British Railway Operations

[Tulyar15]

I think EWS have finally got the go-ahead to start an open access operation in France and class 66 diesel locos have now been cleared for operation there. In addition the class 92 elecric locos intended to pull the Euro sleeper trains are currently idle so EWS could use these too.

I think freight trains have used the Channel Tunnel Rail link on occassiosn. The only problems would be fitting them in with high speed passenger trains, but there are a number of loops to enable a freight train to be overtaken by a passenger train. The CTRL has been built to the full continental loading guage and its owners have always accepted that it could be used for freight - there is possibility of continental size wagons running thru to the terminal in Stratford (East London) when the second phase opens in 2007.

[beaulieu]

SBB Cargo's Re620 (Re 6/6) locomotives are rated at 7.8 MW and BLS Class Re 465 Bo-Bo locos are rated at 7.0 MW. The problems at Eurotunnel are that the two governments signed an agreement not to financially underwright the remaining debt. The British government is willing to let the ownership go to the creditors, while the French Government is unwilling to face the fallout from the several thousand small stockholders being wiped out after they made a patriotic pitch to buy shares in the tunnel. A majority of the small shareholders are French. A big part of the problem stems from unrealistic traffic projections made during the planning of the tunnel. Turmoil caused by the privatisation of British freight rail , combined with the unreliable and growing more expensive French freight service isn't helping.
Domestic railfreight in France is on a serious downhill slope. France has also been a staunch opponent of Open Access freight operators. The Unions have great powers in France and strikes are a regular occurance. In the first half of 2005 SNCF Fret calculates that 13 weeks out of 26 were affected by strikes. SNCF Fret figures that it takes 10 days after a strike ends for operations to return to normal.

[martin.knoepfel]

The Chunnel practically belongs to its creditors. However, they don't seem to have an interest in shutting it down. Besides, the political damage would be too big.

I have not yet heard anything about the future of the Eurostar-trainsets after completion of the high-speed-link between Folkestone and London. IMHO they are not yet at the end of their useful life and could be used to offer high-speed through-trains from Paris to places north of London.

Of course, the smaller british rolling stock could run on continental railways. I know of two cases where locomotives have been brought to the continent. During WW II, British yard-switchers (three axles with rods, LMS-origin?) were transported to Italy where they remained in service after the end of hostilities. When BR closed the line through the new Woodhead-tunnel, the engines (1,5 kV DC) were sold to the Dutch State Railways (NS) which operate under the same system. They hauled trains for several years.

[Anonymous]

As I understand it, the finance problems are ongoing - the tunnel cost a fortune to build and is competing with ferry operators who have lower costs. I get the impression that the financiers are resigned to it taking a while to get their money back - there seems to be no imminent risk of Eurotunnel going under.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by owlsroost

The whole Channel tunnel shuttle operation is quite impressive (apart from Eurotunnel's financial problems!) - if you are in the area, well worth a look (there used to be a vistor centre at the UK end, not sure if it's still open).

The truck-carrying shuttles are about 2400 tonnes fully loaded, 745 metres long with a 5.6MW or 7MW (7500hp/9400hp) Bo-Bo-Bo electric loco at each end, running at up to 87 mph over a 1.1% ruling gradient.

The car-carrying shuttles are a bit longer but not as heavy.

The 7MW/9400hp locos are the most powerful in the world (as far as I know).

http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcAboutUs/ukcCoreBusinessActivities/ukpRollingStock.htm

Note that Eurotunnel (tunnel and shuttle operator) and Eurostar (passenger train operator) are completely separate, unconnected companies.

Tony

That is quite an interesting site. 58 electric locomotives must move a lot of trains! I found the history part enjoyable as well. It appears someone was planning a railroad tunnel before there were trains.[:)]. Are Eurotunnel's financial problems in the past? Or something on going?

Thanks

[owlsroost]

The whole Channel tunnel shuttle operation is quite impressive (apart from Eurotunnel's financial problems!) - if you are in the area, well worth a look (there used to be a vistor centre at the UK end, not sure if it's still open).

