Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[Krokodil]

I suppose that if you've been told "no capacity for processing passengers at St Pancras" then Stratford is the next best option.

 

[zwk500]

Well that is a titillating piece of information. Given that the chaps in charge of Gemini/Uber are not novices when it comes to rail, one has to assume they have got some form of understanding with LSPH/HS1 as to how trains will be turned at Stratford. One presumes that either they will deadhead to St Pancras or that they’ve convinced an investor to shell out on some hefty track works.

The track works required would be unacceptably disruptive. Dead-heading is the most likely option, although they may have decided they can find capacity for the bang-road moves.

 

[Sorcerer]

I suppose that if you've been told "no capacity for processing passengers at St Pancras" then Stratford is the next best option.

Could Stratford manage the same level of service as St. Pancras though? If I'm not mistaken it was only designed as some kind of London stop for regional Eurostar that never came to be, and the station with just two platforms for the international services certainly wasn't built with potential to be a terminus. Plus St. Pancras actually gets you into Central London so on a personal level if I wanted to run some Cross-Channel services I'd much prefer it over Stratford.

 

[zwk500]

Could Stratford manage the same level of service as St. Pancras though?

No.

If I'm not mistaken it was only designed as some kind of London stop for regional Eurostar that never came to be, and the station with just two platforms for the international services certainly wasn't built with potential to be a terminus.

AIUI Stratford is basically the same size passenger terminal as Ebbsfleet International. Trains reversing in the international platforms must make a wrong-direction move at some point for quite a significant length to do so, so the reversing capacity will be seriously limited. The alternative would be to run to St Pancras and reverse on the chords there.

 

[Sorcerer]

AIUI Stratford is basically the same size passenger terminal as Ebbsfleet International. Trains reversing in the international platforms must make a wrong-direction move at some point for quite a significant length to do so, so the reversing capacity will be seriously limited. The alternative would be to run to St Pancras and reverse on the chords there.

In that case you might as well just run into St Pancras and use the terminal. Stratford might be feasible as a stop if the HS1-HS2 chord was still going to be built, but as it stands that's dead in the water.

 

[jon0844]

In that case you might as well just run into St Pancras and use the terminal. Stratford might be feasible as a stop if the HS1-HS2 chord was still going to be built, but as it stands that's dead in the water.

What was the original plan (which obviously became a decision not to bother very soon after spending a lot of money)?

Was Stratford International just to be a pick up/drop off station on services always starting and ending at St Pancras? I assume that would be the case.

However, if you could alleviate some capacity issues at St Pancras by having some low-cost trains terminate early, even if they go into St Pancras to reverse, there might be some maths that shows it as being worthwhile. The money spent at Stratford might be less than needed at St Pancras, and while I realise some people will say the trains ending at Stratford is in the middle of nowhere, it really isn't when you look at the connectivity - not just by train, but bus and even the local areas which are accessible on foot, bike etc.

I know there will be major works at St Pancras at some point, but you can get rid of a lot of the problems by reinstating the other stops so not everyone uses St Pancras. The downsides are having to staff the other stations and the dwell times making services slower - but if we get more services (which then justifies the higher staffing costs) then it surely is a win in the long run? Especially if prices become more competitive.

 

[Cach17]

What was the original plan (which obviously became a decision not to bother very soon after spending a lot of money)?

Was Stratford International just to be a pick up/drop off station on services always starting and ending at St Pancras? I assume that would be the case.

However, if you could alleviate some capacity issues at St Pancras by having some low-cost trains terminate early, even if they go into St Pancras to reverse, there might be some maths that shows it as being worthwhile. The money spent at Stratford might be less than needed at St Pancras, and while I realise some people will say the trains ending at Stratford is in the middle of nowhere, it really isn't when you look at the connectivity - not just by train, but bus and even the local areas which are accessible on foot, bike etc.

I know there will be major works at St Pancras at some point, but you can get rid of a lot of the problems by reinstating the other stops so not everyone uses St Pancras. The downsides are having to staff the other stations and the dwell times making services slower - but if we get more services (which then justifies the higher staffing costs) then it surely is a win in the long run? Especially if prices become more competitive.

The original intended purpose of Stratford Int'l was to be the London stop for Regional Eurostar services running directly between the North of England/Scotland and Paris/Brussels, an idea which was put on hold and eventually cancelled before construction on the station even started.

Pretty lucky that the 2012 Olympics saved it from being a total white elephant.

