May 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Channel Tunnel, 1873-83

The dream of a Channel Tunnel preceded the reality by at least two hundred years. A period of particularly frenzied interest in the scheme was the 1870s and 80s, in which the scheme of Sir Edward Watkin to drive a railway tunnel beneath the English Channel actually resulted in works beginning beneath the cliffs of the Kent coast. This scheme ran into fierce opposition from the military authorities, who considered that it would lay Great Britain open to invasion. In this edition of 'What the Papers Said' we look at a selection of railway press coverage from this period.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1873: The Railway Times considers the practicability and desirability of an Anglo-French railway tunnel

1882: A detailed report on the objections of British Army officers to the Channel Tunnel, from the pages of The Railway News.

1882: Another report in The Railway News attacking the tunnel as a potential route through which French revolutionary tendencies will be exported to Britain

1883: The Railway News becomes yet more hostile to Sir Edward Watkin and his proposed tunnel

• 'Anglo-French tunnel'
  From The Railway Times, 13 December 1873, pp. 1246-7

In these days of scientific progress impossibilities exist no longer. It is but a generation ago that the elder Brunel's scheme for tunnelling under the Thames was held to be wild and visionary, and when the work was completed and the subaqueous communication was open from Rotherhithe to Wapping, those who had prognosticated its failure and denounced the attempt as presumptuous and almost impious comforted themselves in their disappointment with the reflection that so ill repaid in practical utility or profit was the sacrifice of life, money and time, that had been incurred in the construction, that a like experiment would never again be made. Yet we find even the Thames Tunnel has at length become utilised, and promises to its present owners, the East London, to prove ere long a valuable paying property. Between the Thames Tunnel and a tunnel under the Straits of Dover, uniting England with the Continent by continuous land communication, there is, however, an almost immeasurable difference. The one might have been regarded by its author, and by some who were at the time looked upon as over-sanguine [p.1247>] believers in him, possible. But the firmest believers in the genius of Sir Isambard Brunel, and the most ardent advocates for tunnelling under as a substitute for bridging over navigable rivers, would have looked for the propounder of a plan for cutting a tunnel through the chalk basin from Dover to Calais only inside the walls of Bedlam. Nevertheless, those who remember the difficulties which Sir Isambard Brunel encountered, the treacherous character of the half-aqueous clay and quicksand through which the boring had to be made, the frequency with which the superincumbent water forced its way through the insufficient defences of the cutting, destroying much that had been done, filling up the cavity that had been formed, and driving out or drowning the workpeople, stopping the operations, exhausting the capital, ruining the shareholders, and occasioning delays which, but for the pecuniary assistance rendered, after many applications, by the Government, would have been fatal not only to the particular enterprise, but to the principle of engineering science which it was intended to assert, will scarcely venture to allege, except as regards its length, that the greater project which is just now attracting the attention of scientific authorities is less feasible than that which, after so many difficulties and disappointments, was successfully carried out some forty years ago. So far as geology instructs us, the boring will be through hard, firm chalk the whole distance, and all that will be required in the way of extra precautions is accuracy of soundings and taking the level at sufficient depth. The practicability of the scheme admitted, the only question remaining to be debated is, will it pay? Certainly the cost will be enormous, but by no means in proportion to the smaller work before alluded to, nor ought it to exceed, to any serious extent, taking mile for mile, that of tunnelling through the chalk hills on the South Eastern, the Brighton, or the Chatham and Dover lines. No difficulty ought to present itself in the length of the cutting. We have tunnels through the same stratum, of three to four miles long, constructed by the aid of machinery altogether inferior and inadequate compared with that which is now available, and there can be no reason why one of twenty miles in length should not be made as easily. Perhaps the greatest difficulty will be the sanitary one. It may be impossible to ventilate a boring so extensive, and having a deep and boisterous sea overhead, sufficiently to render it impracticable as a highway for railway purposes. But this is a question entirely for the scientific authorities, and we can scarcely imagine that it will fail to be taken fully into account before any proposal for raising the necessary funds to carry out the work is submitted to the public. That the communication, if formed, will yield a fair return for the outlay, we think can scarcely admit of a doubt. The traffic between England and the Continent, via Dover and Calais, is already very large, and continually increasing. Could the disagrèments of the sea voyage be avoided, there is no question that it would multiply with tenfold rapidity. From and to all parts of Europe it would become the favourite, and after a few years almost the only route for passengers, as those only who were absolutely obliged would resort to the uncertain, dilatory, and, as such, expensive and health-disturbing sea voyage.

