Scotland-Northern Ireland bridge?
Discussion
Posting in Science rather than NP&E as I was hoping for a few armchair expert views on the feasibility of such a project from a technical viewpoint, rather than a debate about the cost and value for money (as I can't really see it ever happening anyway).
It would be one of the longest bridges over water in the world, but how would it compare to other projects of a similar scale? Having done the Holyhead-Dublin ferry route I know the weather can be pretty bad a lot of the time, which would make construction harder. Would it also result in the bridge being closed half the time due to poor weather?
The shortest route is to (near) Campbeltown, but that would seem to be an especially large white elephant bearing in mind the massive detour north you'd have to travel to skirt around the Firth of Clyde, etc. The route to Portpatrick would seem to make more sense, as although a longer bridge crossing you could upgrade road links and make it a short drive from there to the A74(M) / M6 / South...
Also read a couple of comments suggesting a bridge from Dublin to Holyhead instead... (forget the cost/politics), would that be viable over such a long stretch of (deep) open water?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotlan...
It would be one of the longest bridges over water in the world, but how would it compare to other projects of a similar scale? Having done the Holyhead-Dublin ferry route I know the weather can be pretty bad a lot of the time, which would make construction harder. Would it also result in the bridge being closed half the time due to poor weather?
The shortest route is to (near) Campbeltown, but that would seem to be an especially large white elephant bearing in mind the massive detour north you'd have to travel to skirt around the Firth of Clyde, etc. The route to Portpatrick would seem to make more sense, as although a longer bridge crossing you could upgrade road links and make it a short drive from there to the A74(M) / M6 / South...
Also read a couple of comments suggesting a bridge from Dublin to Holyhead instead... (forget the cost/politics), would that be viable over such a long stretch of (deep) open water?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotlan...
It's over 1km deep in places and there's WWII ordnance and nuclear waste dumped, uncharted, all over the sea bed. It would also be the longest suspension bridge ever built and a feasibility nightmare.
I'm confidently going to say we'll be back in the EU before it's half-completed (probably before it's even started).
I'm confidently going to say we'll be back in the EU before it's half-completed (probably before it's even started).
For those people who never left the Country, such things do exist elsewhere in the world.
Far a nation that led the industrial revolution, we really seem to have grown in to a cynical and fearful people. Do you imagine what people said about Thomas Telford, or Brunel, or the first tunnel under the Thames.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/worlds-longes...
here_we_go said:
Although that is pretty damming !
here_we_go said:
Is that commenting on the short route or the long route?vaud said:
here_we_go said:
Is that commenting on the short route or the long route?Many long bridges have been built, but none across such a wide, deep and stormy stretch of water. For a great part of the 22-mile route the water is more than 1,000ft deep. It would require about 30 support towers at least 1,400ft high to carry the road deck across the deepest part and above the shipping channel. In total the bridge would require 54 towers, of heights never achieved anywhere in the world.
But the shorter route would only require about 30 towers. Much more feasible! And then it's only a three and a half hour drive to Glasgow (or four hours if another landslide has closed the Rest and be Thankful), and an hour from Belfast at the other end. Chuck in at least two more lengthy bridges or tunnels and you might cut that down to two hours.
As for a tunnel, apart from the depth required to get under the floor of the North Channel, apparently it's a horrible mess of sand, rock, shales and fault fractures, unlike the nice cuddly chalk marl under the English Channel.
Halmyre said:
But the shorter route would only require about 30 towers. Much more feasible! And then it's only a three and a half hour drive to Glasgow (or four hours if another landslide has closed the Rest and be Thankful), and an hour from Belfast at the other end. Chuck in at least two more lengthy bridges or tunnels and you might cut that down to two hours.
As for a tunnel, apart from the depth required to get under the floor of the North Channel, apparently it's a horrible mess of sand, rock, shales and fault fractures, unlike the nice cuddly chalk marl under the English Channel.
