On 10/10/2012 13:51, d wrote:

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:15:44 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
The councils built it for local traffic, that's why it was only a single
lane either way, when many of the arterial roads either side were
already dual carriageways.

It replaced a ferry.

There still is some sort of ferry terminal at dartford on the north bank.
Anyone know what its used for? There's usually a ferry docked there when
I've driven over the bridge.

There are multiple jetties on the Thurrock riverbank, e.g.

Jergens Jetty handles foodstuffs (specifically oil)
http://www.pla.co.uk/handbook/terminalDirectory.cfm/flag/2/terminal_id/79

The Lafarge Jetty does aggregates:
http://www.pla.co.uk/handbook/terminalDirectory.cfm/flag/2/terminal_id/154

The Vopak terminal handles oil / petrol / chemicals:
http://www.pla.co.uk/handbook/terminalDirectory.cfm/flag/2/terminal_id/123

The PLA has an interactive map he
http://www.pla.co.uk/handbook/terminal_map.cfm/

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:51:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
There still is some sort of ferry terminal at dartford on the north bank.
Anyone know what its used for? There's usually a ferry docked there when
I've driven over the bridge.

I think it is this: http://www.cldn.com/roro_cobelfret_ferries.html

In message , at 13:14:42 on Wed, 10
Oct 2012, tim..... remarked:
It's the M25 which has made the Dartford Tunnel into big business.

Thirty and forty years ago it carried far less traffic.

but why would a commercial organisation take it on if they didn't
think that the traffic would grow so as to cover their costs?

And if they thought so, why wouldn't the councils

The councils built it for local traffic, that's why it was only a
single lane either way, when many of the arterial roads either side
were already dual carriageways.

It replaced a ferry.

So:

How does any of that prove that the councils couldn't have
built/operated an enlarged crossing once traffic levels increased.

No-one could have done, because the cost exceeded what they could charge
for it. The ground conditions for tunnelling there are very challenging,
for example, and when built the only traffic was fed by local routes, of
which historically there were very few north-south rather than
east-west.

Mersey corporation had no difficulty funding/operating a second tunnel
after the first got congested, what's different here

The Mersey tunnel is in a metro area, the Dartford one was in open
countryside (before the Lakeside development was attracted there, and
before the M25 opened).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:51:14 on Wed, 10 Oct
2012, d remarked:
It replaced a ferry.

There still is some sort of ferry terminal at dartford on the north bank.
Anyone know what its used for? There's usually a ferry docked there when
I've driven over the bridge.

Without looking it up, I think it's to the Continent. Aren't things like
new tram carriages (for the various regional tram projects) delivered to
there?
--
Roland Perry

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:15:44 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
The councils built it for local traffic, that's why it was only a single
lane either way, when many of the arterial roads either side were
already dual carriageways.

It replaced a ferry.

There still is some sort of ferry terminal at dartford on the north bank.
Anyone know what its used for? There's usually a ferry docked there when
I've driven over the bridge.

I went back to my 1950 road map to check out Roland's claim as my immediate
reaction was that it was wrong.

But it seems that the ferry in question is the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry which
used to be vehicular but is now pedestrians only.

There wasn't (as I suspected) a ferry in the immediate vicinity of the
tunnel.

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 13:14:42 on Wed, 10 Oct
2012, tim..... remarked:
It's the M25 which has made the Dartford Tunnel into big business.

Thirty and forty years ago it carried far less traffic.

but why would a commercial organisation take it on if they didn't think
that the traffic would grow so as to cover their costs?

And if they thought so, why wouldn't the councils

The councils built it for local traffic, that's why it was only a single
lane either way, when many of the arterial roads either side were
already dual carriageways.

It replaced a ferry.

So:

How does any of that prove that the councils couldn't have built/operated
an enlarged crossing once traffic levels increased.

No-one could have done, because the cost exceeded what they could charge
for it. The ground conditions for tunnelling there are very challenging,
for example, and when built the only traffic was fed by local routes, of
which historically there were very few north-south rather than east-west.

I don't understand your argument Roland.

Someone must have considered it commercially viable (on say, a 40 year
timetable) as otherwise it wouldn't have been built.

And it's got to be so much easier to calculate the commercial prospects for
an expanded crossing than that the original "green field" one.

tim

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:13:49 +0100
David Walters wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:51:14 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
There still is some sort of ferry terminal at dartford on the north bank.
Anyone know what its used for? There's usually a ferry docked there when
I've driven over the bridge.

I think it is this: http://www.cldn.com/roro_cobelfret_ferries.html

That name looks familiar , that could well be it. I think its a truck ferry
rather than one for the general public as I've seen trucks queuing but never
cars. Or maybe because its so grungy there only truckers are prepared to
use it!

B2003

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:16:15 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:51:14 on Wed, 10 Oct
2012, d remarked:
It replaced a ferry.

There still is some sort of ferry terminal at dartford on the north bank.
Anyone know what its used for? There's usually a ferry docked there when
I've driven over the bridge.

Without looking it up, I think it's to the Continent. Aren't things like
new tram carriages (for the various regional tram projects) delivered to
there?

Would certainly be convenient for the motorway network.

B2003

In message , at 14:42:10 on Wed, 10
Oct 2012, tim..... remarked:
How does any of that prove that the councils couldn't have
built/operated an enlarged crossing once traffic levels increased.

No-one could have done, because the cost exceeded what they could
charge for it. The ground conditions for tunnelling there are very
challenging, for example, and when built the only traffic was fed by
local routes, of which historically there were very few north-south
rather than east-west.

I don't understand your argument Roland.

Someone must have considered it commercially viable (on say, a 40 year
timetable) as otherwise it wouldn't have been built.

Only if they got their sums wrong, which can happen to both the public
and private sectors.

And it's got to be so much easier to calculate the commercial prospects
for an expanded crossing than that the original "green field" one.

Especially when someone has built the M25 to force-feed traffic from
north and south. Before then, you were using existing feeder roads which
had not been upgraded to cope with tunnel traffic. I recall trips from
where I lived in Mid Essex having to use existing congested urban roads
through Orpington/Croydon to get anywhere after the tunnel.

Look at a map like this: http://goo.gl/maps/MKi1n ad erase the M25. The
only useful way to Dartford from Brentwood (and hence most of the rest
of Mid Essex) was the single carriageway A128 to Orsett (N/S) then the
A13 (E/W) which was somewhat south of the current alignment and iirc one
of those 1960's 3-lane (ie 1.5 lane each way) suicide roads.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:35:51 on Wed, 10
Oct 2012, tim..... remarked:
The councils built it for local traffic, that's why it was only a single
lane either way, when many of the arterial roads either side were
already dual carriageways.

It replaced a ferry.

There still is some sort of ferry terminal at dartford on the north bank.
Anyone know what its used for? There's usually a ferry docked there when
I've driven over the bridge.

I went back to my 1950 road map to check out Roland's claim as my
immediate reaction was that it was wrong.

But it seems that the ferry in question is the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry
which used to be vehicular but is now pedestrians only.

Yes, the "Tilbury Ferry" as we knew it.

ObPublicTransport: At least one long distance Essex bus route, iirc the
#40, was timetabled to terminate there.

There wasn't (as I suspected) a ferry in the immediate vicinity of the
tunnel.

Why does the ferry it replaces have to be on exactly the same site? It's
only three miles upstream FFS.

Especially as I've taken pains to explain the tunnel was built in the
middle of nowhere (at the time) and the ferry connected existing
built-up areas.
--
Roland Perry