Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[AlastairFraser]

Earliest date Virgin's international services will start is revealed

Virgin and London St Pancras Highspeed submit track access agreement for HS1.

www.railmagazine.com

Virgin have revealed via a draft track access agreement to the ORR that they plan to start services through the Chunnel in October 2030, with a gradual ramp up of services to full operation in October 2031.

Trenitalia are going for a 2029 start but haven’t submitted an application to the ORR yet.

No intermediate stops? That's not ideal for connectivity. I wonder how they're going to deal with overcrowding at St Pancras too

 

[D6130]

....and which paths would Trenitalia use?

 

[TheWierdOne]

No intermediate stops? That's not ideal for connectivity. I wonder how they're going to deal with overcrowding at St Pancras too

Being a private company I think profitability is their primary concern rather than connectivity. There is no mechanism to force an open access operator to stop at intermediate stations.

As for overcrowding I believe LSPH is undertaking measures to expand capacity before Virgin or Trenitalia start operations.

 

[cle]

No intermediate stops? That's not ideal for connectivity. I wonder how they're going to deal with overcrowding at St Pancras too

Short-haul flights don't connect, they offer P2P journeys. Clearly none of these companies, who have resources and planning - have determined that Ebbsfleet or Ashford are especially lucrative or useful to serve.

Eurostar haven't either - so it's likely true.

 

[NCT]

....and which paths would Trenitalia use?

Eurostar and Virgin won't use up all the paths. I suspect Eurostar will be allocated one half hour, and Virgin/Trenitalia share the other half hour.

 

[BRX]

I suspect Virgin will be quite keen for their brand to be as prominent as possible, even if it means sharing the space with Eurostar's branding. We may see 'Eurostar' replaced with 'International' on some of the direction wayfiding. (e.g. 'Eurostar Tickets' replaced with 'International Tickets').

In Brussels they call it "Channel Terminal"

 

[Sorcerer]

No intermediate stops? That's not ideal for connectivity. I wonder how they're going to deal with overcrowding at St Pancras too

If the DfT is prepared to prop up Ashford and Ebbsfleet then I'm sure Virgin will be glad to use it, but until then they will probably not have any intermediate stations except maybe Lille which makes perfect sense since it's a major hub station. For what it's worth high-speed rail isn't really supposed to have intermediate stops like Ashford and Ebbsfleet and is primary intended for connecting hub stations.

....and which paths would Trenitalia use?

Eurostar and Virgin won't use up all the paths. I suspect Eurostar will be allocated one half hour, and Virgin/Trenitalia share the other half hour.

HS1 is a dedicated high-speed railway, and with TVM430 you could theoretically run up to about 16 trains per hour. So Eurostar, Trentialia and Virgin could easily run three or four trains per hour. The real challenge would be capacity at St Pancras as well as lining up the service timings so they don't miss their path trough the Channel Tunnel which is why Eurostar departures that made stops in the UK would leave slightly earlier than non-stop xx:01/04 services.

 

[BRX]

HS1 is a dedicated high-speed railway, and with TVM430 you could theoretically run up to about 16 trains per hour.

Supposedly there are moves to encourage international freight onto HS1. How much more busy would it need to get with passenger services before there started to be a conflict in demands?

 

[Sorcerer]

Supposedly there are moves to encourage international freight onto HS1. How much more busy would it need to get with passenger services before there started to be a conflict in demands?

Hard to say but for the most part I believe HS1 freight runs at night? If so then you can spread demand out in that way by having freight trains run at night while passenger trains run during the day. The issue I take here though is high-speed railways are supposed to be dedicated to passenger traffic, so adding freight just seems inherently silly in my opinion.

 

[BRX]

Hard to say but for the most part I believe HS1 freight runs at night? If so then you can spread demand out in that way by having freight trains run at night while passenger trains run during the day. The issue I take here though is high-speed railways are supposed to be dedicated to passenger traffic, so adding freight just seems inherently silly in my opinion.

