Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[nwales58]

SNCF antics, it's a carbon copy of their conducts over in continental

SNCF x Talgo at present: we've been told to let you use a bit of our shed, but if you want space for a wheel lathe you're not getting that. So it's just as well future cross-channel operators are getting depot access sorted out before going further.

RENFE seems to have (or maybe were forced to) let Ouigo and Iryo into their depots but they probably over-provided themselves with space as they are RENFE.

Of course, ORR may well eventually decide Eurostar is entitled to all their current space in which case the new operators will have to build new. That probably means 8-10 years.

 

[signed]

but if you want space for a wheel lathe you're not getting that.

There are rumors (so unverified) that that is a lie from RENFE management and that not wanting to work with SNCF is intentional, then lying about it because the avril is catastrophic. Which do sound plausible.

 

[HS2isgood]

Yes, Renfe is lying. Early on the 106's didn't meet the fairly lax reliability minimums SNCF Réseau imposed, but nowadays it's clear that they do meet them. The issue is they don't want the bad press from a 106 breaking in the middle of LGV Sud-Est, which will inevitably happen if they try their luck. With no Paris plans in the horizon until the next tender (not expected until end of decade), a self-inflicted HSR/25 kV unit shortage from poor and often political rolling stock allocations like 14 Class 121 sets going to Catalonia, Class 100 getting older and less reliable, and probably being cascaded to the high speed regional Avant services, and the constant moaning about France, the writing was on the wall. It's said that December 13 will be the final day of operation.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, but I don't think any of the passengers would appreciate being shut in an already arrived train for this reason.

If it's only a very few minutes and is explained by reassuring announcements, e.g.: 'just until the adjacent departure, I can see the doors closing, should be a minute or two at most while platform staff do the security sweep and give clearance', I'm sure most pax wouldn't be too irritated. I'm guessing authorities wouldn't want the possibility of someone apparently leaving the UK then promptly walking back out onto the street. I don't know what happens if such a loaded train fails on departure after such an adjacent arrival. I'd guess they'd secure the doors and allow all arriving pax to clear before detraining if necessary.

Yes it does, but I have also arrived on to an island only minutes behind the preceding train, which was still emptying.

Both pre-cleared at origin, so it doesn't matter if their passengers mingle on arrival.

Obviously it can be done, but it introduces operational constraints which are undesirable and potentially costly in capacity

6 international platforms on 3 islands seems like a lot of capacity when you compare it to (say) Charing Cross, or the SE and EMR terminals at St. Pancras, but when even existing operational constraints regarding border and security are factored in it isn't as generous as might be assumed.

 

[Meerkat]

Eurostar getting a say in that is frankly silly. Good to see the ORR regulating as it is supposed to!

Who paid for the depot?

 

[nwales58]

There are rumors (so unverified) that that is a lie from RENFE management … lying about it because the avril is catastrophic.

If so, RENFE senior management lying, on behalf of Talgo, to (from memory) a french parliamentary committee seems very foolish as it a) is on the record, b) will be thoroughly investigated and c) could damage RENFE’s credibility in the eyes of french government people.

If you see hard evidence of a rebuttal please post a link. France v. Spain is turning into a good case study of the benefits and problems of HS open access.

Who paid for the depot?

Indeed. As I wrote earlier, ORR may well conclude Eurostar is entitled to all of it. But was it built by HS1 or Eurostar and what do any relevant contracts say about future use? 20 years ago it’s possible some taxpayer money went into it but I don’t know.

Anyone know the facts?

 

[signed]

France v. Spain is turning into a good case study of the benefits and problems of HS open access.

No, there are simply too much lobbying and commingling in France to make that a good case study.

could damage RENFE’s credibility in the eyes of french government people

They have much more of an interest in making SNCF a cashcow (it is a private company but the majority shareholder is the government) than allowing fair competition.

 

[Austriantrain]

Yes, Renfe is lying. Early on the 106's didn't meet the fairly lax reliability minimums SNCF Réseau imposed, but nowadays it's clear that they do meet them. The issue is they don't want the bad press from a 106 breaking in the middle of LGV Sud-Est, which will inevitably happen if they try their luck. With no Paris plans in the horizon until the next tender (not expected until end of decade), a self-inflicted HSR/25 kV unit shortage from poor and often political rolling stock allocations like 14 Class 121 sets going to Catalonia, Class 100 getting older and less reliable, and probably being cascaded to the high speed regional Avant services, and the constant moaning about France, the writing was on the wall. It's said that December 13 will be the final day of operation.

