New High-Speed Rail (350~450 Km/h) proposal between Lille, Luxembourg and Bruchsal's Rollenberg junction (Germany)

[FlyingPotato]

Would a London to Switzerland train work due to the strict nature of the Swiss timetabling, from my experience they seem to cancel a lot of delayed ices at the border. This would be quite detrimental for trains to London especially if we aren't in Schengen

 

[30907]

Would a London to Switzerland train work due to the strict nature of the Swiss timetabling, from my experience they seem to cancel a lot of delayed ices at the border. This would be quite detrimental for trains to London especially if we aren't in Schengen

Geneva might work, and ISTR has been suggested.

Unlikely to be another viable destination apart from Zürich, and that's a lot further.

 

[zwk500]

Geneva might work, and ISTR has been suggested.

Unlikely to be another viable destination apart from Zürich, and that's a lot further.

Interestingly Geneva is specifically mentioned in Eurotunnel Network Statement as being eligible for some subsidy or other, and therefore having capacity earmarked for it.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

You need drivers capable of multiple languages and competent on multiple rulebooks. the Training and support workload is intense (have a look at some Eurostar staff twitter accounts). Op

The newest trains and rail traffic control systems are so sophisticated that drivers have become almost passengers, they are there more to check that no abnormality is occurring. All possible announcements are pre-recorded and played at the right times. Autopilots would already be perfectly developed until the finalization of the project.

People will fly from the UK to Italy unless they are dedicated rail people, in which case they won't mind having a longer journey so much.

Night trains could be a real thing again. To Italy, Austria, Slovakia, Hungry, Croatia, Slovenia, Czechia.

I don't see why Luxembourg would justfiy such a monumental project when Infrabel are already investing in upgrading the Brussels-Namur-Luxembourg line to 25KV AC, and some speed upgrades could be packaged up with that.

It´s not about Luxembourg, it´s not about UK, It´s not about Germany, France or Belgium. It´s allowing in a single Line, connect in a timely fashion, major city centers, Country capitals, State Capitals, Industrial Cities, Fanancial cities, Touristic cities, Coasts, Islands and Mountains with one another. This could be the only Fast Speed Train Line in the world connecting so many different cultures, languages and landscapes ever built.

Again, Luxembourg and Stuttgart are simply not significant destinations from London. Zurich is a finance town, and as such flights will almost always be the preferences as cost is less important than time. Munich is very far away from London and the market is not too big, HSR rail is unlikely to ever offer a competitive service (a sleeper might have a chance).

Lille by itself is already a major Transportation Hub, with lot´s of history and tourism arround it. This Line could also allow trains to go to Brussels and Amsterdam with a very slight detour, allowing direct routes from Swizzerland, Austria, and south germany. Like i mentioned before, Stuttgart already has 4~5 daily flights to London alone, not to count Birmingham, Manchester and Bristol, So has Zürich, Frankfurt and Munich airports. Being Munich and Stuttgart capitals of richest States per capita in Germany. Louxembourg being the third richest country per capita. Switzerland ninth.

These towns are simply not big enough for any market to the UK.

The key idea is to allow direct trains (no stops) to go to the biggest cities like Stuttgart, Ulm, Augsburg, Karlsruhe, Freiburg, Basel, Munich, calling them and then reaching the smaller but also important cities around them, these cities were chosen by its importance, industrial aspects, population size, trasportation hub value or tourism. So that the whole route does not exceed 5 hours (key number when comparing with flights). Allowing then a huge variety of destinations, in a interestingly timely fashion.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 May 2023 ==

Could the EU be put in charge of the project?

I believe that if this project were built the European government would be solely responsible for the project. Funds would come from transportation bugdet and countries that would benefit most would contribute a little more. Obviously they would ask Great Britain to contribute in some way. I'm sure that by joining the German, Swiss, French, Italian and Spanish expertise, the project would be completed satisfactorily. (maybe not the deadlines)

I personally feel that the best solution from both an environmental and economic view would be for DB to sort out border security arrangements at Cologne Hbf and Frankfurt Airport and run ICE trains to London via Brussels.

Idealy it would be required to show valid documents at the time of ticket purchase, much progress was made in this aspect of digital recognition of documents, in such a way that tickets would only be issued linked to a valid document, with QR Code for verification and punishment in case of fraud. Moreover, there would be a checking of the tickets during the trip, and if there was any disparity, the person would be taken to a security sector created inside the trains for the purpose of detaining individuals suspected of breaking the rules, who would not be able to disembark and it would be the origin´s country responsibility to deal with the extradition of the individual. Finally, if this is not enough, the most reasonable thing would be to isolate the desimbarking platform and treat it as an international zone, requiring customs control as in airports (machines and federal police booths).

Frankfurt is achievable within the existing infrastructure in competitive times, with a call at Cologne and Brussels (Lille preferably skipped)

Frankfurt-Cologne 1:03
Cologne-Brussels 1:51
Brussels-London St. Pancras 1:56
4:50 by train, as the plane takes 1:40 air flight, I don´t think that is compelling enough. Deutsch Bahn did consider a while back this option, they prepared a train and all, tested on the tunnel, but they gave up the idea. Maybe once the fast track being build are finished they´ll reconsider.

