Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[Austriantrain]

You could, but that would be a signalling nightmare + capacity out of Gare de Lyon is already slim

Why would it be a signaling nightmare? Not a single piece of track would be used that does not see regular service.

But I agree, no capacity at GdL.

 

[nwales58]

But I agree, no capacity at GdL.

which takes us back to Marne-la-Vallée-Chessy as the under-capacity concrete hole where a train can linger without gumming much else up and the interregional TGV+Ouigo calling there will get you to most of the TGV stops in the country, eventually. CDG is a nicer place to change though.

 

[AlbertBeale]

As you may have noticed in my second reply, linked below for ease:

The longer term plan for St Pancras is for more capacity than all 4/5 paths running with 900 seat-capacity trains. I think it is fair to assume that the competitors are unlikely to start with trains of such a high capacity, so this should be enough for at least 6 trains an hour - so allows for very significant growth long-term, both by Eurostar and potential competitors.

But are you mixing up St P capacity being eased if some new services are lower-capacity trains, with the lack of paths for more trains? The need for a path doesn't depend on the train capacity.

 

[Austriantrain]

which takes us back to Marne-la-Vallée-Chessy as the under-capacity concrete hole where a train can linger without gumming much else up and the interregional TGV+Ouigo calling there will get you to most of the TGV stops in the country, eventually. CDG is a nicer place to change though.

Still easier to do all of that at Lille, provided that the Brussels service is ramped up towards hourly and SNCF manages to run their cross-Country TGV via Lille Europe.

Oh wait - SNCF taking a coordinated approach with E* - owned by it - not going to happen before Antartica thaws out.

All the discussions here are very interesting, but would be unnecessary if SNCF got its act together. Given that any new operator will surely focus on Paris anyway, they really should in order to broaden their market, but… they are SNCF.

 

[Trainbike46]

But are you mixing up St P capacity being eased if some new services are lower-capacity trains, with the lack of paths for more trains? The need for a path doesn't depend on the train capacity.

No

The short term capacity increase is to 2400 passengers per hour, or ~2.5 class 374 or ~3.33 class 373 per hour
The long term capacity increase is to 5000 passengers per hour, or ~5.5 class 374 or ~6.33 class 373 per hour

Paths available for international service through the channel service currently: .01, .04, .31, .34 departure from St Pancras every hour, with an extra .15/.16 departure in some hours. Note that the capacity at St. Pancras in the long term will therefore exceed the tunnel capacity with current paths even if every train had a capacity for 900 passengers. If, as I think is likely, some of the trains have less passenger capacity than a 374 (e.g., by using 200m long trains, by using class 373, or some other reason), the 5000 pax per hour capacity of St Pancras would allow for around 6-7 trains per hour, which would require an increase in the number of paths needed over the current 4/5 paths per hour.

In the long term, capacity at St Pancras will therefore allow significant growth, whether by Eurostar or new competitors. Even in the short term growth is possible, because 3 trains per hour, every hour, is achievable, and more than currently runs.

 

[Bald Rick]

To put that into c

No

The short term capacity increase is to 2400 passengers per hour, or ~2.5 class 374 or ~3.33 class 373 per hour
The long term capacity increase is to 5000 passengers per hour, or ~5.5 class 374 or ~6.33 class 373 per hour

Paths available for international service through the channel service currently: .01, .04, .31, .34 departure from St Pancras every hour, with an extra .15/.16 departure in some hours. Note that the capacity at St. Pancras in the long term will therefore exceed the tunnel capacity with current paths even if every train had a capacity for 900 passengers. If, as I think is likely, some of the trains have less passenger capacity than a 374 (e.g., by using 200m long trains, by using class 373, or some other reason), the 5000 pax per hour capacity of St Pancras would allow for around 6-7 trains per hour, which would require an increase in the number of paths needed over the current 4/5 paths per hour.

In the long term, capacity at St Pancras will therefore allow significant growth, whether by Eurostar or new competitors. Even in the short term growth is possible, because 3 trains per hour, every hour, is achievable, and more than currently runs.

To put it in context, 5000 departing passengers per hour scales up on an annual basis to be rather more than what Luton and Stansted do combined, even allowing for St Pancras (eurostar) having a shorter operational day.