December 13 will be the final day of operation of what? Thank you.

 

[signed]

December 13 will be the final day of operation of what?

Barcelona/Madrid to Lyon and Marseille if I read that correctly

 

[mad_rich]

Ashford Borough Council making the case for bringing back international service, but I would think they're barking up the wrong tree lobbying the Government.

Description: A Youtube video produced by the council, which includes Vox-pops from local business leaders and elected officials, making the case for reopening Ashford International. They point to the amount of money that has been invested in the stations, and the benefit to the wider economy, not just to those who would use the service.

 

[ollyexe2808]

Ashford Borough Council making the case for bringing back international service, but I would think they're barking up the wrong tree lobbying the Government.

I agree - I think the UK Government can do so much but ultimately this is a business case that Eurostar (or proposed operators) have to pick up as well. UK government support will be in terms logistics of border control etc.

I would love Ashford and Ebbsfleet to reopen - sadly, each passing day these sites are not in use is another excuse for Eurostar to eventually abandon.

 

[RT4038]

No, there are simply too much lobbying and commingling in France to make that a good case study.

But surely this will take place in virtually all countries to a greater or lesser degree, overtly or not so? It would make a good case study, warts and all.

They have much more of an interest in making SNCF a cashcow (it is a private company but the majority shareholder is the government) than allowing fair competition.

Is SNCF making big profits and those profits moving outside the transport industry then?

Both pre-cleared at origin, so it doesn't matter if their passengers mingle on arrival.

It does not matter at present, but the comment was made in the context of there being a mixture of pre checked and non pre checked arrivals - where it would matter.

If it's only a very few minutes and is explained by reassuring announcements, e.g.: 'just until the adjacent departure, I can see the doors closing, should be a minute or two at most while platform staff do the security sweep and give clearance', I'm sure most pax wouldn't be too irritated.

Yes the passengers would be irritated (at least a significant proportion) and E*/ immigration wouldn't want the possibility of passengers pulling emergency levers etc.

6 international platforms on 3 islands seems like a lot of capacity when you compare it to (say) Charing Cross, or the SE and EMR terminals at St. Pancras, but when even existing operational constraints regarding border and security are factored in it isn't as generous as might be assumed.

Charing Cross is dealing with suburban trains with few seats and lots of doors and suburban passengers, not International long distance trains with few doors carrying long distance passengers (luggage, unfamiliarity) etc. Not the same at all.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes the passengers would be irritated (at least a significant proportion) and E*/ immigration wouldn't want the possibility of passengers pulling emergency levers etc.

Agreed that's a concern. I doubt E* would ever timetable trains to do this but it might occur anyway under certain delay or failure scenarios.

 

[zwk500]

Agreed that's a concern. I doubt E* would ever timetable trains to do this but it might occur anyway under certain delay or failure scenarios.

Surely it'd be better to hold trains outside the platform on approach and apologise to passengers 'we are just waiting for a platform to become available' rather than bring them in and then hold the doors locked?

 

[Krokodil]

Surely it'd be better to hold trains outside the platform on approach and apologise to passengers 'we are just waiting for a platform to become available' rather than bring them in and then hold the doors locked?

That risks blocking the station throat.

 

[RT4038]

Surely it'd be better to hold trains outside the platform on approach and apologise to passengers 'we are just waiting for a platform to become available' rather than bring them in and then hold the doors locked?

Yes it would, providing that doing that is not blocking the approach by a following (local) train.

 

[MarkyT]

That risks blocking the station throat.

That was my concern. A 400m train stopped at the home signal would take a while to get moving again and clear the throat. Using the scissors on the ECML bridge, you could run following arrivals around such a waiting train via the other line but that would introduce more conflict with departures.

 

[Austriantrain]

That was my concern. A 400m train stopped at the home signal would take a while to get moving again and clear the throat. Using the scissors on the ECML bridge, you could run following arrivals around such a waiting train via the other line but that would introduce more conflict with departures.

Is UK rail going the way of RENFE in needing 20 platforms for a handful of trains?

Seriously, since you can handle Euston and New Street, you will also be able to handle a slight increase in the number of trains at St Pancras. All the arguments here are really just an excuse.

 

[SynthD]

400m trains and border controls are good excuses as they go. Renfe has no services or stations with border control, and their longest trains are 200m.

