Submarine Tunnel

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


It is twenty-sis, miles across the English Channel from Dover to Calais, and it occupies, ordinarily, two hours to cross over in a little steamer. It is an uncomfortable trip, and many a strong stomach has had to give its contents to the sea, after having escaped this fate during a long ocean voyage. Considering the great rush of travel across this channel, and the discomforts of the journey, it is no wonder that modern engineering is called on to devise a better system. The Paris Siech says that the possibility of uniting England and France by means of a submarine tunnel has been practically and scientifically considered by M. Gamond, a skillful engineer. He submitted his plans to the Emperor, who was so well pleased with the project that a commission was authorized, who decided that M. Gamond is no mere dreamer. The British government have also named on their side a commission ; and it is probable that, in the coming spring, French and English engineers will apply themselves to the work of vigorously examining the practicability of the project. There have been many schemes proposed before, one of which was to lay an iron tunnel along the bottom of the channel ; and another to make a gradually inclining tunnel from London, continue it under the bed of the channel, and again rise on the French side. T.o each of these schemes there has been some practical objection; but M. Gamond having a knowledge of these, we hope that his plan may be successful.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 13 Issue 11This article was published with the title “Submarine Tunnel” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 13 No. 11 (), p. 88
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican11211857-88d

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe