Channel Tunnel

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29099, 11 January 1960, Page 8

Channel Tunnel

The idea of a tunnel under the English Channel has fascinated British and French thought for 150 years. Indeed, “The Times” once commented that the construction of a tunnel would deprive posterity “of an intel- “ lectual exercise from which " successive generations have “derived a great deal of good “ clean fun ”. There was a good deal of fantasy about some of the construction ideas. There have been plans for single tunnels, twin tunnels carrying roads and railways, iron tubes lying on the sea floor, and even tubes suspended in mid-water by their own buoyancy. In 1882 a start was actually made with a pilot tunnel which reached more than 2000 yards out from Dover before military objections caused the scheme to be dropped. Fear of invasion by the tunnel has always influenced British thought. Cromwell spoke for generations besides his own when he talked of Englishmen accounting themselves “ happy on being en- “ vironed with a great ditch “ from all the world beside ”. In modern times the military risk involved in the tunnel was slight. Yet military objections were strong enough to block tunnel projects put up as recently as 1924 and 1930. Military objections have faded with the development of new missiles and strategy. The dominant considerations now are political and economic; Britain and the Continent are even now in political alliance and, whatever the current obstacles, their economic alliance must eventually grow closer. The picture of the Channel Tunnel that is now emerging is of a desirable link between neighbours. From this the question arises, is the tunnel a link the neighbours can afford? Large sums have been spent on physical, economic and engineering investigations by a combined British, French and American group, and their report is expected to declare the tunnel project to be practicable, both physically and economically. The chosen project is said to envisage a rail tunnel with twin tracks that could be constructed for about £l3O million. No-one disputes the desirability of a road tunnel, but the cost of ventilating the tunnel for car traffic would be immense. It is

proposed that cars will be

carried on trains of interconnected flat waggons, on which they will be driven on and off. Trains driven electrically will travel at up to 80 miles an hour, and on them cars will travel from one side of the Channel to the other faster and more efficiently than their owners could drive them. A passenger service would, it is calculated, virtually eliminate the short sea routes (DoverCalais, Folkestone - Boulogne);

the other sea routes would be

affected in varying degrees. For passengers a tunnel that linked

the British and European railway systems would open exciting possibilities, such as Victoria to the Gate du Nord in four hours, sitting in the same seat all the way and eating a leisurely meal. This would tempt many air passengers who are finding the journey from the heart of London and of Paris to their airports increasingly dismaying. On longer journeys, passengers could take night sleepers from London to Germany, Switzerland, and southern France. For freight, the tunnel would offer a fast service without handling. Maintenance and operating costs are estimated at between £500,000 and £750,000 a year, and (since the tunnel would be indestructible) amortisation charges at no more than £1,300000. Revenue and tolls can be assessed only on rough assumptions of what the traffic might be and what it would bear. At a modest calculation the income is estimated at about £ll million a year. On this basis the tunnel would be an attractive investment. Though the consent of .the French and British Governments will be necessary before the project can be begun, and the two Governments may have to agree upon a joint controlling authority, it is thought that almost certainly the project will be a private venture. The finding of capital should not be difficult since international finance, led by the Suez Canal Company, is said to be poised for investment. Investment in this tunnel is unlikely to be dependent upon the consent of a capital issues committee.