Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[CdBrux]

If the additional services (or capacity with a E* double deck train) are in part for Paris & Brussels is there also capacity to process and room for additional passengers to wait in those stations? I.e all the discussion here is about St Pancras capacity & space but is that the only such issue that would need to be solved?

 

[zwk500]

If the additional services (or capacity with a E* double deck train) are in part for Paris & Brussels is there also capacity to process and room for additional passengers to wait in those stations? I.e all the discussion here is about St Pancras capacity & space but is that the only such issue that would need to be solved?

Paris and Brussels are on the small side but the issues are less pressing than at St Pancras as their terminal only needs to cater for UK-bound journeys and not intra-schengen ones, whereas all international departures from St Pancras required the passenger terminal.

 

[Trainbike46]

If the additional services (or capacity with a E* double deck train) are in part for Paris & Brussels is there also capacity to process and room for additional passengers to wait in those stations? I.e all the discussion here is about St Pancras capacity & space but is that the only such issue that would need to be solved?

Paris and Brussels are on the small side but the issues are less pressing than at St Pancras as their terminal only needs to cater for UK-bound journeys and not intra-schengen ones, whereas all international departures from St Pancras required the passenger terminal.

For Brussels I would add that it is likely that there will be less pressure on the (frankly terrible) terminal. With more Amsterdam trains (and less Brussels starters), the number of trains from Brussels is likely to increase, but the number of passengers per train will likely decrease. As the trains are spaced far enough apart (about an hour at minimum), there'll be less pressure on the UK terminal which will only be processing one departure at a time.

 

[Mikey C]

The Brussels terminal seemed large enough to me when I used it earlier this year. A building site, but plenty of space.

 

[HSTEd]

The Brussels terminal seemed large enough to me when I used it earlier this year. A building site, but plenty of space.

I used it in April, it was just as cramped and busy as St Pancras had been on the outward leg of the journey.

 

[Trainbike46]

The Brussels terminal seemed large enough to me when I used it earlier this year. A building site, but plenty of space.

I used it in April, it was just as cramped and busy as St Pancras had been on the outward leg of the journey.

The current building site that it is (and has been for years - I've used it on and off since 2016 and its never not been a building site) means the exact amount of space available does vary. Generally it is capable of dealing with passenger numbers at security with undue delay, and when the building site isn't taking up too much of the space, there is sufficient space. It's unpleasant, but doesn't really need to be bigger. Hopefully whatever building work they're doing will make it more pleasant if they ever actually finish that.

As I said above, there being increasingly more through services from Amsterdam (4 from this month, 5 from December, and I suspect that will increase further) means the number of passengers per train will decrease at Brussels (as many seats will already sold from Amsterdam or Rotterdam, and some will still be sold from Lille), while the number of trains will increase. This means there will be less pressure on the terminal in Brussels, not more, making Brussels rather unlike St Pancras or Gare du Nord with regards to this issue.

 

[SynthD]

If the additional services (or capacity with a E* double deck train) are in part for Paris & Brussels is there also capacity to process and room for additional passengers to wait in those stations? I.e all the discussion here is about St Pancras capacity & space but is that the only such issue that would need to be solved?

Central France has other stations of interest, such as Marne-la-Vallée–Chessy and Charles De Gaulle Airport. In the same way that British Airways fly from Heathrow to CDG while Ryanair fly Gatwick to Paris-Beauvais Airport (55mi NE of Paris), I could see a Stratford to MLV service operating, if someone ahead of them had paid for fitting out.

 

[zwk500]

Central France has other stations of interest, such as Marne-la-Vallée–Chessy and Charles De Gaulle Airport. In the same way that British Airways fly from Heathrow to CDG while Ryanair fly Gatwick to Paris-Beauvais Airport (55mi NE of Paris), I could see a Stratford to MLV service operating, if someone ahead of them had paid for fitting out.

And the only reason somebody is going to pay for the fitting out is if they see a way to get their money back. A commercial agreement would see the Operator of the services from Stratford or MLV charged a fee for the use of the station. A Governmental agreement would be on the expectation of fostering a certain amount of travel so as to stimulate the economy (local or national) and therefore return higher tax revenues to the relevant treasury.

In order for either agreement to happen, a Stratford-MLV service would need to be sustainable and attractive. Neither of which are certainties, especially in light of Stratford's operational constrictions.

 

[Bald Rick]

Central France has other stations of interest, such as Marne-la-Vallée–Chessy and Charles De Gaulle Airport. In the same way that British Airways fly from Heathrow to CDG while Ryanair fly Gatwick to Paris-Beauvais Airport (55mi NE of Paris), I could see a Stratford to MLV service operating, if someone ahead of them had paid for fitting out.