The truck-carrying shuttles are about 2400 tonnes fully loaded, 745 metres long with a 5.6MW or 7MW (7500hp/9400hp) Bo-Bo-Bo electric loco at each end, running at up to 87 mph over a 1.1% ruling gradient.

The car-carrying shuttles are a bit longer but not as heavy.

The 7MW/9400hp locos are the most powerful in the world (as far as I know).

http://www.eurotunnel.com/ukcP3Main/ukcCorporate/ukcAboutUs/ukcCoreBusinessActivities/ukpRollingStock.htm

Note that Eurotunnel (tunnel and shuttle operator) and Eurostar (passenger train operator) are completely separate, unconnected companies.

Tony

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry? I had envisioned it as sort of an extention of the British rail system, but maybe not?

Thanks

It's a bit of both - the tunnel replaced the old train ferry operations with a system that could take straight through services rather than having to split the train up and load it onto a ship. However, through rail freight has had major problems with stowaways on board, so every train has to be checked very thoroughly on arrival to ensure nobody has attempted to sneak in clinging to a brake rod. I'm not sure if the situation has improved much (in terms of time taken to transit the tunnel) though they have added a lot of extra tools to their armoury (such as heat seeking cameras, X ray machines that can take a whole truck, a lot of CCTV, etc).

As far as passenger and truck traffic is concerned, the tunnel is just another competitor for the same business as the ferries. They won't allow some vehicles onto the shuttles (I think cars fitted with an LPG conversion aren't allowed, and for a while they wouldn't let you on with bottled gas on board). so the ferries are able to take some business that way, but mainly they fight it out on price. It's popular with those who for whatever reason (seasickness, fear of water, fear of ships) won't use the ferries as well. Personally I'd rather spend an hour or two sitting in the sea air and watching the traffic than riding through a tunnel (the Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, so there's plenty to look at).

Dont forget that the Eurostar service also competes - quite successfully -with the airlines. It has now go a 2/3rd market share of all London - Paris journeys and 80% share of the business market. I much prefer travelling by Eurostar to either flying or boat! Ferries are as much of a drag as airports you always seem to have to wait around for ages! For business class travellers, Eurostar have now introduced a 15 minute fast track check in so you can turn up 15 minutes before departure.

[edkowal]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

edkowal - ... And you seem to think that things are only "political" when they come from the right, not from the left, e.g. you exude a double standard...

Allow me to correct your assumption. I was responding to the divisive tone of the phrase you used. It would not have mattered to me what group you were characterizing as "...masochistic..." and "...you people..."

As a matter of fact the phrase "...some of the masochistic attitudes of you people on the right..." would have triggered the same response from me. I am in favor of civil discussions.

-Ed

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: So I cna board the high speed passenger train in London, ride through the Chunnel, and on through to were? Paris?

Main service is to Lille, Paris and Brussels, plus Disneyland Paris (one per day), Avignon (southern France, weekends only in the summer) and Bourg St Maurice (French Alps, weekends only in the winter) - http://www.eurostar.com

Lille and Paris provide connections to the French TGV network, Brussels provides connections to the international Thalys (French/Belgium/Dutch/German) high-speed train system.

Tony

[Anonymous]

owlsroost - Thank you for clarifying the security situation of the Chunnel. That was what I was hoping for, an intelligent comment without the slander and backstabbing. I have no further comment on the Chunnel security situation.

Simon Reed - No, I do not get the Fox Network where I live, so that leaves the three lefty channels (and PBS). That being said, you seem to have a ignorant attitude toward those who do watch Fox/Star. I would say you are the uninformed bigot.

edkowal - In my judgement you are splitting hairs, but I do get your point. And you seem to think that things are only "political" when they come from the right, not from the left, e.g. you exude a double standard. I asked a legitimate question about the Chunnel security situation based on an American news report from one of the left-leaning networks. One post was able to address that issue, the rest descended into a hissy fit. As far as using the term "Arabic" instead of the term "Middle Easterners" as used by the news network, I stand corrected, it was sloppy verbiage on my part.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

The shuttles run only between the two terminals on each side of the chunnel.