 

[popeter45]

The original intended purpose of Stratford Int'l was to be the London stop for Regional Eurostar services running directly between the North of England/Scotland and Paris/Brussels, an idea which was put on hold and eventually cancelled before construction on the station even started.

Pretty lucky that the 2012 Olympics saved it from being a total white elephant.

with how many of the common eurostar suggestions of stratford and switzerland are being talked about now as real ideas, how long till one of these companies restarts the idea of Manchester-Paris using the class 895's?

 

[zwk500]

with how many of the common eurostar suggestions of stratford and switzerland are being talked about now as real ideas, how long till one of these companies restarts the idea of Manchester-Paris using the class 895's?

A very, very long time. There is no HS1-HS2 connection, and the way both railways have been built means one is not going to be possible to build for a very long time (mostly politically/financially). The connection then would would run HS1- Camden Town - Primrose Hill - WCML Slows - Wembley North Jn (cross to WCML Fasts). And then it's another 2h20 to Manchester. You're looking at nearer 5h Manchester-Paris than 4h, which would be fine if there was no need for check-in, but against getting to Manchester airport and flying to CDG, the additional hour for checkin doesn't make it overly attractive...

 

[Shrop]

A very, very long time. There is no HS1-HS2 connection, and the way both railways have been built means one is not going to be possible to build for a very long time (mostly politically/financially). The connection then would would run HS1- Camden Town - Primrose Hill - WCML Slows - Wembley North Jn (cross to WCML Fasts). And then it's another 2h20 to Manchester. You're looking at nearer 5h Manchester-Paris than 4h, which would be fine if there was no need for check-in, but against getting to Manchester airport and flying to CDG, the additional hour for checkin doesn't make it overly attractive...

HS2 should have facilitated Birmingham to Paris in around 3h, and Manchester and/or Leeds to Paris in around 4h, both of which would have been attractive propositions. Then just another couple of hours more to Amsterdam/Frankfurt/Cologne/Lyon, and a further hour to Marseille/Bordeaux/Geneva etc. Night trains should have been easy options to all of these places from well inside the UK, including from Newcastle/Edinburgh/Glasgow.

However, in cross-channel transport terms the UK has gone backwards from EU days when the absence of joining Schengen already forced an additional hour on to every journey thanks to border controls. Then the HS1-HS2 link was scrapped, which firmly consigns much hope of additional cross-channel journeys by train deep into the rubbish heap, beyond the limited journeys that already exist.

At a personal level, in my youth I saw great hope for future transport and travel both within and beyond the UK, blindly believing that getting between places by efficient means was the way forward. Oh how I wish I'd realised back then, that travel and transport would always have to play second/third/fourth fiddle to security concerns, planning preferences for financial gains, political disinterest and even outright stupidity, and that's before we even start on the passionate hatred of so many British people for travelling in the company of other people unless it absolutely can't be avoided. Okay, that's my rant for this morning over

 

[zwk500]

HS2 should have facilitated Birmingham to Paris in around 3h, and Manchester and/or Leeds to Paris in around 4h, both of which would have been attractive propositions. Then just another couple of hours more to Amsterdam/Frankfurt/Cologne/Lyon, and a further hour to Marseille/Bordeaux/Geneva etc. Night trains should have been easy options to all of these places from well inside the UK, including from Newcastle/Edinburgh/Glasgow.

However, in cross-channel transport terms the UK has gone backwards from EU days when the absence of joining Schengen already forced an additional hour on to every journey thanks to border controls. Then the HS1-HS2 link was scrapped, which firmly consigns much hope of additional cross-channel journeys by train deep into the rubbish heap, beyond the limited journeys that already exist.

At a personal level, in my youth I saw great hope for future transport and travel both within and beyond the UK, blindly believing that getting between places by efficient means was the way forward. Oh how I wish I'd realised back then, that travel and transport would always have to play second/third/fourth fiddle to security concerns, planning preferences for financial gains, political disinterest and even outright stupidity, and that's before we even start on the passionate hatred of so many British people for travelling in the company of other people unless it absolutely can't be avoided. Okay, that's my rant for this morning over

FWIW, I am also extremely frustrated that HS1 was not built with serious provision for onward connectivity to a future UK HSR network. However, we are now where we are.