From a paragraph printed elsewhere, we learn that the proceedings which have been inaugurated to give vitality to the design are beginning to show results. The official Enquête instituted in France has been brought to a close, and on the 1st of the present month the Commission met at the Prefecture of the Pas-de-Calais, at Arras, to examine the statements received from the sub-prefectures and the reports of the Chambers of Commerce. The Tunnel Company was represented by Lord Robert Grosvenor, M.P., M. M. Chevalier, Sir John Hawkshaw, Major Beaumont, M.P., Mr. Hawes, Mr. Brunlees, C.E., Mr. Bergeion, C.E., M. de Gamond, C.E., M. Caillany (Député), M. Paris (Député), Mr. Blount, and the secretary, Mr. Bellingham. At this sitting it appears the economical and financial features of the scheme were discussed, the object being to determine in how far it met the requirement of public utility. On the 15th the Commission will assemble in Paris to determine its report, and when that is published we shall have the opinion of the authorities deputed by the Government of France upon the question, and may form some opinion of how far that Government is disposed to assist in its solution.

Return to top

• 'The Channel Tunnel: opinions of the military authorities'
  From The Railway News, 14 October 1882, p. 675

The long-expected report of the military department on the Channel Tunnel has just been issued in the form of a Blue Book of 368 pages, containing not less than 282 official documents, the contents dating as far back as 1867. The opinions of the Duke of Cambridge are expressed in the strongest possible terms against the scheme. His Royal Highness says: ‘For me, at all events, there is one plain duty; and that is, on military grounds, to protest most emphatically against the construction of this tunnel between England and France.' Not less explicit, in the same sense, is the opinion of Sir Garnet Wolseley. The experience recently obtained at Tel-el-Kebir would appear to give additional weight to the objection which Sir Garnet urges against the tunnel on the ground of possible ‘military surprises.' The following contains the more important passages in the observations of THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE ON THE TUNNEL.

His Royal Highness refers to the lengthened statements by Sir Garnet Wolseley, which, he says, have his entire approval. Quoting the report of the Scientific Committee, ‘it is imperative that the tunnel should emerge in the immediate vicinity of a first-class fortress, in the modern acceptation of the term, a fortress that could only be reduced after a protracted siege by land and sea,' the Duke says:-

‘A first-class fortress, in the modern acceptation of the term, is a very precise expression, which can have only one possible meaning. It is necessary to consider what this involves in point of expenditure. Antwerp has cost over three million pounds sterling. Since 1870 the German Government has expended on mere alterations and improvement of Strasburg and Metz four millions sterling. Each of the great fortresses which France has been building on her eastern frontier since 1870 has entailed an expenditure not easily ascertainable in exact figures, but which has certainly exceeded three millions sterling per fortress. Assuredly the great fortress, on which, according to the report of the committee, if this tunnel is made, the security of England is to depend, cannot be estimated at a lower figure than one of the many fortresses which France has been lately constructing. But this is not all. A great fortress implies an equivalent garrison.

The scheme we are contemplating would place us under Continental conditions, and in fixing the strength of the garrison of the fortress, so all-important as this would be, it is necessary to employ a garrison at least equal to the great garrisons of the Continent.

In time of peace Metz has a garrison of 10,793, Strasburg 8,945; Mayence, Konigsberg, Dantsic, Posen, Cologne have all garrisons of over 7,000 men.

It must be remembered that this garrison could not be reduced for a sudden emergency. It would be a force which, for the security of the country, it would be absolutely necessary to abstract from the numbers to be held available for foreign service, in cases of emergency, and for all the ordinary military duties in peace and in war at home.