 

[MarkyT]

400m trains and border controls are good excuses as they go. Renfe has no services or stations with border control, and their longest trains are 200m.

They carry out pre boarding security checks for HS trains ISTR. Presumably they have some restrictions on mixing cleared and uncleared passengers on the same platform.

 

[Krokodil]

All the arguments here are really just an excuse.

Eurostar are experts at coming up with excuses.

 

[HS2isgood]

It's SNCF what do you want. At the end it'll end up like Renfe, forced by competition to lower prices.

 

[Trainbike46]

Is UK rail going the way of RENFE in needing 20 platforms for a handful of trains?

Seriously, since you can handle Euston and New Street, you will also be able to handle a slight increase in the number of trains at St Pancras. All the arguments here are really just an excuse.

The issues are not about platforms - St Pancras has sufficient platforms for a way more frequent service than exists currently. The proposals for changes to the station being progressed are all around passenger flow, security checks, and border checks. And those have already improved significantly since covid, with the much increased border capacity already in place. It just needs to increase further to allow further growth of passenger numbers, whether they're travelling to Paris or further afield.

 

[Austriantrain]

400m trains and border controls are good excuses as they go. Renfe has no services or stations with border control, and their longest trains are 200m.

They are not. 400m trains are common all over the continent - and astonishingly, emptying and filling a 400m long-distance train takes exactly as long as a 220m long-distance train because a) the platform is longer and b) there are more doors,* and the border checks are not carried out either on the train or on the platform.

What *is*true is that the station needs more capacity to process passengers, but nothing to do with the platforms.

*what is also true is that - depending on access points - the platforms might need a higher capacity ie higher width, but that should not be an issue at STP, they are wide enough and no train will ever only stop there for a couple of minutes.

 

[HSTEd]

St Pancras is clearly not large enough for the various demands placed upon it. Assuming HS1 is eventually resignalled with ETCS it could provide an awful lot of paths, but that would likely mean more space for domestic services in the station.

Whether it's international check-in capacity or domestic platform needs that drive it, St Pancras is likely to need major work, and that's going to have to provoke a discussion on the split between domestic and international services.

How many failed attempts to get more than one operator into the cross channel market have there been?

How many attempts to get trains to a wider variety of destinations?

 

[signed]

How many failed attempts to get more than one operator into the cross channel market have there been?

How many attempts to get trains to a wider variety of destinations?

None of those have their main issues lying with the rail infrastructure or stations.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Whether it's international check-in capacity or domestic platform needs that drive it, St Pancras is likely to need major work, and that's going to have to provoke a discussion on the split between domestic and international services

There is still plenty of capacity within the international station, it just needs reconfigured. There's a large amount of space that could be used at platform level for arrivals, and this would free up the entire undercroft for international departures.

The real issue is whether there's actually demand for more than currently exists.

 

[Meerkat]

There is still plenty of capacity within the international station, it just needs reconfigured. There's a large amount of space that could be used at platform level for arrivals, and this would free up the entire undercroft for international departures.

The real issue is whether there's actually demand for more than currently exists.

IIRC the space at platform level is not really available due to listing requiring the space to be kept open.
Which would explain the champagne bar using a big space that could have generated much higher lease rates with other vendors.

 

[Bald Rick]

Assuming HS1 is eventually resignalled with ETCS it could provide an awful lot of paths, but that would likely mean more space for domestic services in the station.

Could it? How so?

 

[HSTEd]

Could it? How so?

The Bombardier study commissioned by HS2 into ETCS capacity on HS2 included graphs for headway requirements as a function of speed.
Utilising the same methodology they used to convert technical headways into timetable-able path numbers suggests an awful lot of paths on the 230km/h section between St Pancras and Ebbsfleet, especially if a comparatively short train detection segment length is adopted.

With a 400m segment length the headway achievable appears to be 75 seconds or so, 48 nominal or 36 timetable-able paths using the same conversion assumption used for HS2.


It appears, that even allowing for some paths wasted to allow Eurostar to skip Stratford International, well over 20 paths per hour are available on that segment.
This would, probably, require additional intervention shafts to be dug to satisfy the fire brigade, but I'd have to spend a lot more time than seems reasonable working with the sectional appendix to work out how many additional ones would required and where they would be.

It seems that the primary constraint on future use of HS1, whether for international, or domestic, passengers is St Pancras station itself.

EDIT:
This may derail the thread so it would probably be best not to discuss this further here.