A wee branchline to Ireland

[Joseph_Pestell]

54 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

We've had a constant pursuit of economic growth for decades that doesn't seem to have done much for most people, and a good chunk of the methods involved in getting it seem to involve trying to get rid of jobs - even where they don't look at what we've got now as a result of the pursuit of economic efficiency - job security is terrible for example. And when it brings a load of the sort of development that makes a place more unpleasant to actually be in, well, is it any wonder that I've completely lost faith in the mantra of economic growth? It all feels like a keeping up with the Jones's race rather than anything that's actually making life better these days.

 

I do agree to some extent. And yet, as many jobs change or disappear, others are created. 

[Wickham Green]

Indeed - we have the lowest unemployment figures for many a year .............................. but zillions of people who are 'working' are only doing so part time - lots of them on zero-hours contracts.

 

Warning - this thread's getting political.

[Silver Sidelines]

In my view there is a need to step back and look at the broader view and not get bogged down in the detail.  A fixed link would make a great national project - how would you cost that benefit?

 

It could be a relatively cheap project.  It is not 'high-tec'.  If the link was to be constructed as a mix of embankment, submersible tunnel and bridge, then many of the construction material might be sea dredged.

 

IF it were decided that the fixed link shold be rail only - I guess a big if, then the structures could be smaller and a lot of technology could be borrowed from the Channel Tunnel.  The high speed rail connection around Cumbria the begins to make much more sense.

 

I am reasonably familir with traffic flows on the A75.  There is a lot of 'food' related flows from Ireland to England and onwards to the continent (Teesside, Hull and further south).  Motor cars do not feature highly.  Why the Scottish Government applies a 40mph limit to HGVs on Trunhk Roads is another of life's little misteries.

Edited February 11, 2020 by Silver Sidelines

[Silver Sidelines]

Duplicate Post

Edited February 11, 2020 by Silver Sidelines

[wasabi]

Gauge should not be an issue - there are plenty of through services between Spain (1668mm) and France (1435mm) which change gauge on the move at the border, as well as between AVE and 'classic' lines in Spain itself.  The TALGO system was first used in 1968 and is also used on a through Berlin - Moskva train.  I believe that the Polish SUW 2000 system is in use and several others have been developed elsewhere.  Of course, it wasn't invented here....

[pH]

20 minutes ago, Silver Sidelines said:

I am reasonably familir with traffic flows on the A75.  There is a lot of 'food' related flows from Ireland to England and onwards to the continent (Teesside, Hull and further south).  Motor cars do not feature highly. 

 

Closing the Port Road looks more and more like a mistake as time goes by, doesn't it? To be fair, the UK and Ireland joining the EEC was still a few years ahead in 1965. 

20 minutes ago, Silver Sidelines said:

It could be a relatively cheap project.  It is not 'high-tec'.  If the link was to be constructed as a mix of embankment, submersible tunnel and bridge, then many of the construction material might be sea dredged.

 

Somewhere (I can't remember where, perhaps even on here?), I saw a suggestion in an earlier discussion of a Scotland-NI fixed link. Instead of a long fixed link, the suggestion was to construct a number of new, short, moveable links. Very low tech, much cheaper than a fixed link, and earlier versions have been used satisfactorily for many years.

[Wickham Green]

24 minutes ago, pH said:

 

............. Very low tech, much cheaper than a fixed link, and earlier versions have been used satisfactorily for many years.

Never had rail tracks on them tho' ..............

[Reorte]

56 minutes ago, pH said:

 

Closing the Port Road looks more and more like a mistake as time goes by, doesn't it? To be fair, the UK and Ireland joining the EEC was still a few years ahead in 1965.

Was it a controversial closure at the time (any more than many others were)?

[Zomboid]

The old Dumfries to Stranraer line doesn't appear to go via anywhere of particular significance. Sending anything that needs to go that way via Mauchline would seem to get the job done, especially freight. Increasing capacity on the Ayr to Stranraer line would probably be a better investment than reopening the old route.

