The Channel Tunnel: opening 1895!

[alt_historian]

Intrigued by an episode of the BBC programme Coast - a series about, appropriately enough, Britain's coastline and its history - I wanted to propose the following scenario.

A tunnel is built under the English Channel (or la Manche, if you wish), linking Britain and France. So what? The point is, this one is finished in time for the end of the nineteenth century...

Background:
In OTL history, an undersea tunnel linking Britain and France was built in the 1980s, but had already been proposed many a time. The first such suggestion appears to have been made in 1802, by an aide of Napoleon, during the brief lull in the Napoleonic Wars. This would have been a road tunnel, and was probably impractical.

However, the first serious proposals to build a tunnel crossing the Straits of Dover did not come along until two conditions were met: railways were firmly established as a fast and reliable form of transport; and some surveys and educated guesses had been made on the geology of the seabed between Dover and Calais (the shortest possible route).
The image below shows the geology of the seabed (from this site:

The black line is the route of the historical, 1980s tunnel. As the site points out, "the geology of the sea bed is generally favourable for tunnelling as a continuous stratum of chalk marl under the sea bed extends from England to France. The high clay content makes it almost impervious to water; it is firm yet sufficiently soft for boring machinery."

The above, from this site, shows the geology from above.

Even so, it wasn't until 1881 that any real effort was made to dig a Channel Tunnel. The project did get started, and the workers on the British side, using a tunnel boring machine, managed to dig almost 1km of tunnel under the seabed. The French side got even further: however, work was halted on both sides of the tunnel due to lack of funding, partly caused by British worries of invasion.
The proposal was raised every now and then over the following decades, but it wasn't until the 1980s that a firm commitment was made on both sides to build the Channel Tunnel.

I can't find out a huge amount about it, but it seems that the technology and geology for the 1881 effort was generally sound.
- they were digging through chalk mixed with clay, which apparently provides a solid and waterproof wall for the tunnel.
- on the TV programme, they did show the remains of the tunnel, which are dry and waterproof to this day with no leaks, and more remarkably no actual walls other than the natural chalk & clay.
- as said above, the start of the 1881 tunnel is almost 1km in length, so it's not that they couldn't dig the tunnel at all.

SO, my question is:
what if the first serious tunnel, started in 1881, had been completed?
I am proposing a completion date, given serious funding and political backing on both sides, of 14 years after the starting date: twice as long as the historical tunnel. This seems reasonable to me given the very challenging technical issues with such a tunnel at the time.
What would be the results had this tunnel been built?
- greater economic contact between Britain and France? a tunnel would mean that storms on the surface wouldn't be a problem, goods could get through in any weather.
- obviously, improved physical communication between Britain and France. What effects would this have had on ATL-WWI?

What other effects might be caused?

 

[1940LaSalle]

OK, nobody else has risen to the bait, so I might as well.

The first thing I can think of is an acceleration of electrified railroad technology (borrowed in no small part from work in the US, especially from Daft [not a joke; look up his installation in Baltimore in the mid-1880s]) as a means of propulsion. It's tough enough keeping the air clear enough for visibility in a tunnel of about a mile in length with coal-fired locomotives (see, for example, a disastrous wreck in the New York Central tunnel leading into Grand Central Station in New York in 1903), so something the length of the Chunnel would be smoke-filled very rapidly. On the other hand, trains drawn by 600VDC-powered locomotives wouldn't have this problem.

Would this construction benefit Anglo-French trade? I doubt it, since Great Britain was a far more advanced industrial power in those days. Rather, it might have meant improved Anglo-German trade (passing through Belgium [!] and France): say, British finished goods for German optical devices, chemicals, etc. That in turn might have meant closer relations between London and Berlin, and possibly could even have swung Britain away from the Entente to an institutionalized neutral position.

If that last doesn't suit, it could also mean more rapid deployment of a BEF to the continent--or the greatest demolition project of the 20th century, depending upon which way the politics shake out.

 

[Dr. Stumph]

The Chunnel would have definitely been possible as early as the 1880's, and your prediction of 14 years is sound. Large tunnels in barely accessible areas of the United States were dug in that time period and before, such as the Alpine Tunnel nearly a mile above sea level through the continental divide - with 30 feet of snow on the ground even in July. The actual construction of the tunnel would not have been all that difficult.

As for running trains through the tunnel, even in 1895, there were electric powered engines with the capabilities of a steam-powered engine. Using electric would solve the problem of air quality and visibilty in the tunnel.

