Could a second Channel Tunnel be built to increase capacity?

[zwk500]

Surely an hourly Paris - Brussels - Antwerp - Rotterdam - Schipol - Amsterdam would be a priority for the company over anything additional to do with London? More demand, economies which are growing more quickly, no crazy queues or border facilities to deal with and more stops which means higher seat utilisation. London services have all of the opposite disadvantages as well as costing much more to run.

Amsterdam - London services may return after their upcoming suspension, but they'll always be more expensive to operate and more difficult to fill by a long way.

I was only considering services to London - as you point out, the lack of border controls on the ex-Thalys routes make them a very different consideration.

 

[Trainbike46]

If there's market to fill an hourly Amsterdam-London, you'd want to omit the stop at Brussels. A reasonable medium-term option (assuming full capacity can be processed at the stations) is 1tp2h direct to Rotterdam and Amsterdam, 1tp2h to Lille and Brussels, with hourly Paris non-stop in between.

The new temporary terminal in Amsterdam will have a capacity of ~600 passengers per train, and the Rotterdam terminal has a capacity of ~175, so it won't be possible to fill any trains from Amsterdam, at least not until the very long term move to Amsterdam Zuid is complete.

On top of that, is it possible to path a fast eurostar through Brussels? If the time advantage is limited, it may be better to continue stopping there.

There are quite a few gaps in the timetable I'm looking at, where the connection is into a train from London at Lille. I'm just pointing out that Eurostar could choose to flip those.

At least before the terminal not being available nonsense started, Eurostar was planning on introducing more services from the Netherlands.

I believe the Thalys division is also looking at providing more capacity on the Paris-Amsterdam corridor, but these two options can both happen at the same time.

 

[zwk500]

The new temporary terminal in Amsterdam will have a capacity of ~600 passengers per train, and the Rotterdam terminal has a capacity of ~175, so it won't be possible to fill any trains from Amsterdam, at least not until the very long term move to Amsterdam Zuid is complete.

On top of that, is it possible to path a fast eurostar through Brussels? If the time advantage is limited, it may be better to continue stopping there.


At least before the terminal not being available nonsense started, Eurostar was planning on introducing more services from the Netherlands.

I believe the Thalys division is also looking at providing more capacity on the Paris-Amsterdam corridor, but these two options can both happen at the same time.

Eurostar certainly talked about skipping Brussels on the Dutch Services. If they can't fill the train then stopping Brussels is probably better as the passage through the station isn't overly quick, although in the longer term I wonder if a bypass line might be built.

 

[Trainbike46]

Eurostar certainly talked about skipping Brussels on the Dutch Services. If they can't fill the train then stopping Brussels is probably better as the passage through the station isn't overly quick, although in the longer term I wonder if a bypass line might be built.

I believe that is a long-term aspiration, after capacity issues in Amsterdam are resolved. I could be wrong though!

 

[PTR 444]

Eurostar certainly talked about skipping Brussels on the Dutch Services. If they can't fill the train then stopping Brussels is probably better as the passage through the station isn't overly quick, although in the longer term I wonder if a bypass line might be built.

A Brussels bypass line would be ideal for London - Amsterdam, although not sure if there are any other services that would remain viable if they skipped Brussels (making the case for a new high speed line weaker). It’s likely that the EU or neighbouring countries would have to fund such a link since it wouldn’t benefit any intra-Belgium journeys.

 

[zwk500]

A Brussels bypass line would be ideal for London - Amsterdam, although not sure if there are any other services that would remain viable if they skipped Brussels (making the case for a new high speed line weaker). It’s likely that the EU or neighbouring countries would have to fund such a link since it wouldn’t benefit any intra-Belgium journeys.

I think Paris Amsterdam could well justify skipping Brussels but it depends how many would use it.

 

[PTR 444]

I think Paris Amsterdam could well justify skipping Brussels but it depends how many would use it.

It certainly could, although you’d need another train to serve Brussels from Paris to compensate for the diverted one. Perhaps you could make up for it somewhat by calling the Paris - Amsterdam at a new station on the bypass line serving the eastern suburbs of Brussels (which would help make such a line more relevant for intra-Belgium travel).

