tunnel for cruise ships, cool idea!

i like tunnels but what's the toll?

http://cruisefever.net/worlds-first-cruise-ship-tunnel-built/

The world’s first cruise ship tunnel, Stad Ship Tunnel, will be built in Norway that will allow passengers ship to bypass a treacherous sea known for storms.

Tunnels are my worst nightmare - I'll take stormy seas any day! On our trip back down the mountain in Flamm, (trains up, buses down) we went through several very long tunnels (at least one over 20 kilometers) and the bus behind ours broke down inside the tunnel. Passengers, including shipboard friends of ours from Australia, were stranded inside while the driver tried to fix the engine problem. He lifted the floorboards and climbed down to the engine area, smoking a cigarette all the while he's trying to fix it! Passengers were finally shuttled out in small vans. Our friend got bronchitis as a result of the fumes. No tunnels for me!

i like tunnels but what's the toll?

 

http://cruisefever.net/worlds-first-cruise-ship-tunnel-built/

The world’s first cruise ship tunnel, Stad Ship Tunnel, will be built in Norway that will allow passengers ship to bypass a treacherous sea known for storms.

The tunnel as contemplated, if built at all, would only accommodate small coastal vessels, like the Hurtigruten ships; and not cruise ships as generally visualized. Even Prinsendam, HAL's smallest, at 800 passengers, could not use it. I suspect their $300 million estimate is on the absurdly low side as well - the average for high labor cost countries is close to $700 million per mile (about the length contemplated) and that is for longer tunnels without the complications arising from it being a water passage.

As mentioned not at all practical for cruise ships as most modern cruise ships exceed either the height and / or width of the proposed tunnel.

Not sure if it was the same article that I read, but it indicated cruise ships up to 16,000 tons would fit. The smallest ships of Carnival, RCCL, NCL are many times bigger than 16,000 tons.

As mentioned not at all practical for cruise ships as most modern cruise ships exceed either the height and / or width of the proposed tunnel.

Not sure if it was the same article that I read, but it indicated cruise ships up to 16,000 tons would fit. The smallest ships of Carnival, RCCL, NCL are many times bigger than 16,000 tons.

The tunnel at 118 ft wide is wide enough for Panamax ships (106 ft wide ships built to fit the older Panama canal locks that are 109 ft wide), but at 150 ft, not tall enough for cruise ships that would fit that classification. If just 50 ft taller, it could carry any ship that would fit the Panama canal (190 ft tall), and there are a lot of those currently in service. Such ships make up the largest percentage of cruise ships currently in use.

Not sure why they chose the lower height when many existing cruise ships won't fit because they are too tall.

Pfft, it's only a mile long, I was expecting something like the chunnel.:D

I kept looking for leaks from above. Scary being under water for so long.:eek:

I figured this for an April fools prank. The OP linked article headline is certainly a joke. But apparently the tunnel is real. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stad_Ship_Tunnel. At 12m depth, 36m width and 145m height, it's a bit restrictive.

It will benefit local passenger ferries and coastal traffic such as Hurtigruten. Cruise ships would probably never want to sail between those 2 points anyway. As for cost, apparently Norway is rolling in cash as they have been saving a lot of their oil and gas income for years.

The tunnel at 118 ft wide is wide enough for Panamax ships (106 ft wide ships built to fit the older Panama canal locks that are 109 ft wide), but at 150 ft, not tall enough for cruise ships that would fit that classification. If just 50 ft taller, it could carry any ship that would fit the Panama canal (190 ft tall), and there are a lot of those currently in service. Such ships make up the largest percentage of cruise ships currently in use.

 

Not sure why they chose the lower height when many existing cruise ships won't fit because they are too tall.

Incorrect: the proposed width is 26.5 meters - which is just a shade under 87 feet. The proposed tunnel not only lacks headroom, it is far narrower than virtually any cruise ship afloat.

Incorrect: the proposed width is 26.5 meters - which is just a shade under 87 feet. The proposed tunnel not only lacks headroom, it is far narrower than virtually any cruise ship afloat.

Per the linked article in the original post of this thread it will be 118 feet wide:

"It will be 150 feet high, 118 feet wide and require eight million tons of rock to be removed."

It will benefit local passenger ferries and coastal traffic such as Hurtigruten. Cruise ships would probably never want to sail between those 2 points anyway. As for cost, apparently Norway is rolling in cash as they have been saving a lot of their oil and gas income for years.

While Norway is currently "rolling in cash", and probably sees this sort of exercise good for local employment - their existing "golden goose": North Sea oil -- is not going to last much more than a few more years. But the current surplus is intoxicating and supports this sort of plan, which, along with their ultra-generous social welfare plans, will leave them with a bad hangover when the wells run dry. Unfortunately, politicians everywhere can be counted on to exploit short-term opportunities for personal advancement. The Scottish independence movement was fueled by the same North Sea oil intoxication.

Per the linked article in the original post of this thread it will be 118 feet wide:

 

"It will be 150 feet high, 118 feet wide and require eight million tons of rock to be removed."

While the tunnel, as discussed in various sites, will be 118 feet wide, cross-section graphics shown in official sites indicate a narrower actual ship passage: 26.5 meters vs. the total width of 36 meters,, due to what appear to be above-water-level walkways along each side.

Incorrect: the proposed width is 26.5 meters - which is just a shade under 87 feet. The proposed tunnel not only lacks headroom, it is far narrower than virtually any cruise ship afloat.

While the tunnel, as discussed in various sites, will be 118 feet wide, cross-section graphics shown in official sites indicate a narrower actual ship passage: 26.5 meters vs. the total width of 36 meters,, due to what appear to be above-water-level walkways along each side.

I got those figures from the linked article, which apparently didn't tell the whole story.

Thanks for the clarification. And I always thought what I read on the internet is never wrong! ;p

While Norway is currently "rolling in cash", and probably sees this sort of exercise good for local employment - their existing "golden goose": North Sea oil -- is not going to last much more than a few more years. But the current surplus is intoxicating and supports this sort of plan, which, along with their ultra-generous social welfare plans, will leave them with a bad hangover when the wells run dry. Unfortunately, politicians everywhere can be counted on to exploit short-term opportunities for personal advancement. The Scottish independence movement was fueled by the same North Sea oil intoxication.

I think you need to spend a few minutes on Google - for over two decades Norway did not spend a single penny of it's 'oil fund' and has always prioritized long-term growth. The FIRST withdrawal from the modern version of the fund was last March, when under 1% of the amount was transferred to government (the rules allow up to 4% per year to be taken out) and even historically before those rules were locked in (1996) Norway saved much more than it spent - it's why they're still a high-tax state just like neighbours who don't have oil reserves, because all the social programs are funded from taxes.

'Scottish' oil was definitely touted as a benefit by the pro-independence side - but using the Norwegian model so you're just as off the mark there. The independence movement is much older than the tapping of north sea oil reserves...

One of our Norwegian guides joked that, when the oil runs out they will only have fish and tourism left. The 'oil fund' value is approaching 1 trillion dollars so they could decide just to buy a nice warm country and all go and live there!