My first thought was Chunnel Sea Lion!
Except that the Channel Tunnel would be underwater, which increases both the difficulty and danger by huge amounts.The loeschtberg tunnel in switzerland 14.7 km long was bored in 5 years, from 1906-1911. Based on that, a chunnel should be constructable in 10-15 years before wwi.
Soft chalk is good at being leaky, and there's plenty of water overhead.Isn't that a tunnel through hardrock though? I think that one of the big advantages an early Chunnel would have is that it only has to be bored through soft chalk.
While that would certainly help I'd argue that the added difficulty of the length underwater would override the savings.
I don't know about that, but if there was a POD that led to the Netherlands, Belgium and Nord-Pas-de-Calais being part of the UK (Sort of a United Kingdom of Great Britain, the Low Countries and Ireland), that'd make the tunnel much a more desirable proposition. Though I don't know if such a thing would be possible or if it's completely ASB.(Off topic) The mind wanders to the Franco-British Union TL, would an earlier tunnel put in an appearance? Say it starts in the mid fifties, ends early Seventies? (On topic) Would the Great Central railway be the one to bankroll such an undertaking? After all they famously built the mainline to conform to european loading gauges I believe.
(Off topic) The mind wanders to the Franco-British Union TL, would an earlier tunnel put in an appearance? Say it starts in the mid fifties, ends early Seventies? (On topic) Would the Great Central railway be the one to bankroll such an undertaking? After all they famously built the mainline to conform to european loading gauges I believe.
I don't know about that, but if there was a POD that led to the Netherlands, Belgium and Nord-Pas-de-Calais being part of the UK (Sort of a United Kingdom of Great Britain, the Low Countries and Ireland), that'd make the tunnel much a more desirable proposition. Though I don't know if such a thing would be possible or if it's completely ASB.
1,500v DC overhead electrification was coming into style in the early 20th century in the UK, so I'd wager this would probably be used I reckon. There's absolutely no way you could use steam for that.
I'd wager upon competition around 1910.
A channel tunnel has no use as an offensive military route. It would be pretty easy to blow charges in a few places and render it inoperable if it was in danger of having enemies take one side.
Even if that wasn't done it would be pretty crazy to try and invade through a small tunnel that the enemy knows everything about. It would be a slaughter.
Did the 1881 plan assume STEAM engines!? In a tunnel some 30 mile/ 50 km long!? Ouch!
If not, what were they planning on using?
When the tunnel is opened for traffic, the trains will run through by means of Beaumont compressed-air locomotives.
The Channel Tunnel locomotive will weigh from sixty to seventy tons, and will be charged with 1,200 cubic feet of air, compressed to the density of seventy atmospheres, the equivalent of which is over 80,000 cubic feet of free air. This will give power sufficient to draw a train of 250 tons gross weight (including the engine) the distance of twenty-two miles under the sea, Assuming that the rate of traveling be thirty miles an hour, the air discharged by the engine would give a supply of free and pure air to the amount of 2,000 cubic feet, approximately, which will be far in excess of what is needed by the passengers in the train. Reservoirs will be placed at convenient intervals, so that the engines, should they need it, may be replenished with compressed air. It will, therefore, be seen that Colonel Beaumont's system of compressed-air engines affords equal advantages with the ordinary steam locomotives, and with no increase in weight."