Or rail over the bridge - a 2 tier system allowing for freight (inc cars on the back) and passenger rail. Some built in redundancy...As for a tunnel, apart from the depth required to get under the floor of the North Channel, apparently it's a horrible mess of sand, rock, shales and fault fractures, unlike the nice cuddly chalk marl under the English Channel.
...but then no fast rail to easily connect to.
BugLebowski said:
Considering it would likely dwarf spending on HS2 and taking into account recent polling on the matter, I'm sure English taxpayers would be overjoyed at the prospect of building the worlds most expensive bridge between two possibly independent countries. 
Why not? We've pissed away billions on other countries' infrastructure in the EEC/EU these past forty years.
Halmyre said:
The long route.
Many long bridges have been built, but none across such a wide, deep and stormy stretch of water. For a great part of the 22-mile route the water is more than 1,000ft deep. It would require about 30 support towers at least 1,400ft high to carry the road deck across the deepest part and above the shipping channel. In total the bridge would require 54 towers, of heights never achieved anywhere in the world.
But the shorter route would only require about 30 towers. Much more feasible! And then it's only a three and a half hour drive to Glasgow (or four hours if another landslide has closed the Rest and be Thankful), and an hour from Belfast at the other end. Chuck in at least two more lengthy bridges or tunnels and you might cut that down to two hours.
As for a tunnel, apart from the depth required to get under the floor of the North Channel, apparently it's a horrible mess of sand, rock, shales and fault fractures, unlike the nice cuddly chalk marl under the English Channel.
The Seikan Tunnel was built in the 70's and 80's, although "only" around 800 feet deep, and admittedly very different geology, we have 40 years of technological progress and understanding which could make something like this more feasible? Subway systems in places like New York and London are built in far from ideal conditions (sand, clay, etc) so that knowledge could be extrapolated and applied in this situation?Many long bridges have been built, but none across such a wide, deep and stormy stretch of water. For a great part of the 22-mile route the water is more than 1,000ft deep. It would require about 30 support towers at least 1,400ft high to carry the road deck across the deepest part and above the shipping channel. In total the bridge would require 54 towers, of heights never achieved anywhere in the world.
But the shorter route would only require about 30 towers. Much more feasible! And then it's only a three and a half hour drive to Glasgow (or four hours if another landslide has closed the Rest and be Thankful), and an hour from Belfast at the other end. Chuck in at least two more lengthy bridges or tunnels and you might cut that down to two hours.
As for a tunnel, apart from the depth required to get under the floor of the North Channel, apparently it's a horrible mess of sand, rock, shales and fault fractures, unlike the nice cuddly chalk marl under the English Channel.
Either that or a submerged floating tunnel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_t...
Zetec-S said:
The Seikan Tunnel was built in the 70's and 80's, although "only" around 800 feet deep, and admittedly very different geology, we have 40 years of technological progress and understanding which could make something like this more feasible?
Tunneling technology hasn't advanced that much in 40 years!Anyway, its still not feasible as a road transport tunnel at that depth/length, the M&E issues to cool and fume extract would be nigh on impossible to overcome ontop of everything else.
Zetec-S said:
Either that or a submerged floating tunnel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_t...
See point above.Johnson has plenty of previous form for opening his trap and spouting complete b
ks about infrastructure/engineering projects that only continue to prove what a fool he is.aeropilot said:
Zetec-S said:
The Seikan Tunnel was built in the 70's and 80's, although "only" around 800 feet deep, and admittedly very different geology, we have 40 years of technological progress and understanding which could make something like this more feasible?
Tunneling technology hasn't advanced that much in 40 years!Anyway, its still not feasible as a road transport tunnel at that depth/length, the M&E issues to cool and fume extract would be nigh on impossible to overcome ontop of everything else.
Zetec-S said:
Either that or a submerged floating tunnel? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_t...
See point above.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogfast
https://www.worldhighways.com/categories/road-high...
Admittedly there is an island halfway which makes a big difference to ventilation.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff