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

[phil-b259]

34 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

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.

 

Please remember that under Freedom of Movement rules a Bulgarian HGV operation can quite easily spend 99% of its time ferrying goods around France, Germany, Ireland, UK, etc.

 

Go and spend a day watching the registration plates of lorries heading to / from Dover / the tunnel. The MAJORITY of HGVs are NOT British, French, German, Dutch, etc - They are Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, Slovakian, etc.

 

Given the trade stats its a fair bet that at least half of those are NOT going to / coming from their 'home countries' - they are going to / coming from  Western Europe.

 

Germany produces quite a lot of expensive industrial equipment - some of which will undoubtedly end up been transported by Bulgarian drivers, in Bulgarian vehicles.

 

This wasn't always the case - before the end of the cold war the majority of freight on the Dover / Calais axis would have been carried in British or French registered HGVs

 

 

[adb968008]

13 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Please remember that under Freedom of Movement rules a Bulgarian HGV operation can quite easily spend 99% of its time ferrying goods around France, Germany, Ireland, UK, etc.

 

Go and spend a day watching the registration plates of lorries heading to / from Dover / the tunnel. The MAJORITY of HGVs are NOT British, French, German, Dutch, etc - They are Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, Slovakian, etc.

 

Given the trade stats its a fair bet that at least half of those are NOT going to / coming from their 'home countries' - they are going to / coming from  Western Europe.

 

Germany produces quite a lot of expensive industrial equipment - some of which will undoubtedly end up been transported by Bulgarian drivers, in Bulgarian vehicles.

 

This wasn't always the case - before the end of the cold war the majority of freight on the Dover / Calais axis would have been carried in British or French registered HGVs

 

 

What has “who” the driver is, or “where” the vehicle is registered to do with it ?

anyone can drive anywhere, within the EU.

 

Rail wagons in the EU can do the same, one such vehicle was involved in an incident in Italy a few years back, privately owned registered in Poland. Italian railways pointed the finger at PKP, whom pointed out that following registration, it left Poland and never had returned.

your assumption seems to be built around wages, and Eastern European salaries arent going down, some industries pay more than UK salaries, dont assume 2003 standards apply in 2021 or 2041... we could be the lowest salaries in Europe in 20 years, with the EU complaining of our dirty old smokies clogging EU roads with unregulated drivers... dont assume, take control.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Bernard Lamb]

Hallo.

This thread is a joke isn't it?

A few people seem to be taking it waaaay too seriously.

Bernard

[wasabi]

49 minutes ago, Mark Saunders said:

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.

In hospital in East London for a few days last year, I found there were a good number of Philippine nurses plus others from Iberia.  I think the cleaners were more local though. 

[Colin_McLeod]

3 hours ago, Compound2632 said:

I think that was his point.

 

I know!  

[Ron Ron Ron]

44 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

....Go and spend a day watching the registration plates of lorries heading to / from Dover / the tunnel.

The MAJORITY of HGVs are NOT British, French, German, Dutch, etc - They are Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, Slovakian, etc.

 

Given the trade stats its a fair bet that at least half of those are NOT going to / coming from their 'home countries' - they are going to / coming from  Western Europe.....

 

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with fanciful notions of an Irish Sea tunnel, but that's all very true.

 

20+ years ago, on our frequent road travels down to darkest Kent, to visit my in-laws, we kept our kids entertained with various games. One of which was to be the first to spot and call out the names of various haulier's lorries.

We'd be tootling along down the M25, M26 and M20 (before that, the old A20) when periodically/ frequently, one or more of our kids, would burst out with a yell of...."WILLY BETZ",  "EDDIE STOBART",  or "NORBERT" (disentangle we jokingly called them).  plus a few other names that I can't remember off the top of my head.

Another game was to count the number of German, French, Dutch or whatever, registered lorries.

 

For the last 10 or 15 years, all those haulier companies have faded away in number, if not gone forever (Norbert no longer exists) and the number of German, French and Dutch registered lorries has shrunk to very small numbers as a vast wave of Eastern European trucks have taken over most of the work.

 

 

.

[phil-b259]

15 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

What has “who” the driver is, or “where” the vehicle is registered to do with it ?

anyone can drive anywhere, within the EU.

