Hands across the Channel

Press, 25 January 1986, Page 19

Hands across the Channel

From

ROBIN CHARTERIS

in London

Governments, generals, engineers, and entrepreneurs have dreamt for almost two centuries of a fixed link across the 34km stretch of water that separates Britain and France. Napoleon Bonaparte dearly wished he had it in 1802 when he was waging war on Britain. He had the mining engineer, Albert Mathieu, draw plans for a tunnel for his troops extending from Cape Gris Nez, via an artificial island on the submerged Varne bank to a point near Folkestone. Britain has long dreamt, too, of ending its island status. On 38 occasions, a European link has been debated in the House of Commons, each scheme melting into Channel mythology. Mathieu’s candle-lit tunnel, with chimney-like ventilation shafts, soon dimmed and died. So, too, in the end did the rail tunnel proposal of the 1880 s, although a 2-metre diameter pilot tunnel was driven nearly 3km out into the Channel, using the world’s first compressed air, rotary-head boring machine. More feasibility studies went ahead in the 1950 s and 19605. The British Channel Tunnel Company, with the backing of British and American banks, and an Anglo-French treaty, in 1974 began a second serious attempt, only to find their efforts cast aside by a British Government frightened at mounting costs of the necessary new rail link between London and Dover, and by a mounting environmental campaign.

Although the preliminary drives of both these British schemes can still be seen near the cliffs of Dover today, the realities of joining Britain with Europe have always thwarted the ambitions of schemes — until this week.

With the announcement by President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Mrs Thatcher, at Lille on Monday that a twin-tunnel rail link will be built between the two countries, the long road towards the elusive European dream may be almost travelled. The formalities of a legal treaty and legislation in both countries remain, and arguments over whether the right scheme of the final four proposals was chosen and whether any should have been approved. The two nations’ leaders have spoken, however, and the $6.4 billion private enterprise scheme proposed by the Anglo-French Channel Tunnel Group looks certain to go ahead. Twin-bore tunnels, 40 metres into the seabed and 100 metres below sea level, will carry passenger trains and vehicle-carry-ing shuttles between Britain and France by April-May 1993. Once into top gear, say the planners, the tunnels will carry one train every three minutes, travelling at speeds of up to 160 Iqn/h along the 50 km route. With high-speed trains running directly between Paris and London, the journey time could be cut by more than two hours, to just over 180 minutes, the channel crossing Itself accomplished in only half an hour. The selection of a rail-only scheme is seen as a victory for the French, whose high-speed train technology far outstrips that of the British. Most Britons

wanted a road link proposal, with Mrs Thatcher fearing that the notorious British trade unions could cause chaos if a rail-only proposal was accepted. As a consolation prize for her, this week’s announcement has included a declaration of intent to begin a road tunnel within 15 years. The Channel Tunnel Group, whose major backers include the giant Westminster, Midland, Credit Lyonnaise, Banque Nationale de Paris and Banque Indosuez, and 10 major British and French construction groups, plan a smaller service tunnel between its two 7.3 metre diameter tunnels for ventilation, maintenance, and safety. Drive-on drive-off rail shuttles will operate in both main tunnels, allowing all vehicles, from motor-cycles to caravans and huge trucks, to be carried between the British and French terminals, located between Folkestone and Dover, and at Calais, respectively. Initial demand is not expected to exceed 1000 vehicles an hour each way. The promoters say this is a higher capacity than can be handled on an ordinary twolane open motorway. Under a “rolling road" principle, drivers and passengers will remain inside their vehicles for the 30 minute tunnel journey, though able to take advantage of refreshments and other facilities in the sound-proofed, fully enclosed shuttles.

The national railways services of both countries, British Rail and S.C.N.F., will operate passenger and freight services using the same rail tracks. They will develop special dual-voltage, highspeed rolling stock which can use the same-width track. With the planned extension of the high-speed French train, the 320 km/h luxury Flier TGV, to the coast, the rail journey time between London and Paris, or London and Brussels, will be cut to roughly three hours, including customs formalities. The current journey by train and ferry takes iy 2 hours, by train and hovercraft about six hours, and by air, including transfers, almost four hours from inner city to inner city. The tunnel promoters believe transport costs and delays can be reduced by using the tunnel, and that they will be giving the equivalent of a domestic delivery service for customers in Britain or on the Continent. Entry to the tunnel on British soil will be at a point 9km from the coast at Cheriton, just north of Folkestone. In France, it will be at Frethun, south-west of Calais and 3.7 km from the coast. The tunnel will be bored almost entirely through chalk marl, an impervious rock particularly suitable, and lined with concrete or cast iron. Special measures will be taken against possible terrorism or sabotage, but for security reasons the two Governments have asked

