Channel Tunnel capacity

[TheManOnThe172]

In her Guardian article yesterday (5 Aug 2025), Polly Toynbee says, of the Channel Tunnel, "Twelve trains an hour run each way, but the tunnel could run 2.5 times more".

Pedantically, 2.5 times more would be 42 trains per hour (12 + (2.5*12)). Assuming that she really only means 2.5 times as many, that would still be 30 trains per hour in each direction.

I know that some tube lines manage this, including stops, but at speeds of c160kmph my instinct is that separation distances would mean a lower limit. Is there an established figure for how many trains per hour you could reliably achieve?

 

[signed]

The Channel Tunnel is at the forefront of rail power technology and is increasing its transport capacity - Newsroom Getlink

Implementation of the world's most powerful STATCOM device in partnership with GE - Newsroom Getlink

press.getlinkgroup.com

Getlink claims up therotically to 1000 trains per day with 16 simultaneous, which lines up with the 42tph over 24h, but that would be only 24tph each direction/h.

Eurotunnel will be able to run up to 16 latest generation trains simultaneously through the Channel Tunnel, i.e up to 1,000 trains per day, confirming its potential to develop low-carbon cross-Channel transport. STATCOM technology will ensure the long-term performance of Eurotunnel's infrastructure and open up new growth opportunities by facilitating access to cross-Channel services for new generation high-speed trains.

Of course that won't happen, there would never be enough paths on both sides, especially on the French side, to allow 16 trains at a time in the tunnel

 

[zwk500]

In her Guardian article yesterday (5 Aug 2025), Polly Toynbee says, of the Channel Tunnel, "Twelve trains an hour run each way, but the tunnel could run 2.5 times more".

Pedantically, 2.5 times more would be 42 trains per hour (12 + (2.5*12)). Assuming that she really only means 2.5 times as many, that would still be 30 trains per hour in each direction.

The claim of 2.5 times more seems to be based on the ET statement that it could run 1,000 trains per day and that it's currently running 400 tpd. There's always an issue scaling trains per day to trains per hour or vice versa.

I know that some tube lines manage this, including stops, but at speeds of c160kmph my instinct is that separation distances would mean a lower limit. Is there an established figure for how many trains per hour you could reliably achieve?

The tunnel is fitted with TVM-430 in-cab which also provides ATP protection so the separation distances would probably allow a headway of 3 minutes or lower. HS1 at 300kph is 3 minutes headway on the main line throughout. The bigger issue for the tunnel is utilising it's capacity efficiently with the mix of freight, shuttles coming from a stand, and Eurostar (or others in future) wanting the minimum delay on entry to the tunnel. AFAIK there's no publicly available fixed TPRs for Getlink (possibly because the Tunnel plans it's margins dynamically using the planning system rather than against a big book of rules).

 

[Trainbike46]

The Channel Tunnel is at the forefront of rail power technology and is increasing its transport capacity - Newsroom Getlink

Implementation of the world's most powerful STATCOM device in partnership with GE - Newsroom Getlink

press.getlinkgroup.com

Getlink claims up therotically to 1000 trains per day with 16 simultaneous, which lines up with the 42tph over 24h, but that would be only 24tph each direction/h.


Of course that won't happen, there would never be enough paths on both sides, especially on the French side, to allow 16 trains at a time in the tunnel

Remember lots of the trains are the car shuttles that never leave the Getlink network

 

[Cloud Strife]

The claim of 2.5 times more seems to be based on the ET statement that it could run 1,000 trains per day and that it's currently running 400 tpd. There's always an issue scaling trains per day to trains per hour or vice versa.

I believe it was a historical limit of 400, not that it's currently hosting 400. Now they're up to around 1000 in theory, and there was some talk a while ago about how they could ramp up to 1200 and beyond if they had ERTMS installed.

