NEVER AGAIN
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By JANUS
THE chances that the Channel Tunnel will ever be built are very slender, in spite of the opinions of the eminent members of the Anglo-French group who have made a survey of the subject, and in spite of the plans to keep the public supplied with information. This may not be the fault of the propaganda or the survey. It just happens that the survey as published includes proposals, such as railway development and financial guarantees by the Government, that can hardly at the present time commend themselves to public opinion. There is bound to be opposition to the idea that yet more money should be pledged for the construction of yet another railway. Too much has already been staked on the expectation, later to be proved grossly optimistic, that a substantial investment in rail transport will inevitably provide a proper financial return with interest.
The study group have at least considered all the possibilities: a road tunnel, a rail tunnel, a road-rail tunnel, a tube on the sea-bed, and a bridge. They have reached the conclusion that the only way, or at any rate the most likely way, of making the scheme a financial success would be to have a tunnel for rail only. There would be facilities for transporting cars, coaches and lorries, but they would not be able to use the tunnel themselves. The project would cost about £110m., and the net receipts are " estimated " at £13m. in 1965, by which time the tunnel would be ready for use if an immediate start were made, and £21m. in 1980. .
Calculations of this kind are inevitably reminiscent of the two reports on modernization already submitted to the Minister of Transport by the British Transport Commission, and perhaps shortly to be followed by a third. A few years ago, Parliament accepted almost with complacency that the losses already incurred by the railways, plus the cost of modernization and of interest payments, would all be recouped within a short time once the advantages of modernization began to make themselves apparent. Never glad confident morning again! Already there is disillusion. Not many people now believe that the railways will ever pay their way, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quietly shifted on to the shoulders of the taxpayer the burden of the railway deficits.
Cannot Alter Character
What the earlier over-optimistic forecasts ignored was the economic progress and the changes in the way of living that were bound to continue whatever the Commission might do. improvements in rolling-stock, equipment and service cannot alter the fundamental structure and character of the railways. They tie traffic too closely to an outworn pattern. The public have grown away from the railways, which will never regain their former supermacy because what they have to offer no longer coincides with public demand.
Much the same fate would attend the tunnel. It was a good idea nearly 100 years ago, when two promoting companies were set up, one British and one French. It was still plausible 30 years ago, when it was the subject of a vote in the House of Commons and was rejected by only 179 votes to 172. The present prospects have been brightened for a short time by the work of the study group, but they scarcely hold out real hope for the future.
According to the report of the group, there would be 3,180,000 passengers and 1,230,000 tons of goods passing through the tunnel in 1965. By 1980, the volume would have risen to 4,831,000 passengers and 1,587,000 tons of goods. Not all the calculations are available on which these figures are based, but it is not unlikely that the group have failed to take into account trends only now beginning to _show themselves.
Some time has been needed to put beyond doubt the success of the ferry service for vehicles and trailers between Tilbury and Antwerp, and more recently between Tilbury and Rotterdam. There have been many difficulties, involving the type of vehicle and of trailer, the correct trailer coupling, restriction on entry into Continental countries, custo'ms and language barriers, return loads, negotiations with Continental operators, and so on. One by one the difficulties have been overcome. In spite of one or two false starts, the roll-on-roll-off technique has come to stay, and it will spread.
For some long time to come, the speed of the crossChannel journey by sea will not match the average speeds of 65 to 70 m.p.h. forecast for passenger trains in the tunnel, but startling improvements in the performance of ships may not be far away, even if some inventions, such as the Hovercraft, have only limited possibilities, especially in rough water.
Traffic Into France
The freedom of the seas is an important consideration.
If trade increased sufficiently, there are several ports in Britain and even more on the Continent between which services could be run. The cost of providing the vessels would bear no comparison with the cost of the tunnel. Once this was built across the Straits of Dover, it wbuld provide an excellent route for traffic into France and perhaps the other members of the Common Market. It might be less useful for traffic consigned to other European countries.
A ferry service to France that was opened some little time ago failed to attract custom and was discontinued. One reason was the tax levied on goods reaching France. An amicable agreement on this kind of problem would have to be reached if there were a tunnel, but the possibility of disagreement cannot be ignored. Users of the tunnel from the British side would be entirely dependent upon French goodwill, whatever the ultimate destination. At present the great motor roads of the Continent do not go through France, a fact that may be another disadvantage to tunnel users.
As was to be expected, the study group concentrated on the problems and possibilities arising from the tunnel itself. They had little to say about the approaches to the tunnel. According to the report, it would have a capacity of at least 1,800 vehicles and perhaps 4,200 passengers per hour in each direction. Nothing is said about the road and rail capacity that would be needed to bring all these vehicles and people to the tunnel and take them away again. It is assumed in the report that, once they had a tunnel provided for them, the railways would give up their shipping services, at any rate on the short sea routes. There would at times be very heavy concentrations of traffic on the Dover road.
The drawback of the railways is that, while they may provide an excellent service between two points, these may in due course turn out not to be the points between which a service is needed. Similar disadvantages may arise from the Channel Tunnel. The pattern of European trade is not yet determined. It may depend on many factors, including the future relationship between the Six and the Seven. in the meantime, British carriers will naturally wish to keep as many routes open to the Continent as possible.