Feasibility of a Gibraltar Straits Bridge?

A feat of engineering such as this has always fascinated me - would it be possible to bridge, without damming, the Gibraltar Strait for purposes of railways or roads?

I'm thinking of a world my friend created that, despite it's meany *historical implausibilities, isn't necessarily implausible in the fact that it exists. In this world, North Africa is dominated by Britain (not a Britwank - eslewhere Britain isn't nearly as impressive). But Britain still has Gibraltar in this world.

I was wondering if there would be a way to make a sort of 'Gibraltar to Suez' Railroad or something. In this world there is a powerful Moroccan state to the south of British Morocco (which is only slightly larger than OTL's Spanish Morocco), then to the east as follows; Protectorate of the Algerian Sultanate, Protectorate of the Tunisian Emirate, Colony of Tripoli-Libya and then the Egyptian Empire which is a firm British ally, after which the Colony of the Sinai exists (including a Suez Canal).

The British in this world are seen as a huge industrial power despite their apparent lack of colonies (India, for instance, only includes Bengal, Ceylon and Tranvacore, and Australia is divided in three). They are world-renowned for their industrial and engineering feats. Given a tech-scale in 1890-odd of OTL's, say, 1910, would a bridge across the Gibraltar Strait be feasible?

Ignoring how the scenario came to be (he prefers the 'What' to the 'How').
 
Gibraltar is not the narrowest point in the straits. In fact, the strait at Gibraltar is 7 km wider than it is at Tarifa. Through Gibraltar, we're talking about a 23 km long bridge.

Besides, the topography of the colony is such that you'd have to tunnel through the entirety of the Rock to be able to fit the end of the bridge; something that would be an engineering feat on its own in 1890.

And that does not go into the difficulty of building a bridge through one of the world's busiest sealanes in an area of sismic risk not far from the encounter of two major tectonic plates.
 
A 14.3km bridge with 1910 or a little better tech? Tough. Suspension bridges existed, but they were bridging a few hundred meters, not thousands.

Your best bet might be a pontoon bridge (if you're a US Army engineer, please remove one "o").

Even today, multi-kilometer bridges are fairly rare, and while the Gib strait isn't all THAT deep, it isn't all that shallow either.

Edit to add: Dr. Stranglove also makes several good points. The bridge will make building a railroad across the north coast of Africa look trivial.
 
Okay, so I suppose a railway from Morocco to Cairo would be better. What's the nearest Mediterreanean port in Morocco to Gibraltar? Tangier?

In this world Spain has been mostly carved up by a rather fascistic France. I can provide a map if it helps. I would rather avoid the inevitable screams of ASB, but he wants my help in profiling a lot of the countries. So if a map helps anyone help me, that I can do.
 
A tunnel or a bridge/tunnel would be a better design than just a straight bridge imo...

All three options are feasible, but without some major development on the coasts or something important linking Spain with N. Africa such a works project isn't all that practical... It would cost a bundle and the tolls would be hideous... ;)
 

Cook

Banned
Arthur C. Clarke’s The Fountains of Paradise; engineer Vannevar Morgan’s résumé includes the Gibraltar Bridge.

The book won the Nebula and Hugo awards in 1979.
 
A tunnel or a bridge/tunnel would be a better design than just a straight bridge imo...

All three options are feasible, but without some major development on the coasts or something important linking Spain with N. Africa such a works project isn't all that practical... It would cost a bundle and the tolls would be hideous... ;)
A full tunnel would be difficult, as the Strait of Gibraltar is 900m deep at its deepest IIRC. It would probably have to be an underwater bridge (which would also be teh awesome).
 
Okay, well here's a map. Some colouration may seem odd, but there are explanations. For example, the Colombia colour has been used for the country in North America where the USA started iOTL. This is because that area was colonised by Spain. *Mexico gets the Canadian colour because it was colonised by the English and then peacefully gained independence, whereas *Colombia/Venezuela/Guiana, has the USA colour due to rebelling violently against British rule. Obviously *Canada is a French colony-gone independent.

The three Russias are the Russian Empire, ruled by the Tsarist regime, the nation in the middle is ruled by an ex-General post-Russian collapse who calls himself the new Khan (based in Central Asia) and then the Russian Republic which still hangs onto Russian Amerika.

Persia fractured after the Turks conquered it - it is three states, a theocratic regime in the north, the 'Persian Empire' which is a British protectorate and a second 'empire' controlled by a Turkish puppet regime.

Japan has a formidable navy and as such is a true player in the Pacific (Korea and Manchukuo are integral parts of the empire).

India is French dominated, and *Chad is a terra nullis because it's being consistenly contested between British and French colonial interests (Britain wants to connect N. Africa to *Cameroon, France wants to give Britain the middle finger about it).

Anywho, that is the what. The how is not something I can explain. Here's the map, regardless of all the "how did..." comments I'm expecting.

RANDOMWORLD.png
 
I guess what the question now is, is there anywhere British on that map that could possibly contain a feat of industrial might? Gibraltar underwater bridge sounds intriguing, but is that possibly with 1910 tech levels in 1890?
 
They could try to make an equivalent of Gaddafi's Great Manmade River.

An underwater bridge somehow manages to combine both the bridge and tunnel's inconveniences wrt seismic risks and navigation hazards; and, in that political situation, would be nothing more than a gigantic dick-waving effort. If Gibraltar keeps OTL's dimensions, it would be only a small port city that is only twice as big as New York's Central Park, with well over half of its surface being a sheer cliff. Why on earth would you be doing such an overambitious project in that place?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Manmade_River
 
They could try to make an equivalent of Gaddafi's Great Manmade River.

But this project began in 1953. Could it be done in 1910?

An underwater bridge somehow manages to combine both the bridge and tunnel's inconveniences wrt seismic risks and navigation hazards; and, in that political situation, would be nothing more than a gigantic dick-waving effort. If Gibraltar keeps OTL's dimensions, it would be only a small port city that is only twice as big as New York's Central Park, with well over half of its surface being a sheer cliff. Why on earth would you be doing such an overambitious project in that place?

Alright then, scratch that.
 
I hope you realize that a Gibraltar Straits bridge never goes though Gibraltar (U.K). It's neigh impossible with today's tech let alone at any other time. You have a major fault line, and the Med-Atlantic current to deal with. It's about just as likely as a Bering Straits Bridge. In theory? Yes, it's do able but it would cost billions and tbh there isn't much of a market in North Africa to warrant it. Much cheaper to hop on a ferry, ship bulk by ship, or pump carbon fuels through a pipeline.
 
Alright then, scratch that.

pointless comment

Yeah I gathered that when the other posters said so. Read the whole thread next time.

The Bridge of the Horns might be possible, though I'm not sure with 1910 tech levels.

Intriguing. And totally within the realm of idealistic possibility (i.e. because in this world Britain has both Djibouti and part of Yemen). Any tech experts out there might be able to contribute to this idea.
 
Top