As I understand it, it's still massively under capacity. The vehicle operation doesn't run anywhere near as often as it could, and there's space reserved in both Folkestone and Calais for expanding the boarding areas. Calais has space for 4-6 new tracks within the current infrastructure, same with Folkestone, and there's plenty of space on both sites for expanded border control / security facilities. The staging areas for cars can also be easily expanded.

The problem is the enormous debt that Getlink have. They're around 3.5bn in debt, and while they want more passenger trains, they're very unlikely to invest in expanding the passenger/freight operations. There's also a certain level of politics: it would be very unacceptable to the French unions to attack the ferry operations too strongly, although they easily could finance another 9 car trains and demolish the ferries when it comes to a price war.

Eurotunnel's aim from the beginning was to get rid of the ferries from Dover-Calais by 2000, and everything about the original operation suggests that it was meant to be as easy as driving on any other toll road. It might still happen, but the current operation has large gaps between departures (for example, between 07:36 and 08:24 from Folkestone, or even 12:36 - 13:36 in summer!) and is highly optimized in terms of revenue as opposed to frequency.

 

[Sorcerer]

The 1,000 trains per day is probably more of a theoretical capacity than an actual one, and as we learned from the ORR rejecting open access applications not every available path can be granted because you'd need some room for error and late-running or else you risk losing efficiency in operation. However, the TVM-430 signalling allows 3-minute headways, and the difference in speed between trains in the tunnel is mostly consistent with passenger trains at 160km/h, and shuttle trains at 140km/h.

 

[zwk500]

I believe it was a historical limit of 400, not that it's currently hosting 400. Now they're up to around 1000 in theory,

If you follow the link from Toynbee's Guardian article it takes you to a Euronews Article https://www.euronews.com/business/2...rs-cash-to-attract-new-cross-channel-services, with the following comment:

The chief executive of Getlink, Yann Leriche, told the FT: "We have a lot of room, including at peak time. I think there is potential to have more high speed trains and freight trains."

Leriche told the Financial Times that he believes that the tunnel has the capacity for 1,000 trains a day but that currently it is only used by around 400.

Which strongly suggests he means 400 trains are using it today.

and there was some talk a while ago about how they could ramp up to 1200 and beyond if they had ERTMS installed.

ETCS might get them a hypothetical 1200 tpd total (600tpd each way = 24tph = 1 train every 2m24s), but I suspect it'd be a bit like the Brighton Main Line's hypothetical capacity is 30tph because it has a 2 minute fast headway.

 

[Bemined]

However, the TVM-430 signalling allows 3-minute headways, and the difference in speed between trains in the tunnel is mostly consistent with passenger trains at 160km/h, and shuttle trains at 140km/h.

But shuttle trains have to reach that speed first, while through trains are already at full speed when they enter the shared section. So to have a 3 minute headway in the tunnel, the headway upon entry has to be less than that, and upon exit the shuttle train will slow down while the through train would like to continue at line speed, again reducing the headway.

 

[Sorcerer]

But shuttle trains have to reach that speed first, while through trains are already at full speed when they enter the shared section. So to have a 3 minute headway in the tunnel, the headway upon entry has to be less than that, and upon exit the shuttle train will slow down while the through train would like to continue at line speed, again reducing the headway.

Indeed, which is why the thousand trains per day seems more like a theoretical capacity than a practical one. I simply wanted to point out that the differences in speed aren't quite so drastic that they would eat up capacity to the same extent as a full mixed-traffic railway (and perhaps I am misjudged on that one too).

 

[zwk500]

But shuttle trains have to reach that speed first, while through trains are already at full speed when they enter the shared section. So to have a 3 minute headway in the tunnel, the headway upon entry has to be less than that, and upon exit the shuttle train will slow down while the through train would like to continue at line speed, again reducing the headway.