 

[D6130]

HS2 should have facilitated Birmingham to Paris in around 3h, and Manchester and/or Leeds to Paris in around 4h, both of which would have been attractive propositions. Then just another couple of hours more to Amsterdam/Frankfurt/Cologne/Lyon, and a further hour to Marseille/Bordeaux/Geneva etc. Night trains should have been easy options to all of these places from well inside the UK, including from Newcastle/Edinburgh/Glasgow.

However, in cross-channel transport terms the UK has gone backwards from EU days when the absence of joining Schengen already forced an additional hour on to every journey thanks to border controls. Then the HS1-HS2 link was scrapped, which firmly consigns much hope of additional cross-channel journeys by train deep into the rubbish heap, beyond the limited journeys that already exist.

At a personal level, in my youth I saw great hope for future transport and travel both within and beyond the UK, blindly believing that getting between places by efficient means was the way forward. Oh how I wish I'd realised back then, that travel and transport would always have to play second/third/fourth fiddle to security concerns, planning preferences for financial gains, political disinterest and even outright stupidity, and that's before we even start on the passionate hatred of so many British people for travelling in the company of other people unless it absolutely can't be avoided. Okay, that's my rant for this morning over

I have to say that I fully agree with you!

 

[Sorcerer]

What was the original plan (which obviously became a decision not to bother very soon after spending a lot of money)?

Was Stratford International just to be a pick up/drop off station on services always starting and ending at St Pancras? I assume that would be the case.

However, if you could alleviate some capacity issues at St Pancras by having some low-cost trains terminate early, even if they go into St Pancras to reverse, there might be some maths that shows it as being worthwhile. The money spent at Stratford might be less than needed at St Pancras, and while I realise some people will say the trains ending at Stratford is in the middle of nowhere, it really isn't when you look at the connectivity - not just by train, but bus and even the local areas which are accessible on foot, bike etc.

I know there will be major works at St Pancras at some point, but you can get rid of a lot of the problems by reinstating the other stops so not everyone uses St Pancras. The downsides are having to staff the other stations and the dwell times making services slower - but if we get more services (which then justifies the higher staffing costs) then it surely is a win in the long run? Especially if prices become more competitive.

The plan was originally for Stratford to serve as the London stop for regional Eurostar services from the north that never happened. Low-cost trains terminating early at Stratford might relieve capacity at St Pancras but the logistics of turning the train around would be a nightmare. I would certainly say the Kent stops should be restored on some trains so passengers don't have to double-back at St. Pancras.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

and that's before we even start on the passionate hatred of so many British people for travelling in the company of other people unless it absolutely can't be avoided. Okay, that's my rant for this morning over

What?

 

[Shrop]

What?

That's not a very clear question, would you care to elaborate?

 

[jfowkes]

Trains reversing in the international platforms must make a wrong-direction move at some point for quite a significant length to do so, so the reversing capacity will be seriously limited.

Is there anything special about the international platforms that means international services *must* use them? It is just the extra length, under the assumption that any international services would need that?

 

[JamesT]

Is there anything special about the international platforms that means international services *must* use them? It is just the extra length, under the assumption that any international services would need that?

I seem to recall they're at a different height, European 760mm instead of UK 915mm. They had to put boarding on top to make them usable for the Javelin shuttles during the Olympics.

 

[zwk500]

Is there anything special about the international platforms that means international services *must* use them? It is just the extra length, under the assumption that any international services would need that?

I seem to recall they're at a different height, European 760mm instead of UK 915mm. They had to put boarding on top to make them usable for the Javelin shuttles during the Olympics.

Different height, 400m vs 260m long, different distance from the rail for UIC gauge stock, and designed to be within the secure perimeter. If an operator bought UK-compatible rolling stock that's 200m long, they'd still need to use the international platforms unless the Home Office either agreed to some form of temporary barrier to separate off a platform from the Javelin or (extremely unlikely) gave an exemption from security.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

That's not a very clear question, would you care to elaborate?

I didn't know what you were alluding to, do you mean that British people don't like travelling in couchette style accommodation?

 

[StephenHunter]

I didn't know what you were alluding to, do you mean that British people don't like travelling in couchette style accommodation?

Well, we've not exactly had any since Grouping.

 

[AndrewE]

I didn't know what you were alluding to, do you mean that British people don't like travelling in couchette style accommodation?

I interpreted it as "them" being devoted to their little steel cubes where they don't have to put any effort into getting to a station, think about complying with the constraints of a timetable (let alone reservations on specific services) - or mix with other people en route.