 

 

 

The point is at one time, to transport goods within the UK it was a requirement to have your business and vehicles registered here.

 

 

We surrendered that right under EU freedom of movement rules (something very much pushed by the UK as it facilitated the great gods called 'competition' and 'the power of the free market to lower prices') which have helped make road transport the dominant force when it comes to the transport of goods within Europe.

 

The current baseline is that road transport is cheap, flexible and the default method of transporting goods between European states, not rail.

 

Brexit doesn't magically change ANYTHING in that regard.

 

Yes, in future the UK could decide to put in place measures to make road transport less attractive - but that is only going to make things more expensive because we are then imposing barriers to trade with the rest of the EU rather than it being a pan European measure like emissions controls were. If UK exporters / importers face additional transport costs in addition to all the customs bureaucracy they have got to be paid for by UK consumers.

 

Moreover if EU businesses face extra costs for transiting through the UK between France and Ireland then thats actually an incentive to avoid the UK completely thus reducing the amount of prospective business for your very expensive UK - Ireland link

 

UK consumers are usually also UK voters - so lets work this through shall we. You want to make the cost of items more expensive, make it harder to do business, put in place more regulation etc. What do you think thats going to do come election time? Do you seriously think the nation is going to be clapping their hands saying 'jolly good idea Boris' or do you think they are going to give the Government a right good kicking for all the extra costs and lost business?

 

Yes people might say they are 'concerned' about climate change - but are they actually willing to do something about it? At the last general election we had a party offering to nationalise the railways which survey after survey has been shown to get a favourable reaction by the public yet said party got a right kicking instead.

 

I have said it before and I will do so again, the ONLY reason the railways became so successful in the UK was the pretty abysmal state of the competition at the time they were built. As soon as motor vehicle technology and the road system were improved railways were rendered obsolete other than specific flows (Commuting, InterCity and bulk freight). You do not need a comprehensive railway system to have a developed economy - several countries around the world have managed to prosper without them by using motor vehicles and aircraft as the means to quickly link population centres / industry.

 

IF it is desired that the more inefficient rail model is used for distributing items currently being carried round by HGVs then you will need taxpayers subsidies (thus higher taxes) and some pretty strident restrictions to make it happen. Any student of UK political history over the past 40 years can tell you what voters think of those sorts of policies come election time....

 

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks,

 

Here is an interesting interview by the business tycoon Sir James Goldsmith warning of the all of the above socio-economic problem all you lot are currently getting you knickers in a twist about:

 

 

Nothing new under the sun except that back in the day it was GATT and not BREXIT, same old same old.

 

Gibbo.

[phil-b259]

49 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Hallo.

This thread is a joke isn't it?

A few people seem to be taking it waaaay too seriously.

Bernard

 

Well the overall concept itself most certainly isn't  - in theory linking all of Europe by fixed transport links is generally a good thing.

 

Problem is the axis where there is most demand between the UK and Ireland (i.e. Holyhead and Dublin) is unsuitable for a fixed link while the most suitable place to build one (Stranraer - Larne) is a long way from where most of the demand is.

 

As such any sane analysis proves it to be non-starter

 

The problem is certain posters keep believing in Unicorns - i.e. that we can somehow magically make rail the dominant carrier of freight and that plus high speed rail replacing flying will somehow overcome the extra time taken to go via Stranraer all at no extra cost to the UK taxpayer (or that UK voters are falling over themselves to vote in a Government which will make them pay more!)

Edited February 16, 2021 by phil-b259

[Michael Hodgson]

3 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

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!

 

Possibly no bad thing.  Trying to carry all of your passengers at once (the majority being timed to arrive for work at 0900 and knocking off at 5pm, give or take some slight differences in office hours)  means a massive investment in rolling stock and line capacity that is relatively idle the rest of the day.  Fewer commuters and a lower peak could actually benefit the railways' finances by spreading a greater proportion of travel more evenly across the day.  Of course timetables and investment would have to adjust the new traffic patterns before those benefits are felt.

[adb968008]

49 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Well the overall concept itself most certainly isn't  - in theory linking all of Europe by fixed transport links is generally a good thing.