The gradients are quite steep entering and leaving the tunnel, on one documentary I've seen the Shuttle driver commented that it was quite usual for her to need to hold the train on the brakes when entering the tunnel to avoid overspeeding. I think (but no expert so open to correction) that TVM-430 is able to give a lower speed authority with a train only just gone past and then as the train pulls away the speed authority would increase, allowing departures closer behind than 3 minutes. Certainly HS1 (also signalled with TVM-430) allows reduced headways when joining the line from a slower-speed route.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Which strongly suggests he means 400 trains are using it today.

I wonder if this isn't a mistake, because I can't see where they're getting 400 trains from. The LeShuttle car operation and the freight operation has around 10 departures per hour during the day during peak periods, so let's say 200 per day maximum. I don't know how many Eurostar has, but I'd be surprised if they've got more than 100 trains through the tunnel daily.

 

[signed]

I don't know how many Eurostar has

The Eurostar booking site shows 18 Paris, 9 Brussels/Amsterdam each way per weekday

 

[zwk500]

I wonder if this isn't a mistake, because I can't see where they're getting 400 trains from. The LeShuttle car operation and the freight operation has around 10 departures per hour during the day during peak periods, so let's say 200 per day maximum. I don't know how many Eurostar has, but I'd be surprised if they've got more than 100 trains through the tunnel daily.

400tpd is 200 each way, and that means a train every 7 minutes or so in each tunnel (8.33tph in each direction for a 24-hour period). [400/2 = 200, 200/24 = 8.33..., 60/8.33 = 7.2.]

8tph each way through the tunnel for the majority of the day isn't silly numbers, but of course HS1 and LGV Nord are closed from about 2330-0530 every night. So it suggests that with peak shuttle loads, Eurostar, plus some freight, 400 total isn't impossible to reach. However I also wouldn't be surprised if the 400tpd is either an extrapolation of a more limited sample or paths allocated rather than trains run.

 

[Snow1964]

However, the TVM-430 signalling allows 3-minute headways, and the difference in speed between trains in the tunnel is mostly consistent with passenger trains at 160km/h, and shuttle trains at 140km/h.

Fairly sure the TVM-430 in the tunnel has blocks of about 500m (much shorter than LGV line grand vitesse blocks where they are nearer 1500m long)

Don't need as many blocks clear when running at 160km/h instead of 320km/h as braking distance is lower, so in practice is nearer 2 - 2.4 minute headways (at 160km/h cover about 2.7km every minute).

TVM-430 data includes gradient profile, and I think 3 bits of the data (giving 8 types) even say what type of route it is : LGV, Eurotunnel, and some others route types

 

[zwk500]

Fairly sure the TVM-430 in the tunnel has blocks of about 500m (much shorter than LGV line grand vitesse blocks where they are nearer 1500m long)

Don't need as many blocks clear when running at 160km/h instead of 320km/h as braking distance is lower, so in practice is nearer 2 - 2.4 minute headways (at 160km/h cover about 2.7km every minute).

I expect the headway is dynamically calculated for each train depending on both the subject and preceding train's characteristics (and movements), rather than using a single set value. Eurotunnel certainly shouldn't have the issue of legacy data in setting up a suitable model in whichever planning system they use!

TVM-430 data includes gradient profile, and I think 3 bits of the data (giving 8 types) even say what type of route it is : LGV, Eurotunnel, and some others route types

AIUI the on-board TVM-430 computer needs to be specially parametered for the tunnel as the speeds are a lot lower and the gradients quite severe so the braking curves need to be calculated differently, hence the use of the route code data point.

 

[Taunton]

The 1,000 trains per day is probably more of a theoretical capacity than an actual one, and as we learned from the ORR rejecting open access applications not every available path can be granted because you'd need some room for error and late-running or else you risk losing efficiency in operation. However, the TVM-430 signalling allows 3-minute headways, and the difference in speed between trains in the tunnel is mostly consistent with passenger trains at 160km/h, and shuttle trains at 140km/h.

