Bridge across the Irish Sea? - Page 2 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Bridge across the Irish Sea?


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Orraloon said:

Seems like a nice day to be driving across the Irish sea.

 

8 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

Alex Cole Hamilton would have a field day with the number of days it would be closed

(That's if it wasnt complete horseshit and another deflection)

Never fear. One of the options is a bridge, leading to a tunnel, then back to a bridge.

No concerns at all, absolutely not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

 

Never fear. One of the options is a bridge, leading to a tunnel, then back to a bridge.

No concerns at all, absolutely not.  

To be fair, the Denmark-Sweden bridge is something similar to this.

 

What I've found strange so far is that no one has mentioned that bridge is directly on the route for Sumbarmine access to the Atlantic. Don't think the MOD would be happy about this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a civil engineer, I can't see this idea being viable at reasonable cost.  There are a number of technical problems that are apparent even at a cursory glance.  Firstly, who wants to get caught in the middle of that bridge when a storm hits?  The Queensferry Crossing is a short bridge and you're only on it for a matter of minutes.  A 20 mile long bridge would take at least 20 minutes to cross in decent weather conditions, probably more as it would be speed limited, probably to 50mph.  Secondly, there is some pretty deep water in that area, around 1000 feet deep - that means massive towers to support the bridge, probably at least 1500 feet high overall.  The idea of a bridge combined with a tunnel works well for the Oresund Bridge - I think the tunnel is maybe needed there due to proximity to Copenhagen Airport - but with the munitions rolling around in the area and blowing up every so often, a tunnel might be a risky idea.

Leaving aside the technical problems, there is also the elephant in the room, the road network leading to Portpatrick.  A new motorway would be needed from the Gretna area or maybe from Lockerbie to make sense of the idea.  The A75 isn't really adequate for the current traffic with few dual carriageway sections and some sections that are roadblocks at times depending on when the ferries arrive at Cairnryan.

Finally, would this bridge benefit Scotland?  I am not so sure that it is Scotland that would reap the benefit.  Ireland certainly could do with better connectivity, and it would be of great benefit to Northern Ireland in particular (soon to be part of the republic I would suggest).  However Scotland needs to be better connected with mainland Europe and a bridge to Ireland wouldn't do that beyond the connection to Ireland itself.  It might well be that an M75 through D&G would be great for our local economy as it's a rather difficult area to access at times, and that would be welcome, but it doesn't need a bridge in the far west to get those benefits.

To me this is just Boris Johnson talking shite, pandering to the DUP maybe even though he's finished with them, and trying to deflect from the announcement that Scotland will be asked to pay for a high speed rail link that will never come anywhere near Scotland - when in fact high speed rail is of most benefit when it goes a long way as time savings are minimal for shorter journeys like London to Birmingham but more worthwhile for long distances, the likes of Aberdeen to Paris.  Still waiting for direct trains to mainland Europe 30 years after the channel tunnel was opened...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Coldo said:

To be fair, the Denmark-Sweden bridge is something similar to this.

 

What I've found strange so far is that no one has mentioned that bridge is directly on the route for Sumbarmine access to the Atlantic. Don't think the MOD would be happy about this?

If only we had an oil fund with which to fund the project .....🙂

I doubt BJ has given much consideration to  the MOD route at this stage, thats a very good point.
 

He failed to build a garden bridge across the Thames but lets not let that detract from this good news day for UK transport links..  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Alibi said:

As a civil engineer, I can't see this idea being viable at reasonable cost.  There are a number of technical problems that are apparent even at a cursory glance.  Firstly, who wants to get caught in the middle of that bridge when a storm hits?  The Queensferry Crossing is a short bridge and you're only on it for a matter of minutes.  A 20 mile long bridge would take at least 20 minutes to cross in decent weather conditions, probably more as it would be speed limited, probably to 50mph.  Secondly, there is some pretty deep water in that area, around 1000 feet deep - that means massive towers to support the bridge, probably at least 1500 feet high overall.  The idea of a bridge combined with a tunnel works well for the Oresund Bridge - I think the tunnel is maybe needed there due to proximity to Copenhagen Airport - but with the munitions rolling around in the area and blowing up every so often, a tunnel might be a risky idea.

Leaving aside the technical problems, there is also the elephant in the room, the road network leading to Portpatrick.  A new motorway would be needed from the Gretna area or maybe from Lockerbie to make sense of the idea.  The A75 isn't really adequate for the current traffic with few dual carriageway sections and some sections that are roadblocks at times depending on when the ferries arrive at Cairnryan.

Finally, would this bridge benefit Scotland?  I am not so sure that it is Scotland that would reap the benefit.  Ireland certainly could do with better connectivity, and it would be of great benefit to Northern Ireland in particular (soon to be part of the republic I would suggest).  However Scotland needs to be better connected with mainland Europe and a bridge to Ireland wouldn't do that beyond the connection to Ireland itself.  It might well be that an M75 through D&G would be great for our local economy as it's a rather difficult area to access at times, and that would be welcome, but it doesn't need a bridge in the far west to get those benefits.

