This time it’s a railway tunnel to Northern Ireland.

[Compound2632]

16 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

As has been noted before when this idea has been floated, the problem is a Stranraer - Larne tunnel is only really useful for the Scots - for the bulk of England by the time you have driven all the way up the M6 and across to Stranraer the travel time to most of Ireland becomes far grater than simply taking the ferry from Holyhead!

 

Historically, that would seem not to be the case for travel to Ulster, else why would the Midland have run sleeping cars St Pancras - Stranraer? Setting aside the Midland having bought the Belfast & Northern Counties, the route was evidently competitive against the North Western to Holyhead and the Great Northern on to Belfast.

[Kris]

55 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Historically, that would seem not to be the case for travel to Ulster, else why would the Midland have run sleeping cars St Pancras - Stranraer? Setting aside the Midland having bought the Belfast & Northern Counties, the route was evidently competitive against the North Western to Holyhead and the Great Northern on to Belfast.

This would have been aided by the relative sailing times. A tunnel removes these slow boat sections. As such a longer tunnel crossing of the Irish Sea does not impose the time penalty that boat crossings once did. 

[Ron Ron Ron]

Rather than the ridiculous and unaffordable cost of fixed infrastructure, why not build much shorter, movable sections of a tunnel?

 

A short section of tunnel can be loaded with passengers and vehicles at a loading point on the Scottish coast and then can be moved, or propelled across the surface of the sea, to an unloading point on the Northern Irish coast.

This would remove the need to bore very deep tunnels with all the problems and sky high cost that entails.

The amount of fixed infrastructure would be limited to the loading and unloading points on each coast and the land links to access them.

It could also be realised within a short time frame, without taking a decade or more to complete.

 

I image that maybe 4 such short sections of tunnel could be used, to provide a regular shuttle at timely intervals throughout the day and night.
More sections of these tunnels could easily be added later if the need arose. Much easier than trying to expand the capacity of a fixed, bored tunnel.

I don’t know why this hasn’t been thought of before?

 

 

 

.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Ron Ron Ron

[phil-b259]

2 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Historically, that would seem not to be the case for travel to Ulster, else why would the Midland have run sleeping cars St Pancras - Stranraer? Setting aside the Midland having bought the Belfast & Northern Counties, the route was evidently competitive against the North Western to Holyhead and the Great Northern on to Belfast.

 

Erm, that was before a thing called aeroplanes (or indeed the concept of mass motoring) was invented!

 

Its worth remembering that although Eurostar had successfully won over the Lions share of passenger traffic from airlines between the 3 capitals it links, passenger numbers are still well below the projections made in 1987 and upon which the business case for building the tunnel was based.

 

In fact the only area where the tunnel has outperformed its original predictions is in carrying HGVs from one side to the other - though this has been greatly assisted by the fact that HGV traffic between the UK and Europe has risen exponentially over the past three decades.

 

With this in mind, and considering the fact the Channel tunnel is slap bang on the ideal line you would want to take to get to most of Europe its clear that any UK - Ireland tunnel; that requires a lengthy detour via South West Scotland for the bulk of the population to use it makes no economic sense other than possibly trips to Ulster. Virtually everywhere else would still be quicker using the ferry from Holyhead while flying is still likely to be quicker - again because the planes go direct and not 2 sides of a triangle as it were!

[adb968008]

The Oresund Bridge is a fantastic piece of engineering.

 

prior to its construction, Malmo was a decaying town at the south end of Sweden.

Building the bridge gave the town fast access by rail to Copenhagen, and its airport. It gave Malmo airport a Ryanair boost to cheap Danish flights.

 

Having travelled this bridge several times (working in Almhult.. you can guess by the name who for, and you could make a guess at the traffic they generate too), Ive seen this route as a huge time saver on a 3 hour trip from Stockholm.

 

The bridge was the need to cross a wide gulf used by Baltic shipping, not to mention the Russians and very large cruise ships.. so the height was needed too.
The solution was part tunnel, part bridge.. it starts on the surface on the Swedish side,  rises to a great height as it crosses to the Danish side, before lowering down to underground on an island (not sure if it was man made),thus leaving a part of the straights exposed for the largest vessels.

 

This means ships too tall to pass under, can still sail over it.

The idea isnt Scandinavian, its British, we did this on the High Speed route from Hong Kong Airport to Kowloon back in 1997, going subsurface to Tsing Yi island before rising onto a bridge off it.

