Stonehenge and its Environs forum 134 room
Image by RiotGibbon
close
more_vert

ironstone wrote:
what's the real (as opposed to ideal) alternative?
The entirely real alternative is to build the tunnel a bit longer, say 4.5 miles instead of a niggardly 2.9 miles.

This can't be claimed to be technically impossible as we built a rail tunnel of 4.5 miles under the Severn 150 years ago.

Nor can it be claimed to be too expensive as we are going to build a tunnel for HS2 under the Chilterns which will be 10 miles long.

The damnable thing is that the Government has managed to convince the public the alternative IS too expensive and our three heritage protection bodies have taken that as gospel without putting up the slightest challenge to it.

Oh and that the scheme will break an international treaty, although in the brave new Trump/Boris world that has hardly raised an eyebrow.

nigelswift wrote:
ironstone wrote:
what's the real (as opposed to ideal) alternative?
The entirely real alternative is to build the tunnel a bit longer, say 4.5 miles instead of a niggardly 2.9 miles.

This can't be claimed to be technically impossible as we built a rail tunnel of 4.5 miles under the Severn 150 years ago.

Nor can it be claimed to be too expensive as we are going to build a tunnel for HS2 under the Chilterns which will be 10 miles long.

Hi Nigel, you know I'm your biggest fan but have to say in this instance I totally disagree. I do not understand why the Government has agreed to spend all this money (plus ++) on such a controversial road/tunnel scheme that benefits only the south of England at a time when the country has gone deeper and deeper into debt to keep afloat during these historically awful times. A monumental folly.

Small wonder Scotland wants to break loose.