Frankfurt to London ICE-3 Test

[phil-b259]

Can we assume they will be joint Eurostar and DB services ?

 

Keith

 

No far from it.

 

DB and Eurostar will be going head to head and compeating for passengers on routes through Belgium, Netherlands and into Germany. This is what the EU want as competition will in theory bring prices down although in reality it has more to do with a ongoing battle between BD and SNCF for the domination of international rail traffic.

[Ron Ron Ron]

......Anyway we can now see more clearly the reason for the ICE3(/ Valero) visit as it is all part of the publicity for future services to places such as Koln and Frankfurt, leading to the announcement of orders for suitable Eurostar stock.....

The reason for the DB Velaro-D visit is two-fold.

1.) To take part in safety tests in the Channel Tunnel as part of the process to get these trains certified for use through that route.

2.) As you say, to take part in a PR exercise designed to promote and gain support for the proposed DB services between London and Germany.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "leading to the announcement of orders for suitable Eurostar stock"? I assume you mean that DB's move towards starting these services has prompted Eurostar into action with its own expansion plans?

 

 

 

Can we assume they will be joint Eurostar and DB services ?

As Phil says, that's very unlikely, especially bearing in mind that Eurostar is largely dominated by SNCF.

These two companies (DB & SNCF) are in serious competition as rail deregulation creeps across the EU member countries and they're beginning to go head to head on several fronts.

DB's tentacles now extend through France and down into Spain and Portugal, as well as down into Italy and across Eastern Europe. Their presence in the UK is also becoming quite significant, particularly since they added the Arriva group (Cross Country and Arriva Trains Wales) to their UK portfolio (DBS/EWS, Chiltern, WS&MR, LOROL, Tyne & Wear Metro) . In fact Arriva has given them a rail and/or bus presence in something like 12 European countries.

SNCF and the French government are seriously concerned about encroachment onto their patch, especially with regard to freight and they're not a happy lot !

 

I don't know if it's the case, but joint services may even be illegal under the EU rail competition rules. Maybe someone like Edwin can answer that one?

[melmerby]

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "leading to the announcement of orders for suitable Eurostar stock"? I assume you mean that DB's move towards starting these services has prompted Eurostar into action with its own expansion plans?

 

It just seems a 'nice coincidence' that a few days before the (well publicised) visit of the DB units that Eurostar announce plans for a new fleet for their expansion!

No doubt it has been in the pipeline for some time but maybe they felt a need to trump DB's plans.

 

Keith

[The Stationmaster]

 

 

I don't know if it's the case, but joint services may even be illegal under the EU rail competition rules. Maybe someone like Edwin can answer that one?

 

Joint services are perfectly legal under EU rules (eg Thalys, which is actuallyua separate joint company of course) and umpteen other long established cross-border services. But what the new regime introduced by the EU allows, and encourages, is 'open access' which is slightly different as, coupled with inter-operability, it allows a train operator to operate outside his national borders with no artificial hurdles put in his way (except by the French of course - truer than you might think!).

 

Thus DB can run to London, provided the train meets Channel Tunnel safety criteria, and SNCB could run to, say, Warsaw should it so wish.

 

This is basically achieved by separating infrastructure and access management from the train operating management which means that each infrastructure 'owner' is totally independent of anyone in that country who runs trains (even if they come together at national accounting level).

 

BTW simple equation with EUKL (as was) train assests such as the Regional sets (which were wholly UK owned) of their share of the Three Capitals fleet - if the asset is sold the money goes to the UK Govt.

[Kris]

If joint services were to happen (not that I ever expect this) would this be similar to the code sharing that is found in the airline world?

[Rhydgaled]

As it's now accepted that the Class 373's cannot be fitted for use in Holland or Germany, then Eurostar are making sure they'll have the right sort of trains available for any expansion of services in those directions.

Please forgive me, but I still don't understand why Class 373's cannot be fitted for use in Holland. Both Thalys PBA and PBKA sets obviously are fitted for use in Holland and as Eurostars are fairly similar (being TGVs) I would expect they could be used. Eurostar needing different trains to compete with DB on services into Germany seems more likely as I think the Thalys PBKA sets are a newer design of TGV than Eurostars?

