I wanted to post the last scene of the 1971 Dad's Army movie where they're on the White Cliffs of Dover and think they can hear the sound of digging. But couldn't find it on Youtube.The estimate caused rumours that Germany had already begun digging.
Somewhere in the notes I took at the National Railway Museum's Search Engine is a Southern Railway estimate that it would cost £15 million, IIRC, but I'm not going to go through my notes to find out whether I have remembered correctly.There was another proposal in 1929, but nothing came of this discussion and the idea was shelved. Proponents estimated the construction cost at US$150 million.
Could it be used for military reasons? How quickly could you drive tanks and trucks of men through a Chunnel?The actual Channel Tunnel wasn't (and isn't) economically feasible and any assessment done by actual tunnel engineers would confirm that. An inter war tunnel would be worse, being even slower to build while having even less traffic to carry.
If it happens it would be political, governments wasting a lot taxpayers money on a vanity project. Worse a vanity project that will take so long to build that their successors will end up taking the credit. I can't see it happening myself
Could it be used for military reasons? How quickly could you drive tanks and trucks of men through a Chunnel?
The first Chunnel proposals in the 1880's were sunk partially because of fears of the French using it to invade Britain. The idea was that a force of around 20,000 could go through dressed as civilians and take control of the British end of the tunnel. Then use it as a bridgehead that the Navy couldn't block. It was a bit over the top, and the Interwar relationship with France is better but if a military use of the tunnel is brought up that is probably more of a detractor for the British than an asset. Their greatest strength is still at sea. Its the continental nations that would be seen to gain the greatest military benefit from a land connection to Britain.Could it be used for military reasons? How quickly could you drive tanks and trucks of men through a Chunnel?
I think the opposite is actually true? Mulberry harbors moving about 10,000-20,000 tons per day supported much of the allied advance. A railcar can carry about 70 tons, so about 273 rail car loads per day. With enough marshalling yard space, a rail tunnel can support multiple trains per hour through it, even for cargo. If you can dispatch from the Uk and unload in France a 15 car train every hour (unloading six trains at the same time in adjacent sidings with one train unloaded and turned around in France every 6 hours, so) you can move about 27,000 tons per day. The yard capacity, not the tunnel, is the limit. Four 15-car trains per hour is well within historical signaling, and is still >100,000 tons.It would never amount to more then a trickle. A single railway track isn't really enough to move an army, or even a sizable part of one.
Fairly quickly, right up until someone dynamites and floods it. If such a tunnel existed in 1940, it would be systematically lined with bombs and blown the moment anyone drives a panzer into it, not to be rebuilt for decades.Could it be used for military reasons? How quickly could you drive tanks and trucks of men through a Chunnel?
Post war Europe need a jobs and a morale boostFairly quickly, right up until someone dynamites and floods it. If such a tunnel existed in 1940, it would be systematically lined with bombs and blown the moment anyone drives a panzer into it, not to be rebuilt for decades.
In an attempt to appease those worried about security, the 1880 tunnel was intended to have a sump station on both sides that would allow the tunnel to be flooded by either nation in the event of war. Assuming the thing actually gets built in the interwar period I would expect they would put something similar in. Should be able to flood it without completely destroying it.
There was a tunnel in italy during ww2 where everyone on the train died from asphyxiationThinking about trains they probably need to be electric (steam trains would probably asphyxiate all involved given the length of the tunnel) and at best they are going to be 1.5kv DC overhead as that is what interwar France uses. No-one has got overhead AC working properly/cheaply and wont till the 1950s with various inventions, so that is right out.
You might get a few km between substations out of 1.5kV DC, so you are still looking at a dozen underground substations to power the route with fairly massive cables to get the power to each substation. That might end up costing more than the rest of the tunnel put together, this will be a colossally expensive venture.