DB purchase of EWS and its effects

[greysleuth]

Dear All,
Now that the go ahead has been given for DB (Deutche Bahnhof) to purchase EWS do you think it will effect EWS operations in UK ??
DB are long term users of Diesel Hydraulic traction, will we see a return of the format here? Voith Maxima the red answer to FLs new GE heavy weight?
What is DB policy on disposal of surplus assests and how will that effect Class 56, 58 and 60 storage or sale. Subject to gauging and signalling issues will we see DB ICE trains and Electric freight locos through the tunnel?
Discuss please
Your comments and views much appreciated.
Be lucky
David

 

[richa2002]

We could see ICEs (I wish!) to St. Pancras but that's something completely different.

 

[Bonemaster]

Other than ICEs failing to meet the channel tunnel safety rules, and that longer journey times to travel beyond Brussels may make it difficult to attract passengers from budget airlines may make it more of a pipe dream than anything likely to become a reality. DB Electric locos through the tunnel, although SNCF locos have been on Channel Tunnel services so its certainly not a possibility.

As for type 5 reinstatements given that so many are demic these days with years of water, and weather damage, no modern equipment and no traction knowledge new build if anything is most likely in my opinion

 

[Demps]

You will never see ICE trains through the tunnel, unless the tunnel has its rules changed, as ICE sets are too short, for the safety rules.

 

[richa2002]

Other than ICEs failing to meet the channel tunnel safety rules, and that longer journey times to travel beyond Brussels may make it difficult to attract passengers from budget airlines may make it more of a pipe dream than anything likely to become a reality. DB Electric locos through the tunnel, although SNCF locos have been on Channel Tunnel services so its certainly not a possibility.

As for type 5 reinstatements given that so many are demic these days with years of water, and weather damage, no modern equipment and no traction knowledge new build if anything is most likely in my opinion

As for no market, I personally don't think that's the case. Many people endure the cross over Paris or changing at Brussels which all end up adding an hour at the very least to the journey time.

 

[O L Leigh]

DB may hold the purse-strings and ultimately be in charge, but I can't see that the change of ownership will make much (if any) difference to EWS's loco allocation or acquisition policies. The "Bones" and "Grids" will remain out of service, and I can't see there being a wholesale reintroduction of "Tugs" either (unless they win a significant new freight flow that exceeds their current traction allocation).

As for the Chunnel, you won't see an ICE through there at all. As for freight workings, I suppose that would rely on them winning the relevant contracts/paths. However, why would DB use a continental loco when they could use an "Electro-Tug"?

one TN

 

[gordonthemoron]

You will never see ICE trains through the tunnel, unless the tunnel has its rules changed, as ICE sets are too short, for the safety rules.

ICE-2, ICE-3 & ICE-T frequently run as two units coupled together. That makes them 14 or 16 coaches long, and as the coaches themselves are longer than E* ones, I'd say that 2xICE would be longer than E*. However, ICE-T & ICE-2 don't go fast enough for CTRL, so the most likely suspect would be ICE-3 which can do 300kph

 

[Demps]

Yes, but did i say coupled units?

In the event of fire, the rules state.... Passengers must move down to a safe end of the train not on fire, all doors will then be closed behind, and the hazardous coaches uncoupled, The safe side of the set would then exit the tunnel under its own power.

With joined units, this is impossible to do safely. Although, it is a stupid rule.

 

[Sir_Clagalot]

The reason NR prefers HST sets with at least 5 coashes, is that in the event of a fire, passengers can get at least three coaches from the effected part of the train.
Not sure what the rules are for E*, but sounds like it could be you need a greater separation distance, given that E* coaches are articulated?

 

[gordonthemoron]

Whereas ICE coaches are not (articulated)

 

[Demps]

but sounds like it could be you need a greater separation distance, given that E* coaches are articulated?

nobody read what i said?

 

[O L Leigh]

The fire rules for the Tunnel may seem daft, but bear this in mind.

Fires in tunnels are nasty, vicious things. The tunnel effectively acts as a blast furnace, with the air current feeding in more oxygen and fanning the flames, thereby accelerating the fire massively. Remember the truck fire on the Shuttle some years back? The fire became so intense that it welded the train wheels to the rails and damaged the structure of the tunnel itself requiring extensive repairs.

As a result, all trains passing through the pipe must be top-and-tailed so that the train can be withdrawn from the tunnel in whichever direction is most suitable. Eurostars must also be capable of splitting and each half running independently. Therefore, if you get a fire on a Eurostar, the punters would be moved to the unaffected half, the train split and the good half withdrawn. It is the quickest and safest way to effect an evacuation under such circumstances.

one TN

 

[greysleuth]

I accept what you are all saying with regard to tunnel safety, however am I right in thinking that ICE sets already transit some substantial tunnels routing to Italy, Switzerland etc. With more European harmonisation / standardisation on the way, does this not increase the chances of an amendment to the rules, especially if the German government got involved??
Be lucky
David

 

[djw1981]

I doubt that European harmonisation would result in a reduction of the safety standards per se. having standards stricter than the law is rarely seen as a problem. Eurotunnel / Channel Tunnel safety commission are not restricting others using the available paths, but merely saying that they need to meet certain requirements.

 

[Callufrax]

Having just read David Haydock's Eurostar article in the latest issue of Today's Railways Europe, I can't help but agree with him about the daftness of the Channel Tunnel's strict safety regulations. It really does need to be relaxed.

As mentioned in a previous reply in this thread, the tunnel walls act as a furnace - which would damage the overhead very quickly. A train can't move without power.

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think that a relaxing of the safety standards is advisable. I've not read the article you mention so I don't know on what basis the author suggests it, but the standards are there for a reason and have served the tunnel users well so far. Unlike some of the European tunnels, the Chunnel is a seriously long bit of pipe.

Should the overheads be affected in the event of a fire, there are a number of contingencies. Firstly, power can be supplied to the overheads from either end. If the supply from one end fails, there's a chance that a supply could be established from the other end. If not and it is not otherwise possible to move a Eurostar half-set under it's own power, it could still be sealed off from the other half-set and at least act as a lifeboat for the passengers until the emergency services arrive or an evacuation could be arranged into the service tunnel.

one TN