 

[zwk500]

@lindenmeyer11 I will endeavour to provide a fuller answer at a later time, but for now I will just point out that a European flight carries 150-200 people, depending on the plane. The two most common are the Airbus A319 (150 people) and the Boeing 737 (160-180 people depending on model). A 200m HS Train takes 400 people, a 400m HS train can take up to 900. When looking at flights for markets, it is important to look at when the departures and arrivals actually are - tightly grouped sets of flights indicates a market for rail may be there, but loosely spread flights indicates you will be unable to fill a train.
Any HS train operating to the UK will likely need to be 400m length (but 2x200m units are acceptable) through the Tunnel both to satisfy fire regulations and to operate the train economically. So if you only have 2 flights leaving wiithin an hour of each other, you'll need to find another city that a portion can couple with that is a reasonable journey time and has a suitable place to attach (likely Brussels or Lille but could be Frankfurt).

Also, do consider the implications for UK-Swiss travel when LGV Picardie comes in (as is likely to happen at some point). London-Paris travel will bypass Lille, and there will likely be a connection to LGV interconnexion Est (and therefore LGV Sud-Est, LGV Rhin-Rhone and the future LGV Lyon-Torino). London to Geneva, Zurich and Turin (for Italy) would almost certainly use the French network if it ran with LGV Picardie in place. LGV Picardie is important for France as it relieves LGV Nord as well as cutting a substantial corner off existing London-Paris traffic (potentially could allow sub-2h London-Paris trains) and giving a connection to Amiens, a city that's never got over being bypassed by LGV Nord. It also gives quicker connection the beach resorts along the coast there as well as Calais and Dunkerque, both important channel ports.

 

[MattRat]

@lindenmeyer11 I will endeavour to provide a fuller answer at a later time, but for now I will just point out that a European flight carries 150-200 people, depending on the plane. The two most common are the Airbus A319 (150 people) and the Boeing 737 (160-180 people depending on model). A 200m HS Train takes 400 people, a 400m HS train can take up to 900. When looking at flights for markets, it is important to look at when the departures and arrivals actually are - tightly grouped sets of flights indicates a market for rail may be there, but loosely spread flights indicates you will be unable to fill a train.
Any HS train operating to the UK will likely need to be 400m length (but 2x200m units are acceptable) through the Tunnel both to satisfy fire regulations and to operate the train economically. So if you only have 2 flights leaving wiithin an hour of each other, you'll need to find another city that a portion can couple with that is a reasonable journey time and has a suitable place to attach (likely Brussels or Lille but could be Frankfurt).

Are we sure we want to consider 2x200m trains for the UK? Can you imagine the pandemonium caused by a short form? Because it will happen, and they will try to stuff it in the tunnel despite the illegality.

 

[zwk500]

Are we sure we want to consider 2x200m trains for the UK? Can you imagine the pandemonium caused by a short form? Because it will happen, and they will try to stuff it in the tunnel despite the illegality.

There's no specific length limit in the tunnel any more AFAICS from the Network Statement and so on. The requirement is that the train can be rescued or the passengers evacuated within a set time period under a range of conditions and circumstances.
I personally don't think we should be considering joining/splitting trains from an economic viewpoint, but I don't think the operational risks are high enough that you'd want to ban them outright.

 

[Basil Jet]

A line from Lille - Brussels - Liege - Koeln - Frankfurt - Stuttgart is 70 miles longer than your alignment, but I suspect it would make a lot more money.

 

[30907]

The real problem with the OP's idea is that is presupposes speeds of up to 400km/h but compares with existing routes which are slower. It also presupposes sensible UK immigration policies

As it is, London-Stuttgart in 2h50 with 2-3 stops is highly optimistic. Lille-Lyon (similar distance to Lille-Stuttgart) is around 3h, so London-Stuttgart with present speeds would be more like 4h30, meaning that Munich (the next significant destination, sorry Ulm/Augsburg) would be well above the 5h limit for competition with air), and so would Zurich.

That leaves us with London-Frankfurt at say 4h (significantly better than via Köln at 4h30 minimum) and London-Stuttgart, which isn't (due respects to BaWu) a major destination or jumping-off point.

Sorry, but there's a reason why the route across Northern France has never had a significant service, and it's not just due to national borders.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

As it is, London-Stuttgart in 2h50 with 2-3 stops is highly optimistic

That would be without stops. Traversing the distance from the junction at Lille, and the Junction in Bruchsal at around 350Km/h

Lille-Lyon (similar distance to Lille-Stuttgart) is around 3h

This Line has a Max speed of 220~270~300Km/h and a total distance of 556Km. It´s not really straight to Lyon. What I´m proposing is basically a Straight Line from Lille to Bruchsal with a very slight detur at Luxembourg with maximum speeds of 400Km/h during the whole line. If that is not doable, then better rethink the whole project, it is paramount that the speeds of up to 400Km/h can be reachable in a normal day. Anything less then 320~350Km/h would compromise the whole feasability of the project. Theoretically, it would be possible in an almost ideal world, a distance-track between Lille and Stuttgart of exact 500km. Lille to London is 241km and it takes 1:22h. London to Stuttgart in 2:50h could be doable, maybe even 2:45 on a perfect day.

