HS2 phase 1 tunnel boring plan

[HSTEd]

It is and it is.

As lovely as a road tunnel sounds are people happy for all those who work in the port and on the ferries to lose their jobs just so you can see your dream of driving under the sea? mint.

So we must not develop any infrastructure that might lead to anyone losing their jobs?

How many people actually still work in the Channel ferry industry? I doubt many are still left.
Many of those people would have jobs associated with a Euroroute-like proposal, especially if that proposal did use the artificial island's spare space to have fuel stations, marinas and restaurants.

 

[Clip]

I didnt say that did I. And yes theres quite a few dotted all around kent who still work them.

 

[HSTEd]

I didnt say that did I. And yes theres quite a few dotted all around kent who still work them.

Well the bulk of the crew on the ferries work in the kind of jobs that would be found in any motorway service station, relatively few of them actually relate to sailing the ship.
And many of those would be able to find crew positions on the project's inevitable support tender [since it probably would have one].

Customs staff would remain much as they are now, just they would work at the toll plazas rather than at the ports.
There aren't that many other staff really.

 

[najaB]

How many people drive 300 miles? Quite a lot, actually.

It's not just the 300km to Paris, it's also the 200 miles from Birmingham or 250 miles from Leed to Folkstone on top of that.

 

[HSTEd]

It's not just the 300km to Paris, it's also the 200 miles from Birmingham or 250 miles from Leed to Folkstone on top of that.

300km is only 185 miles, not 300.

So Paris Birmingham would be about 385 miles.

 

[najaB]

300km is only 185 miles, not 300.

I didn't say it was. But ~400 miles is far enough that a lot of people get the train (or fly) to London from Scotland Throw in a bridge-tunnel with tolls for a comparable journey from Birmingham and it would be enough to put people off driving to Paris, the Alps to go skiing or to Disneyland.

 

[HSTEd]

I didn't say it was. But ~400 miles is far enough that a lot of people get the train (or fly) to London from Scotland, throw in a bridge-tunnel with tolls and it would be enough to put people off driving to Paris, the Alps to go skiing or to Disneyland.

But almost noone lives in Scotland compared to the, on average far closer, England.
Scotland-France surface traffic is essentially negligible no matter what crossing is in place for the Channel.

 

[najaB]

But almost noone lives in Scotland compared to the, on average far closer, England.
Scotland-France surface traffic is essentially negligible no matter what crossing is in place for the Channel.

No, you misunderstood my post (and I take offence to being called 'almost no one'!) I'm saying that people don't, for the most part, drive from Scotland to London. So there's no reason to believe that people would, for the most part, drive from Birmingham to Paris.

 

[TheKnightWho]

It is and it is.

As lovely as a road tunnel sounds are people happy for all those who work in the port and on the ferries to lose their jobs just so you can see your dream of driving under the sea? mint.

It isn't and it isn't. We aren't inherently cut off, and Britain is certainly not different to the rest of Europe anymore than France is different from Germany - and they seem to cope with plenty of integration between the two, and with many other countries besides.

Also your argument is the one made against every infrastructure that links two places: the new jobs and prosperity created through economically linking two places far outstrips the jobs of those who ran the ferries. Otherwise we should never build any bridges or tunnels over water ever.

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't see what this discussion has to do with HS2 tunnels (see thread title). Is there a suggestion that parallel road tunnels should be constructed? In short what on earth are you all on about?

 

[HSTEd]

No, you misunderstood my post (and I take offence to being called 'almost no one'!) I'm saying that people don't, for the most part, drive from Scotland to London. So there's no reason to believe that people would, for the most part, drive from Birmingham to Paris.

Birmingham to Brussels or London to PAris, London to Antwerp and London to Amsterdam are shorter routes however.
The traffic over a drive through crossing would be much higher than with the current tunnel shuttle, it would have all the existing traffic, all of the current ferry traffic as well as greater traffic generated by the ease of driving across the crossing compared to the ferries.

The Great Belt crossing has produced traffic levels far greater than those that existed before its completion for example.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I didn't say it was. But ~400 miles is far enough that a lot of people get the train (or fly) to London from Scotland Throw in a bridge-tunnel with tolls for a comparable journey from Birmingham and it would be enough to put people off driving to Paris, the Alps to go skiing or to Disneyland.

But you're completely ignoring the possible economic integration between local regions. Unlike with the train, a road tunnel could be useful for much more local journeys, and so saying that people wouldn't drive to Paris from Birmingham (as though everyone going to France must be driving to Paris, and everyone from the UK must be leaving from a big city) is a completely false assumption.

 

[najaB]

But you're completely ignoring the possible economic integration between local regions.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just saying that there's likely to be more people wanting to travel between the capital cities of two of Europe's largest economies than the number of people who want to potter between small provincial towns either side of the Channel.

