Could double decker trains run on HS1?

[zwk500]

Filling the spare paths with more trains will increase Eurotunnel revenue.
Thus the fixed annual amount needed to repay the “sack load of debt” will be shared between more trains so that the charge per train can be reduced.
That allows operators to reduce fares & so increase demand.

Demand already outstrips supply. There is no need to turn away potential revenue to stimulate demand that would not be served anyway.

On top of that, Duplex trains with higher capacity, if full, will increase the total revenue to Eurotunnel & reduce the fee per passenger due to servicing the debt.

As pointed out, not very much higher capacity (c.10%). Do we know whether Duplex trains impose greater maintenance requirements (I'm imagining they're heavier than standard trains) and if this would incur extra charges?
Also, more trains is different to running Duplex trains in existing paths. Are you talking about one or the other or both here?

There is no downside to filling all the paths...apart from St Pancras
capacity which can be resolved by using Ebbsfleet.

Ebbsfleet cannot bridge the gap between St Pancras's current capacity and a maxed-out HS1, in neither passengers nor train movements. And Eurotunnel isn't the only driver of high costs on trains. The Tunnel is 50km, London to Paris is 340km. HS1 and LGV Nord also charge track access, in addition to the costs of reactivating and expanding Ebbsfleet.

The upside is lower fares & therefore more people able to afford & enjoy continental/UK trips.

Why would you automatically get lower fares, just because an Operator incurred lower costs? If the market is willing to pay it, why would they deliberately look the gift horse of greater margins in the face? Even under the most favourable of circumstances, Ryanair will outcompete the train every time (even after you add in all the extras), so the train isn't increasing affordability.

To answer the OP, there is no infrastructure or technical reason Double-decker trains couldn't run on HS1. The reasons they don't are largely a commercial decision by Eurostar to offer a particular product. If Eurostar changed strategy or another operator wished to pursue a different strategy, they could very well use Double-decker trains so long as they can pass the evacuation requirements (which are now aligned to the EU standards, so the new double-decker trains should be able to meet them without too many questions). Southeastern can't run double decker trains on HS1 because they need to fit within the British loading gauge requirements for their classic line sections and these leave no room for a worth while double decker design.

 

[Krokodil]

Honestly, I am not sure it would yield much more capacity. The only in-service double-decker high-speed train I could find is the TGV Duplex. The Duplex seats 508 over 200m (according to Wikipedia), Eurostar trains are 400m long so double this to 1016 seats. When you consider an e320/Class 374 seat 900 (again according to Wikipedia) that is only a little more than 10% increase.

A 400m formation would have more seats than 2x200m because there's no need to accommodate the extra power cars. So add 160 seats.

 

[TheGrew]

A 400m formation would have more seats than 2x200m because there's no need to accommodate the extra power cars. So add 160 seats.

Indeed, though this would need to be a new train as I suspect halving the power output and tractive effort of the overall TGV Duplex consist would probably make it not very high speed
Double deck AGVs with distributed traction have been mooted though (and indeed in testing a TGV Duplex was fitted with it).

 

[Bartsimho]

How does more paths but reduced charge per train equal increased revenue?

It's all in the scale.

The level of debt is constant.
A set revenue is needed to be generated to service it.

By increasing the usage of the paths you generate more revenue.
This can mean that the margin for each path can be reduced while still maintaining a higher level of revenue and profit

 

[edwin_m]

It's all in the scale.

The level of debt is constant.
A set revenue is needed to be generated to service it.

By increasing the usage of the paths you generate more revenue.
This can mean that the margin for each path can be reduced while still maintaining a higher level of revenue and profit

Pretty sure Eurostar has thought that through when planning their services and fares. Including the minor matter of running more services increasing costs too. There are also risks like being landed with trains they can't earn any money if their forecasts turn out to be wrong, such as factors outside their control causing a big drop in international travel.

 

[Bartsimho]

Pretty sure Eurostar has thought that through when planning their services and fares. Including the minor matter of running more services increasing costs too. There are also risks like being landed with trains they can't earn any money if their forecasts turn out to be wrong, such as factors outside their control causing a big drop in international travel.

It's also the market they are going for. They are very much targeting the more business traveller market rather than the visitor market. There the prices are less of an issue and this is from balancing out capacity at St Pancras.

The desire for that market is also why no Stratford, Ebbsfleet or Ashford services exist. As Stratford and Ebbsfleet probably have a large enough market to justify customs but they want to offer for the business traveller not to tourist traveller

 

[RT4038]

It's also the market they are going for. They are very much targeting the more business traveller market rather than the visitor market. There the prices are less of an issue and this is from balancing out capacity at St Pancras.

The desire for that market is also why no Stratford, Ebbsfleet or Ashford services exist. As Stratford and Ebbsfleet probably have a large enough market to justify customs but they want to offer for the business traveller not to tourist traveller

I think that E* are going for both the Business and visitor market. My fairly extensive experience of travelling on them seemed to show far more visitors than business people. However, they have high costs to cover in infrastructure use, immigration and security, which would be no different to any rail competitor.
What E* aren't in is the cheap visitor market, mostly because of the high costs mentioned above, and quite probably because they have a hunch that there insufficient money to be made there. None of the proposals I've seen so far on this forum seem very convincing..... Maybe there is an operator out there willing to try, or are they just out to grab some of the E* business rather?

