DB considers London service once again

[CarrotPie]

Yes - I think you're right. I've misinterpreted the track layout. If it's the outside platforms which are for international services (with the inside ones for domestic), then it would require an extra crossover at the country end ... otherwise, yes, there would be a need to continue to St P to reverse.

Or (theoretically) using P2/3 in the half-hour gaps between certain SE services (or bump them to the "international" platforms instead)

*gets coat*

 

[lkoroes]

ICE407s would need to be certified for France again. I wish these articles would get more scrutiny from their authors.

 

[James Finch]

Or (theoretically) using P2/3 in the half-hour gaps between certain SE services (or bump them to the "international" platforms instead)

*gets coat*

Could be done, but infrastructure changes would need to be made - loading gauge changes for P2/3 to accommodate Velaro's/TGV's, platform raising for P1/4 to 915mm+. Platform length would also be a problem- P2/3 are ~280m, so there wouldn't be space for 2x200m trains (if DB would want to run that). Maximum train length for a Velaro would be an 11-car, which doesn't exist.

 

[GingerSte]

Could a separated departure hall, wherever it is either downstairs or upstairs, be dedicated first class & business?. Presumably takes less space and might free up a lot of capacity in the current area?

This was suggested by zwk500 in the other thread. That's another way of splitting it, yes.

Of course another thing that can adequately fit in a whole trainload of passengers is... a train! If they sorted out their operations and allowed people to get on the trains earlier, rather than penning them in for half an hour before releasing them to their train, that would solve a whole host of problems! It would probably create new problems, though.

 

[HST43257]

The main problem with this plan, however, as with other ones to enhance the range of destinations for international services, is at the non-UK end. Is there the will (and the money and the logistical possibility) of setting up - in effect - a UK border entry post, and a security screening to meet tunnel requirements, at every one of the stations at the non-UK end? I imagine these services would be less viable if each of them only served a single destination; but is 3 or 4 border set-ups per route a goer?

I completely agree, and it’s why I believe the Eurostar network should be contained into London-Paris and London-Lille-Brussels with quality connections. My suggestion was simply in the unlikely event that something could’ve worked out, like stopping in the middle of nowhere to do bags and passports but it doesn’t really work that way.

I’d prefer:
1tph London to Paris nonstop
1tph London to Brussels calling at Lille

Brussels has ICE and Thalys (yes, I know) connections to Netherlands, Germany etc. Lille has TGV connections to all of France without touching central Paris.

 

[Austriantrain]

ICE407s would need to be certified for France again. I wish these articles would get more scrutiny from their authors.

Why again? Aren’t they in daily service to Paris or am I confusing things?

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

ICE407s would need to be certified for France again. I wish these articles would get more scrutiny from their authors.

Jon Worth (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 image So in the end it merited a diagram Want to write a story about a new train service? Here's how to avoid making a mess of it High res PNG: https://jonworth.eu/downloads/RailStoryDiagram-V-1-0-0.png High res PDF: https://jonworth.eu/downloads/RailStoryDiagram-V-1-0-0.pdf

gruene.social

(Complicated flowchart about the fact-checking a journalist should do before repeating hype about new train services.)

Jon Worth (@[email protected])

Soon (maybe next week) I’m going to write a huge explainer - an answer to *all* these bull**** stories about services through the Channel Tunnel, and what will or will not happen In the bull**** world of railway industry PR and “journalism”, stories about the tunnel are the worst of all

gruene.social

 

[eldomtom2]

otherwise, yes, there would be a need to continue to St P to reverse.

Could the NLL connection be used as a reversing siding?

 

[D7666]

Why again? Aren’t they in daily service to Paris or am I confusing things?

I agree.

AFAIK 95xx Paris - Germany trains that are ICE, not TGV, and marked as ICE 3 Velaro D are 407s.

see

fernbahn.de - private Internetseite von Marcus Grahnert

Marcus is just about The Expert in this field; I doubt that data is wrong.

 

[och aye]

St Pancras could conceivably be reconfigured to add some capacity. For instance, the upper concourse at the Eurostar end could possibly be reconfigured to provide additional capacity, with the entrance under the clock potentially being transformed into a new border control area for departures. Arrivals really do not need that much capacity, especially if a rule is introduced that all passengers must clear border control before arriving in the UK. Customs might remain a small issue, but again, it's possible to have only a small area facing passengers and then conduct more extensive checks elsewhere.

Reopen Waterloo International?

 

[popeter45]

Could the NLL connection be used as a reversing siding?

only 350m without fouling junctions so not long enough and thats not even taking into account where the signalling boundry is

 

[Fragezeichnen]

ICE407s would need to be certified for France again. I wish these articles would get more scrutiny from their authors.

It's not even a news story as far as I can tell, because DB don't seem to have announced anything. Just lazy space filling. Methodology as follows:

1. Ask DB for a statement about running trains to London
2. If they say anything other than "we have no interest whatsoever and will definitely never do so", consider it to mean "yes, we are actively planning to do it"
3. Write a poorly researched article about DB planning to run trains to London

It was the BR406 that was previously equipped for France. This was removed when they were equipped with ETCS for Belgium. It would probably have been impossible to physically fit both in(don't forget there is just a glass sheet behind the cab in the BR406, and not a corridor with equipment racks like most other trains), and they were anyway replaced with BR407 on the Paris route.

