Would class 395 be able to operate to France?

[rdlover777]

hey, im new here but i have a question.
would the class 395 ''javelin'' run to France via the channel tunnel if it was allowed even if its to Calais-Fréthun or to Lille-Europe?.
but would they be able to make it to France or run along the LGV nord?.
i know that the main problem would be the load gauge but would they be able to run in france?.

 

[NotATrainspott]

hey, im new here but i have a question.
would the class 395 ''javelin'' run to France via the channel tunnel if it was allowed even if its to Calais-Fréthun or to Lille-Europe?.
but would they be able to make it to France or run along the LGV nord?.
i know that the main problem would be the load gauge but would they be able to run in france?.

They are equipped with the French signalling system for high-speed lines as that is what HS1 uses, along with the Channel Tunnel, so there might not be a problem there. Since the Javelins are built to the most restrictive mainline loading gauge in UK - the Southern network - they would have no problem fitting in the French or any European loading gauge. What would be more of an issue would be the platform-train interface as French platforms are lower down and further away from the train than they are in the UK other than on the Eurostar platforms for HS1 and on HS2.

The main issues are that the trains are not long enough and do not have the necessary ridiculous amounts of safety equipment required for carrying passengers through the tunnel. A single Javelin is only 120m long whereas a standard-length Eurostar is almost 400m, which is the maximum distance between cross-passages in the Tunnel. On a more pressing note they are only capable of 225km/h whereas Eurostars and TGVs do 300km/h. The Tunnel is limited to 160km/h so there wouldn't be a problem in there but the reduced speed on the surface lines would ruin the timetable on the French side, where there are several times as many 300km/h services along the LGV Nord as there are on HS1.

I presume you are thinking of the Trans-Manche Metro operation which was promoted by local government on both sides of the Tunnel. Unfortunately with the current safety restrictions in the Tunnel there would have to be at least a 400m train-load's worth of passenger demand on each train, something even Eurostar aren't necessarily capable of. Politically you would have to take passports with you and go through immigration in both directions due to the Daily Mail's steadfast refusal to accept that Britain is part of Europe. The same problem for the Metro operation also exists for HS2 through services to the Continent, although in the time until it opens it's likely the business case will improve somewhat.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

hey, im new here but i have a question.
would the class 395 ''javelin'' run to France via the channel tunnel if it was allowed even if its to Calais-Fréthun or to Lille-Europe?.
but would they be able to make it to France or run along the LGV nord?.
i know that the main problem would be the load gauge but would they be able to run in france?.

I asked a similar question of someone at Eurotunnel when the Javelin service first started and was told that as built, the 395s wouldn't meet Channel Tunnel fire regulations so they couldn't even get as far as France. They would also need modification or additional in-cab signalling to operate through the Tunnel, and in France I guess.

Loading gauge is probably the one thing that wouldn't be a problem as the British loading gauge is much smaller than the French one.

 

[rdlover777]

i was thinking of something like a trans-continent service from London-Lille or Calais-London via the medway towns.
but i do understand that there aren't ready for it, i was thinking like if channel tunnel did start running local services to and from France to the medway towns or the other way round

 

[NotATrainspott]

i was thinking of something like a trans-continent service from London-Lille or Calais-London via the medway towns.
but i do understand that there aren't ready for it, i was thinking like if channel tunnel did start running local services to and from France to the medway towns or the other way round

Hopefully the novelty of the Channel Tunnel will wear off and the safety people will see how the Swiss don't have any of the silliness for their Gotthard and Loetschberg Base Tunnels which are of comparable length.

 

[rdlover777]

Hopefully the novelty of the Channel Tunnel will wear off and the safety people will see how the Swiss don't have any of the silliness for their Gotthard and Loetschberg Base Tunnels which are of comparable length.

i think its because its under the sea so less ways to escape in fire

 

[jopsuk]

Platform train interface would be a big issue, even if fire regs were dealt with. For the Olympic games "Javelin" services, when 395s were using the International platforms at Stratford International, the platforms had a temporary structure to raise the height and extend it out to the train, this has now been removed.

 

[asylumxl]

Presumably there is nothing stopping the 395 being hauled through the tunnel by an approved locomotive (like the ICE3 etc). Obviously this isn't suitable for a normal passenger service.