 

[nwales58]

To put it in context, 5000 departing passengers per hour scales up on an annual basis to be rather more than what Luton and Stansted do combined, even allowing for St Pancras (eurostar) having a shorter operational day.

Even allowing for comparing St Pancras capacity with actual throughput, 5000/h is on a par with a decent two-runway short-haul airport (or Gatwick's 1 1/4) which is worth remembering in the context of adding runways in south-eastern england.

Surface access is always critical though for an airport, this terminal or HS2 Euston even. What would needed to handle more than double the current passengers interchanging to underground, bus, surface rail and taxi? TfL would probably rather it did not happen because of the knock-on capacity expansion needed.

A 40-50m pax/year terminal could be fitted into a mega interchange in the space between St Pancras and Kings Cross but even with station rather than airport passenger hanging around times requires digging down and/or replacing bits of the Google blocks. That kind of grand project is easy in France or China but here probably impossible so we'll end up with an unpleasant rabbit warren.

Starting point of this thread was 'doubling destinations' so I see the 2400 pax/h happening but nothing more unless a government is really serious about modal shift from aviation.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even allowing for comparing St Pancras capacity with actual throughput, 5000/h is on a par with a decent two-runway short-haul airport (or Gatwick's 1 1/4) which is worth remembering in the context of adding runways in south-eastern england.

Ok, but to put it further in context, the Thameslink station downstairs alone has capacity for around 25,000 passengers an hour, and probably gets halfway there on the busier mid week days in the morning peak. I know it is a different sort of railway, of course.

 

[BahrainLad]

Out of interest, what is underneath the northern bit of St Pancras ie the new extensions… anything from basically behind Boots all the way up to the Pancras Road tunnel?

The point about increased overall transport interchange is a good one, also the current arrivals arrangement would also need to be looked at…funnelling arriving passengers through two small sets of double doors into a shopping arcade doubling as a “meeters and greeters” space always seemed like a little bit of an afterthought, even from opening day.

 

[Bald Rick]

Out of interest, what is underneath the northern bit of St Pancras ie the new extensions… anything from basically behind Boots all the way up to the Pancras Road tunnel?

Below ground is the Thameslink station and the Fleet ‘River’ (sewer)

At Ground level is all the ‘back offices’ for the station management, service areas for the retail (and lots of it), coach parking / drop off, car parking, emergency escapes from all the platforms, and storage areas.

 

[SynthD]

Out of interest, what is underneath the northern bit of St Pancras ie the new extensions… anything from basically behind Boots all the way up to the Pancras Road tunnel?

I had a quick look through Camden’s planning permission records but couldn’t find the station. Even if it didn’t need to be submitted because of primary legislation, it usually would be.

Could they reduce the size of the car park? Connect to the Kings Cross service yard built for the new offices across the road?

 

[800001]

I can’t see any posts regarding this, BBC reporting on the plans to increase capacity at St Pancras to allow new services to potentially run to destinations in Germany, Switzerland and France.

Link to BBC article below

St Pancras plans for direct trains from UK to Germany

The London station's owner and Eurotunnel hope to expand routes to Cologne, Frankfurt and Switzerland.

www.bbc.co.uk

New direct train routes from London to Germany, Switzerland and France could open as part of plans to boost passenger numbers at St Pancras station.
London St Pancras Highspeed, which owns the station and operates the track to the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone, has already set out proposals to increase capacity for international train travel from 1,800 passengers per hour to almost 5,000.
It now wants to attract different train operators to offer a range of services in Europe.
Eurostar currently holds a monopoly on the trains through the Channel Tunnel with routes to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam.
London St Pancras Highspeed and Getlink have signed an agreement that will help them to commit to expanding rail connectivity between the UK and Europe.
"Many European cities could be reached directly by train in under six hours which we believe is really competitive with short-haul air travel," said a spokesperson for London St Pancras Highspeed.
Yann Leriche, chief executive of Getlink, which owns Eurotunnel, said: "We are keen to drive forward attractive opportunities for low-carbon mobility with a range of new destinations in Germany, Switzerland and France."
London St Pancras Highspeed believes it is possible for train services to Bordeaux, Cologne, Frankfurt, Geneva, Marseille and Zurich to be created.
No set timeline has been revealed as yet.
Eurostar dropped services between London and Disneyland Paris in June 2023, and no longer has routes between London and the south of France.
Virgin Group and Evolyn are two companies developing plans for rival services to Eurostar that could take passengers to the newly proposed destinations.
Virgin acknowledged that it would be a "huge undertaking" to establish a new cross-Channel operator but said the route was "ripe for change with plenty of room and potential for new competition at St Pancras and through the Tunnel".
Competition between different companies on the route would benefit all customers, a spokesperson added.
London St Pancras Highspeed and Getlink have signed an agreement that will help them to commit to expanding rail connectivity between the UK and Europe.
Robert Sinclair, chief executive of London St Pancras Highspeed, said demand for international train travel was growing.
He said his company would work with Getlink "to encourage new and existing train operators to expand capacity and launch new destinations unlocking the potential of a fully connected Europe".