 

Problem is the axis where there is most demand between the UK and Ireland (i.e. Holyhead and Dublin) is unsuitable for a fixed link while the most suitable place to build one (Stranraer - Larne) is a long way from where most of the demand is.

 

As such any sane analysis proves it to be non-starter

 

The problem is certain posters keep believing in Unicorns - i.e. that we can somehow magically make rail the dominant carrier of freight and that plus high speed rail replacing flying will somehow overcome the extra time taken to go via Stranraer all at no extra cost to the UK taxpayer (or that UK voters are falling over themselves to vote in a Government which will make them pay more!)

Unicorns and Dinosaurs.

could be the making of a good movie.

 

A little out of the box thinking can result in incremental changes, even if it rattles the dust of established thinking.

 

The first unicorn..

 

It is possible, Hong Kong airport showed both an airport on an artificial island connected by tunnels and bridges over heavy shipping waterways was possible.

 

Another unicorn..

Today you can drive 34 miles on a bridge of a motorway, literally over the sea, in a Typhoon hotspot and earthquake zone to Macau, and to China with a complex junction overwater....that was impossible only 10 years ago.

An even bigger unicorn..

Theres shipping tunnels being built in Scandinavia too... theres no way a shipping tunnel through a mountain is economic..but sometimes it isnt about money (culturally hard for the UK to accept).

https://www.kystverket.no/en/About-Kystverket/Stad-Ship-Tunnel-project/

The only thinking preventing a route to Ireland is old world thinking, and a desire for money to be spent on “insert your own” pet project instead. 
 

One of the barriers being beaufort dyke..the problem isnt going away even if the bridge gets cancelled. At some point the British public are going to have to pick up their own litter, even if thats such a culturally hard thing to do too...burying nuclear waste on a beach in Barrow probably wasn't that much better a decision either.

 

A dinosaur..
Boris island, I think was a lost opportunity. Heathrow is a dump, its too crowded, cramped and will constrain the country until new technology replaces aviation. An island in the Thames offered to literally off shore the problem, noise, nimbies the whole lot... problem is palms dont get greased, unless they have a problem that needs greasing.
 

We seem to be very good at telling the world how to do construction projects, but unable to manage them in our own back yard..

 

Another dinosaur..

HS1 to HS2 but for a few quid a potentially useful direct link for freight was lost

 

yet another dinosaur..

Connecting OHLE between the GWML and the NLL.. just 1 mile and less OH copper needed than the few coppers minted from the savings prevents 25Kv freight crossing all Londons northerly mainlines

 

and the dinosaur egg waiting to hatch...

Old Oak Common..

if going via Scotland to Ireland is such a hard thing to do, why require Brummies to got to Reading via London ? Or Drag suitcases to non-insured rail connections for LHR flights, or build a major rail terminal, without any tube connections to the capital, no road or parking connections and miles from a motorway.. Mimmicking Stratford it is not, Stratford has connections, and Canary Wharf, the City and Excel in its reach.. Old Oak has Wormwood scrubs.

Elephantosaurus ?

 

I assume its too many chefs blocking the kitchen, results in a food fight...everyone goes home hungry and moaning, sticks to a cheap kebab when they could do better, everyone knows it, but want a bigger share of the trough than everyone else..and so tip it instead when they dont get it.

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Zomboid]

13 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Problem is the axis where there is most demand between the UK and Ireland (i.e. Holyhead and Dublin) is unsuitable for a fixed link

Really? Yes, it would be an extremely long tunnel, which the total economy and population of the island of Ireland wouldn't come close to justifying the cost of, but is there anything about that section of the Irish sea which would make such a project impossible?

[phil-b259]

6 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Unicorns and Dinosaurs.

could be the making of a good movie.

 

A little out of the box thinking can result in incremental changes, even if it rattles the dust of established thinking.

 

It is possible, Hong Kong airport showed both an airport on an artificial island connected by tunnels and bridges over heavy shipping waterways was possible.

 

Today you can drive 34 miles on a bridge of a motorway, literally over the sea to Macau, and to China with a complex junction overwater....that was impossible only 10 years ago.

