Upgraded power supply in Channel Tunnel

[zwk500]

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.

Wikipedia says the individual wagons are longer on the Car trains than Truck shuttles, but there are a number of Truck Shuttles visible on Google Earth (3 at Cheriton) that can be measured and come to 780m over the buffers.

 

[2192]

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.

Does the coach for lorry drivers include a buffet bar and loos?

 

[zwk500]

Does the coach for lorry drivers include a buffet bar and loos?

Loos and vending machines, AIUI. You can find plenty of cab videos on Youtube where the lorry driver brings the gopro into the club car for a peek around.

 

[ac6000cw]

Wikipedia says the individual wagons are longer on the Car trains than Truck shuttles, but there are a number of Truck Shuttles visible on Google Earth (3 at Cheriton) that can be measured and come to 780m over the buffers.

Having looked closely at the same satellite views, I now see where I went wrong - per truck shuttle there appear to be: 32 x 20m truck carriers plus 3 x 22m loading/unloading 'flats' plus 1 x 26m truck driver carriage plus 2 x 22m class 9 locos, which works out to (approximately) 776m in total.

 

[Roast Veg]

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.

That seems like a worthwhile project, if a signalling upgrade can occur in concert with the replacement of the class 9s.

 

[zwk500]

That seems like a worthwhile project, if a signalling upgrade can occur in concert with the replacement of the class 9s.

I would expect the TVM system to be replaced with ETCS at the next upgrade (which will likely coincide with the replacement of the Class 9s). However ETCS in the Tunnel isn't going to happen until LGV-Nord has been converted (AIUI the contracts for the resignalling of LGV-Nord have been tendered but not sure exactly what the status is).

If freight stays at 120kph then the value of raising the tunnel beyond 160kph is very low, as freight paths become even more disruptive to capacity. The tunnel has a 3 minute headway, so if a train is 10 minutes faster it will need to enter the tunnel 13 minutes later to travel at full speed through the tunnel, and no train may enter in between those trains.
(50km @ 100kph/60mph: 30', 120kph/75mph: 25', 140kph/87mph: 21'25", 160kph/100mph: 18'45", 180kph/112mph: 16'40", 200kph/125mph: 15')

 

[MarcVD]

I would expect the TVM system to be replaced with ETCS at the next upgrade (which will likely coincide with the replacement of the Class 9s). However ETCS in the Tunnel isn't going to happen until LGV-Nord has been converted (AIUI the contracts for the resignalling of LGV-Nord have been tendered but not sure exactly what the status is).

If freight stays at 120kph then the value of raising the tunnel beyond 160kph is very low, as freight paths become even more disruptive to capacity. The tunnel has a 3 minute headway, so if a train is 10 minutes faster it will need to enter the tunnel 13 minutes later to travel at full speed through the tunnel, and no train may enter in between those trains.
(50km @ 100kph/60mph: 30', 120kph/75mph: 25', 140kph/87mph: 21'25", 160kph/100mph: 18'45", 180kph/112mph: 16'40", 200kph/125mph: 15')

As far as I remember, the replacement of TVM430 by ETCS is planned for the 2028-2030 time frame on the Belgian LGV1 which is the continuation of the LGV Nord between Lille and Brussels. I suppose that this has been negociated with SNCF and will happen simultaneously in Belgium and in France.

 

[zwk500]

As far as I remember, the replacement of TVM430 by ETCS is planned for the 2028-2030 time frame on the Belgian LGV1 which is the continuation of the LGV Nord between Lille and Brussels. I suppose that this has been negociated with SNCF and will happen simultaneously in Belgium and in France.

2028 would be slightly later than LGV Nord, From what I can see, this IRJ article: https://www.railjournal.com/news/work-underway-on-lgv-sud-est-improvements/ Says

Colas Rail secured a €160m contract from SNCF Network in 2018 to upgrade track on LGV Nord, LGV Atlantique, LGV Paris Sud-Est and LGV Méditerranée. Further 40km sections will be renewed each year through to 2023.

Work is also underway to equip the high-speed line with ETCS, which will replace the original TVM cab signalling system by 2025 and help to increase capacity from 13 to 16 trains per hour.

Although there is another article in rail engineer https://www.railengineer.co.uk/upgrading-the-continental-connection/that says:

A provisional development programme is expected to be in place by the end of 2018. Service introduction in France and the Tunnel is anticipated by 2025, in Belgium by 2030 and on HS1 by 2032.

 

[popeter45]

I would expect the TVM system to be replaced with ETCS at the next upgrade (which will likely coincide with the replacement of the Class 9s). However ETCS in the Tunnel isn't going to happen until LGV-Nord has been converted (AIUI the contracts for the resignalling of LGV-Nord have been tendered but not sure exactly what the status is).

cant see why LGV nord would have to be upgraded first, if anything as the tunnel is the only part of the LGV network to carry freight can see a argument for it to happen before the rest

If freight stays at 120kph then the value of raising the tunnel beyond 160kph is very low, as freight paths become even more disruptive to capacity. The tunnel has a 3 minute headway, so if a train is 10 minutes faster it will need to enter the tunnel 13 minutes later to travel at full speed through the tunnel, and no train may enter in between those trains.
(50km @ 100kph/60mph: 30', 120kph/75mph: 25', 140kph/87mph: 21'25", 160kph/100mph: 18'45", 180kph/112mph: 16'40", 200kph/125mph: 15')

with ETCs allowing higher speed locomotives than the 92's 140/160 freight is possible as most wagons are rated for such speeds
also if Freight was banned at peak times could make it easier to run those times at 200 for better passenger capacity then slow down to 160 at off peak and overnight for freight interworkings

 

[zwk500]

cant see why LGV nord would have to be upgraded first, if anything as the tunnel is the only part of the LGV network to carry freight can see a argument for it to happen before the rest

Because HS1 is going to be upgraded last and you want to avoid system interfaces if you can (as Crossrail has discovered rather too late).

with ETCs allowing higher speed locomotives than the 92's 140/160 freight is possible as most wagons are rated for such speeds

I thought most container wagons are only rated to 120? But a ETCS-fitted pair of 90s is a nice idea.

also if Freight was banned at peak times could make it easier to run those times at 200 for better passenger capacity then slow down to 160 at off peak and overnight for freight interworkings

I could see earliest and latest workings going down to 160 but the majority of Daytime Eurostars will want to maintain the highest speed possible, especially if LGV-Picardie ever happens.