Didn't we use them only one way, to get back from Dunkirk?
B3: Boris's Barmy Bridge
- Thread starter lazybloke
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Slick
Guru
Well it's more a tube thingwy.
That Boris is a slippery bugger! 
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
[QUOTE 5121568, member: 259"]It would be truly cool, but utterly unworkable. Isn't the channel the busiest seaway in the world (or at least one of them)?[/QUOTE]
Didn't stop the Danes and Swedes from building the Oresund Bridge, which gets around the very busy seaway problem by being about one third tunnel.
Edit... TNM to countless people.
Didn't stop the Danes and Swedes from building the Oresund Bridge, which gets around the very busy seaway problem by being about one third tunnel.
Edit... TNM to countless people.
Last edited:
MontyVeda
a short-tempered ill-controlled small-minded troll
- Location
- Lancaster... the little city.
I dunno... a good thirty miles I'd guess, judging by the existing channel tunnel
Well I hope Mr Johnson has taken proper advice and understands all the implications:
View: https://youtu.be/s7AXskSxxMk
View: https://youtu.be/s7AXskSxxMk
The longest one is in Norway, its about 15 miles, but it has an air replacement system in the middle, so in reality the longest a car can do underground is about 7 miles.
Slick
Guru
I'm not sure there would be a maximum. Are you thinking about normal railway bridges and the like?
U
User10571
Guest
How has this thread managed to generate this much traffic?
Really?
Really?
[QUOTE 5121632, member: 259"]I dimly recall Margaret Thatcher favoured a bridge over a tunnel, but was persuaded that this was a daft idea. But she was definitely opposed to the use of a train for cars (as this smacked of public transport) and wanted people to be able to drive right through (or over).[/QUOTE]
Maggie Thatcher was famously pro-car and anti anything that was owned by the government (such as a nation rail system)
All the original UK plans for the tunnel or bridge/tunnel were for a car route, not a rail route.
When the final negotiation was resolved to build a rail only route, the UK side retained (and probably still does retain) the right, for a fixed number of years, to build a parallel car route.
When Maggie and the French President signed the agreement to build the Channel Tunnel the first part of the signing cermony took place in Paris.
The French then put the President, Maggie and the entire party on one of their then new 250mph TGV trains and then took them all to Calais, where they all decamped to a cross channel ferry.
At the other end they all got onto an old slam door train in Dover and pootled at 50mph up to London.
The French party though it was brilliant that the English had laid on a 'period' train in contrast to the TGV.
Maggie then had to explain that it was the normal train and the English side had given no thought, consideration, discussion or budget to upgrading the UK rail system., and had no intention of doing so
Hence the reason why the original London terminus was Waterloo and 70 miles of the Eurostar line in Kent was not even started until eleven years after the tunnel had opened,and finally completed 15 years after the opening when the terminus was moved the St Pancras
Maggie Thatcher was famously pro-car and anti anything that was owned by the government (such as a nation rail system)
All the original UK plans for the tunnel or bridge/tunnel were for a car route, not a rail route.
When the final negotiation was resolved to build a rail only route, the UK side retained (and probably still does retain) the right, for a fixed number of years, to build a parallel car route.
When Maggie and the French President signed the agreement to build the Channel Tunnel the first part of the signing cermony took place in Paris.
The French then put the President, Maggie and the entire party on one of their then new 250mph TGV trains and then took them all to Calais, where they all decamped to a cross channel ferry.
At the other end they all got onto an old slam door train in Dover and pootled at 50mph up to London.
The French party though it was brilliant that the English had laid on a 'period' train in contrast to the TGV.
Maggie then had to explain that it was the normal train and the English side had given no thought, consideration, discussion or budget to upgrading the UK rail system., and had no intention of doing so
Hence the reason why the original London terminus was Waterloo and 70 miles of the Eurostar line in Kent was not even started until eleven years after the tunnel had opened,and finally completed 15 years after the opening when the terminus was moved the St Pancras
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Some kind of cable car?
Time Waster
Veteran
There were two civil engineers being interviewed on R4 this morning about it. One was a former president of a learned trade body (not ICE but another similar) and a journal editor too. The other was similarly senior in the Civil engineering profession. Both had the knowledge on the subject so you had to accept their opinions.
The gist of what both those experts said was that a bridge to France was not am outlandish or impossible idea.
There's a bridge planned from Denmark to Germany that's 20 miles across a seaway. There best ideas involved two man made islands either side of the busy sea channel. Between them there's a bridge option or tunnel. Either side of the islands would he causeways. Technically there is no reason not to do it. It is down to money and political will.
BTW one of them made the point that some of the ideas out there suggested business opportunities on those islands. Duty free, casino, etc. One for the French the other for UK perhaps. Whatever the case commercial interests about the islands could help offset the impact of the final bill to build.
So to put it bluntly there are land bridges as long as the bridge over the busy seaway. There's bridges being planned that are longer than the channel bridge would need to be. Technically there is no problem with it that existing and established technologies could not cope with. There's even commercial opportunities around the islands that would be built. Apparently Germany and Denmark are considering building something that's in this ballpark.
Daft idea but it could be done. If there's the will for it.
The gist of what both those experts said was that a bridge to France was not am outlandish or impossible idea.
There's a bridge planned from Denmark to Germany that's 20 miles across a seaway. There best ideas involved two man made islands either side of the busy sea channel. Between them there's a bridge option or tunnel. Either side of the islands would he causeways. Technically there is no reason not to do it. It is down to money and political will.
BTW one of them made the point that some of the ideas out there suggested business opportunities on those islands. Duty free, casino, etc. One for the French the other for UK perhaps. Whatever the case commercial interests about the islands could help offset the impact of the final bill to build.
So to put it bluntly there are land bridges as long as the bridge over the busy seaway. There's bridges being planned that are longer than the channel bridge would need to be. Technically there is no problem with it that existing and established technologies could not cope with. There's even commercial opportunities around the islands that would be built. Apparently Germany and Denmark are considering building something that's in this ballpark.
Daft idea but it could be done. If there's the will for it.
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
45m Dover - Calais as I was once told by the skipper of a diving tender. Oresund is less than 20m in the vicinity of "The Bridge"
GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
The Oresund tunnel (five tunnels really) uses forced ventilation through the bore iirc. 3 miles-ish.
OP
OP
lazybloke
Considering a new username
- Location
- Leafy Surrey
Aerifoil shaped I guess.
£££££££££££££££££££