 

Are the new ICE-3s fitted with some extras to meet tunnel regs (other than the length one) or would success of the upcoming tunnel tests open up the chunnel to some other types of train too?

[The Stationmaster]

If joint services were to happen (not that I ever expect this) would this be similar to the code sharing that is found in the airline world?

 

I can't see why it should be? As each operator will presumably publish their own timetable you could readily identify which train is whose and in any case seat numbers won't readily transfer - I suspect - between different designs of train.

 

Even on Thalys routes you can readily identify which trains are worked by ICEs (or you could the last time I looked).

[Edwin_m]

Please forgive me, but I still don't understand why Class 373's cannot be fitted for use in Holland. Both Thalys PBA and PBKA sets obviously are fitted for use in Holland and as Eurostars are fairly similar (being TGVs) I would expect they could be used. Eurostar needing different trains to compete with DB on services into Germany seems more likely as I think the Thalys PBKA sets are a newer design of TGV than Eurostars?

 

Are the new ICE-3s fitted with some extras to meet tunnel regs (other than the length one) or would success of the upcoming tunnel tests open up the chunnel to some other types of train too?

 

There are quite a lot of differences between the 373s and the other TGVs to fit within the UK loading gauge. These may mean that there is not the space available to add the necessary equipment. Of course everything is possible given enough time and money but the degree of difficulty in retrofitting is one of the factors that have led Eurostar to reach this decision.

 

Eurostar must then have decided, and convinced a funder or leasing company, there is a solid business case to buy the extra trains rather than retrofitting 373s. They may foresee a larger market and need to buy extra trains anyway, though the fleet was so much larger than the demand turned out to justify I think this is improbable. I think it more likely they have come to a deal with SNCF to transfer more 373s onto French domestic services, where they can be used without modification except for a 1500V supply mode for any that don't already have it.

 

I have read somewhere on one of these threads that the trains will comply with all regulations needed to run through the Tunnel. The DB ICE is the same basic train but without these modifications, so even though the Tunnel rules have been relaxed recently the ICE would not at present be allowed to carry passengers.

[phil-b259]

Please forgive me, but I still don't understand why Class 373's cannot be fitted for use in Holland.

 

Cost, lack of space, intergration with the exsisting systems are just some of the reasons. While in therory yes it may well be possable to come up with a design solution, in pratical terms it is completley un-economic. In monetary terms buying new stock represents far better value for money especialy as the stock in question is already cleared for opperation in the countries you mention. As it is the exsisting Eurostar power cars are far from ideal due to the design compromises requied to cope now redundent features such 750V DC, the prohibition of a 25KV link along the top of the train (hence each power car needs a pan up) and the British loading guage. As the offical report into last winters failures showed, these legacy features now represent serious design flaws and there were suggestions that Eurostar might want to consider replacing the Power cars with something more up to date.

 

Are the new ICE-3s fitted with some extras to meet tunnel regs (other than the length one) or would success of the upcoming tunnel tests open up the chunnel to some other types of train too?

 

In principal the only thing required of trains through the tunnel is that they meet the intergovenmental drafted safety requiremnets. While some have indeed been relaxed the two big ones that prevent a ordinary TGV or ICE using it are fire resistance (trains bulkheads must withstand fire for a minimum of 30minutes) and train (single unit that is) length requirements (so as to ensure that it allways comes to a stand adjacent to a emergency exit into the service tunnel) have not changed. What has changed is the bit about trains being divisable to enable the good half to drive out (though a driving postion at each end remains a must for passenger trains).

[Ron Ron Ron]

BTW simple equation with EUKL (as was) train assests such as the Regional sets (which were wholly UK owned) of their share of the Three Capitals fleet - if the asset is sold the money goes to the UK Govt.

But as EUKL has now been subsumed into the single Eurostar entity, along with the French and Belgian elements of the operation, have all the assets (including the trains) been transferred too?

