A wee branchline to Ireland

[Ben B]

Quote

Will it be as successful as Boris's Garden Bridge which has cost £39M ?

 

Maybe the Garden Bridge exists, but it's like the Emperors New Clothes?  Only his extra-special City Banker chums can see it crossing the Thames, but it seems invisible to the rest of us plebs  

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

Maybe the Garden Bridge exists, but it's like the Emperors New Clothes?  Only his extra-special City Banker chums can see it crossing the Thames, but it seems invisible to the rest of us plebs  

 

Quite honestly the Garden Bridge idea was more plausible. And more appealing.

[Reorte]

5 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

Maybe the Garden Bridge exists, but it's like the Emperors New Clothes?  Only his extra-special City Banker chums can see it crossing the Thames, but it seems invisible to the rest of us plebs  

 

Quite honestly the Garden Bridge idea was more plausible. And more appealing.

[Reorte]

8 minutes ago, Ben B said:

 

Maybe the Garden Bridge exists, but it's like the Emperors New Clothes?  Only his extra-special City Banker chums can see it crossing the Thames, but it seems invisible to the rest of us plebs  

Quite honestly the Garden Bridge idea was more plausible. And more appealing.

[Reorte]

duplicate

Edited February 12, 2020 by Reorte

[pH]

On 11/02/2020 at 05:53, Joseph_Pestell said:

I do wonder why overland passengers between Glasgow and Belfast have to go via Stranraer and Larne. A fast ferry from Ardrossan into central Belfast would seem a much better option even with occasional stoppages for difficult sea conditions.

 

There was a ferry service from Ardrossan to Belfast until 1976.

 

But passengers from Glasgow to various Irish destinations did not have to go even as far as Ardrossan to get the boat. Burns and Laird ran services directly from Glasgow. Here's a poster (although it is from 1941) advertising those services - https://www.theglasgowstory.com/image/?inum=TGSA02065

 

The last sailings on the various routes from Glasgow took place in the late 1960s. I remember the 'Irish boats' passing Gourock in the evenings.

 

[Derekl]

The difficulty with the various materials dumped in Beauforts Dyke - munitions, radioactive material (encased) and presumably lots of other unpleasantness is that the munitions will have become and remain highly volatile to even relatively minor shock. The material is particularly sensitive to being struck by metal objects (such as a drill or piling tool).  If some of the explosive stuff goes bang, there is every chance that it will damage the containers of radioactive material and possibly result in release, which is hardly going to be a positive for the economies on either side.  Maybe this has been thought through, but given it's a Boris idea, almost certainly not.

 

The whole thing strikes me as a bit of a pipe dream.

[Colin_McLeod]

One option is to recover all the dumped items for either destruction or safe disposal elsewhere.  This assumes that there is a good record of what is dumped where.

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 hour ago, pH said:

 

There was a ferry service from Ardrossan to Belfast until 1976.

 

But passengers from Glasgow to various Irish destinations did not have to go even as far as Ardrossan to get the boat. Burns and Laird ran services directly from Glasgow. Here's a poster (although it is from 1941) advertising those services - https://www.theglasgowstory.com/image/?inum=TGSA02065

 

The last sailings on the various routes from Glasgow took place in the late 1960s. I remember the 'Irish boats' passing Gourock in the evenings.

 

 

I knew about the Ardrossan service. Indeed, I think there were services later than 1976 but summer only. But it was a conventional ferry and it needs something quicker to be remotely competitive with air.

 

A direct service from Glasgow to Belfast would be more attractive in many ways. But what would be the minimum time, even with a high-speed vessel? How fast would it be allowed to travel on the Clyde?

[pH]

1 hour ago, Colin_McLeod said:

One option is to recover all the dumped items for either destruction or safe disposal elsewhere.  This assumes that there is a good record of what is dumped where.

 

The WW2 munitions will have been there, in salt water, for more than 70 years - the LMS  ran trains of them (see David L. Smith books for accounts of 64 wagon trains of poison gas shells to Cairnryan). I would not fancy being around any attempt to recover anything from there.

[Colin_McLeod]

I've just been reading  about what was dumped and now I think it should be left well alone!

[Jamie]

38 minutes ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

I knew about the Ardrossan service. Indeed, I think there were services later than 1976 but summer only. But it was a conventional ferry and it needs something quicker to be remotely competitive with air.

