In message , at 12:22:18 on
Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Peter Masson remarked:
But you would need to fins somewhere to stable the E* units that
currently lurk there for what must be hours on end (just because they
can).

It was paths to/from/into a depot - presumably Stratford. Unlike
Brussels and Paris there aren't any sidings close to the terminal
station.

Say 20 paths per hour between St Pancras and Stratford. Knock a few off
for conflicts in the station throat leaving say 16 usable paths.
Off-peak 6-8 international, 4 domestic high speed, leaving 4-6
available for ecs to/from Stratford. Few if any peak-direction ecs
paths, but they wouldn't be needed, only paths to bring in ecs from
Stratford in the evening peak, or take ecs out to Stratford in the
morning peak.

Are you guessing about the impact on paths implied by shunting into the
depot, or are these numbers taking that into account?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 12:22:18 on Tue,
6 Apr 2010, Peter Masson remarked:
But you would need to fins somewhere to stable the E* units that
currently lurk there for what must be hours on end (just because they
can).

It was paths to/from/into a depot - presumably Stratford. Unlike
Brussels and Paris there aren't any sidings close to the terminal
station.

Say 20 paths per hour between St Pancras and Stratford. Knock a few off
for conflicts in the station throat leaving say 16 usable paths. Off-peak
6-8 international, 4 domestic high speed, leaving 4-6 available for ecs
to/from Stratford. Few if any peak-direction ecs paths, but they wouldn't
be needed, only paths to bring in ecs from Stratford in the evening peak,
or take ecs out to Stratford in the morning peak.

Are you guessing about the impact on paths implied by shunting into the
depot, or are these numbers taking that into account?

The spur to the depot at Stratford is single track, between the up and down
lines, so use of the spur does not lose any paths between St Pancras and
Stratford. However, paths would be lost if you try to get trains in and out
of the depot at the same time, because of the single track between Stratford
and the depot.

Peter

In message , at 12:55:30 on
Tue, 6 Apr 2010, Peter Masson remarked:
Say 20 paths per hour between St Pancras and Stratford. Knock a few
off for conflicts in the station throat leaving say 16 usable paths.
Off-peak 6-8 international, 4 domestic high speed, leaving 4-6
available for ecs to/from Stratford. Few if any peak-direction ecs
paths, but they wouldn't be needed, only paths to bring in ecs from
Stratford in the evening peak, or take ecs out to Stratford in the morning peak.

Are you guessing about the impact on paths implied by shunting into
the depot, or are these numbers taking that into account?

The spur to the depot at Stratford is single track, between the up and
down lines, so use of the spur does not lose any paths between St
Pancras and Stratford. However, paths would be lost if you try to get
trains in and out of the depot at the same time, because of the single
track between Stratford and the depot.

So the 16 paths/hr allow for several trains to either stop at Stratford,
or run at relatively low speed to/from the depot?
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote

So the 16 paths/hr allow for several trains to either stop at Stratford,
or run at relatively low speed to/from the depot?

Trains to the depot will run at linespeed to close to Stratford. The
turnouts to the platform lines and to the depot line allow for fairly high
speeds, and mean that capacity isn't lost in slowing down. In the current
timetable the 1725 St Pancras to Broadstairs calls at Stratford, and while
it is there it is overtaken by the 1727 St Pancras to Brussels and the 1730
St Pancras to Paris,

Peter

On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 19:30:39 +0800, "DW downunder" noname wrote:

Then to which standards are they built? ... and how do Euro* trains cope
with the differences from French low level platforms ... do the ICEs have
similar means to adapt?

Germany has both high and low level platforms, so one would think so.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On 2010-04-06 12:30:39 +0100, "DW downunder" noname said:


"Stephen Sangwine" wrote in message
news:2010040519504716807-sjs@essexacuk...
On 2010-04-04 13:15:41 +0100, "DW downunder" noname said:


"Stephen Sangwine" wrote in message
news:2010031918314916807-sjs@essexacuk...
On 2010-03-18 18:36:08 +0000, Bruce said:

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT), kev
wrote:

snip

snip


I think it's an excellent idea. In fact it is such a good idea that
Old Oak Common (OOC) should be the terminus of High Speed 2.

If OOC is going to include interchanges with all those lines, there's
precious little point going on to Euston where interchange
opportunities will be far fewer. That will also save the not
inconsiderable cost of rebuilding Euston.

HS2 needs to connect to HS1 doesn't it? If you look at the area near
Euston on Google maps there is an easy connection from HS2 to HS1
via Primrose Hill and Camden Road and the track layout at St Pancras
has two connections to the North London line. There is space for more
tracks through Camden Road. Put the two lines together and we could
have DB ICE3s running through to Birmingham and Manchester. That is
why the London terminus has to be at Euston and not Heathrow or OOC.

I agree the OOC plan is a good one. Having a major interchange mirroring
Stratford makes a lot of sense.


That means using the EU low-platform standard, rather than level access
@ ~ 1100mm suited to all wheeled items, whether wheelchair, mobility
scooter, pram/stroller, luggage .... etc

I haven't seen this side of things discussed, but rather expect it to
be a matter of some significance.