The pay and maintenance of this garrison would be an absolute addition to the cost entailed upon the country.

Next, as to the various proposals of the committee for rendering the supposed tunnel impassable. It is to be observed that these are not alternative suggestions out of which the committee think that some may be selected and others omitted, but that, except in one or two instances in which the committee select alternatives, the essence of the proposal lies in the multiplication of methods for destroying the supposed tunnel, and that they consider it imperative to have all these various devices available to avoid the imminent risks of some of them at the critical moment.

What the cost of all these arrangements taken together would be is, of course, impossible to estimate without a much fuller report than it was within the scope of the committee to furnish. But, whatever it may be, if the principle laid down in your minute is to be adhered to, and the country is not to be put to expense in the event of the channel tunnel being allowed, I would most urgently impress upon her Majesty's Government that an exact estimate for the cost of all these works and contrivances should be furnished, that there shall be no stint in calculating for their provision (as an example of the care with which this detail should be carried out, I may mention the necessity for providing that all the telegraph wires to be carried to a distance from the mines of the tunnel both to the interior of the fortress and to distant points - e.g. to London and to Chatham - should be underground, not overhead wires), and that the whole of the money required for the construction of the necessary fortifications and other works should be paid over to the Treasury before permission was given to begin the tunnel at all.'

Return to top

• 'The Channel Tunnel and its new "allies"'
  From The Railway News, 2 December 1882, pp. 550-1

The position of Sir E. Watkin in regard to the Channel Tunnel Scheme deserves some commiseration. His season of personally conducted tours and pic-nics to the embryo tunnel has come to an end, the princes and dukes and statesmen, the members of both Houses of Parliament, and the notables of all classes, have failed to secure for him those measures of legislative and judicial sanction necessary to enable him to continue his ridiculous route. He has now resolved upon calling new powers to his aid. Some of the leading agitators among the working men in this country have been induced to take the matter in hand, and these, under the auspices of Sir E. Watkin have been despatched to France to act, in concert with the anarchists and the dynamite fraternity, for the purpose of compelling the Governments of the two countries to give their support to the scheme of which all reasonable men hoped they had heard the last. It is difficult to see in what manner the interests of the working man are concerned in making a tunnel between England and France. When they desire to exchange fraternal greetings with M. Pyat and the Communists and Petroleuses of Paris and Lyons, they will be able to do so quite as effectively and economically by crossing as by travelling under the sea. The British workman must be made of poor stuff indeed if he cannot endure a passage of sixty-five minutes across the ‘silver streak' that separates him from his amiable and interesting confrères. Does Sir E. Watkin imagine that the British public, having accepted with the most thoroughgoing accord the opinion of the military authorities, that the construction of the tunnel might [p.551>] be a source of danger, and would certainly be a cause for huge additional national expenditure, would be more reconciled to the scheme, because the ruffianism of Paris and Lyons look forward hopefully to the time when they will be enabled to extend their benevolent schemes of rapine, plunder and bloodshed to this country? The accounts of the meetings of these representatives of labour are indeed suggestive of the great advantages which would result from a closer intimacy between the English and French working classes. That the small clique of Socialists with whom the Trade Unionists have fraternised represent but a small - a very small - section of the French working classes may be admitted, but it is most unfortunate for the Channel Tunnel scheme - which Sir Edward Watkin and his puppets continue on every hand to bring into ridicule and contempt - that the only people with whom the English visitors appear to have fraternized are Socialists and anarchists of the worst types. It is indeed disgraceful that Englishmen should have listened with patience to congratulatory letters, in which the existence of ‘kings, gods, priests' was declaimed against, and the only excuse that can be made for such conduct is that the hearers were quite unacquainted with the French language.

As might have been expected, the doings of the English visitors has called forth a strong protest from all our daily contemporaries, one of which sarcastically observes that these socialistic fraternisings form ‘a notable addition to the arguments in favour of the Channel Tunnel.' It must indeed be most trying for those who are really interested in this great work to see it continually kept before the public, either as the means of satisfying individual vanity and self-interest, or the watch-word of revolutionary and socialistic movements. Had the English public not been thoroughly disgusted with the former abuse of the scheme, this last phase of the agitation in its favour must have effectually destroyed any remaining desire for the making of the Channel Tunnel on the part of the respectable portion of the British public.

