Could a second Channel Tunnel be built to increase capacity?

[PTR 444]

The Channel Tunnel since its inception in 1994 has become vital for the conveyance of passengers from London to Paris and Brussels, as well as supporting the Eurotunnel car shuttle service and intercontinental freight. As Europe’s high speed network expands and pressure grows for short and medium haul flights to be axed over climate concerns, we are likely to see the start of additional cross-Channel passenger services from London to places such as Cologne, Frankfurt, Geneva and Bordeaux in the long term. This begs the question as to when the time will come that we need to increase Channel Tunnel capacity to allow these additional trains to operate.

With a new twin bore next to the existing tunnel, you could divert high-speed passenger trains into that one while the existing tunnel is retained for freight, Le Shuttle and diversions if one of the tunnels is closed. If a new tunnel was capable of being engineered to a running speed of 320km/h (same as that of the newest French LGVs), you could save up to 15 minutes on Cross-Channel passenger journeys, while also benefiting from the additional competition and journey opportunities that a second tunnel would allow.

 

[Elecman]

Would never make a business case

 

[Sorcerer]

Could one really make a business case for a second Channel Tunnel? Is there even a sufficient enough market to justify a London to Bordeaux or London to Geneva high-speed rail service to justify filling up capacity for the existing one? I don't think anyone would even think about investing in a second tunnel when the first one barely began breaking even and making profits until recent years.

 

[JonathanH]

As Europe’s high speed network expands and pressure grows for short and medium haul flights to be axed over climate concerns, we are likely to see the start of additional cross-Channel passenger services from London to places such as Cologne, Frankfurt, Geneva and Bordeaux in the long term.

Constructing another Channel Tunnel certainly wouldn't come without a significant climate cost.

If the Channel Tunnel has a lack of capacity, it may help with restricting the amount of non-essential travel.

 

[Lewlew]

Freight is where the money is at. It would be very hard to justify an extra set of tunnels just for passenger trains.

 

[London Trains]

If the Channel Tunnel has a lack of capacity, it may help with restricting the amount of non-essential travel.

Surely that would just increase the amount of passengers using short-haul flights to travel to France and Belgium?

 

[JonathanH]

Surely that would just increase the amount of passengers using short-haul flights to travel to France and Belgium?

Not if those were banned.

Maybe change the balance of sea crossings and tunnel journeys.

 

[FlyingPotato]

A new tunnel might be a good idea in at least 30 years but not for a while and definitely not this current political climate

 

[London Trains]

Not if those were banned.

Maybe change the balance of sea crossings and tunnel journeys.

So going on holiday to western Europe would be effectively banned?

I agree on reducing short-haul flights but there has to be an increase in train services as an alternative.

 

[JonathanH]

So going on holiday to western Europe would be effectively banned?

Going on holiday to Western Europe is hardly going to be a priority in a climate emergency.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Going on holiday to Western Europe is hardly going to be a priority in a climate emergency.

Given that it was possible to go on holiday to western Europe by sea before the tunnel even existed, I doubt holidaying will be banned any time soon even if flights are.

 

[philosopher]

So going on holiday to western Europe would be effectively banned?

I agree on reducing short-haul flights but there has to be an increase in train services as an alternative.

Would double decker high speed trains be a far easier and cheaper way increase capacity? I assume HS1’s loading gauge is big enough for double decker trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would double decker high speed trains be a far easier and cheaper way increase capacity? I assume HS1’s loading gauge is big enough for double decker trains.

It's UIC gauge so I can see no reason why you couldn't have 400m TGV Duplexes if you wanted.

 

[London Trains]

Going on holiday to Western Europe is hardly going to be a priority in a climate emergency.

But if it was banned the majority of people would travel further which would contribute even more to the climate emergency. What needs to happen is an increase in an environmentally friendly alternative - trains. Ferries are not an environmentally friendly alternative.