It doesn't quite seem consistent 140 km/h for the lorry shuttles if you get behind one on the climb out from the tunnel in a late-running Eurostar, which can progressively be heard to be running slower and slower. It's quite apparent that the lorry trains emerge onto the curved terminal tracks at nothing like 140 km/h. This in itself restricts capacity. There would be some capacity gain if everything cruised at the same speed, which would have to be 140 km/h, but the reduction from this on the climb out and terminal entry reduces things further.

It's also apparent from the way car shuttles are run that the operator's interest is running the minimum rather than maximum service. There's no published timetable to measure what is run or not, and at times of lesser demand if a round trip can be eliminated, with the cars (unknowingly) reallocated among the remainder, that happens. Presumably the same for the lorries.

For any normal company, initial construction loans should have been repaid by now, 30 years after completion, and day-to-day operations be cash positive, but by a series of financial manoeuvrings close to a Ponzi Scheme there are still very large amounts going out to the financial industry, who seem the principal and continuing beneficiaries of the project, while the initial promises of turn-up-and-go, both for cars and Eurostar, have been completely forgotten.

 

[Bald Rick]

The locos and car shuttles are now over 30 years old, and showing their age, and have never been refurbished from a passenger perspective (but will have had running gear overhauled no doubt). It won’t be too long before they need to be replaced, and I can’t imagine that will be cheap.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The locos and car shuttles are now over 30 years old, and showing their age, and have never been refurbished from a passenger perspective (but will have had running gear overhauled no doubt). It won’t be too long before they need to be replaced, and I can’t imagine that will be cheap.

The car shuttles are receiving a mid-life refresh now, and they should all be in service by next year. They don't really have a hard life, as LeShuttle only has departures every 30 minutes outside of high season. They'll be good for another 25-30 years, as they're quite simple things.

It's quite apparent that the lorry trains emerge onto the curved terminal tracks at nothing like 140 km/h. This in itself restricts capacity. There would be some capacity gain if everything cruised at the same speed, which would have to be 140 km/h, but the reduction from this on the climb out and terminal entry reduces things further.

I believe that the curved terminal tracks are limited to 80km/h in Folkestone, slowing down to 40km/h as they approach the platforms. They're 90km/h in Calais, with the 40km/h limit applying slightly later.

It's also apparent from the way car shuttles are run that the operator's interest is running the minimum rather than maximum service. There's no published timetable to measure what is run or not, and at times of lesser demand if a round trip can be eliminated, with the cars (unknowingly) reallocated among the remainder, that happens. Presumably the same for the lorries.

Yes, this has been the way since the ferries gave them a giant black eye in the mid to late 90s. What was supposed to be a 'turn up and go' system quite quickly became an operation that worked the same way as the ferries, and they've shown little interest in expanding the boarding areas or ordering more trains.

For any normal company, initial construction loans should have been repaid by now, 30 years after completion, and day-to-day operations be cash positive, but by a series of financial manoeuvrings close to a Ponzi Scheme there are still very large amounts going out to the financial industry, who seem the principal and continuing beneficiaries of the project, while the initial promises of turn-up-and-go, both for cars and Eurostar, have been completely forgotten.

I think the entire issue is that it was privately funded from the beginning, so they were having to run a fully commercial operation against the ferries, who had the benefit of the Port of Calais being heavily subsidised and the Port of Dover essentially being able to undercut them. The company is on the right track now, but I'd be very surprised if they ever approach anything like a decent turn-up-and-go service for cars. I think they're essentially happy to work with what they've got, and to leave the rest of the car traffic to the ferries rather than trying to eliminate the ferries.

The freight service on the other hand is fantastically flexible: each ticket is valid for the day of booking, plus one day either side. They also do a lot of turn-up-and-go ticket sales, and they have a clever system in place so that if you're a regular customer with them, you can transport your truck while turn-up-and-go customers are turned away. It's quite complicated to explain, but essentially if the capacity system is used, they automatically reserve you a certain amount of tickets, even if you don't use them.

