What if ... the Channel Tunnel had been completed in 1890

[DerekC]

The attempt to build a Channel Tunnel in the 1880s was stopped after several miles of pilot tunnel had been built by military worries over vulnerability to an invasion. What if it had been completed? We would have had a double track connection from the South Eastern main line at Shakespeare Cliff to the French network at Sangatte, 100 years earlier than actually occurred. What difference would this have made to UK railway history?

 

[Flying Phil]

Interesting question, the vision of Sir Edward Watkin, and others, for the link from the North of England to the Continent was exceptional and the reality came close with the building of the GC London Extension to a Continental loading gauge.
In terms of UK railway history the GC would still be open!
On a broader view, might the two World Wars have happened, if links across the Chanel were even easier and a version of the EU began much earlier???

 

[Railops]

Having worked for 2 years on the present tunnel construction I would very much doubt that the technology available at the time would have been sufficient for a successful build.
We had massive problems continually with early 1990's technology so I doubt this early build would have lasted long before the first problems occurred.

 

[DarloRich]

had it been constructed ( and i share the doubts expressed above) what would have happened during either war and especially the 2nd war. Surely it would have been destroyed after the fall of france

 

[AndrewE]

It would have been blown up in 1914 to prevent invasion through it, and if reopened it would have been blown up again in 1939!

 

[Iskra]

It would have been blown up in 1914 to prevent invasion through it, and if reopened it would have been blown up again in 1939!

1940, the second time. In 1939 France was French. But yes, I agree it would have been blown at somepoint.

 

[DarloRich]

Would it have been blown up during WW1 though? Prepared for demolition yes but actually destroyed? Did the area around the tunnel fall into German hands?

 

[gg1]

Would it have been blown up during WW1 though? Prepared for demolition yes but actually destroyed? Did the area around the tunnel fall into German hands?

It didn't but if the channel tunnel did exist in 1914 it's capture would almost certainly have been Germany's primary strategic aim in the invasion of France, it would of course also have been heavily defended so it's capture was by no mean guaranteed.

 

[oldman]

To be useful you need to control both ends of the tunnel, so it would have helped us move troops and equipment to France. To use the tunnel for an invasion, you would have to secure a reasonable area on the enemy side by other means - perhaps paratroops in WW2. Otherwise a tunnel to enemy territory isn't much use.

 

[davetheguard]

An alternative thesis might suggest that with the tunnel in place in 1940, reinforcements for the British Expeditionary Forces in France & Belgium could have been moved much more easily and much more quickly.

Possibly, as a result France wouldn't have fallen at all?

 

[edwin_m]

An alternative thesis might suggest that with the tunnel in place in 1940, reinforcements for the British Expeditionary Forces in France & Belgium could have been moved much more easily and much more quickly.

Possibly, as a result France wouldn't have fallen at all?

I get the impression that before America got involved, there wasn't much left in the way of men or equipment that could have been sent to reinforce the BEF. The flipside is that a couple of Stukas could have got lucky and made the tunnel useless for either reinforcement or evacuation.

 

[DarloRich]

An alternative thesis might suggest that with the tunnel in place in 1940, reinforcements for the British Expeditionary Forces in France & Belgium could have been moved much more easily and much more quickly.

Possibly, as a result France wouldn't have fallen at all?

Would a tunnel have meant allied commanders knew to block the area in the Ardennes with their main forces rather than advance into Belgium?

With the success of Fall Gelb the entrance to the Chunnel, assuming it to be in a similar area to our tunnel, was in German hands by the end of May 1941.

While we might consider how the BEF could have fallen back onto the tunnel & the port of Calais (instead of Dunkirk) and made a stand there prior to evacuation instead of further up the coast surely we cant allow the existence of a tunnel to change general allied strategy.

 

[DerekC]

Assuming for a minute that the tunnel could have been completed and (as seems likely) that it would not have changed military history very much, it seems probable that it would have been used by the Allies during WW1 and flooded (that was the plan put forward in the 1880s) during WW2.

My question is whether it would have changed UK railway history. Remembering that from 1880 to the beginning of WW2 was the period when railways dominated long distance land transport, it seems likely that significant freight and passenger traffic would have built up (the capacity of the tunnel railway would be the limiting factor). Assuming the tunnel was built to a continental loading gauge, there would have been commercial pressure to gauge clear the routes to London (certainly) and further north and west (see Great Central). Would it have made the UK railways less insular and more open to adopt continental practice in things like locomotive and rolling stock design, electrification and signalling? Maybe.