If they have, that would mean there is now only one owner of the whole fleet, Eurostar International. The money from any sale of assets would then belong to that company and if for whatever reason, or by whatever mechanism it were passed on to the shareholders, surely it would be divided according to the proportion of shareholding?

 

 

Please forgive me, but I still don't understand why Class 373's cannot be fitted for use in Holland. Both Thalys PBA and PBKA sets obviously are fitted for use in Holland and as Eurostars are fairly similar (being TGVs) I would expect they could be used.

Edwin and Phil have answered that very comprehensively.

 

Are the new ICE-3s fitted with some extras to meet tunnel regs (other than the length one) or would success of the upcoming tunnel tests open up the chunnel to some other types of train too?

For a start, they're not ICE 3's, the trains being built for these services are the Velaro-D, which is the next generation of this design.

As Phil has said, an ICE-3 would have no chance of gaining approval for passenger services through the tunnel.

If I remember correctly the new models are being ordered by DB for other international services in Europe as well. It may be for other long tunnel routes such as under the Alps or suchlike.

I've also seen them referred to as ICE-4, but I don't know if that's official, a nickname or a mistake?

 

...and from what I've read, not only are they a more modern design than the ICE-3, they are indeed fitted with stuff like fire doors, bulkheads, suppression equipment etc.

The tunnel safety regs. will be/are being modified, as Phil says; however, if these trains pass the tests or a compromise is agreed upon, I suspect that will be the baseline that any other types will have to meet or exceed it.

[The Stationmaster]

Please forgive me, but I still don't understand why Class 373's cannot be fitted for use in Holland. Both Thalys PBA and PBKA sets obviously are fitted for use in Holland and as Eurostars are fairly similar (being TGVs) I would expect they could be used.

 

The reason is amazingly simple - the speedos are the wrong shape! Eurostar is fitted with a ribbon speedo (which was purposely adopted partly for ergonomic reasons to avoid the risk of misreading the position of the needle between the two speed units, and to allow simple changeover between the two).

 

Dutch ATP uses a circular speedo with information conveyed in various 'segments' of the speed dial and it was long ago (at least 12/13 years back) recognised that it was not technically possible to deal with that display in a ribbon speedo. Traction current voltage effectively presents no real problems although there might possibly have been minor difficulty mounting some components of the kit necessary to deal with Dutch ATP - but it is the speedo presentation which has always been the killer (apart from a near total lack of commercial interest until recently).

 

There is incidentally a fair amount of difference between Eurostars and other members of the TGV family due to their need to operate on UK voltages, including the 3rd rail, and the lack of space in the power cars which led to some equipment having to be redesigned and 'distributed' through other vehicles.

[The Stationmaster]

But as EUKL has now been subsumed into the single Eurostar entity, along with the French and Belgian elements of the operation, have all the assets (including the trains) been transferred too?

If they have, that would mean there is now only one owner of the whole fleet, Eurostar International. The money from any sale of assets would then belong to that company and if for whatever reason, or by whatever mechanism it were passed on to the shareholders, surely it would be divided according to the proportion of shareholding?

 

I don't know Ron - effectively what would have to happen to achieve that is a transfer of the ownership of assets as you query. The original ownership of the sets was rather more complex than the simple 'these are British' those are French, and those are Belgian' arrangement which is easily understood fronm the painted numbers. In practice large chunks of the UK fleet were 'owned' by the various banks and finance houses which paid for them through various leasing deals - which never see to have attracted much, if any, public attention - and which were probably backed by UK Govt guarantees(?).

 

So notwithstanding the outward appearance of them being - as it once was - EUKL assets, and later L&CR assets they probably weren't. The only way to check that would be back through L&CR balance sheets I presume. Presumably if the original financing was not redeemed the asset might still belong to whoever financed it or whoever guaranteed the debt? I wonder if Eurostar International has published any financial information?

 

 

Edwin and Phil have answered that very comprehensively.

 

See my comment above - it's all down to the speedo format, daft tho' that might seem .

