Jersey and Guernsey rail tunnel

[HSTEd]

10m would also potentially be viable for an immersed tube, wouldn't it? Not sure about length for that with ventilation and evacuation though.

Yes, but as you say, evacuation and ventilation would become a pain.

Much simpler with a bridge that has an obvious evacuation route available and ample wind to blow smoke clear of the bridge in a fire.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, but as you say, evacuation and ventilation would become a pain.

Much simpler with a bridge that has an obvious evacuation route available and ample wind to blow smoke clear of the bridge in a fire.

Although a Bridge would be exposed to high winds, so there's pros and cons to each option.

 

[eldomtom2]

One of the local politician proponents, Martyn Dorey, favours a rail line I believe. Although a road tunnel with frequent buses may be a better plan.

From all the talk of the Faroes as a model I imagine most are thinking of a road tunnel. Of course, you could have both...

Yes, but as you say, evacuation and ventilation would become a pain.

Much simpler with a bridge that has an obvious evacuation route available and ample wind to blow smoke clear of the bridge in a fire.

The Jersey Evening Post has the following from tunnel proponents on the subject of tunnel vs bridge:

A tunnel between Jersey and France: What would happen to our house prices? Will the French be on board? And why not build a bridge instead?

PLANS to build a tunnel to France are being given serious consideration.But what impact would it have on island life? And what are the other options?Why […]

jerseyeveningpost.com

Why not build a bridge instead?

Stephen Whitham, a tunnel specialist at Ramboll engineering consultants, said that there were several reasons why a tunnel would, in his view, be preferable.
He argued that one of the main considerations was “security of supply”, or whether the link would be resilient. He explained that bridges were affected by bad weather – storms, fog and high winds.
Noise was also a factor, as sound travelled further over water and the traffic noise could become a nuisance for many.
Mr Whitham explained that a bridge was visually and environmentally obtrusive, as it would require piers every 50–60 metres that would damage delicate marine habitats.

Who would use it? Certainly from the UK the journey would be roundabout and pointless, easier to just get the ferry or fly. And even if you could get 50% of the 'off lslands' passengers, which given the geography I mentioned above would be a strech, how many would this amount to?

The idea seems to be that it would primarily be used by commuters who would live in France but work in Jersey/Guernsey. The Jersey government believes the population will have to grow by a third by 2040 to maintain living standards without an increase in productivity due to an aging population.

 

[edwin_m]

Next up a tunnel to Gibraltar !

From Spain.

 

[SynthD]

A TGV from Paris to Saint-Malo is mostly high speed. The station is a mile away from the ferry terminal. Likely no through ticketing for Eurostar, Paris bus, TGV, St Malo bus, ferry. I don’t see bus routes at Jersey or Guernsey docks. It’s just not a train user type of place, the flights and car ferries match the demand.

 

[Wolfie]

From Spain.

I thought that..... You'll probably find that the smugglers have already built a "prototype" lol....

 

[Chester1]

Not at all. The Irish Sea is a lot deeper between Stranraer and Larne, and there's no Beaufort's Dyke to contend with between France and Jersey.

The main question is - can the States and the Bailiwick afford it in the medium term, or could European Investment Bank development loans help here?

Guernsey and Jersey have a combined population of 150,000. The island of Ireland has a population of nearly 6.5 million and the majority of them live in the Belfast - Dublin corridor. Yes a Northern Ireland tunnel would cost much more but its BCR would be better (still terrible).

 

[AlastairFraser]

Guernsey and Jersey have a combined population of 150,000. The island of Ireland has a population of nearly 6.5 million and the majority of them live in the Belfast - Dublin corridor. Yes a Northern Ireland tunnel would cost much more but its BCR would be better (still terrible).

However, the GDP per capita of those islands is significantly higher than NI or the Republic, plus the feasibility study for the Irish Sea tunnel quoted £209 billion for the tunnel!

 

[Silenos]

Guernsey and Jersey have a combined population of 150,000. The island of Ireland has a population of nearly 6.5 million and the majority of them live in the Belfast - Dublin corridor. Yes a Northern Ireland tunnel would cost much more but its BCR would be better (still terrible).