 

[popeter45]

I think Paris Amsterdam could well justify skipping Brussels but it depends how many would use it.

at that point would that justify a brussels avoiding high speed line?
splits from HSL1 at Edingen and joins HSL-4 at BrassChaat?

 

[PTR 444]

at that point would that justify a brussels avoiding high speed line?
splits from HSL1 at Edingen and joins HSL-4 at BrassChaat?

Essentially skipping Brussels and Antwerp in one go. Maybe it could be promoted as a rail link between BRU and ANR airports with parkway-style stations also serving the wider hinterland.

 

[Bartsimho]

I don't know why (probably after looking at the Frecciarossa services) that a London-Milan route could work. Although Paris has only terminating stations so you can't serve it as an intermediate market. Unless you run it as 2 services with an all off at Gare Du Nord or the Service deals with the Swiss railways and the clockface timetable

 

[zwk500]

I don't know why (probably after looking at the Frecciarossa services) that a London-Milan route could work. Although Paris has only terminating stations so you can't serve it as an intermediate market. Unless you run it as 2 services with an all off at Gare Du Nord or the Service deals with the Swiss railways and the clockface timetable

At the moment it's nearly a 7h journey. However if you wait until the new tunnel is built for the Lyon-Turin LGV then I think that comes down to 4h30-5h, which is much more possible. You'd either just not stop between London and Lyon or call at CDG.

 

[Bartsimho]

At the moment it's nearly a 7h journey. However if you wait until the new tunnel is built for the Lyon-Turin LGV then I think that comes down to 4h30-5h, which is much more possible. You'd either just not stop between London and Lyon or call at CDG.

Or try and get use of the RER tunnel from Gare Du Nord to Gare De Lyon (never happening).

A London to Milan journey would be popular with tourists as it could have CDG for Paris, Lyon, Turin, Milan. Although there an on-board passport check after Paris before Calais would be preferable but never happening in a million years (maybe Labour would warm to the idea as a closer integration measure).

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't know why (probably after looking at the Frecciarossa services) that a London-Milan route could work. Although Paris has only terminating stations so you can't serve it as an intermediate market. Unless you run it as 2 services with an all off at Gare Du Nord or the Service deals with the Swiss railways and the clockface timetable

Even when the new line from Lyon to Chambery and the Mont Cenis base tunnel is open, it would still be 8h from London to Milan on a direct train (And no need to go via Switzerland). A train couldn’t get anywhere near the airlines on time or price, and would take only a very small % of the market.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2023 ==

At the moment it's nearly a 7h journey. However if you wait until the new tunnel is built for the Lyon-Turin LGV then I think that comes down to 4h30-5h, which is much more possible. You'd either just not stop between London and Lyon or call at CDG.

It’s 7h from Paris today. From London it would be 9h20. The new line and tunnel will take off 1h20.

 

[Bartsimho]

Even when the new line from Lyon to Chambery and the Mont Cenis base tunnel is open, it would still be 8h from London to Milan on a direct train (And no need to go via Switzerland). A train couldn’t get anywhere near the airlines on time or price, and would take only a very small % of the market.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jun 2023 ==



It’s 7h from Paris today. From London it would be 9h20. The new line and tunnel will take off 1h20.

If the service runs via CDG rather than into Paris itself it could cut time off.

Milan-Lyon on the current Frecciarossa is currently 5:30. The base tunnel probably cuts more than 1h20 off that as it could ruyn via Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV rather than into Lyon Part-Dieu that the current Paris-Milan does. Also the current Frecciarossa service has a 14 minute hold at Modane as well as stopping at Chambery-Challes-Les-Eaux so keeping at high speed saves more time.

 

[zwk500]

Or try and get use of the RER tunnel from Gare Du Nord to Gare De Lyon (never happening).

Not a chance of stuffing a 400m train down the RER when LGV Interconnexion Est exists. They do it for the little belt railway but that's because there's no other route for traffic from the west of Paris to get around.

A London to Milan journey would be popular with tourists as it could have CDG for Paris, Lyon, Turin, Milan. Although there an on-board passport check after Paris before Calais would be preferable but never happening in a million years (maybe Labour would warm to the idea as a closer integration measure).