Which was, realistically, going to get the private capital needed to finance the tunnel: "I want people from Margate to be able to pop to Boulogne-sur-Mer to have tea" or "I want to allow through trains from London to all the major cities in Europe"?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't see what this discussion has to do with HS2 tunnels (see thread title).

Like many (most?) threads given enough time: very little!

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just saying that there's likely to be more people wanting to travel between the capital cities of two of Europe's largest economies than the number of people who want to potter between small provincial towns either side of the Channel.

Considering the South East regions population is generally comparable to that of London that is a little simplistic.

Which was, realistically, going to get the private capital needed to finance the tunnel: "I want people from Margate to be able to pop to Boulogne-sur-Mer to have tea" or "I want to allow through trains from London to all the major cities in Europe

So there are only two major cities on the European continent?
Those trains do not generate large amounts of traffic.
Tolls for a bridge would be sufficiently low that you would generate enormous amounts of extra traffic. People would drive back and forth across the bridge like it was nothing.

Pile crossings high and sell them cheap. Even a 2+2 crossing route would have far more capacity than the shuttle could dream of.

Like many (most?) threads given enough time: very little!

Ain't that the truth.

 

[najaB]

So there are only two major cities on the European continent?

What? Is Brussels not getting any love?

 

[HSTEd]

What? Is Brussels not getting any love?

Paris and Brussels, after all the Channel Tunnel is not used for trains from London to itself

How much traffic actually uses the Chunnel if you exclude the Shuttle trains?
You could probably get away with the minimum mousehole concept with one main bore and one small service bore.
And there would be far less risk of fire.

Ofcourse these days you could probably build a single immersed tube tunnel from Calais to near Dover now, with combined road and rail traffic.

 

[ic250]

If I recall, the original reason a rail option was chosen rather than road tunnels/bridges was due to a combination of cost and driver mesmorisation.

Bridges were deemed to costly, especially taking into account the extra structural support required to alleviate high winds.

A 32 mile tunnel was deemed to be unfeasible due to fears of driver mesmorisation in such a long, repetitive space. This would still be a problem today (though maybe not with driverless cars).

 

[HSTEd]

They have done a lot of research on that these days - especially the Norwegians who have some very long narrow road tunnels which (probably) magnifies that effect.
Constantly changing lighting schemes and such in the tunnel apparently helps.

 

[najaB]

They have done a lot of research on that these days - especially the Norwegians who have some very long narrow road tunnels which (probably) magnifies that effect.
Constantly changing lighting schemes and such in the tunnel apparently helps.

That piqued my curiosity so I just had a look at the Lærdal Tunnel. Very interesting features, but clearly not practical for a Channel tunnel.

 

[HSTEd]

That piqued my curiosity so I just had a look at the Lærdal Tunnel. Very interesting features, but clearly not practical for a Channel tunnel.

The caves are almost certainly not practical in an immersed tube tunnel.
But the lighting changes probably are and might have something of the same effect.

Obviously a bridge based solution avoids these issues thanks to constantly changing natural light conditions and not being claustrophobic at all.

 

[najaB]

Obviously a bridge based solution avoids these issues thanks to constantly changing natural light conditions and not being claustrophobic at all.

At the risk of being closed several times a year due to weather conditions. Not to mention being obscenely expensive as compared to a tunnel.

 

[HSTEd]

At the risk of being closed several times a year due to weather conditions. Not to mention being obscenely expensive as compared to a tunnel.

That depends on the design, but that would be a risk yes.

Really the best from a transport perspective would be attempting to build a Dynamic Tidal barrage across the Pas de Calais, complete with locks for shipping.

But that would cost a ludicrous amount and might not be that effective at producing power, I would need a tidal model I don't have access to to be sure.

 

[quantinghome]

Ventilation for a road tunnel would have been a huge problem as well.

 

[HSTEd]

Ventilation for a road tunnel would have been a huge problem as well.

With an immersed tube this is less of an issue - as recently very long tunnel projects are showing (for example the Fehmarn Belt project).

Immersed tubes mean you can easily increase the cross section of the tunnel to add additional ventilation - and if worst comes to worst you can simply compress the air and dump it 'overboard' through a no-return valve. That means you only need an air supply and no exhaust air ventilation.

 

[Kingsbury Jn.]

If I recall, the original reason a rail option was chosen rather than road tunnels/bridges was due to a combination of cost and driver mesmorisation.

Bridges were deemed to costly, especially taking into account the extra structural support required to alleviate high winds.

A 32 mile tunnel was deemed to be unfeasible due to fears of driver mesmorisation in such a long, repetitive space. This would still be a problem today (though maybe not with driverless cars).

The answer is obvious. Build coach-only tunnels and have a 32 mile long guided busway!