 

[Iskra]

My main concern about an 1890 channel tunnel would be whether it was survivable for a human travelling through it? I'm not sure about the practicalities of ventilation for a long, undersea tunnel in 1890. Additionally, I'm under the impression that a steam locomotive can't open its firebox doors in a tunnel without potentially engulfing the crew in flame. I'm not sure you could go 20 miles without adding fuel to fire and still make it up the hill to get out of the tunnel again.

 

[yorksrob]

I doubt the great station at Dover Marine would have been built.

 

[DarloRich]

Assuming for a minute that the tunnel could have been completed and (as seems likely) that it would not have changed military history very much, it seems probable that it would have been used by the Allies during WW1 and flooded (that was the plan put forward in the 1880s) during WW2.

My question is whether it would have changed UK railway history. Remembering that from 1880 to the beginning of WW2 was the period when railways dominated long distance land transport, it seems likely that significant freight and passenger traffic would have built up (the capacity of the tunnel railway would be the limiting factor). Assuming the tunnel was built to a continental loading gauge, there would have been commercial pressure to gauge clear the routes to London (certainly) and further north and west (see Great Central). Would it have made the UK railways less insular and more open to adopt continental practice in things like locomotive and rolling stock design, electrification and signalling? Maybe.

the problem is that the history of that period is one of conflict. The tunnel could not be considered without its place in wider history.

I doubt that, other than the GC, routes could have been cleared to a bigger gauge once they had been built. Most of the main lines were in place and while in the early days it might have been easier to clear land for redevelopment i doubt that could be done after, say, the start of the first war.

 

[ainsworth74]

My main concern about an 1890 channel tunnel would be whether it was survivable for a human travelling through it? I'm not sure about the practicalities of ventilation for a long, undersea tunnel in 1890. Additionally, I'm under the impression that a steam locomotive can't open its firebox doors in a tunnel without potentially engulfing the crew in flame. I'm not sure you could go 20 miles without adding fuel to fire and still make it up the hill to get out of the tunnel again.

I would expect that it would have been electrified from the outset. The first electrified London Underground line opened in 1890 and the Liverpool Overhead Railway opened in 1893 and was electrified from the start of operations. Those were all third/fourth rail systems however as I don't think overhead lines came into use until the 1900s/1910s.

But it seems reasonable to conclude that the tunnel would have taken advantage of such technology to avoid issues with ventilation.

 

[edwin_m]

My main concern about an 1890 channel tunnel would be whether it was survivable for a human travelling through it? I'm not sure about the practicalities of ventilation for a long, undersea tunnel in 1890. Additionally, I'm under the impression that a steam locomotive can't open its firebox doors in a tunnel without potentially engulfing the crew in flame. I'm not sure you could go 20 miles without adding fuel to fire and still make it up the hill to get out of the tunnel again.

The first significant electric railway was the City and South London, which opened in 1890 having originally intended to use cable haulage. So it had already been recognised that steam haulage was impossible in a long tunnel with little ventilation, and barely tolerable in the semi-open conditions of the Metropolitan and District. But by the turn of the century electrification was sufficiently workable to make main line projects possible such as New York's Penn and Grand Central stations and the associated tunnels under the rivers and the cities. So it's entirely possible that this problem would have been solved in the early 20th century by electrification, albeit including such wonders as giant nderground manned rotary converter substations to step down the voltage to the 600V or so that was the maximum practicable at the time.

 

[DerekC]

My main concern about an 1890 channel tunnel would be whether it was survivable for a human travelling through it? I'm not sure about the practicalities of ventilation for a long, undersea tunnel in 1890. Additionally, I'm under the impression that a steam locomotive can't open its firebox doors in a tunnel without potentially engulfing the crew in flame. I'm not sure you could go 20 miles without adding fuel to fire and still make it up the hill to get out of the tunnel again.

The 1880 plans recognised this and proposed to use compressed air locomotives which (according to the proposers) would have the additional advantage of providing ventilation air. I am sure other posters are right, though, in that electrification would have been used.

 

[gg1]

My main concern about an 1890 channel tunnel would be whether it was survivable for a human travelling through it? I'm not sure about the practicalities of ventilation for a long, undersea tunnel in 1890. Additionally, I'm under the impression that a steam locomotive can't open its firebox doors in a tunnel without potentially engulfing the crew in flame. I'm not sure you could go 20 miles without adding fuel to fire and still make it up the hill to get out of the tunnel again.

As others have said it would have been cable hauled or electrified from the start, more likely the latter.