 

[zwk500]

That would be without stops. Traversing the distance from the junction at Lille, and the Junction in Bruchsal at arround 350Km/h

Very few new European lines have been built to a 350kph service speed - HS2 in the UK and the Barcelona-France line are the only ones, IIRC. Most of everything else brand new is 300 or 320, with some 270 and lower stretches.

This Line has a Max speed of 270~300~320Km/h if I´m not mistaken.

300kph for the majority of LGV Nord and LGV Sud-Est, with slower sections round Paris IIRC.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Very few new European lines have been built to a 350kph service speed - HS2 in the UK and the Barcelona-France line are the only ones, IIRC. Most of everything else brand new is 300 or 320, with some 270 and lower stretches.

I´m aware of that, however it has been done in other parts of the world, and many trains have been tested to run at 400Km/h. Tunnels are still bottlenecks, they must be wider to attend presure targets, and noise polution and electricity are also reasons to lower speeds to more reasonable 320Km/h. Tecnically it is doable, the question is will there be enough political will and power to do something so bold (so many tunnels?!) and population support?! Tecnicaly and economicaly it makes sense. Environmentally it could be a trade-off.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2023 ==

Some idea of the terrain profile in the proposed line:





== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 May 2023 ==

 

[zwk500]

Tecnicaly and economicaly it makes sense.

But it doesn't really. It's a huge technical challenge as your profiles show (even if the line can use the steeper gradients for a passenger only line, there are significant engineering hurdles evident in your post) and then there's the issues of geology.
But more than that - because of UK border requirements for checkin and so forth you need a consistent and sizeable passenger throughput to spread the cost of the terminal operations. There's a reason Eurostar aren't calling at Ebbsfleet, Ashford and Calais - it isn't economic for the passenger load.
Unless a government (which will almost certainly have to be the German govt) wants to fund the border facilities without cost to the train operator, there are very few cities with sufficient demand for a HS connection to London to be sustained.

Lille is maintained for the connectivity, but Eurostar has abandoned the Disney and Avignon routes. IIRC the ski trains are staying because the costs for the border controls can be passed directly on to the holidayers. Amsterdam and Rotterdam are working towards having the passenger capacity for more trains and full loading, and there is talk of skipping Brussels in the dutch trains. London to Amsterdam is one of the heaviest travelled air routes in Europe and the train can do it in 4h.

 

[MattRat]

I´m aware of that, however it has been done in other parts of the world, and many trains have been tested to run at 400Km/h. Tunnels are still bottlenecks, they must be wider to attend presure targets, and noise polution and electricity are also reasons to lower speeds to more reasonable 320Km/h. Tecnically it is doable, the question is will there be enough political will and power to do something so bold (so many tunnels?!) and population support?! Tecnicaly and economicaly it makes sense. Environmentally it could be a trade-off.

Not at 400 it seems. It would probably be seen as too risky, compared to something slower. Can it really not be done at 350, since we know politicians will accept that.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

let the man dream

But it doesn't really. It's a huge technical challenge as your profiles show

Make the whole thing underground in Tunnels and futureproof for when Hyperloop is ready



or alternatively:

 

[zwk500]

let the man dream

Thing is, if we're at this level of possibility then we can also include UK joining Schengen and abandoning the security performance for the tunnel.

Make the whole thing underground in Tunnels and futureproof for when Hyperloop is ready

I admire your alterations to the Fretin Triangle, that's bold! I think your second option would be more likely.

 

[PTR 444]

This is a very ambitious idea and I admire the enthusiasm of the OP, although realistically this would be a huge logistical and engineering challenge, so unlikely to become a reality within this century.

If Luxembourg warrants a high speed rail link to the rest of Europe, I would suggest a better option would be to build a shorter high speed line between Liege and Metz, linking the Belgian and French high speed networks together via LUX. On this alignment, it would be feasible to provide direct high speed rail services from Luxembourg to Brussels and Paris, as well as routing potential longer distance services such as Amsterdam to Strasbourg that way, therefore more likely to be feasible than a direct Lille - Bruchsal line. London - Southern Germany may still be quicker going via Paris CDG although a Brussels bypass could be a game changer for that and Eurostar Amsterdam services.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Very few new European lines have been built to a 350kph service speed - HS2 in the UK and the Barcelona-France line are the only ones, IIRC. Most of everything else brand new is 300 or 320, with some 270 and lower stretches.

