• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Upgraded power supply in Channel Tunnel

Status
Not open for further replies.

trei2k

Member
Joined
25 May 2010
Messages
180
There is a news announcement from General Electric (GE) dated 9th Feb 2023. Source: https://www.ge.com/news/reports/smo...-more-trains-can-travel-vital-link-between-uk

Smooth Power: GE Helps Recharge Eurotunnel So More Trains Can Travel Vital Link Between UK and the Continent

Despite Britain’s exit from the European Union two years ago, a unique piece of infrastructure forever links the country to the Continent: the Channel Tunnel. This hard connection beneath the English Channel has safely guided passenger and freight rail for nearly 30 years since its unveiling in 1994. Tourism and economic activity have expanded greatly over that time, and 25% of UK-EU trade is now dependent on “the Chunnel.”

But with just a single tube to France and another to England, the challenge for the tunnel’s operator, Getlink, has been one of capacity. How to prepare for the next leg of growth? Build a new tunnel? Getlink and GE Grid Solutions came up with a better fix: strengthening the tunnel’s power supply to allow a 60% increase in rail traffic. And now, as of late last year, trains — and trade — have room to expand.

Getting there wasn’t easy. Trains of different types go through the tunnel, from passenger trains, both old ones from decades ago and more modern ones, to heavy shuttles that carry trucks and cars. Each train pulls hard on the tunnel’s power supply, not unlike a high-voltage kitchen appliance that causes the lights to dim. Under those conditions, there was no feasible way to run more trains simultaneously.


"The old technology was really not optimal; they were having reliability problems at peak times,” says Xavier Sarron, the global operations leader of the GE Grid Solutions FACTS (flexible AC transmission systems) business. GE replaced the old power management system, called SVC, with STATCOM, a static synchronous compensator, custom-adapted to the needs of the Eurotunnel. As a result, the power system now enables 16 trains simultaneously in the tunnel, and up to 1,000 trains every 24-hour period. “It’s a game changer for them,” says Sarron. “A real technological step.”

STATCOM is the same technology deployed in a typical power grid, say, smoothing and controlling electricity to residents, explains Fabrice Jullien, the FACTS business leader at GE Grid Solutions. But applied to the Eurotunnel, this STATCOM solution is now the largest and most powerful to be configured to a railway environment. To calibrate it just right, the GE Grid Solutions teams had to juggle two different supplies of power — one English, one French — while also addressing the singular nature of the Eurotunnel’s standalone power system. “This type of application is very specific,” he says.

The journey to a higher-functioning Eurotunnel began five years ago. Once the team demonstrated the theoretical feasibility of increasing train frequency by 60%, testing was moved to a real-time simulation facility in Finland, Jullien says. There, GE’s FACTS Control Software Team had to consider many unknowns. Would several heavy shuttles or freight trains be in the tunnel at one time? What about the newest generation of Eurostar passenger trains? What if a power imbalance occurred between the English and French systems?

Finally, starting in 2021, real-world testing began in the tunnel itself. “The complexity of the on-site testing was really extreme,” says Sarron. “In a normal STATCOM test, for a normal utility, you have easy access to everything and you can work for weeks at a time.” But the Eurotunnel was a unique environment with an underground structure that extends over 31 miles. That meant two months of intensive testing day and night, with nearly 100 train runs organized with an accuracy of a few seconds to avoid interfering with the normal traffic. “We really had to have a tight organization, but we overcame these challenges with an excellent collaboration with our customer,” Sarron adds. All tests were completed by late 2022, and the system is now functional and ready to go.

The Eurotunnel’s STATCOM solution not only transforms the existing Eurotunnel but builds in the flexibility required should conditions, such as power supply costs, change on either side of the channel. At the moment, the majority of the tunnel’s power is sourced on the French side, for two simple reasons: It’s cheaper and it’s less carbon-emitting, according to Jullien. But that could change. Both Europe and the UK also continue to deploy quickly expanding renewable power, and the tunnel could also choose in the future to source the cleanest form of electricity.