[D1059]

3 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

We've had a constant pursuit of economic growth for decades that doesn't seem to have done much for most people, and a good chunk of the methods involved in getting it seem to involve trying to get rid of jobs - even where they don't look at what we've got now as a result of the pursuit of economic efficiency - job security is terrible for example. And when it brings a load of the sort of development that makes a place more unpleasant to actually be in, well, is it any wonder that I've completely lost faith in the mantra of economic growth? It all feels like a keeping up with the Jones's race rather than anything that's actually making life better these days.

 

Economies are all giant Ponsi schemes - they only work if you have an ever increasing population fuelling demand for 'stuff' - 

 

To keep the thread on topic - this bridge scheme will never get off the ground. A tunnel would be a better option, but it won't happen this century

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

The economic (or not) situation with this link is a very simple one. Apart from any grandiose political/UK unity ideas it all boils down to the link attracting sufficient traffic to justify the cost and pay (by toll presumably) at least enough money to pay the interest on the capital cost.  But for users the question is rather different - would a fixed link economically justify the costs involved in reaching it and using it?  At present Dublin is an extremely busy ferry port which suggests that it - compared with the other ferry ports in Ireland - is served by the most economically attractive and accessible (i.e. overall cheapest) routes from England/Wales/Scotland in addition to its routes to mainland Europe.

 

That in turn suggests, in simplistic terms, that access to/from Ireland via a port roughly in the centre of the island has advantages of various sorts.   For a new, relatively remote in mainland UK terms, route even with a fixed link the obvious question is going to be just how much traffic that will syphon off from existing routes because in order to be successfuL that is what it will have to do.  And I seriously can't see road hauliers or even private motorists driving farther north than Holyhead etc just to use a bridge instead of a ferry.   And I doubt there is sufficient 'local' traffic between Scotland and Northern Ireland to justify it although it might well encourage completely new traffic as the Oresund link has done.. 

[ikcdab]

On 09/02/2020 at 18:06, The Stationmaster said:

I doubt if Boris has the faintest idea.  Far more worrying is whether or not the promoters of this plan know

 

Reminds me of some of the dafter suggested schemes in the contest to design and build the Channel Tunnel.  Apart from the downright lunatic idea of running trains and motor vehicles in the same tunnel - at the same time  - the biggest laugh of all came from the one that proposed the two railway running tunnels would thread under/over each other at about the mid point to convert from left hand running on the English side to right hand running on the French side.  Needless to say with such a brilliant example of careful research by its promoters and planners that one was one of the first to be thrown out.

Bearing in mind the limited amount of track in Ireland, might as well convert it all to standard gauge.

[Reorte]

2 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The economic (or not) situation with this link is a very simple one. Apart from any grandiose political/UK unity ideas it all boils down to the link attracting sufficient traffic to justify the cost and pay (by toll presumably) at least enough money to pay the interest on the capital cost.  But for users the question is rather different - would a fixed link economically justify the costs involved in reaching it and using it?  At present Dublin is an extremely busy ferry port which suggests that it - compared with the other ferry ports in Ireland - is served by the most economically attractive and accessible (i.e. overall cheapest) routes from England/Wales/Scotland in addition to its routes to mainland Europe.

 

A consideration for commercial road traffic too is does sitting on a ferry crossing count as a break? That might make the longer route without a ferry no more viable for lorries.

[Joseph_Pestell]

10 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

A consideration for commercial road traffic too is does sitting on a ferry crossing count as a break? That might make the longer route without a ferry no more viable for lorries.

 

The many Spanish drivers on the Cherbourg-Poole ferries certainly treat it as a break! I wonder if they are fit to drive off the ferry.

[Joseph_Pestell]

24 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

The economic (or not) situation with this link is a very simple one. Apart from any grandiose political/UK unity ideas it all boils down to the link attracting sufficient traffic to justify the cost and pay (by toll presumably) at least enough money to pay the interest on the capital cost.  But for users the question is rather different - would a fixed link economically justify the costs involved in reaching it and using it?  At present Dublin is an extremely busy ferry port which suggests that it - compared with the other ferry ports in Ireland - is served by the most economically attractive and accessible (i.e. overall cheapest) routes from England/Wales/Scotland in addition to its routes to mainland Europe.