In the UK, the shuttle trains would be restricted by the clearances. The high-speed-link from the Chunnel to London is not for freight-trains. The planned continental-gauge freight-line from the Chunnel to the Midlands has never been realized. It would of cause make piggyback much easier.

So I cna board the high speed passenger train in London, ride through the Chunnel, and on through to were? Paris?

Thanks

[TH&B]

The shuttle trains are dimesionaly even bigger then Continental trains, in fact even by US standards they would be dimensional. They are not just bigger then Briton's loading clearances. The shuttle trains are the widest standard gage trains that I know of anywhwere (they are at least 13 feet wide. They are a testimant of at least how big standard gage trains could be if clearances where improved.

[Anonymous]

Loading is done from the side of the shuttles (they have specially-designed loader cars - the HGV type is a large flatcar with drop sides, the single deck type has a telescopic roof/sides, the double decker has sliding doors and an internal ramp. Loading is indeed much the same as ferries - vehicles arriving at the terminal are sorted depending on height, length, etc then waved onto the first suitable train.

[martin.knoepfel]

The shuttles run only between the two terminals on each side of the chunnel.

In the UK, the shuttle trains would be restricted by the clearances. The high-speed-link from the Chunnel to London is not for freight-trains. The planned continental-gauge freight-line from the Chunnel to the Midlands has never been realized. It would of cause make piggyback much easier.

[Murphy Siding]

Is loading / unloading of cars,trucks, etc... done at each end of the tunnel, similar to how a ferry would load/unload? Or, do they go on through to some further point to unload, gauge clearences permitting.

Thanks

[owlsroost]

The problem with asylum seekers at the French tunnel terminal was basically a disruption of operations and safety issue, caused mainly by a lack of security around the rail freight yard compounded by a large shelter nearby for asylum seekers. This meant that every night groups of people attempted to get through the fences and climb aboard freight trains, very severely delaying/stopping shipments.

Eventually the UK government persuaded the French authorities to close the shelter and improve the security (better fences and 24 hour police patrols I think)- this brought the problem back to managable levels as far as I know.

Since border security creates delay and inconvenience for everybody (and costs taxpayers money), striking the right balance between security and the free passage of people and goods *is* a valid subject for political debate - but this isn't the forum for it.

Tony

[Simon Reed]

MurphySiding - there are actually three tunnels - the outer two are for traffic in either direction and the inner one is a service tunnel for maintainence and evacuation purposes.

There is plenty of room down there and people are occasionally found wandering about but the security operations at either end of the tunnel invariably pick them up; quite often they are found to have mental health problems.

Futuremodal - judging by the reactionary and naive reportage that you've been misled by I presume that you've been watching one of the Fox channels. Political interpretation is inevitable, but extremism and uniformed bigotry are unnecessary and inappropriate.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

All: The TV news report was the one that identified the crossers as being immigrants of Middle Eastern descent, which is synonymous with Arabic descent. I just brought it up as it relates to problems with the Chunnel operations on the French end.

And yes, Murphy, the TV footage showed these folks actually running into the tunnel right after a train had entered on the French end. If I could remember which network it was that showed this (I believe it was NBC, but I can't be sure), I would gladly refer you to them so you can b***h at them for being so politically incorrect.

And yes, such a subject does relate to British Railway Operations as they pertain to Chunnel operations.

I will say this: If you think that border security and terrorism are *political* subjects open for debate, then it does explain some of the masochistic attitudes of you people on the left. Here all this time I thought such subjects were apolitical.

First, let me suggest that just because you saw something on television, that doesn't make it the undeniable truth. Stop and think about it. The tunnel is what? maybe 30 miles long? My understanding is that it is just big enough to get a train through. I'm sure it's not lit up, as there would be nothing to look at. 30 miles of walking would take maybe 10-15 hours? As trains frequently zoom through a tight tunnel at a pretty good clip,wouldn't the illegal aliens be splattered all over the front of the locomotives? Problem solved.[;)] Or, maybe there never was this problem to start with. I believe you are underestimating the efforts of the railway people in Britain and France.