 

Incodentally the new trains are presumably merely to allow Eurostar to run to Holland and Germany and won't replace existing sets except possibly on the Brussels route. A daytime train in each direction between, say, London & Amsterdam and London & Cologne will need 4 sets add a second daytime train in each direction on each route and that's 8 sets - for a relatively 'thin' service - so it should be easy to find new work for 10 (if Eurostar really want to open up new routes on a daily basis).

[phil-b259]

The reason is amazingly simple - the speedos are the wrong shape! Eurostar is fitted with a ribbon speedo (which was purposely adopted partly for ergonomic reasons to avoid the risk of misreading the position of the needle between the two speed units, and to allow simple changeover between the two).

 

Dutch ATP uses a circular speedo with information conveyed in various 'segments' of the speed dial and it was long ago (at least 12/13 years back) recognised that it was not technically possible to deal with that display in a ribbon speedo. Traction current voltage effectively presents no real problems although there might possibly have been minor difficulty mounting some components of the kit necessary to deal with Dutch ATP - but it is the speedo presentation which has always been the killer (apart from a near total lack of commercial interest until recently).

 

There is incidentally a fair amount of difference between Eurostars and other members of the TGV family due to their need to operate on UK voltages, including the 3rd rail, and the lack of space in the power cars which led to some equipment having to be redesigned and 'distributed' through other vehicles.

 

Thing is that now Eurostars use TVM (and therefore KPH) right up to St Pancras, the only locaion where an MPH indication could concevably be required is the section through Asford Station (and even that could be sorted with dual measurment speed boards). Therefore I'm sure it would be theoretically possable (though not economically viable) to design a replacement spedo of a non ribbon varity that would allow the Dutch ATP to be installed.

[The Stationmaster]

Thing is that now Eurostars use TVM (and therefore KPH) right up to St Pancras, the only locaion where an MPH indication could concevably be required is the section through Asford Station (and even that could be sorted with dual measurment speed boards). Therefore I'm sure it would be theoretically possable (though not economically viable) to design a replacement spedo of a non ribbon varity that would allow the Dutch ATP to be installed.

 

 

How do they use TVM with multi-aspect lineside signals as a matter of interest? There was enough trouble trying to get the design right for the transition from TVM to lineside signals in the approach to the overhead covered way (over the ECML) without taking it right into the lineside signalled area (which I presumed to actually have something like KVB judging by what is in the 4 foot?).

 

Incidentally unless things have changed the TVM has to be disarmed when running into Ashford as the train has to changeover to BR mode in order for the AWS to work.

 

As I understand it a redesign to a dial type speedo was assessed a long time ago and found to present major technical problems which would be very expensive to resolve so it was neever seriously considered.

[40052]

l think it has been mentioned before - the 373s had their ribbon speedos replaced by a digital display, showing actual speed with an up/down arrow indicating when speed is increasing or decreasing, a number of years ago.

 

When the Eurostar platforms at Ashford were adjusted to continental height above rail head - the track was raised - and electrified at 25kv ac this allowed the 373s to run through the Ashford connection whilst still in HS mode (when in this configuration the bottom step at each passenger door is deployed to bridge the gap, hence the need for a change in height at Ashford otherwise the bottom step would foul the UK height platform). The speedo shows kmh over this section and the lineside speed signs indeed do show dual speeds. TVM is armed/disarmed on the chord lines linking the station to HS1 and AWS/TPWS is in operation over this stretch of line.

 

As a matter of interest the 373 cab display will no longer show mph in normal day to day operation as this is only activated in dc mode (removed) or BR/AC (373/1 not passed for operation over BR 'classic' OHL).

[Rhydgaled]

Ok somthing, either changing the speedo or fitting the equipment in a TGV which has been shrunk to our loading guage, would be very difficult and therefore cost alot. At least that explains why Eurostar can't run to Amsterdam without new trains. However with new AGVs 'coming soon' I question why SNCF should have them for French domestic services? As said above the 373s have been shrunk to our loading gauge and have 3rd rail capability (or do they, is it only the shoes that have been removed or have other components been one away with too?), so why not use their particular talents? Birmingham, and cities on the ECML, are possibly too far away to attract enough passengers but perhaps a few services from Waterloo (also calling at Ashford to increase services that stop there, and possibly allowing the few services on route to/from St. Pancras to stop calling there) would be worth doing? maybe with the shorter NoL sets (though I don't remember getting a clear answer when I asked what was going on about these and the tunnel train length rule apologies if I did).

