Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[rvdborgt]

According to the Belgian(Flemish) Wikipedia page

Side note: Wikipedia is divided by language, not by country. This page is in Dutch.

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.

Local pressure being protests from shop keepers and passengers. Not sure if that would count as "politics". Anyway, Mortsel-Oude-God has by far the most passengers of the stations in Mortsel, and is close to the city centre, so from a passenger's point of view, there's no reason to close it.

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.

Currently, the ECD not doing too well, which I think is due to the separate fare system NS/NMBS invented. There should indeed be enough demand for a half hourly service.

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

Yes it does.

 

[MatthewHutton]

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?

It allows you to do Brussels-Munich in a reasonable time?

Like a 30 minute speed up is pretty big. Similar to a lot of the HS2 speed ups.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2025 ==

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.

Like sure a train stopping in Mechelen is a problem - if the international train is ~3 minutes behind. If it was 6-7 minutes behind however it could keep going at full pace.

And High Wycombe-Marylebone is 100mph/160km/h top speed with a fastest trip time of 24 minutes and that is only a few km shorter than Brussels-Antwerp. So even with that top speed - albeit perhaps with less 120/140km/h running north of Brussels and 100km/h running in the Brussels tunnel you should be OK for 24/25 minutes non stop.

I mean 50km also isn’t that far. So even at 300km/h the whole way the trip would take 15 minutes or something. So if you could get it to 24/25 minutes that wouldn’t be bad.

 

[rvdborgt]

So even with that top speed - albeit perhaps with less 120/140km/h running north of Brussels and 100km/h running in the Brussels tunnel you should be OK for 24/25 minutes non stop.

You'll need a new tunnel under Brussels if you want 100 km/h in it.

 

[AlastairFraser]

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.

Exactly

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2025 ==

It allows you to do Brussels-Munich in a reasonable time?

Like a 30 minute speed up is pretty big. Similar to a lot of the HS2 speed ups.

You could probably shave off more off the Brussels to Munich journey time with a Frankfurt - Wurzburg - Nuremberg HSL though.
HS2 is more about increasing capacity too - when building a new line in this day and age, high speed capability is just a bonus.

 

[NCT]

Exactly

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Apr 2025 ==


You could probably shave off more off the Brussels to Munich journey time with a Frankfurt - Wurzburg - Nuremberg HSL though.
HS2 is more about increasing capacity too - when building a new line in this day and age, high speed capability is just a bonus.

Exactly. There's a need for capacity through Aachen, not Liege - Luxembourg.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You'll need a new tunnel under Brussels if you want 100 km/h in it.

50 is pretty weak though.

And actually the newer tube lines do 100km/h so I expect the Brussels tunnel could see a speed increase without a new tunnel.

 

[rvdborgt]

And actually the newer tube lines do 100km/h so I expect the Brussels tunnel could see a speed increase without a new tunnel.

I don't see 100 km/h happening with the current curves. Maybe 60. Assuming you're not going to serve 3 stations, you'd also have to make unpopular decisions about which domestic services you're going to axe to create your 100 km/h paths.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Exactly. There's a need for capacity through Aachen, not Liege - Luxembourg.

Frankfurt to Nuremberg is probably much more important than either

 

[Brubulus]

I don't see 100 km/h happening with the current curves. Maybe 60. Assuming you're not going to serve 3 stations, you'd also have to make unpopular decisions about which domestic services you're going to axe to create your 100 km/h paths.

80 is definitely possible and knocks a couple off some services. The biggest time/capacity improvements will definitely be from bypassing Aachen given it's 40 through Aachen station, so an absolute crawl. Even with current infrastructure, it's likely you could get a headline travel time from London to Frankfurt below 5 hours.

 

[NCT]

Local pressure being protests from shop keepers and passengers. Not sure if that would count as "politics". Anyway, Mortsel-Oude-God has by far the most passengers of the stations in Mortsel, and is close to the city centre, so from a passenger's point of view, there's no reason to close it.

I didn't say politics was necessarily bad. Community action sounds like a good exercise of politics to me.

Currently, the ECD not doing too well, which I think is due to the separate fare system NS/NMBS invented. There should indeed be enough demand for a half hourly service.

Probably not helped by the fact that it gets overtaken by Red Eurostars so it doesn't even come up on journey planners.

That's the theory....

... now we add politics into the mix.

I mean this is all purely academic at this moment in time. It seems that all through Europe money is tight, especially in Germany even with the debt brake law change. So many countries are in a parochial phase - the fervour of improving cross border high-speed connections of the 2000s feels like a whole world away ... Germany has a backlog of renewals, collapsed tunnels and overrun megaprojects to contend with ....

