Passenger Trains > Eurostar, Eurotunnel delay and cancellation 'chaos'

On the European Board:

http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?17,3383655

If only we had something as wonderful as this in the U.S.!

This huge tunnel under the English Channel is truly an engineering masterpiece. In America we can't figure out how to rebuild the Baltimore tunnels which are only a few feet in comparison.

Joe

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If only we had something as wonderful as this in
> the U.S.!
>
> This huge tunnel under the English Channel is
> truly an engineering masterpiece. In America we
> can't figure out how to rebuild the Baltimore
> tunnels which are only a few feet in comparison.

The Channel Tunnel didn't have to avoid centuries' worth of existing development and underground utilities.

Not saying that such things can't be accounted for, just saying it's more complicated than "only a few feet in comparison." It's always easier to build something entirely new than to retrofit existing infrastructure.

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If only we had something as wonderful as this in
> the U.S.!
>
> This huge tunnel under the English Channel is
> truly an engineering masterpiece. In America we
> can't figure out how to rebuild the Baltimore
> tunnels which are only a few feet in comparison.

I don't think it is that don't know how to rebuild the Baltimore tunnels, its they don't know how to rebuild them under the current load and within reasonable cost. The saying in most engineering offices today is that 100 years ago, the hardest part of the project was figuring out how to complete the project to make expectations. Today, the hardest parts are just getting permission to build it and finding the money to complete it.

I imagine if someone threw enough money at the Balitmore tunnels with a "get it done and get it done quickly" mentalist with no environmental restrictions, they could be rebuilt or replaced fairly quickly.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Channel Tunnel didn't have to avoid centuries'
> worth of existing development and underground
> utilities.
>
>I would disagree, since at both ends there is material going back to Roman times, and earlier.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> toledopatch Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The Channel Tunnel didn't have to avoid
> centuries'
> > worth of existing development and underground
> > utilities.
> >
> >I would disagree, since at both ends there is
> material going back to Roman times, and earlier.

Not to mention the centuries old political animosity and mistrust that had to be overcome too.

Construction cost of the Channel Tunnel was 4.65 billion Euros. Add 20-25 years of inflation, convert to dollars, and the cost today would be over $10 billion. That figure doesn't include the cost of the high-speed lines on either end of the tunnel, or the cost of trainsets for Eurostar, or the upfit at Gare du Nord and St Pancras, etc.

Could the U.S. undertake a rail project of that magnitude? Sure, if we chose to. Construction of the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) will cost over $10 billion... just one ship, although a really large and complex one. But do we have the political will to spend $10 billion or more on rail construction? Not yet.

ctillnc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Construction cost of the Channel Tunnel was 4.65
> billion Euros. Add 20-25 years of inflation,
> convert to dollars, and the cost today would be
> over $10 billion. That figure doesn't include the
> cost of the high-speed lines on either end of the
> tunnel, or the cost of trainsets for Eurostar, or
> the upfit at Gare du Nord and St Pancras, etc.
>
> Could the U.S. undertake a rail project of that
> magnitude? Sure, if we chose to. Construction of
> the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) will cost over $10
> billion... just one ship, although a really large
> and complex one. But do we have the political will
> to spend $10 billion or more on rail construction?
> Not yet.

I think the chunnel was financed privately, imagine that.

Also, with just a few googles it can be seen the venture was not all roses
to begin with. The attractiveness is enhanced by the gradual elimination
of competition. There is also a question of high fees but you can
either subsidize the venture directly or indirectly.

bob

To: ctilnc

I enjoyed your inflation adjusted figure of $10B to build the chunnel today (which I realize is an estimate; I'm not a stickler for absolute correctness or anything). Still, this figure doesn't seem too big for Governments to handle--especially the U.S.Government.


Another tunnel we can't build is the Hudson River tunnels between Penn Station and NJ; which is estimated to cost around $8B; mainly because the States of New York and NJ can't agree on anything. Yet, the Chunnel was built by two Governments (England and France) who likewise don't care for each other very much--yet, they built it.

Of course, we're not digging large highway tunnel projects anymore either. The last one was Boston's "Big Dig", which was a financial disaster.

Somehow, we have to re-discover how to build big infracture projects in America again, because they are definitely needed. Other countries have figured it out. Obviously, Amtrak is financially unable to do anything on it's own.

Joe

$10 billion, no problem as compared to California HSR.

We rode the Eurostar in 1995 from London Waterloo to Paris Nord. In our coach class car there were a total of four pax, my wife and I and a couple from Seattle. Business has picked up a bit since then...LOL. The trip was slow through England at that time but after exiting the tunnel at Lille, wow! And we got our passports stamped mid-tunnel by the French immigration officer. After this one ride, we can't ever imagine taking a plane or barf boat between the UK and France or the Low Countries, no matter what the fare might be.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/14 13:14 by masterphots.

Can someone read the historical information. It was a public/private venture, the railroads did not build it.
Cost over runs were 80%, probably typical bait and switch.
The required ROI probably drives the rail fares up leaving room for ferries.
Now push is to put the ferries out of business on environment basis.
Some people actually like to ride a boat in the open and see the coast rather than tunnel walls.
Ferries go direct to many locations and leave from many locations other than Paris.

And it was not build it for the railroads for free, it has to lose money venture.
It was an actual investment with an actual return.

This is not anti-tunnel but I think posts should have factual basis.

Bob

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To: ctilnc
>
> I enjoyed your inflation adjusted figure of $10B
> to build the chunnel today (which I realize is an
> estimate; I'm not a stickler for absolute
> correctness or anything). Still, this figure
> doesn't seem too big for Governments to
> handle--especially the U.S.Government.
>
>
> Another tunnel we can't build is the Hudson River
> tunnels between Penn Station and NJ; which is
> estimated to cost around $8B; mainly because the
> States of New York and NJ can't agree on anything.
> Yet, the Chunnel was built by two Governments
> (England and France) who likewise don't care for
> each other very much--yet, they built it.
>
> Of course, we're not digging large highway tunnel
> projects anymore either. The last one was
> Boston's "Big Dig", which was a financial
> disaster.
>
> Somehow, we have to re-discover how to build big
> infracture projects in America again, because they
> are definitely needed. Other countries have
> figured it out. Obviously, Amtrak is financially
> unable to do anything on it's own.

OTOH, we are digging two significant tunnels in New York, ESA and SAS and both are already financial disasters and at least one is years behind schedule. Then again the #7 extensions came in pretty close to on budget and on time. So it is a bit of a mixed bag.

Cost overruns for construction projects go back to Roman times. It's endemic, and has nothing to do with political system or method of financing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/14 19:38 by Ptolemy.

Ptolemy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cost overruns for construction projects go back to
> Rome times. It's endemic, and has nothing to do
> with political system or method of financing.

Maybe but back then they had the Lions.

Bob



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/14 17:12 by robj.