 

A direct service from Glasgow to Belfast would be more attractive in many ways. But what would be the minimum time, even with a high-speed vessel? How fast would it be allowed to travel on the Clyde?

Troon to Belfast was run using faster vessels (memorably the "SeaCat" service, but also I think P&O worked this route).

Seem to recall the saving in land travel time was offset by extra time on water.  Really those who want or need speed will fly Glasgow/Edinburgh to Belfast.

 

 

I wonder whether the Navy would welcome a bridge between English waters and the Clyde.

 

[Ron Ron Ron]

6 hours ago, Derekl said:

.....The whole thing strikes me as a bit of a pipe dream.

Tunnel

Pipe dream.

 

[Silver Sidelines]

On 12/02/2020 at 20:04, Joseph_Pestell said:

 

 

A direct service from Glasgow to Belfast would be more attractive in many ways. But what would be the minimum time, even with a high-speed vessel? How fast would it be allowed to travel on the Clyde?

 

Thanks Joseph

 

Stenna have only just moved a couple of miles up Loch Ryan from Stranraer to Cairnryan simply to shorten the distance in the water - it being much slower in Loch Ryan where there are other boats than out in the open sea.  Perhaps sea travel is relatively leisurely compared say to vehicles on roads and for traffic to and from England it is still worth the long drive on the A75 rather than the shorter road trip to Holyhead, or possibly Liverpool but with longer sailing distances.

 

Ray

[Joseph_Pestell]

1 minute ago, Silver Sidelines said:

 

Thanks Joseph

 

Stenna have only just moved a couple of miles up Loch Ryan from Stranraer to Cairnryan simply to shorten the distance in the water - it being much slower in Loch Ryan where there are other boats than out in the open sea.  Perhaps sea travel is relatively leisurely compared say to vehicles on roads and for traffic to and from England it is still worth the long drive on the A75 rather than the shorter road trip to Holyhead, or possibly Liverpool but with longer sailing distances.

 

Ray

 

I get that. Travel a lot from Portsmouth and a ridiculous amount of the overall journey time is spent at 5 knots. Poole not much better.

[Silver Sidelines]

If you think a fixed link between Scotland and Ireland is a leap too far what about this Dutch plan for the North Sea?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-crisis-north-sea-dam-uk-norway-sea-level-rise-flooding-emissions-a9333136.html

 

Geologically the North Sea is young and areas like Dogger Bank are shallow - but still a lot of water.

 

Cheers Ray

[Reorte]

45 minutes ago, Silver Sidelines said:

If you think a fixed link between Scotland and Ireland is a leap too far what about this Dutch plan for the North Sea?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-crisis-north-sea-dam-uk-norway-sea-level-rise-flooding-emissions-a9333136.html

 

Geologically the North Sea is young and areas like Dogger Bank are shallow - but still a lot of water.

 

That's a whole new level of ludicrous. Considering the completely ridiculous amounts of concrete it would require. And really face-palming when it's saying "emissions will wipe us out!" considering that concrete production is a pretty significant source of CO2.

[Wickham Green]

The Dutch actually have a far better idea ............................. use bicycles instead of cars. 

[whart57]

I'm inclined to think the Scotland to Ireland bridge plan is nonsense, not least because of who first proposed it and in what context. Politicians making promises while on the campaign trail? Hmm, let me think about that.

 

However then I read of a Dutch engineer's ambitious plan to build two long dams, one from Cornwall to Brittany and one from Scotland to Norway. Said engineer does appear to have professional competence in this field and the Dutch do have credibility when it comes to major hydrological projects, but even so .........

 

This plan is different to Johnson's though. Johnson's was an off the wall political statement which is now costing us money to have people investigate its engineering feasibility. This Dutch engineer however has really produced these proposals for two massive dykes as an indication of the sort of thing that would need to be done to protect the Rhine/Meuse delta - and the Thames and Severn basins - from the predicted rise in sea levels. So instead of a politician dabbling in engineering we have an engineer contributing to a political debate.

Edited February 14, 2020 by whart57
Spelling correction

[woodenhead]

3 hours ago, Silver Sidelines said:

If you think a fixed link between Scotland and Ireland is a leap too far what about this Dutch plan for the North Sea?

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-crisis-north-sea-dam-uk-norway-sea-level-rise-flooding-emissions-a9333136.html

 

Geologically the North Sea is young and areas like Dogger Bank are shallow - but still a lot of water.