 

[Bald Rick]

Pretty sure Eurostar has thought that through when planning their services and fares.

I can guarantee they have!

 

[MarkyT]

A 400m formation would have more seats than 2x200m because there's no need to accommodate the extra power cars. So add 160 seats.

To match performance though, some more traction is required than 2 regular power cars can provide. Extra non-driving power cars, at one or both ends might help solve this, or the original Eurostar approach of equipping half the first car behind each lead vehicle with traction equipment as well as the driving car.

Indeed, though this would need to be a new train as I suspect halving the power output and tractive effort of the overall TGV Duplex consist would probably make it not very high speed
Double deck AGVs with distributed traction have been mooted though (and indeed in testing a TGV Duplex was fitted with it).

With their one-and-a-half power car arrangement at each end (the same layout used on original TGV PSE sets for the steep hills of the first LGV between Paris and Lyon), the original 400m Three Capitals Eurostars had only ~75% of the power of a typical contemporary twin 200m TGV formation. A handful were used domestically for a time by SNCF but they were considered rather sluggish there. The North of London sets fared better after the service concept was abandoned and that sub-fleet found continuous work in France from 2007 after some had plied the ECML under GNER for a while. They had the same power equipment as the three capitals sets but with 16 rather than 20 cars in total. At just over 300m long, their performance better matched that of other TGVs on the French network so were much easier to path and operate.

I think fully distributed traction, especially the all bogies motored Japanese model, might be going out of fashion in pursuit of a low(ish) floor, level-boarding Europe. Concepts such as the TGV-M save weight and complexity overall by deliberately concentrating traction equipment in the traditional way, meaning intermediate trailer bogies can have smaller wheels or allow larger wheels to penetrate the floor level enclosed in boxes, between which level passenger circulation can be maintained. Note the wheel-box approach is usually not possible over motored bogies, especially in High Speed trains, due to the sheer size of the powerful motors and gear enclosures, which is why the small number of intermediate powered bogies in a modern otherwise low(er) floor train such as the Anglia FLIRT often have raised floor sections above them alone.

 

[I'm here now]

I think all the HS services on LGV Nord (from Paris GdN and Brussels Midi) are single deck (Eurostar/Thalys).
The HS1 route and the tunnel could probably cope but the St Pancras station and approaches (UK spec) might not be configurable to allow double deck without modification.
Platform and pantograph heights will be the determining factors.

Then just use Stratford for the double deckers.

 

[zwk500]

Then just use Stratford for the double deckers.

Terminating at Stratford is an absolute pig on the international platforms as you need to run wrong-road to/from Dagenham (5 minutes each way) to do so. The domestic platforms can turn trains round more easily but they're only 200m long and they are to the british profile.

 

[MarkyT]

Terminating at Stratford is an absolute pig on the international platforms as you need to run wrong-road to/from Dagenham (5 minutes each way) to do so. The domestic platforms can turn trains round more easily but they're only 200m long and they are to the british profile.

Alternatively, carry on to the Camden area and reverse on the connecting chord between HS1 and NLL. There's standage for a Three Capitals set or other 400m train (measured on Google Earth). A movement towards the NLL would be overlap clear of simultaneous movements on the NLL - ECML chord so would have no impact on any other regular services apart from any maintenance plant or material trains going on and off HS1, which I would guess are relatively infrequent. No reversal at Stratford and the junction onto the HS1 - St Pancras approach is fully grade-separated by the flyovers. Probably need some crew facilities in the vicinity, possibly basic servicing. The single connecting chord is built on a viaduct designed for double track, so there's potentially space for some access and servicing facilities alongside the current single track. In emergency, if the continental arrival platform at Stratford was blocked for any reason, the tactic could be to bypass the blockage on the through line and terminate for arrivals only at St Pancras instead. A trainload of precleared arrivals is rather easier to deal with than the new checks on departure.

 

[zwk500]

Alternatively, carry on to the Camden area and reverse on the connecting chord between HS1 and NLL. There's standage for a Three Capitals set or other 400m train (measured on Google Earth). A movement towards the NLL would be overlap clear of simultaneous movements on the NLL - ECML chord so would have no impact on any other regular services apart from any maintenance plant or material trains going on and off HS1, which I would guess are relatively infrequent. No reversal at Stratford and the junction onto the HS1 - St Pancras approach is fully grade-separated by the flyovers. Probably need some crew facilities in the vicinity, possibly basic servicing. The single connecting chord is built on a viaduct designed for double track, so there's potentially space for some access and servicing facilities alongside the current single track. In emergency, if the continental arrival platform at Stratford was blocked for any reason, the tactic could be to bypass the blockage on the through line and terminate for arrivals only at St Pancras instead. A trainload of precleared arrivals is rather easier to deal with than the new checks on departure.

