The steel route
James HughesOnslow
When I was in charge of a loudspeaker van in Ramsgate during the February campaign of '74, we all knew how to wriggle out of tiresome arguments about the Channel Tunnel. 'Frankly we're sceptical about the Channel Tunnel,' is what we would say, 'But we'll have to wait and see.' This would go down quite well almost anywhere, even amongst workers at the Hoverport. What's the point of sticking your neck out over Britain's longestrunning hypothetical issue when action seems no more likely now than it was in Napoleon's time? People in Kent can become heated on this subject, either because it will make them rich or because it will create unemployment and wreck the environment — and you can never tell which version you are about to hear.
It now looks as if we are going to be allowed to wait and see no longer. Sir Ian McGregor, chairman of British Steel, is the first of eight contenders to announce details of a Channel crossing since Mrs Thatcher and M. Mitterrand agreed in principle to go ahead with the project. Representatives from Lazards, the merchant bankers advising his consortium known as EuroRoute, have already been down to Kent with a video-tape of Sir Ian explaining his plan and have been careful to emphasise that it will mean more work at Chatham Naval Dockyard, which is due to be closed in 1984, and that it will cause less environmental damage than the other two main schemes. Claims that mid-Channel ship collisions will be reduced because crossChannel traffic will be eliminated, or that road congestion will be cured because the ports will not be so busy, may not be so popular in the Channel ports themselves, however.
The McGregor plan, as revealed this week, is for two artificial islands, both about five miles out from each coast and connected to the mainland by road bridge — one opposite Cap Gris Nez and the other between Dover and Folkestone. The islands are joined by a road tunnel of 11 miles which is thought to be an acceptable distance for drivers, just a little longer than the new St Gotthard road tunnel in the Alps. There will be two lanes of road traffic in the road tunnel between the islands, and a continuous two-way railway tunnel running from coast to coast. Sections can be prefabricated anywhere in the country, providing work for 260,000 people over the five year period of construction, and then towed into position. The whole thing will cost about £3,800 million, to be raised from private bond-holders who will be repaid over 25 years with the tolls levied from users of the crossing.
The other schemes most likely to be chosen are a single-track tunnel for passenger trains only, favoured by British Rail and costing MO million, and a twoway railway tunnel for passengers and freight which Wimpey-Tarmac hope to build for about £1,700 million. The British Rail tunnel is known in the McGregor camp as the `mousehole' and their suggestion to Sir Peter Parker is that he would be wiser to spend his money on improving trains. As for the two-way tunnel, this would require marshalling yards for freight and cars at both ends which might be as inconvenient as loading a ferry. Both these tunnels would be dependent on the state-owned railway systems of Britain and France for paying back the costs of construction, and this might well be contrary to the Government's requirement that no public money should be made available for the project.
Sir Ian is fond of pointing out that most of the toll bridges in New York were built by Robert Moses during the Thirties recession, entirely in the expectation of tolls paid by users, and he anticipates no difficulty in raising the money for EuroRoute. Fifty per cent of Britain's trade is with Europe and this is increasing. Traffic forecasts for the crossing in the year 2000 are for 19-27 million passengers and 13-20 million tonnes of freight.
Of McGregor's consortium — which includes British Steel, British Shipbuilders, Fairclough Construction, John Howard, Sir Robert McAlpine and Trafalgar House — one of them, Raymond International of Houston, has already built a similar tunnel/bridge system 171/2 miles long across the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. This construction, built to withstand hurricaneforce winds, is frequently mentioned by the McGregor team to show that their crossing is technically feasible in the Channel.
The advantages, listed by the consortium, of this Channel link over other schemes are that it complies with Government requirements by putting no burdens on the tax-payer; by connecting to existing road and rail systems, and by avoiding the use of freight marshalling yards, it would make less impact on the environment; by spreading the work-load, it can be built quickly thus avoiding the worst effects of inflation; it is easily adaptable to French engineering techniques; it is easily available to road transport; it has a better chance of getting the money back from private and business sources rather than from the state rail industries; easy access, and minimum of formalities, should encourage surface transport across the Channel at a time when the ferry system is losing out to air transport. But the most important advantage lies in jobs. Eyebrows are raised when Sir Ian's real motive for initiating this project — more work for the British Steel Corporation — is mentioned. British Steel is the one member of the consortium which would benefit from any of the schemes put forward, but from its own more than most simply because it is the biggest. It will use a lot of steel, of the kind that has been little in demand because of the decline in shipbuilding. Sir Ian's main task so far at British Steel has been to slim down the Corporation so any expansion will be welcome. But it seems that Sir Ian's ulterior motive — more work — could also be his strongest selling point in the eyes of the two governments.
When the decision is made next spring it is expected to be an entirely political one. Yet the only undertaking Sir Ian seeks from the Government is that they will not interfere with the scheme, as they have so often in the past, once it is under way. This free enterprise approach might seem to be at odds with the new socialist French government who would prefer state finance for any Channel tunnel. In fact the French seem to view the EuroRoute idea most sympathetically as a giant job creation scheme and would welcome any partnership which is reliable. Successive British governments have behaved so capriciously over successive tunnels that Sir Ian's insistence that it should be built by free enterprise may carry considerable influence with the man who will decide which, if any, tunnel is built — President Mitterrand.
It is thought that Mrs Thatcher's tacit approval for a tunnel, while saying that she will not intervene with public money, leaves the initiative squarely with the French government. But one should not underestimate the lobbying power of British Rail and SNCF who have a joint interest in preserving the existing ferries. The Kent conservation lobby, however, will not influence the president at all.
Previous page