Now, let me get more to the point. You've read me saying the same thing to Lotus98 on another thread: There are thousands of political forums out there for you to debate,argue, and call people names. There are very few railroad forums. Let's talk about railroads.

Thanks

[edkowal]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

All: The TV news report was the one that identified the crossers as being immigrants of Middle Eastern descent, which is synonymous with Arabic descent...

...I will say this: If you think that border security and terrorism are *political* subjects open for debate, then it does explain some of the masochistic attitudes of you people on the left. Here all this time I thought such subjects were apolitical.

Well, in the first place, you are factually incorrect. Being immigrants of Middle Eastern descent in NOT synonymous with Arabic descent. There are large numbers of individuals who reside in the Middle East who are not Arabic. Examples include the Turks and the Israelis.

Secondly, your statement: "...explain some of the masochistic attitudes of you people on the left" is clearly a political statement. As such, it has no place here.

-Ed

[Anonymous]

All: The TV news report was the one that identified the crossers as being immigrants of Middle Eastern descent, which is synonymous with Arabic descent. I just brought it up as it relates to problems with the Chunnel operations on the French end.

And yes, Murphy, the TV footage showed these folks actually running into the tunnel right after a train had entered on the French end. If I could remember which network it was that showed this (I believe it was NBC, but I can't be sure), I would gladly refer you to them so you can b***h at them for being so politically incorrect.

And yes, such a subject does relate to British Railway Operations as they pertain to Chunnel operations.

I will say this: If you think that border security and terrorism are *political* subjects open for debate, then it does explain some of the masochistic attitudes of you people on the left. Here all this time I thought such subjects were apolitical.

[Murphy Siding]

My [V] aimed at Dave was my displeasure of him trying (for the second time) to turn this into some sort of political thread, instead of a railroad thread.

Now, however, I find that I have to ask: do you really believe that illegal aliens are *WALKING* through the channel tunnel? And the British authorities on the other end are just letting them? Just how big is the tunnel anyway? Wouldn't a lighted bikepath have been more convenient?[xx(]

[Simon Reed]

Until recently most terrorist activities in the UK were carried out by individuals of Irish origin, with legal documentation and citizenship.

The London bombings were carried out by individuals born and raised not ten miles from where I'm sitting now.

Sorry, Futuremodal; you seem to have a mental image of a horde of arabs clutching bombs and ammo, dashing into the tunnel and shouting "death to the infidels." It was'nt quite like that.

I'm struggling to envisage a bi-modal model that could function efficiently and profitably over as short a distance as 350 miles. Granted, there are going to be a whole lot of variables informing any theoretical model but other than extremes of physical or human geography creating problematic obstacles I cannot see that any financial or time advantage could be gained over a short distance with two transhipments factored in.

I am a Service Delivery Manager with a major Home Shopping company. We despatch between 60 and 100 trailers each evening, dependant on the time of year, and we can guarantee 24 hour delivery to 98% of mainland UK.

Our warehouse is ten minutes drive from the nearest motorway (freeway/interstate to you) and about the same to the nearest railhead (Bradford Interchange).

350 miles from here would be somewhere around Plymouth, I'd guess, so let's make a comparative journey. A UK map might help.

Aside from the fact that there are no frieght handling facilities whatsoever at the railhead currently, let's assume that it will take 60 minutes from arrival at the railhead to load the trailers onto the cars, secure them and get the train away.

By this time my truck is somewhere around South Manchester - trucks in the UK have a legal speed restriction of 62mph and are governed to this.

I'm routing my train via Huddersfield, Stalybridge, Stockport and Crewe. I'd make Crewe about 2 hours after departure. My truck is now on the M5 somewhere near Birmingham.

Crewe-Birmingham-Cheltenham-Bristol is going to be another 2.5 hours. My truck is somewhere near Exeter so the train is catching up.