The following account of the principal meeting of the representatives of English and French labour may be usefully put on record as evidence of the class of men who are now agitating for the construction of the Channel Tunnel of the Channel Tunnel:

‘Citizen Joffrin, after introducing the English delegates, read a number of congratulatory letters, one of them from Felix Pyat, who protested against the further existence of kings, gods, priests, and everything in general except his majesty King Labour. England, he wrote, represented liberty, and France equality. The two nations were worthy of each other, for they had both executed their Kings. He expressed his opinion that the Channel Tunnel would be constructed, despite Sir Garnet Wolseley. Citizen Chabet was somewhat jocular on the subject of the English and French Governments, which he described as being as much alike as candelabra on a chimney-piece, neither of them giving any light. He concluded by remarking that in comparison with the coming revolution those of the past would appear as nothing. Mr. Fox, of Bristol, addressed the meeting in English. The two great interests, he said, in England opposed to the tunnel were clerical and military. He hoped, however, that an influx of French ideas would remove these obstacles. The alarmist stories about the tunnel were mere nonsense. He wanted the French to come in their millions and give England the benefit of their enlightened opinions. "Labour," Mr. Fox remarked, "is the foundation of all things; and woe to any who attempt to impede its progress!" This speech was loudly applauded when Citizen Smith translated it into French, and Mr. Fox was twice obliged to rise and bow his acknowledgements.'

Return to top

• 'The Channel Tunnel'
  From The Railway News, 28 April 1883, p. 656

It was generally hoped that when the joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament came to consider the merits of the Channel Tunnel scheme, the evidence given by its most prominent supporter would be of a practical and business-like character. The statements of Sir Edward Watkin, before the committee on Tuesday, have unfortunately proved that ‘hope told a flattering tale,' when it suggested that the Chairman of the South Eastern Company would be able, even for a few short hours, to divest himself of the belief - engendered by constant speeches to admiring shareholders - that every assertion, however ridiculous or absurd, which he may make will be accepted without question. As soon as Sir Edward came to estimates of probably traffic through the tunnel, it was obvious that he had forgotten he was before a committee of the Houses of Parliament, and seemed to imagine that he was still in the board room at London Bridge, or with a reverential audience of shareholders, he was explaining the intentions of Providence, and dazzling his hearers with his dreams of universal peace and civilization. Those who were anxious that the merits of the scheme should be placed before the public in a business-like and practical manner, must have been sadly disappointed when they heard Sir Edward explain that ‘250 trains each way would be the maximum number run through the tunnel every day.' Even the preceding statement that ‘the maximum use ever made of any railway was that of the Metropolitan, on which 550 trains ran each way every day,' could hardly have prepared them for such an estimate. It is, of course, to be presumed that Sir Edward, in mentioning a maximum, hopes that such a figure will be reached, and we are therefore entitled to take 250 trains each way, as what he considers likely to be the daily traffic through the tunnel, for if that number be but a theoretical limit to the capacity of the line, and not an estimate of probable business, it was hardly necessary to mention it to the committee. But if, as is more probable, it is intended as an indication to the investing public of the business which the directors anticipate will soon be developed, it may be useful to see what 250 trains a day through the Channel Tunnel really means. A simple calculation will show that 250 trains a day represents rather more than ten trains every hour each way, that is, one every six minutes each way, or one every three minutes, taking the total of 500 trains which will pass through the tunnel per diem of twenty-four hours.

It is, however, difficult to see why the Metropolitan Railway Company should have been mentioned at all, as there are no possible points of resemblance between the two undertakings - the one being a purely local and omnibus traffic, and the other exclusively ‘long-distance' business, with a minimum length of at least twenty-two miles.

