Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[MatthewHutton]

Brussels-Mechelen is already there. It's just 160 km/h, but it's there mainly for capacity reasons. Next, some flyovers would be needed north of Mechelen (plans exist, but no money yet) and maybe the missing extra tracks from there to Antwerp, but that would need a long tunnel on the approach to Antwerp.

Also Brussels South-Brussels North is pretty slow.

 

[NCT]

The biggest bang for the buck would be some sort of Aachen bypass (and Liege bypass) that would shave ~30 minutes off Brussels - Cologne. That would cost a small fraction of any Luxembourg - Liege.

Brussels - Antwerp is slow, but I don't see anything happening at the Brussels end - it's such an important node - it's a God level international takt node - I don't see anything bypassing it. Any Mechelen - Antwerp scheme (whether or not bypassing Antwerp) is going be expensive, physically messy, and politically challenging. It'd be Belgium taking the fiscal and political hit to benefit neighbouring countries whose journey times are already aviation competitive (Paris - Amsterdam), or a country that's outside the EU. There's possibility of EU funding but the CEF (the Connecting Europe Facility), but that's a small pot.

There is a capacity problem on the L25 between Mechelen and Antwerp with Belgian slow ICs using it. When the NS ECD was introduced Infrabel had to ask SNCB to take out one of its ICs.

 

[MatthewHutton]

The biggest bang for the buck would be some sort of Aachen bypass (and Liege bypass) that would shave ~30 minutes off Brussels - Cologne. That would cost a small fraction of any Luxembourg - Liege.

Brussels - Antwerp is slow, but I don't see anything happening at the Brussels end - it's such an important node - it's a God level international takt node - I don't see anything bypassing it. Any Mechelen - Antwerp scheme (whether or not bypassing Antwerp) is going be expensive, physically messy, and politically challenging. It'd be Belgium taking the fiscal and political hit to benefit neighbouring countries whose journey times are already aviation competitive (Paris - Amsterdam), or a country that's outside the EU. There's possibility of EU funding but the CEF (the Connecting Europe Facility), but that's a small pot.

There is a capacity problem on the L25 between Mechelen and Antwerp with Belgian slow ICs using it. When the NS ECD was introduced Infrabel had to ask SNCB to take out one of its ICs.

London Paddington to Reading is 35 miles and the minimum journey time is 23-24 minutes.

Brussels South to Antwerp Centraal is a fraction under 30 miles and has a minimum journey time of 34 minutes. It is slow.

Hell the fastest services from Marylebone to Haddenham and Thame Parkway only take 35 minutes and that is with old diesel trains and a top speed of 100mph and a distance of 42 miles - nearly 50% more than Brussels Antwerp and the same journey time.

And I don’t think it should be impossible to run some fast services non stop and long distance commuter trains from Brussels to Antwerp. Perhaps the Belgians need to put their best trains on that line so it can be run more aggressively.

EDIT As a serious point 21 minutes from Brussels South to Antwerpen Centraal should be achievable plus 3 minutes a stop for any stops.

 

[rvdborgt]

EDIT As a serious point 21 minutes from Brussels South to Antwerpen Centraal should be achievable plus 3 minutes a stop for any stops.

Maybe. But then try to add the 2 other fast international paths, the 4 domestic ICs and 2 all stations services per hour, one per hour Brussels-Turnhout and 2 per hour on Antwerp-Airport. And a few Brussels-Airport via line 25N. And some freight on line 27. At the moment, also take into account that lines 25 and 25N join without flyovers.
Infrabel/NMBS tried numerous scenarios and didn't find a solution, so one domestic IC had to go; faster paths for the international services will only result in even fewer trains, and removing 1 of the 4 domestic ICs already results in overcrowding on one of the others.
Adding back the 4th domestic IC may be possible in a few years time, when most of the engineering works in Mechelen are done. For anything else, flyovers are needed north of Mechelen as a minimum.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Maybe. But then try to add the 2 other fast international paths, the 4 domestic ICs and 2 all stations services per hour, one per hour Brussels-Turnhout and 2 per hour on Antwerp-Airport. And a few Brussels-Airport via line 25N. And some freight on line 27. At the moment, also take into account that lines 25 and 25N join without flyovers.
Infrabel/NMBS tried numerous scenarios and didn't find a solution, so one domestic IC had to go; faster paths for the international services will only result in even fewer trains, and removing 1 of the 4 domestic ICs already results in overcrowding one one of the others.
Adding back the 4th domestic IC may be possible in a few years time, when most of the engineering works in Mechelen are done. For anything else, flyovers are needed north of Mechelen as a minimum.

There are more than 2 tracks most of or all of the way already though right?

 

[rvdborgt]

There are more than 2 tracks most of or all of the way already though right?

Yes there are. Details on openrailwaymap.org.