 

This video was from Sept 19th 2018, on my way to CPH airport, back to the UK to do the GBRF Charity railtour.

Both Denmark and Sweden benefit this bridge, not to mention freight which could only reach Europe/Scandinavia by boat, or Russia.

 

I would imagine Bonded railfreight, not requiring customs inspections, running by night from Rotterdam to the Republic of Ireland would be of considerable benefit to using HS1, HS2 and this bridge, vs lorry transport on two ferrys and the M25 today, and probably save 50% travel time. This would be providing the UK government with some local jobs in the area and a revenue stream for access, not just to the bridge but substantial rail infrastructure across the country paid by EU industry in much the same way Switzerland does for freight crossing its country.

 

I doubt the business plan for this bridge is about weekend breaks for Belfasters and Glaswegians, but it would give interesting new commuter mileages... though the Oresund units hardly set the world on fire for their appearances..

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, Kris said:

This would have been aided by the relative sailing times. A tunnel removes these slow boat sections. As such a longer tunnel crossing of the Irish Sea does not impose the time penalty that boat crossings once did. 

 

Boats are also getting faster though - and I',m not just talking about 'fast craft' like the Stena HSS that used to ply its trade between Holyhead and Dublin, with improved hull design and better propulsion systems the current generation of Ro-Pax ferries make those ships used in the 1900s positively lethargic.

 

Besides if speed is what you want then air travel will provide that.

 

I repeat - the big money is gained by moving freight about, specifically HGVs (again the design of ferries has repeatedly sought to maximise this ability in recent decades). HGV drivers have limits on their driving hours so actually a long sea crossing works in truckers favour as they can have a decent rest period and emerge from the ferry good for another days driving.

 

 

[Patrick SPF]

The island used on the Oresund bridge "Peberholm" is artificial the name complementing the naturalisland of Saltholm next door

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I would imagine Bonded freight, running by night from Rotterdam to the Republic of Ireland would be of considerable benefit to using HS1, HS2 and this bridge, vs lorry transport on two ferrys and the M25 today.

 

That rather misses the point - if using railfreight was a cost effective option then it wouldn't need HS1 and HS2 to do it!

 

Holyhead had a container depot at one time but it got shut because insufficient traffic was generated to keep it going (in contrast to the likes of Felixstowe or Southampton, or indeed inland depots).

 

Even today you could still send stuff by rail to Daventry from Europe and then put it on a lorry to Ireland - but companies don't

 

It all comes down to cost!

 

Due in part to the principle of freedom of movement, plus the arrival of what was once Communist controlled Eastern Europe into the EU, logistics companies suddenly got access to a large number of truck drivers whose rates of pay were substantially less than those which were demanded by home nation drivers and who were far more tolerant of living out of their cabs for days on end. This plus changes to things like drivers being paid on a 'per kilometre' basis rather than by the hour means sending stuff by HGV is simply by far the cheapest method of transporting most goods across the EU.

[Compound2632]

23 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Erm, that was before a thing called aeroplanes (or indeed the concept of mass motoring) was invented!

 

Its worth remembering that although Eurostar had successfully won over the Lions share of passenger traffic from airlines between the 3 capitals it links, passenger numbers are still well below the projections made in 1987 and upon which the business case for building the tunnel was based.

 

In fact the only area where the tunnel has outperformed its original predictions is in carrying HGVs from one side to the other - though this has been greatly assisted by the fact that HGV traffic between the UK and Europe has risen exponentially over the past three decades.

 

With this in mind, and considering the fact the Channel tunnel is slap bang on the ideal line you would want to take to get to most of Europe its clear that any UK - Ireland tunnel; that requires a lengthy detour via South West Scotland for the bulk of the population to use it makes no economic sense other than possibly trips to Ulster. Virtually everywhere else would still be quicker using the ferry from Holyhead while flying is still likely to be quicker - again because the planes go direct and not 2 sides of a triangle as it were!

 

But this is predicated on low-cost short-haul flights having a long-term future which is very much in doubt once the true environmental costs are factored in, as they will increasingly be.

[adb968008]

24 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That rather misses the point - if using railfreight was a cost effective option then it wouldn't need HS1 and HS2 to do it!

Your missing the point..

loading, unloading takes time (Harwich is measured in Months at the moment).

 

Why unload at Rotterdam, load to train to Daventry, Holyhead or Timbuktu, just to unload it again to a lorry half way... you still need lorries, drivers etc, plus a ferry, customs etc

(This is what I dont understand about the recent log trial in the Highland last autumn)...half way doesn't work.

