Another new UK-Ireland speculative plan

[HSTEd]

very deep foundations for the rigs, which you couldn't replicate for a tunnel, while the turbine platforms are a problem - they've required rebuilding and underpinning and apparently aren't stable even now. They're unmanned structures so much less of a safety risk than a sunken tunnel

It should be noted that given the water depth a viaduct is entirely feasible, and if using extradosed or cable stay spans would be capable of utilising the foundations described for the oil rigs.
Although I would prefer launching such a bridge from further south than Morecambe Bay.

(My own preference is for a viaduct, as described, from the vicinity of Formby, clipping the southern tip of the Isle of Man and then proceeding to Ardglass or Portaferry)

 

[randyrippley]

It should be noted that given the water depth a viaduct is entirely feasible, and if using extradosed or cable stay spans would be capable of utilising the foundations described for the oil rigs.
Although I would prefer launching such a bridge from further south than Morecambe Bay.

(My own preference is for a span, as described, from the vicinity of Formby, clipping the southern tip of the Isle of Man and then proceeding to Ardglass or Portaferry)

Formby doesn't have as good access to the motorway network or WCML as Morecambe does. Possibly best route wold be a bridge Heysham-Barrow, then tunnel Barrow-Man-Northern Ireland
Given the amount of shipping in the Irish sea, a bridge would be a collision waiting to happen

One question - would a cablestay bridge over that distance actually be a stable enough platform for a railway?

 

[HSTEd]

Formby doesn't have as good access to the motorway network or WCML as Morecambe does.

Formby is only 35km from HS2 at Wigan though.
And there is a dual carriageway within a couple of kilometres of the beach, and only ~13km down that road (mostly dual carriageway already) is a Motorway, albeit only the M58.

Possibly best route wold be a bridge Heysham-Barrow, then tunnel Barrow-Man-Northern Ireland
Given the amount of shipping in the Irish sea, a bridge would be a collision waiting to happen

The easiest way out of the collision problem is just to add more concrete so that the bridge shrugs off impacts, in my opinion.
Ultimately concrete is cheap.

One question - would a cablestay bridge over that distance actually be a stable enough platform for a railway?

The longest span cable stay bridge with a railway is in Hong Kong at ~1400m but only carries the Hong Kong metro.

There are several ~1088m span cable stay road-rail bridges in China that carry 250km/h high speed lines.

Multiple spans are a bit more challenging but with the relatively shallow water you can always brute force a huge gravity base structure into position if necessary.

 

[randyrippley]

Formby is only 35km from HS2 at Wigan though.
And there is a dual carriageway within a couple of kilometres of the beach, and only ~13km down that road (mostly dual carriageway already) is a Motorway, albeit only the M58.

HS2 isn't going to be carrying freight though - and that's going to be one of the major traffic flows. Unaccompanied freight. Mainly road trailers. Either coming as piggyback up the WCML (meaning clearance improvements en route), or as modal transfer marshalling yards where arriving trailers are loaded onto trains. So you'd need a new rail link, unless Wigan-Southport was repurposed as a freight line and rerouted to Formby
At the moment the roads couldn't cope - to make the route pay you'd need to take all the existing ferry traffic routed via the M62, M58, Holyhead, Fleetwood, Heysham and Stranraer/Cairnryan. You'd have to upgrade the M58 and M57, finally finish building the M57 north to Southport, and put in the missing three-level junction at the 58/57 intersection.

Similar objections of course apply at Morecambe, except much less infrastructure support would be needed as the rail and road are already there

 

[HSTEd]

HS2 isn't going to be carrying freight though - and that's going to be one of the major traffic flows. Unaccompanied freight. Mainly road trailers. Either coming as piggyback up the WCML (meaning clearance improvements en route), or as modal transfer marshalling yards where arriving trailers are loaded onto trains.

If it's a bridge it's unlikely much freight would be carried by rail, since the lorries could just drive across a road-rail connection.

And there will never be enough money for sufficient gauge clearance to make carrying TOFC on the WCML practical
It would cost an absolute fortune.