 

[NCT]

There are more than 2 tracks most of or all of the way already though right?

Just trace the lines through on openrailwaymaps. In Belgium the lines are clearly labelled.

Between Mechelen and Antwerp there's the L25 and the L27. The L25 is the 'fast lines' the the L27 'slow lines'.

South of Mechelen there's the L25 (the ordinary fast lines) and the L25N (the super duper fast lines). It looks like Mechelen is undergoing major open heart surgery and at least for the time being the L25 and L25N merge south of Mechelen. This means a domestic IC stopping at Mechelen gets in the way of anything behind that doesn't stop. For one reason or another those slower ICs that stop at Mechelen Nkeerspoel, Mortsel-Oude-God and Anwerpen-Berchem need to stay on the L25 rather than cross over to the L27. That's a significant speed differential and places genuine constraints on pathing of the the ES and ECD trains. Don't forget also this is only a 160km/h railway with just 50km/h between Brussels South and Brussels North.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I am not sure. Brussels-Antwerp is almost certainly more expensive to build - if it wasn’t they would have already done it.

Expensive? I doubt it. There's a lot less to built, and even though this part of Flanders is densely populated, it's still easier to build through than the Ardennes.

The biggest bang for the buck would be some sort of Aachen bypass (and Liege bypass) that would shave ~30 minutes off Brussels - Cologne. That would cost a small fraction of any Luxembourg - Liege.

Brussels to Cologne only takes just under 2 hours - what would be the point of reducing it by half an hour? With the mess on the DB network, can you realistically expect to increase service levels significantly?

 

[NCT]

Expensive? I doubt it. There's a lot less to built, and even though this part of Flanders is densely populated, it's still easier to build through than the Ardennes.

Belgium's Mechelen Rail bypass

The Mechelen rail bypass is a Belgian line meant to relieve line 25 between Brussels and Antwerp. It was intended for high-speed (and other) trains like the Eurostar and Thalys to be able to travel 160km/h (still not that fast, but an improvement on 100km/h) past Mechelen and bypass a...

www.railforums.co.uk

Brussels to Cologne only takes just under 2 hours - what would be the point of reducing it by half an hour? With the mess on the DB network, can you realistically expect to increase service levels significantly?

That would create a truly fast Brussels - Frankfurt - Switzerland rail line making any talk of 'through Luxembourg' moot.

Yes, Cologne is a busy node but the problem isn't the node itself but the routes that feed into it. In this case the weakest link the two-track section between Hergenrath and Duren that's restricting the number of international fast services that can reliably operate.

 

[AlastairFraser]

That would create a truly fast Brussels - Frankfurt - Switzerland rail line making any talk of 'through Luxembourg' moot.

Yes, Cologne is a busy node but the problem isn't the node itself but the routes that feed into it. In this case the weakest link the two-track section between Hergenrath and Duren that's restricting the number of international fast services that can reliably operate

I don't think it was ever an intention to head through Lux all the way into Germany or Switzerland.

I also don't think half an hour saving off that axis (even with some more capacity benefits) you mention will make a massive impact on passenger numbers. Surely Germany should focus on new domestic HSLs or heavy upgrades to segregate traffic and make journey times more reliable before proposing any new international services.

 

[NCT]

I don't think it was ever an intention to head through Lux all the way into Germany or Switzerland.

I also don't think half an hour saving off that axis (even with some more capacity benefits) you mention will make a massive impact on passenger numbers. Surely Germany should focus on new domestic HSLs or heavy upgrades to segregate traffic and make journey times more reliable before proposing any new international services.

Aachen - Cologne is domestic Germany.

 

[zwk500]

Aachen - Cologne is domestic Germany.

Yes but as a domestic link you'd never build a HSL for it. Aachen is a relatively small city that is primarily of historic interest (it's lovely, absolutely worth a weekend) rather than a major traffic generator, and now that Border formalities are essentially gone any transport hub role it had as a frontier is basically gone.

If building for the international axis, you'd bypass Aachen and Duren.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Trenitalia submits Section 17 application for Temple Mills Depot access

Trenitalia submits section 17 application for Temple Mills Depot access

www.railmagazine.com

FS Italiane Group (FS Group) has applied to use Temple Mills International Depot (TMI) as part of its plans to introduce new cross-channel services.

The group which operates under the Trenitalia brand in Europe and already runs high-speed services in Italy and France, submitted a bid to link London and Paris in April – hoping to begin services in December 2029. It has joined bids by Evolyn, Gemini Trains and Virgin in wanting to rival Eurostar. However, at the time of the initial application, it was unclear as to whether it would be planning on stabling at TMI.

FS getting on with things. As many others have said, given they have trains on the way already they look to have taken the No. 1 spot on the rankings of viable contenders, although it remains to be seen what the ORR will say about any of these.