Like sure a train stopping in Mechelen is a problem - if the international train is ~3 minutes behind. If it was 6-7 minutes behind however it could keep going at full pace.

And High Wycombe-Marylebone is 100mph/160km/h top speed with a fastest trip time of 24 minutes and that is only a few km shorter than Brussels-Antwerp. So even with that top speed - albeit perhaps with less 120/140km/h running north of Brussels and 100km/h running in the Brussels tunnel you should be OK for 24/25 minutes non stop.

I mean 50km also isn’t that far. So even at 300km/h the whole way the trip would take 15 minutes or something. So if you could get it to 24/25 minutes that wouldn’t be bad.

Belgium is a competent railway country. It has an national 'takt' that should be respected. Without doing any Pway engineering work, it does look like the current speed limits are a real function of physics.

Towards Amsterdam, the London Eurostar arrives at Antwerp just after the IC that stops at Mortsel Oude God - it cannot run any earlier through Antwerp. The path between London and Brussels is as good as fixed. In an infrastructure constrained environment preserving national takt integrity has to be the priority.

At the London end Eurostars have a remarkably good symmetrical structure. Generally the Parises are 01 depart 00 arrival, the Brussels are 04 depart 57 arrival. Some of the Brussels/Amsterdams are xx16 departure from St Pancras but I've not looked at the timetable enough to check whether that's possible all hours. Channel Tunnel charges are lower when two high-speed paths are flighted together for that allows more Le Shuttles to run - so that's probably a driving concern. Moving Eurostar paths at the London end would mean moving SE High Speed, then moving the Charing Crosses and the Victorias. Again, once a timetable structure is fixed it is fixed, especially one that's beautifully symmetrical about 00/30.

TL/DR - until a Mechelon(-Antwerp) bypass is built, the London - Antwerp path is fixed.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Belgium is a competent railway country. It has a national 'takt' that should be respected.

So is Britain, so is France, so is Switzerland. All have weaknesses.

Belgiums is excessive conservatism on speed.

For a start you could take a minute off each of the stops on the xx:56 Belgian Intercity. It doesn’t need 3 minute stops in the places that have them and the places with 2 minute stops could have one minute ones instead.

And then the general speed up to 80/160km/h or even 200km/h that speeds up the Eurostars will also speed up the domestic services.

 

[NCT]

So is Britain, so is France, so is Switzerland. All have weaknesses.

Belgiums is excessive conservatism on speed.

A tiny country that's built 3 high speed railway lines for the benefit of international flows?

For a start you could take a minute off each of the stops on the xx:56 Belgian Intercity. It doesn’t need 3 minute stops in the places that have them and the places with 2 minute stops could have one minute ones instead.

And then the general speed up to 80/160km/h or even 200km/h that speeds up the Eurostars will also speed up the domestic services.

A reference speed of 160km/h is perfectly reasonable for a country of Belgium's size. You postings reveal a tendency of wishing away physics. The Brussels tunnels have similar geometries and station spacing as the Thameslink core and the latter is also 30mph for much of the way. There might be something in the dwell times, but Belgium intercity primarily uses rolling stock with end doors, and sometimes double deckers, so those dwells are needed. Much of this rolling stock is relatively young, so until the next inter-city rolling stock renewal where the debate about suitable rolling stock can be usefully had, the dwells are the dwells.

The Belgian domestic network is well set up for its domestic needs - a small country that should prioritise connectivity and reliability over raw speed. Until a case can be made for a Mechelen bypass international trains are a guest on their domestic network and the domestic needs, and yes preferences, rightly come first.

The hourly London Eurostar path is only used 4 times a day. The red path is unused in some hours and only runs 200m trains. Until that capacity is exhausted international trains have no right to demand Belgium sacrifice their domestic operation integrity.

 

[MatthewHutton]

@NCT I think we should agree to disagree.

 

[NCT]

@NCT I think we should agree to disagree.

It's easy to spout opinions without a basis in facts. Sorry, you don't get out of jail that easily.

The closest comparisons are the SNCB IC31xx series with 7 intermediate stops between Midi and Antwerp Central, and the 2Wxx Marylebone - High Wycombe with 9 intermediate stops off-peak.