 

[JustPassingBy]

Good to hear, but I'll ask the obvious question - how are they planning to do that? 1,800 to 5,000 per hour is a huge increase.
The station is already pretty unpleasant a lot of the time in the queues/waiting areas due to lack of capacity.
No idea what platform occupation time / availability is like, but guessing there might be small amount spare there?
Am I the only one who feels this is destined to end-up like the previous announcements on this subject. (Hope to be proven wrong).

 

[800001]

Good to hear, but I'll ask the obvious question - how are they planning to do that? 1,800 to 5,000 per hour is a huge increase.
The station is already pretty unpleasant a lot of the time in the queues/waiting areas due to lack of capacity.
No idea what platform occupation time / availability is like, but guessing there might be small amount spare there?
Am I the only one who feels this is destined to end-up like the previous announcements on this subject. (Hope to be proven wrong).

Eurostar would need to tidy there diagrams up, I believe they sit at St Pancras for a long time between duties.

As for how they increase capacity from checking in to boarding, I have no idea.
It is already cosy when 2 Eurostars are going through process of accepting customers.

I wonder if it could be like Euston, remove some of the shops on the side where M+S is, to create more operational space for customers (granted less rent, but more money from train operators)?

 

[nwales58]

Capacity increases are in the long-running 'Getlink aiming to double the number of destinations from London in ten years' thread.

The news here is simply a new agreement between the tunnel (Getlink) and St Pancras (LSPH, was HS1 Ltd until the other day):

London St Pancras Highspeed and Getlink have signed an agreement that will help them to commit to expanding rail connectivity between the UK and Europe.

 

[Fragezeichnen]

Yann Leriche, chief executive of Getlink, which owns Eurotunnel, said: "We are keen to drive forward attractive opportunities for low-carbon mobility with a range of new destinations in Germany, Switzerland and France."
London St Pancras Highspeed believes it is possible for train services to Bordeaux, Cologne, Frankfurt, Geneva, Marseille and Zurich to be created.

Here we go again(though this article is better than the one in The Times promising direct services to Milan). You can be as keen as you like, Monsieur Leriche, you and your rent-seeking company have presided over a continual reduction in the number of destinations served.

To be fair though, the real story here is the welcome capacity improvements; it's just a little annoying that the press are only ever interested in new direct services and not in capacity, frequency or value for money.

 

[kevin_roche]

On the BBC website today:

London St Pancras Highspeed and Getlink have signed an agreement that will help them to commit to expanding rail connectivity between the UK and Europe.

"Many European cities could be reached directly by train in under six hours which we believe is really competitive with short-haul air travel," said a spokesperson for London St Pancras Highspeed.

Yann Leriche, chief executive of Getlink, which owns Eurotunnel, said: "We are keen to drive forward attractive opportunities for low-carbon mobility with a range of new destinations in Germany, Switzerland and France."

Getlink believes it is possible for train services to Bordeaux, Cologne, Frankfurt, Geneva, Marseille and Zurich to be created.

No set timeline has been revealed as yet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg5d6l5lz4jo

 

[Bald Rick]

On the BBC website today:

Looks like they have been reading my posts on this thread (and all the others on this subject) re destinations.
Either that or they use the same evidence, which I hope they do !