 

[JonathanH]

Given that it was possible to go on holiday to western Europe by sea before the tunnel even existed, I doubt holidaying will be banned any time soon even if flights are.

Yes, and not only are ships are easier to construct than a tunnel, the conditions for them to operate are generally at their best when the sea is calm. That is generally when most people want to go to Western Europe.

What needs to happen is an increase in an environmentally friendly alternative - trains. Ferries are not an environmentally friendly alternative.

In what way is building a 25 mile fixed link more environmentally friendly than building a ship?

Ships could eventually be powered by solar energy, or indeed wind energy like they used to be.

But if it was banned the majority of people would travel further which would contribute even more to the climate emergency.

Huh? Flight shaming may well become a thing.

 

[Irascible]

Ships could eventually be powered by solar energy, or indeed wind energy like they used to be.

Wind power is already a thing ( not sailing, using flettner rotor style turbines or other sorts ), not a wide takeup yet but there's various fairly mature technologies around. I'm not sure if they'd be much use for fast passenger vessels, AIUI cargo vessels are generally getting slower.

Tunnels don't care for days when the Bay of Biscay is angry, or there's an Atlantic storm rolling in, ofc.

 

[Silenos]

But if it was banned the majority of people would travel further which would contribute even more to the climate emergency.

Not if they can’t afford it. Travelling outside your own country as a matter of course is a relatively recent innovation, at least for working class people, and it’s quite easy to envisage it returning to being a privilege of a relatively small elite.

 

[cle]

Surely longer/split/duplex units would come first.

I could see regional trains (e.g. Geneva or Bordeaux) being a first stop Disney -> split, kind of set-up. Cover off the Disney call, in multiple, and then split into more viable unit lengths for Bordeaux, Geneva, Lyon and down to Marseille. Ski train could be similar.

But these are not a meaningful number of paths. I can't see Lille doing Paris/Brussels splits, but maybe in a future for stopping services (i.e. anything for Kent or Calais, could be cheaper) - with a non-stop Paris and Amsterdam (first stop Brussels) premium category, which are their own paths.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I think you can just about make the case for the existing tunnel let alone a second.

Unless Britain joins Schengen its unlikely I think cross-channel traffic will grow enormously.

 

[Bald Rick]

A few things here.

1) As part of its concession, Eurotunnel had to lodge plans for a second crossing with the U.K. and French Governments. Fairly recently IIRC. It is not being progressed.

2) there are several ways to increase U.K. - Europe passenger rail capacity without building a fixed link. Making use of all the paths already reserved for Eurostar is the obvious one, closely followed by double deck trains. Then there’s ETCS which would add some more. Together these could more than treble capacity (an educated guess). This would be enough to accommodate the entire current air market from the whole of mainland Britain to the whole of France, Belgium and Germany - and let’s be frank, the number of people willing to take a train for 14 hours from Edinburgh to Munich when you can fly it in a couple of hours is going to be rather small.

3) but then we run into other issues. Is there capacity on HS1? Or at St Pancras (for trains and/or passengers)?

4) if a new fixed link is to be built, expect it to have tarmac…

If a new tunnel was capable of being engineered to a running speed of 320km/h (same as that of the newest French LGVs), you could save up to 15 minutes on Cross-Channel passenger journeys

Also, Eurostars are timed 19 minutes in the tunnel, so saving 15 minutes implies an average speed of 750km/h…

 

[hvshe]

Going on holiday to Western Europe is hardly going to be a priority in a climate emergency.

How about connecting flights? Surely there will be hourly trains from CDG/AMS to St. Pancras and LHR&LGW to Gare du Nord and Amsterdam Centraal, right?

I agree there should be more trains between London and Paris to divert people from catching short-haul flights, but the price tag for the Eurostar is so insane right now compared to the flights

 

[JonathanH]

How about connecting flights? Surely there will be hourly trains from CDG/AMS to St. Pancras and LHR&LGW to Gare du Nord and Amsterdam Centraal, right?