Given that FS already operate to Paris (albeit the other side at Gare du Lyon) do they stand a better chance of getting off the ground? They presumably have some maintenance capacity in the Paris area as well as whatever they could get hold of at TMI.

 

[NCT]

Yes but as a domestic link you'd never build a HSL for it. Aachen is a relatively small city that is primarily of historic interest (it's lovely, absolutely worth a weekend) rather than a major traffic generator, and now that Border formalities are essentially gone any transport hub role it had as a frontier is basically gone.

If building for the international axis, you'd bypass Aachen and Duren.

Building the bypass would improve the reliability of the (future) RRX, allow semi-fast Brussels - Leuven - Liege - Aachen - Cologne services to run (with potentially cheaper 'posh regional' rolling stock - granted a cross-border endeavour but with domestic commuting benefits) while allowing 2tph non-stop Brussels - Cologne to run, and improving on-time arrival at Cologne for all services despite a larger number of services which has domestic benefits.

 

[rvdborgt]

For one reason or another those slower ICs that stop at Mechelen Nkeerspoel, Mortsel-Oude-God and Anwerpen-Berchem need to stay on the L25 rather than cross over to the L27.

L27 is used by the all stations services and freight trains. Possibly also by the trains from/to Turnhout.

 

[NCT]

L27 is used by the all stations services and freight trains. Possibly also by the trains from/to Turnhout.

Makes sense. Also not helped by the fact that Mortsel-Oude-God only exists on the L25 - from my very limited reading it sounds like its existence is a little bit political?

 

[zwk500]

Building the bypass would improve the reliability of the (future) RRX, allow semi-fast Brussels - Leuven - Liege - Aachen - Cologne services to run (with potentially cheaper 'posh regional' rolling stock - granted a cross-border endeavour but with domestic commuting benefits) while allowing 2tph non-stop Brussels - Cologne to run, and improving on-time arrival at Cologne for all services despite a larger number of services which has domestic benefits.

It does, but the point was you'd not build a Duren-Aachen high speed line if looking at the domestic service alone. When looking at the wider HS axis, you'd build the bypass and be able to sell the benefits of relieving the classic lines as part of the overall case for the HSL.

 

[rvdborgt]

Makes sense. Also not helped by the fact that Mortsel-Oude-God only exists on the L25 - from my very limited reading it sounds like its existence is a little bit political?

Mortsel-Oude-God is actually the main station for Mortsel, nothing political about its existence. Taking away one of its 2 trains per hour was not well-received there, mildly put.

 

[signed]

Given that FS already operate to Paris (albeit the other side at Gare du Lyon) do they stand a better chance of getting off the ground?

Of course, they are the only contender that is proven, they already have experience running on French network...

 

[Trainbike46]

Eurostar has send a response to the ORR study regarding making space at Temple Mills for a second operator

https://mediacentre.eurostar.com/mc_view?language=&article_Id=ka4Rz00000EoUNpIAN

From the letter to the ORR available at the link above:

However, Eurostar does not believe that whatever
space may be freed up within the existing maintenance shed at TMI is sufficient to meet Eurostar’s future new
fleet needs – or those of the applicant parties. Eurostar expects to invest in increased and enhanced depot
facilities and wants alternative operators to have the same fundamental opportunity.

It later on goes to suggest:

Eurostar is committed to helping find solutions. It believes that options exist for expansion at alternative
locations in Kent and East London and that these should be examined.

So Eurostar's position is, in short, that while there may be limited capacity available for more trains at Temple Mills, that capacity is needed by Eurostar for their own expansion plans. They suggest a new, second depot could/should be built to enable competitor's services.

 

[crablab]

Eurostar suggests these alternatives may include the following:
• the Southeastern Trains Limited/Hitachi high-speed passenger rail depot at Ashford (Importantly
we note that there is currently no service facility description published for this depot, despite notes
in successive HS1 Network Statements that suggest this is in preparation, and we ask why ORR
has not to date required this be completed and published);
• the current freight facilities owned by Getlink at Dolland’s Moor and/or alternative Getlink facilities.
• Singlewell Depot;
• the previous depot site at Ripple Lane in East London;
• the HS1 chord and Fawkham Junction; and
• other alternative land and sites in East London

Not sure if more informed posters would care to comment on the viability of these suggestions. I know Ashford has been discussed before

 

[TheWierdOne]

So Eurostar's position is, in short, that while there may be limited capacity available for more trains at Temple Mills, that capacity is needed by Eurostar for their own expansion plans. They suggest a new, second depot could/should be built to enable competitor's services.