But the thing I find fascinating is that somehow it was deemed feasible to create the tunnels on the Faeroes, which have a population of about 50,000. Presumably a very different method is used by the Danish government for determining whether to go ahead with such projects.

 

[Chester1]

However, the GDP per capita of those islands is significantly higher than NI or the Republic, plus the feasibility study for the Irish Sea tunnel quoted £209 billion for the tunnel!

GDP of Channel Islands are still tiny compared with Ireland. They are rich but nowhere near enough to compensate for Ireland having more than 20 times the population. Tax haven stuff effects their GDP even more than Ireland's too. We also need to factor in actual use. Linking an island of 65 million to an island of 6.5 million is likely to generate far more passengers than linking two islands with a combined population of 150,000 to the European mainland. Both are terrible ideas financially unless tunneling becomes much cheaper.

 

[Wolfie]

However, the GDP per capita of those islands is significantly higher than NI or the Republic, plus the feasibility study for the Irish Sea tunnel quoted £209 billion for the tunnel!

Hmmmm.... "financial services".... hmmmm lol

GDP of Channel Islands are still tiny compared with Ireland. They are rich but nowhere near enough to compensate for Ireland having more than 20 times the population. Tax haven stuff effects their GDP even more than Ireland's too. We also need to factor in actual use. Linking an island of 65 million to an island of 6.5 million is likely to generate far more passengers than linking two islands with a combined population of 150,000 to the European mainland. Both are terrible ideas financially unless tunneling becomes much cheaper.

Agreed

 

[Chester1]

If the Channel Islands have £20bn for an idiotic idea, how about reclaiming land around The Minquiers? Its very shallow around them and £20 billion would probably be enough to pay for land for a town.

 

[AlastairFraser]

GDP of Channel Islands are still tiny compared with Ireland. They are rich but nowhere near enough to compensate for Ireland having more than 20 times the population. Tax haven stuff effects their GDP even more than Ireland's too. We also need to factor in actual use. Linking an island of 65 million to an island of 6.5 million is likely to generate far more passengers than linking two islands with a combined population of 150,000 to the European mainland. Both are terrible ideas financially unless tunneling becomes much cheaper.

It's up to them if they have the money spare at the end of the day. I doubt they'll ever recover the construction costs with a toll, but they could probably break even on the maintenance and operating costs.
It also helps reduce haulage and supply costs, which will help as they have to transition away from tax evasion-based economies. A toll of even up to £50/£100 per lorry will significantly cut the price of importing food to the CI over the ferry from St Malo.

Hmmmm.... "financial services".... hmmmm lol

We all know it's artificially inflated, but the governments of both the States and the Bailiwick have acknowledged their need to transition away from tax evasion-based economies and this would be a good way to spend some of the spare money they have to help reduce living costs in the future, before they get poorer.

If the Channel Islands have £20bn for an idiotic idea, how about reclaiming land around The Minquiers? Its very shallow around them and £20 billion would probably be enough to pay for land for a town.

They're not particularly short of land. It's more that they don't want to build on the land they do have, and would rather people commute from France.

 

[Bald Rick]

It also helps reduce haulage and supply costs

Would it? I’m not so sure. The ferries to the UK would still run, as would the sailings from France (albeit on a reduced frequency.

 

[artemic]

But the thing I find fascinating is that somehow it was deemed feasible to create the tunnels on the Faeroes, which have a population of about 50,000. Presumably a very different method is used by the Danish government for determining whether to go ahead with such projects.

I think it broadly comes down to an acceptance since around the 1960s that such tunnels provide a wider societal and economic benefit that isn't as easily quantified, or is worth subsidising (with a large subsidy from Copenhagen to boot - something the Channel Islands might aspire to! ) as well as reliability unlike the ferry services they replace... a tunnel can't be cancelled in the winter! It keeps people on the islands if life is a bit easier, rather than everyone leaving the villages for Tórshavn or Denmark proper.
The tolls for undersea tunnels can be expensive - £20 in one case (although there are subscriptions for locals that make it cheaper)
With regard to the two newest subsea tunnels in the Faroes (Eysturoy & Sandoy tunnels) the more heavily used one (Eysturoy tunnel) is expected to subsidise the other (Sandoy - which was always accepted as being economically unfeasible on its own) so that must help make the cost more palatable as well.