I read the comment about IC3s as inferring the use of DB stock on hire
to provide domestic services. Through services from German cities are
for a future dimension when Fortress Britannia is dismantled to become
immersed in the melange of Greater Europe.

DW downunder

There has been talk of ICE3s running through to St Pancras, which does
not have low platforms, so running to Birmingham would be no different.
The spacing between platform edge and track would be critical - stations
with domestic-standard platforms such as Birmingham New Street would not
be suitable, but the international platforms at St Pancras are not built
to domestic UK standards.


Then to which standards are they built? ... and how do Euro* trains
cope with the differences from French low level platforms ... do the
ICEs have similar means to adapt?

DW downunder

Eurostars have steps that extend to different amounts depending on the
type of platform (UK, Belgium, France). This must be set by the driver
I imagine, according to the system they are running on. As a previous
poster has noted, ICE3s also have to cope with different platform
heights, presumably by similar variable extending steps.

On 06/04/2010 10:45, Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 5, 10:21 pm,
wrote:

On 05/04/2010 21:49, Peter Masson wrote:

"Roland wrote

They could probably cope if they stabled the trains somewhere else. I
don't know if they have the paths or the capacity at Stratford depot.
But with up to five Eurostars inside St Pancras at times (but probably
only three scheduled to depart in the next hour), there isn't room for
much more!

E*s proliferate to fill the platform space available at St Pancras.
There are six international platforms, so there should be no difficulty
in handling six arrivals and departures per hour, and eight should not
be impossible. Currently the Channel Tunnel can provide 20 paths per
hour. Eurotunnel is entitled to use half of these, leaving 10 paths for
international railways trains. But because E*s (and potentially other
international passenger trains) run at a higher speed through the Tunnel
than Eurotunnel Shuttles, a E* takes two paths, or a flight of two E*s
takes three paths. So the capacity for international passenger trains is
only 6 tph. If the signalling in the Tunnel was beefed up it is possible
that there could be 24 paths per hour. 12 of these would be available
for through railways trains, which, in flights of two, makes a maximum
capacity of 8 tph. Of course, ir would be better use of Tunnel capacity,
if the traffic could be attracted, to use a good proportion of the
through railways capacity for international freight.

Another issue of course, is that the E* rolling stock is specially
designed to run under the tunnel. IIRC, that is a requirement.

Yes.


Does DB or NS have such equipment at the moment? If not, then from where
are they going to get it?

A train manufacturer. Any such train could likely be based on the
existing ICE train type, so it wouldn't have to be designed from
scratch.

But how long would it take to get new rolling stock? And when does the
current franchise's exclusivity end?

One other question: What exactly are those storm doors' purpose at the
end of each car on E* rolling stock?

In message
" wrote:



One other question: What exactly are those storm doors' purpose at the
end of each car on E* rolling stock?

Enhanced fire doors to comply with Channel Tunnel requirements

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Apr 6, 9:46*pm, "
wrote:

On 06/04/2010 10:45, Mizter T wrote:

On Apr 5, 10:21 pm,
wrote:
[snip]
Another issue of course, is that the E* rolling stock is specially
designed to run under the tunnel. IIRC, that is a requirement.

Yes.

Does DB or NS have such equipment at the moment? If not, then from
where are they going to get it?

A train manufacturer. Any such train could likely be based on the
existing ICE train type, so it wouldn't have to be designed from
scratch.

But how long would it take to get new rolling stock? And when does the
current franchise's exclusivity end?

Eurostar is not a franchise as such (the structure and is a bit
complex but essentially it's a joint venture) - but leaving that
aside, it hasn't had any 'exclusivity' (i.e. exclusive claim on the
route) as of the beginning of this year (i.e. January 2010), when the
so-called "third railway package" of EU rail liberalisation kicked in
- so called "open access". In other words, *any* operator is welcome
to apply for slots to run services right now - however they'd need to
have trains that complied with the Channel Tunnel's strict safety
rules.

These rules are set down by the joint Anglo-French Intergovernmental
Commission (IGC). They currently include the requirement that
passenger trains can be split in two and driven separately - it's
widely expected that this requirement will be dropped after a wide
ranging review of safety procedures by the IGC as it's never been used
and is generally considered unnecessary, though this has not yet
happened. However that's just one of the *many* safety rules and
regulations that passenger stock has to comply with to go throughthe
tunnel - and these aren't all suddenly going to be loosened up for no
reason.

At the moment, the only compliant stock is the Eurostar train sets.
Designing new trains, or more to the point re-designing existing train
designs, would of course take time - and there'd be an awful lot of
hoops to jump through between a decision to actually acquire such
trains and their eventual delivery, testing and certification to
Channel Tunnel safety regs compliance. Not something that's going to
happen overnight, even with the full assistance of the IGC throughout
the process. And I haven't even mentioned money!


One other question: What exactly are those storm doors' purpose at the
end of each car on E* rolling stock?

To stop fire spreading through the train whilst in the tunnel.

In message , at 21:46:02 on Tue, 6
Apr 2010, " remarked:
One other question: What exactly are those storm doors' purpose at the
end of each car on E* rolling stock?

Fire Doors, I expect.
--
Roland Perry