No? Why do there need to be connecting flights to anywhere? Which part of the climate emergency is this not comprehending?

 

[cle]

No? Why do there need to be connecting flights to anywhere? Which part of the climate emergency is this not comprehending?

I think he means the Eurostar services acting as feeder 'flights' into CDG/AMS - for LHR/BA competition or fullness. It's a noble idea, but I think unrealistic given the journey times, and it's hardly an air-side connection - it would be a complete faff.

This happens domestically for AMS of course, being the only notable airport in NL (with catchment in BEN) and of course in Germany, and France to a lesser degree (way more connecting flights). Switzerland also has this connectivity. Both there and NL are small, but en masse, provide a good market for rail to airport. The closest we have is Gatwick being part of the national network for many south of the Thames. Others are spurs, shuttles and expresses. Luton is teeny in comparison and flies few places other regional airports don't.

But if we are saying that HS2 wouldn't wash its face serving LHR, and we have said that by not building it there - then St Pancras to any European airport is a complete never.

 

[Pdf]

Is the tunnel capacity the bottleneck for Eurostar? From what I understand the limiting factor right now is border control at St Pancras.

 

[HSTEd]

As Bald Rick says, the most economically attractive way to boost Chunnel capacity would be a drive through crossing.

At which point you can stack up to 18 passenger trains an hour through the tunnel.

 

[75A]

Strikes me as about as an absurd idea as HS2.

 

[Energy]

Huh? Flight shaming may well become a thing.

Private jet shaming already a thing. Prince William and Kate were praised when they took Ryanair.

Strikes me as about as an absurd idea as HS2.

HS2 has limited options to increase capacity on current lines. The channel tunnel isn't close to full yet.

Then there’s ETCS which would add some more

HS1 ETCS is planned at some point, though we were meant to be seeing more ETCS activity by now on our domestic lines.

 

[mike57]

Is the tunnel capacity the bottleneck for Eurostar? From what I understand the limiting factor right now is border control at St Pancras.

That was my thought as well, if the channel tunnel stock became double deck, similar to the double deck TGV in France, how much extra capacity would there be, looking at the numbers not as much as you would think, One e320 set has 908 seats according to Wiki and is ~400m, One TGV duplex is 200m and seats 508, so double up = 1016. TGV duplex certainly feel more spacious than the e320 so maybe you could increase that, but its not really a step change.

However it seems like St Pancras is at capacity, so until that is sorted there is no point in doing anything else. Boarding checks at the continental end rule out multiple places being served, thats what killed off the direct service to Marne-le-Vallee which actually was a good connection for other French destinations as well as Disneyland.

 

[HSTEd]

That was my thought as well, if the channel tunnel stock became double deck, similar to the double deck TGV in France, how much extra capacity would there be, looking at the numbers not as much as you would think, One e320 set has 908 seats according to Wiki and is ~400m, One TGV duplex is 200m and seats 508, so double up = 1016. TGV duplex certainly feel more spacious than the e320 so maybe you could increase that, but its not really a step change.

The new series of TGV double decks will improve on this considerably.
The old style TGV double decks were based on older designs that required substantially more internal volume for electronics than more modern single deck units.

The gain for the all second-class Ouigo configuration is around 100 seats per 200m set. (740 vs 634)

They are shortening the power cars and reducing the volume required for electrical equipment within the trailers.

 

[mike57]

The new series of TGV double decks will improve on this considerably.
The old style TGV double decks were based on older designs that required substantially more internal volume for electronics than more modern single deck units.

The gain for the all second-class Ouigo configuration is around 100 seats per 200m set. (740 vs 634)

They are shortening the power cars and reducing the volume required for electrical equipment within the trailers.

That would be a decent increase, at no infrastructure cost, but St Pancras will be the bottleneck. To be fair I was looking at the standard DD TGVs not the 2nd only Ouigo ones but based on those figures the capacity of a 400m 1st/2nd DD 400m set would probably be around 1350.