To me this is just Boris Johnson talking shite, pandering to the DUP maybe even though he's finished with them, and trying to deflect from the announcement that Scotland will be asked to pay for a high speed rail link that will never come anywhere near Scotland - when in fact high speed rail is of most benefit when it goes a long way as time savings are minimal for shorter journeys like London to Birmingham but more worthwhile for long distances, the likes of Aberdeen to Paris.  Still waiting for direct trains to mainland Europe 30 years after the channel tunnel was opened...

This would actually be a great idea but...

The comparisons that are being drawn with the Oresund Bridge aren't particularly relevant for the technical reasons you've mentioned but also at either side of the bridge you have major population centres, Copenhagen on the Danish side and Malmo on the Swedish side, with all that means in terms of people who would use it on a regular basis and also the access to the road and rail network on both sides.

If you look at it from the Irish side it looks more appealing, the Irish end of the crossing would presumably be somewhere on either the North Down or South Antrim coasts, either side of Belfast Lough, so you are close to the major population centre on Belfast and while there would need to be some upgrade of roads, I guess your'e probably only talking about 10-20 miles to connect with the NI Motorway network.

The Scottish side of the crossing is likely to be around Portpatrick - which is a beautiful place but miles from nowhere.    To make this remotely feasible, you'd need motorway to connect to the M74/M6 at Gretna.  That is currently a journey of 101 miles.

It gets madder as they are talking about it being a combined road/rail bridge.   So unless you also build a new rail-line of roughly the same distance from the west coast mainline then its extending the existing infrastructure, which is the Glasgow - Stranraer line, with possibly a freight spur on the existing single track line between Troon and Kilmarnock.     That'n not just a case of an extension from Stranraer to Portpatrick, the current line is single track south of Girvan.

This is nothing other than a political stunt, designed to deflect from some current problem or other and probably to be pulled out at some future IndyRef as an "incentive".   Johnson will spend millions on it though - without even putting a spade in the ground - to prop this up just as he did with his ludicrous garden bridge project on which about £50 million was spent before Sadiq Khan binned it.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hertsscot said:

Don't know about a bridge over the Irish Sea but is there any reason why there can't be a sleeper train down to London on a Saturday night?

Wouldn't have thought there would be much demand for it.  Sleepers are generally aimed at people going to of coming back from work.  If there was demand, I'm sure they'd have a service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hertsscot said:

Don't know about a bridge over the Irish Sea but is there any reason why there can't be a sleeper train down to London on a Saturday night?

I took the sleeper once but from London to Glasgow. I cant even remember why I did it. I think I thought it might be better than flying somehow. Madness. It wasnt. It was really expensive, you had to share a tiny bunk bed compartment with some random unless you paid extra, the toilets and services were average and upon arrival in Glasgow at 6am (or earlier) they woke you up with a screeching alarm through the intercom and basically told you to feck off. The sheets were like cardboard and it was a terrible nights kip. 

How is it these days?

Edited by thplinth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, aaid said:

Wouldn't have thought there would be much demand for it.  Sleepers are generally aimed at people going to of coming back from work.  If there was demand, I'm sure they'd have a service. 

For a fraction of the cost of HS2 you could put on a personal sleeper for Hertsscot every Saturday night until he retires. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, WCTA said:

Aye, but that’s fine if yer only paying a half fare...... 🙄

Agreed. I decided to fly to Belfast from Glasgow, 40 minutes. Way back I had the whole day. Left Belfast at 6am, in Glasgow by noon. I quite enjoyed it. Cannae even remember the cost of the ferry. Flight was £60..  Just got the joke ya prick..🖕🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair play to any on any of the news programmes discussing this with a straight face

to paraphrase Lew Grade when lamenting  that Raise the Titanic bankrupted his studio 'it would of been cheaper to lower the atlantic'

Quite by a long shot the most stupid idea ever to eminate form those of a unionist persuasion so much so that if I were a unionist I would suspect it was a republican black ops used to discredit unionism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yon Denmark-Sweden bridge is busier, shorter, shallower and the toll is a wee bit more than 50p.

A tunnel might be more practical than bridging that very deep trench (There is nothing there to hold up a bridge.), but would mean considerable length.   Especially for a gentle slope for, say, a greener rail option (Boris? Haud ma sides 😄 )   So more expensive than the chunnel (£13m at 2015 prices if I remember and the £ is shit now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Grim Jim said:

Yon Denmark-Sweden bridge is busier, shorter, shallower and the toll is a wee bit more than 50p.

A tunnel might be more practical than bridging that very deep trench (There is nothing there to hold up a bridge.), but would mean considerable length.   Especially for a gentle slope for, say, a greener rail option (Boris? Haud ma sides 😄 )   So more expensive than the chunnel (£13m at 2015 prices if I remember and the £ is shit now).

I think you're out by a factor of at least 1000 there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2020 at 9:53 PM, Grim Jim said:

A tunnel might be more practical than bridging that very deep trench (There is nothing there to hold up a bridge.), but would mean considerable length.   Especially for a gentle slope for, say, a greener rail option (Boris? Haud ma sides 😄 )   So more expensive than the chunnel (£13m at 2015 prices if I remember and the £ is shit now).

Mentioned on the previous page it would be the world's deepest road tunnel. 

Either option would be remarkable engineering achievements.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...