Channel Tunnel 2

[Mgameing123]

Hello everyone. I was wondering about the future of cross-channel services. The channel tunnel isn't at capacity yet but when it is, where would a new one be?

Maybe perhaps between Cherbourg and Bournemouth or the Isle of Wight.
A new pair of tunnels right next to the existing ones?

Make you suggestions!

 

[PeterC]

If (a big if) such a tunnel was built I would expect it to parallel the existing tunnel to maximise the use of existing infrastructure for high speed rail and immigration for road.

For say to day use one pair could be dedicated to the Shuttle and the other to through rail services

 

[stuu]

The existing tunnel is in the most sensible place - the shortest crossing and pointing more or less towards the biggest traffic generators. Nowhere else makes any economic or engineering sense

 

[TheGrew]

I think putting it where the existing one is would make the most sense. Looking at this map of Channel depth, I think going for a Swanage-Cherbourg type crossing would be too challenging both in distance and depth.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sea-bed-bathymetry-of-the-English-Channel-continental-shelf-Inset-map-shows-merged_fig1_261766952

Though if all Engineering challenges could be overcome and good connectivity could be put in either side, I think Harwich/Felixstowe to Rotterdam would do quite well.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Hello everyone. I was wondering about the future of cross-channel services. The channel tunnel isn't at capacity yet but when it is, where would a new one be?

Maybe perhaps between Cherbourg and Bournemouth or the Isle of Wight.
A new pair of tunnels right next to the existing ones?

Make you suggestions!

I would build next to the existing tunnel but would build the new tunnel with higher speeds in mind, probably 250km/h as opposed to 200km/h that the current tunnel is designed for but limited to 160km/h. Considering the Gotthard Base Tunnel is built for 250km/h an underwater tunnel of similar speed should be possible. While there will be gradients in a new Channel Tunnel, modern high-speed EMUs should be able to maintain 250km/h even with the gradients. The existing tunnel would be for shuttles and through freight.

 

[generalnerd]

I hope Olivia Colman plays the queen in the opening ceremony scene :P

In all seriousness It would probably be next to the current ones, anywhere else would be far too long. The new tunnel would also hopefully be a faster speed, and could be dedicated to the high speed trains, allowing more goods and shuttle trains in the existing slow tunnels

 

[Royston Vasey]

I hope Olivia Colman plays the queen in the opening ceremony scene :P

In all seriousness It would probably be next to the current ones, anywhere else would be far too long. The new tunnel would also hopefully be a faster speed, and could be dedicated to the high speed trains, allowing more goods and shuttle trains in the existing slow tunnels

It'll probably be King George VII by the time we'd have approved it, planned it and built it!

 

[generalnerd]

It'll probably be King George VII by the time we'd have approved it, planned it and built it!

Haha yes we’re so slow at building things.

To be honest though, I can’t think it would get to capacity anytime soon

 

[bleeder4]

To be pedantic, the current Channel Tunnel is already the second one. The remnants of the first one from the 1880s can still be accessed from a brick structure at the base of Shakespeare Cliff and the current tunnel actually intersects with part of the Victorian era one.

 

[generalnerd]

To be pedantic, the current Channel Tunnel is already the second one. The remnants of the first one from the 1880s can still be accessed from a brick structure at the base of Shakespeare Cliff and the current tunnel actually intersects with part of the Victorian era one.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. How far did they end up getting?

 

[HSTEd]

Any future Channel crossing is likely to be a drive through crossing.

The existing rail based solution is not close to its ultimate capacity, and I don't think a second one is going to get a return on investment. After all most of the original investors in the tunnel lost an awful lot of money in the cycle of insolvencies that characterised its early existence.

 

[JonathanH]

I can't see a second Channel Tunnel coming higher up the list than other unaffordable projects. What are the supposed virtues of building it?

 

[Sorcerer]

I would build next to the existing tunnel but would build the new tunnel with higher speeds in mind, probably 250km/h as opposed to 200km/h that the current tunnel is designed for but limited to 160km/h. Considering the Gotthard Base Tunnel is built for 250km/h an underwater tunnel of similar speed should be possible. While there will be gradients in a new Channel Tunnel, modern high-speed EMUs should be able to maintain 250km/h even with the gradients. The existing tunnel would be for shuttles and through freight.

The Gotthard Base Tunnel might be technically designed for 250km/h operation, but the actual line speeds are just 200km/h for passenger trains or 100km/h for the freight trains. During delays you might see trains run up to 230km/h but it's not the norm. In the case of the current Channel Tunnel, Le Shuttle trains are limited to 140km/h against the Eurostar's 160km/h. As long as any route has passenger trains mixed with freight trains you won't see full high-speed operations for simple capacity reasons because freight is inherently slower. As it stands now though a 200/250km/h passenger running would only give you a saving of about 3-6 minutes at best anyway.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I can't see a second Channel Tunnel coming higher up the list than other unaffordable projects. What are the supposed virtues of building it?

Me neither. So many other projects would come higher in priority. Almost worth a new thread!