What expansion plans exactly? Beyond higher frequencies to London aren’t basically all of their expansion plans for Eurostar red routes? Unless of course they shell out for more border facilities at new stations

 

[zwk500]

Not sure if more informed posters would care to comment on the viability of these suggestions. I know Ashford has been discussed before

• Ashford was built for the javelin fleet, so presumably doesn't have capacity or gauge clearance for European trains. It's longest road appears to be c.350m long as well. If you were expanding depot facilities at Ashford it'd be simpler to build a new one.
• Dollands Moor is long enough and appropriate gauge but doesn't have many tracks and is between the running lines so hard to expand
• Singlewell would need to be a majority greenfield site to house a new depot
• Ripple Lane is earmarked for freight development and would require ending services at Ebbsfleet (or reversing them there)
• Fawkham Junction was only 2 tracks wide and faces away from London
• What alternative land in East London?

Within all of this is the consideration that HS1 charges by the minute for track access, so stabling further away from London will either need some compromise on the access fees, higher fares to cover the costs, or for potential operators to be able to offer services starting from Ashford/Ebbsfleet, potentially into London.

From google maps, the most promising site would be the former Chart Leacon works at Ashford, but it's probably been redeveloped since the Google maps picture was taken. There is a potential site north of HS1 by Westenhanger station although it would mean getting to/from the depot wasn't particularly convenient. A site south of the line at Singlewell would be doable as well although similarly more awkward to access for staff and deliveries.

What expansion plans exactly? Beyond higher frequencies to London aren’t basically all of their expansion plans for Eurostar red routes? Unless of course they shell out for more border facilities at new stations

They want to expand the London-Amsterdam route, although that's contingent on Belgian capacity.

 

[Trainbike46]

What expansion plans exactly? Beyond higher frequencies to London aren’t basically all of their expansion plans for Eurostar red routes? Unless of course they shell out for more border facilities at new stations

As well as the Amsterdam expansion plans zwk500 refers too, frequency expansion by itself would require more depot space.

From the Letter to the ORR, eurostar forsees the following reasons their needs for Temple Mills to increase:
- Five Amsterdam-London services per day (up from three at present)
- Increased use of e320s on all existing routes, including ones not to/from london, increasing the maintenance needs
- Less stabling possible at St Pancras International (due to services from the new entrants requiring the platforms currently used for this), moving stabling and light maintenance to Temple Mills instead
- The new fleet eurostar is in the process of procuring will need maintenance, and adaptations to the depot

 

[crablab]

The new fleet eurostar is in the process of procuring will need maintenance, and adaptations to the depot

This is maybe a separate thread, but the new fleet is surely to replace ex-Thalys trains and not displace the e320s?

 

[signed]

This is maybe a separate thread, but the new fleet is surely to replace ex-Thalys trains and not displace the e320s?

It needs to displace the few e300 left as well

 

[Trainbike46]

This is maybe a separate thread, but the new fleet is surely to replace ex-Thalys trains and not displace the e320s?

It was reported to be planned as a go-anywhere (on the eurostar network) fleet, replacing the e300, PBA, and PBKA sets, as well as enabling further growth. How that growth is to be enabled is somewhat unclear as they are reportedly only getting 50 sets, which would represent an increase of only 2 sets if all the new sets are 200m.

 

[crablab]

I found the relevant thread here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/eurostar-e300-replacements.263567/

 

[NCT]

Mortsel-Oude-God is actually the main station for Mortsel, nothing political about its existence. Taking away one of its 2 trains per hour was not well-received there, mildly put.

According to the Belgian(Flemish) Wikipedia page Mortsel-Oude-God station was a late addition to the L25 after local pressure - so politics of nearly 100 years old. Yes I do see the locational advantage of this station.

It really feels like the L25 is a regional railway line struggling to accommodate international services and we are already into zero sum game trade-offs.

If we want to run hourly Paris - Amsterdam, hourly London - Amsterdam, the NS ECD (which really wants to be half-hourly) and the Brussels Airport / Breda reverser EC while preserving Belgian domestic regional service levels, then a new line will be needed.

In the immediate term though, given the existing of the 4 London - Amsterdam services that do run, that path probably does exist every hour?

It does, but the point was you'd not build a Duren-Aachen high speed line if looking at the domestic service alone. When looking at the wider HS axis, you'd build the bypass and be able to sell the benefits of relieving the classic lines as part of the overall case for the HSL.

You never design an intervention for a single purpose with the express intention to exclude all other outputs. You look for the right solution for the set of problems / opportunities. If the objective is to improve Aachen - Cologne connectivity and capacity and improve right-time arrival at Cologne, then given the tightness of the railway through Aachen and Eischweiler, it's not inconceivable that the best technical solution is too boot the fastest services off the existing line.

 

[zwk500]

You never design an intervention for a single purpose with the express intention to exclude all other outputs. You look for the right solution for the set of problems / opportunities.

That's the theory....

... now we add politics into the mix.