Tbh I'd avoid the problems of commissioning g the chords altogether if you're doing that and run empty to St Pancras. Platform capacity isn't the problem. However the cost (because trains are charged per minute on HS1) of doing so means you'd probably want to pick up some passengers at St Pancras and we're back to square 1.

 

[mike57]

It's also the market they are going for. They are very much targeting the more business traveller market rather than the visitor market. There the prices are less of an issue and this is from balancing out capacity at St Pancras.

On our two recent trips via HS1 to France I would disagree. Even in Standard Premier there were more tourists than business people, by a big margin. And in the waiting again the same thing, but in both cases not tourists on a tight budget. In Business class, probably yes, but that a small proportion of each train.

 

[zwk500]

On our two recent trips via HS1 to France I would disagree. Even in Standard Premier there were more tourists than business people, by a big margin. And in the waiting again the same thing, but in both cases not tourists on a tight budget. In Business class, probably yes, but that a small proportion of each train.

Of course, if you travel for leisure you are more likely to see people also travelling for Leisure. For instance when I travelled to Paris by train for the rugby in 2022 you could have concluded from that one trip that Eurostar makes a lot of money from sports events, but in reality that's a small proportion of travellers.
Eurostar targets a number of segments, but the key bit is they do not pretend to be offering the cheapest possible offering. They advertise the quality of their service to both Leisure and Business alike.

 

[30907]

Of course, if you travel for leisure you are more likely to see people also travelling for Leisure.

Only if you assume that Leisure travellers travel at separate times from Business people. I'm not able to comment from experience, but a proxy would be to see which trains sell out first - and it's not generally the ones at "business" times.

 

[Bald Rick]

but the key bit is they do not pretend to be offering the cheapest possible offering. They advertise the quality of their service to both Leisure and Business alike.

exactly - eurostar know that the train is more comfortable, more convenient, and quicker than the alternatives for most London - Paris / Brussels travellers. And therefore charge a premium compared to those alternatives.

 

[paul1609]

Tbh I'd avoid the problems of commissioning g the chords altogether if you're doing that and run empty to St Pancras. Platform capacity isn't the problem. However the cost (because trains are charged per minute on HS1) of doing so means you'd probably want to pick up some passengers at St Pancras and we're back to square 1.

I believe that the single track chord is already commissioned for the purpose of reversing a train there it's the TVM /British signalling interface at the Camden end that's not commissioned.

 

[MarkyT]

I believe that the single track chord is already commissioned for the purpose of reversing a train there it's the TVM /British signalling interface at the Camden end that's not commissioned.

The interlocking for the connection is there I think, just the trackside interface isn't configured for an easy changeover of protection systems on the fly as used to happen at various places on the South Eastern division where Eurostars on classic routes joined CTRL at speed. At Camden, I assume a TVM-equipped train would have to come onto the chord from the NLL in UK AWS/TPWS mode, changeover while stationary on the chord, then start up in TVM as from a terminal/siding.

 

[paul1609]

The interlocking for the connection is there I think, just the trackside interface isn't configured for an easy changeover of protection systems on the fly as used to happen at various places on the South Eastern division where Eurostars on classic routes joined CTRL at speed. At Camden, I assume a TVM-equipped train would have to come onto the chord from the NLL in UK AWS/TPWS mode, changeover while stationary on the chord, then start up in TVM as from a terminal/siding.

Im pretty sure that one of the freight companies has a special derogation from the ORR in their SMS to operate engineering trains into out of St Pancras (HS/Eurostar) without any protection systems in operation and for that reason trains are normally operated under possesion. Its complicated by the fact that St Pancras (HS) is protected by KVB rather than AWS/TPWS. The Chord is in fully rusted condition so isnt used reqularly. I dont think the MML/HS connection has ever been connected on the hs side.

 

[MarkyT]

Im pretty sure that one of the freight companies has a special derogation from the ORR in their SMS to operate engineering trains into out of St Pancras (HS/Eurostar) without any protection systems in operation and for that reason trains are normally operated under possesion. Its complicated by the fact that St Pancras (HS) is protected by KVB rather than AWS/TPWS. The Chord is in fully rusted condition so isnt used reqularly. I dont think the MML/HS connection has ever been connected on the hs side.

The signalling interlocking across the MML interface was never put in at all ISTR. The track connection actually exists but is classed as a siding at both ends. I expect if North of London Eurostar or Nightstar had ever become a thing, they could have dual-equipped the terminus with AWS/TPWS for movements to and from classic lines.

 

[paul1609]

Im told that at Ashford the KVB is overlaid on the existing AWS/TPWS and its TVM interface, but there is no agreed way of interfacing AWS/TPWS with KVB in to a terminating platform (because there has never been a requirement for it). I think the plan was that any train entering St Pancras HS would be be KVB equipped. As there is no UIC domestic stock except the 373s which were already equipped thats not really a problem.