[frobisher]

As said above the 373s have been shrunk to our loading gauge and have 3rd rail capability (or do they, is it only the shoes that have been removed or have other components been one away with too?), so why not use their particular talents?

 

As I understand it, the shoegear was removed to reduce maintenance costs, and I suspect the 3000 and 1500V DC systems are stepped down to 750V DC in any case so that capability would still be present. But there would be very little to be gained by running some trains back into Waterloo, apart from a gaining a second, slower service, plus you'd need to reinstate the border control facilities that went with the move to St Pancras.

[Ron Ron Ron]

There's no point restarting services from Waterloo, even if it might be a more convenient departure point for those coming from the SW.

It would be too costly to duplicate all the services (Ticketing, security, passport etc) and the attendant staff needed to run from a second terminus.

The speed/time advantage of using the full length of HS1 would be completely lost and combined with the slow crawl through South London, the journey time would be enough to put off a lot of passengers who'd choose the speedier trains from St. Pancras International instead.

Someone may be able to correct me here, but I think the only way that any Waterloo originating train can access HS1, would now be at Ashford?

 

As we know, 3rd rail capability is currently not available as the shoes were removed following the full opening of HS1.

I suspect the associated DC equipment has been isolated, but there may be plans to remove it when the trains go through the mid-life overhaul, refurbishment and upgrade programme that starts next year.

 

Despite a great deal of complaining when Ashford services were cut back, there's probably quite limited demand for any extra stops over the present timetable.

[Fat Controller]

There's no point restarting services from Waterloo, even if it might be a more convenient departure point for those coming from the SW.

It would be too costly to duplicate all the services (Ticketing, security, passport etc) and the attendant staff needed to run from a second terminus.

The speed/time advantage of using the full length of HS1 would be completely lost and combined with the slow crawl through South London, the journey time would be enough to put off a lot of passengers who'd choose the speedier trains from St. Pancras International instead.

Someone may be able to correct me here, but I think the only way that any Waterloo originating train can access HS1, would now be at Ashford?

 

As we know, 3rd rail capability is currently not available as the shoes were removed following the full opening of HS1.

I suspect the associated DC equipment has been isolated, but there may be plans to remove it when the trains go through the mid-life overhaul, refurbishment and upgrade programme that starts next year.

 

Despite a great deal of complaining when Ashford services were cut back, there's probably quite limited demand for any extra stops over the present timetable.

The DC equipment has been isolated and shoe-gear removed- it had been known to fail in the 'Down' position, taking out anything trackside close to it (I had a very 'entertaining' shift because of that one day).A lot of superfluous equipment is being removed to allow improved access to other things after the debacle of last December.

There is the minor problem of a lack of trained drivers for the Waterloo route as well- any who had worked would need to refresh their route knowledge before they signed it, and given the permutations of routes, it would take ages for them to accumulate enough journeys over each route. Some of my colleagues have just passed out with EP2 for the Wembley run, and have spent most of a year training.

Waterloo can still be accessed via Fawkham Junction. This is still used for ballast trains and similar, I believe- certainly the rail-head was bright when I passed last time.

I miss the relatively frequent Ashford trains- I used to be able to leave home after breakfast and get to Lyon for a late lunch with a change at Lille. These days, I take the car to Frethun instead.

[Rhydgaled]

There's no point restarting services from Waterloo, even if it might be a more convenient departure point for those coming from the SW.

This, and the fact the South-West is quite densely populated, is why I suggested it. I thought Eurostar services were using Waterloo one day, then St Pancras the next. If so there would have been little time for passport control etc. (assuming you mean the pysical infrastructure, not just staff) to move between the stations. I understand the slower journey times might mean the service doesn't get used enough (why the shorter NoL sets might be better for the job), but it just seems a bit silly to me having trains that can run in Britain being used on French domestic high speed services when the French are designing even faster trains for their domestic services.

