Channel Tunnel nearly at 30 - what Upgrades could be made?

[popeter45]

after nearly 30 years in service what upgrades/alterations could be made to improve the Channel Tunnel?

one thing i would suggest would be addition cross passeges to allow shorter unit length of passenger trains so 2x200m operation could be done without needing special arrangments
and any way the line speed could be upped to 200km/h like originally designed?

 

[NSE]

I think the problem with the line speed is having to work around the Eurotunnel shuttles. If a Eurostar sped up it would only catch up the Shuttle in front. Mind you, those locos are the same age so maybe replacement with higher power/higher top speed would answer your question!

 

[popeter45]

I think the problem with the line speed is having to work around the Eurotunnel shuttles. If a Eurostar sped up it would only catch up the Shuttle in front. Mind you, those locos are the same age so maybe replacement with higher power/higher top speed would answer your question!

with distributed traction now allowed i wonder if somthing like an EMU could work?, especally if made modular so one trip could be half cars/half lorrys, would also introduce more redundency compared to either of the 2 current loco's failing

 

[furnessvale]

I would change the pricing model so that Eurotunnel could only charge classic railfreight the same price per unit moved as it charges for HGVs on the shuttles.

This would be a significant cost reduction for railfreight, spurring growth and yet still be more profitable for Eurotunnel than HGVs, as unlike shuttles, all they provide is the path. Loco, driver, wagons etc., are all provided by FOCs.

Of course Eurotunnel won't do it as, unlike HGVs who can use ferries, they can milk the captive railfreight market.

 

[Trainbike46]

with distributed traction now allowed i wonder if somthing like an EMU could work?, especally if made modular so one trip could be half cars/half lorrys, would also introduce more redundency compared to either of the 2 current loco's failing

the class 374 is an EMU, so I'm not sure what you mean?

 

[popeter45]

the class 374 is an EMU, so I'm not sure what you mean?

im talking about the class 9's used for the le shuttle service
always fixed formation so no real advantage to loco+carriage compared to an EMU like Japan's M250 series EMU's

 

[Sonik]

I would change the pricing model so that Eurotunnel could only charge classic railfreight the same price per unit moved as it charges for HGVs on the shuttles.

This would be a significant cost reduction for railfreight, spurring growth and yet still be more profitable for Eurotunnel than HGVs, as unlike shuttles, all they provide is the path. Loco, driver, wagons etc., are all provided by FOCs.

Of course Eurotunnel won't do it as, unlike HGVs who can use ferries, they can milk the captive railfreight market.

Is this not already regulated? It should be

Eurotunnel were made to divest from MyFeryLink on the basis of unfair competition, is this not the same principal?

Still, Tescos make it work and I'm sure they wouldn't if it wasn't cheaper.

 

[SynthD]

any way the line speed could be upped to 200km/h like originally designed?

How long was that in the design for, how much was built to that standard?

addition cross passeges to allow shorter unit length of passenger trains so 2x200m operation could be done

Is that why?

 

[popeter45]

How long was that in the design for, how much was built to that standard?

its all built to 200km/h specs but the pressure relief caused vibration issues so capped at 160km/h

Is that why?

passeges are every 375m so passenger trains but be at least that length as one continus unit so they always will align with at least one for evacuation, adding one every ~190m would therefore allow 200m units that are a far more standard spec for high speed trains

 

[Sonik]

passeges are every 375m so passenger trains but be at least that length as one continus unit so they always will align with at least one for evacuation, adding one every ~190m would therefore allow 200m units that are a far more standard spec for high speed trains

I'm not sure it's so simple, a fundamental principal of the channel tunnel safety case is for trains to be able to divide in two for evacuation purposes. A corridor connection is needed to move passengers to the half that's still movable.

That (and various other in-built stock safety requirements) have precluded previous attempts to use 'standard' stock.

 

[SynthD]

its all built to 200km/h specs but the pressure relief caused vibration issues so capped at 160km/h

Has that problem been fixed in other tunnels that originally suffered from it?

 

[swt_passenger]

after nearly 30 years in service what upgrades/alterations could be made to improve the Channel Tunnel?

one thing i would suggest would be addition cross passeges to allow shorter unit length of passenger trains so 2x200m operation could be done without needing special arrangments

They’ve already relaxed that rule, quite a while ago now.

I'm not sure it's so simple, a fundamental principal of the channel tunnel safety case is for trains to be able to divide in two for evacuation purposes. A corridor connection is needed to move passengers to the half that's still movable.

That’s no longer the case.

 

[HSTEd]

There's not really much that can be done - at the end of the day anything we might want to use the Channel Tunnel for that we can't now we can't do anyway because of the far more restrictive limitations of the surrounding infrastructure.

 

[MotCO]

They’ve already relaxed that rule, quite a while ago now.