I think what's run so far has tended to be late at night/early in the morning, but it's never run in any significant volume. I think HS1 is quite often closed at night for maintenance so I don't think you could run freight continuously through the night.

 

[AdamWW]

\

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

Hard to say but for the most part I believe HS1 freight runs at night? If so then you can spread demand out in that way by having freight trains run at night while passenger trains run during the day. The issue I take here though is high-speed railways are supposed to be dedicated to passenger traffic, so adding freight just seems inherently silly in my opinion.

I'd argue that a railway line is supposed to be for what it was built to be.
Which in this case I presume is passenger and freight.

And it's not the only example of a line built to carry high speed passenger trains but also freight.

 

[Sorcerer]

I'd argue that a railway line is supposed to be for what it was built to be.
Which in this case I presume is passenger and freight.

And it's not the only example of a line built to carry high speed passenger trains but also freight.

Most railway lines are indeed built for passenger and freight, but HS1 is of a very specific kind that isn't. High-speed rail is intended to be passenger trains exclusively, and more specifically long-distance passenger trains serving hub stations only. I don't know of any new-build high-speed railways* that carry passengers and freight. I would be most surprised if it's common practice and not an outlier.

*I specifically refer to the definition of high-speed rail being either upgraded 200km/h lines or newly built lines of at least 250km/h. The Gotthard Base Tunnel is debatable because it's engineered for 250km/h but only runs at 200km/h normal service and 230km/h with delays. It's also not intended to be a high-speed line more so than a new logistical corridor through the Alps. This may be worth it's own discussion.

 

[Cach17]

Most railway lines are indeed built for passenger and freight, but HS1 is of a very specific kind that isn't. High-speed rail is intended to be passenger trains exclusively, and more specifically long-distance passenger trains serving hub stations only. I don't know of any new-build high-speed railways* that carry passengers and freight. I would be most surprised if it's common practice and not an outlier.

*I specifically refer to the definition of high-speed rail being either upgraded 200km/h lines or newly built lines of at least 250km/h. The Gotthard Base Tunnel is debatable because it's engineered for 250km/h but only runs at 200km/h normal service and 230km/h with delays. It's also not intended to be a high-speed line more so than a new logistical corridor through the Alps. This may be worth it's own discussion.

LGV Nîmes–Montpellier (opened in 2017/8) carries freight as well as passenger trains, though the latter only at a maximum speed of 220km/h rather than 300 or 320.

"It has the distinction of being the first ligne à grande vitesse to be intentionally built for mixed passenger and freight traffic."

 

[NCT]

If the DfT is prepared to prop up Ashford and Ebbsfleet then I'm sure Virgin will be glad to use it, but until then they will probably not have any intermediate stations except maybe Lille which makes perfect sense since it's a major hub station. For what it's worth high-speed rail isn't really supposed to have intermediate stops like Ashford and Ebbsfleet and is primary intended for connecting hub stations.

It is not.

HS1 is a dedicated high-speed railway, and with TVM430 you could theoretically run up to about 16 trains per hour. So Eurostar, Trentialia and Virgin could easily run three or four trains per hour. The real challenge would be capacity at St Pancras as well as lining up the service timings so they don't miss their path trough the Channel Tunnel which is why Eurostar departures that made stops in the UK would leave slightly earlier than non-stop xx:01/04 services.

Both HS1 and the Channel Tunnel are mixed speed railways with structures.

Channel tunnel handles a mixture of high-speed passenger trains at 160km/h, Le Shuttle at 140km/h, freight at 120km/h (IIRC), and the three speeds are charged different access rates. (I think I'm right in saying that) Le Shuttle is the 'reference path' and is charged the lowest. Anything with a different speed reduces capacity so is charged extra, however if two flighted paths have the same speed then only one 'penalty' is charged, so the incentive is to flight the fast paths together.

On HS1, the daytime peak pattern of 4 international paths (01, 04, 31, 34) and 8 Southeastern High Speed (4 Ashford, 4 Gravesend) pretty much represents full use of capacity.