It's worth considering the 395s have very good acceleration so would be able to get up to 140mph after leaving the tunnel quicker than the E*. Perhaps it would be possible to build a loop and a platform (built to UK loading gauge) in Calais for such a scheme.

 

[TheKnightWho]

i think its because its under the sea so less ways to escape in fire

As opposed to being under a mountain...

 

[Loki]

Actually loading gauge might very well be a problem as 395s don't have retractable 3rd rail shoes and the UIC loading gauge could be smaller where the shoes are depending on the line.

 

[DownSouth]

Presumably there is nothing stopping the 395 being hauled through the tunnel by an approved locomotive (like the ICE3 etc). Obviously this isn't suitable for a normal passenger service.

Certainly not. The majority of new build rolling stock for Britain gets delivered in the consists of freight services heading through the tunnel.

It's worth considering the 395s have very good acceleration so would be able to get up to 140mph after leaving the tunnel quicker than the E*. Perhaps it would be possible to build a loop and a platform (built to UK loading gauge) in Calais for such a scheme.

If they are to stop at either Calais itself or the Calais-Frethun TGV station outside town there would be no need to accelerate rapidly coming out of the tunnel.

Where they went (if anywhere) after Calais would determine whether high speed running would be required, and whether 225 km/h would be enough. Were British-gauge trains to be used, terminating at Calais and having passengers transfer to SNCF services might be the best bet.

My opinion is that it would be better to operate a cross-channel stopping service as an extension of the Lille-Calais TER-GV services than as an extension of the British network. Such a move would allow it to happen with very minor modifications on the British side (is Ashford fit for UIC trains?) and none on the French side.

Actually loading gauge might very well be a problem as 395s don't have retractable 3rd rail shoes and the UIC loading gauge could be smaller where the shoes are depending on the line.

No, the on-board equipment for British third rail use comfortably fits inside all the UIC GA, GB, GB+ and GC gauges, plus the German G1 and G2 gauges. If it didn't, British third rail stock would not have been able to complete testing on the Siemens track at Wegberg.

 

[jopsuk]

As opposed to being under a mountain...

Mountains have rescue shafts at closer intervals than under the sea can have

 

[DarloRich]

i think its because its under the sea so less ways to escape in fire

Because escaping from a long thin confined space under a mountain is so much easier than escaping from a long thin confined space under the sea?

Anyway - would there be a market for such a service? Is there potential for an LM v Virgin high speed type service. Pay more for fast from Paris or less for fast but with more stops? Could this generate new commuter options? What are house prices like in Calais? How much is a season ticket? Is there free wine? ( seriously if the price was good and house prices low you might be on to something!)

 

[HSTEd]

And this is why a surface connection woudl have been better, or even a Causeway (which would have been rather impressive looking but would likely have significant climatic impacts to the North Sea in terms of reducing its temperature).

 

[gordonthemoron]

a surface connection would have been interesting in the current bad weather

 

[jopsuk]

It would also have needed truly huge bridges- the Maersk Triple E class container ships are 73 m high, so for clearence you're looking at a good 80-85 above high tide. That's 10-15m in excess of the current highest bridge that doesn't cross a gorge/valley

 

[TheGrew]

It would also have needed truly huge bridges- the Maersk Triple E class container ships are 73 m high, so for clearence you're looking at a good 80-85 above high tide. That's 10-15m in excess of the current highest bridge that doesn't cross a gorge/valley

I guess the other option would be either some sort of draw bridge or some sort of lock system at either dover or calais to drop boats below the bridge.

 

[starrymarkb]

i think its because its under the sea so less ways to escape in fire

So similar to 10,000 feet of Granite then. There is going to be a midpoint escape shaft in the Gotthard. Though IIRC the lift shafts up from track level are getting on for 1000m! (then there is a 3km incline to the surface

 

[DownSouth]

A bridge-tunnel setup would be another solution, as pioneed by the three fixed links crossing the Hampton Roads in the eastern US (most notably the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel which is the same length as the Channel Tunnel's under-sea segment and pre-dates it by 30 years) to cross the bay without making it possible for a collapsed bridge to block major shipping lanes and access to the US Navy's main Atlantic Fleet base.

The concept has since been copied around the world, including by Denmark with the Øresundsbroen which took it to the next level by combining road and rail.