If the train is running to London the market will want to focus on the most profitable market: London. Security will need to be done before boarding or a Lille shuffle, so stops will be kept to a minimum. London to Paris is 2hr, the wikipedia article quotes Paris-Milan as 4hr once the tunnel is complete, so you're looking at 6hr+ journey time (plus 1hr checkin).
A quick google shows flights with 4 operators at 2hr London (any)-Milan. Add 30-60 min transfer (depends on which part of London you start at) to Airport, 1hr check-in etc, 2hr flight, 30m to collect bags etc, 30m transfer into city and you've still got two hours to enjoy your first espresso before the train would have arrived.
I can book an easyjet this Friday 7am from Gatwick to Milan from €250. A Eurostar to Paris that Friday ranges from £194-240 and all the morning trains are booked out (apart from the 11.31 in Premier but that's >£300). It would only be competitive if there was a massive carbon tax on Air travel (very unlikely), a massive subsidy to train travel (extremely unlikely), or a massive change in the operating conditions that reduces costs (not a chance in hell). So the only people getting the train would be dedicated pro-train or anti-air people, and are there 1000 of them who all want to leave Milan at the same time for London? I doubt it.

 

[PTR 444]

It’s 7h from Paris today. From London it would be 9h20. The new line and tunnel will take off 1h20.

Strictly speaking, the Lyon - Turin LGV won’t even be a proper high speed railway. The line is only being built for top speeds of 137mph, taking into account the fact that this will be a mixed-use railway for both passengers and freight.

 

[Bartsimho]

If the train is running to London the market will want to focus on the most profitable market: London. Security will need to be done before boarding or a Lille shuffle, so stops will be kept to a minimum. London to Paris is 2hr, the wikipedia article quotes Paris-Milan as 4hr once the tunnel is complete, so you're looking at 6hr+ journey time (plus 1hr checkin).
A quick google shows flights with 4 operators at 2hr London (any)-Milan. Add 30-60 min transfer (depends on which part of London you start at) to Airport, 1hr check-in etc, 2hr flight, 30m to collect bags etc, 30m transfer into city and you've still got two hours to enjoy your first espresso before the train would have arrived.
I can book an easyjet this Friday 7am from Gatwick to Milan from €250. A Eurostar to Paris that Friday ranges from £194-240 and all the morning trains are booked out (apart from the 11.31 in Premier but that's >£300). It would only be competitive if there was a massive carbon tax on Air travel (very unlikely), a massive subsidy to train travel (extremely unlikely), or a massive change in the operating conditions that reduces costs (not a chance in hell). So the only people getting the train would be dedicated pro-train or anti-air people, and are there 1000 of them who all want to leave Milan at the same time for London? I doubt it.

As a thing the Milan Airports are quite far away from the city itself:
Malpensa to Duomo is 51 min minimum, Linate to Duomo is 28 min but is less used, Bergamo is 1h 5min minimum so this all adds time to the journey to consider as well.

Ticket prices would need to be looked at but some competition through the tunnel for Eurostar might bring some prices down (still like £200 as Milan-Paris is £144 on the Frecciarossa)

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

A true 'Brussels by-pass' would be a new high speed line from Lille to Antwerp via Gent following the E17 motorway. This would considerably shorten and speed up London to Amsterdam too. It is of no interest to Belgium, however, save perhaps placing Gent on the high speed network. Far more likely that a new line will be built from Brussels to Antwerp via Mechelen.

 

[zwk500]

As a thing the Milan Airports are quite far away from the city itself:
Malpensa to Duomo is 51 min minimum, Linate to Duomo is 28 min but is less used, Bergamo is 1h 5min minimum so this all adds time to the journey to consider as well.

Ok so the train is 1.5hr slower rather than 2. If the train isn't any cheaper, who'd choose to go that way?

Ticket prices would need to be looked at but some competition through the tunnel for Eurostar might bring some prices down (still like £200 as Milan-Paris is £144 on the Frecciarossa)

Eurostar has plenty of competition from airlines to keep it's prices down. Unfortunately any operator running international services will have to factor in the reality that Cross-Channel trains are very expensive to run because of the Channel Tunnel fees and UK operating conditions. There's very few ways to dramatically decrease those costs, and most of them are politically unthinkable at the moment.

