Overnight sleeper service through channel tunnel.

[Indigo Soup]

Are you suggesting a reduction in fire safety standards for the Channel Tunnel? I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

Yes, I'm suggesting (as, indirectly, was Bald Rick) that there's no really logical reason why a 50km tunnel should have more demanding requirements than a 57km tunnel. It may well be that the Gotthard Base Tunnel (or indeed the Seikan tunnel) manages the risk in a very different way from the Channel Tunnel. If their approach yields equivalent safety in a way that makes the tunnel more usable for standard rolling stock, and can be applied to the Channel Tunnel, then refusing to revise the regulations will - intentionally or otherwise - give the incumbent operator a monopoly.

Equally, of course, it's possible that arrangements elsewhere aren't appropriate for the Channel Tunnel, in which case the current regulations will continue to be appropriate.

Of course, I'm also fully aware of the regulatory ratchet effect which makes it impossible, in practice, to remove safety measures - even if they're being replaced with other safety measures that give equivalent or better results.

 

[edwin_m]

Changes to procedural arrangements are somewhat different to changes in fire safety engineering standards for rolling stock that use the Channel Tunnel.

Just out of interest, are DB running trains through the tunnel now? I thought they had been prevented from doing so because none of their trains met the fire safety requirements.

However the procedure requires particular measures to be provided, so changing the procedure can change the measures.

I believe DB have permission to run through the Tunnel but have decided not to.

 

[Tio Terry]

However the procedure requires particular measures to be provided, so changing the procedure can change the measures.

I believe DB have permission to run through the Tunnel but have decided not to.

I'll guess - but most certainly don't know - that the conditions to be applied to allow DB to use the tunnel are so onerous as to make it totally impracticable.

It will all come down to Risk Assessment and Mitigation Measures to deal with those risks. For example, it might be acceptable to run DB stock through the tunnel if there are two fully trained and suitably equipped Fire Fighters in each coach!

 

[HSTEd]

And this is why long underground rail tunnels are no longer practical.

Any future connection must be above the surface, otherwise they will be regulated out of existence to preserve the markets of air and similar operators.

 

[coppercapped]

And this is why long underground rail tunnels are no longer practical.

Any future connection must be above the surface, otherwise they will be regulated out of existence to preserve the markets of air and similar operators.

I think that you had better tell that to the people building the Brenner Base Tunnel...

 

[Tio Terry]

And this is why long underground rail tunnels are no longer practical.

Any future connection must be above the surface, otherwise they will be regulated out of existence to preserve the markets of air and similar operators.

There's no reason why long rail tunnels cannot be safe. It comes down to building rolling stock and infrastructure that's not likely to sustain combustion. Happens all the time on London Underground!

Air travel has it's own problems with the environment to deal with.

 

[HSTEd]

I think that you had better tell that to the people building the Brenner Base Tunnel...

The Brenner base tunnel appears to have the luxury of multiple vertical access shafts, which are much harder to provide on an undersea crossing.

It is, in safety terms, much closer to a series of short tunnels than say the Seikan tunnel or Chunnel is

 

[HSTEd]

There's no reason why long rail tunnels cannot be safe. It comes down to building rolling stock and infrastructure that's not likely to sustain combustion. Happens all the time on London Underground!

Air travel has it's own problems with the environment to deal with.

On the London Underground you are never really more than a few hundred metres from a means of escape.

If we were to have a bridge over the North Channel (Stranraer-Carrickfergus) composed of 1100m bridge spans, you would never be more than 550m from a refuge that would have the potential for sea or helicopter evacuation.

Tunnel evacuations could put you 20km from a means of egress, and firefighting on a bridge is much easier than in a tunnel - the smoke blows away for one thing

 

[reddragon]

One return flight to southern Europe uses your entire CO2 allocation for a year, if we are to stop the climate emergency you can't do that anymore.

It is very telling about the scale of subsidy for airlines when the short train journey to the airport costs more than the flight! The cost balance needs to change.

Electric airliners are coming, test flights are happening, technology is getting there, it will take time.

Meanwhile there are much easier things we can do to reduce our impact on the planet, today, without pain, without cost.

 

[JonathanP]

C
Just out of interest, are DB running trains through the tunnel now? I thought they had been prevented from doing so because none of their trains met the fire safety requirements.

No. The closest they have got is owning some trains which could be retrofitted with the equipment necessary to go through the tunnel(and which happen to be a shorter version of the same model used by Eurostar).

They have been very successful with their ICE services on the Brussels - Cologne - Frankurt route, with the number of train pairs rising year after year. The trains mostly connect well with Eurostar services and there are competitively priced through tickets available. It's about as good as it could be without actually being a through train. Given the formidable obstacles to running a through service(discussed many times before on this forum), I'm not surprised that all talk of running through services has been quietly dropped.

 

[HSTEd]

Electric airliners are coming, test flights are happening, technology is getting there, it will take time..

A handful of tiny subscale prototypes for partial hybrid operation is a long way from electric airliners.
They are decades away - which given the climate situation means they are effectively not coming.

A lot of this funding is just the Government desperate to avoid admitting it will have to spend tens of billions on infrastructure to replace airline travel, for example a massive high speed rail network with fixed crossings to Northern Ireland and various Scottish islands.

Meanwhile there are much easier things we can do to reduce our impact on the planet, today, without pain, without cost.

If that was true, it would have happened already.

EDIT:

Back on the exact topic, your best chance for sleeper trains would be covering very long distances on high speed railways, destinations being more like Malaga and such than anywhere in France.

 

[reddragon]

If that was true, it would have happened already.

EDIT:

Back on the exact topic, your best chance for sleeper trains would be covering very long distances on high speed railways, destinations being more like Malaga and such than anywhere in France.

Holiday destinations, say Southern Spain would be a good start. I remember a TGV doing Calais to South of France in 3 hours, so an overnight London to southern Spain is realistically possible.

Things are easy to do, but legacy businesses & those in power are trying to stop change. My house is CO2 free, my car is electric and I choose everything else to be as good for the environment as possible. It has cost me nothing more than my old ways and wasn't difficult to do.

 

[Bald Rick]

Holiday destinations, say Southern Spain would be a good start. I remember a TGV doing Calais to South of France in 3 hours, so an overnight London to southern Spain is realistically possible.

It was 3h30, had special dispensation to operate at higher speed, and the entire TGV timetable for the time it was running was ripped up to get it in. Not realistic for everyday operation.

An overnight to Southern Spain would be at least 14 hours, as the LGVs are all shut overnight, and anyone who suggests otherwise to RFF is met with a Gallic shrug and a “mais ce n’est pas possible”