 

[randyrippley]

If it's a bridge it's unlikely much freight would be carried by rail, since the lorries could just drive across a road-rail connection.

And there will never be enough money for sufficient gauge clearance to make carrying TOFC on the WCML practical
It would cost an absolute fortune.

That's an extra cost you're imposing on the hauliers right there as the current Irish sea freight model is based almost exclusively on unaccompanied trailers: the cabs and drivers don't go on the ships, they drop their trailers and go (often picking up a return trailer on the way)
But if you're suggesting the trucks would drive over the bridge then you've destroyed the viability on safety grounds. One crash, one breakdown, one puncture and the whole bridge could be logjammed for hours - with potentially dangerous overloading from the queue behind. A 30+ mile traffic jam on a bridge is unthinkable

 

[Gloster]

The advantage of a tunnel to Dublin, is that presumably Ireland/EU would pay half of the costs, whereas a tunnel to N Ireland would have to be met fully by the UK!

I doubt that either Ireland or the EU would pay much, if anything. Ireland would probably see it is a British/English project for internal political reasons, which would have little advantage for Ireland. The EU is interested in developing its internal transport links, but the UK is not in the EU any longer. Although there is an argument for developing links between the EU and non-members, i.e. the UK, a link that only benefits one of the smaller members is unlikely to be high priority.

 

[HSTEd]

I am not sure I concur on a drive-through crossing being automatically unacceptable to regulators - I think somewhat reasonable safety precautions could make it workable:

One crash, one breakdown, one puncture and the whole bridge could be logjammed for hours - with potentially dangerous overloading from the queue behind. A 30+ mile traffic jam on a bridge is unthinkable

I doubt it would be hours of the entire bridge logjammed, given it would likely be the most heavily monitored roadway in existance, would be provided with a hard shoulder as an escape lane and would likely be provided regular contraflow crossovers. You could even provide an extra normally-closed lane on the right hand side.

Given how hard access is to many motorway stretches, with no escape really feasible accept along the carriageway, I'm not sure an escape walkway and refuges at the base of bridge towers (where boats can pick up people in the case of a catastrophic fire) is beyond the pale.

The water is sufficiently shallow from a Formby launch that it would likely resemble a viaduct more than the Dartford Crossing, you would be capable of designing a bridge to survive the static loading of stationary nose-to-tail traffic

EDIT:

If you insist on a rail only crossing then you still won't carry significant numbers of unaccompanied trailers, since the business model will change given that even a slow 140km/h Shuttle train would have you from Southport to Ardglass in 90 minutes.
By the time you've messed around unloading your trailer and conducting formalities you would be on the road on the Irish side.

Once you include slack time on the receiving end given that you can't absolutely guarantee your receiving tractor and the trailer would be in the same place at the right time, I can't see it being worthwhile to bother with unloading the trailers and having them lifted twice, before being picked up by a different trailer. Especially with depatures every 15 minutes.

EDIT #2:

That's an extra cost you're imposing on the hauliers right there as the current Irish sea freight model is based almost exclusively on unaccompanied trailers: the cabs and drivers don't go on the ships, they drop their trailers and go (often picking up a return trailer on the way)

In 2019, according to the relevant DfT stats, only 55% (268k/484k) percent of good vehicle transits to the Republic of Ireland from GB ports were unaccompanied.
Which whilst a majority is hardly "almost exclusively", this suggests the economics of one model against the other is relatively finely balanced.

EDIT #3:

Worth noting that the 35km from Formby to HS2, is to HS2 at the WCML. The closest point on HS2 is at the northern end of the Wigan branch as it joins the WCML.

So the HS2 connection is also a WCML connection, assuming we assume that the line is not going to be so full that an electric hauled freight going 75+mph is not going to get in the way between the bridge and Wigan.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Penmaenmawr says no!

 

[Wolfie]

The only real problem is that of "who pays"

I seriously doubt that the EU would put a single cent into it. If l was them l certainly wouldn't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2021 ==

By some distance, I presume. I'd love to believe it's feasible but I'm not convinced.

