Could a second Channel Tunnel be built to increase capacity?

[Bald Rick]

One e320 set has 908 seats according to Wiki and is ~400m, One TGV duplex is 200m and seats 508, so double up = 1016. TGV duplex certainly feel more spacious than the e320 so maybe you could increase that, but its not really a step change.

The new series of TGV double decks will improve on this considerably.

Indeed, the TGV-M will have up to 740 seats, so nearly 1,500 for a 400m train.

 

[Bantamzen]

No? Why do there need to be connecting flights to anywhere? Which part of the climate emergency is this not comprehending?

Let's be quite clear here, banning flights or holidays abroad is not going to solve anything climate-wise. Flights represent only a very small proportion of the carbon emissions across the globe. Secondly whilst you may not think holidays are a priority, those people around the world whose livelihoods and economies would beg to differ. Its always so easy to throw someone else under the bus to make ourselves feel better eh? But this is for another thread in the end.

Anyway there really isn't a need for a second bore under the Channel, and not likely to be for a long time.

 

[bluenoxid]

This has been a very interesting thread to read through.

Would a new link be exclusively between England and France or would we look at another country such as Belgium or the Netherlands?

 

[Energy]

Would a new link be exclusively between England and France or would we look at another country such as Belgium or the Netherlands?

Belgium or the Netherlands would be nice to speed up services to Germany but it would be a much longer tunnel.

 

[HSTEd]

Let's be quite clear here, banning flights or holidays abroad is not going to solve anything climate-wise. Flights represent only a very small proportion of the carbon emissions across the globe.

They represent 8% of the total in the UK, and this figure is climbing as emissions in other sectors continue to fall. Aviation is one of the few remaining emissions growth sectors in the country.

In a future decarbonised energy system, provision of synthetic zero carbon fuel for existing UK consumption consumes as much electricity as we use for all purposes today.

 

[AM9]

This has been a very interesting thread to read through.

Would a new link be exclusively between England and France or would we look at another country such as Belgium or the Netherlands?

A tunnel between England and the nearest part of Belgium would be about 100km long, i.e.twice the length of the existing bores. That wouldn't be any faster than the current route as it would probably be 160km/h through the tunnel itself, and even if it headed directly for Ghent and then joined the Ostend-Brussels route, there would be little overall time advantage over the existing route via Lille, which is mostly a LGV formation from Coquelles. Should another tunnel even be seriously considered, it would be far more cost effective to beef up the existing corridor.

 

[Wolfie]

The Channel Tunnel since its inception in 1994 has become vital for the conveyance of passengers from London to Paris and Brussels, as well as supporting the Eurotunnel car shuttle service and intercontinental freight. As Europe’s high speed network expands and pressure grows for short and medium haul flights to be axed over climate concerns, we are likely to see the start of additional cross-Channel passenger services from London to places such as Cologne, Frankfurt, Geneva and Bordeaux in the long term. This begs the question as to when the time will come that we need to increase Channel Tunnel capacity to allow these additional trains to operate.

With a new twin bore next to the existing tunnel, you could divert high-speed passenger trains into that one while the existing tunnel is retained for freight, Le Shuttle and diversions if one of the tunnels is closed. If a new tunnel was capable of being engineered to a running speed of 320km/h (same as that of the newest French LGVs), you could save up to 15 minutes on Cross-Channel passenger journeys, while also benefiting from the additional competition and journey opportunities that a second tunnel would allow.

Given that the existing channel tunnel has been an economic basket case l would suggest zero chance.

There might possibly have been some hope of some EU funding if we were still a member. Now? No chance.

 

[Bantamzen]

They represent 8% of the total in the UK, and this figure is climbing as emissions in other sectors continue to fall. Aviation is one of the few remaining emissions growth sectors in the country.

And the aviation industry is responding by replacing older craft which much more efficient newer ones. In the meantime the industry's footprint is still nowhere near energy production, food production, consumer consumption and food waste. All of which could be tackled if minds focused a bit more instead of scrambling for "quick wins". An additional bore under the channel isn't going to be needed as the travel industry isn't going to go away for economic and social reasons.

In a future decarbonised energy system, provision of synthetic zero carbon fuel for existing UK consumption consumes as much electricity as we use for all purposes today.

Quite honestly, I don't see a decarbonised future. At least not in this century, no matter what arbitrary targets politicians set themselves.

 

[Irascible]

Indeed, the TGV-M will have up to 740 seats, so nearly 1,500 for a 400m train.

Would they have a chance of passing/being modified for tunnel evacuation regs without a lot of the benefits removed? actually are there density limits for evacuations?