The northbound IC31xx take 57 minutes than the 2Wxx take 50 minutes for pretty much the same distance. So there are 7 minutes of difference to explain.
- Brussels South depart to Brussels North depart takes 12 minutes for 3.5km. That's just a function of Brussels' geography - Central and North are where a lot of people get on and off and you need those dwells. Out of Marylebone the track geometry allows for 50mph very quickly then 70 and 100, and even with a stop at Wembley Stadium you are at Sudbury & Harrow Road in the same 12 minutes which is 14km away
- Stations like Mechelen Nekkerspoel and Antwerpen Berchem have big populations and need the dwells more so than Denham and Gerrard Cross
- The IC31xx run with 8 double deck coaches vs the (typically) 5-car Class 165s of the 2Ws. For formers need more dwell time - you can debate whether the rolling stock choice is optimal but this is the reality we are working with. Loco-hauled stock isn't the best at acceleration - again we can debate the merits but this is what we are working with.
- I don't know whether Mechelen Station being a long term construction site means there are temporary speed restrictions - there may well be.

There are a lot of factors that legitimately explain that 7-minute difference. Without delving into the inner working of Belgian timetabling, I don't think there is evidence to conclude the IC31xx series are pathed below the capability of the assets.

And that leaves us with the timetable structure. At Brussels South, xx25 is the ICE/ES path towards Cologne. Unless you want to recast the Cologne area I suggest we treat the xx25 departure as fixed. So the Amsterdam ES has to depart before the xx25 path and arrive at Antwerp after the IC31xx (which became the path of the ECD in the 2025 timetable). I don't believe you can path the Amsterdam IC after xx25 because it would pass Mechelen too late for staying in front of the next domestic IC converging from the 'Old Road'.

So in short the xx23 (xx53) departure at Brussels is as late as it can be, and the xx23(red)/53(blue) arrival/pass at Antwerp is as early as it can be. Is there pathing time in the Eurostar between Brussels and Antwerp? Probably, but if there is there are good reasons as just outlined. This is actually a well put-together timetable structure. In the context of working with what you've got, Infrabel/SNCB cannot be accused of being conservative.

 

[MatthewHutton]

It's easy to spout opinions without a basis in facts. Sorry, you don't get out of jail that easily.

The closest comparisons are the SNCB IC31xx series with 7 intermediate stops between Midi and Antwerp Central, and the 2Wxx Marylebone - High Wycombe with 9 intermediate stops off-peak.

The northbound IC31xx take 57 minutes than the 2Wxx take 50 minutes for pretty much the same distance. So there are 7 minutes of difference to explain.
- Brussels South depart to Brussels North depart takes 12 minutes for 3.5km. That's just a function of Brussels' geography - Central and North are where a lot of people get on and off and you need those dwells. Out of Marylebone the track geometry allows for 50mph very quickly then 70 and 100, and even with a stop at Wembley Stadium you are at Sudbury & Harrow Road in the same 12 minutes which is 14km away
- Stations like Mechelen Nekkerspoel and Antwerpen Berchem have big populations and need the dwells more so than Denham and Gerrard Cross
- The IC31xx run with 8 double deck coaches vs the (typically) 5-car Class 165s of the 2Ws. For formers need more dwell time - you can debate whether the rolling stock choice is optimal but this is the reality we are working with. Loco-hauled stock isn't the best at acceleration - again we can debate the merits but this is what we are working with.
- I don't know whether Mechelen Station being a long term construction site means there are temporary speed restrictions - there may well be.

There are a lot of factors that legitimately explain that 7-minute difference. Without delving into the inner working of Belgian timetabling, I don't think there is evidence to conclude the IC31xx series are pathed below the capability of the assets.

And that leaves us with the timetable structure. At Brussels South, xx25 is the ICE/ES path towards Cologne. Unless you want to recast the Cologne area I suggest we treat the xx25 departure as fixed. So the Amsterdam ES has to depart before the xx25 path and arrive at Antwerp after the IC31xx (which became the path of the ECD in the 2025 timetable). I don't believe you can path the Amsterdam IC after xx25 because it would pass Mechelen too late for staying in front of the next domestic IC converging from the 'Old Road'.

So in short the xx23 (xx53) departure at Brussels is as late as it can be, and the xx23(red)/53(blue) arrival/pass at Antwerp is as early as it can be. Is there pathing time in the Eurostar between Brussels and Antwerp? Probably, but if there is there are good reasons as just outlined. This is actually a well put-together timetable structure. In the context of working with what you've got, Infrabel/SNCB cannot be accused of being conservative.

Well the Marylebone-High Wycombe train is a 30 year old DMU whereas the Belgian one is a modern EMU. So that makes a difference.