Absolutely. Smacks of an economic and technical white elephant solution looking for a problem.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2021 ==

The advantage of a tunnel to Dublin, is that presumably Ireland/EU would pay half of the costs, whereas a tunnel to N Ireland would have to be met fully by the UK!

I seriously doubt, particularly given UK's unilateral breaking of international agreements, that the EU will trust us in the slightest let alone do anything that benefits us.

 

[Chester1]

Er, I hope you're not suggesting that Holyhead is in England . . . ?

I was refering to post suggesting a tunnel from M6 via Isle of Man. Dublin-Holyhead could, without doubt, be built. The economics of it are a different matter.

100mph is probably too slow to make a compelling case.
We must also consider the likelihood that most Irish sea road traffic would concentrate onto the fixed link alignment.

How much will it cost, monetarily and in political terms, to expend all the resources on a huge A55 upgrade programme?

The design of the Conwy railway bridge, let alone the rest of the line, also renders a rolling highway impossible, even if capacity could be made available on the railway.


Boris is becoming increasingly desperate to save the union by any means at his disposal.
The money this link would cost would be peanuts in national terms.

100mph average line speed would be sufficient. There are some sections that could go above that level but some that would have to stay below. Assuming a tunnel speed of approximately 60mph (same as Channel Tunnel), that would mean approximately 3 and a half hours journey time for London to Dublin using HS2. If high speed running in the tunnel was allowed then under 3 hours would be achievable. That would take most of the point to point journey market. Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham could also support a limited service.

The A55 has some significant bottlenecks that could be resolved with minimal work in politically sensitive areas. For instance the only reason there is a roundabout near Penmaenmawr is the price of grade separation. There has been significant political campaigning for upgrading the junction.

 

[LLivery]

I doubt that either Ireland or the EU would pay much, if anything. Ireland would probably see it is a British/English project for internal political reasons, which would have little advantage for Ireland. The EU is interested in developing its internal transport links, but the UK is not in the EU any longer. Although there is an argument for developing links between the EU and non-members, i.e. the UK, a link that only benefits one of the smaller members is unlikely to be high priority.

I'm not too sure about that. Connecting Ireland to GB, connects Ireland to the entire European (and Asian) rail network. Suddenly rail freight could run from Wolfsburg to Dublin. Brussels knows full well any link isn't going to make Ireland become politically pro-UK, so you could say it'd be a win for them.

 

[HST43257]

I'm not too sure about that. Connecting Ireland to GB, connects Ireland to the entire European (and Asian) rail network. Suddenly rail freight could run from Wolfsburg to Dublin. Brussels knows full well any link isn't going to make Ireland become politically pro-UK, so you could say it'd be a win for them.

Going through the UK will present issues, given the brexit situation. My guess at least

 

[Wolfie]

Going through the UK will present issues, given the brexit situation. My guess at least

Given that technically goods being shipped mainland EU to Ireland via GB cross the EU external border twice and that involves all ends of bureaucracy, it is my guess that your guess is absolutely correct.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that technically goods being shipped mainland EU to Ireland via GB cross the EU external border twice and that involves all ends of bureaucracy, it is my guess that your guess is absolutely correct.

There are legal precedents for shipping containers and other goods in vehicles that remain sealed throughout.

 

[LLivery]

Going through the UK will present issues, given the brexit situation. My guess at least

Given that technically goods being shipped mainland EU to Ireland via GB cross the EU external border twice and that involves all ends of bureaucracy, it is my guess that your guess is absolutely correct.

I was under the impression that freight trains wouldn't really be affected if it's just passing through. A lorry can stop off anywhere, a freight train can't. How do European-Chinese freight trains work?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 May 2021 ==

There are legal precedents for shipping containers and other goods in vehicles that remain sealed throughout.

Beat me to it! Pretty sure it shouldn't be much of an issue

 

[Wolfie]

There are legal precedents for shipping containers and other goods in vehicles that remain sealed throughout.