 

[Kingston Dan]

What the UK really needs is yet more infrastructure spending in the SE of England...

 

[Wolfie]

What the UK really needs is yet more infrastructure spending in the SE of England...

The Channel Tunnel provides a national route for freight into and out of the country. Oh, and that SE of England funds the vast majority of infrastructure spending nationally.

 

[JonathanH]

What the UK really needs is yet more infrastructure spending in the SE of England...

Infrastructure spending really does need to be concentrated in other parts of the country for about two generations now.

 

[Kingston Dan]

The Channel Tunnel provides a national route for freight into and out of the country. Oh, and that SE of England funds the vast majority of infrastructure spending nationally.

Except its a self fulfilling prophecy - London has good transport links. More people move there. Infrastructure investment in London and the south east always has a higher business case than elsewhere (even when it is positive). Unless you want everyone to live in 100 miles of London then the rules have to change. And that means abolishing the Treasury.

Infrastructure spending really does need to be concentrated in other parts of the country for about two generations now.

Quite.

 

[HSTEd]

Except its a self fulfilling prophecy - London has good transport links. More people move there. Infrastructure investment in London and the south east always has a higher business case than elsewhere (even when it is positive). Unless you want everyone to live in 100 miles of London then the rules have to change. And that means abolishing the Treasury.

Playing devil's advocate.... is everyone living within a hundred miles of London actually an issue?
If that increases the national wealth, as it is likely to do through agglomeration effects, surely there are many reasons to prefer that?

Quite.

To a large degree though that means pouring money into a black hole in benefit-cost-ratio terms.
A significant part of the country is only heavily populated because planning restrictions prevent the population flowing to more popular areas.

A lot of pit villages and market towns would probably have gone the way of Old Sarum by now.

 

[Kingston Dan]

Playing devil's advocate.... is everyone living within a hundred miles of London actually an issue?
If that increases the national wealth, as it is likely to do through agglomeration effects, surely there are many reasons to prefer that?


To a large degree though that means pouring money into a black hole in benefit-cost-ratio terms.
A significant part of the country is only heavily populated because planning restrictions prevent the population flowing to more popular areas.

A lot of pit villages and market towns would probably have gone the way of Old Sarum by now.

That's not what I'm arguing. There are plenty of infrastructure projects outwith the SE of England with positive business cases - but they are almost always going to be less than similar projects in the SE with more people, more economic activity and more wealth. It takes political will to overturn the political and economic conventions and it's becoming urgent.

 

[cle]

Well, yes, but also look at a map. Even if London wasn't the dominant force it is, Dover-Calais would still be the crossing of choice.

 

[popeter45]

the bottleneck is St Pancras not the tunnel
with brexit and the rise in eco-travel wonder if St Pancras needs another rebuild to up capacity or even if in the fruture Eurostar needs to move again?, its been at St Pancras longer than Waterloo now

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Would never make a business case

Totally agree. No need for another one.

 

[Trainfan344]

the bottleneck is St Pancras not the tunnel
with brexit and the rise in eco-travel wonder if St Pancras needs another rebuild to up capacity or even if in the fruture Eurostar needs to move again?, its been at St Pancras longer than Waterloo now

The current St Pancras is a bit of a mess.

A rebuild could help both EMR and Eurostar

 

[mike57]

The current St Pancras is a bit of a mess.

A rebuild could help both EMR and Eurostar

When this was discussed in another thread the concensus was that the capacity of the current Eurostar terminal was around 1800 passengers per hour outgoing assuming the exit checks were properly manned. It seems like passenger capacity through the tunnel could be increased fairly easily, double deck trains, and maybe timing two trains one behind the other to make best use of tunnel paths. Bear in mind the continental end is currently split over a number of destinations, I am assuming the St Pancras limit is currently the governing factor.

The obvious services to move would be the SE ones because that gives you more platforms already connected to HS1, but where do you send the SE service as there are no obvious other terminals convenient to central London without major infrastructure building. But I think the facilities to handle more passengers through the boarding checks is the biggest challenge, there just isnt any more space.

St Pancras has excellent connections so its probably the right place to act as a London gateway to the continent. Going back to or routing some services back to Waterloo is a non starter, the crawl through south London on 3rd rail just doesn't work.

One thought, how much Eurostar traffic originates north of a line between the Wash and the Bristol Channel? Would a second terminal in Birmingham work, using HS2 when its open so that the UK end is split between London and Birmingham.

There are no simple answers to St Pancras, in a way its a victim of it own success and any solution is going to be very expensive, Its a shame that when the redevelopment of the area took place some space wasnt kept clear for future expansion, but that horse has well and truly bolted.