 

[NCT]

Well the Marylebone-High Wycombe train is a 30 year old DMU whereas the Belgian one is a modern EMU. So that makes a difference.

It's an electric loco hauling passenger coaches. Loco hauled rolling stock are poor at acceleration due to low tractive effort. Tractive effort is a function of the proportion of overall weight on powered axles. It's not at all given that even a modern electric loco hauled set will out accelerate a 30-year-old DMU.

 

[MatthewHutton]

It's an electric loco hauling passenger coaches. Loco hauled rolling stock are poor at acceleration due to low tractive effort. Tractive effort is a function of the proportion of overall weight on powered axles. It's not at all given that even a modern electric loco hauled set will out accelerate a 30-year-old DMU.

Surely the electric locomotive hauling passenger coaches on a route with 7 stops in 50km isn’t new?

And also I really do think we are making different points here. My argument is that the Belgians can speed up their lines to speed up both the international services and the domestic services.

Your point which I think you are persuasively making is that you cannot speed up the international trains without speeding up the domestic ones too - and that is certainly a strong argument against going above 200km/h and likely even 160km/h running.

EDIT: I think it’s also another nail in the coffin for e.g London-Munich as you will run into too many constraints.

 

[NCT]

Surely the electric locomotive hauling passenger coaches on a route with 7 stops in 50km isn’t new?

And also I really do think we are making different points here. My argument is that the Belgians can speed up their lines to speed up both the international services and the domestic services.

Your point which I think you are persuasively making is that you cannot speed up the international trains without speeding up the domestic ones too - and that is certainly a strong argument against going above 200km/h and likely even 160km/h running.

You are still ignoring Belgium's geography. It's a small but highly urbanised country. To Belgium, serving Mechelen, Nekkerspoel, Oude God and Berchem are far more valuable to getting to getting to Antwerpen Centraal 5 minutes quicker.

High Wycombe gets fast trains only because Oxford and Banbury/Birmingham exist. If High Wycombe were at the end of the country then Denham and Gerrards Cross would be bigger and denser and get more calls at the expense of High Wycombe journey time. That is essentially Belgium's geography.

Before your started moving your goalpost around you talked about getting the best timetablers to really optimise the Brussels - Antwerp timetable. As I've demonstrated it IS optimised for Belgium's needs given what they have to work with infrastructure.

EDIT: I think it’s also another nail in the coffin for e.g London-Munich as you will run into too many constraints.

Non-Schengen puts paid to anything beyond Brussels in this direction frankly.

In any case the focus should still be getting connections to work. Let the Germans get on with implementing their Deutschelandtakt (however imperfect it may be) and improve the reliability/attractiveness of the xx05-xx25 connection between the London - Brussels Eurostar and the German ICE / Red Eurostar.

 

[bspahh]

In any case the focus should still be getting connections to work. Let the Germans get on with implementing their Deutschelandtakt (however imperfect it may be) and improve the reliability/attractiveness of the xx05-xx25 connection between the London - Brussels Eurostar and the German ICE / Red Eurostar.

At the moment, on a weekday the last train from Brussels gets into St Pancras at 21:57. It would help to have another one an hour later than that. Then you would be able to have a working day for a lot more of Germany, whilst being able to get back to London the same day.

 

[NCT]

At the moment, on a weekday the last train from Brussels gets into St Pancras at 21:57. It would help to have another one an hour later than that. Then you would be able to have a working day for a lot more of Germany, whilst being able to get back to London the same day.

I too find Eurostar's last trains to be on the stingy side. Even for Brussels originating passengers a 2056 departure doesn't even give you enough time for after work dinners and drinks - surely demand isn't dropping off a cliff at that time? Unless I'm mistaken is the line open until 2400?

Going the other way is even worse - of course the time difference works against you. Last Paris at 2001 and last Brussels at 1934 means you really have to rush for your train after your day's activities.

I wonder if competition might deliver later last trains.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You are still ignoring Belgium's geography. It's a small but highly urbanised country. To Belgium, serving Mechelen, Nekkerspoel, Oude God and Berchem are far more valuable to getting to getting to Antwerpen Centraal 5 minutes quicker.

I am not against the stops. I am against not using a fast accelerating EMU for them.

If they were 90 second dwells then with a decent modern EMU you probably have a 3 minutes stop penalty or something to 150km/h.

The Shinkansen does like 4.5 minute stop penalties to 300km/h these days. Chiltern does a 3 minute stop penalty with old DMUs and a 60 second dwell to 100mph/160km/h.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2025 ==

In any case the focus should still be getting connections to work.