What is interesting is the knock on effect on electrification either side of the channel. At first I think only the tunnel itself would be electrified with a changeover to steam taking place at Folkestone and Calais (or wherever the portals were) but there would surely be interest from the South East & Chatham Railway and their counterparts in France (this being long before the formation of SNCF) in providing fully electrified through trains from London to Paris before the first world war.

 

[DarloRich]

surely the tunnel would have had to be electrified. Could ventilation shafts have been provided for steam locomotives?

 

[341o2]

surely the tunnel would have had to be electrified. Could ventilation shafts have been provided for steam locomotives?

As the channel is very busy regarding shipping (there are areas designated as shipping lanes) I'm sure such shafts would be opposed.

The Royal Albert bridge over the Tamar is 100' above the river because the Admiralty decreed that it must not cause any problems for shipping

On a lighter note, the Monster Raving Looney Party included in its manifesto a proposal to divert the channel tunnel to the Falklands

 

[AndrewE]

As the channel is very busy regarding shipping (there are areas designated as shipping lanes) I'm sure such shafts would be opposed.

The Royal Albert bridge over the Tamar is 100' above the river because the Admiralty decreed that it must not cause any problems for shipping

I think one of the early plans did have a big wide ventilation shaft in an artificial island (and a Scottish coalmine had an offshore export shaft for loading directly into ships a hundred years ago.)

The shipping traffic is so dense in the Channel that it has to be segregated into up and down lanes anyway, so maybe a physical barrier between them wouldn't have been out of the question. After all, such things are considered to be essential on busy roads!

Bridges quite a long way up lots of rivers had to have "air draught"(or be able to open) because of the need for trading sailing ships to go under/get past.

 

[gg1]

(and a Scottish coalmine had an offshore export shaft for loading directly into ships a hundred years ago.)

Off topic I know but that sounds very interesting, do you have any more info, even just the name of said mine so I could do a little googling

 

[AndrewE]

Off topic I know but that sounds very interesting, do you have any more info, even just the name of said mine so I could do a little googling

a quick Google search for "Fife coal mine sea shaft" found this:
https://canmore.org.uk/site/48064/culross-the-moat-coal-shaft
which is much older than I was thinking ("the beginning of the 17th century!")
I don't know if it is the same one as was shown on one of the Coast programmes, where they prodded with an oar from a rowing boat and felt the capped shaft not far beneath the surface.

 

[Taunton]

Additionally, I'm under the impression that a steam locomotive can't open its firebox doors in a tunnel without potentially engulfing the crew in flame. I'm not sure you could go 20 miles without adding fuel to fire and still make it up the hill to get out of the tunnel again.

Not so. The steam bankers (and train locos) at the Severn Tunnel had to be fired pretty hard from the bottom up to the exit portal. Heavy freights doing 20-30mph up the 1 in 90 would take the best part of 10 minutes to do that, you can't fail to fire at full regulator for that long.

Regarding the Channel Tunnel, I think the thing missing about the 1890 project is how little trade there actually was, both passenger and goods, between Britain and Europe before 1914, financially it would never have stacked up.

 

[Harpers Tate]

Closed and the tracks lifted after the Beeching report, by Harold Wilson's government.

Or worse - a few miles of track on the English side leading to it closed and the tracks lifted thus separating the through railway between the UK and the continent (a decision based on the cost of upkeep of some trivial viaduct in perfectly good order, or a set of points somewhere). And a huge no expense spared motorway network with a freight interchange for trucks to carry goods to/from the continent - by road in the UK and rail the Continent.

 

[deltic]

Regarding the Channel Tunnel, I think the thing missing about the 1890 project is how little trade there actually was, both passenger and goods, between Britain and Europe before 1914, financially it would never have stacked up.

There was considerable trade between the UK and western Europe - it was the main source of imports in 1900.

I would have expected there would have been a large number of trains departing London Victoria from early afternoon to late evening with through carriages to most west European capitals and other major centres - perhaps there would have been some through coaches from other UK cities through to the continent as well. With returning trains arriving from mid-morning to early afternoon. Possibly with a crack day time train from London to each of Brussels and Paris

There would also have been a stream of freight trains throughout the day and night - freight would be the dominant traffic as it was on most main lines at that time.

In first world war it would have been a key supply route for the army in France and Belgium. In the second world war it would probably have been taken out of action just before Germany's invasion of France by heavy and continuous bombing to prevent rapid movement of British troops to the mainland. Once Germany had overrun France it would probably have been blocked by the British - whether it would have been fully destroyed at that stage is debatable but possibly would have been by retreating Germans before or after Normandy.

How long it would take to be rebuilt and if we could afford it after the war would be an interesting question - possibly it would be a low priority and have to wait until trade started picking up in the 1960s or even later