Whether a bridge-tunnel would work for the Channel/Manche would be a different question, I think the shipping traffic is too heavy to make that work.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Aren't the tunnel restrictions being lifted somewhat to allow the class 374 and DB ICE trains to use it? As it stands now, neither train would comply.

 

[po8crg]

Aren't the tunnel restrictions being lifted somewhat to allow the class 374 and DB ICE trains to use it? As it stands now, neither train would comply.

A bit. They're allowing paired trainsets without an internal connection (which will allow the ICEs) and they've relaxed the minimum length a bit (374s), and they're allowing distributed traction (both, also AGVs).

You also need to have special pantographs for the tunnel, because the catenary is really high up. The 373s have two modes for their pantos, one for normal running (LGV Nord / HSL.1 / HS1) and one for the tunnel.

 

[D1009]

You also need to have special pantographs for the tunnel, because the catenary is really high up. The 373s have two modes for their pantos, one for normal running (LGV Nord / HSL.1 / HS1) and one for the tunnel.

Well a 319 managed it before the tunnel was fully open, though I'm not sure whether you could have run a regular service with normal pans.

 

[cjmillsnun]

A bit. They're allowing paired trainsets without an internal connection (which will allow the ICEs) and they've relaxed the minimum length a bit (374s), and they're allowing distributed traction (both, also AGVs).

You also need to have special pantographs for the tunnel, because the catenary is really high up. The 373s have two modes for their pantos, one for normal running (LGV Nord / HSL.1 / HS1) and one for the tunnel.

They actually have 3 modes on the 373 pantos for 25Kv.

They also have to have a French Classique line setting for Lille and the first few Km out of Paris.

 

[Katada]

This might be a little off topic, but did you know Kent and Calais is the same 'economic zone' under the EU? I think it's a shame that more hasn't been done to allow better transport for Britain over the channel. The Eurostar is similar to a plane service, I've always thought a proper train service without the fuss is needed.

 

[HSTEd]

It would also have needed truly huge bridges- the Maersk Triple E class container ships are 73 m high, so for clearence you're looking at a good 80-85 above high tide. That's 10-15m in excess of the current highest bridge that doesn't cross a gorge/valley

An easier solution would be to have a lifting bridge, or a relatively short 'dive-under' in a courseway that carried it below the shipping channel.

But I imagine the environmentalists would do their nut about such a megastructure.

 

[starrymarkb]

Well a 319 managed it before the tunnel was fully open, though I'm not sure whether you could have run a regular service with normal pans.

Work was done to the 319s before the tunnel runs. IIRC they couldn't run under UK 25kV with the modded pans

 

[D1009]

So presumably the answer to the OP's question is yes, provided the pans are modified to have the same capability as Eurostars, they are fitted with whatever is necessary to comply with the tunnel fire regulations, they are formed up to be at least 400m long and have special platforms constructed in France for anywhere they are required to call.

 

[Hophead]

Trains have never needed to be 400m (394m to be precise) to transit the tunnel.

The regional Eurostars had 14 trailers and came in at 328m (at least that's the figure the memory's throwing at me). They may never have run on their intended routes and they're all at work in France now, but they certainly ran Eurostar services back in the day; generally on less busy Brussels services.

 

[umontu]

Trains have never needed to be 400m (394m to be precise) to transit the tunnel.

The regional Eurostars had 14 trailers and came in at 328m (at least that's the figure the memory's throwing at me). They may never have run on their intended routes and they're all at work in France now, but they certainly ran Eurostar services back in the day; generally on less busy Brussels services.

Was just going to bring up a similar point to that, although my question was going to be about whether a minimum length was only applied to passenger trains.

In this video we clearly see at 6:45 a single Class 92, definitely not 400m long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKh_n0b-JDk

 

[woolwinder]

Originally the 373 had been intended to split into two half sets. if a tunnel failure occurred. The passengers in the dead set would moved in the other set, the train would then split from the dead set and driven out of the tunnel. Although practiced years ago, it has never happened in realtime.

If this should happen now passengers would be evacuated from the train through crosscuts that are spaced at 375 meter apart into the service tunnel.

The 373 has two pantographs; 3 kW dc for SNCB, 1500 dc for French Classic, this pantograph will also takeover from the 25kV ac if it failed in the tunnel or on TGV or HSL
The 25 kV is used for normal running on TGV and HSL.