Britain obviously had a reason to build the tunnel as it would benefit them to have rail access to the major continental cities of Europe for trade purposes. France would have reason to support the tunnel construction for the economic benefits to their nation.

As for the improvements in communications, by 1895, telegraph and telephone cables were crossing the Channel, so the tunnel probably would not have improved communications all that much, if at all. Transportation, yes, but communciations, no. The problem with the chunnel at that time would be the two wars upcoming in the twentieth century. There haven't been any major wars involving Germany, France, and Britain on the continent since the Chunnel was completed in the 1980's, but had the chunnel been completed in 1895, the possibility of a German invasion in Britain becomes higher. The Germans, especially during the Second World War, could have sent an invasion force through the tunnel, or at least a small saboteur force. The British would obviously have thought of this possibilty, though, and might have collapsed the tunnel after France fell in 1940, ending the tunnel.

 

[Tom Veil]

Invasion via Chunnel really isn't a problem so long as the British even vaguely suspect that it's coming. All you have to do is dump some noxious substance into the Chunnel -- mustard gas, petroleum, whatever -- and sit back while the invaders die off.

 

[Max Sinister]

To get rid of British invasion fears, you'd need an earlier Entente cordiale.

 

[alt_historian]

Before I say anything else, apologies for the very long post...

Cool. I was expecting a response more along the lines of "oh, don't be ridiculous, they didn't have the technology", but the responses so far have been pretty positive.
So, there are no serious problems with the technological aspects? It could have been done?
Brilliant!
Specific replies:

1940LaSalle:
"The bait"? That worried me for a moment. I thought you meant that you thought I was flamebaiting, but as I understand it that isn't how it works. Anyway...

The first thing I can think of is an acceleration of electrified railroad technology (borrowed in no small part from work in the US, especially from Daft [not a joke; look up his installation in Baltimore in the mid-1880s]) as a means of propulsion. It's tough enough keeping the air clear enough for visibility in a tunnel of about a mile in length with coal-fired locomotives (see, for example, a disastrous wreck in the New York Central tunnel leading into Grand Central Station in New York in 1903), so something the length of the Chunnel would be smoke-filled very rapidly. On the other hand, trains drawn by 600VDC-powered locomotives wouldn't have this problem.

Yes, it seems likely that electrical technology would get something of a boost if a late-19th century Chunnel project were to be successful. The London Underground, from what I can gather, wasn't electrified until the turn of the century. I don't know if this was because the technology wasn't in place, or because it wasn't seen as important.

Would this construction benefit Anglo-French trade? I doubt it, since Great Britain was a far more advanced industrial power in those days. Rather, it might have meant improved Anglo-German trade (passing through Belgium [!] and France): say, British finished goods for German optical devices, chemicals, etc. That in turn might have meant closer relations between London and Berlin, and possibly could even have swung Britain away from the Entente to an institutionalized neutral position.

I don't know about not trading with France, I'd have to look up some sort of trade figures somewhere to check that. AFAIK, until the mid-20th century really, France was lagging behind industrially, both in terms of quantity and quality of output. France produced some high-quality items to make up for this, such as fine silks (and of course good wine), but AFAIK the French just didn't seem to latch onto mass production in the same way Britain and Germany did, or at least not nearly to the same degree. I'm not sure if France was a big provider of raw materials instead during this period, or what they did actually make. This is just vague ideas. Your suggestion of greater trade with Germany for different high-tech goods seems plausible, though.
Apologies to any French people reading if the above seems insulting.
I think Britain as a neutral might work. Then again, we did have a history of trying to make sure no one country was too powerful in Europe: towards the end of the nineteenth century, that power looked to be Germany. So its possible we would trade more with Germany, but still be rather suspicious of them...

If that last doesn't suit, it could also mean more rapid deployment of a BEF to the continent--or the greatest demolition project of the 20th century, depending upon which way the politics shake out.

Hmm. I was thinking it would be very useful for military transport, and if necessary a Dunkirk-like evacuation.
On the other hand, AFAIK the proposed tunnel had only one line. Possibly some bright spark would point out that most heavily-used rail routes have at least one line going each way: ideally early enough in construction that re-boring the tunnel to a wider diameter to take two (or more) tracks wouldn't be too costly. Also, why stick to only one tunnel? If the benefit of one is proved, surely two will be even better...

The Chunnel would have definitely been possible as early as the 1880's, and your prediction of 14 years is sound. Large tunnels in barely accessible areas of the United States were dug in that time period and before, such as the Alpine Tunnel nearly a mile above sea level through the continental divide - with 30 feet of snow on the ground even in July. The actual construction of the tunnel would not have been all that difficult.