 

Cheers Ray

So this protects Northern Europe whilst destroying the ecology of the North Sea and leaving the whole of Ireland, the west side of the UK and a lot of the western side of Europe at the mercy of a deepening Atlantic which would now have no North Sea to take some of the strain.

 

Destroys the fishing industries too that rely on the North sea.

 

Wow, way to go humans, forget saving the planet this reeks of save me me me.

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, whart57 said:

I'm inclined to think the Scotland to Ireland bridge plan is nonsense, not least because of who first proposed it and in what context. Politicians making promises while on the campaign tail? Hmm, let me think about that.

 

However then I read of a Dutch engineer's ambitious plan to build two long dams, one from Cornwall to Brittany and one from Scotland to Norway. Said engineer does appear to have professional competence in this field and the Dutch do have credibility when it comes to major hydrological projects, but even so .........

 

This plan is different to Johnson's though. Johnson's was an off the wall political statement which is now costing us money to have people investigate its engineering feasibility. This Dutch engineer however has really produced these proposals for two massive dykes as an indication of the sort of thing that would need to be done to protect the Rhine/Meuse delta - and the Thames and Severn basins - from the predicted rise in sea levels. So instead of a politician dabbling in engineering we have an engineer contributing to a political debate.

But engineers are not always right, what is technically possible is not always feasible for other reasons.

 

[Reorte]

13 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

But engineers are not always right, what is technically possible is not always feasible for other reasons.

 

Most things seem to be technically possible (short of building a bridge to the moon - best not give them ideas!) these days if you can throw enough money at them. Might be part of why I'm more impressed with older engineering.

[HonestTom]

Speaking as a London boy, this is Boris all over. The man wants his name attached to huge projects because he wants to stamp his name into history. The garden bridge, the Thames estuary airport, the Emirates Air Line, the new Routemasters, it's all just a series of ego trips. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if terms like "Boris bridge," "Boris bike" and "Boris Island" are invented by his own staff so you remember who exactly was behind them. This scheme is no more likely to happen than any of the others.

Edited February 14, 2020 by HonestTom

[The Stationmaster]

46 minutes ago, whart57 said:

I'm inclined to think the Scotland to Ireland bridge plan is nonsense, not least because of who first proposed it and in what context. Politicians making promises while on the campaign trail? Hmm, let me think about that.

 

However then I read of a Dutch engineer's ambitious plan to build two long dams, one from Cornwall to Brittany and one from Scotland to Norway. Said engineer does appear to have professional competence in this field and the Dutch do have credibility when it comes to major hydrological projects, but even so .........

 

This plan is different to Johnson's though. Johnson's was an off the wall political statement which is now costing us money to have people investigate its engineering feasibility. This Dutch engineer however has really produced these proposals for two massive dykes as an indication of the sort of thing that would need to be done to protect the Rhine/Meuse delta - and the Thames and Severn basins - from the predicted rise in sea levels. So instead of a politician dabbling in engineering we have an engineer contributing to a political debate.

This sounds right out of the loony fringe.  Why dam the English Channel; at its widest point and not its narrowest point?  Why cut off from the sea virtually every major port in Western Europe. even if lovcks were provided they have to be some pretty massive locks to take 200,000 ton ships.

 

And as a lot of coastal erosion is not just related to tides but to winds as well and storms will still occur then however many dams are built it won't stop a lot of coastal erosion.  i think the bloke is not exactly of a practical turn of mind.

[mdvle]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

And as a lot of coastal erosion is not just related to tides but to winds as well and storms will still occur then however many dams are built it won't stop a lot of coastal erosion.  i think the bloke is not exactly of a practical turn of mind.

 

The concept wasn't about coastal erosion, but rather the expected sea level rise.

 

And having read the article (either at the link or elsewhere) the engineer(?) acknowledges a lot of the issues raised on here as being problems - while also bringing up the issue of the massive pumping stations required to take the river water out of this new "lake", the fact that it would become a fresh water ecosystem, etc.

 

But one of the reasons for studying and bringing up the idea according to the person was to bring to (both the public and the people in charge) the fact that we have a choice to either prevent the sea level rise (or at least as much as possible given where we currently are) or come up with methods to mitigate the problem - whether that being massive engineering like this proposal or abandoning a lot of low elevation areas.