 

Today roading it makes sense, because the rail alternative isn't that attractive... in Time, Quality or Cost.

 

Rotterdam to ROI removes that need right down to local delivery, in magnitude of hour or two local irish journeys, rather than 36 hour round trip lorry driving / two ship slogs... in 36 hours 1 local Irish haulier could maybe locally distribute what 20 such lorry drivers do today from Rotterdam.

 

Were supposed to be able to set our own laws too, which could be used to encourage via rail.. (Speed limits, emissions, driving hours, customs etc). And if the ROI gets to create more local delivery jobs, and 50% reduced delivery times, I doubt they will object to the EU about our moves either.

 

it took 100 years to overcome nimbies, naysayers and it’ll never workers to get the channel tunnel.. 20 years on if the tunnels sneezes the country catches a cold.

 

You will only get lorries off roads, if the alternative is more attractive.. so make it more attractive.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Michael Hodgson]

52 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Rather than the ridiculous and unaffordable cost of fixed infrastructure, why not build much shorter, movable sections of a tunnel?

 

A short section of tunnel can be loaded with passengers and vehicles at a loading point on the Scottish coast and then can be moved, or propelled across the surface of the sea, to an unloading point on the Northern Irish coast.

This would remove the need to bore very deep tunnels with all the problems and sky high cost that entails.

The amount of fixed infrastructure would be limited to the loading and unloading points on each coast and the land links to access them.

It could also be realised within a short time frame, without taking a decade or more to complete.

 

I image that maybe 4 such short sections of tunnel could be used, to provide a regular shuttle at timely intervals throughout the day and night.
More sections of these tunnels could easily be added later if the need arose. Much easier than trying to expand the capacity of a fixed, bored tunnel.

I don’t know why this hasn’t been thought of before?

 

 

 

.

 

Or we could have the bridge equivalent .. the Stranraer-Larne Transporter Bridge.

 

[phil-b259]

10 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

But this is predicated on low-cost short-haul flights having a long-term future which is very much in doubt once the true environmental costs are factored in, as they will increasingly be.

 

 

Dream on!

 

The biggest two things that would depress air travel (by making it very expensive) are:-

 

(1) 'punitive' air passenger duty - something that already grates with frequent travellers / business and is going to be a massive vote loser come election time in the UK if its seen as preventing the masses from taking their package holidays in the sun (as vested interests and their media mates will make out)

 

(2) Taxing aviation fuel - however a decision was made in the 1960s that GLOBALLY there would be no such tax and you can bet the the US for one is NOT going to countenance any change to that policy regardless of how destructive the climate gets. Any attempt by individual nations to take unilateral action raises the spectre of trade wars / sanctions against airlines from the 'renegade nation'. Again business and vested interests will make sure the electorate know who is to blame come election time.

 

Its the unfortunate truth that Democracy is the worst enemy there is of climate change - every potential measure that would make a real difference ends up needing to be one that can be 'sold' to the electorate. Take for example road vehicle emissions - the sustainable method is to restrict the use of private motor vehicles full stop, however that is never going to be acceptable to the public at large so instead politicians have pledged to ban fossil fuelled cars. Yes emissions might well have been reduced, but things emissions from road building, the manufacture of cars, batteries containing rare (plus usually toxic) metals and of course disposal of said vehicles are still there.

 

 

 

[Colin_McLeod]

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Rather than the ridiculous and unaffordable cost of fixed infrastructure, why not build much shorter, movable sections of a tunnel?

 

A short section of tunnel can be loaded with passengers and vehicles at a loading point on the Scottish coast and then can be moved, or propelled across the surface of the sea, to an unloading point on the Northern Irish coast.

This would remove the need to bore very deep tunnels with all the problems and sky high cost that entails.

The amount of fixed infrastructure would be limited to the loading and unloading points on each coast and the land links to access them.

It could also be realised within a short time frame, without taking a decade or more to complete.

 

I image that maybe 4 such short sections of tunnel could be used, to provide a regular shuttle at timely intervals throughout the day and night.
More sections of these tunnels could easily be added later if the need arose. Much easier than trying to expand the capacity of a fixed, bored tunnel.

I don’t know why this hasn’t been thought of before?

 

 

 

.

 

LOL.  I think you have just reinvented the ferry.