Both Jullien and Sarron say this was one of the most rewarding projects they’ve had in their careers. After the new system was in place, Jullien recalls, he went to a Eurostar terminal and saw how well everything was functioning, then texted a message and a photo to the customer. “Safe travels, with a perfectly regulated 25,000 volts!” they wrote back.

The section that caught my attention was this: "As a result, the power system now enables 16 trains simultaneously in the tunnel, and up to 1,000 trains every 24-hour period."

Does anyone have any further information on this STATCOM power management system for the every day person and what is the current usage of the tunnel? I appreciate Brexit challenges are limiting the number of Eurostars, but this sounds like there is scope for more freight and usage by Le Shuttle.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
13,980
Location
UK
I would have thought this is primarily about allowing more shuttle services to operate. Freight services have never really taken off because of the significant gauge limitations once you get off HS1, plus it can't easily compete with the cost of shipping or trucking. Eurostar are constrained by St Pancras' inadequate facilities, as well as the fact that the lucrative business market is nowhere close to 100% of pre-Covid.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
21,042
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Powerwise, Eurotunnel (Getlink) has also installed a 1GW grid connection ("Eleclink") between the UK and French networks, which has been running for about a year.
At this moment we are importing 1GW through the tunnel over the link, and importing 7.3GW overall from the various interconnectors now available (with more to come).
It's a relatively poor wind day, and the alternative is more gas production.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,084
Location
Bristol
I would have thought this is primarily about allowing more shuttle services to operate. Freight services have never really taken off because of the significant gauge limitations once you get off HS1, plus it can't easily compete with the cost of shipping or trucking. Eurostar are constrained by St Pancras' inadequate facilities, as well as the fact that the lucrative business market is nowhere close to 100% of pre-Covid.
I agree. Eurostar aren't going to be substantially increasing services until they reopen the Kent stations, which they've said isn't until 2025. There was a project looking at W9+ clearance for S45 swapbodies in Kent (which are a significant part of cross-channel trade) but I don't know if it got anywhere. Currently the Kent classic line Channel Tunnel access routes are W9 only, IIRC.

Given the problems with the ferries every bank holiday, I'm not surprised the Shuttle wants to up it's services.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,214
Does this enable more HS1 freight to Barking, or is that a demand constraint rather than a supply one?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,084
Location
Bristol
Does this enable more HS1 freight to Barking, or is that a demand constraint rather than a supply one?
This project hasn't changed anything on HS1, it's purely about the CT infrastructure. Beyond Dollands moor the power supply is the same (and completely fine, incidentally, for freight to Barking) but the problem of pathing trains between Eurostars and Javelins alongside getting costs down to an acceptable level for customers haven't changed. 75mph freight vs 140/186mph Passenger is not easy to fit in, especially with the limited opportunities to loop 775m trains.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,103
Location
West Wiltshire
Does this enable more HS1 freight to Barking, or is that a demand constraint rather than a supply one?

More of a problem at the London end, with the two sets of freight loops could be putting multiple freight trains per hour on HS1 if price worked for the freight operators.

At times the frequency of passenger trains makes finding freight paths hard, although the two track sections can in theory be used in same direction to overtake (in theory), but not really done in practice.

But if they could all be handled London side of Ripple Lane is another matter, you can't currently run unrestricted electric freight (due to power supply weaknesses and/or short gaps in overhead) onto East Coast, Midland, Great Western mainlines etc.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,084
Location
Bristol
More of a problem at the London end, with the two sets of freight loops could be putting multiple freight trains per hour on HS1 if price worked for the freight operators.
Looping freight would almost make pathing it into London harder, as the penalty for pulling out from a stand will be massive.
But if they could all be handled London side of Ripple Lane is another matter, you can't currently run unrestricted electric freight (due to power supply weaknesses and/or short gaps in overhead onto East Coast, Midland, Great Western mainlines etc.
You have 3 exchange sidings at Ripple lane, where the train is required to stop anyway. You can drop a 66 on there if the electric is the problem.
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
8,103
Location
West Wiltshire
Looping freight would almost make pathing it into London harder, as the penalty for pulling out from a stand will be massive

You have 3 exchange sidings at Ripple lane, where the train is required to stop anyway. You can drop a 66 on there if the electric is the problem.