At the risk of repeating myself, Stratford was not and is not designed for a full eurostar trainload of passengers to be processed through security and border control. To enable that means building some more space.

Or running trains of (much) lower capacity.

 

[popeter45]

At the risk of repeating myself, Stratford was not and is not designed for a full eurostar trainload of passengers to be processed through security and border control. To enable that means building some more space.

Or running trains of (much) lower capacity.

or using the train itself as capacity?
cant see people liking that but could work

 

[Bald Rick]

or using the train itself as capacity?
cant see people liking that but could work

Then you‘d need some people to be turning up 3-4 hours before departure. And the train of course.

 

[zwk500]

or using the train itself as capacity?
cant see people liking that but could work

'Check-In between 2 and 3 hours before departure' will see everybody immediately book with Ryanair instead.

 

[Migsithepigsi]

Could a HS2-HS1 link be feasible? I know the argument against the link is that HS2 was designed for capacity, but surely the link could theoretically relieve capacity at St Pancras International, considering the few platforms it has available.
With such a link, surely it would mean that Channel Tunnel trains aren't just restricted to choosing St Pancras and Stratford International and could use a plethora of new destinations, such as Manchester or Birmingham, etc. I know that the theoretical demand in those cities would barely make it feasible for international trains to run there, but at least with a link it would be a form of future-proof, as well as perhaps giving a rise of new depots or depot locations for the four operators to handle train maintenance from.
I'm probably ignoring some extra factors so apologies for my ignorance

 

[Krokodil]

Much as I'd like to see the HS1-HS2 link resurrected, I'd sooner like to see Phase 2 of HS2 resurrected first. That's far more important.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Could a HS2-HS1 link be feasible? I know the argument against the link is that HS2 was designed for capacity, but surely the link could theoretically relieve capacity at St Pancras International, considering the few platforms it has available.
With such a link, surely it would mean that Channel Tunnel trains aren't just restricted to choosing St Pancras and Stratford International and could use a plethora of new destinations, such as Manchester or Birmingham, etc. I know that the theoretical demand in those cities would barely make it feasible for international trains to run there, but at least with a link it would be a form of future-proof, as well as perhaps giving a rise of new depots or depot locations for the four operators to handle train maintenance from.
I'm probably ignoring some extra factors so apologies for my ignorance

I believe the HS1-HS2 link would have required the single tracking of the North London Line through Camden Road to enable larger trains to fit through. Camden Road is a key freight and passenger link, with up to 4 paths of freight and hour and 12 paths of a freight an hour some going via Primrose Hill and some going via Gospel Oak.
View attachment 187766
The above image is of Camden Road.

 

[Class15]

I believe the HS1-HS2 link would have required the single tracking of the North London Line through Camden Road to enable larger trains to fit through. Camden Road is a key freight and passenger link, with up to 4 paths of freight and hour and 12 paths of a freight an hour some going via Primrose Hill and some going via Gospel Oak.
View attachment 187766
The above image is of Camden Road.

It most certainly could not be single tracked! The entire line would collapse!

By the way, you seem to suggest that there are 16 paths every hour for freight, which is not the case. Off-peak, it’s 8 passenger and 4 freight, while in the peak it’s 10-12 passenger and basically no freight.

 

[BerkshireRails]

It most certainly could not be single tracked! The entire line would collapse!

That is one of the reasons for it being scrapped in 2014.

By the way, you seem to suggest that there are 16 paths every hour for freight, which is not the case. Off-peak, it’s 8 passenger and 4 freight, while in the peak it’s 10-12 passenger and basically no freight.

I knew it was 12tph in total and 8tph pass and 4tph freight.

 

[zwk500]

Could a HS2-HS1 link be feasible? I know the argument against the link is that HS2 was designed for capacity, but surely the link could theoretically relieve capacity at St Pancras International, considering the few platforms it has available.
With such a link, surely it would mean that Channel Tunnel trains aren't just restricted to choosing St Pancras and Stratford International and could use a plethora of new destinations, such as Manchester or Birmingham, etc. I know that the theoretical demand in those cities would barely make it feasible for international trains to run there, but at least with a link it would be a form of future-proof, as well as perhaps giving a rise of new depots or depot locations for the four operators to handle train maintenance from.
I'm probably ignoring some extra factors so apologies for my ignorance

Not now, no. Neither HS1 nor HS2 are designed to allow for it, and the junctions would require modifications to the tunnels or station boxes.

It most certainly could not be single tracked! The entire line would collapse!

By the way, you seem to suggest that there are 16 paths every hour for freight, which is not the case. Off-peak, it’s 8 passenger and 4 freight, while in the peak it’s 10-12 passenger and basically no freight.

There were a range of options, one of which was single tracking the line:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f79bae5274a2e8ab4c681/HS2-HS1_report.pdf (see page 69-71).