I've looked at the concessionaire agreement, and the minimum service is this:

The Fixed Link shall be open day and night. The frequency of services will be determined by the Concessionaires on a commercial basis. However, the minimum service to be maintained shall be equivalent to one tourist shuttle and one commercial freight shuttle every half hour during the day and every hour during the night.

So the 30 minute schedule for cars is the bare minimum, but for freight, they're doing considerably more than that.

Interestingly, they were also obliged to help finance the road between the RN1 and the A16 / terminal in Calais. Also interestingly, the French and British governments have the right to create a concession for a road tunnel, although they were banned from doing so before 2010 (and it wasn't allowed to open until 2020) unless it was with the agreement of Getlink. There's more information here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jan/06/transport.uk

 

[quantinghome]

The Eurostar booking site shows 18 Paris, 9 Brussels/Amsterdam each way per weekday

So given Eurostar is a tiny proportion of the traffic through the tunnel, the tunnel itself is unlikely to be the constraint on growing Eurostar / other UK-Europe train services.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

When all stock is the same - see The Lizzy, it gets much easier to do one every 2 minutes. 30 an hour should easily be doable.

 

[Bald Rick]

When all stock is the same - see The Lizzy, it gets much easier to do one every 2 minutes. 30 an hour should easily be doable.

When all stock is the same, and (crucially) following exactly the same speed profile through the capacity constrained section. Which for the tunnel is not the case on either count, and could only apply if everythingfollowed the speed profile of the slowest train.

 

[Horizon22]

When all stock is the same - see The Lizzy, it gets much easier to do one every 2 minutes. 30 an hour should easily be doable.

Very technically it is 2.5 minutes right now. I know quibbling about 30 seconds seems petty, but it is the difference between 24tph and 30tph*, which is fairly considerable.

*This is theoretical maximum for Paddington - Whitechapel.

 

[jfowkes]

The locos and car shuttles are now over 30 years old, and showing their age, and have never been refurbished from a passenger perspective (but will have had running gear overhauled no doubt). It won’t be too long before they need to be replaced, and I can’t imagine that will be cheap.

I wonder how much the speed differential could be reduced with more modern locos for the shuttles. If the accel/decel profile can be improved, either by replacing the loco entirely or upgrading the power train, then it might be worth it to get more use out of the tunnel capacity.

 

[WibbleWobble]

It's also apparent from the way car shuttles are run that the operator's interest is running the minimum rather than maximum service. There's no published timetable to measure what is run or not, and at times of lesser demand if a round trip can be eliminated, with the cars (unknowingly) reallocated among the remainder, that happens. Presumably the same for the lorries.

Even at peak times, the maximum service isn't offered. It is usually a core half-hourly service (leaving either end at xx:24 and xx:54) with an extra third train (xx:36) running at peak traffic periods. The fourth (xx:06) is only offered at specific very high traffic periods.

Having recently used the Shuttle service, they were only running the core service where possible, with cancellations on the extras where they were able to put vehicles onto the one before or one after. And this was at the start of the summer holidays!

 

[BahrainLad]

I wonder how much the speed differential could be reduced with more modern locos for the shuttles. If the accel/decel profile can be improved, either by replacing the loco entirely or upgrading the power train, then it might be worth it to get more use out of the tunnel capacity.

According to

Eurotunnel Class 9 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

most if not all the originally ordered locomotives have already had their power upgraded once.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Eurotunnel's aim from the beginning was to get rid of the ferries from Dover-Calais by 2000, and everything about the original operation suggests that it was meant to be as easy as driving on any other toll road. It might still happen, but the current operation has large gaps between departures (for example, between 07:36 and 08:24 from Folkestone, or even 12:36 - 13:36 in summer!) and is highly optimized in terms of revenue as opposed to frequency.

What would have happened to Dover had the ferries been out-completed? Would it have been kept as a strategic back up?