Oh fully agreed with that.

 

[NCT]

I am not against the stops. I am against not using a fast accelerating EMU for them.

If they were 90 second dwells then with a decent modern EMU you probably have a 3 minutes stop penalty or something to 150km/h.

The Shinkansen does like 4.5 minute stop penalties to 300km/h these days. Chiltern does a 3 minute stop penalty with old DMUs and a 60 second dwell to 100mph/160km/h.

That's not a tomorrow thing then is it.

The M6 double deck coaches were delivered in 2001, they are going through mid-life overhaul and are expected to last into the 2040s.

Again, being such a small country their maximum journey times are pretty much capped. From a domestic point of view, the worst it can get is a 30-minute journey turning into 35 minutes, they've got the loading gauge for double deckers and they can trade dwell time for a bit of sitting down comfort.

Now, Belgian passengers on SNCB concession services vote for their railway policies whereas Eurostar passengers most probably don't.

 

[Bald Rick]

too find Eurostar's last trains to be on the stingy side. Even for Brussels originating passengers a 2056 departure doesn't even give you enough time for after work dinners and drinks - surely demand isn't dropping off a cliff at that time?

The last flight ex Brussels for London is tyoically 2120, and there are usually about three in the hour before then. That suggests it is precisely when demand for the last service is (and more specifically, demand for a last London arrival time is around 2140) .Given it costs a lot less to fly a c180 seat A320 from Brussels to London than a 900 seat 374, if there was demand for a later flight it would operate. But it doesn’t.

Unless I'm mistaken is the line open until 2400?

LGV Nord closes well before that; around 2300 south of Lille, earlier north of Lille IIRC.

 

[MatthewHutton]

That's not a tomorrow thing then is it.

The M6 double deck coaches were delivered in 2001, they are going through mid-life overhaul and are expected to last into the 2040s.

Again, being such a small country their maximum journey times are pretty much capped. From a domestic point of view, the worst it can get is a 30-minute journey turning into 35 minutes, they've got the loading gauge for double deckers and they can trade dwell time for a bit of sitting down comfort.

Now, Belgian passengers on SNCB concession services vote for their railway policies whereas Eurostar passengers most probably don't.

Surely some brand new trains could be bought for the line where the express trains run and the existing stock could be cascaded somewhere else?

This is also something the British don’t get right either - e.g the Stoke Manchester or the High Wycombe - London local trains are pretty old now.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

This is also something the British don’t get right either - e.g the Stoke Manchester local trains are pretty old now.

The class 323s are going to be replaced likely sometime in the 203Xs as part of the whole fleet replacement

 

[NCT]

Surely some brand new trains could be bought for the line where the express trains run and the existing stock could be cascaded somewhere else?

This is also something the British don’t get right either - e.g the Stoke Manchester or the High Wycombe - London local trains are pretty old now.

So you are asking Belgium to significantly change their rolling stock strategy.

Here are things in the works:
- M6 coach refurbishment - https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/sncbs-m6-coach-refurbishment-programme-in-full-swing
- M7 coaches being delivered - https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/alstom-to-build-more-double-deck-m7-coaches-for-sncb/
- Procurement of EMUs (award in doubt) - https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/cafs-big-sncb-emu-contract-now-in-doubt/

There are a lot of double decker coaches to get around. The EMU procurement is looks to be stuck in a challenge, so until that gets resolved it looks like we will have to work with loco-hauled coaches for the foreseeable.

At the end of the day, it's a bunch of people who don't have a vote in Belgium (in this case prospective London - Amsterdam passengers) asking the Belgium government to change things for people who do.

 

[Snow1964]

Next week is a year since Eurostar announced it was looking at buying 50 new trains.

Virtually a year later, lots of potential competition and nothing ordered, instead continues with lots of its Eurostar /Thayls fleet as 30+ year old trains.

I wonder why they announced the plan in May 2024 then nothing has been ordered, they could have delayed the announcement, but they didn't, so what happened?

https://mediacentre.eurostar.com/mc_view?language=uk-en&article_Id=ka4Rz000007RgGrIAK

 

[HS2isgood]

Problems with accessibility guidelines and TGV-M.

 

[Snow1964]

Problems with accessibility guidelines and TGV-M.

I understand problems meeting regulations and specifications, but how can a guideline (which is just an indicative preference, not a rule) be a problem.

 

[HS2isgood]

I understand problems meeting regulations and specifications, but how can a guideline (which is just an indicative preference, not a rule) be a problem.

My apologies, I'm not a rail industry worker, I used a wrong word.