The options were:
- A single tracked Hs1-HS2 link sharing the westbound North london line
- A single tracked HS1-HS2 link with the NLL Singled through Camden Road to separate traffic
- A single tracked HS1-HS2 link completely tunnelled
- A double-tracked HS1-Hs2 link completely tunnelled.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Not now, no. Neither HS1 nor HS2 are designed to allow for it, and the junctions would require modifications to the tunnels or station boxes.

There were a range of options, one of which was single tracking the line:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f79bae5274a2e8ab4c681/HS2-HS1_report.pdf (see page 69-71).

The options were:
- A single tracked Hs1-HS2 link sharing the westbound North london line
- A single tracked HS1-HS2 link with the NLL Singled through Camden Road to separate traffic
- A single tracked HS1-HS2 link completely tunnelled
- A double-tracked HS1-Hs2 link completely tunnelled.

I was unaware of the latter two options.

 

[Shrop]

Could a HS2-HS1 link be feasible? I know the argument against the link is that HS2 was designed for capacity, but surely the link could theoretically relieve capacity at St Pancras International, considering the few platforms it has available.
With such a link, surely it would mean that Channel Tunnel trains aren't just restricted to choosing St Pancras and Stratford International and could use a plethora of new destinations, such as Manchester or Birmingham, etc. I know that the theoretical demand in those cities would barely make it feasible for international trains to run there, but at least with a link it would be a form of future-proof, as well as perhaps giving a rise of new depots or depot locations for the four operators to handle train maintenance from.
I'm probably ignoring some extra factors so apologies for my ignorance

It's just about impossible to see any way that the HS1-HS2 link could be revived under any circumstances. The Tories proved themselves willing to scrap the most useful parts of HS2 itself, having already presided over scrapping the original HS1-HS2 link. Labour have already shown great disinterest in reviving HS2 and any link to HS1 since coming to power. The only realistic alternative option for Government is Reform, who have openly said they want to scrap even the paltry bit of HS2 that's left.
But it gets worse. If you look outside politics, you see forums like this one, where far more members appear willing to discredit any HS1-HS2 link than to support it. So if those in rail circles don't support it and neither do political Parties, what possible chance is there of ever having such a link? Personally I'd love to see it, but I'm greatly outnumbered by those who wouldn't.
Please, anyone, do say if you disagree!

 

[BrianW]

It's just about impossible to see any way that the HS1-HS2 link could be revived under any circumstances. The Tories proved themselves willing to scrap the most useful parts of HS2 itself, having already presided over scrapping the original HS1-HS2 link. Labour have already shown great disinterest in reviving HS2 and any link to HS1 since coming to power. The only realistic alternative option for Government is Reform, who have openly said they want to scrap even the paltry bit of HS2 that's left.
But it gets worse. If you look outside politics, you see forums like this one, where far more members appear willing to discredit any HS1-HS2 link than to support it. So if those in rail circles don't support it and neither do political Parties, what possible chance is there of ever having such a link? Personally I'd love to see it, but I'm greatly outnumbered by those who wouldn't.
Please, anyone, do say if you disagree!

I diagree, with you sadly.
Can any station other than St Pancras provide Customs and Immigration Control?
How likely is that to change?
Can any destination beyond St Pancras, or between it and 'the continent', provide enough consistent custom to warrant even a consideration?
I like to dream as much as anyone, but I sense that such developments are beyond the current borders of imagination.

 

[Shrop]

I diagree, with you sadly.
Can any station other than St Pancras provide Customs and Immigration Control?
How likely is that to change?
Can any destination beyond St Pancras, or between it and 'the continent', provide enough consistent custom to warrant even a consideration?
I like to dream as much as anyone, but I sense that such developments are beyond the current borders of imagination.

Are you sure you mean that you "disagree"?

 

[BrianW]

Are you sure you mean that you "disagree"?

Sadly yes, with fat fingers dragging on the diagonal

 

[Class15]

Not now, no. Neither HS1 nor HS2 are designed to allow for it, and the junctions would require modifications to the tunnels or station boxes.

There were a range of options, one of which was single tracking the line:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f79bae5274a2e8ab4c681/HS2-HS1_report.pdf (see page 69-71).

The options were:
- A single tracked Hs1-HS2 link sharing the westbound North london line
- A single tracked HS1-HS2 link with the NLL Singled through Camden Road to separate traffic
- A single tracked HS1-HS2 link completely tunnelled
- A double-tracked HS1-Hs2 link completely tunnelled.

Thanks for the options!

I would actually have said that 1 and 2 are suboptimal (3 probably is as well) and 3 and 4 are a bit expensive and extreme.

I would actually have had the NLL use the disused Northern pair of tracks through Camden Road, with the HS1-HS2 link on the current tracks.