The 01, 04, 31, 34 paths make sense in terms of HS1 structure, Channel Tunnel flighting, and Brussels Midi takt-structure.

Let's be honest, 4 Channel Tunnel paths per hour is pretty generous capacity for the attainable passenger market.

 

[BRX]

Most railway lines are indeed built for passenger and freight, but HS1 is of a very specific kind that isn't.

That's what I kind of thought. And I thought the freight services on HS1 over the past ten years or so were somewhat opportunistic, on a line operating well below capacity.

However I've just been reading through this from 2023 and it implies it was always the intention to have some amount of freight on HS1.

It does say though:

Some stakeholders have suggested that, should daytime operation of freight services on the high-speed line become a reality, HS1’s existing freight loops will provide for only so much new traffic before it becomes necessary to construct further regulating points to enable the pathing of still more freight trains.

 

[StephenHunter]

Short-haul flights don't connect, they offer P2P journeys. Clearly none of these companies, who have resources and planning - have determined that Ebbsfleet or Ashford are especially lucrative or useful to serve.

Eurostar haven't either - so it's likely true.

There are flight-and-train combined tickets available, including via Eurostar. A through Ashford to Paris ticket could be offered via St Pancras.

 

[Sorcerer]

LGV Nîmes–Montpellier (opened in 2017/8) carries freight as well as passenger trains, though the latter only at a maximum speed of 220km/h rather than 300 or 320.

"It has the distinction of being the first ligne à grande vitesse to be intentionally built for mixed passenger and freight traffic."

Interesting. HS1 also runs at 230km/h from Ebbsfleet to St Pancras so I imagine running freight there might be a more viable compared to the 300km/h section. I wonder if this would class it as a high-speed line though given it's operationally below the 250km/h threshold on a newly-built line.

That's what I kind of thought. And I thought the freight services on HS1 over the past ten years or so were somewhat opportunistic, on a line operating well below capacity.

However I've just been reading through this from 2023 and it implies it was always the intention to have some amount of freight on HS1.

It does say though:

I think the stakeholders are wise to acknowledge the limitations, especially given that HS1 is arguably overspecified for freight traffic. I think if it came down to international freight or new Virgin/Trenitalia services then the latter should come first. If freight must absolutely happen it should be during off-hours before closure.

It is not.

I didn't think they would. Ashford and Ebbsfleet are good regional connectors but I can't see anyone wanting to financially support the upkeep of border checks and security for limited international services, which is why Virgin won't be stopping there anytime soon either. I doubt Trenitalia would so so either despite hinting at the possibility.

Both HS1 and the Channel Tunnel are mixed speed railways with structures.

Channel tunnel handles a mixture of high-speed passenger trains at 160km/h, Le Shuttle at 140km/h, freight at 120km/h (IIRC), and the three speeds are charged different access rates. (I think I'm right in saying that) Le Shuttle is the 'reference path' and is charged the lowest. Anything with a different speed reduces capacity so is charged extra, however if two flighted paths have the same speed then only one 'penalty' is charged, so the incentive is to flight the fast paths together.

Well that certainly explains why Eurostar departures are bunched together and why Virgin/Trenitalia might want to do the same. Channel Tunnel pathing really is the deciding factor on departure time because as far as I'm aware any Eurostar trains stopping in the UK would depart St. Pancras seven minutes earlier so they didn't miss their path through the tunnel. Now bunching together a single 'penalty' just makes even more sense.

On HS1, the daytime peak pattern of 4 international paths (01, 04, 31, 34) and 8 Southeastern High Speed (4 Ashford, 4 Gravesend) pretty much represents full use of capacity.

The 01, 04, 31, 34 paths make sense in terms of HS1 structure, Channel Tunnel flighting, and Brussels Midi takt-structure.

Let's be honest, 4 Channel Tunnel paths per hour is pretty generous capacity for the attainable passenger market.