[Compound2632]

9 minutes ago, Colin_McLeod said:

LOL.  I think you have just reinvented the ferry.

 

I think that was his point.

 

16 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Dream on!

 

I will.

 

The past year has demonstrated that business travel is a lot less necessary than self-indulgent executives had supposed. And given that we now have control over our own glorious country, surely the idea of holidaying in it will win out over going to those foreign parts we've got rid of?

Edited February 16, 2021 by Compound2632

[phil-b259]

49 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Your missing the point..

loading, unloading takes time.

Why unload at Rotterdam, load to train to Daventry, Holyhead or Timbuktu, just to unload it again to a lorry... you still need lorries, drivers etc, plus a ferry, customs etc

(This is what I dont understand about the recent log trial in the Highland last autumn).

 

Rotterdam to ROI removes that need right down to local delivery, in magnitude of hour or two local irish journeys, rather than 36 hour round trip lorry driving / two ship slogs.

 

Were supposed to be able to set our own laws too, which could be used to encourage via rail.. (Speed limits, emissions, driving hours, customs etc). And if the ROI gets to create more local delivery jobs, and 50% reduced delivery times, I doubt they will object to the EU about our moves either.

 

You will only get lorries off roads, if the alternative is more attractive.. so make it more attractive.

 

 

 

Unless the origin and destination of your load is a rail yard then transhipment is ALWAYS needed!

 

Transhipment adds delay, cost and potentially the ability to tamper with the goods, plus the need to involve multiple parties. Thats why its generally disliked.

 

Ask yourself this, ignoring Covid why has Airbus made a stinking great loss on its A380 super Jumbo project? Answer because humans don't like being 'transhipped' either! The A380 was developed on the basis of continued 'hub and spoke' airline operations - but what has actually happened is airlines, business, and passengers themselves much prefer going direct with sales of the likes of the 777 / A350 massively outstripping bigger planes.

 

So to return to goods - Bung them in the back of an HGV and pay a Bulgarian national to drive it on a KMs travelled basis half way across Europe is simpler, cheaper and less hassle!

 

THATS the reality here - in an age where we are always told that 'low prices' (and thus being able to buy lots of stuff) is the pinnacle of economic performance direct transport by HGV for most consignments is going to be more cost effective.

 

The economics of railfreight haven't changed (and won't change regardless of how many links are built between nations) - it  is economic only where transhipment is happening anyway (e.g. from a container ship at Southampton), where the freight is large in volume but has a low unit price (e.g. stone) or where companies are willing to pay slightly more for transport costs to boost their environmental credentials (e.g. Tesco). If you want to change that then it means big subsidies and taking on the vested interests in Whitehall and quite possibility a sea change in national economic policy.

Edited February 16, 2021 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

1 minute ago, Compound2632 said:

 

I think that was his point.

 

 

I will.

 

The past year has demonstrated that business travel is a lot less necessary than self-indulgent executives had supposed. And given that we now have control over our own glorious country, surely the idea of holidaying in it will win out over going to those foreign parts we've got rid of?

 

So your average sun reader is not going to want to visit the Costa de Sol in Summer or the wealthy telegraph read going to suddenly decide a winter skiing break is not wanted yet are they?

 

Get real.

 

The pandemic may well have mostly prevented such activities in the past 12 months but don't kid yourself it will stay that way!

 

The UK tourism economy, as with others around the globe have suffered enormously and its worth noting that in some of the most popular destinations tourism contributes massively to local employment, shop revenues, etc. People in countries which lack the sort of social security net we are used to in the UK have faired particularly badly from the abrupt halt to international tousim and are going to be aggressively trying to win back visitors when restrictions ease - as will airlines whose shareholders have had a torrid time of it.

 

In fact the only thing that is really going to change as a result of this Pandemic is the decline in commuting - and thats only really going to hit the railways!

[Compound2632]

2 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Get real.

 

As I said, I was dreaming on!

 

Unpleasant business, flying. I've not flown for over five years and haven't missed the experience. Not that rail travel is that much better these days.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Compound2632

[Bon Accord]

.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Bon Accord

[adb968008]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

(2) Taxing aviation fuel - however a decision was made in the 1960s that GLOBALLY there would be no such tax and you can bet the the US for one is NOT going to countenance any change to that policy regardless of how destructive the climate gets. Any attempt by individual nations to take unilateral action raises the spectre of trade wars / sanctions against airlines from the 'renegade nation'. Again business and vested interests will make sure the electorate know who is to blame come election time.

huh ?