Completely segregate north London line (Caledonian Road towards Gospel Oak) and HS link (HS1 to Primrose Hill) eliminating Camden Road West Junction.

 

[BerkshireRails]

Thanks for the options!

I would actually have said that 1 and 2 are suboptimal (3 probably is as well) and 3 and 4 are a bit expensive and extreme.

I would actually have had the NLL use the disused Northern pair of tracks through Camden Road, with the HS1-HS2 link on the current tracks.

Completely segregate north London line (Caledonian Road towards Gospel Oak) and HS link (HS1 to Primrose Hill) eliminating Camden Road West Junction.

What about the freight traffic which goes via Primrose Hill?

 

[Class15]

What about the freight traffic which goes via Primrose Hill?

Sort out Hampstead Tunnel and Kensal Green Jn and I think the line through Hampstead could cope. Remember post-Maersk only about 6 freights use the Primrose Hill during daytime.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

It's just about impossible to see any way that the HS1-HS2 link could be revived under any circumstances. The Tories proved themselves willing to scrap the most useful parts of HS2 itself, having already presided over scrapping the original HS1-HS2 link. Labour have already shown great disinterest in reviving HS2 and any link to HS1 since coming to power. The only realistic alternative option for Government is Reform, who have openly said they want to scrap even the paltry bit of HS2 that's left.
But it gets worse. If you look outside politics, you see forums like this one, where far more members appear willing to discredit any HS1-HS2 link than to support it. So if those in rail circles don't support it and neither do political Parties, what possible chance is there of ever having such a link? Personally I'd love to see it, but I'm greatly outnumbered by those who wouldn't.
Please, anyone, do say if you disagree!

The only possibility is if the UK rejoins the EU and becomes part of Schengen - sadly a Lib Dem government isn't happening anytime soon. The economics of international services from stations other than London in the UK then dramatically improves, fpr they can also be used by domestic passengers for intermediate journeys. Commuter journeys from the Pas de Calais to Kent and London would also possible. Southern Sweden has effectively become part of the commuter belt of Copenhagen with the Øresund bridge!

 

[Bald Rick]

but surely the link could theoretically relieve capacity at St Pancras International, considering the few platforms it has available.

St Pancras is not short of internstional platforms. Not by a long way.

I knew it was 12tph in total and 8tph pass and 4tph freight.

10tph passenger.

Sort out Hampstead Tunnel and Kensal Green Jn and I think the line through Hampstead could cope. Remember post-Maersk only about 6 freights use the Primrose Hill during daytime.

Nope, the NLL could not cope with more freight. As I’ve said before, it is very close to the point where some existing trains are going to have to be thrown off it as the timetable simply doesn’t work.


An HS1-HS2 link is feasible, it might even be desirable(from some perspectives), but it has appalling value for money (unless we join Schengen, and consequently completely rethink our intercity network.)

The options considered were attempting to deliver at a cost where a value for money solution might be achieved. They didn’t and the options all had some (very) undesirable side effects. They were also done at a time when the NLL was not anywhere near as busy as it is now.

Many of you will remember a thread a few months back with someone claiming he had all the answers and could build it for two and sixpence with no disruption to anything else. After a few days quite terrific entertainment, and many blunted crayons, it all went quiet. I still have cold sweats thinking about it.

 

[zwk500]

Many of you will remember a thread a few months back with someone claiming he had all the answers and could build it for two and sixpence with no disruption to anything else. After a few days quite terrific entertainment, and many blunted crayons, it all went quiet. I still have cold sweats thinking about it.

Ah, that thread was a corker.

 

[vuzzeho]

I diagree, with you sadly.
Can any station other than St Pancras provide Customs and Immigration Control?
How likely is that to change?
Can any destination beyond St Pancras, or between it and 'the continent', provide enough consistent custom to warrant even a consideration?
I like to dream as much as anyone, but I sense that such developments are beyond the current borders of imagination.

I think it could be valuable, and destinations like Manchester and Birmingham could definitely provide adequate passenger levels, let alone places like Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall/the West with sleeper services. I do, sadly, think the HS1-HS2 link is honestly the least of our issues with that. It's engineering - expensive engineering but can be done and has been considered. Other issues include the lack of border controls and segregated platforms and the space to build them around many stations across the country, the lack of high speed 'classic compatible' trains in the country - we currently only really have the 373 and eventually the 895 and we completely lack the sleeper stock after the Nightstar was lost, the lack of operator will (the only operator that could be interested is like, GBR.) and the lack of paths. I wonder if there is a way to hypothetically start international services past London, as I feel like we desperately need them.

The image attached is that one poster that goes viral on Instagram every year on non-rail enthusiast pages, with comments like 'why couldn't this happen!'. Just something to think about.