Good, I was worried about the timescale, and especially the possible technological barriers to this. I might even do a TL for it if we can get enough details worked out (and if I can find the time myself...).
On the other hand, it seems your example of the Alpine Tunnel is rather short (only about 1/2km), and while of course an impressive feat of engineering, it ran over its completion date by three times (supposed to be six months, actually took 2 years). Would the 19th-century Chunnel suffer from the same difficulties? Would it be abandoned due to endless delays and cost over-runs?

As for running trains through the tunnel, even in 1895, there were electric powered engines with the capabilities of a steam-powered engine. Using electric would solve the problem of air quality and visibilty in the tunnel.

Ah good. I was thinking perhaps electric engines during this period wouldn't be advanced enough for the task at hand. If you know of specific electrical locomotives that could have done the job, could you hold on to the details for the possible TL please? I'll let you know if I do want to work on it...

Britain obviously had a reason to build the tunnel as it would benefit them to have rail access to the major continental cities of Europe for trade purposes. France would have reason to support the tunnel construction for the economic benefits to their nation.

Good! Everyone's happy! France could get rich off the transit fees alone...

As for the improvements in communications, by 1895, telegraph and telephone cables were crossing the Channel, so the tunnel probably would not have improved communications all that much, if at all. Transportation, yes, but communciations, no.

Yes, I really meant physical communications anyway, I realise there were plenty of telegraph lines and so on already. Not a problem...

The problem with the chunnel at that time would be the two wars upcoming in the twentieth century. There haven't been any major wars involving Germany, France, and Britain on the continent since the Chunnel was completed in the 1980's, but had the chunnel been completed in 1895, the possibility of a German invasion in Britain becomes higher. The Germans, especially during the Second World War, could have sent an invasion force through the tunnel, or at least a small saboteur force. The British would obviously have thought of this possibilty, though, and might have collapsed the tunnel after France fell in 1940, ending the tunnel.

Hmm. At least this would provide a slightly more plausible invasion route for 'Operation Large Sea-Mammal Which We Don't Dare Name Here'.
However, I wouldn't think it would be that much of a problem, as Tom points out:

Invasion via Chunnel really isn't a problem so long as the British even vaguely suspect that it's coming. All you have to do is dump some noxious substance into the Chunnel -- mustard gas, petroleum, whatever -- and sit back while the invaders die off.

Makes sense. A tunnel, especially one which runs underwater, is probably one of the easiest to defend structures there is. If the worst comes to the worst then you could indeed blow up the tunnel, as Dr. Stumph suggests.

To get rid of British invasion fears, you'd need an earlier Entente cordiale.

Probably so. AFAIK, the main reason the project was killed off OTL was fear of invasion from Europe. An earlier Entente just might do it. However, if I do have a crack at a TL (which won't be for some time, because
a) I don't think I have nearly enough details yet, and
b) have a lot of work to do for the next couple of weeks),
then I will want the POD to be as small as is feasible, while still producing the Chunnel before the end of the nineteenth century.

So, ideas on how this could have been built with only a very small change from OTL would be much appreciated.


Thanks for all your comments, so far. Very encouraging!

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

It'd be far more expensive than OTL -- I don't think that on sheer financial grounds that it'd be possible.

To me, it seems that costs go up exponentially the earlier you try to advance technology in alternate history. It'd certainly be possible to build something like ENIAC or Colossus in 1890 as well, but the cost of such a project would be immense. You'd have to have a need/desire high enough for the project to be worth it.

A tunnel was desired in the 1880s, to be sure, but the cost of completion would be far too high without a big handwave. You'd have to come up with solutions to ventilation and water removal problems, and those would be extraordinarily costly. You've also got to plan for problems like fires and anything else that might crop up. It's tough to fight a fire unless you've got communications throughout the tunnel, and unless you're willing to station people with telegraphs all along the length of the tunnel, there's no way to discover problems until a train ploughs into them.

 

[alt_historian]

It'd be far more expensive than OTL -- I don't think that on sheer financial grounds that it'd be possible.

Oh, dammit.

To me, it seems that costs go up exponentially the earlier you try to advance technology in alternate history. It'd certainly be possible to build something like ENIAC or Colossus in 1890 as well, but the cost of such a project would be immense. You'd have to have a need/desire high enough for the project to be worth it.

