Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[HSTEd]

I think the only way is to be more strict - people are scrutinized to the same level as if they were travelling to the UK. This train is a choice (and privatized - ish) - they can also choose to fly, or to take intra-Schengen trains and change in Paris / wherever.

I doubt very many people would travel on that basis, rendering the exercise pointless.

 

[Trainbike46]

Given the costs involved in operating a train through the tunnel and on HS1, no operator will want to operate only 200m-long sets through to London. So unless your 200m set from Switzerland is coupling to another 200m set at MLV or Lille, I can't see this happening.

That's exactly what I envisaged could happen. I do agree intra-schengen traffic will probably be limited to the direction away from London though.

 

[NCT]

This was my thinking - or a split service there. I would think Zurich/Basel/Geneva to MLV might have some demand and interest too - perhaps those places would prefer a CDG stop.

The solution is that Schengen journeys are processed the same as London ones - passports, security, same restricted entrance, boarding 30 mins before etc - they're just getting off earlier. And maybe passport only, and no ID cards to be extra sure. Bit of a faff for them of course, but as I mentioned, this is done in Spain.

What's done in non-takt land will never fly in takt-land.

Why would any Swiss domestic passenger choose a passport-faff service over the takt services?

 

[zwk500]

Do the set swapping between MLV and CDG stations. Or have 200m from Switzerland and 200m from Frankfurt and join them together at Lille.

Also known as 'how to nuke half a continent's timetable'.

 

[cle]

What's done in non-takt land will never fly in takt-land.

Why would any Swiss domestic passenger choose a passport-faff service over the takt services?

Because they don't have direct 'takt' services to MLV, Lille and London from Basel, Geneva and Zurich?

Nobody is saying domestic travel, we are saying intra-Schengen (ie Switzerland <> France new pairs, but on UK Eurostar - with the security theatre)

I doubt very many people would travel on that basis, rendering the exercise pointless.

They might not, but I would think a direct Disney service might be attractice - they don't have that today.
And if not of itnerest, then fine, this is a secondary purpose and the business case will be made on Switzerland - London traffic.

 

[zwk500]

Nobody is saying domestic travel, we are saying intra-Schengen (ie Switzerland <> France new pairs, but on UK Eurostar - with the security theatre)

The security theatre will massively depress any interest in intra-Schengen travel when the alternative of using the normal TGVs exists. AIUI passengers for the Lille Loophole used a completely separate entrance to the platforms and did not go through security or borders.

The Lille loophole survived because there was a specific train that served Brussels-Lille commuters very well, I can't see that being the same of Paris-Geneva/Basel. And the Lille situation has now closed, I believe. Eurostars for the Channel Tunnel are pick-up only at Lille, I think.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Given that tgv sets are not gangwayed surely the solution is just a temporary platform barrier as previously used, or to have two uk-bound services couple up? The current government is not quite so ideological as the previous few so I think they would be prepared to accept that movable barriers, locked train doors and sufficiently beefy security staff will be enough to prevent any ne’er do wells from attempting to sneak aboard.

In any case the good people of SBB, Eurostar and the UK government are surely aware of this and no doubt the intergovernmental working groups have solutions they are proposing given that it’s been known for decades that a UK bound service requires juxtaposed controls or a Lille shuffle.

 

[HSTEd]

The cynic in me suggests that the UK Government is pushing this more for the pro-European optics than based on an actual expectation that any of this can really be made to work.

 

[signed]

Either that or an extended dwell while you shunt one portion off and the other portion on (whichever way round you do it). However I personally can't see anybody wanting to faff about with half a train being extra-schengen and half a train being intra-schengen.

Adding a portion takes 3min, most shunt stops in France are timetabled for 8min (normal is 3min). I would be surprised if you couldn’t fit that split and rejoin somewhere outside of CH.

Of course in reality that won’t work as there would need to be basically dedicated rakes for that purpose only which is very much not feasible

 

[Austriantrain]

Can such an arrangement work within Switzerland? When open boarding and unobstructed station access are key components to the takt working.

It certainly cannot work. In the peaks, you would need several hundred seats for domestic passengers.

This was my thinking - or a split service there. I would think Zurich/Basel/Geneva to MLV might have some demand and interest too - perhaps those places would prefer a CDG stop.

The solution is that Schengen journeys are processed the same as London ones - passports, security, same restricted entrance, boarding 30 mins before etc - they're just getting off earlier. And maybe passport only, and no ID cards to be extra sure. Bit of a faff for them of course, but as I mentioned, this is done in Spain.

Not something that can work with when you would like to have a path in the Swiss Takt. And E* won‘t, believe me. They will get to Zurich if SBB cooperates (which they want), but the path will not be a Takt path. It will be a path that threads around the Takt.