for details to remain secret. In the event of a serious incident, passengers would be able to reach the service tunnel and be rapidly evacuated, says C.T.G., adding in its submitted proposal that bored tunnels such as it plans are inherently more stable, and resistant to terrorism, sabotage, or explosions, than any other form of link. Tunnelling will start from both sides of the Channel, with six tunnelling machines working from Britain, and five from France. Up to 30,000 jobs could be created in Britain, most in the relatively prosperous south-east region, and about 15,000 in France over the 4|4 year construction period. Orders worth $1925 million should be produced in each country. It is estimated the tunnel will be bored at an average rate of about 500 metres a month on the French side and slightly more initially on the British because of the easier going. The C.T.G.’s timetable calls for construction to begin in mid-1987 once Government legislation is completed, the Anglo-French Treaty ratified, and engineering plans, financial development, and certain preparatory work finished. The service tunnel should be finished in three years, the main tunnels in four. Two years later, in April-May, 1993, commercial traffic should make the first and historic underseas crossing of the English Channel. The C.T.G. estimates that 30 million people and 13 million tonnes of freight will use the tunnel in its first operating year, being 42 per cent and 18 per cent respectively of all crosschannel traffic. Tariffs for vehicles, passengers, and freight should be at least 10 per cent less than for ferry services, providing revenue (in 1985 values) of about $llBB million. These figures are conservative, and take no account of the effect of the European Commission’s aim of a Europe without frontiers by 1992, the C.T.G. said. Operating costs should be $203 million in the first year. Of the total estimated construction cost of $6.4 billion, half will be for tunnelling. The C.T.G. estimates in its proposal that traffic shuttles will have to be introduced about the turn of the century to meet rising demand, but the requirement made this week by the two nation’s leaders that it must submit a scheme for a separate *road link by then will have a substantial effect on future plans. Until the last minute, Mrs Thatcher and her Government were actually pressing for a fourbore rail and separate road tunnel scheme, despite fierce French opposition, bearing in mind that most British people prefer the drive-through option. Mrs Thatcher is believed to

have changed her mind for three reasons: The Westland Helicopter fiasco, which has made her reluctant to risk another European confrontation; doubts as to the costing and technical feasibility of the road-rail alternative, and the implacability of the French towards any but the rail-only option. For both her and Mr Mitterrand, announcing a definite scheme this week was vital politically. Mr Mitterrand faces national assembly elections in March, and must be able to offer jobs in the coastal north west; Mrs Thatcher will face an election at about the time work on the tunnel should start, and the creation of thousands of jobs should be a votecatcher. Of symbolic importance, too, is that after almost 200 years of talk, and as Britain increasingly allies herself with Europe, something is being done. Even so, the cross-channel scheme has gone ahead with startling speed. Only a year ago it was suddenly resurrected, and only 100 days were given for technical assessment of the seven submitted schemes. French and British Government officials reduced these to four, and in the space of a few short weeks to the single winner. The other submitted proposals were all more expensive than that chosen, the costliest being a scheme for a 35km long road bridge. Another called for a combination of bridges and tunnels and islands, with the fourth, the preferred British scheme, the road-rail combination of tunnels. According to Britain’s Transport Secretary, Mr Nicholas Ridley, construction of the crosschannel link will be “the most spectacular engineering project of recent European history.” It will be privately financed, allowing Mrs Thatcher’s Conservatives to portray themselves as the party that has liberated private enterprise, observers say. There will be substantial Government expenditure, not on the

tunnel itself but on investment in road and rail facilities. Britain is expected to need $llOO million and France twice that much. Choice of scheme has aroused intense interest in Britain, much more than whether the link itself should be constructed. This is not so in France, where reaction is less enthusiastic, judging by press reports. Mr Guy Flamengt, who runs Calais’s chamber of commerce, says bluntly: “The British and French Governments are conniving at a stroke of sheer madness. “What is proposed will wipe out at a blow not only our ferries, but also the port indus-

try, which has grown up around them. “That means 40,000 lost jobs. In Dover, it may be worse. And for what? “It will still take hours to put a heavy lorry through customs.” French road hauliers are equally unhappy, and are threatening a tunnel boycott, while British truckers have made no secret that they will not like having to use rail transport Another British concern is that local firms seeking a greater share of European business may actually move to northern

France, with their executives commuting from. England to work, that the south-east of England, already rich at the north’s expense, may get even richer and the north even poorer. Many Britons are suspicious of the new link. They point out that a survey last year showed that only 7 per cent of cross-channel passengers were from France. The bulk of traffic now is from, not to, Britain and they fear this exodus may increase. Perhaps, suggested one commentator this week, Napoleon will be smiling in his grave after all. His beloved compatriots may yet achieve what he could not.