Given the Home Secretary's clamp down on illegal migration the chances of Border Force not doing checks is slim to none.

 

[mmh]

100mph is probably too slow to make a compelling case.
We must also consider the likelihood that most Irish sea road traffic would concentrate onto the fixed link alignment.

How much will it cost, monetarily and in political terms, to expend all the resources on a huge A55 upgrade programme?

The design of the Conwy railway bridge, let alone the rest of the line, also renders a rolling highway impossible, even if capacity could be made available on the railway.


Boris is becoming increasingly desperate to save the union by any means at his disposal.
The money this link would cost would be peanuts in national terms.

It would be relatively easy, in terms of land but not cost, to upgrade the A55 to 6 lane east of Abergele. The major problem section of the A55 isn't the A55 itself but the A494 through Deeside connecting it to the M56. To improve that (there have been plans, all rejected and/or cancelled) means demolishing massive stretches of towns. West of Abergele, it's nigh-on impossible. Much of Colwyn Bay would have to go, Penmaenmawr and Llanfairfechan too. Then there's the geographical restraints, you'd need new tunnels and/or elaborate extensions over the sea. And the railway is in the way too.

It would never fly politically - suggestions for improvements have always been lipservice, both to users of it and the EU, which had a bee in its bonnet about the road having roundabouts on it. The A494 and the crossing to Anglesey are the only bits which are in dire need of changes and have commute time delays on a daily basis - for most of the day and year the rest of the road is perfectly adequate. We shouldn't be encouraging more traffic to/from Ireland which largely stops nowhere in Britain, contributing nothing to our economy.

As using the railway, the Conwy bridge could be easily solved. Bypass it to the south on a new bridge. The countless bridges and tunnels on the rest of the line though, as you say...

 

[fishwomp]

Dublin to Holyhead would be the longest rail tunnel in the world. [..]

At one point, the Severn Tunnel was the longest undersea tunnel in the world.. something always has to be 'the longest' - it doesn't mean it is impossible! Do we need to wait for China to build something first (longest rail bridge in the world currently)?

 

[class26]

I was refering to post suggesting a tunnel from M6 via Isle of Man. Dublin-Holyhead could, without doubt, be built. The economics of it are a different matter.



100mph average line speed would be sufficient. There are some sections that could go above that level but some that would have to stay below. Assuming a tunnel speed of approximately 60mph (same as Channel Tunnel), that would mean approximately 3 and a half hours journey time for London to Dublin using HS2. If high speed running in the tunnel was allowed then under 3 hours would be achievable. That would take most of the point to point journey market. Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham could also support a limited service.

The A55 has some significant bottlenecks that could be resolved with minimal work in politically sensitive areas. For instance the only reason there is a roundabout near Penmaenmawr is the price of grade separation. There has been significant political campaigning for upgrading the junction.

Passenger trains through the tunnel go at 160 kmph (100 mph) I think.

 

[HSTEd]

Given the Home Secretary's clamp down on illegal migration the chances of Border Force not doing checks is slim to none.

At most what would happen is the customs authorities would apply locks to the containers or other vehicles such that they cannot be unloaded clandestinely, these locks would be removed once the train left GB. Unless these illegal immigrants can walk through walls they would be unable to disembark between Calais and Ireland.

The UK border force does not search every container that is transhipped through a port, or search every container that remains aboard ship.

Shipping under customs seals is a well established principle. See the Common Transit procedure and the associated Common Transit Convention.

 

[EllieAquitrain]

I'm not too sure about that. Connecting Ireland to GB, connects Ireland to the entire European (and Asian) rail network. Suddenly rail freight could run from Wolfsburg to Dublin. Brussels knows full well any link isn't going to make Ireland become politically pro-UK, so you could say it'd be a win for them.

If you packaged it with a HS1-HS2 link the EU and Ireland would probably like the idea of Dublin-Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam direct HS trains. Maybe the UK could insist they all call at OOC and/or B'ham Intl to ensure UK passengers benefit from these trains passing through?