[jamie92208]

The DC equipment has been isolated and shoe-gear removed- it had been known to fail in the 'Down' position, taking out anything trackside close to it (I had a very 'entertaining' shift because of that one day).A lot of superfluous equipment is being removed to allow improved access to other things after the debacle of last December.

There is the minor problem of a lack of trained drivers for the Waterloo route as well- any who had worked would need to refresh their route knowledge before they signed it, and given the permutations of routes, it would take ages for them to accumulate enough journeys over each route. Some of my colleagues have just passed out with EP2 for the Wembley run, and have spent most of a year training.

Waterloo can still be accessed via Fawkham Junction. This is still used for ballast trains and similar, I believe- certainly the rail-head was bright when I passed last time.

I miss the relatively frequent Ashford trains- I used to be able to leave home after breakfast and get to Lyon for a late lunch with a change at Lille. These days, I take the car to Frethun instead.

 

Yes the Fawkhm junction route is used every day by a Javelin running empty from Ashford depot to swanley as it is a diversionary route for South eastern. I believe it is about 10.30 of Ashford then reverses at swanley.

 

This was confirmed to me by a guard I was talking to on Thursday.

 

Jamie

[Edwin_m]

This, and the fact the South-West is quite densely populated, is why I suggested it. I thought Eurostar services were using Waterloo one day, then St Pancras the next. If so there would have been little time for passport control etc. (assuming you mean the pysical infrastructure, not just staff) to move between the stations.

 

Eurostar shut down for about four days during the move IIRC. I suspect the dominant factor was the time needed to transfer the train maintenance operation from North Pole to Stratford. New security screening equipment was installed at St Pancras but I believe that from Waterloo was transferred to Ebbsfleet which opened a few days later.

[Fat Controller]

This, and the fact the South-West is quite densely populated, is why I suggested it. I thought Eurostar services were using Waterloo one day, then St Pancras the next. If so there would have been little time for passport control etc. (assuming you mean the pysical infrastructure, not just staff) to move between the stations. I understand the slower journey times might mean the service doesn't get used enough (why the shorter NoL sets might be better for the job), but it just seems a bit silly to me having trains that can run in Britain being used on French domestic high speed services when the French are designing even faster trains for their domestic services.

I would suggest that the use of Waterloo International for E* services in the future is about as likely as me becoming pope. Apart from the duplication of resources, both physical and human, the extended journey time would mean that stock would make even fewer revenue-earning journeys in a given time than they do at present. There is also the problem of access to a depot- although there is a physical connection to the NLL (which would have to be used to get stock from Waterloo to Temple Mills), service frequency on this line is such that pathing would be a nightmare.

Sadly, Waterloo International is not much use for enhancing domestic capacity without remodelling the station throat between Vauxhall and Waterloo, or providing some form of flying junction in the Battersea/Clapham Junction area, either of which would be a nightmare to carry out. The problem is that WI only has access to the Reading lines, and not to the SW Main Line- the additional capacity would come in useful if 'Airtrack' were to take off.

As for using the 373s in the UK- the fact that they only have doors at one end of each vehicle means that they are unsuited to services with relatively frequent stops, as each stop takes twice as long (or more) than current HSTs/IC225/Pendilinos- even SNCF confine them to certain routes, largely in the north, and keep them away from Paris -Sud-Est- Mediterranean services.

[Adam1701D]

GNER suffered very poor timekeeping when they used the 373s on their Leeds and York services. With only one door per coach and a very confusing layout, it took pax an age to board.

[Edwin_m]

There were several coaches beyond the platform at several stops. It was also suspected that the pantographs, being adjusted for high speed lines not for the more fragile catenary on the ECML, were one cause of some severe dewirements at around that time or soon after. Though no doubt if the trains were permanently transferred for domestic duties this last problem could be solved.