It was 1988 when a German ICE broke the world record on the Hannover–Würzburg Fast speed rail track reaching a whopping 406,9Km/h. Nowadays we have much better routing softwares, technical knowledge, experience. In France, Italy, Spain and Russia, even in England, the planned new high speed lines are to be at least 350Km/h fast anything less then that is frankly lacking boldness and confidence. And honestly, I strongly believe that such a project would deepen the relationship between UK, Germany, Austria Luxembourg in a jaw dropping manner.

Can it really not be done at 350, since we know politicians will accept that.

Honestly, 350 km/h (or event avarage speeds above 320Km/h) would be enough to be economically viable and meet the huge demand in the region. However, I believe in pushing limits and boundaries, setting new goals and targets, gain experience with challenges, and this 450Km long high speed line would be the perfect object to test new technical limits and aim for a 400Km/h max speed along the whole track.

this would be a huge logistical and engineering challenge

I am a type of guy who likes a challenge, and I believe in the technical ability of countries and people to solve such challenges and achieve the goals. Like the determination to put a man on the moon, it was a huge undertaking. Where there is a will, there is a way!

If Luxembourg warrants a high speed rail link to the rest of Europe

Frankly, it's not about connecting Luxembourg to the rest of europe, it's about UK and Europe as a Whole. Today there is a huge accessibility gap crossing the Ardennes, obviously the priority at the time was to connect Paris and Brussels to Great Britain, both due to physical proximity and ease of terrain. However, today there is huge economic potential in serving the rest of Europe with a direct route to the center of it. Today we have Know-How, we have advanced routing software (Trimble® Quantm™), technical and tunneling capabilities that would make such a project viable, and would revolutionize the means of transport between regions. London is the third most visited city in the world. Such a project would enable direct trains between the capitals of Luxembourg, Switzerland, Lichtenstein. In addition to possibly several night trains between the capitals of Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia. It would connect Financial hubs, Industrial hubs, major touristic cities, universities, geographic landscapes and maritime hubs. And finally, it would act as a catalyst, accelerating high-speed intercommunication between other central European cities like (Vienna-Linz-Munich), (Budapest-Bratislava-Vienna)(Zagreb-Ljubljana-Villach-Salzburg-Munich)(Prague-Pilsen-Nuremberg-Stuttgart-Zürich)(Ulm-Lindau-Vaduz-Chur).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2023 ==

Any HS train operating to the UK will likely need to be 400m length (but 2x200m units are acceptable) through the Tunnel both to satisfy fire regulations and to operate the train economically. So if you only have 2 flights leaving wiithin an hour of each other, you'll need to find another city that a portion can couple with that is a reasonable journey time and has a suitable place to attach (likely Brussels or Lille but could be Frankfurt

With the widespread of ETCS (European Train Control System), I believe there will be a time for smaller trains (200m) to travel through the Tunnel, as the distance between trains could be (safely) drasticly reduced. Until that decision is made, trains could be coupled at Munich coming either from Salzburg, Innsbruck, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, or Landshut. They could be coupled at Karlsruhe coming from Strassbourg or Basel. They could be coupled at Luxembourg/Lille coming from basically anywhere. In Stuttgart coming from Zürich/Konstaz and Nuremberg. In Ulm Coming from Chur/Vaduz/Lindau and from Memmingen/Kempten/Oberstdorf. In Frankfurt coming from Würzburg/Fulda/Mainz/Marburg. In Augsburg coming from Ingolstadt/Regensburg Füssen and Munich. The key is to stablish a main axle (Lille-Luxemburg-Bruchsal) and from there split in 3 high speed branches, which already exists (To Basel, to Frankfurt and to Munich).

 

[zwk500]

It was 1988 when a German ICE broke the world record on the Hannover–Würzburg Fast speed rail track reaching a whopping 406,9Km/h. Nowadays we have much better routing softwares, technical knowledge, experience.

All the software (singular/collective in English), knowledge and experience doesn't change the laws of physics. If the track isn't designed for more than 350kph the train isn't going to run at 400kph.

I strongly believe that such a project would deepen the relationship between UK, Germany, Austria Luxembourg in a jaw dropping manner.

I fear you are overstating the impact of a HSR link. The relationship between the UK and Belgium hasn't been appreciably changed despite having a HSR service since 1992.

However, I believe in pushing limits and boundaries, setting new goals and targets, gain experience with challenges, and this 450Km long high speed line would be the perfect object to test new technical limits and aim for a 400Km/h max speed along the whole track.

Unfortunately, politicians don't believe on pushing budgets to the limit.

Today there is a huge accessibility gap crossing the Ardennes...we have advanced routing software (Trimble® Quantm™), technical and tunneling capabilities that would make such a project viable,

All the software in the world doesn't change the topography of the Ardennes mountains. The tunnelling would make the project vastly expensive to avoid serving key markets for the UK (Brussels, Paris).

London is the third most visited city in the world. Such a project would enable direct trains between the capitals of Luxembourg, Switzerland, Lichtenstein. In addition to possibly several night trains between the capitals of Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia. It would connect Financial hubs, Industrial hubs, major touristic cities, universities, geographic landscapes and maritime hubs. And finally, it would act as a catalyst, accelerating high-speed intercommunication between other central European cities like (Vienna-Linz-Munich), (Budapest-Bratislava-Vienna)(Zagreb-Ljubljana-Villach-Salzburg-Munich)(Prague-Pilsen-Nuremberg-Stuttgart-Zürich)(Ulm-Lindau-Vaduz-Chur).

Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia are not viable HSR markets for the UK - they are too far away and don't have enough passengers to justify regular all-day HSR. Only Switzerland stands a realistic chance of supporting such a service, and for Geneva you would run via LGV Interconnexion Est and LGV Sud-Est. Basel and Zurich are more likely candidates for this route, but we're talking at most 2x200m units running out in the morning and back in the evening. You'd be far better served with a Brussels Bypass HSL (also useful for London-Amsterdam), Upgrading the Brussels-Aachen HSL (completing it, useful for ICE and Thalys as well), upgrading the Aachen-Cologne-Frankfurt-Basel corridor (useful for Switzerland-Netherlands and North-south travel generally).

With the widespread of ETCS (European Train Control System), I believe there will be a time for smaller trains (200m) to travel through the Tunnel, as the distance between trains could be (safely) drasticly reduced.

ETCS doesn't magically make cross-passages appear in the tunnel, the length issues are related to fire evacuation not capacity. The current standards say you must be able to either withdraw the train from the tunnel while on fire, or evacuate the train to the service tunnel within a certain amount of time of the train being stopped.

The key is to stablish a main axle (Lille-Luxemburg-Bruchsal) and from there split in 3 high speed branches, which already exists (To Basel, to Frankfurt and to Munich).

This is simply not going to happen without the UK joining Schengen. And that's not going to happen for at least 50 years. It took nearly 30 years for a relatively simple extension to Amsterdam. Extending to Cologne still hasn't happened 30 years later. Frankfurt as a destination is achievable with existing infrastructure, Basel would only justify one out and one back each day, Munich is just too far for HSR to be seriously competitive and the UK market isn't very big to that city.

I admire your vision, I admire your spirit. But I fear you are misreading/ignores the UK's current domestic politics and how an air market translates to a HSR market. The operational practicalities of HS1 with the UK's border policy are also not going anywhere any time soon. Bear in mind St Pancras can't handle the current passenger load, let alone any additional numbers, and the existing Eurostar service needs increasing not replacing.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia are not viable HSR markets for the UK - they are too far away and don't have enough passengers to justify regular all-day HSR

I would invite you to check this website that shows direct routes from a particular city https://direkt.bahn.guru/?origin=8103000 .There you can see all available train routes departing from Vienna, for example to Amsterdam in 14 hours or Bucarest in 18 hours, Paris 14h. These are of course night trains that takes between 7 and some routes up to 20 hours (Milan-Siracusa), (London-Invernes 8:04h). My point is although these countries are indeed far away, there might be an economic viability for night trains from London to them.

The tunnelling would make the project vastly expensive to avoid serving key markets for the UK (Brussels, Paris).

Brussels and Paris are already well served. In the last 30 years since the opening of fast routes to Paris and Brussels, it has been observed that it is not feasible to divert some routes so far to Paris or Brussels, these routes are economically unfeasible, they are very time consuming and expensive. Furthermore, if you look at a map of train routes in the ardennes region, it's like there's a lake there and Luxembourg is located on an island with only one access through an isthmus, I mean, it's a region completely unserved by high-speed trains. A normal route carried out within the technical norms for 400 km/h would certainly be expensive and would probably have several tunnels. The particularity of the land in the project in question would not, in my view, have an absurdly higher cost increase, given the already enormous complexity of the project as a whole.

If the track isn't designed for more than 350kph the train isn't going to run at 400kph.

That track where the germans reached 406Km/h has now a max speed of 300Km/h. And when the French retook that record in 2007 @575Km/h they did it on the TGV Est line that has today a maximum speed of 320Km/h. As I understand, the new High Speed Line 2 in UK has a Technical target of 400km/h (initially limited at 360Km/h). My point is, we have much more experience and knowledge than 30 years ago, and to compete with Airplanes new high speed train routes should reach at least 360Km/h.

Frankfurt as a destination is achievable with existing infrastructure

Although achieavable it´s not economically viable. The train would take 5 hours, Frankfurt has no juxtaposed border control, and the train to the airport takes only 15 minutes.

Munich is just too far for HSR to be seriously competitive and the UK market isn't very big to that city

Well, if Munich could be reached in 4:25h as my calculation shows, I'm sure it would be a huge success. In comparison to Brussels conurbation (1.4 million inhabitants) Munich has 1.8 million. Or to Antwerpen (0.8million) Stuttgart has 1million.

existing Eurostar service needs increasing not replacing.

No one is talking about replacing eurostar, complementing it is exactly my proposal, bringing more trains into the tunnel would bring competition and ticket costs would probably go down.