But we are somewhat off-topic

 

[popeter45]

A true 'Brussels by-pass' would be a new high speed line from Lille to Antwerp via Gent following the E17 motorway. This would considerably shorten and speed up London to Amsterdam too. It is of no interest to Belgium, however, save perhaps placing Gent on the high speed network. Far more likely that a new line will be built from Brussels to Antwerp via Mechelen.

to make financial sence it would also need to be useful for Paris-Amsterdam as well

 

[Bald Rick]

If the service runs via CDG rather than into Paris itself it could cut time off.

My timings assumed running via the Interconnection

Milan-Lyon on the current Frecciarossa is currently 5:30.

Paris - Milan is 6h53

Deutsche Bahn: bahn.de - Error

reiseauskunft.bahn.de

The base tunnel probably cuts more than 1h20 off that as it could ruyn via Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV rather than into Lyon Part-Dieu that the current Paris-Milan does. Also the current Frecciarossa service has a 14 minute hold at Modane as well as stopping at Chambery-Challes-Les-Eaux so keeping at high speed saves more time.

The project website says it will cut 1h20 off, which includes avoiding Modane.

London to Paris is 2hr

2h20

the wikipedia article quotes Paris-Milan as 4hr once the tunnel is complete

usual Wikipedia rules apply. I expect it will be will be longer, because…

Strictly speaking, the Lyon - Turin LGV won’t even be a proper high speed railway. The line is only being built for top speeds of 137mph, taking into account the fact that this will be a mixed-use railway for both passengers and freight.

Exactly. And the part bypassing Chambery is freight only - passenger trains will still travel sur classique from Chambery to the base tunnel. The project is largely about shifting lorries off the A43 and Frejus (road) tunnel.

There’s simply not enough traffic to fill a TGV from Paris - Milan without stopping, so I have no doubt they will continue to stop at Lyon, Chambery and Turin as a minimum.

 

[zwk500]

@Bald Rick many thanks for the corrections and more precise numbers - although all of them make the case for a direct train even worse!

 

[popeter45]

also remember for London to Italy you need to add in the check-in time so really rather than 7hr it would be 9hr

 

[Trainbike46]

I don't know why (probably after looking at the Frecciarossa services) that a London-Milan route could work. Although Paris has only terminating stations so you can't serve it as an intermediate market. Unless you run it as 2 services with an all off at Gare Du Nord or the Service deals with the Swiss railways and the clockface timetable

you could not serve Paris-proper, but if you wanted to you could serve disneyland and or charles de gaulle airport on such a service, as the LGV-interconnexion est goes through both. Whether stopping in Paris at all is desirable for a eurostar style operation is another question though!

Realistically though, eurostar expansion to new destinations would be to closer destinations first, as the train is more competitive on time if the distance is shorter. So a return of the South of France trains, or maybe a Geneva train are more likely than a train to Milan.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2023 ==

to make financial sence it would also need to be useful for Paris-Amsterdam as well

There is currently no high-speed line between Brussels and Antwerp, and I think building that is much more likely than building a line that completely bypasses both Brussels and Antwerp, becaus it would benefit eurostar and thalys international services, as well as domestic services within belgium, as opposed to a bypass line that would only be useful for the london-Amsterdam services and maybe some of the Paris-Amsterdam services

 

[PTR 444]

you could not serve Paris-proper, but if you wanted to you could serve disneyland and or charles de gaulle airport on such a service, as the LGV-interconnexion est goes through both. Whether stopping in Paris at all is desirable for a eurostar style operation is another question though!

Realistically though, eurostar expansion to new destinations would be to closer destinations first, as the train is more competitive on time if the distance is shorter. So a return of the South of France trains, or maybe a Geneva train are more likely than a train to Milan.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2023 ==


There is currently no high-speed line between Brussels and Antwerp, and I think building that is much more likely than building a line that completely bypasses both Brussels and Antwerp, becaus it would benefit eurostar and thalys international services, as well as domestic services within belgium, as opposed to a bypass line that would only be useful for the london-Amsterdam services and maybe some of the Paris-Amsterdam services

There is in fact already a bypass line between Brussels and Mechelen running parallel to the A1 motorway. The only issue is that it only has a top speed of 160km/h, so not really high speed as such and probably no faster than going via the classic line. I wonder if there are plans to upgrade this line to 300km/h like the other Belgian high speed lines, and extending it to the outskirts of Antwerp?