Airlines will just do what they already do today... if fuel is expensive at the arriving airport, they’ll just fly in with adequate amount of fuel to fly back out again without refilling.

Trade wars over airport fuel duty ? - Santa will be complaining over the cost of Reindeer fuel first.
 

1 hour ago, Compound2632 said:

 

The past year has demonstrated that business travel is a lot less necessary than self-indulgent executives had supposed. And given that we now have control over our own glorious country, surely the idea of holidaying in it will win out over going to those foreign parts we've got rid of?

were going to need a lot more global warming and economic contraction, reduced salaries and living standards before that happens... so far Austerity, Brexit & Covid have failed to dampen that desire.

 

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Unless the origin and destination of your load is a rail yard then transhipment is ALWAYS needed!

 

Transhipment adds delay, cost and potentially the ability to tamper with the goods, plus the need to involve multiple parties. Thats why its generally disliked.

 

Ask yourself this, ignoring Covid why has Airbus made a stinking great loss on its A380 super Jumbo project? Answer because humans don't like being 'transhipped' either! The A380 was developed on the basis of continued 'hub and spoke' airline operations - but what has actually happened is airlines, business, and passengers themselves much prefer going direct with sales of the likes of the 777 / A350 massively outstripping bigger planes.

 

So to return to goods - Bung them in the back of an HGV and pay a Bulgarian national to drive it on a KMs travelled basis half way across Europe is simpler, cheaper and less hassle!

Don’t think provincial, think Big.

The A380 fails just as much as your Bulgarian truck driver does.

 

Most consumables originate off a slow boat from China... thats cheaper than a Bulgarian truck driver from Shanghai to Dublin, or an A380. Unfortunately slow boats from China dont like shunting around lots of smaller European ports... Thats why Rotterdam is called Europort.

personally I cant think of anything made in Bulgaria, except the driver, and sooner or later he will want paying more.  Although I have flown an A380 on a 120 mile flight, those economics would never stand up long term, just as much as shuttling a supersized containership would.

if your economics only HGVs will ever do..how is it most stuff coming to my home arrives in a Transit or Equivalent, that transit doesnt have a Chinese registration plate... its because the bulk created somewhere and broken down somewhere else... where its economical to do so... today thats at the docks, but it doesnt mean to say things will never change.. otherwise Canary Wharf would still be full of little ships and transit vans... things change.

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Zomboid]

38 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

personally I cant think of anything made in Bulgaria

According to Google....

 

"The main products exported by Bulgaria are: petroleum and petroleum products, packaged medicaments, chemicals, machinery, wheat and other food products. Bulgaria is an important coal producer in Europe and the country also produces perfumery essential oils, among which lavender and rose oil."

 

So there you go. How much comes to the UK I wouldn't know, but not a vast amount I'd guess.

[caradoc]

4 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

"The main products exported by Bulgaria are: petroleum and petroleum products, packaged medicaments, chemicals, machinery, wheat and other food products.

 

And an Uncle......

 

[phil-b259]

44 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

personally I cant think of anything made in Bulgaria, except the driver, and sooner or later he will want paying more.  

 

Thats not the point

 

You know that thing called Freedom of movement - the thing Brexiters were so desperate to ditch....

 

Well under said Freedom of movement rules, a company registered in Bulgaria with a Bulgarian registered HGV employing a Bulgarian driver on Bulgarian wages can be contracted by a French, German or Irish business to move something between said countries! No need whatsoever for any of the goods, the HGV or indeed driver to enter Bulgaria at all!

 

Its not a secret that because the ex Communist Eastern European states have a lower cost of living and thus wages are lower, people from such places can undercut traditional operators based in Western Europe who have to offer higher wages to their staff due to the higher cost of living.

 

Its the same reason why ferry operators from UK ports have been ditching local labour in favour of far east nationals living on board - it keeps the prices for consumers down and shareholder profits high.

 

 

[Mark Saunders]

7 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Thats not the point

 

You know that thing called Freedom of movement - the thing Brexiters were so desperate to ditch....

 

Well under said Freedom of movement rules, a company registered in Bulgaria with a Bulgarian registered HGV employing a Bulgarian driver on Bulgarian wages can be contracted by a French, German or Irish business to move something between said countries! No need whatsoever for any of the goods, the HGV or indeed driver to enter Bulgaria at all!