Okay I must admit that I did forget about the Southeastern High Speed services so 12 paths are already used up. But as I understand it TVM-430 could theoretically allow trains every three minutes which is how I got 16 trains per hour in my initial estimate. That lacks buffer space mind you. But Getlink itself claims the tunnel could handle up to 1,000 trains per day over the current 400 and are keen for more tunnel usage so I really don't know.

 

[Mikey C]

In Brussels they call it "Channel Terminal"

View attachment 203380

Since Eurostar merged with Thalys and the latter service was renamed Eurostar (red) it would have been really confusing for this to be called the Eurostar terminal. I can't remember what it was called when the Eurostar name was only used for the London services.

 

[HSTEd]

Okay I must admit that I did forget about the Southeastern High Speed services so 12 paths are already used up. But as I understand it TVM-430 could theoretically allow trains every three minutes which is how I got 16 trains per hour in my initial estimate. That lacks buffer space mind you. But Getlink itself claims the tunnel could handle up to 1,000 trains per day over the current 400 and are keen for more tunnel usage so I really don't know.

I believe the limiting factor may be the requirement that only one train be in each running tunnel between any pair of intervention shafts.

Obviously additional shafts could be dug, but would represent a significant capital cost cost.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Being a private company I think profitability is their primary concern rather than connectivity. There is no mechanism to force an open access operator to stop at intermediate stations.

As for overcrowding I believe LSPH is undertaking measures to expand capacity before Virgin or Trenitalia start operations.

True, I don't think you would be able to force them to stop, but St Pancras has limited space available.
It suggests they aren't looking to expand that significantly.

Short-haul flights don't connect, they offer P2P journeys. Clearly none of these companies, who have resources and planning - have determined that Ebbsfleet or Ashford are especially lucrative or useful to serve.

Eurostar haven't either - so it's likely true.

Short haul flights are very different from Eurostar though.
You can buy through tickets on Eurostar, even without products like Interrail.
I think Ashford's viability is more questionable, but Ebbsfleet has a lot of potential as a British railhead for those driving from other areas of the UK, who wish to travel to continental Europe.
Those massive car parks and proximity to the M25 (plus the under construction Lower Thames Crossing) make the location pretty ideal for those wanting to drive to the station and/or avoid London/our low quality domestic rail system.

If the DfT is prepared to prop up Ashford and Ebbsfleet then I'm sure Virgin will be glad to use it, but until then they will probably not have any intermediate stations except maybe Lille which makes perfect sense since it's a major hub station. For what it's worth high-speed rail isn't really supposed to have intermediate stops like Ashford and Ebbsfleet and is primary intended for connecting hub stations.

I can see Virgin or Eurostar asking for subsidy to reopen it. Maybe it's something we should consider subsidising as a country to incentivise international travel by rail, instead of reliance on air or car travel (via ferry).
I also acknowledge HSR isn't supposed to have intermediate stations in its purest form, but HS1/the Chunnel serves more purposes than your typical HSR line.
It's our only link to the continent by rail, and the fastest and most efficient link for a big swathe of the country.
If we had through trains from other major cities to the continent via London (the former Regional Eurostar scheme), the case for reopening Ebbsfleet would be a lot better, but I think Regional Eurostar is unlikely to be resurrected any time soon.
Therefore driving/coach to Ebbsfleet and catching a cross-Channel service is going to be faster and cheaper for a large swathe of the UK population, who currently primarily travel by air to continental Europe (partly due to poor continental rail travel options).

 

[zwk500]

I think Ashford's viability is more questionable, but Ebbsfleet has a lot of potential as a British railhead for those driving from other areas of the UK, who wish to travel to continental Europe.
Those massive car parks and proximity to the M25 (plus the under construction Lower Thames Crossing) make the location pretty ideal for those wanting to drive to the station and/or avoid London/our low quality domestic rail

The market for this is going to be somewhat limited as driving from even the Midlands will be less competitive than either just driving all rhe way or flying. Especially once unreliability of journey times on the M25 is accounted for.
The Disney trains could have made the railheadong idea work, as you'd be able to balance it against having to park at the Disney land resort itself or flying, but they've since stopped.