Which brings one back around to the OPs original post. Until the bottlenecks in other places are cleared there is no point in adding capacity to the tunnel, and there are some quick wins that could be made before further tunnels are needed if these bottlenecks are cleared.

 

[zwk500]

One thought, how much Eurostar traffic originates north of a line between the Wash and the Bristol Channel? Would a second terminal in Birmingham work, using HS2 when its open so that the UK end is split between London and Birmingham.

Not enough to justify the extreme costs involved.

There are no simple answers to St Pancras, in a way its a victim of it own success and any solution is going to be very expensive, Its a shame that when the redevelopment of the area took place some space wasnt kept clear for future expansion, but that horse has well and truly bolted.

Reopening Ebbsfleet would be a massive help, as it can fulfill a M25 parkway role.

 

[paul1609]

A few things here.


4) if a new fixed link is to be built, expect it to have tarmac…

Indeed we could lift all the unused rails and improvements all over Kent expensively paid for by the taxpayer but never used by the Rail Industry or taken out of use when they decided to move to the capacity restrained St Pancras for scrap to pay toward the road crossing that should have been built in the first place.

 

[mike57]

Reopening Ebbsfleet would be a massive help, as it can fulfill a M25 parkway role.

How much of the St Pancras traffic would it attract? It exists, so its only a case of staffing up. To be effctive most trains would need to call there. Off the wall thought, do the HS2 - HS1 link properly and create another terminal at Old Oak Common, run OOC-Ebbsfleet-Tunnel to relieve St Pancras. But again no doubt the costs just wouldn't stack up.

 

[zwk500]

How much of the St Pancras traffic would it attract?

I doubt it would attract people from London, but it could intercept a fair number of people who would otherwise need to travel into St Pancras.

It exists, so its only a case of staffing up.

Bit more than that, you'd need to do some serious de-mothballing after 4 years.

To be effctive most trains would need to call there. Off the wall thought, do the HS2 - HS1 link properly and create another terminal at Old Oak Common, run OOC-Ebbsfleet-Tunnel to relieve St Pancras. But again no doubt the costs just wouldn't stack up.

No chance of the HS2 link now, the tunnels at OOC don't allow for it.

 

[Wolfie]

Indeed we could lift all the unused rails and improvements all over Kent expensively paid for by the taxpayer but never used by the Rail Industry or taken out of use when they decided to move to the capacity restrained St Pancras for scrap to pay toward the road crossing that should have been built in the first place.

Very politely that is an utterly ridiculous post. The world's longest road tunnel, opened in 2000, which is under 25km in length, has a very small underwater element.

 

[HSTEd]

Very politely that is an utterly ridiculous post. The world's longest road tunnel, opened in 2000, which is under 25km in length, has a very small underwater element.

A road crossing would likely have been a bridge system.

Although there is now an 18km subsea road tunnel being built in the Fehmarn Belt.

 

[Bald Rick]

and maybe timing two trains one behind the other to make best use of tunnel paths.

That’s been done since it opened. The flighted paths are there, just not used.

The obvious services to move would be the SE ones

You don’t need to. 6 platforms at St Pancras can easily deal with double the current service.

One thought, how much Eurostar traffic originates north of a line between the Wash and the Bristol Channel?

Not a lot.

Indeed we could lift all the unused rails and improvements all over Kent expensively paid for by the taxpayer but never used by the Rail Industry or taken out of use when they decided to move to the capacity restrained St Pancras for scrap to pay toward the road crossing that should have been built in the first place.

Ha. Quick back of envelope calc suggests you’d need 2-3 million miles of rail to scrap to pay for it!

 

[cle]

If anything, I'd make the eastern most platform available for more SE services, but still dynamic if needed - given E* is underutilized.

Ebbsfleet in an ideal world should have tons more housing, commercial and from a rail point of view, have a North Kent service (rebuild/re-design/integrate Northfleet) which could also be a Crossrail terminus. It won't happen of course, but it should really be a hub. Would be much more viable as a regional parkway.

 

[Wolfie]

If anything, I'd make the eastern most platform available for more SE services, but still dynamic if needed - given E* is underutilized.

Ebbsfleet in an ideal world should have tons more housing, commercial and from a rail point of view, have a North Kent service (rebuild/re-design/integrate Northfleet) which could also be a Crossrail terminus. It won't happen of course, but it should really be a hub. Would be much more viable as a regional parkway.

Re your first para not a chance of the Home Office agreeing to that.

 

[London Trains]

I certainly agree that St Pancras could do with a complete rebuild - EMR, Southeastern and Eurostar could all do with extra capacity, and the current layout is very inefficient and confusing (including the tube station) and can massively be improved.