 

[cle]

The security theatre will massively depress any interest in intra-Schengen travel when the alternative of using the normal TGVs exists. AIUI passengers for the Lille Loophole used a completely separate entrance to the platforms and did not go through security or borders.

The Lille loophole survived because there was a specific train that served Brussels-Lille commuters very well, I can't see that being the same of Paris-Geneva/Basel. And the Lille situation has now closed, I believe. Eurostars for the Channel Tunnel are pick-up only at Lille, I think.

Again I don't think intra-Schengen demand will be a big part of the business case, it's a nice to have.

That there are no Geneva or Basel - MLV or Lille services... even with LGV Est - which says something. I'm seeing it more from the London POV as a way of minimizing departure slots (splitting) - and reinstating Disney while we're at it.

The intra-Schengen we can ignore. But know that many would prefer the security theatre and a direct change than a wait of 30 mins somewhere - it's ostensibly the same dead time, except one is more quickly forgiven.

BUT - Anyone flying Basel or Geneva to Paris would have to do security, it's mild in comparison to an airport, remember.

Not something that can work with when you would like to have a path in the Swiss Takt. And E* won‘t, believe me. They will get to Zurich if SBB cooperates (which they want), but the path will not be a Takt path. It will be a path that threads around the Takt.

I don't think they give two hoots about the takt - as I don't either really. It doesn't need to be standardized, it doesn't need to wait for other trains - or display local bus timings - it's P2P travel more akin to air.

And will be running 1-3 times per day so the time past the hour matters little, much like a flight.

 

[Austriantrain]

I don't think they give two hoots about the takt - as I don't either really.

I never said different. I was reacting to others stating that they would use a Takt path in Switzerland, which they won’t.

 

[zwk500]

Again I don't think intra-Schengen demand will be a big part of the business case, it's a nice to have.

It's not really, it just makes everything messy.

That there are no Geneva or Basel - MLV or Lille services... even with LGV Est - which says something. I'm seeing it more from the London POV as a way of minimizing departure slots (splitting) - and reinstating Disney while we're at it.

Why is reinstating Disney a big deal, other than 'it's something they used to do'. By that metric, why are you not suggesting running the 2nd portion to Marseille?

 

[SynthD]

I think the only way is to be more strict - people are scrutinized to the same level as if they were travelling to the UK.

I don’t think even our government would be ok with that. They don’t want to check a full train of people, knowing half won’t be interested in preparation or compliance.

The cynic in me suggests that the UK Government is pushing this more for the pro-European optics than based on an actual expectation that any of this can really be made to work.

That might explain the UK-Swiss government step (which went by so quietly it can’t be called widely publicised), but not this operator step.

Why is reinstating Disney a big deal, other than 'it's something they used to do'.

It’s a more believable demand, especially in comparison to flying.

 

[Krokodil]

Disney lasted three years longer than the South of France trains which is an indication that it was a bit more viable.

 

[Sorcerer]

I don't know about the catchment or revenue side of things, but wouldn't any new services running south of Paris require a stop at Marne-la-Vallee to change drivers anyway? You could capitalise on that through some marketing around reinstating Disneyland Paris into the network, but the park probably wouldn't justify a service on it's own and would probably have to be implemented in a new Switzerland route.

 

[TheWierdOne]

I don't know about the catchment or revenue side of things, but wouldn't any new services running south of Paris require a stop at Marne-la-Vallee to change drivers anyway? You could capitalise on that through some marketing around reinstating Disneyland Paris into the network, but the park probably wouldn't justify a service on it's own and would probably have to be implemented in a new Switzerland route.

You might want to do two units coupled together for that. A single unit that empties half it’s passengers at MLV then continues for another three hours half empty might have wobbly economics but two full units with one dropped en route would probably wash its face a bit better.

 

[cle]

It's not really, it just makes everything messy.

Why is reinstating Disney a big deal, other than 'it's something they used to do'. By that metric, why are you not suggesting running the 2nd portion to Marseille?

I didn't say it was because they used to do it - in this context, it's because it's a logical place to split the trains - but also might have some demand and has the facilities. 2 birds...

Equally, if they did it once and it was stopped - that doesn't mean it can never be reinstated. Or would never be viable. It was stopped because theme parks and pandemics don't really mix ... many things in rail are not yet reinstated now, look at Chiltern.

You could split the trains at Lille too of course - but that already has trains.

As for Marseille - I think that makes more sense paired up with Bordeaux, being an all-France train. But again, yes I do think it might be really interesting -and MLV could be suitable for a split/station call. Having two services might lessen the business traveller (swiss example more so) x disney families vibe on the trains!