 

Theres shipping tunnels now built in Scandinavia too.

The only thinking preventing a route to Ireland is old world thinking, and a desire for money to be spent on “insert your own” pet project instead.

 

 

Firstly China is a communist one party state - it can do what it likes as regards infrastructure there is no obligation to consider whether a particular project will harm the authorities chances of being re-elected. It also has an an authoritarian policing / justice system that quickly deals with persons who try to resist while the state itself is currently enraging in genocide against the Ulgars. As such its laughable to try and use anything they do as a yardstick to judge the UK given we have this thing called 'democracy' which limits room for manoeuvrer.

 

Secondly, its not generally a question of whether things can be done engineering wise - its whether a political case can be made to spend cash on them, or force taxpayers to pay more.

 

Building a new airport in the Thames estuary for example is perfectly doable engineering wise and although expensive would not necessarily be ruinously so. The bigger problem comes from the destruction of an bird friendly estuary environment plus considerable economic upheaval in the Thames Valley the success of which has a lot to do with the perceived easy access to Heathrow. The political backlash from both of these events would be significant so its no surprise that further expansion of Heathrow has remained the most politically acceptable position for Governments to take.

 

In this case its a situation that spending on something new is not considered acceptable.

 

Similarly we know that more people can be attracted to train travel by low fares - however Ministers are on record as saying that when considered on a national basis, rail travel has a lowish percentage share and as its rail users that have the moral responsibility to pay most of the cost. The clear implication being that if ticket prices were subsidised further then taxes would have to rise and this would be 'unfair' on the majority of citizens as they never use the railway!

 

In this case its a case that taxing more is not considered acceptable.

 

Then we have the situation with fuel duty being frozen for god knows how long now yet rail fares going up above inflation every year even though climate change is a massive issue and the UK has emissions targets to meet by 2035.....

 

Again we are told that only a small proportion of UK travel is made by rail and that fuel duty impacts far more people who have no alternative....

 

So to return to the fixed link to Ireland, regardless of whether it is physically possible...

 

FACT:- As things stand the only remotely sensible place geographically won't come close to attracting the necessary traffic levels to make it viable

FACT:- UK Governmental policy has and seems set to remain in favour of motor vehicles with radical restrictions not remotely on the agenda

FACT:- UK voter preferences are for low taxes over pretty much everything else, certainly transport matters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[adb968008]

9 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Firstly China is a communist one party state - it can do what it likes as regards infrastructure there is no obligation to consider whether a particular project will harm the authorities chances of being re-elected. It also has an an authoritarian policing / justice system that quickly deals with persons who try to resist while the state itself is currently enraging in genocide against the Ulgars. As such its laughable to try and use anything they do as a yardstick to judge the UK given we have this thing called 'democracy' which limits room for manoeuvrer.

 

Secondly, its not generally a question of whether things can be done engineering wise - its whether a political case can be made to spend cash on them, or force taxpayers to pay more.

 

Building a new airport in the Thames estuary for example is perfectly doable engineering wise and although expensive would not necessarily be ruinously so. The bigger problem comes from the destruction of an bird friendly estuary environment plus considerable economic upheaval in the Thames Valley the success of which has a lot to do with the perceived easy access to Heathrow. The political backlash from both of these events would be significant so its no surprise that further expansion of Heathrow has remained the most politically acceptable position for Governments to take.

 

In this case its a situation that spending on something new is not considered acceptable.

 

Similarly we know that more people can be attracted to train travel by low fares - however Ministers are on record as saying that when considered on a national basis, rail travel has a lowish percentage share and as its rail users that have the moral responsibility to pay most of the cost. The clear implication being that if ticket prices were subsidised further then taxes would have to rise and this would be 'unfair' on the majority of citizens as they never use the railway!

 

In this case its a case that taxing more is not considered acceptable.

 

Then we have the situation with fuel duty being frozen for god knows how long now yet rail fares going up above inflation every year even though climate change is a massive issue and the UK has emissions targets to meet by 2035.....

 

Again we are told that only a small proportion of UK travel is made by rail and that fuel duty impacts far more people who have no alternative....

