A Tunnel Wasn’t The First Idea To Link England To Europe
🚇 England Vs France, Who Won The Tunnel Race?
18,000 years ago, France and England were only separated by a river.
For centuries, the English Channel has been a barrier between these two oldest historical enemies: England and France.
Previously inconceivable due to technical reasons and the ongoing wars between the two countries, it was only in the early 19th century that ideas of linking the largest island in Europe to its continent began to emerge.
On clear days, the coast of England can be seen from France, but still, there are 33 kilometers to connect in one way or another.
At the time, the idea of a railway tunnel was far from being the only proposal; other (both fanciful and realistic) ideas could have come to fruition, potentially altering the lives of tens of millions of people who traverse this passage per year.
A Tunnel Wasn’t The First Idea
The Channel Tunnel has a total length of 50.45 km, making it one of the longest underwater tunnels in the world.
It’s said that in the 1750s, the geographer Nicolas Desmarest proposed the first idea of connecting England to France, either by a bridge, a tunnel, or a dyke.
A Dyke:
The project would have involved filling the English Channel with earth for 30 kilometers between the two countries.
Considering that the deepest point of the English Channel can reach 170 meters in depth, this project would require approximately 165 million cubic meters of earth, equivalent to 64 pyramids of Khéops.
Beyond that, by blocking the English Channel, we would disrupt the maritime passage that represents 20% of global traffic today. This corresponds to approximately 200 to 500 ships per day.
From an ecological standpoint, it would be a disaster. Gathering millions of cubic meters of earth to transport them to the English Channel to create an underwater wall would be catastrophic for marine life.
A Bridge:
At first glance, the idea seems more plausible. The longest maritime bridge in the world is 55 kilometers long in Hong Kong, so the dimensions of our project are entirely feasible.
However, there are challenges. The bridge would need to be high enough to allow maritime traffic to pass underneath it.
But that’s not all. The size and number of pillars pose a significant problem. Although they are spaced enough for maritime traffic, one cannot ignore the potential consequences of a collision between a tanker and a pillar, for example.
To address this, each pillar would need to be surrounded by an artificial island, reducing space, increasing materials, and raising the project’s cost.
The second problem comes from wind and temperature variations. While these issues can be mitigated, the risks are substantial.
Additionally, constructing foundations and submerged pillars on the seabed would be extremely costly, especially for the deepest depths.
Artificial Islands:
The last proposal was to create artificial islands in the middle of the English Channel and connect them with suspension bridges.
This would eliminate the complexity of bridge pillars and allow for the development of commercial activities, restaurants, etc., on these artificial islands.
However, the costs would still be excessive, and building the islands in international waters would pose numerous legal challenges regarding commercial exploitation.
In the end, the project that fulfilled all the criteria of safety, feasibility, and economics (more or less..) was a railway tunnel under the English Channel, and that was the project that was chosen on January 20, 1986.
France Vs. England
Around 13.5 million cubic meters of material were extracted during the construction of the tunnel, equivalent to filling around 5,400 Olympic-size swimming pools.
So the project will consist of three tunnels: two railway tunnels, one for each direction, and a central service tunnel for maintenance and emergencies.
Construction of the tunnel began on December 15, 1987, marking the start of a titanic race between the two countries.
Each side had to meet in the middle of the journey, 80 meters below the English Channel, and of course, each wanted to be the first to arrive.
The British progressed much faster than the French. They had adopted drilling techniques and equipment that allowed them to advance more efficiently.
Moreover, the geology was in their favor. If you look at the tunnel cross-section, the English side only had to dig through the green layer, while the French had to cross two additional layers.
Changing layers posed stability problems for the tunnel to solve, and these layers did not necessarily have the same resistance to drilling and might require specialized tools.
Both teams faced challenges, but one of the most significant was water infiltration issues. The ground under the English Channel is composed of chalk, which, although relatively easy to dig, has areas with large amounts of water.
These infiltrations posed challenges, especially on the British side, where water problems were more pronounced than expected because some faults in the ground had not been identified beforehand.
In the end… Well, there was no winner. Both teams ended up meeting at similar times.
Being on time is good, but being in the right place is better.
There’s no GPS here to know where you are, and yet, two 25km tunnels must meet at the same place underground to connect.
If the tunnels are misaligned, the project is doomed.
It was on December 1, 1990, that the two teams met in the middle of the tunnel with remarkable precision, just a few centimeters off from the initial alignment!
According to reports, it was the French tunnel boring machine that pierced the last segment of rock, allowing the historic meeting under the English Channel.
Does that mean the British won because they arrived first? Or that the French won and were able to make the final breakthrough, symbolically marking their “arrival first”?
The answer varies depending on which side of the English Channel you’re on!
Found this post through a share? Thank you for your curiosity! Don't hesitate to subscribe for free.
Final Words (For Quick Glancers)
The ambition to bridge the English Channel, separating England and France, led to numerous innovative but impractical proposals before settling on the tunnel we know today.
Initial ideas ranged from a filled dyke, potentially disrupting marine life and global traffic, to a bridge facing logistical challenges with its construction and maintenance, and artificial islands posing legal and financial hurdles. Ultimately, the pragmatic choice was a railway tunnel, chosen for its safety, feasibility, and relative economy, which commenced in 1987 amidst a competitive spirit between the two nations.
Despite geological and water infiltration challenges, precision engineering allowed the British and French teams to meet with remarkable accuracy under the Channel in 1990.
According to reports it was the French tunnel boring machine that pierced the last segment of rock, allowing the historic meeting under the English Channel. Does that mean the British won because they arrived first? Or that the French won and were able to make the final breakthrough, symbolically marking their “arrival first”?