 

[Snow1964]

Alstom has announced 29th May that TGV-M has been granted marketing authorisation by European Railways Authority. This means can effectively be used by open access operators across EU country boundaries

Now I realise HS1 and Channel tunnel not strictly part of pan EU rail standards, but effectively shadow it. Of course Eurostar have ordered versions of TGV-M, as have some other operators.

Press contact - Corporate - Head of Media Relations​

Charles-Etienne Lebatard
Send an email

• ERA issues marketing authorisation for the TGV-M​

• Deliveries of trainsets in early summer and ramp-up in the second half of the year​

• An exceptional phase of pre-commercial running under real-world conditions on the French railway network before passengers are welcomed aboard this new train named TGV INOUI​

• The first passengers will be welcomed on board the new TGV INOUI trains at the start of the new school year, in early September​

29 May 2026 - TGV-M has obtained its marketing authorisation, issued by the European Railways Agency (ERA).
The assessment confirmed the TGV-M’s compliance with safety and interoperability requirements. The quality of the preparatory work and the cooperation of all stakeholders contributed to the smooth progress of the evaluation, marking one of the final milestones towards the train’s commercial service.

TGV-M has been granted marketing authorisation by the ERA and is taking the final steps before welcoming its first passengers

ERA issues marketing authorisation for the TGV-M Deliveries of trainsets in early summer and ramp-up in the second half of the year

www.alstom.com

 

[TheWierdOne]

Alstom has announced 29th May that TGV-M has been granted marketing authorisation by European Railways Authority. This means can effectively be used by open access operators across EU country boundaries

Now I realise HS1 and Channel tunnel not strictly part of pan EU rail standards, but effectively shadow it. Of course Eurostar have ordered versions of TGV-M, as have some other operators.

TGV-M has been granted marketing authorisation by the ERA and is taking the final steps before welcoming its first passengers

ERA issues marketing authorisation for the TGV-M Deliveries of trainsets in early summer and ramp-up in the second half of the year

www.alstom.com

The TGV M is the basis for Eurostar’s new order of double decker trains so I imagine this will be no small amount of lubricant for the Channel Tunnel approval process. Does anyone know if ERA approval is recognised in any form by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority?

 

[zwk500]

The TGV M is the basis for Eurostar’s new order of double decker trains so I imagine this will be no small amount of lubricant for the Channel Tunnel approval process. Does anyone know if ERA approval is recognised in any form by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority?

ERA is recognised as an approver for the french half of the channel tunnel by the ORR guidance for international operators: https://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-07/international-rail-operators-gb-guidance.pdf

The listing of the IGC separately indicates that separate approval would be needed by the IGC (the body that sits above the CTSA) to operate the TGV-M as far as ashford, and additional approval by the ORR to run it as far as St Pancras.
However, the difference in practice between IGC/ORR standards and ERA ones is likely very, very small for HS1 and the Channel Tunnel.

Indeed, the next paragraph states that the RIR 2011 was based on the previous EU directive:

4.7 The Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 (as amended) (RIR 2011) came into force on 16 January 2012 and implemented the EC Directive 2008/57/EC on the interoperability of the UK rail system. Interoperability in the EU is now based on EC Directive 2016/797/EC which replaced EC Directive 2008/57/EC.

 

[Sorcerer]

The listing of the IGC separately indicates that separate approval would be needed by the IGC (the body that sits above the CTSA) to operate the TGV-M as far as ashford, and additional approval by the ORR to run it as far as St Pancras.
However, the difference in practice between IGC/ORR standards and ERA ones is likely very, very small for HS1 and the Channel Tunnel.

In that case I am confident the trains will be approved for use in the UK on HS1. I would've honestly expected Channel Tunnel safety regulations to be the main hurdle. If Eurostar weren't confident in these trains I doubt they would've ordered them, or at least kept the option for an extra batch of units in the initial order.

 

[zwk500]

In that case I am confident the trains will be approved for use in the UK on HS1. I would've honestly expected Channel Tunnel safety regulations to be the main hurdle. If Eurostar weren't confident in these trains I doubt they would've ordered them, or at least kept the option for an extra batch of units in the initial order.

Specifically the 2013 Channel Tunnel (Safety) Order Says:

CHAPTER 5
Provisions relating to additional authorisation for placing in service of vehicles

61. A vehicle which has a first authorisation for placing in service in a Member State of the European Union, where the first authorisation was not issued by the Intergovernmental Commission shall not be operated on the Fixed Link unless it has an additional authorisation from the Intergovernmental Commission or unless Article 62 applies.