Sir Edward Watkin says that the tunnel will be perfectly ventilated, and we therefore presume that he and his colleagues know of a system which is, at any rate, better than that of the Metropolitan or District, but the question of ventilation is one which may be left for engineers to discuss. What is of more practical importance is the number of passengers and the tonnage of goods which such a service represents. At present, according to Sir Edward's own showing, there are but 464,000 persons each year who have sufficient inducements either of pleasure or of business to care to cross the Channel. This traffic is served, so far as the Metropolis from which the bulk of it proceeds is concerned, by about sixteen trains a day, run by the South Eastern, Chatham, Brighton, South Western, and Great Western to the various points of departure which they serve. Supposing that the Channel Tunnel Company secured the whole of these 464,000 passengers a year, the maximum number of trains which would be required on the basis of all present accommodation afforded by the four companies having Continental business would therefore be sixteen trains a day each way. On this estimate, which - presuming that the Brighton, South Western, and Great Western Companies will not give up their Continental services, on which they have spent such large sums, and will not rather by every means try to attract traffic to their routes - will be considered by most people a decidedly favourable one, there will obviously be a considerable margin before the full maximum of 250 trains a day each way is reached. It will hardly, we presume, be contended that a heavier traffic than that between London and Scotland and the north of England will have to be provided for. Yet a reference to the time tables shows that fifteen trains a day from Euston, St. Pancras, and King's Cross, amply suffice for the passenger business between the north and south of so thickly a populated and industrialised country as England. Sir Edward estimates that in the first year of the working of the tunnel the passenger traffic will rise to four and a half millions, that is, ten times the present business. Of course, if Sir Edward chooses to make estimates of this description, he is at perfect liberty to do so; but it is childish to expect that they will be seriously discussed.

The arguments brought forward by Sir Edward in support of the necessity of the tunnel from a national point of view were as absurd as the figures we have referred to, and also carry a strong flavour of shareholders' meetings. We might, he said, lose control of the sea for twelve months, but still be friendly with France, the only other country whose fleet is of any practical importance, and they how convenient the tunnel would be! There is something in this argument which reminds one of Mrs. Toodles, who bought a doorplate engraved with the name of Thompson, in the expectation that she might have a daughter who might marry a man of the name of Thompson, and then how convenient the plate would be! The arguments from a national point of view have, however, been fully discussed elsewhere, and it is generally admitted that the danger of the tunnel lies not in the means it affords for an invasion of this country, but of the immense value it would be to a hostile force which succeeded in securing the Dover entrance. Yet Sir F. Bramwell - who, by constant association with his great chief appears to be thoroughly imbued with his peculiar methods of argument - the next witness in favour of the tunnel, whilst carefully explaining the safeguards to be adopted to keep out an invading army whose generals might be rash enough to attempt a landing through the tunnel, avoided all reference to the value of the tunnel to an enemy who had suddenly seized the entrance from the sea or land. The arguments this witness brought forward to prove that the traffic between England and the Continent would be greatly increased by the tunnel were somewhat weak, and consisted of a statement of the advantages which are to be derived from the Mersey tunnel now being constructed, the bridge over the Forth, just commenced, and the high-level foot bridge between New York and Brooklyn, not yet opened for traffic. It would surely have been more to the point to have given some figures as to the advantages of bridges and tunnels actually in everyday use. The extent to which traffic has developed through the Thames Tunnel, owned by the East London Railway, of which Sir Edward Watkin is chairman, could, for instance, easily have been ascertained, and would have been much more to the point than these hypothetical cases. The East London line connects the railway systems north and south of the Thames, as the Channel Tunnel will connect the English and French railway systems. Sir Edward Watkin hopes, doubtless, to be the chairman of the company which makes the Channel Tunnel, and his experience in the smaller ‘link' should be of great value in the more important international undertaking.

Those of our readers who are interested in this scheme, and wish to understand the arguments in favour of its construction, and practical opinions as to its advantages and disadvantages, should read the evidence of men like Lord Richard Grosvenor, Sir John Hawkshaw, and Mr. Allport, who were examined on Tuesday, and who treated the committee as men with understanding and capacity for business, and not as South Eastern or East London shareholders.

Return to top

Compiled by Dr Ralph Harrington, Institute of Railway Studies, York.

Updated 6 May 2002