A 66 would be lot slower to accelerate than a 5MW (6750hp) class 92, even the 92 might struggle to clear section as quickly as a 378 on a stopper in London area.

Perhaps in you add a new class 99 at Cheriton or use two 92s, could have a fair crack at pulling out of freight loops swiftly. (Can a 92 and 99 run in multiple ?)
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,084
Location
Bristol
A 66 would be lot slower to accelerate than a 5MW (6750hp) class 92, even the 92 might struggle to clear section as quickly as a 378 on a stopper in London area.
66s are fine in and around London, they haul nearly all the freight there. The difficulty in London is finding any path at all, but that's a problem for all freight not specifically ex-HS1 stuff.
Perhaps in you add a new class 99 at Cheriton or use two 92s, could have a fair crack at pulling out of freight loops swiftly. (Can a 92 and 99 run in multiple ?)
AFAIK 99s won't be fitted with TVM, and that may well disqualify them from being used to power a train, even tucked inside a 92. Double 92s are probably an option, but Multi-working is unlikely - Wikipedia says 92s can work with DVTs and DBSOs which suggests a TDM system while most new locos have come with newer specs (The 68s and 88s have the AAR system, AIUI).

The problem on HS1 is between Ripple lane and Dollands Moor and vice versa, a distance of 85km. At 75mph (121km/h) that's 42mins (will be longer for acceleration but this will do for now). A Eurostar doing 300kph will cover that distance in 17 mins.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
9,214
HS1 is a bit off topic. I was thinking in terms of whether there were the freight paths through the tunnel for them.
I assume some of the original planned freight paths have been given up for shuttles as the lack of demand became obvious?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,084
Location
Bristol
HS1 is a bit off topic. I was thinking in terms of whether there were the freight paths through the tunnel for them.
I assume some of the original planned freight paths have been given up for shuttles as the lack of demand became obvious?
I don't think they've been 'given up' as such, but there may well be time-limited agreements in place for paths they know they aren't using at the moment.

AIUI a certain proportion of the capacity is reserved for passenger, Shuttle, and freight by treaty, so freight paths can't be totally got rid of.
 

popeter45

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2019
Messages
1,279
Location
london
speaking of the tunnel and wanting more paths with the class 9's now getting on 30 years old would replacement be on the horizon?, 180km/h operation could go quite a way to improve capacity
 

Roast Veg

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2016
Messages
2,249
speaking of the tunnel and wanting more paths with the class 9's now getting on 30 years old would replacement be on the horizon?, 180km/h operation could go quite a way to improve capacity
What's the speed limit through the tunnel itself? Power supply upgrades haven't changed the line speed.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,084
Location
Bristol
i though i was 180?, though thats what the 373/374 use?
Not through the Tunnel - Eurotunnel's Network statemen says:
The operating speed of day passenger trains will be 140 km/h or 160 km/h depending on the availability of corresponding train paths. The operating speed of night passenger trains will be 120 km/h during off-peak periods or 100 km/h during maintenance periods.
The 373/374s are 300kph max (linespeed permitting) on HS1, which is 186mph, but drop to 160kph through the Tunnel .
 

popeter45

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2019
Messages
1,279
Location
london
Not through the Tunnel - Eurotunnel's Network statemen says:

The 373/374s are 300kph max (linespeed permitting) on HS1, which is 186mph, but drop to 160kph through the Tunnel .
ah okay, must have had my facts wrong
i know the tunnel was made for 200 but limited to 160 due to pressure issues, how hard would it be to certify the tunnel for 180?
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
5,117
I would have thought this is primarily about allowing more shuttle services to operate. Freight services have never really taken off because of the significant gauge limitations once you get off HS1, plus it can't easily compete with the cost of shipping or trucking. Eurostar are constrained by St Pancras' inadequate facilities, as well as the fact that the lucrative business market is nowhere close to 100% of pre-Covid.
Are there sufficient roll-on roll-off train trucks* to increase the number of shuttle services?