 

[mad_rich]

Good to hear, but I'll ask the obvious question - how are they planning to do that? 1,800 to 5,000 per hour is a huge increase.
The station is already pretty unpleasant a lot of the time in the queues/waiting areas due to lack of capacity.
No idea what platform occupation time / availability is like, but guessing there might be small amount spare there?
Am I the only one who feels this is destined to end-up like the previous announcements on this subject. (Hope to be proven wrong).

They could make massive gains by switching from the 'just in case' approach of telling people to arrive 75 minutes before departure, to a just in time approach. Obvously that would take investment in security machines, staff, technology and willingness from the Police aux Frontières.

No need to spend billions to upgrade the high speed line for faster journey times - you can spend millions and save all your passengers an hour.

You really don't want the current 2-3 trainloads of people hanging around the departure lounge for an hour, taking up space and getting restless. Let alone 5 or 6!

 

[sh24]

So the only real options are destinations that will support high passenger volumes, year round, multiple departures and are willing/able to invest in the relevant border infrastructure and within the 4 hour journey time arc that makes HSR competitive. Is there anywhere that meets that criteria that isn't already being served?

 

[may032]

So the only real options are destinations that will support high passenger volumes, year round, multiple departures and are willing/able to invest in the relevant border infrastructure and within the 4 hour journey time arc that makes HSR competitive. Is there anywhere that meets that criteria that isn't already being served?

I think London to Frankfurt in around 5.5 hours would be pretty compelling, especially if they improve/reduce waiting times at St Pancras. Is the 4 hour thing well evidenced?

 

[sh24]

I think London to Frankfurt in around 5.5 hours would be pretty compelling, especially if they improve/reduce waiting times at St Pancras. Is the 4 hour thing well evidenced?

I think the 4 hour rule is received wisdom (and I was taught it at uni a fair few years ago).

Frankfurt might be a stretch. 5.5 hours is beyond day trip territory (just about feasible to Amsterdam) and there isn't much leisure demand. Day trips to FRA by plane are pretty normal for the business market.

 

[TheWierdOne]

So the only real options are destinations that will support high passenger volumes, year round, multiple departures and are willing/able to invest in the relevant border infrastructure and within the 4 hour journey time arc that makes HSR competitive. Is there anywhere that meets that criteria that isn't already being served?

Geneva probably manages to sneak in at around 5 hours assuming the high speed bypass around Paris and only one stop at Lille (maybe Lyon too?)

 

[may032]

I think the 4 hour rule is received wisdom (and I was taught it at uni a fair few years ago).

Frankfurt might be a stretch. 5.5 hours is beyond day trip territory (just about feasible to Amsterdam) and there isn't much leisure demand. Day trips to FRA by plane are pretty normal for the business market.

Checking Google again, it could actually be closer to 4.5 hours via Brussels, although as you say business travellers would likely continue taking the plane.

 

[Bald Rick]

Geneva probably manages to sneak in at around 5 hours assuming the high speed bypass around Paris and only one stop at Lille (maybe Lyon too?)

Geneva will be about 5h15 non stop. They wouldn’t go via Lyon.

Geneva probably manages to sneak in at around 5 hours assuming the high speed bypass around Paris and only one stop at Lille (maybe Lyon too?)

Geneva will be about 5h15 non stop. They wouldn’t go via Lyon.

 

[iainbhx]

Checking Google again, it could actually be closer to 4.5 hours via Brussels, although as you say business travellers would likely continue taking the plane.

You'd be amazed how many people would take a bit of extra time to avoid the hell hole that is Flughafen Rhein-Main. I think Köln-Frankfurt is viable but where do you put the secure platforms?

 

[Cloud Strife]

Is there anywhere that meets that criteria that isn't already being served?

Lyon, Bordeaux and Cologne would be obvious candidates for me. Secure platforms are not as difficult as it sounds: you just need to have movable glass partitions, similarly to what are used in many Schengen airports to increase/decrease the size of the non-Schengen areas. The only major issue is that ideally, you'd need to have a secure space to keep people after border/security control before allowing them to enter the platform at T-5 or so.

Good to hear, but I'll ask the obvious question - how are they planning to do that? 1,800 to 5,000 per hour is a huge increase.

