The current drill-and-blast method of tunnelling is cyclic and, for this reason above all others, has a future application potential which is lower than that of continuous methods._x000D_
There is scope for progress in several facets of today's drill-and-blast tunnelling. But even if each of its unit operations and the synthesis of these were to be optimised, this conventional method will, in the long term, fail to be a serious competitor for tunnelboring machines (TBMs), roadheaders and the like. If its role in tunnelling is not to decline at an increasing rate, drill-and-blast will need to be transformed into a continuous system. Boring and cutting machines consume considerable energy (and expenditure) in creating rock fragments which are smaller than those required by muck-handling equipment. In this respect, blasting is more efficient._x000D_
Mechanical methods are also less versatile and flexible and, when planning proceeds on a basis of meagre or inadequate geological data, cannot be costed as accurately. Currently, research gains for TBMs and roadheaders are greater than those for conventional tunnelling. If (as is likely) the disadvantages of mechanical methods continue to be reduced at a greater rate, the swing away from drilling and blasting will gain momentum.