"R.C. Payne" wrote in message
...

2) Trains through the tunnel must meet very stringent safety requirements.
Probably the most awkward of these is the need to be able to didvide the
train to use part of the train to remove passengers so that a disabled and
dangerous half-set can be abandonned in the tunnel, and the passengers can
be evacuated. Conventional TGVs are indivisible sets, and coupled sets
have no access between the two halves. ICE3s suffer a similar problem for
different technical reasons. To solve this would either require the
safety regulations to be eased, to something closer to those in place in
other long tunnels in Europe (eg the Severn tunnel, the various alpine
tunnels &c.).

Both of these problems can only be rectified by changing the treaty
between the UK and France that allowed the tunnel to be built. While not
impossible, it would take a great deal of time and effort to make it
happen, and most discussion on these two newsgroups has come to the
conclusion that it is highly desirable from a railway perspective, it is
unlikely to happen any time soon.


Not forgetting that it suits Eurostar to have what is in effect a non tariff
barrier to competing new entrants to the cross channel route, so they aren't
likely to propose a relaxation of the standards. It will be interesting to
see eventually if that extends to buying high cost like for like
replacements for the existing trains, rather than 'off the shelf' units from
the then current range of TGV type trains.

Paul

On Jul 25, 11:57 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Both of these problems can only be rectified by changing the treaty
between the UK and France that allowed the tunnel to be built. While not
impossible, it would take a great deal of time and effort to make it
happen, and most discussion on these two newsgroups has come to the
conclusion that it is highly desirable from a railway perspective, it is
unlikely to happen any time soon.

Not forgetting that it suits Eurostar to have what is in effect a non tariff
barrier to competing new entrants to the cross channel route, so they aren't
likely to propose a relaxation of the standards. It will be interesting to
see eventually if that extends to buying high cost like for like
replacements for the existing trains, rather than 'off the shelf' units from
the then current range of TGV type trains.

We've since had EC Directives on interoperability. That is another
argument against maglev systems, especially those that use proprietary
technology, according to a report placed on the DfT website
yesterday. Possible implications for revising Tunnel regs?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:01:15 -0700 someone who may be EE507
wrote this:-

We've since had EC Directives on interoperability.

That is a good point. It could be argued that discriminating against
an operator over the type of train they have is illegal.

However, that would not deal with the so-called security claptrap
and the Little Englander officials.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Jul 25, 7:17 am, David Hansen
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 07:01:15 -0700 someone who may be EE507

We've since had EC Directives on interoperability.

That is a good point.

As I've posted before, I suspect any high speed train in current
production in Europe such as a TGV or ICE meets todays UIC safety
standards which I would suggest are in excess of those determined for
the channel tunnel set 15 years ago.

All that would need doing is tweaking traction packs and power car /
motor coach permutations and power/trailer ratios to fit in with the
split half train concept (which might be questioned anyway). There is
no need to worry about specifics like TVM430 since TGV and some ICE
are clearly fitted with it already.

Other details are trivial.

--
Nick

"EE507" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 25, 11:57 am, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

Both of these problems can only be rectified by changing the treaty
between the UK and France that allowed the tunnel to be built. While
not
impossible, it would take a great deal of time and effort to make it
happen, and most discussion on these two newsgroups has come to the
conclusion that it is highly desirable from a railway perspective, it
is
unlikely to happen any time soon.

Not forgetting that it suits Eurostar to have what is in effect a non
tariff
barrier to competing new entrants to the cross channel route, so they
aren't
likely to propose a relaxation of the standards. It will be interesting
to
see eventually if that extends to buying high cost like for like
replacements for the existing trains, rather than 'off the shelf' units
from
the then current range of TGV type trains.

We've since had EC Directives on interoperability. That is another
argument against maglev systems, especially those that use proprietary
technology, according to a report placed on the DfT website
yesterday. Possible implications for revising Tunnel regs?


That's what I'm hinting at really - any revision of the regs is almost bound
to be led by a challenge under EU interoperability regs by a newcomer -
unless of course the EU bring the rules for any long distance tunnel into
line, which I guess has to be unlikely.

Paul