There is plenty of space there, it's just not used particularly well. Arrivals can be funneled out at platform level, the existing area where Eurostar has ticket machines can be closed off and check-in placed at the shopping gallery side too. Add in better utilisation of platforms, and you've got your 5,000. If you rip out the shops on the side of the International station (Chanel, etc), you gain quite a bit of extra space too. At a push, you could also extend the international departures area out into the shopping gallery, and relocate the check-in area upstairs. Check-in is mostly just scanning a ticket, so you don't need that much room, and then you can create a staggered security facility downstairs. It's hard to explain, but the idea is that you have the security desks in a vertical line, so you walk to the next free security station, turn right into the station, then leave it by turning left and walking along. The security stations would be at a 90 degree angle to the walkways.

A lot of capacity constraints are the result of poor design, nothing more.

 

[Bald Rick]

Lyon, Bordeaux and Cologne would be obvious candidates for me.

Bordeaux is a summer market. The entire UK - Bordeaux market in winter could fit on three trains a week, and it’s simply not going to do that. Summer weekend service is my bet, and even then it will be lucky to fill a train a week with the Lille shuffle.

And there’s not much market to Lyon either - but it is at least on the way to Provence, Marseille and the Med in summer, and the Tarantaise, Maurienne, and other ski areas in Winter. Might even be worth a daily service year round, but to Bourg St Maurice or Grenoble* in Winter, and Marseille in Summer.

*perhaps even Milan when the Mont Cenis base tunnel opens in 2032.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Bordeaux is a summer market. The entire UK - Bordeaux market in winter could fit on three trains a week, and it’s simply not going to do that. Summer weekend service is my bet, and even then it will be lucky to fill a train a week with the Lille shuffle.

And there’s not much market to Lyon either - but it is at least on the way to Provence, Marseille and the Med in summer, and the Tarantaise, Maurienne, and other ski areas in Winter. Might even be worth a daily service year round, but to Bourg St Maurice or Grenoble* in Winter, and Marseille in Summer.

*perhaps even Milan when the Mont Cenis base tunnel opens in 2032.

I personally would love a Grenoble service, having lived there in the past, but I’m not sure it would be big enough to justify a winter service without some decent thought given to onward connections as the ski resorts weren’t all that easy to access from the station using public transport.

Milan would definitely be a good option once the Mont Cenis tunnel is open, aside from Milan and North Italy being a destination in their own rights, Milan has excellent connections to the rest of Italy via Frecciarossa and the wonderful Italian night train network.

 

[dutchflyer]

Same topic-but then aiming DE=Germany came up a day-or 2- ago on the german DSO forum. Communis opinio there was that only some minor=not HBF suburban stops in those big cities MIGHt be adaptable to all the faff that the border controls require, space being the main problem. The intermediate solution-as had to be done at BRU when the AMS terminal was out of use for reconstruction was also waved away as for permanent.
The remark above on FRA as Rhein_main airpt-have used it quite a few times, mostly for transit though on LH/** all. and while its not the very best, by far not the worst either. Personally I found LHR=Heathrow much more of a maze that needs a thorough study beforehand in how to cross it. Just views from someone who does not live close by either but has flown a few times too many in lifetime-incl many of those minor UK budget airports too.
But-ahum, I know its wishful dreaming for now-how much could capacity in that admittedly very costly/precious narrow piece of land in/under St.Pcr station be enlarged when all those border faff was -well done away seems very unlikely, but reduced to what many other countries also seem content with? I think of the few mega-HS stops that have been built in China for its splendid as such network that now links all those multi-million cities still in triptimes of up to 5-6 hrs. NO border checks, but yes ID-checks, ticketchecks and airport-style safety check for luggage are also practised there. Yes, I very well know+understand that border controls work to 2 sides, are often copied from one side to other, have often also very political motives behind them and living in the EU am very happy to enjoy hassle free border crossing in the part of EU that is named Schengen-area.
From trsp studybooks: the most common solution for a problem noted here would be to build a mega-giant and built for the purpose station aimed at its goal in empty land out of town, Again ahum/uhh: rebuild one of those ´budget´airpprts like LTN or LST to it? The needed links to mega-big city LON would already be there and a major source for income maximalisation in charging extra high-fares too. Again very much wishful dreaming........
And still not adressing the problems at the other side with all the apparently so needed checks (without the balances?)