I'm opposed to HS1-HS2 link currently as I've been conceived there's insufficient demand on any potential routes from Northern England. I doubt Dublin would bring the balance anywhere near paying its way, but (say it was happening regardless) could it bring the link into the range of politically acceptable losses?

 

[LLivery]

If you packaged it with a HS1-HS2 link the EU and Ireland would probably like the idea of Dublin-Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam direct HS trains. Maybe the UK could insist they all call at OOC and/or B'ham Intl to ensure UK passengers benefit from these trains passing through?

I'm opposed to HS1-HS2 link currently as I've been conceived there's insufficient demand on any potential routes from Northern England. I doubt Dublin would bring the balance anywhere near paying its way, but (say it was happening regardless) could it bring the link into the range of politically acceptable losses?

That would be interesting but I doubt they'd see the cost as being worth it. Although with an independent Scotland it could add some weight to the benefits...

 

[zwk500]

If you packaged it with a HS1-HS2 link the EU and Ireland would probably like the idea of Dublin-Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam direct HS trains. Maybe the UK could insist they all call at OOC and/or B'ham Intl to ensure UK passengers benefit from these trains passing through?

I'm opposed to HS1-HS2 link currently as I've been conceived there's insufficient demand on any potential routes from Northern England. I doubt Dublin would bring the balance anywhere near paying its way, but (say it was happening regardless) could it bring the link into the range of politically acceptable losses?

You'd get into some very complicated discussions about Schengen and the CTA. And I suspect that the travel time between Dublin and Paris/Brussels would be long enough that flying would still work.

Looking at the list of busiest air routes from Dublin, I feel that London-Dublin and Manchester-Dublin, with good connections into Glasgow and Edinburgh trains at Crewe, will be the dominant flows that are likely to switch from Air to Rail. THe majority of Paris/Brussels passengers will probably still fly, and a sensible change at St Pancras for those that wish not to is sensible and reasonable.

 

[Gareth]

If it's not viable to run Birmingham-Paris then Dublin is a nonstarter. Dublin-London might be another matter though. But again, we're looking at a stupendously long tunnel under the sea.

 

[paul1609]

Surely we wouldnt make the same mistake as we made with the channel tunnel any link needs to be road or road with rail def not rail only.

 

[JamesT]

Surely we wouldnt make the same mistake as we made with the channel tunnel any link needs to be road or road with rail def not rail only.

How would you handle the emissions from road vehicles in such a long tunnel? The advantage of being rail-only is you know there will be only electric rolling stock.

I know this is a stupendously expensive white elephant that will likely never get beyond an options paper, but how expensive would building tunnels large enough to take double track be? That is so you'd have a 'fast' and 'slow' in both directions and wouldn't be constraining to flighting passenger against freight as Eurotunnel have to do?

 

[HSTEd]

I know this is a stupendously expensive white elephant that will likely never get beyond an options paper, but how expensive would building tunnels large enough to take double track be? That is so you'd have a 'fast' and 'slow' in both directions and wouldn't be constraining to flighting passenger against freight as Eurotunnel have to do?

Not dramatically more expensive, given the tunnel boring machines at our disposal.

 

[Wolfie]

Surely we wouldnt make the same mistake as we made with the channel tunnel any link needs to be road or road with rail def not rail only.

So how exactly, with an extended tunnel, are you proposing to address the fumes produced by internal combustion engines? Before you say electric vehicles only please enlighten me as to the availability now or anytime soon of an electric HGV....
There were damned good and highly sensible reasons why the Channel Tunnel is rail only.

 

[paul1609]

How would you handle the emissions from road vehicles in such a long tunnel? The advantage of being rail-only is you know there will be only electric rolling stock.

I know this is a stupendously expensive white elephant that will likely never get beyond an options paper, but how expensive would building tunnels large enough to take double track be? That is so you'd have a 'fast' and 'slow' in both directions and wouldn't be constraining to flighting passenger against freight as Eurotunnel have to do?

Norway can do it! https://www.vegvesen.no/en/roads/Roads+and+bridges/Road+projects/e39coastalhighwayroute