem with Ireland/Wales is that at the most reasonable points, either Dublin/Holyhead or Rosslare/Fishguard, the sea depth is over 100m and the distance is over 90km.

Arklow to Bardsey Island is shorter and the sea less deep, but the onward road and rail connections are far worse.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahh aegir the eternal union optimist

So your trusting the rail planners who don't know what the hell they will be digging through and cant send anything down to check due to all the munitions that make the bridge impossible. Also this is absolutely coming from Boris as a distraction and it will never ever be built.

Nothing to do with the Union, I’d rather it was built from Dublin/Wicklow.

What’s the alternative?

landofthetree

NIMAN wrote: »

Will never happen.

They said the same about the channel tunnel.

The Brits are great at infrastructure. Eg Crossrail, docklands light rail in London,new tram routes in Manchester, light rail in Nottingham,light rail in Croydon etc.

We dont even have a rail link to an airport. All we have built since independence is the Luas when it comes to public transport. All of if was on old railway lines.

VinLieger

Aegir wrote: »

Nothing to do with the Union, I’d rather it was built from Dublin/Wicklow.

What’s the alternative?

Do we need an alternative? If were paying for something in Dublin id prefer the Dublin port expansion to finally go ahead it would be far cheaper and actually useful for allowing more shipping from Europe and the rest of the world.

Battery Tech is not far from having both a battery ferry between Larne/Cairnryan and battery turboprop from Belfast City Airport serving Glasgow and Edinburgh.
British channel exists because it was chalk that was eroded away. Harder rock up there between Ireland and Scotland.

VinLieger

landofthetree wrote: »

They said the same about the channel tunnel.

The Brits are great at infrastructure. Eg Crossrail, docklands light rail in London,new tram routes in Manchester, light rail in Nottingham,light rail in Croydon etc.

We dont even have a rail link to an airport.

All projects that were needed vs the money they cost. This is not compared to the cost and time it will require, its purely political in nature.

VinLieger

VinLieger wrote: »

Do we need an alternative? If were paying for something in Dublin id prefer the Dublin port expansion to finally go ahead it would be far cheaper and actually useful for allowing more shipping from Europe and the rest of the world.

ships that use fossil fuels?

what could possibly go wrong?

NeuralNetwork

Boris’ distraction techniques and a complaint, flag waving media.

They can’t even deliver high speed rail to Birmingham and Manchester.

This is absolute crayons on maps, pie in the sky stuff and is very obviously not even remotely economically feasible.

What’s he calling again, Boris’ Hole? That’s certainly where he talks out of.

VinLieger

Aegir wrote: »

ships that use fossil fuels?

what could possibly go wrong?

Great argument you've got there, also your suddenly now worried about the planet?


Wasnt Brexit also about bringing industrial manufacturing back to the UK? Whats a massive downside to any form of large scale industrial manufacturing?

Not to mention the whole "we will just trade with countries that are further away" argument... how do goods get to the UK from these countries?

RandomViewer

NeuralNetwork wrote: »

Boris’ distraction techniques and a complaint, flag waving media.

They can’t even deliver high speed rail to Birmingham and Manchester.

This is absolute crayons on maps, pie in the sky stuff and is very obviously not even remotely economically feasible.

What’s he calling again, Boris’ Hole? That’s certainly where he talks out of.

The Brexit Burrow is the latest

AMKC

deandean wrote: »

Not worth it.
Forget about it.
Mainly since it became uneconomic for Irish people to import a used car from GB.

Thankfully and about time too. I know I might regret saying that in the future but if Irish were not so thick and stupid that they all thought they needed diesel cars then there would be no need to import a car from the UK.
Buy local and support your local mechanics or showrooms. I am glad it has been made uneconomic to buy a car from the UK now even if it does leave us with less choice