 

Its not a secret that because the ex Communist Eastern European states have a lower cost of living and thus wages are lower, people from such places can undercut traditional operators based in Western Europe who have to offer higher wages to their staff due to the higher cost of living.

 

Its the same reason why ferry operators from UK ports have been ditching local labour in favour of far east nationals living on board - it keeps the prices for consumers down and shareholder profits high.

 

 

I found the same situation on a cruise ship where the officers were all from first world countries; all the cabin stewards and cleaners are from third world countries mainly the Philippines.

[phil-b259]

54 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Most consumables originate off a slow boat from China... thats cheaper than a Bulgarian truck driver from Shanghai to Dublin, or an A380.

 

 

 

Which is not relevant.

 

We are talking here about freight in the context of a Ireland - UK fixed link crossing!

 

If it comes from China of course its going to come by ship and Rotterdam /Southampton / Felixstowe / etc.

 

However there is a vast amount of trade with EUROPE too, Germany is still a nation which enjoys a health trade surplus be selling stuff to the UK you know. Not everything is made in the far east, particularly when you come to fresh produce or indeed things like items of plant, industrial electrical equipment, etc which although using China made components tend to be finished within the Europe. 

 

This is the sort of stuff which fills HGVs heading to / from Ireland (plus between Dover / Folkestone and Calais for that matter) and is what your Bulgarian (other nations are available) truck driver will be carrying about. It is also the sort of stuff which is uneconomic to use railfreight for as the HGV can go from factory to consumer in one go - unlike your far east products which will have to undergo at least one transhipment activity.

 

Getting products from China to the UK is a 'hub and spoke' operation - the large container ships being the equivalent for the A380 sized planes, the onward distribution from Rotterdam or Southampton be it by train, coastal shipping or HGVs being the equivalent of your A320 operated 'feeder flights'

 

Distributing products manufactured within Europe by contrast is a 'direct flight' setup with one HGV (your A350) making the direct journey and no messing round with transhipment. This will not change unless Governments are willing to take on the road haulage lobby or while 'lowest price' dominates consumer thinking.

 

 

[adb968008]

13 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Which is not relevant.

 

We are talking here about freight in the context of a Ireland - UK fixed link crossing!

 

If it comes from China of course its going to come by ship and Rotterdam /Southampton / Felixstowe / etc.

 

However there is a vast amount of trade with EUROPE too, Germany is still a nation which enjoys a health trade surplus be selling stuff to the UK you know. Not everything is made in the far east, particularly when you come to fresh produce or indeed things like items of plant, industrial electrical equipment, etc which although using China made components tend to be finished within the Europe. 

 

This is the sort of stuff which fills HGVs heading to / from Ireland (plus between Dover / Folkestone and Calais for that matter) and is what your Bulgarian (other nations are available) truck driver will be carrying about. It is also the sort of stuff which is uneconomic to use railfreight for as the HGV can go from factory to consumer in one go - unlike your far east products which will have to undergo at least one transhipment activity.

 

Getting products from China to the UK is a 'hub and spoke' operation - the large container ships being the equivalent for the A380 sized planes, the onward distribution from Rotterdam or Southampton be it by train, coastal shipping or HGVs being the equivalent of your A320 operated 'feeder flights'

 

Distributing products manufactured within Europe by contrast is a 'direct flight' setup with one HGV (your A350) making the direct journey and no messing round with transhipment. This will not change unless Governments are willing to take on the road haulage lobby or while 'lowest price' dominates consumer thinking.

 

 

Eurotunnel and the cross channel ferry coexist today.

There will always be some loads that cannot go via tunnel.

 

No reason to think 100% load shift will occur to a rail service to Ireland, but if its packaged right, and is more attractive, people will rapidly shift.

 

It happened from Steam to Diesel, Rail to Road, Liners to Air, Cargo to Containers.

build it they will come, i’d imagine Northern Irish tourism may get a boost too, once it becomes “easy”.. when it comes to air a sunny destination will win a rainy one, but a Belfast weekender by High Speed rail in 2 hours or so from Manchester or London could become a thing... a 2040’s equivalent of the Dublin booze cruise of the 1980’s.

 

imho building bridges is a long term beneficial thing. Sure it benefits Ireland more than the UK, but if it does for the entry points what it did for Malmo, then its no bad thing, but the UK ultimately controls the access routes to Ireland, it can make money from it, just enough to make a wholly seaborne/airboune alternative not viable, and encourage traffic off the roads.. then it does its job.

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008