 

[BerkshireRails]

There have also been noises about demolishing the international flyover to allow the Windsor lines to get a 4th track back.

Would it be rebuilt as a single line for SE diversion moves?

 

[zwk500]

Would it be rebuilt as a single line for SE diversion moves?

Almost certainly not, as rebuilding it would be vast cost for essentially no benefit. However the high-level discussion I was involved with on it was also relying on assumptions around things like Crossrail 2 and ETCS being fully fitted to the Waterloo approaches, so it's a *very* long way off ever happening.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Would it be rebuilt as a single line for SE diversion moves?

That would be tremendously sad.

 

[Shrop]

I didn't know what you were alluding to, do you mean that British people don't like travelling in couchette style accommodation?

No, I was alluding to the fact that outside of larger urban areas, there is a huge preference for people to use their cars rather than public transport. Ask local authorities and bus companies, and indeed train companies about running public transport at off peak times outside urban areas. And yet look at the vast numbers of single car occupants who commute to work, or do other trips etc, even when public transport is available. The car is a superb innovation, but pandering to it to the extent that we do, often makes travelling very inefficient.

 

[Sorcerer]

Just watched part of an episode of the Green Signals podcast on YouTube (specifically Ep 99) which included an interview with Jon Worth. The takeaway I got from it is that while Virgin's bid is most friendly to the ORR in terms of trains getting maintenance at Temple Mills, Trenitalia have the lowest risk when it comes to the actual rolling stock order despite the fact heavy maintenance might end up taking place far away in Milan.

While he casts a question mark on whether a New Pendolino design be built to 300km/h capability (which I believe that it can be through use of AGV technology), Trenitalia already have a rock-solid agreement with Hitachi Rail Italy over Frecciarossa 1000 sets that are already compatible with French signalling and strict tunnel fire regulations. A rather intriguing interview, and after that I think the spare capacity will ultimately be contested between Virgin and Trenitalia.

 

[Amalie]

I’m not sure if this was already discussed, but Trenitalia already having operational sets is a huge plus. Assuming the current units already meet Channel tunnel requirements, they could start the certification process next week if they were so inclined, as well as the certification for Belgium and The Netherlands.

Production for new trains can also be started up relatively quick and without the usual teething problems that come from producing entirely new train types.

 

[LLivery]

As seen in another post in the International Threads, DB announced some improvements yesterday.

With a map in an Instagram post, they confirm plans for a London connection and it being a day service. But most interestingly, it shows the London service as London > Brussels > Köln > Frankfurt > Berlin, with the title roughly translating into 'more trains, more connections, more Europe: direct connections to European cities'.

The map might not have the routing correct, but it could very well be.



I did see in the press that Berlin was mentioned when the UK & DE Governments signed the MOU, but I think many of us thought it was more of a mistake ie (London and Berlin agree to sign) and from what I've seen, Eurostar has recently only been talking about Frankfurt, not even Köln.

So this would suggest, if it's not Eurostar, then quite possibly DB wants to run Berlin - London via Frankfurt.

 

[TheWierdOne]

As seen in another post in the International Threads, DB announced some improvements yesterday.

With a map in an Instagram post, they confirm plans for a London connection and it being a day service. But most interestingly, it shows the London service as London > Brussels > Köln > Frankfurt > Berlin, with the title roughly translating into 'more trains, more connections, more Europe: direct connections to European cities'.

The map might not have the routing correct, but it could very well be.

View attachment 187269

I did see in the press that Berlin was mentioned when the UK & DE Governments signed the MOU, but I think many of us thought it was more of a mistake ie (London and Berlin agree to sign) and from what I've seen, Eurostar has recently only been talking about Frankfurt, not even Köln.

So this would suggest, if it's not Eurostar, then quite possibly DB wants to run Berlin - London via Frankfurt.

Well that is interesting. Could Eurostar do a collaboration with DB, such as DB crewing the train from Berlin to Frankfurt, and Eurostar taking it on to London? They both use Velaro sets so crew training wouldn’t be an issue

 

[BerkshireRails]

Well that is interesting. Could Eurostar do a collaboration with DB, such as DB crewing the train from Berlin to Frankfurt, and Eurostar taking it on to London? They both use Velaro sets so crew training wouldn’t be an issue

DB and Eurostar might have to do Crewe training for the different safety systems featured on the parts of the route. Just to make sure they know how to fix it.