 

That in turn suggests, in simplistic terms, that access to/from Ireland via a port roughly in the centre of the island has advantages of various sorts.   For a new, relatively remote in mainland UK terms, route even with a fixed link the obvious question is going to be just how much traffic that will syphon off from existing routes because in order to be successfuL that is what it will have to do.  And I seriously can't see road hauliers or even private motorists driving farther north than Holyhead etc just to use a bridge instead of a ferry.   And I doubt there is sufficient 'local' traffic between Scotland and Northern Ireland to justify it although it might well encourage completely new traffic as the Oresund link has done.. 

 

I have not seen any recent figures, but, as I understand it, even the Channel Tunnel does not achieve a great rate of return. And it has many times the potential traffic of the Boris Bridge.

So on economic/financial criteria, this bridge (or bridge + tunnel) is a no-hoper. But UK governments have kow-towed to Ulster politicians before.

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.

[Wickham Green]

1 hour ago, ikcdab said:

Bearing in mind the limited amount of track in Ireland, might as well convert it all to standard gauge.

WOT ? - an' leave the RPSI nowhere to run its May Tour ( etc.) ??!?

 

[ikcdab]

4 hours ago, Wickham Green said:

WOT ? - an' leave the RPSI nowhere to run its May Tour ( etc.) ??!?

 

Well the conversion would include the stock....

[duncan]

On 09/02/2020 at 22:58, Dava said:

If you had tried to cross the North Channel by ferry today you would realise how intense the weather conditions can be in this area of the Irish Sea and how totally unsuitable it is for constructing and operating a fixed link. A crazy idea and the economic case would not stand up.

 

Dava 

 

Agreed, and where the first ro-ro ferry disaster happened in appalling weather

[duncan]

Regarding the possibility of a tunnel under Beaufort's Dyke which is 700 to 1000 feet deep, how deep can a tunnel go ?  How much deeper would you have to go to avoid vibrating the old decomposing explosives ?  I understand there is a rather large exclusion zone round the munitions ship wreck in the Themes.

[Reorte]

43 minutes ago, duncan said:

Regarding the possibility of a tunnel under Beaufort's Dyke which is 700 to 1000 feet deep, how deep can a tunnel go ?  How much deeper would you have to go to avoid vibrating the old decomposing explosives ?  I understand there is a rather large exclusion zone round the munitions ship wreck in the Themes.

 

How far below the seabed you'd need to go will depend upon the geology. As for how deep tunnels can go, tunnelling at that depth in of itself shouldn't be a problem - there are plenty of tunnels in the world with more than that depth of solid rock above them after all (very much IMO, I'm not a tunnelling expert).

[Zomboid]

23 minutes ago, duncan said:

Regarding the possibility of a tunnel under Beaufort's Dyke which is 700 to 1000 feet deep, how deep can a tunnel go ?  How much deeper would you have to go to avoid vibrating the old decomposing explosives ?  I understand there is a rather large exclusion zone round the munitions ship wreck in the Themes.

If they wanted to build a tunnel then it wouldn't be impossible. The Seikan tunnel has regular earthquakes as part of its specification and has been in use for quite some time now.

[Railpassion]

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

[Wickham Green]

13 hours ago, duncan said:

Regarding the possibility of a tunnel under Beaufort's Dyke which is 700 to 1000 feet deep, how deep can a tunnel go ?  How much deeper would you have to go to avoid vibrating the old decomposing explosives ?  I understand there is a rather large exclusion zone round the munitions ship wreck in the Themes.

it's been said that the Richard Montgomery would wipe Sheerness off the map if she ( he ? ) blew up - clearly Sheerness is not inside any exclusion zone .... and I've been within, perhaps, a hundred yard on board the Waverley'

[Wickham Green]

15 hours ago, ikcdab said:

Well the conversion would include the stock....

Re-gauging MkII coaches ( or un-re-gauging in some cases ) no problem ..... re-gauging a three-cylinder compound ( among other locos ) not so easy.

 

Maybe re-gauging Scotrail would be simpler ? - and may involve less mileage ( I guess here are figures SOMEWHERE on the interweb.).

[Reorte]

25 minutes ago, Wickham Green said:

Re-gauging MkII coaches ( or un-re-gauging in some cases ) no problem ..... re-gauging a three-cylinder compound ( among other locos ) not so easy.

Not tried a three-cylinder compound every loco I've tried regauging to EM I've made a bit of a hash of!