WI: Channel Tunnel completed in 1911?

I imagine a wonderful TL with German paratroopers landing on the both ends of the tunnel, hoping for the Panzers to make it on time to them.
A bit like Market Garden. LOL
 
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.
Except that the Channel Tunnel would be underwater, which increases both the difficulty and danger by huge amounts.

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.
Soft chalk is good at being leaky, and there's plenty of water overhead.
 
Last edited:
Channel_Tunnel_geological_profile_modified-8.23-1024x476.jpg

That looks like a hard tunnel to build in in 1911.
 
I'd imagine a early channel tunnel would probally require several artificial islands being built in the channel as air-ducts. Which would be cool.
 
While that would certainly help I'd argue that the added difficulty of the length underwater would override the savings.

Interestingly enough, the 1881 effort apparently made quite a great deal of progress. They managed to excavate roughly 2 -1/2 miles of tunnel on the British and French side without encountering any major difficulties. At the rate the work was going through the soft chalk, the builders estimated that they could excavate 3 miles per year, per side. While likely extremely optimistic, and made with the expectation of not encountering any major difficulties further on, that says that a Channel Tunnel wasn't utterly beyond the technical capabilities of the era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_Tunnel#Proposals_and_attempts
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/c/channel_tunnel_1880_attempt/index.shtml
http://books.google.com/books?id=T5...nglo-French Submarine Railway Company&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=ex...X&ei=ny-iUZCEMafx0gGO5ICYBQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwADgU
 
the channel tunnel is feasible with technology of year 1900
it was the political and financial problems who stop projects until 1980s

had the British Army the tunnel in WW1&2 things would be happens different.
faster deployment of troops and equipment to continent and back

Defending the tunnel is easy: fill it up with water, with some hilarious moments.
on one end the germans try to pump the the channel tunnel dry, while on other end the british pump water into tunnel :D
 
(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.
 

Devvy

Donor
(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.

Well that really depends on how exactly any potential "World War" would play out in the 1910s. If Germany don't make inroads in France, then while a strong Germany would push the UK and France together, I don't think it would lead to a union. Probably a tight grouping of UK & France, with Netherlands rapidly following, with Belgium and maybe Luxembourg bringing up the rear.

How that evolves is anybody's guess. If German dominance is strong enough, I could possibly see the countries along with the OTL British Dominions forming the basis of some kind of Imperial Confederation of sorts...whether the more remote Dominions would remain in as the 20th century plays out is up for grabs, but it would give an earlier coming about of some kind of European unification. I could see Denmark & Norway opting in as well, perhaps followed by Sweden. Without WWI, the USA would probably stay more insular for longer, but would probably be tight friends to some level with the "Imperial Confederation".

As for the GCR, it pushed for the Channel Tunnel many times, but I don't know whether it would have the funds to bankroll it. Look at the size of Marylebone compared to other London terminii; the GCR line from Sheffield to London cast a significant weight over it's finances. However, because of it's loading gauge, few intermediate stops on the way north and less-intensive passenger service, it would probably gain the most from the Channel Tunnel and the rail traffic generated.
 

Devvy

Donor
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.

Seriously: heck, let the enemy walk in and just put up machine guns and bunkers on the other side... using the Chunnel to invade Britain is a worse plan than landing on the Frisian Islands.
 

Devvy

Donor
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?

Did some more reading up:

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."

I can't see anything but electric traction though post-1900. Electrification would have been a quick win with clear and visible results. As this *Channel Tunnel was completed before the third rail electrification in the English South East, I'd expect whatever the *Chunnel does to be mirrored on main lines in Kent and Sussex.

Apparently the tunnel would of been 14ft diameter. Might be just enough room for an OHLE system when the time comes.
 
Top