The schemes are also different in aim - Tórshavn has always been the distinct centre of an archipelago (around a quarter of the population lives there - 3x bigger than the next town but leaving three-quarters of the lot searching for how to get there!), whereas a "Chunnel lite" would connect two distinct islands as well as the French mainland. Perhaps this would make it less worth it, or more so? I'm not a professional tunnel-builder!

There is also simply a lot of experience building tunnels (cheaply) in the Faroes! The two tunnels I mention cost just over £300 million to build - per resident around £5,800. I suspect this Channel Islands tunnel would work out significantly more expensive per head, and then you've only got one tunnel!

 

[Irascible]

An electric STOL airline shuttle service will almost certainly be better value for money than any fixed infrastructure link.

Doesn't have to be STOL, both Jersey & Guernsey have fairly big airports. It's about half an hour by ATR from Exeter, so within the more sensible regional electric proposal range.

 

[HSTEd]

Although a Bridge would be exposed to high winds, so there's pros and cons to each option.

I'd think the shallow water would allow a short span viaduct design that could be fully enclosed if necessary to protect against high winds.

Bridges have been built with far lighter structures that still allow partial operation in Typhoon conditions (Hong Kong has cable stay bridges that have an internal single-lane each way deck for storms)!

I think a Jersey bridge probably falls into the same category as an Irish Sea crossing. It is well within our engineering capability but doesn't stack up in the current political and socio-economic environment.

 

[eldomtom2]

Found the site of the group that's proposing this - Connect 3 Million - which clarifies that it is intended to be a rail tunnel operated by battery trains.

Vision

What is the vision behind Connect 3 Million? Connecting the Channel Islands to mainland France Introduction 'Connect 3 million’ is the working title of the project to connect 3 million people in lower Normandy to Guernsey, via Jersey, with a maximum commute time of one hour. A fixed...

connect3million.com

• Commuters will access shuttle trains from underground stations located in St Peter Port, Jersey Airport and St Helier.
• The working train specification is a 120mph Bombardier Talent battery powered train, which bridges electrified and non-electrified track sections.
• Target journey times
  • St Peter Port to Jersey Airport in 7 minutes
  • St Peter Port to St Helier in 15 minutes
• Timings
  • Phase 1: connect Guernsey to Jersey first, due to jurisdictional similarities.
    • 1 year feasibility study, 2 years to dig, 1 year to fit out.
    • Consider freight and cars.
  • Phase 2: connect Jersey to France

 

[yoyothehobo]

Its important when comparing with the Faeroes to note that the geology of Faroes is pretty much exclusively basalt and relatively straight forward to tunnel through.

The area around JErsey (though Jersey itself is just a lump of granite) is incredibly geologically complex and would be very difficult to tunnel through

 

[MarkyT]

But the thing I find fascinating is that somehow it was deemed feasible to create the tunnels on the Faeroes, which have a population of about 50,000. Presumably a very different method is used by the Danish government for determining whether to go ahead with such projects.

I'd guess that ferries and short air links between these islands are difficult and expensive to operate, and sensitive to bad weather. Maybe with fast reliable tunnel links, public services can be more easily shared between the islands which could lead to broader savings. The workforce should be able to access work anywhere within the connected island road network reliably. Some businesses might make savings from not having to maintain dedicated premises on each island.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Would it? I’m not so sure. The ferries to the UK would still run, as would the sailings from France (albeit on a reduced frequency.

The ferries to the UK would still run, but a lot of imported products don't come from the UK, and it would be stupid to choose a slower and more expensive ferry if a tunnel toll is cheaper and saves time.

 

[uglymonkey]

Flying between Jersey & Guernsey, but the time you have settled down after take off, opened a magazine, you are on final approach for landing !!

 

[Technologist]

Even if we discount electric planes as silly (which I personally do), battery-electric hovercraft would be able to decarbonise a lot of these journeys without requiring massive railway tunnels or viaducts.
I think Jersey-France is probably practical as a viaduct because of how shallow it is, but the water between Guernsey and Jersey is much much deeper

Guernsey is only 62nm or so from Great Britain at Portland.

Okaaaayyyy.

