On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:08:52 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

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.


I can't see an Anglo-French quango (the IGC) being in any hurry to
change the rules to make it easier for Deutsche Bahn to access the
London market.


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.


See my comment above.


And I haven't even mentioned money!


Deutsche Bahn won't have any problem finding the money. The obstacle
is more likely to be the IGC.

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

HS2 are proposing an interchange between High Speed 2, Crossrail, and
all services out of Paddington (including the Heathrow express), at
Old Oak Common.

But there's also the possibility of

(a) the West London Line
(b) the North London Line
and (c) the Central Line

serving the new station. Old Oak Common could become more important
than Stratford or Clapham Junction.

HS2 don't seem to have investigated (a)-(c) yet, but they are shown as
possibilities in the government command paper.

What are people's views on how plausible these extra interchanges are?
I don't know the area well myself.

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.


Do the opposite. Implement an underground travelator link between Euston,
Euston Square and KX/STP, lay more "classic network" tracks between OOC and
Euston alongside HS2, move all "classic" services from Paddington to Euston
and close Paddington. Fully integrated transport hub in KX/Euston/STP -
Eurostar, Hex, HS1, HS2, WCML, GWML, MML, ECML etc.

It'll never happen though

On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:45:35AM -0700, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 5, 10:21=A0pm, "
wrote:
Another issue of course, is that the E* rolling stock is specially
designed to run under the tunnel. IIRC, that is a requirement.

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.

Eurotunnel have said that they would be happy to waive some of the
restrictions, to the extent that I believe an ICE would "just work".
Unfortunately, the restrictions are part of the Anglo-French treaty
that got the tunnel built in the first place, so it's not up to
Eurotunnel. It's up to the UK and French governments, and I'm
sufficiently cynical to believe that "safety" would be an excellent
way for them to protect the Eurostar monopoly.

Note that Eurostar's largest shareholder (62.5%) is SNCF. SNCF also
owns 35% of Eurostar UK Ltd, which owns 32.5% of Eurostar.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

You know you're getting old when you fancy the
teenager's parent and ignore the teenager
-- Paul M in uknot

"Stephen Sangwine" wrote in message
news:2010040620394216807-sjs@essexacuk...
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.


OK, thanks for that Neil and Stephen. Back to my question, do you know what
these platform standards a

250mm, 300mm, 700mm, 915mm, 1100mm arl (above rail level); 1450mm, 1475mm,
1500mm, 1525mm, 1550mm, 1575mm, 1600mm from rail centre line?

German high and low; Netherlands; HS1/Euro*; SNCF etc

Also, how do they meet EU/EC accessibility requirements, including for
wheelchairs?

Thanks

DW downunder

"chunkyoldcortina" wrote in message
...
Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:25:07 -0700 (PDT), kev
wrote:

HS2 are proposing an interchange between High Speed 2, Crossrail, and
all services out of Paddington (including the Heathrow express), at
Old Oak Common.

But there's also the possibility of

(a) the West London Line
(b) the North London Line
and (c) the Central Line

serving the new station. Old Oak Common could become more important
than Stratford or Clapham Junction.

HS2 don't seem to have investigated (a)-(c) yet, but they are shown as
possibilities in the government command paper.

What are people's views on how plausible these extra interchanges are?
I don't know the area well myself.

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.


Do the opposite. Implement an underground travelator link between Euston,
Euston Square and KX/STP, lay more "classic network" tracks between OOC
and Euston alongside HS2, move all "classic" services from Paddington to
Euston and close Paddington. Fully integrated transport hub in
KX/Euston/STP - Eurostar, Hex, HS1, HS2, WCML, GWML, MML, ECML etc.

It'll never happen though

Might need a double deck station at Euston, too. Maybe call it GRAND
CENTRAL!!!



DW downunder