 

[PTR 444]

Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Austria, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia are not viable HSR markets for the UK - they are too far away and don't have enough passengers to justify regular all-day HSR. Only Switzerland stands a realistic chance of supporting such a service, and for Geneva you would run via LGV Interconnexion Est and LGV Sud-Est. Basel and Zurich are more likely candidates for this route, but we're talking at most 2x200m units running out in the morning and back in the evening. You'd be far better served with a Brussels Bypass HSL (also useful for London-Amsterdam), Upgrading the Brussels-Aachen HSL (completing it, useful for ICE and Thalys as well), upgrading the Aachen-Cologne-Frankfurt-Basel corridor (useful for Switzerland-Netherlands and North-south travel generally).

For a London - Zurich train, you’d be better off going via Aeroport CDG and LGV Interconnexion Est. Most of the route to Strasbourg is already 300-320km/h HSL and by that point you’re pretty much 3/4 of the way there.

 

[zwk500]

I would invite you to check this website that shows direct routes from a particular city https://direkt.bahn.guru/?origin=8103000 .There you can see all available train routes departing from Vienna, for example to Amsterdam in 14 hours or Bucarest in 18 hours, Paris 14h. These are of course night trains that takes between 7 and some routes up to 20 hours (Milan-Siracusa), (London-Invernes 8:04h). My point is although these countries are indeed far away, there might be an economic viability for night trains from London to them.

I invite you to check the UK's attitude to borders. I will follow Midnight Trains's proposal of Edinburgh-Paris sleepers keenly, but I don't see UK passengers wanting to spend 20 hours on a train when they can fly direct in 3 hours.

Brussels and Paris are already well served. In the last 30 years since the opening of fast routes to Paris and Brussels, it has been observed that it is not feasible to divert some routes so far to Paris or Brussels, these routes are economically unfeasible, they are very time consuming and expensive. Furthermore, if you look at a map of train routes in the ardennes region, it's like there's a lake there and Luxembourg is located on an island with only one access through an isthmus, I mean, it's a region completely unserved by high-speed trains.

It's also a lake with no big cities in, because it's a mountain range.

That track where the germans reached 406Km/h has now a max speed of 300Km/h. And when the French retook that record in 2007 @575Km/h they did it on the TGV Est line that has today a maximum speed of 320Km/h. As I understand, the new High Speed Line 2 in UK has a Technical target of 400km/h (initially limited at 360Km/h). My point is, we have much more experience and knowledge than 30 years ago, and to compete with Airplanes new high speed train routes should reach at least 360Km/h.

Record runs are not indicative. The UK is now paying the price for the 400kph spec (320kph would have been more reasonable), and Airplanes travel at 800kph (A320neo cruise 833kph). There's a material limit where the time lost transferring to/from the airport and checking in/reclaiming baggage is made up by travelling more than twice as fast. Especially as the UK requires check-ing c.450-60 mins before departure anyway.

Although achieavable it´s not economically viable. The train would take 5 hours, Frankfurt has no juxtaposed border control, and the train to the airport takes only 15 minutes.

This, sir, is exactly my point.

Well, if Munich could be reached in 4:25h as my calculation shows, I'm sure it would be a huge success. In comparison to Brussels conurbation (1.4 million inhabitants) Munich has 1.8 million. Or to Antwerpen (0.8million) Stuttgart has 1million.

Brussels has the European parliament though and can be done easily as a day trip. Munich has many big businesses, but 4h30 doesn't allow you to reasonably do a day trip for a business meeting. And Munich figures *extremely* low on UK tourism guides. Eurostar doesn't stop at Antwerp, passing through/round on it's way to Rotterdam and Amsterdam.

No one is talking about replacing eurostar, complementing it is exactly my proposal, bringing more trains into the tunnel would bring competition and ticket costs would probably go down.

So how are you processing the passengers in the UK? St Pancras is at it's limit for the departure lounge.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

I invite you to check the UK's attitude to borders. I will follow Midnight Trains's proposal of Edinburgh-Paris sleepers keenly, but I don't see UK passengers wanting to spend 20 hours on a train when they can fly direct in 3 hours.

The beauty of train lines is that they connect every city in between and not only the two on the very end. I myself have never stayed more than 9 hours on a train. And the experiences I had on night trains, were very reasonable.

more than twice as fast

Airplanes polutes 10x (or more) as trains

So how are you processing the passengers in the UK? St Pancras is at it's limit for the departure lounge.

The point I´m trying to make is that there is an economic and environmental feasibility of building such project. There are technical solutions to all the hurdles the project would encounter. Processig passengers is a political issue and I don´t have the power to change anything, however I do think we could find a walkaround passenger checks before departure. As I said before, I believe that when buying tickets (both online and in person) you could be asked to show valid documents, and again document checks during the trip, inside the train, as was done in the past.

 

[zwk500]

The beauty of train lines is that they connect every city in between and not only the two on the very end. I myself have never stayed more than 9 hours on a train. And the experiences I had on night trains, were very reasonable.

If you're joining a night train you are unlikely to want to get out at 2am unless you're seriously constrained by budget or other problems. High speed rail typically serves passengers time-conscious before money-conscious.