I can see Virgin or Eurostar asking for subsidy to reopen it.

I cannot, for the simple reason that they will not wamt public service oligations. I alsl cannot see the government even considering subsidy for international travel when theres so many other things asking for money.
The best that might happen is for the noth operators to ask the government for finance at a more generous interest and repayment schedule than a commercial loan to cover the un-mothballing costs.

Maybe it's something we should consider subsidising as a country to incentivise international travel by rail, instead of reliance on air or car travel (via ferry).

Eurostar serves such a small proportion of rhe travel market to Europe though. It cant replace air travel to the med.

I also acknowledge HSR isn't supposed to have intermediate stations in its purest form, but HS1/the Chunnel serves more purposes than your typical HSR line.
It's our only link to the continent by rail, and the fastest and most efficient link for a big swathe of the country.

Its not the most efficient link for even a lot of London if they arent heading to Paris, Belgium or the Netherlands.

If we had through trains from other major cities to the continent via London (the former Regional Eurostar scheme), the case for reopening Ebbsfleet would be a lot better, but I think Regional Eurostar is unlikely to be resurrected any time soon.

Conversely, Regional eurostar would reduce the M25 Parkway role you advocate. But you are correct it is dead and isnt coming back any time soon.

Therefore driving/coach to Ebbsfleet and catching a cross-Channel service is going to be faster and cheaper for a large swathe of the UK population, who currently primarily travel by air to continental Europe (partly due to poor continental rail travel options).

Unless you massively subsidise the rail fares and ban flying, its not.going to be cheaper than flying or driving direct.
And good luck banning flying to, say, Rhodes or Ibiza.

 

[Trainbike46]

The 01, 04, 31, 34 paths make sense in terms of HS1 structure, Channel Tunnel flighting, and Brussels Midi takt-structure.

Let's be honest, 4 Channel Tunnel paths per hour is pretty generous capacity for the attainable passenger market.

There is also the .16 path, at least at 06.16 and 08.16.

If operators wanted to run more trains than 4/5tph, extra paths could be sorted, and I'm sure getlink would be happy to, but as you say, 4/5tph is a very large capacity.

4tph x 900 pax/train x 14 hours/day could handle around 50,000 passengers per day per direction, around 18 million per year in a single direction.

If counting both departures and arrivals that is 100,000 per day or 36 million per year, more than Stansted and London City airports combined. So yeah, I agree that should be plenty for the likely market!

 

[Mgameing123]

Being a private company I think profitability is their primary concern rather than connectivity. There is no mechanism to force an open access operator to stop at intermediate stations.

As for overcrowding I believe LSPH is undertaking measures to expand capacity before Virgin or Trenitalia start operations.

There is one mechanism. Give them a subsidy to stop at that destination.

 

[Snow1964]

There is also the .16 path, at least at 06.16 and 08.16.

If operators wanted to run more trains than 4/5tph, extra paths could be sorted, and I'm sure getlink would be happy to, but as you say, 4/5tph is a very large capacity.

4tph x 900 pax/train x 14 hours/day could handle around 50,000 passengers per day per direction, around 18 million per year in a single direction.

If counting both departures and arrivals that is 100,000 per day or 36 million per year, more than Stansted and London City airports combined. So yeah, I agree that should be plenty for the likely market!

I had to dig out an old book on channel tunnel to check this, so unless signalling has been altered, then the TVM430 sections in the tunnel are around 500m apart, much closer than on French high speed lines.

If a train does 120km/h then will be fully unrestricted (5 clear signal blocks) every 2.5km which takes 2.5 minutes. At 4 blocks will get advance caution (sort of equivalent to triple Amber signals), get closer then more restrictive speed, with a do not pass (effectively red signal) with one complete block protecting rear of train ahead.