 

So to return to the fixed link to Ireland, regardless of whether it is physically possible...

 

FACT:- As things stand the only remotely sensible place geographically won't come close to attracting the necessary traffic levels to make it viable

FACT:- UK Governmental policy has and seems set to remain in favour of motor vehicles with radical restrictions not remotely on the agenda

FACT:- UK voter preferences are for low taxes over pretty much everything else, certainly transport matters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I assume you dont think the bridge would earn revenue, create jobs, help promote a green agenda, move traffic off roads, even over a 100+ life span and offer no benefits to the wider country at all ?

 

Would Hong Kong be where it is today with Kai Tak ?

 

If the chunnel is such a white elephant, how come its not being closed down, and Eurostar liquidated, instead of bailing it out ?

 

Why was Tilbury built, when Docklands worked ok ?

 

Why wasnt Docklands demolished, rather than repurposed as the most economically productive 1m sq of land in the UK, if not much of the world ?

One thing we are good at is privatising major construction projects, what makes this one any different ?

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Compound2632]

11 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

FACT:- As things stand the only remotely sensible place geographically won't come close to attracting the necessary traffic levels to make it viable

FACT:- UK Governmental policy has and seems set to remain in favour of motor vehicles with radical restrictions not remotely on the agenda

FACT:- UK voter preferences are for low taxes over pretty much everything else, certainly transport matters.

 

Three pithily-stated opinions!

[adb968008]

22 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Firstly China is a communist one party state -...

 

I stopped reading there.

one party or two.. do you think it makes a difference, you think there isn't factions in a one party system ?

 

Comments about various nations on our roads also is no relevance.

 

Technical challenge it is not.

Political challenges usually work their way into the private sector, it just needs political support.

 

Taxes always rise, if its not a bridge, it will be something else, but there will always be something.
 

Building a bridge in Halifax will get objections from York, build it in Scotland the Welsh will want one too.

 

Thats the real problem, not building it wont stop taxes rising, nor will it stop protest votes.

 

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008

[phil-b259]

Just now, adb968008 said:

I assume you dont think the bridge would earn revenue, create jobs, help promote a green agenda, move traffic off roads, even over a 100+ life span and offer no benefits to the wider country at all ?

 

 

Its not what I think that matters, I am not Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor the head of the Conservative party who wishes his party to remain in power next time the public is asked!

 

I would also urge you to stop and think about the HS2 process. Despite doing all of the things you highlight and having political backing it is very unpopular with a sizeable section of the UK public not to mention numerous back bench MPs and has repetdly ended up almost being scrapped because those obsessed with money tell us it will not make a profit for decades.

 

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Three pithily-stated opinions!

 

Please show me where they are at odds with Government policy!

 

We must deal with the world as we find it - not as we wish it to be and if you study Governmental policy over the past decade / into the future you will see what I say is true.

 

The most obvious example is fuel duty - if this Government was serious about wanting to try and curb vehicle use then why has it been frozen yet above inflation train fares continued?

[adb968008]

24 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Please show me where they are at odds with Government policy!

 

We must deal with the world as we find it - not as we wish it to be and if you study Governmental policy over the past decade / into the future you will see what I say is true.

 

The most obvious example is fuel duty - if this Government was serious about wanting to try and curb vehicle use then why has it been frozen yet above inflation train fares continued?

I repeat my earlier quote..

Quote

Political challenges usually work their way into the private sector, it just needs political support.

You cant privatise cars.. they already are.

Those who drive, generally don't care as much too vote.

 

There has never been a corresponding tax cut to match a rail fare increase.
 

So you cannot link any of the above.

 

That said, given the low cost of fuel, never any time like a bargain to cash in... its a soft low hanging tax rise right now.
 

No matter what Rishi says, Local elections will be a bloodbath, and it wont be down to taxes...I doubt that path in will change in 4 years unless Farage deposits another £500 in a few selected constituencies inorder to buy another general election result for one party or another.
 

Government priorties is quite clear from the vaccine rollout.. tax payers are last in the queue, vaccine priority starts at the top down in voting / lobbyist order... even below 50’s will be those in government employment first... geography is just down to demographics.

