Very little impact on services I would expect. There will be some administrative and procurement savings I should think. Possibly some standardisation of product? Greater likelihood of E* trains interworking on Thalys routes?
That's the part I'm most curious about. If I was running the company, from a cost perspective, it would make more sense getting people to interchange with Thalys at some point instead of just going straight there by E*, but I don't know how best that could be done. An earlier discussion I had, pointed out that Lille, despite being the perfect spot to interchange, doesn't have the capacity to do so.
That may look good from a cost perspective, but having to change at Lille would completely disincentivise the vast majority of Eurostar passengers, for whom the seamless through journey from capital to capital is the main attraction. In addition, the necessity to undergo passport and security formalities at Lille during a change of trains in the London-bound direction, instead of prior to commencing the journey in Brussels or Paris, would be a double disincentive....not to mention totally impractical with the limited space and facilities available at Lille Europe.
No, that is not what I mean. I do not expect the main E* services to change at all, or any exchange of passengers en-route etc, any more than is done now.
But would ticketing be easier? Say they cut services from London to just Paris and Brussels, but you want to go to Amsterdam, would an interchange be easier as it is all under one roof so to speak?
I think that Eurostar have offered Eurostar + Thalys tickets (London-Rotterdam/Amsterdam/Aachen/Cologne) for some time now, so I am unsure how the ticketing could get any easier in that regard?
Hasn't the fire regulation changed?
Sounds likes they would spend any savings on reconfiguring the existing rolling stock (or buying new ones) ? Is it really worth it, when they could just run fewer services for the duration?
i was more suggesting when they originally ordered the e320's any maybe for any fruture orders of rolling stock, even if most of the time they stayed coupled a dual set is far more flexable then a single ling unit, see how DB switched from very long ICE 1's to 2 200m ICE 2/3's
I think that the time for changing the original order of e320s has long passed, and any future orders of rolling stock are unlikely to be for 30+ years, by which time the passenger demand will have moved on from the current position.
does make me wonder what the plan will be for platforms 1&2 if the majority of services move to platform 3 to become thru services?
Given that the original E* sets were around 390m in length including power cars and the NoL sets (which did operate through the tunnel) were substantially shorter, I’m not sure where this 400m thing has come from?
It’s been more widely quoted as a requirement in the past, so not aimed at you! Doesn’t explain the NoL sets, either.
yea 375m is the distance between the escape tunnels in the channel tunnel but i belive rules now are either that isnt a concern now or you can run shorter if you have a plan in place to avoid stopping at an area without them
It was a requirement to always have an emergency escape passageway alongside the train, so trains had to be at least the length between successive escape doors. Although met by the original Eurostar 373s, it was never met by the NoL sets, or the freight shuttles. It was removed from the operating requirements quite a few years ago specifically to allow shorter trains all round, when the route was opened to other operators. I think the requirement to split a train and drive the portions out in opposite directions was removed at the same time.
They did - the ICE2s for specific reasons (regular portion working) - but the ICE4 is back to a full length unit.
From a technical point of view they are the equivalent of a pair of DB Class 407 ICE sets coupled but with the middle cabs removed.
Why would you buy from Detachi? Better to go to Siemens, who have a train design already running through the tunnel.
