They could presumably expand Temple Mills across the northern half of the Orient Way site; the stock currently stabled there could be stabled at Aldersbrook instead, which is hardly used at the moment, and by running more 10 cars all day long - the Southend Victoria line certainly needs that capacity.
I think Eurostar is planning for the spare capacity at Temple Mills International to be awarded to them, rather than any new competitor. That is likely why we are seeing these announcements now.
As I understand it, the site is owned by STPHS, but it is on a very long-time lease to Eurostar International Limited, and Eurostar is frequently referred to as the depot owner.
Earlier in this thread it was posted that Virgin believed the capacity would go to whoever had a formal order for the trains first. If that was correct, then Trenitalia has won as they already have their trains on order.
Ah thank you.
Does that mean Trenitalia is certain they have enough stock on order for a Chunnel service or do they have options they could exercise?
Eurostar International Limited are the Depot Facility Operator - I.e. EIL are responsible for co-ordinating access to the depot. But yes I think ultimately the freehold rests with SPHS/HS1 Ltd/CTRL whatever they want to be called.
Quite difficult to find space near London, but I'm fairly sure there is a strip of land on both sides of the track just south of Ebbsfleet, which would be suitable for servicing sidings (not heavy maintenance) of 400m trains.
Ebbsfleet was meant to be surrounded by a new town centre, shops etc. Since that has inevitably failed to materialise, I don't see an issue with turning it into a glorious new depot.
crossborderrail.trainsforeurope.eu
I'm not sure you can do it in 30 minutes.
Can they not access the Up Avoider from the down fast at Forest Gate Junction?
I suspect the same reasons - rare wildlife - that the housing never materialised at Ebbsfleet might scupper the construction of a new depot there?
by the time you've got the site boundary, building footprint and pointwork in, you won't have 400m left.
Switzerland is an interesting one I think. The demand is there, going off of the number of flights. The northern Swiss route to Basel and Zurich is relatively feasible as is from an infrastructure view. Going off of Jon Worth’s findings it would be a matter of putting in some fences, passport desks and having some thoughts about where you couple two 200m train sets (if you want to get max value out of your paths on LGVs and HS1 coupling will be necessary given that Basel SBB and Zurich Hbf can only take 200m sets).Jon Worth's article on this is relevant:
Preliminary conclusions from my #CrossChannelRail project – Jon Worth
Geneva is undergoing major work anyway. He thinks Frankfurt is doable, Köln cannot be done at the Hbf.
I would hope so, of course being in Schengen means that Switzerland no longer imposes passport checks on any neighbours so it would be understandable if they took the view that the capacity was no longer vital. I guess it would depend on how many trains to the UK there would be from Swiss stations, I’d argue that it would take at least 3 daily for a station to warrant passport and security infrastructure, otherwise it would be within reason for Switzerland to go for a Lille shuffle with protected connections (as used to be the case with the Netherlands until the infrastructure was completed).
I don't know that Basel would justify more than 1 train per day, going on flights - Zurich would of course but it is at the reaches of too far.
Thurrock is the wrong side of the tunnel mouth you would have issues with the marshes on the western side. Dagenham is more of a possibility.
I wasn't thinking about Rainham Marshes, more the area around Oliver Close/Burnley Road on the western edge of Grays.
Dagenham is also another fair shout - is there any spare land there that isn't housing?