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008

[Northmoor]

59 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Really? Yes, it would be an extremely long tunnel, which the total economy and population of the island of Ireland wouldn't come close to justifying the cost of, but is there anything about that section of the Irish sea which would make such a project impossible?

I think this is the fundamental point as to why a fixed link will never be justified.  Building the Channel Tunnel created the first fixed link between a population of 60 million and an EU of half a billion.  Linking Northern Ireland (and by inference, the rest of Ireland) with the rest of the UK provides the first fixed link between a population of (now) 70 million and an island of less than 7 million, at a cost of several times what the Channel Tunnel cost the two parties.  Reopening Carmarthen to Aberystwyth and electrifying it will happen first, IMO.

Oh and the building of links around Hong Kong are similarly not comparable; not only are they are linking the territories in one of the richest areas on Earth, it's also much easier building fixed links when the sea is almost shallow enough to walk across.  Large shipping has very strict routes accessing Hong Kong Harbour itself as the entrance is so shallow.

[phil-b259]

17 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

 

If the chunnel is such a white elephant, how come its not being closed down, and Eurostar liquidated, instead of bailing it out ?

 

 

 

You are confusing Eurotunnel and Eurostar!

 

The tunnel itself (as owned and operated by Eurotunnel) is not a white elephant because road freight volumes have been growing exponentially in recent decades meaning plenty of HGV traffic on offer. Its also why the ferries have not been closed down either - there is plenty of business for both - even in lockdown.

 

However its also true that the channel tunnel experience means that projects like it are not going to be embraced by the private sector! To put it bluntly If it were a true commercial enterprise it would have gone bankrupt several times by now under the weight of the construction debt as the original estimates used to attracted investors massively underestimated the cost!

 

In fact many of those who bought shares in the organisation ended up losing an awful lot of money and the Governments had to bail it out twice by extending the franchise (technically the tunnel and associated infrastructure is a concession - Eurotunnel 'won' the right to build and operate the fixed link for XX years after which it would return to joint British & French Governmental ownership).

 

The cost (and risks) of tunnelling under the Irish sea are far grater than the more favourable geology through which the Channel tunnel was bored and as such no commercial enterprise is going to do anything without UK Government support. That support needs to be more than PR sound bytes - we are talking in depth HS2 type stuff.

[Compound2632]

14 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Please show me where they are at odds with Government policy!

 

We must deal with the world as we find it - not as we wish it to be and if you study Governmental policy over the past decade / into the future you will see what I say is true.

 

I'm sorry, I was over-hasty; insufficiently entish. I simply have an abhorrence of bold (and capitalised) assertion presented as fact. The onus is on those who make such assertions to demonstrate that they are factually correct.

[PenrithBeacon]

1 hour ago, adb968008 said:

Unicorns and Dinosaurs.

could be the making of a good movie.

 

A little out of the box thinking can result in incremental changes, even if it rattles the dust of established thinking.

 

The first unicorn..

 

It is possible, Hong Kong airport showed both an airport on an artificial island connected by tunnels and bridges over heavy shipping waterways was possible.

 

Another unicorn..

Today you can drive 34 miles on a bridge of a motorway, literally over the sea, in a Typhoon hotspot and earthquake zone to Macau, and to China with a complex junction overwater....that was impossible only 10 years ago.

An even bigger unicorn..

Theres shipping tunnels being built in Scandinavia too... theres no way a shipping tunnel through a mountain is economic..but sometimes it isnt about money (culturally hard for the UK to accept).

https://www.kystverket.no/en/About-Kystverket/Stad-Ship-Tunnel-project/

The only thinking preventing a route to Ireland is old world thinking, and a desire for money to be spent on “insert your own” pet project instead. 
 

One of the barriers being beaufort dyke..the problem isnt going away even if the bridge gets cancelled. At some point the British public are going to have to pick up their own litter, even if thats such a culturally hard thing to do too...burying nuclear waste on a beach in Barrow probably wasn't that much better a decision either.

 

A dinosaur..
Boris island, I think was a lost opportunity. Heathrow is a dump, its too crowded, cramped and will constrain the country until new technology replaces aviation. An island in the Thames offered to literally off shore the problem, noise, nimbies the whole lot... problem is palms dont get greased, unless they have a problem that needs greasing.
 