Probably true. There does need to be not only technical feasibility, but it also needs to be politically possible and cost-effective. The sheer scale of the project may well doom it to failure. I mean, look at what happened to the Great Eastern...

A tunnel was desired in the 1880s, to be sure, but the cost of completion would be far too high without a big handwave. You'd have to come up with solutions to ventilation and water removal problems, and those would be extraordinarily costly. You've also got to plan for problems like fires and anything else that might crop up. It's tough to fight a fire unless you've got communications throughout the tunnel, and unless you're willing to station people with telegraphs all along the length of the tunnel, there's no way to discover problems until a train ploughs into them.

Hmm. Ventilation is indeed a big issue. On the London Underground, ventilation is partially provided by the trains themselves moving through the tunnels (there are also plenty of ventilation shafts). I don't know if you've been to the UK but it's probably an unusual case: Tube trains are a very tight fit within the tunnels, so they act a lot like a piston, pushing air ahead of themselves and moving it around the system. That wouldn't really apply in this case, because I doubt the train and tunnel would fit as tightly as that.
I'm not too sure about how water removal would be handled. Obviously, with an electric railway, this would be a high priority. The only comparable example I can think of (other than, of course, the present-day Chunnel) is the pumping systems developed for mines.
Anybody know if something like that could be feasibly adapted during the late nineteenth century, to carry water along many miles of gently sloping tunnel?
True, fires are another big problem to plan for and solve. Maybe people could be stationed along the tunnels to warn of danger. However, it would require the ventilation problem to be solved first, unless anyone knows of a late 1800s temperature-sensor...
Damn. This may have bigger technical issues than I thought. I'll have to read up on how such problems were actually solved for the OTL Channel Tunnel, have a look at the proposed solutions for the aborted 1881 tunnel (if any), and see if any are solutions which could plausibly - as well as cost-effectively - have been adopted back then.

Any help (from anyone!) would be appreciated, but don't think about it too hard, as I'm not sure about doing a TL for this yet. As already said, I don't want to do one unless it's feasible. ASB timelines are fun, but not having actually written any TLs myself before, I want my first one to be as plausible as possible.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I'd be happy to help. I'm currently at work on the story of the Key West-Havana tunnel (in acutality Boca Chica to Hershey, Cuba), and it's definitely one of the more fun histories I've tried to do.

You've got a big problem, though -- I don't know if the financial industry of the late 19th century is capable of a project of this kind of magnitude. I won't say it's impossible, but you'd need an engineer on the scale of Brunel, a fundraiser on the scale of Bob Hope, an organizer like Henry Kaiser, and a leader like Winston Churchill to pull it all off.

You've got to string together a series of geniuses, and feasibly find a way for them all to meet and agree upon the need for the project and the idea that it can be done. In my story, I took a "No Castro" idea and used one fictional politician and one radically different one in order to get the project rolling. The finances were made easier because there's simply more wealth today than there was in the 1880s, and the infrastructure's a lot better to boot.

Perhaps you could posit an earlier splurge in tunnel creation in Europe. Say Napoleon was a big believer in tunnels, or something like that, and built dozens across Europe, advancing the science of tunnel building and in turn sparking many more tunnels in the post-war era. You may find it easier to start with a completely unrelated POD like that one to set up the conditions where it becomes possible for a tunnel to be built. An earlier entente cordiale is one idea, but I think you need something even earlier than that.

 

[alt_historian]

Thanks Amerigo.

As said, I did want to make the POD as small and reasonable as possible: however, if you are right, I may have to come up with something a lot wider-ranging. I wouldn't want it to cover only the construction of this one tunnel, now would I? It'd be pretty boring that way...

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Thanks Amerigo.

As said, I did want to make the POD as small and reasonable as possible: however, if you are right, I may have to come up with something a lot wider-ranging. I wouldn't want it to cover only the construction of this one tunnel, now would I? It'd be pretty boring that way...

A good writer can make anything interesting. There's a reason shows on the Chunnel or any number of other megaprojects get so much coverage on the History Channel -- they're naturally fascinating.

 

[alt_historian]

A good writer can make anything interesting. There's a reason shows on the Chunnel or any number of other megaprojects get so much coverage on the History Channel -- they're naturally fascinating.

OK, will give it a try when I have time.

In fact (although I've said this before), I'm going to be off the board for a bit while I try to get some things done. See you people soon...

 

[cerebus]

If I remember a tunnel was proposed when Wellington was PM and he made a speech saying it was a bad idea as it would open Britain to invasion by the French. That seems to have squashed it.