Airplanes polutes 10x (or more) as trains

But people don't give a hoot about that, otherwise they wouldn't fly full stop.

The point I´m trying to make is that there is an economic and environmental feasibility of building such project. There are technical solutions to all the hurdles the project would encounter. Processig passengers is a political issue and I don´t have the power to change anything, however I do think we could find a walkaround passenger checks before departure. As I said before, I believe that when buying tickets (both online and in person) you could be asked to show valid documents, and again document checks during the trip, inside the train, as was done in the past.

The UK home office is not going to permit checks on board. Domestically it would be unacceptable to allow somebody who did not have valid entry documents to reach the UK, and operationally kicking people off at Lille is unworkable. Pre document checks might happen but in tandem with rather than replacing checks at the terminal. Solving the political issue is a necessary part of the viability of your line. And UK politics suggests that the primary practical solution (joining Schengen) is not going to happen for 40 years or more.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

This, sir, is exactly my point.

That´s why its paramount connecting cities in less then 5 hours. And according to my calculations, Frankfurt city could be reached in 3:30h. And if the long-awaited fast line between Stuttgart and Zürich in 1h finally gets off the ground, it could make a direct Zürich-London route in less than 4h possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2023 ==

Domestically it would be unacceptable to allow somebody who did not have valid entry documents to reach the UK

I'm not disagreeing with that. As a new underground station would have to be built in Luxembourg, a juxtaposed border control could be arranged there. This is where the political manner comes in, the time the train would take between Stuttgart (or Frankfurt, or Basel) to the Channel Tunnel (1:30h) would perhaps be enough to check all the passengers and their documents (That is EU territory still, not breaking any UK rulles). This also includes political agreements, if someone was found to be irregular, he would be disembarked in Lille (or Luxembourg) or would be apprehended and isolated in a security room inside the train and kept there under EU autorithy before returning. But again, that´s politic discussion and there is no black and white, only agreements.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2023 ==

Solving the political issue is a necessary part of the viability of your line

I 100% agree with you on that. If you ever been to germany you´de have noticed that here there are rarely ticket checks before embarking at any transportation system, wether Bus, Subway or High Speed Trains. Ticket checks are done by sampling, witch means sometimes comes someone up to see if you have a valid ticket or not. If not, you pay a fine and when often reocuring, you might face criminal charges. My point is that here the stations are not prepared to be isolated, and it would be a huge headache to adapt them for that, and dedicate entire platforms to just one destination; it would be inefficient. Also here it is normal to travel on high-speed trains without any baggage checks, wether to France, Switzerland or any other country. Therefore I fully agree that some kind of political agreement should be formalized to avoid the pre-embarking check.

 

[zwk500]

I'm not disagreeing with that. As a new underground station would have to be built in Luxembourg, a juxtaposed border control could be arranged there.

A new underground station for a town of 130,000 people in a deep gorge? Even Luxembourg's financial industry would struggle to justify that.

This is where the political manner comes in, the time the train would take between Stuttgart (or Frankfurt, or Basel) to the Channel Tunnel (1:30h) would perhaps be enough to check all the passengers and their documents (That is EU territory still, not breaking any UK rulles). This also includes political agreements, if someone was found to be irregular, he would be disembarked in Lille (or Luxembourg) or would be apprehended and isolated in a security room inside the train and kept there under EU autorithy before returning. But again, that´s politic discussion and there is no black and white, only agreements.

Checks on board the train would not be accepted by the Home Office. Neither would Eurostar or any potential operator be particularly keen to entertain the idea. It's an absolute nightmare to do. A 'Shuffle' is the only viable option - as was the option taken with the initial extension to Amsterdam, where everybody had to disembark at Brussels and cycle through security.

I 100% agree with you on that. If you ever been to germany you´de have noticed that here there are rarely ticket checks before embarking at any transportation system, wether Bus, Subway or High Speed Trains. Ticket checks are done by sampling, witch means sometimes comes someone up to see if you have a valid ticket or not. If not, you pay a fine and when often reocuring, you might face criminal charges. My point is that here the stations are not prepared to be isolated, and it would be a huge headache to adapt them for that, and dedicate entire platforms to just one destination; it would be inefficient. Also here it is normal to travel on high-speed trains without any baggage checks, whether to France, Switzerland or any other country. Therefore I fully agree that some kind of political agreement should be formalized to avoid the pre-embarking check.

Ticket checks are completely different from passport checks, which will be necessary unless the UK joins Schengen. My only experience of public transport in Germany is the Berlin U-bahn where my I don't recall my ticket being checked specifically, and the ICE from Brussels to Aachen where the tickets were definitely checked by the Guard.
But your point about stations not being set up for it is part of the problem - how many stations in Germany are going to have the spare capacity to host a departure lounge, secure boundary and 400m platform? And of those, how many has enough passengers wanting to travel to the UK to justify the outlay.
Remember that Eurostar has by and large stopped selling intra-schengen tickets.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

A new underground station for a town of 130,000 people in a deep gorge

Well, some routes/lines makes more political sense then economical. The bigger picture is of course connecting Germany, Austria and Switzerland, Luxemburg happens to be on the ideal path to reach that market, so in my mind it makes complete sense, furthermore the EU would foot a big part of the Bill, lets say 40%, the rest divide between France, Belgium, Luxemburg and Germany (probably a bigger chunk), maybe UK and Swizzerland, could pitch in some donation.