But the high speed passenger trains run faster, upto 160km/h for the passenger trains (the book actually says designed to allow 180km/h but normally restricted to 160k/h for pathing).

It says can put 18 trains an hour through, but the extra paths would mean the high speed services would need to follow Eurotunnel shuttles, not really a problem for freight trains, but fewer minutes slower to traverse the tunnel than the faster (160km/h path)

So, can take more trains, but it takes a few minutes longer. The extra time is probably similar to adding a stop at Ashford or Ebbsfleet. Not a technical restriction, but a commercial decision about journey time.

There is another twist, the French are gradually upgrading their Ligne a grande vitesse to raise the top speeds from 300 to 320 km/h (doesn't affect sections with slower restrictions, 270, 220 km/h etc). They haven't yet done LGV-Nord because of number of legacy second generation TGVs using it which have top speed of 300km/h (those built 1989-1996, eg, Atlantique, reseau, Thalys PBK, Eurostar300 etc). But these are generally being withdrawn within next 4 years. So once slower trains are out of the way would be able to save about 3 minutes in France.

 

[SynthD]

That seems an eminently sensible suggestion. It’s a decent compromise between passenger convenience of 2tph to each destination and avoiding the mess of having to process large quantities of passengers for different operators at the same time.

What’s the mess in that? An airport has branded check in desks, generic security and waiting areas, branded gates. This would also work better for a third operator, or for people queuing for the half hour when they can queue for the desk.

There is one mechanism. Give them a subsidy to stop at that destination.

What is this stop worth to the government, how much should they spend on staffing the station and subsidising the call?

 

[Mgameing123]

What’s the mess in that? An airport has branded check in desks, generic security and waiting areas, branded gates. This would also work better for a third operator, or for people queuing for the half hour when they can queue for the desk.

What is this stop worth to the government, how much should they spend on staffing the station and subsidising the call?

A stop at lets say Ebbsfleet is worth alot for Kent's economy.

 

[Trainbike46]

I had to dig out an old book on channel tunnel to check this, so unless signalling has been altered, then the TVM430 sections in the tunnel are around 500m apart, much closer than on French high speed lines.

If a train does 120km/h then will be fully unrestricted (5 clear signal blocks) every 2.5km which takes 2.5 minutes. At 4 blocks will get advance caution (sort of equivalent to triple Amber signals), get closer then more restrictive speed, with a do not pass (effectively red signal) with one complete block protecting rear of train ahead.

But the high speed passenger trains run faster, upto 160km/h for the passenger trains (the book actually says designed to allow 180km/h but normally restricted to 160k/h for pathing).

It says can put 18 trains an hour through, but the extra paths would mean the high speed services would need to follow Eurotunnel shuttles, not really a problem for freight trains, but fewer minutes slower to traverse the tunnel than the faster (160km/h path)

So, can take more trains, but it takes a few minutes longer. The extra time is probably similar to adding a stop at Ashford or Ebbsfleet. Not a technical restriction, but a commercial decision about journey time.

There is another twist, the French are gradually upgrading their Ligne a grande vitesse to raise the top speeds from 300 to 320 km/h (doesn't affect sections with slower restrictions, 270, 220 km/h etc). They haven't yet done LGV-Nord because of number of legacy second generation TGVs using it which have top speed of 300km/h (those built 1989-1996, eg, Atlantique, reseau, Thalys PBK, Eurostar300 etc). But these are generally being withdrawn within next 4 years. So once slower trains are out of the way would be able to save about 3 minutes in France.

Wow that's some detailed information, thank you!

Today there appears to be a le shuttle service every 30 minutes.

If we were to assume a shuttle service increase to every 15 minutes, plus an hourly freight path, you could do something like (departure times for Eurostar/Virgin/Trenitalia services from StP):
.01 Eurostar/Virgin/Trenitalia
.04 Eurostar/Virgin/Trenitalia
Shuttle service immediately following above
.16 Eurostar/Virgin/Trenitalia
Shuttle service immediately following above
.31 Eurostar/Virgin/Trenitalia
.34 Eurostar/Virgin/Trenitalia
Shuttle service immediately following above
Freight service immediately following above
Shuttle service

That should leave enough space for all the Eurostar/Virgin/Trenitalia to run through the tunnel at 160 km/h.