 

[popeter45]

The locos and car shuttles are now over 30 years old, and showing their age, and have never been refurbished from a passenger perspective (but will have had running gear overhauled no doubt). It won’t be too long before they need to be replaced, and I can’t imagine that will be cheap.

if/when they replace the class 9's i hope its done at the same time as the 92's to end up with a unified fleet so they can be used for both and reduce freight locomotives sitting around as a result

many options for off the shelf orders that can do what the class 9's can do (Stadler eurodual look to fit the bill rather well)

 

[43096]

if/when they replace the class 9's i hope its done at the same time as the 92's to end up with a unified fleet so they can be used for both and reduce freight locomotives sitting around as a result

Why? They are completely different requirements, with different owners and operators. I would expect the Class 92 replacement for Tunnel duties to be a European standard design with appropriate signalling equipment, so would run through from elsewhere in Europe for productivity, rather than the theory behind Class 92 of running through from Calais to wherever in Britain.

many options for off the shelf orders that can do what the class 9's can do (Stadler eurodual look to fit the bill rather well)

I'm not sure there are that many off the shelf designs for the shuttle loco replacements. If the 7MW rating, six-axle design is still required - and it is hard to see why it would have changed - then it is the Stadler Euro9000 (minus the engines) that fits. If the curvature into the terminals needs two-axle bogies then there is nothing standard - that needs a repeat of the current Bo-Bo-Bo design and there is no standard product that meets that specification.

 

[Cloud Strife]

What would have happened to Dover had the ferries been out-completed? Would it have been kept as a strategic back up?

It's an interesting question. At the time of the concession being given, the A16 hadn't been built, so it's likely that with Sealink UK being privatised and Townsend Thoresen already being private, they would have expected that the Dover-Calais route would have ended (or at least transformed into a freight-only operation) while the Boulogne / Dunkerque / Oostende routes would continue from Dover. There were also the Folkestone routes, but they were never going to last against the Channel Tunnel, and they were dead with traditional ships even before the Channel Tunnel opened.

I suspect that a passenger/freight (with an open bow for hazardous goods) operation would have continued with at least one operator, but I don't think the Channel Tunnel operators really expected the ferries to fight back as viciously as they did. The division into a "British" (P&O) operation and a "French" operation (SeaFrance) also didn't hurt any, although arguably Stena (Sealink) lost there. The million dollar question is what would have happened if the Channel Tunnel had been genuinely a 'turn up and go' service from the beginning. But again, the Channel Tunnel wasn't set up for the huge amounts of duty free that the ferries were flogging, and the end of duty free sales in 1999 was really a big problem for the Channel Tunnel as the ferries could offer huge amounts of cigarettes and alcohol on a duty paid basis.

 

[TheWierdOne]

It's an interesting question. At the time of the concession being given, the A16 hadn't been built, so it's likely that with Sealink UK being privatised and Townsend Thoresen already being private, they would have expected that the Dover-Calais route would have ended (or at least transformed into a freight-only operation) while the Boulogne / Dunkerque / Oostende routes would continue from Dover. There were also the Folkestone routes, but they were never going to last against the Channel Tunnel, and they were dead with traditional ships even before the Channel Tunnel opened.

I suspect that a passenger/freight (with an open bow for hazardous goods) operation would have continued with at least one operator, but I don't think the Channel Tunnel operators really expected the ferries to fight back as viciously as they did. The division into a "British" (P&O) operation and a "French" operation (SeaFrance) also didn't hurt any, although arguably Stena (Sealink) lost there. The million dollar question is what would have happened if the Channel Tunnel had been genuinely a 'turn up and go' service from the beginning. But again, the Channel Tunnel wasn't set up for the huge amounts of duty free that the ferries were flogging, and the end of duty free sales in 1999 was really a big problem for the Channel Tunnel as the ferries could offer huge amounts of cigarettes and alcohol on a duty paid basis.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the concession on HS1 and the Chunnel expire. If they return to state control I wonder how they will be run.