It's an absolute nightmare to do

That was the way it was done back in the day, passport check inside the trains.

how many stations in Germany are going to have the spare capacity to host a departure lounge, secure boundary and 400m platform?

I don´t see German spending millions retrofitting their stations for this, If the control has to be done outside the trains, and half an hour will be wasted, let it be done in Lille (or Luxembourg) where the infrastructure for this is already in place (shuttle option). Of course, this is my opinion, it is possible that some city adapts to these requirements and prepares a platform from an older station for this (Zürich, Munich Passing, Stuttgart Bad Cannstatt, Basel). In my humble opinion, UK will reunite with EU, making the whole border control paraphernalia obsolete. But only time will tell.

 

[Bartsimho]

I don´t see German spending millions retrofitting their stations for this, If the control has to be done outside the trains, and half an hour will be wasted, let it be done in Lille (or Luxembourg) where the infrastructure for this is already in place (shuttle option). Of course, this is my opinion, it is possible that some city adapts to these requirements and prepares a platform from an older station for this (Zürich, Munich Passing, Stuttgart Bad Cannstatt, Basel). In my humble opinion, UK will reunite with EU, making the whole border control paraphernalia obsolete. But only time will tell.

As a place to do it I would expect a push towards Coquelles just outside Calais which is the entrance to the tunnel. It also means that if Lille has to be bypassed for any reason the checks could still take place

 

[zwk500]

Well, some routes/lines makes more political sense then economical. The bigger picture is of course connecting Germany, Austria and Switzerland, Luxemburg happens to be on the ideal path to reach that market, so in my mind it makes complete sense, furthermore the EU would foot a big part of the Bill, lets say 40%, the rest divide between France, Belgium, Luxemburg and Germany (probably a bigger chunk), maybe UK and Swizzerland, could pitch in some donation.

The EU footing 40% of the bill? Is this realistic, which other projects have they funded to this extent in one of the wealthiest regions of the EU?
France and Belgium - not a hope in heaven. THe line runs almost precisely along their border and near no large towns other than Lille. It does not connect to Paris or Brussels for any useful corridor not already served.
UK - again, not a hope. This line is outside the UK, it's political suicide to even propose funding a French LGV regardless of the potential benefit to the UK.
Switzerland - extraordinarily unlikely given their system of direct democracy.

That was the way it was done back in the day, passport check inside the trains.

Back in the day we didn't have High speed rail. Also don't underestimate just how different the prevailing political attitudes in the UK are between 1992 (when the tunnel opened) and now. The UK is now extremely hostile towards perceived illegal immigration. The chance of anybody being on a train and hiding from border security to reach the UK is unthinkable, regardless of how small it is.

I don´t see German spending millions retrofitting their stations for this, If the control has to be done outside the trains, and half an hour will be wasted, let it be done in Lille (or Luxembourg) where the infrastructure for this is already in place (shuttle option).

It'll be a full hour for a 400m train. Might be able to push it down to 45 minutes if it's two portions attaching and the second one arrives 15 minutes after the first. And having to detrain everybody while the train is swept is very poor utilisation of the resource when you could just run a train to Paris or Brussles for people to change and get the existing Eurostar services.

In my humble opinion, UK will reunite with EU, making the whole border control paraphernalia obsolete. But only time will tell.

Even when the UK was a member of the EU it wasn't a member of Schengen and that's extremely unlikely to change. The UK will not be rejoining the EU for a political generation, more likely two. The political reality in the UK is fairly stark right now. And I say this as a citizen of both the UK and EU (I have dual nationality), having studied in the Netherlands for a year. I wish it were otherwise, but it isn't.

 

[lindenmeyer11]

Luxembourg-Paris (1:40h instead of todays 2:12h (Not a huge improvement but also not worth building a dedicated line just between those cities))
Luxembourg-Brussels (1:10h instead of todays 2:57h)
Luxembourg-Amsterdam (2:42h instead of todays 5:32h

Luxembourg-London (2h instead of today´s 5:47h)
Luxembourg-Frankfurt (1:10 intead of today´s 3:32h)
Luxembourg-Munich (2:19 instead of today´s 5:29h)
Luxembourg-Basel (2:00 instead of today´s 3:16h)

This single line would optimize traveling to and from Luxembourg "killing 6 Birds with one Stone", Luxembourg would finally be well connected with the surrounding capitals, and at the same time allow the third most visited city in the world to tighten the time gap of travelers from the german speaking countries.

which other projects have they funded to this extent in one of the wealthiest regions of the EU?

The Lyon-Turin High speed project is 40% funded by EU, 25% France, and 35% Italy