On the financial point the Victorians were not above pouring money into mad engineering projects that never made any money. Did somebody mention the Great Eastern

I can imagine several companies going bankrupt and selling off the site for a few d.

 

[DuQuense]

The Tunnel would have to start back a couple of miles, So you move off shore about a mile, ,
Drop large rings 200 feet across and 20 feet high stacking them on each other, [Victorian Engineers did this for bridge Cassions]
The weight pushes the rings down sealing the bottom, when it reaches the surface pump the water out of the middle,

Dig around the outsides and the rings sink till you reach the tunnel.
You now have a ventilation shaft, and a place to remove the digging with out carrying them three miles back.
Dump the Diggings around the rings forming a artifical island that will hold the rings ups.
Have two or three shafts. for mutiple tunnels. The Chunnel has three.

Move three miles and repeat, till the middle of the channel is reached.


Yes I have thought about this before.

 

[Dr. Stumph]

I've done some research to help you solve some of the problems with early Chunnel construction. First, electric locomotion. The electric locomotive dates to 1837, having been successfully produced by a Scottish inventor. The Baltimore Belt Line of the B&O Railroad was the first to be completely electrified, in 1895. However, third rail electrification has been possible since 1879, and would probably have been the best means for your proposal. Another possibility is to use an electric locomotive powered by dynamos, which were perfected in the 1860's and made electric locomotives economically viable.

As for political and financial support, what you need is a patron for the project. I propose that you use Lord Granville (1815-1891) as the British patron since he declared British support for a Chunnel as early as 1868. For a French patron, I suggest Patrice de Mac-Mahon, duc de Magenta (1808-1893), who served as the President of France between 1875 and 1879. Another British supporter and possibly even the lead architect of the project could be Robert Hunt (1807-1887), a mining expert and author.

The British and French governments had proclaimed full support in the mid-1870's, but financing fell short by 1876. One POD could be adequate financing by the government to subsidize the company actually constructing the tunnel. The South Eastern Railway had started construction in 1881, but had to cease operations due to insufficient funding. If you use the above-mentioned POD, they might have been able to complete construction, at least on the British end, using Beaumont boring machines. With a total length of about 50 km, you will need to bring in a French company to construct the French half, a British company, even with government subsidies, could not complete the whole project.

I'll continue to research and brainstorm, and help you out as much as possible. It's turning into a very interesting TL that could definitely work, feasibly even. Let me know what else you need.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

OK, will give it a try when I have time.

In fact (although I've said this before), I'm going to be off the board for a bit while I try to get some things done. See you people soon...

That'd be an interesting take on the whole thing -- capable investors and a project that gets almost there before going bankrupt. Then the whole thing is sold off for pennies on the dollar and completed by a new set of investors. With the amount of money lost we'd be talking about potentially serious butterflies in terms of the shape of the alternate's financial markets, but it's a way to get the tunnel done.

 

[Thande]

While we're on the subject of Constructionwank, as AV likes to call it, I found a proposal the other day (apparently serious) from the 1680s, proposing that a canal be dug all the way across France from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean...

It's not quite as mad as it sounds, because they were mainly planning to link several existing river watercourses.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Yes I have thought about this before.

Interesting solution... you'd have to come up with a way for this to be acceptable to the shipping companies, however. Remember that the channel is one of the most heavily-trafficked waterways on Earth, and in the late 19th century was even more so. With three enormous artificial islands blocking things up, shipping traffic is going to be massively affected. There's a reason no one tried a bridge in OTL -- it would have affected shipping too much.

With artificial islands, you've also got to deal with the problems of current eroding your 45m-tall (average depth in the Dover Strait) islands, as well as the problems that would accompany placing the iron rings with enough precision in the strong current and cold water. Incidentally, the sheer size of the rings would enable you to use the Great Eastern in the construction process, if you can imagine a way for it to still be available in the late 19th century.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

It's not quite as mad as it sounds, because they were mainly planning to link several existing river watercourses.

Thande, such a canal was built and still exists today. It's called the Canal du Midi, and connects the Garonne River to the Étang de Thau, linking the Mediterranean and Atlantic.

 

[Thande]

Thande, such a canal was built and still exists today. It's called the Canal du Midi, and connects the Garonne River to the Étang de Thau, linking the Mediterranean and Atlantic.

My word! I should have thought to check that myself. Of course, I assume it's not large enough for the "Panama" style paradigm, or that would have radically affected the balance of naval power after the C17...