Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,811
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,225
Can see a re-run of the mid/late eighties panic that started with Channel Tunnel.
DHB & ferry industry conspire to start lobby campaign against. Gwyn Prosser comes out of retirement to lead the anti lobby.
Deja vu .
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,772
A bridge for the ships to hit.
A bridge that would be closed every time there was a high wind or gale.
A bridge for any terrorist to blow up.
A bridge that would probably be an eyesore.
Another tunnel just maybe, a bridge a definite no.
Guest 1713 likes this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 2,997
I assume we're talking Dover Straits here, which wouldn't please Calais or Eurotunnel either. So if we have the Dover - Calais route, with Eurotunnel to the west, how about a new link to the east..? Avec une grande camion park.
(Not my real name.)
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,692
How about a grand cable car?
Or
An airport in the middle on a man made island?
Seriously what could possibly go wrong?
Judith Roberts and Jan Higgins like this
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Jan Higgins and Ross Miller like this
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
How about a nice bridge and tunnel system like the Oresund Bridge that joins Denmark (Copenhagen) to Sweden (Malmo) ?
Guest 1997- Registered: 3 Mar 2017
- Posts: 148
James Sherwood (anyone remember him?) made a pitch for the original proposal with a bridge based design, as I recall. He was Chairman of Sea Containers at the time that had just bought the old Sealink.
Fortunately, he didn't get the better of the late, lamented Sir Alastair Morton and the rest, as they say, is history. A bridge and an island is not as impractical as you might think but does, on the face of it, offer some serious challenges. This, however, is such more Boris self-aggrandisement. With any decent government he would have been slung out on his ear a long time ago.
John Buckley
- Registered: 6 Oct 2013
- Posts: 615
Good idea Barrie, but I hope that sea wall is actually higher than it looks!
Guest 1033- Registered: 23 Aug 2013
- Posts: 509
It is, it is a fantastic structure and well worth a look if you're in the area. The toll is between £30 and £40 depending on exchange rates and the currency you use.
John Buckley likes this
Guest 1395- Registered: 5 Nov 2014
- Posts: 463
Why not just say 'Sod the shipping', build a giant dam across with a motorway on top and generate huge amounts of hydro-electric power? Or would that be a little bit of a step too far?
Lew Finnis
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
a bridge to far , and not the dutch one either.
Guest 1713 likes this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
Courtesy of the Telegraph
Boris Johnson's plan for a bridge across the channel has received a major boost after Eurotunnel bosses requested a meeting with British officials about a second crossing between the UK and Europe. In a letter to the Prime Minister, seen by the Telegraph, the French Chief Executive of Eurotunnel said he is "very interested" in a second fixed link and would be "delighted" to start discussions. The note from Eurotunnel Chief Exec Jacques Gounon states: "The idea of a second fixed link is something that we regularly consider in our long term plans and we would be delighted to engage with your officials to explore the possibility further." A source at the company said demand is rising and a second connection will be required as economies on both sides of the channel grow.
They confirmed the letter had been sent after Mr Johnson's remarks about a bridge were made in January, adding that another tunnel could also be a viable option. The company says it is "fully engaged" to "deliver the best possible solutions for industry and consumers in the post Brexit relationship", adding that "exploratory work could be worthwhile now" as planning and preparations are inevitably lengthy.
Eurotunnel currently operates the one fixed link between the UK and France but has the option to build a second in the future. "We are very interested in this possibility," Mr Gounon says, "albeit perhaps a little early as today we only use around 54 per cent of total Tunnel capacity."
The letter adds: "The acknowledgement of such potential is a strong indicator of confidence in the future of the economy."
Captain Haddock- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 7,811
I'm not sure that Johnson actually ever proposed a 'bridge'. As far as I know he said "good connections" were important and that it was ridiculous that two of the world's biggest economies were only linked by a single railway.
Anyone able to give a link to show otherwise?
"Shall we go, you and I, while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds"
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,225
Rather amazing that Eurotunnel want to discuss an option they declined some years back.
Mind you having screwed their banks & other shareholders perhaps they see another financial gift coming their way.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Its not needed.
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,222
Vic Matcham wrote:Its not needed.
Brian Dixon, Jan Higgins and howard mcsweeney1 like this
Arte et Marte
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
All the indications are that freight and passenger numbers will continue to rise and from inception to completion for such a project would be ten years or more.
Captain Haddock likes this
Button- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 2,997
I don't see that as demonstrating a need for additional carrying capacity (especially since Eurotunnel themselves say they're working at only 54% of that already available), but rather a need to ensure that fluidity is maintained. In other words, the current system works just fine in my book - until someone/something throws a spanner in the works.
Jan Higgins likes this
(Not my real name.)
Guest 1997- Registered: 3 Mar 2017
- Posts: 148
I've got to own up to having a history on this subject, having spent a large part of my working life in the cross channel business, including 15 years at Eurotunnel.
ET have always had the option to build a 2nd fixed link under the award granted by both governments that became what was known as "the concession". In the UK, the Channel Tunnel Act of 1987.
ET has the capacity within its operating system to increase traffic but the figure of 54% usage relates to operations throughout the totality of both sides of the link - trains, track, terminals, catenary, the whole shooting match. If there were no ferry industry (for whatever reasons!) you could fill up the tunnel with freight and be done with it. Unfortunately for ET, the passenger market is a whole different kettle of fish. The original design for passenger traffic was based around safety to such an extent that the passenger shuttles soon became uneconomic to maintain. That's why they have mothballed half the rolling stock and run to very tight constraints which allow little margin for error. Passenger rolling stock was often described as being like Boeing 747s on wheels, believe it or not.
Therefore, the prospect of a simpler, second system might well be regarded by the French directors of ET as having some merit. The French have longed to dominate the cross channel market and would jump at any opportunity to do so. The free enterprise of Townsend Thoresen and latterly P&O kept them effectively out of the market for ages. Sealink and Sea France could never really compete. ET is now in effect a French company. I once was party to some interesting speculation about how this happened and its relevance to the Le Touquet agreement but that is a different subject.
The notion that Eurotunnel "screwed their banks & other shareholders" implies a direct, conscious action and is laughable, to say the least. What other choice did both governments have? Would it have been good for either country to let the tunnel fail, allow its only source of operating expertise to become bankrupt and block up both ends like they did in the 70s? The only logical way ahead was to massage the figures and let the operation continue. Sure shareholders and banks both took a hit but is that a major factor in public opinion? We all want to go and buy our cheap supermarket "just in time" goods and whether you like it or not, cross channel business is a major part of that.
The naivety of some local politicians never ceases to amaze me. It might also go some way to explaining why Dover is in such a mess.
Ross Miller and Captain Haddock like this
Brian Dixon, Jan Higgins and howard mcsweeney1 like thisArte et Marte