Bristol-Exeter-Plymouth is maybe 2 hours. My truck got to Plymouth an hour ago but here's the train, an hour later, and we've got to spend an hour again unloading it at our yet to be constructed facilities...

An interesting exercise but I'm afraid it'll never catch on!

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Railroading_Brit

It's more like the USA and Mexico I'd say - guessing trains crossing the border are closely monitored for unwanted passengers?

I believe you are correct.

[owlsroost]

QUOTE: What I do know is that such undocumented entry into a Western nation by illegals of Arabic descent does increase the likelyhood of terrorist cells being fostered within that nation.

How do you know ?

The illegal immigrant problem in the UK is mostly an economic issue - we have an extensive social security support system and traditionally we have welcomed people seeking political asylum, so the UK has long been seen as a 'soft touch' by economic migrants from countries outside the EU. The favoured route used to be hiding in trucks travelling on the ferries, but after the authorities clamped down hard on that route the freight trains were seen as an easier target to hitch a ride on.

The UK is unusual in having border controls with other EU countries - they are largely pointless between countries where you can just walk across the border anyway, so the border controls between most EU countries were scrapped (by mutual agreement) some years ago.

Tony

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry?

Nonsense! It also acts as a convenient conduit for Islamic terrorists coming out of France![:(]

Dave:[V]

Right back at you, slick:[V][V]

A few years ago there was a TV news item regarding problems Chunnel authorities were having in stopping illegal immigrants of Arabic background from entering Britian via the Chunnel. Mind you, these illegals weren't hopping trains, they were video recorded running into the Chunnel on foot from the French side. The French *authorities* did nothing to stop these hundreds of illegals from running into the tunnel, rather they simply (and literally) shrugged their shoulders when questioned by the reporter. Apparently, it is unofficial French policy to allow unsecured transit over the border, letting their problem become Britian's problem. Whether it is possible that one or more of these illegals may have been involved in the subway bombings earlier this year, I do not know. What I do know is that such undocumented entry into a Western nation by illegals of Arabic descent does increase the likelyhood of terrorist cells being fostered within that nation.

You've really got to admire the rigid discipline of French law enforcement! (insert sarcastic smilie here)

[Anonymous]

It's more like the USA and Mexico I'd say - guessing trains crossing the border are closely monitored for unwanted passengers?

[Murphy Siding]

Imagine that: It's 2005, and the railroad police are still searching for hobos riding the trains![(-D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry? I had envisioned it as sort of an extention of the British rail system, but maybe not?

Thanks

It's a bit of both - the tunnel replaced the old train ferry operations with a system that could take straight through services rather than having to split the train up and load it onto a ship. However, through rail freight has had major problems with stowaways on board, so every train has to be checked very thoroughly on arrival to ensure nobody has attempted to sneak in clinging to a brake rod. I'm not sure if the situation has improved much (in terms of time taken to transit the tunnel) though they have added a lot of extra tools to their armoury (such as heat seeking cameras, X ray machines that can take a whole truck, a lot of CCTV, etc).

As far as passenger and truck traffic is concerned, the tunnel is just another competitor for the same business as the ferries. They won't allow some vehicles onto the shuttles (I think cars fitted with an LPG conversion aren't allowed, and for a while they wouldn't let you on with bottled gas on board). so the ferries are able to take some business that way, but mainly they fight it out on price. It's popular with those who for whatever reason (seasickness, fear of water, fear of ships) won't use the ferries as well. Personally I'd rather spend an hour or two sitting in the sea air and watching the traffic than riding through a tunnel (the Channel is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, so there's plenty to look at).

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry?

Nonsense! It also acts as a convenient conduit for Islamic terrorists coming out of France![:(]

Dave:[V]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

Looking at the links to shuttle equipment above, and the discussion that follows, it leads me to wonder if the tunnel is just a hi-tech/hi-priced cross channel ferry?

Nonsense! It also acts as a convenient conduit for Islamic terrorists coming out of France![:(]