It was originally planned to certify the BR407 further countries beyond France, but this never happened, probably because there are only 17 of them.
Perhaps with the new BR408(90 ordered so far) we will finally get a go-anywhere super-train.

 

[D7666]

It's not even a news story as far as I can tell, because DB don't seem to have announced anything. Just lazy space filling. Methodology as follows:

1. Ask DB for a statement about running trains to London
2. If they say anything other than "we have no interest whatsoever and will definitely never do so", consider it to mean "yes, we are actively planning to do it"
3. Write a poorly researched article about DB planning to run trains to London

It was the BR406 that was previously equipped for France. This was removed when they were equipped with ETCS for Belgium. It would probably have been impossible to physically fit both in(don't forget there is just a glass sheet behind the cab in the BR406, and not a corridor with equipment racks like most other trains), and they were anyway replaced with BR407 on the Paris route.

It was originally planned to certify the BR407 further countries beyond France, but this never happened, probably because there are only 17 of them.
Perhaps with the new BR408(90 ordered so far) we will finally get a go-anywhere super-train.

you are missing the whole point that 407 was specified to be channel tunnel compliant and therefore passively ready but no other ICE is

that is why there are only 17 because they are different; they are. already TVM ready

407s are a lot easier and cheaper to get approved than anything else and are the most obvious

anything else needs much more work and money

 

[LBMPSB]

Reopen Waterloo International?

I'd would consider another railway to use that temporary until Euston International is built, HS 2. The track is there from Old Oak, just needs a bit of infrasture built to connect up the new Station to the West London Lines.

 

[tom1996]

Stratford isnt fitted out for International trains at all and was like Ebbsfleet never designed to be able to take a whole train of passengers terminating there. When Ebbsfleet and Stratford were designed and fitted (Ebbsfleet) out the plan was that International trains were going to be split between Waterloo and St Pancras.

However, Stratford does have a huge concourse which is empty even at peak times which could surely be repurposed for additional space?

 

[AlbertBeale]

I'd would consider another railway to use that temporary until Euston International is built, HS 2. The track is there from Old Oak, just needs a bit of infrasture built to connect up the new Station to the West London Lines.

Are you saying that international services could stay above ground across South London (while using HS1 tunnels for getting across Kent) - as they did towards the end of Waterloo International times - but then [one day, after using Waterloo again for now] go "straight on" after Brixton (rather than "turning right" over the link into Waterloo built for the international service)? And then on, via the maze of lines east of Clapham Junction, to the West London Line and up towards OOC? (So far so perfectly possible, with a bit of gauge clearance, even if slow.) And then, somehow, getting deep underground to join tunnels [which might never exist...] to terminate at Euston? It's a bit of crayoning I hadn't seen before ... though perhaps no less possible, in principle, than suggestions to get trains from the tunnel into St P on to Euston or elsewhere.

Or perhaps the least impossible option is a link from the tunnel mouth at St P, via the NLL, to the above ground (being expanded) OOC complex to terminate there? That could provide an interchange connection with HS2 (if it ever gets that far south), and/or - in principle - a route for international trains to go north or west on existing main lines. Though this doesn't improve international services' resilience in terms of having an alternative to the HS1 tunnel under the Thames and east London, but it does provide extra terminating capacity and extra interchange options.

I hadn't realised crayons were such fun.

However, Stratford does have a huge concourse which is empty even at peak times which could surely be repurposed for additional space?

Yes - it does seem a bit obvious that using Stratford as an extra international terminus at the London end is the most feasible (least unfeasible?), if places like Ashford are thought to be too far out to be a desired destination for many. Though of course an Ashford stop (even if it isn't the terminus) - particularly on anything running other than to St P (as per crayons above) - does spread the terminal load at least a bit, as well as providing additional connections around the soouth-east; and tickets to/from Ashford could be cheaper (and/or include "local" - ie SE England - onward journeys in the price).

 

[Citybreak1]

I personally do see a major re works of St Pancras and future services. Think it’s atleast ten years off. The future of Kent stations I see maybe one of the low budget operators could stop there. Paris seems most likely short term busy and has all the security in place. Germany isn’t set up for international took Holland years to get ready for Eurostar. All I can see at best is train splits in Brussels or it goes one way to Frankfurt. No return leg without a change in Brussels. Worked for Eurostar for a few years. Don’t ever see services to Switzerland or Spain. Germany is next key market and possibly rival services on existing lines. Any re work of St Pancras depends on how many extra trains. A few DB trains won’t change much. Another 12 to Paris might.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

I hadn't realised crayons were such fun.

They really are.

I do wonder what will happen when the track capacity into St. Pancras gets eaten up. What then? We'd have to tunnel into South London again surely. The Eurostar will always be a Southern Region EMU in my eyes!