That’s no longer the case.

passeges are every 375m so passenger trains but be at least that length as one continus unit so they always will align with at least one for evacuation, adding one every ~190m would therefore allow 200m units that are a far more standard spec for high speed trains

Originally the escape tunnels were every 375 m, so that the front AND rear doors line up with an emergency route.

 

[Bald Rick]

the passenger shuttle vehicles are definitely showing their age, and are about to be refurbished.

I do wonder if, when their time is up, a new construction of shuttle vehicle could be much lighter, enabling better acceleration which might free up a path each hour. Although having personally experienced shuttles on 3 minute headways on my last trip, I’m not so sure.

 

[NSE]

I’ve always liked the idea of a local shuttle. Like Ashford - Calais. Not premium, not high speed. As a cyclist, it’s the sort of thing I’d use to take the old girl (my bike, not my nan) over a days cycling in France. But appreciate the costs not being worth it.

 

[py_megapixel]

Connect the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to HS2?

(yes, I know it's been done to death already)

 

[cle]

I’ve always liked the idea of a local shuttle. Like Ashford - Calais. Not premium, not high speed. As a cyclist, it’s the sort of thing I’d use to take the old girl (my bike, not my nan) over a days cycling in France. But appreciate the costs not being worth it.

I could see some type of Ouigo service one day which does London - Ebbsfleet - Ashford - Calais - Lille (- X?) which can slot into any unused paths and help to premiumize London-Paris non-stops, and so forth - and build a secondary market type and use case.

Thalys don't really have this, to my knowledge. But a much smaller market than domestic France.

 

[zwk500]

I could see some type of Ouigo service one day which does London - Ebbsfleet - Ashford - Calais - Lille (- X?) which can slot into any unused paths and help to premiumize London-Paris non-stops, and so forth - and build a secondary market type and use case.

Thalys don't really have this, to my knowledge. But a much smaller market than domestic France.

Stopping at Both Ebbsfleet and Ashford for International services is very unlikely, given the time it takes to get up to and down from linespeed.

 

[cle]

Stopping at Both Ebbsfleet and Ashford for International services is very unlikely, given the time it takes to get up to and down from linespeed.

The Kent services do it, to much lower speed - and anything stopping/platformed can layover until a fast passes the through lines.

 

[fishwomp]

Connect the Channel Tunnel Rail Link to HS2?

(yes, I know it's been done to death already)

Surely a diversion via Bradford. I know it's not on a direct as the crow flies route but...

 

[zwk500]

The Kent services do it, to much lower speed - and anything stopping/platformed can layover until a fast passes the through lines.

The domestic services knacker capacity doing it, and importantly don't go onto the channel tunnel.
Laying over isn't great when the selling point of the service is journey time.

 

[4SubAsociation]

The HGV carrying trains to fully closed instead of the semi open type.

Its been recommend on every occasion there has been a fire on the Euro Tunnel

 

[HSTEd]

The domestic services knacker capacity doing it, and importantly don't go onto the channel tunnel.
Laying over isn't great when the selling point of the service is journey time.

Perhaps we need even higher performance domestic trains! 395 or better acceleration all the way to 300km/h

 

[furnessvale]

The HGV carrying trains to fully closed instead of the semi open type.

Its been recommend on every occasion there has been a fire on the Euro Tunnel

Weren't they fully enclosed at first but increasing HGV gross weights forced the adoption of lighter rail vehicles to keep overall weights within rail axle loading limits.

 

[Bald Rick]

Weren't they fully enclosed at first but increasing HGV gross weights forced the adoption of lighter rail vehicles to keep overall weights within rail axle loading limits.

no they were always open lattice wagons. The more recent additions have been rather more open. Euro tunnel are buying more too.

 

[furnessvale]

no they were always open lattice wagons. The more recent additions have been rather more open. Euro tunnel are buying more too.

Thanks for that. I think the basic reasoning remains, the wagons were lightened to allow for increased HGV gross weights.

 

[tasky]

its all built to 200km/h specs but the pressure relief caused vibration issues so capped at 160km/h

passeges are every 375m so passenger trains but be at least that length as one continus unit so they always will align with at least one for evacuation, adding one every ~190m would therefore allow 200m units that are a far more standard spec for high speed trains

Am I right in thinking that 200km/h operation in the tunnel would save probably a little under 4 minutes per Eurostar journey, were it made to work?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Not just for the Channel Tunnel, but for the wider European rail network, it would be nice if the EU (for all it's flaws) would force SNCF (and by extension, the French state) to obey the rules that all other operators have to obey. By which I mean actually allowing competition, rather than setting up multiple brands to compete with itself. This would of course include Eurostar.

 

[py_megapixel]

The terminal at St Pancras is in dire need of extra security and passport control capacity. It's routine to have queues stretching out of the designated queuing area along the entire length of the shopping arcade, and they've had to actually put up signs specifically asking people not to block access to the shops.

The problem is, in central London, it's not clear where you'd fit it in!