Battery electric planes are flying already and have ranges of hundreds of miles. Battery energy density is already good enough to do useful flights and quick charging and battery lifetimes are increasing at a much greater rate than battery energy density. These are actually more important parameters.

If you look at the history of flying vehicles you will see that the majority of them are electric! (Drones) Electric propulsion let's you do things that you can't do with combustion engines and at tiny prices while also allowing you to share components with automotive which is basically the largest industry in the world.

The net result is that the first generation eVTOL have slightly better economic performance than helicopters despite being essentially proofs of principle products. Once they industrialise they are likely to have costs more in line with super cars on a per kg basis which once you get the utilisation up results in negligible cost per passenger.

Once the dam breaks on this product expect quite significant changes to society, comparable to the effects drones are having on combat.

Annoying Auto Merge

If the price is £5.6 billion and the channel islands have a population of 177,000 then that is about £32,000 per person. If this was funded by a 100 year mortgage this would equate to £96 per month at 3.5%.

Sounds more doable when put in that context, not disproportionately more than say a house extension which essentially this is because it increases the amount of useful space on the island considerably by allowing people and business to store more on the mainland.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Okaaaayyyy.

Battery electric planes are flying already and have ranges of hundreds of miles. Battery energy density is already good enough to do useful flights and quick charging and battery lifetimes are increasing at a much greater rate than battery energy density. These are actually more important parameters.

If you look at the history of flying vehicles you will see that the majority of them are electric! (Drones) Electric propulsion let's you do things that you can't do with combustion engines and at tiny prices while also allowing you to share components with automotive which is basically the largest industry in the world.

The net result is that the first generation eVTOL have slightly better economic performance than helicopters despite being essentially proofs of principle products. Once they industrialise they are likely to have costs more in line with super cars on a per kg basis which once you get the utilisation up results in negligible cost per passenger.

Once the dam breaks on this product expect quite significant changes to society, comparable to the effects drones are having on combat.

Annoying Auto Merge

If the price is £5.6 billion and the channel islands have a population of 177,000 then that is about £32,000 per person. If this was funded by a 100 year mortgage this would equate to £96 per month at 3.5%.

Sounds more doable when put in that context, not disproportionately more than say a house extension which essentially this is because it increases the amount of useful space on the island considerably by allowing people and business to store more on the mainland.

5.6 billion wouldnt even scratch the surface of this!

 

[Technologist]

5.6 billion wouldnt even scratch the surface of this!

Auto Merge put two unrelated posted together. eVTOL will likely be a multi hundred billion per year industry with 30-40 years.

The tunnel to the channel islands was quoted at £5.6 billion.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Auto Merge put two unrelated posted together. eVTOL will likely be a multi hundred billion per year industry with 30-40 years.

The tunnel to the channel islands was quoted at £5.6 billion.

Ahh, sorry.

I should have clarified. I have no knowledge on electric flights.

A tunnel to the channel islands would be considerably more than 5.6 billion

 

[Gloster]

Or eVTOL may turn out to be the latest bionic duckweed. Not that that makes a tunnel either a practical or realistic possibility.

 

[HSTEd]

Okaaaayyyy.

Battery electric planes are flying already and have ranges of hundreds of miles. Battery energy density is already good enough to do useful flights and quick charging and battery lifetimes are increasing at a much greater rate than battery energy density. These are actually more important parameters.

All the battery planes flying today have performance that is positively pitiful by modern standards.
Flight speeds are more like a 100knots than the 400+ knots of modern airliners.

Various academic studies have suggested that even with the absolute best battery technology likely to be available in a climate-relevant future timeframe will top out at about 200nm at airliner like performance (400Wh/kg).
Even then this aircraft will have serious struggles in terms of takeoff weight. Batteries actually available today are more like 200Wh/kg.

The actual electric planes flying today will struggle to beat hovercraft with vastly greater payload fractions.

 

[sprunt]

Is there any evidence that people living in Normandy would want to go and work in the Channel Islands with a 1 hour commute if this thing did get built? Or is it just Build It And They Will Come?

 

[eldomtom2]

Is there any evidence that people living in Normandy would want to go and work in the Channel Islands with a 1 hour commute if this thing did get built? Or is it just Build It And They Will Come?

If the pay was good enough...