 

[YorkRailFan]

Don’t ever see services to Switzerland or Spain.

If Renfe and SNCF can't work together to get a Paris-Barcelona service, there isn't going to be a London-Barcelona or London-Madrid service anytime soon.

 

[AlbertBeale]

They really are.

I do wonder what will happen when the track capacity into St. Pancras gets eaten up. What then? We'd have to tunnel into South London again surely. The Eurostar will always be a Southern Region EMU in my eyes!

Well - it's just as uncomfortably crowded; and the sandwiches aren't much better...

 

[Struner]

& again carrying on about the inadequasies of st pancras - every time a possible service beyond €* is proposed. it really needs a seperate thread to which every poster can refer ( in the speculative subsection i suppose )

 

[30907]

However, Stratford does have a huge concourse which is empty even at peak times which could surely be repurposed for additional space?

It's the north end of the site adjacent to International Way which would be key - providing a checkin/security/departure area for potentially 8-900 passengers an hour (so less than STP but still a lot). It's years since I walked through the site, is that a realistic possibility?

Yes - it does seem a bit obvious that using Stratford as an extra international terminus at the London end is the most feasible (least unfeasible?), if places like Ashford are thought to be too far out to be a desired destination for many.

...or simply not capacious enough to handle a trainload.

Though of course an Ashford stop (even if it isn't the terminus) - particularly on anything running other than to St P (as per crayons above) - does spread the terminal load at least a bit, as well as providing additional connections around the soouth-east; and tickets to/from Ashford could be cheaper (and/or include "local" - ie SE England - onward journeys in the price).

A reasonable suggestion.

 

[Trainbike46]

I've suggested a possible way to convert most of the arrivals area at St Pancras into additional departure space in St Pancras International departure hall - one potential solution for overcrowding.

With this being a completely separate departure hall to the existing used by Eurostar, this would probably be used by other operators (or a collection of other operators).

Eurostar has actually partially done that already, and have installed two security and passport lanes in part of the arrivals area which they use at busy times

I completely agree, and it’s why I believe the Eurostar network should be contained into London-Paris and London-Lille-Brussels with quality connections. My suggestion was simply in the unlikely event that something could’ve worked out, like stopping in the middle of nowhere to do bags and passports but it doesn’t really work that way.

I’d prefer:
1tph London to Paris nonstop
1tph London to Brussels calling at Lille

Brussels has ICE and Thalys (yes, I know) connections to Netherlands, Germany etc. Lille has TGV connections to all of France without touching central Paris.

Why would you remove existing services to Rotterdam and Amsterdam?

Back to DB - I would love for direct services to germany to start, but I am sceptical DB will run services to London

 

[Bald Rick]

With only one arrival and departure an hour, I think the Stratford layout is sufficient for those services to reverse there without needing to go on to St P after unloading to turn back.

It isn‘t, and changing it to do so would be expensive and disruptive.

And presumably the space to set up passport checks etc in the unused (potential) international terminal might be enough for 1 departure ph.

It isnt, not by a long way.

Far cheaper just to sort out St Pancras. As is happening.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

Jon Worth has now published his blog post on future Channel Tunnel services.

The future of long distance train services through the Channel Tunnel - Jon Worth

TL;DR – whatever you read in the press about future long distance train services through the Channel Tunnel is at best only part of the truth, because the reality is complicated Periodically stories appear in newspapers, on radio and television, and also in the dedicated railway trade press...

jonworth.eu

TL;DR – whatever you read in the press about future long distance train services through the Channel Tunnel is at best only part of the truth, because the reality is complicated

Periodically stories appear in newspapers, on radio and television, and also in the dedicated railway trade press, about future passenger train services through the Channel Tunnel – either new destinations to be offered by Eurostar, or completely alternative operators proposing new services. Most of these stories are based on statements made by players in the railway industry that have a particular incentive to explain the situation from their point of view, leading to inaccuracies in these reports.

This blog post is designed as a general response to those stories – a kind of overall assessment of the future of Channel Tunnel long distance passenger railway traffic, to help someone make sense of the stories that might appear in future.

(Introductory comment added on Thursday because it seems that nobody noticed this post yesterday.)

 

[philg999]

Deleted duplicate post

 

[HST43257]

Why would you remove existing services to Rotterdam and Amsterdam?

I hate the return journey arrangement. They need to be self contained within border control without getting people on and off the same train or whatever happens atm.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Why would you remove existing services to Rotterdam and Amsterdam?

I hate the return journey arrangement. They need to be self contained within border control without getting people on and off the same train or whatever happens atm.

You don't get on and off the train travelling from Netherlands to London - the pre-boarding check at your origin station is all that happens, same as from Brussels or Paris.

 

[ShadowKnight]

The ripple lane junction off hs1 in east London could also be used as an on/off point from HS1 to an alternative location in London?

 

[HST43257]

You don't get on and off the train travelling from Netherlands to London - the pre-boarding check at your origin station is all that happens, same as from Brussels or Paris.

oh has that changed now? Excellent