* Are they trucks? I wouldn't think that they would be carriages.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,084
Location
Bristol
ah okay, must have had my facts wrong
i know the tunnel was made for 200 but limited to 160 due to pressure issues, how hard would it be to certify the tunnel for 180?
The tunnel could be upgraded to 200 if needed, but it would require a reconfiguration of the signalling profiles. It would also be detrimental to capacity unless the shuttles (and probably freight) were sped up as well.
Are there sufficient roll-on roll-off train trucks* to increase the number of shuttle services?

* Are they trucks? I wouldn't think that they would be carriages.
IIRC they're counted as Passenger vehicles, if not strictly coaches as the passengers remain with their vehicles and it meets the passenger evacuation standards - the HGV carriers are counted as Wagons, and the drivers get bused to an ex-SNCF Corail coach at the front of the consist.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,436
Location
Cambridge, UK
suprised they didnt make them wider, same for the class 9's actually, the rest of the train is captive tunnel gauge so why did they make these 2 parts smaller?
AFAIK:

The locos are UIC-gauged to allow them to be moved by rail elsewhere (in continental Europe) for heavy maintenance and overhauls if necessary.

In the case of the freight shuttle truck driver carriages, I assume it was simply about using an existing standard UIC coach design (which is large enough for the purpose), rather than spending lots of money on a larger custom bodyshell design for no benefit.

The large car and truck carrying vehicles are the size they need to be for the purpose they serve (and to maximise the capacity/economics per train in the case of the double-deck car carriers), and the tunnel bores were sized to fit around them plus the OHLE (basically) - it's the normal 'form follows function' design methodology.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
4,516
Good question - and I have no idea.

Presumably buying a small number of regular loading gauge coaches is somewhat cheaper than a having new design made for the larger loading gauge.

I don't suppose there would be much benefit - if you can fit a trainload of truck drivers in a regular coach why make a wide one?
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,436
Location
Cambridge, UK
Presumably buying a small number of regular loading gauge coaches is somewhat cheaper than a having new design made for the larger loading gauge.

I don't suppose there would be much benefit - if you can fit a trainload of truck drivers in a regular coach why make a wide one?
Exactly!
 

popeter45

Established Member
Joined
7 Dec 2019
Messages
1,279
Location
london
Presumably buying a small number of regular loading gauge coaches is somewhat cheaper than a having new design made for the larger loading gauge.

I don't suppose there would be much benefit - if you can fit a trainload of truck drivers in a regular coach why make a wide one?
If short enough to integrate into a locomotive (especially if made double decker DDZ style), would free up space for a additional wagon and therefore increase revenue per trip
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
15,084
Location
Bristol
They're purpose built carriages, not former Corails or anything else.
In the case of the freight shuttle truck driver carriages, I assume it was simply about using an existing standard UIC coach design (which is large enough for the purpose), rather than spending lots of money on a larger custom bodyshell design for no benefit.
Ah this might be where my confusion arose, and it makes sense that they would need a coach designed for the fire regs now I think about it.
 

AdamWW

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2012
Messages
4,516
If short enough to integrate into a locomotive (especially if made double decker DDZ style), would free up space for a additional wagon and therefore increase revenue per trip

Well yes, but that also wouldn't result in a wide loading gauge stand-alone coach.
 

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,436
Location
Cambridge, UK
If short enough to integrate into a locomotive (especially if made double decker DDZ style), would free up space for a additional wagon and therefore increase revenue per trip
I thought the limiting factor with the truck shuttles is the loaded train weight, which is why the post-2000 batch of and rebuilt locos are more powerful (7MW versus 5.6MW) to allow the length of truck shuttles to be increased. Based on the info on Wikipedia, the car-carrying shuttles are already longer than the truck shuttles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top