We seem to be very good at telling the world how to do construction projects, but unable to manage them in our own back yard..

 

Another dinosaur..

HS1 to HS2 but for a few quid a potentially useful direct link for freight was lost

 

yet another dinosaur..

Connecting OHLE between the GWML and the NLL.. just 1 mile and less OH copper needed than the few coppers minted from the savings prevents 25Kv freight crossing all Londons northerly mainlines

 

and the dinosaur egg waiting to hatch...

Old Oak Common..

if going via Scotland to Ireland is such a hard thing to do, why require Brummies to got to Reading via London ? Or Drag suitcases to non-insured rail connections for LHR flights, or build a major rail terminal, without any tube connections to the capital, no road or parking connections and miles from a motorway.. Mimmicking Stratford it is not, Stratford has connections, and Canary Wharf, the City and Excel in its reach.. Old Oak has Wormwood scrubs.

Elephantosaurus ?

 

I assume its too many chefs blocking the kitchen, results in a food fight...everyone goes home hungry and moaning, sticks to a cheap kebab when they could do better, everyone knows it, but want a bigger share of the trough than everyone else..and so tip it instead when they dont get it.

 

I've read this several times and I really don't understand, sorry. 

[adb968008]

36 minutes ago, Northmoor said:

I think this is the fundamental point as to why a fixed link will never be justified.  Building the Channel Tunnel created the first fixed link between a population of 60 million and an EU of half a billion.  Linking Northern Ireland (and by inference, the rest of Ireland) with the rest of the UK provides the first fixed link between a population of (now) 70 million and an island of less than 7 million, at a cost of several times what the Channel Tunnel cost the two parties.  Reopening Carmarthen to Aberystwyth and electrifying it will happen first, IMO.

Oh and the building of links around Hong Kong are similarly not comparable; not only are they are linking the territories in one of the richest areas on Earth, it's also much easier building fixed links when the sea is almost shallow enough to walk across.  Large shipping has very strict routes accessing Hong Kong Harbour itself as the entrance is so shallow.

Macau isnt exactly overflowing with cash.

 

before the bridge it was a £15 jetfoil, every 10 mins or so, with circa 100 passengers...

$18bn for that bridge.. 680k residents in Macau..most with less than any EU national income.

 

it exists for freight.. not people... and that freight comes from its big neighbour next door... just like us.

31 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

The cost (and risks) of tunnelling under the Irish sea are far grater than the more favourable geology through which the Channel tunnel was bored and as such no commercial enterprise is going to do anything without UK Government support. That support needs to be more than PR sound bytes - we are talking in depth HS2 type stuff.

Good.

Then socio economic, nationalist, cultural benefits apply.

Having a connected UK is in my opinion not such a bad thing right now.

 

Just because it will be located in more economically challenged areas, and not under zone 1 of London doesn't mean its a bad thing.

 

if it were all about money, London should have an underground motorway ring road under zone1/2 of London to rival Brussels, with underground cave structures like Helsinki to provide parking, with bidirectional traffic flows making 6 lane traffic in/out like Sydney to minimise commute times.. maximum convienience for the most productive profitable parts of the country...

 

however its not, and to paraphrase.. live in the world we have.. but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make it better, in other areas.

 

i’m sorry, but I think its a good idea, even if it offers no benefit to me at all... take the money from Old Oak Money pit give it to the bridge instead, cancel Euston palace.

Make HS2 a thru london service so trains can head thru to Anglia or Kent with several central stops, throw-in a southbound curve at Farringdon, HS1 at Straford then youve got HS1/HS2 direct from anywhere on the south coast to anywhere in the north and provide thru services instead...

Youve also got half the money already towards an Irish bridge/tunnel saved from the Palaces, HS2 closer to profit and option for direct Dover to Dublin freight services instilled from the start.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by adb968008

[PenrithBeacon]

The whole idea of this link, bridge or tunnel, is crackers. A better ferry service,subsidised if needs be, is a good one. It will help the economies of both Scotland and Ireland to grow so whats not to like about ferries?