62. Vehicles in complete conformity with TSIs covering all aspects of the relevant subsystems without specific cases and without open points strictly related to technical compatibility between vehicle and network shall not be subject to any additional authorisation for placing in service if the Fixed Link conforms with all TSIs or if the vehicles run under the conditions specified in any corresponding TSIs.

63. The Intergovernmental Commission shall determine a valid application for an additional authorisation in accordance with the applicable provisions of Articles 21, 23, 25 and 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC. In order for an application to be valid the application must be made in accordance with:

(a) the provisions of Articles 23 and 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC when the vehicle conforms to the TSIs but when Article 62 does not apply.​

(b) the provisions of Articles 25 and 26 of Directive 2008/57/EC when the vehicle does not conform to all the relevant TSIs.​

The applicant shall retain a copy of the file submitted under Article 23(3) or 25(2) of Directive 2008/57/EC throughout the service life of the vehicle. If requested by the safety authority of a Member State the applicant shall send a copy of the file to that authority.

So if the vehicles conform with Directive 2008/57/EC then approval for the channel tunnel should be reasonably smooth.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Specifically the 2013 Channel Tunnel (Safety) Order Says:

So if the vehicles conform with Directive 2008/57/EC then approval for the channel tunnel should be reasonably smooth.

This should put to rest the speculation that the TGV-M would not comply with evacuation rules. Indeed, I would presume that if Eurostar can get these approved, Trenitalia and Virgin Trains will have little issue getting their respective choices of rolling stock approved either. They have both gone for more conventional options, one of which, the Frecciarossa 1000, is already approved for operation in the French half of the Tunnel given it has ERA approval.

 

[Austriantrain]

They have both gone for more conventional options, one of which, the Frecciarossa 1000, is already approved for operation in the French half of the Tunnel given it has ERA approval.

Is that certain? I have always understood it to be the case that line specific restrictions - provided they are not discriminatory of course - remain in place. A Vectron could have ERA authorisation for France, but still not allowed to run on an LGV due to axle load. The same might apply to the evacuation rules on the Channel tunnel.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Is that certain? I have always understood it to be the case that line specific restrictions - provided they are not discriminatory of course - remain in place. A Vectron could have ERA authorisation for France, but still not allowed to run on an LGV due to axle load. The same might apply to the evacuation rules on the Channel tunnel.

The Italians have bulked up an existing order of Freccias to have enough trains for their London services. Given that they haven’t ordered a variant or modified version one must assume they checked via a back channel that the existing product would be acceptable.

 

[Austriantrain]

The Italians have bulked up an existing order of Freccias to have enough trains for their London services. Given that they haven’t ordered a variant or modified version one must assume they checked via a back channel that the existing product would be acceptable.

I would believe they did. What I pointed out is that ERA approval for France might not automatically mean that the trains are allowed to run on the French half of the tunnel.

 

[Sorcerer]

As I understand it the Freccia 1000s have similar tunnel safety and fireproofing requirements in Italy and are already running in France, so I think if anything they'll be more predisposed to authorisation for Channel Tunnel and HS1 use.

 

[Farnborough]

I should have said "people don't tend to connect between short and short haul flights" - eg, going LHR-AMS-FCO or something.

Given Heathrow's lack of UK connections, there are lots of UK regional flights to CDG, AMS, FRA and MUC for onward European flights

I'm doing exactly that (LHR-FRA-regional) tomorrow... the return to Frankfurt will be by train (out of curiosity, 2½ hours train v 45 minute flight...)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2026 ==

SBB, SNCF and Eurostar have signed a memorandum of understanding to launch direct UK-CH trains, targeting the 2030s.

https://news.sbb.ch/de/019e081f-eeb...-direktverbindung-schweizlondon-unterzeichnet (In German)

According to studies, direct connections with a journey time of 6 hours between Zurich and London, 5 hours between Basel and London, and 5.5 hours between Geneva and London should meet market demand and the expectations of international travelers.

Compare with 1:15 to 1:50 by air, and ~£200 return (Swiss from LHR, or BA from LCY)

 

[Bald Rick]

Compare with 1:15 to 1:50 by air, and ~£200 return (Swiss from LHR, or BA from LCY)

That’s the flight time, not the origin to destination time.

No doubt the plane generally will be quicker between London and Switzerland, but not necessarily for every journey.

The plane is still quicker than the train for Canary Wharf to Machelen, but there’s not many people doing that. The l,ane os also wuicker London - Inverness or Aberdeen, but there’s still plenty who take the train. And Inverness / Aberdeen are - let’s be honest - not quite the economic centres that Geneva and Zurich are.