If you need more capacity for the shuttle, run flighted shuttle services, especially in the second half of the slot.

If somehow 5 tph isn't enough for Eurostar/Virgin/Trenitalia, you could add an extra flighted service (e.g. .37 or .19 from StP, though that would require some timetable changes). However, as raised in my previous post and by other people, 5tph gives a bonkers capacity already. With higher capacity trains coming in (Eurostar's new trains will fit 1000 people Vs the current 750 (e300) or 900 (e320), so there is space for a lot of growth.

 

[Snow1964]

Okay I must admit that I did forget about the Southeastern High Speed services so 12 paths are already used up. But as I understand it TVM-430 could theoretically allow trains every three minutes which is how I got 16 trains per hour in my initial estimate. That lacks buffer space mind you. But Getlink itself claims the tunnel could handle up to 1,000 trains per day over the current 400 and are keen for more tunnel usage so I really don't know.

I understand TVM-430 allows trains nearer every 2 minutes 40 seconds.
So in theory can handle nearer 23 trains per hour.

So in reality nearer 18-20 trains is comfortable limit (rather than just 16) allowing some margin for late running.

The channel tunnel with its short 500m blocks, rather than 1500m on the 300-320km/h sections can also in theory take nearer 23-25 trains per hour, but only if they all ran at lower speed of the shuttles. So plenty of capacity over the current typical 7-10 trains per hour (including shuttles).

For clarity, tunnel capacity slightly varies per hour depending on mix of train lengths (400m high speed, 800m shuttles, variable freight train lengths), because it affects how they clear junctions each end as trains slowing for certain routes take longer to clear blocks near the portals. But realistically can still get closer to 18-20 an hour, over double what now runs.

 

[Mikey C]

If you're going to reopen one HS1 station in Kent, I would suggest a stop in Ashford is more useful, as it serves a large part of the county which traditionally always had close links to France.

Ashford is well connected by rail to the rest of Kent too, and indeed Ebbsfleet on domestic HS1 services, and it wouldn't require doubling back, whereas making the Kent stop Ebbsfleet would mean most of Kent having to go the wrong way to get to Ebbsfleet, a station only on HS1.

 

[zwk500]

A stop at lets say Ebbsfleet is worth alot for Kent's economy.

I'd argue a stop at Ashford is worth more for Kent's economy than Ebbsfleet, given Ebbsfleet is closer to London.

I understand TVM-430 allows trains nearer every 2 minutes 40 seconds.

The Block length will determine the technical headway. It would be just as possible to have a TVM-430 installation with a headway of 5 or more minutes (although not really worth it) as one with a headway of 2 minutes (but that's getting close to the limit as there still need to be sufficient braking distance between trains).

The planning headway on HS1 is 3 minutes. Getlink don't publish their timetable planning rules or even a working timetable, but given that Eurostars are planned to be handed over at the HS1/ET boundary 3 minutes apart (today, 9O04 at 0732 and 9I10 at 0735), it is a reasonable inference that the Tunnel has capability for a Eurostar to follow a Eurostar at 3 minutes.
It will probably need slightly longer between a shuttle departure and the next Eurostar entering the tunnel due to the speed offset (100kph vs 160kph), if pathing time is to be avoided. The tunnel will run most efficiently by having a group of eurostars, then a group of shuttles, then a group of freights, however that is unlikely to align with customer expectations. Would be interesting to get the actual values for it rather than guesswork based of RTT though.

A planning headway of 3 minutes means a theoretical capacity limit of 20 trains per hour. Obviously to realise this it would require all trains to have the same stopping pattern and runtimes between St Pancras and Ebbsfleet.