 

[JamesT]

The Gotthard Base Tunnel might be technically designed for 250km/h operation, but the actual line speeds are just 200km/h for passenger trains or 100km/h for the freight trains. During delays you might see trains run up to 230km/h but it's not the norm. In the case of the current Channel Tunnel, Le Shuttle trains are limited to 140km/h against the Eurostar's 160km/h. As long as any route has passenger trains mixed with freight trains you won't see full high-speed operations for simple capacity reasons because freight is inherently slower. As it stands now though a 200/250km/h passenger running would only give you a saving of about 3-6 minutes at best anyway.

Though dedicating tunnels to passengers vs freight would mean you wouldn't have to flight the two different types. That might allow more of an improvement than just the raw speed through the tunnel as you would have more flexibility in scheduling either side.

 

[brad465]

For the cost of a second tunnel, the Chinese could reclaim Doggerland and build a land high-speed line across it.

 

[signed]

Realistically, any new channel construction will be a road bridge

20km bridges exist in China, this long of a road tunnel would cause so many issues for the drivers (like tunnel effect, light hallucination...) and the political stance is likely to become even more car centered on both side by the late 2040s/50s

 

[Mgameing123]

Realistically, any new channel construction will be a road bridge

20km bridges exist in China, this long of a road tunnel would cause so many issues for the drivers (like tunnel effect, light hallucination...) and the political stance is likely to become even more car centered on both side by the late 2040s/50s

Doubt it would be a good solution when your trying to create more rail capacity.

 

[signed]

Doubt it would be a good solution when your trying to create more rail capacity.

Unless major modal shift (particularly on the freight side, but on the passenger side as well, though that's mostly need more services) happen, it is unlikely to be needed, ferries are still king for freight, and there is plenty of capacity on the Chunnel and on HS1

 

[HSTEd]

Doubt it would be a good solution when your trying to create more rail capacity.

The capacity of the existing tunnel would be enormous if it had no speed differential shuttles in the way though.

With ETCS it could probably do 20+ trains per hour at 160km/h.

A drive through crossing would absorb the current shuttle/ferry market and leave the tunnel purely for rail services.
Conceptually you could make a road-rail combination bridge, but that would substantially elevate the cost - and there is no shortage of cross channel rail capacity once the bridge is open in any case.

 

[Pete_uk]

Send it to come up in...
... the Netherlands.

 

[Mgameing123]

The existing tunnel is in the most sensible place - the shortest crossing and pointing more or less towards the biggest traffic generators. Nowhere else makes any economic or engineering sense

Well engineering sense depends on the technology in the future. You got to remember the Channel Tunnel was an engineering breakthrough and we might be able to make another breakthrough.

But your right, it would be easier to build it where the current tunnel is but I believe that it is better that when you need it build a relief you can provide benefits elsewhere.

 

[D365]

Not the first time we have had this discussion:

Could a second Channel Tunnel be built to increase capacity?

The Channel Tunnel since its inception in 1994 has become vital for the conveyance of passengers from London to Paris and Brussels, as well as supporting the Eurotunnel car shuttle service and intercontinental freight. As Europe’s high speed network expands and pressure grows for short and...

www.railforums.co.uk

Second channel tunnel and Hyperloop

I read about a future channel tunnel in 2000. If in 90 years the current channel tunnel needs replaced would they build a second one next door or close it? I know it’s very speculative because hyper loop technology is possible to replace it or magnetic trains. Could the current one be...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[popeter45]

i would actually suggest a mid-life Upgrade to the existing Tunnel with more cross passages to allow 2x200m unit easier, to allow it to reach 200km/h, ETCS etc
alongside new Le Train rolling stock to allow higher speeds there and up capacity in general

 

[Topological]

The capacity of the existing tunnel would be enormous if it had no speed differential shuttles in the way though.

With ETCS it could probably do 20+ trains per hour at 160km/h.

A drive through crossing would absorb the current shuttle/ferry market and leave the tunnel purely for rail services.
Conceptually you could make a road-rail combination bridge, but that would substantially elevate the cost - and there is no shortage of cross channel rail capacity once the bridge is open in any case.

This does seem to be the best solution.

The high-speed lines already connect both ends, so there really could be a regular service from London to Europe. Might have to kick the Javelin's off though.

We do not have enough long bridges in the UK.

Be interesting to know where they put the carriageway swap though. Excellent opportunity for political brinkmanship.

 

[popeter45]

Be interesting to know where they put the carriageway swap though. Excellent opportunity for political brinkmanship.

simple, one of top of the other

 

[Topological]

simple, one of top of the other

But which one?

 

[HSTEd]

But which one?

Obviously it will swap every day.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Realistically, any new channel construction will be a road bridge

20km bridges exist in China, this long of a road tunnel would cause so many issues for the drivers (like tunnel effect, light hallucination...) and the political stance is likely to become even more car centered on both side by the late 2040s/50s

One factor against the current tunnel being a road was exhaust fumes- something that will no longer be a problem if the switch to EVs progresses the way people hope it will.
The main problem then becomes where do you have the changeover point from driving on the left to driving on the right... At least until all vehicles are autonomous, at which point tunnel effect and light hallucination cease to be a problem too.

 

[Topological]

Obviously it will swap every day.

It is quite scary how messed up that would be.

7 days a week mean Mondays alternate.
365 days a year mean that 1st January is the UK side one year and then the French side the next year. Leap years just complicate it even more

I think we just put a bridge within the bridge to cross the two sides over half way across.