 

[zwk500]

you could not serve Paris-proper, but if you wanted to you could serve disneyland and or charles de gaulle airport on such a service, as the LGV-interconnexion est goes through both. Whether stopping in Paris at all is desirable for a eurostar style operation is another question though!

If you're serving Disneyland, you'd do it as it's own train as the potential market for that will be very clustered around check-in and check-out times for the hotels. I don't see why you'd serve CDG from London other than as a Paris Parkway.

Any Eurostar to the South of France will want to try and maximise end-to-end journeys by running nonstop from the Channel to at Least Lyon but probably further, because of the issues running an internal portion of a service heading to London and the security drama around that.

Realistically though, eurostar expansion to new destinations would be to closer destinations first, as the train is more competitive on time if the distance is shorter. So a return of the South of France trains, or maybe a Geneva train are more likely than a train to Milan.

Bordeaux was being talked about very strongly, although whether the slots exist to get around Paris I don't know. Restoration of Avignon and potentially Marseille is most likely, although it depends how badly that traffic ends up being by Brexit.
I'd love to see German operations but IIRC Cologne would need to move trains to Messe/Deutz to free up a platform at the Hbf.

There is currently no high-speed line between Brussels and Antwerp, and I think building that is much more likely than building a line that completely bypasses both Brussels and Antwerp, becaus it would benefit eurostar and thalys international services, as well as domestic services within belgium, as opposed to a bypass line that would only be useful for the london-Amsterdam services and maybe some of the Paris-Amsterdam services

I can't see it personally in the medium term, but longer-term it's not impossible if Brussels starts getting full up and the international trains are clogging up lines for local trains.

 

[SynthD]

Europe can use St Pancras as a gateway to the UK, even if it means walking to Euston. In a similar way, a direct train to Paris is the gateway to the Paris-centred TGV network. It would be nice to see trains to Lyon and Marseilles, but there may not be the demand to save us crossing Paris.

The only other one I think of is Brussels and Cologne, with Lille on the return.

 

[Bartsimho]

you could not serve Paris-proper, but if you wanted to you could serve disneyland and or charles de gaulle airport on such a service, as the LGV-interconnexion est goes through both. Whether stopping in Paris at all is desirable for a eurostar style operation is another question though!

I was thinking of CDG as a Paris Parkway style system as it would still be quicker than flying.
This also wasn't a route for Eurostar itself hence me talking about Frecciarossa.
Although it might work more as a sleeper train. Stopping at Lyon, Turin and Milan from London.

 

[Starmill]

There is absolutely no way Eurostar are going to go back to using the juxtaposed controls in Lille for a trainload of passengers from Southern France, Italy, or any other neighbouring countries. There's also pretty much zero chance of juxtaposed controls being arranged with Italy, or controls being arranged in Lyon, Chambery, Turin or Milan...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2023 ==

Bordeaux was being talked about very strongly, although whether the slots exist to get around Paris I don't know. Restoration of Avignon and potentially Marseille is most likely, although it depends how badly that traffic ends up being by Brexit.
I'd love to see German operations but IIRC Cologne would need to move trains to Messe/Deutz to free up a platform at the Hbf.

I'm pretty sure that all of these issues could be resolved without too much expense and compromise, if SNCF believed there was a long term profit in it. What can't be overcome is the problem of the juxtaposed controls.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

Bordeaux was being talked about very strongly, although whether the slots exist to get around Paris I don't know. Restoration of Avignon and potentially Marseille is most likely, although it depends how badly that traffic ends up being by Brexit.

Funnily enough I looked at booking a train last night to Marseille to visit my dad, once I saw the cost, plus the additional cost of getting to St Pancras from South Wales, I've said sod it and decided I'll fly. Price is the most important issue and unfortunately Eurostar just isn't competitive with flights, especially as it doesn't allow integrated ticketing with OuiGo