Channel Tunnel Fire?

"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote
>
> It is a pity that Eurostar removed the 3rd rail capability. Otherwise
> they could have run from St. Pancras to Ashford International on the
> high speed line and then by conventional lines to Dover or Folkstone,
> put the passengers on a ferry to Calais and provide E*/TGV connections
> from there to Paris and Brussels. With the reverse for passenger from
> the Continent. There would (or should) be no problems with having to
> provide separation between international and domestic passengers at
> Dover/Folkstone/Calais as the immigration/customs etc formalities would
> be handled at the ferry terminals.

There are no ferries from Folkestone. The ferries from Dover run from
Eastern Docks, and Speedferries from the 'Hoverport' - neither Eastern Docks
nor the Hoverport are rail connected, and Westrn docks station is now the
Cruise Terminal. Even with 3rd rail capacity E*s could not get to Folkestone
Harbour, as the reversing sidings are too short, and, AIUI, the Harbour
branch is no longer electrified.

So the only possibility would have been Dover Priory station. This is far
enough away from Eastern Docks to need a bus connection.

Similarly at Calais a bus would be needed from the Port to Ville or Frethun
station.

The journey would be so disjointed that it would probably be quicker to go
over to Victoria Coach Terminal and get a through coach (via ferry) to
Paris.

Peter

In message
<a56efa62-9abd-4f36-895d-1fc5e1bfb0e4@26g2000hsk..com>, at
00:55:13 on Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Mizter T <mizter.t@> remarked:
>I very much doubt that the "commercial success" comment is based on
>spin emanating from Eurotunnel's PR people yesterday - it's more
>likely to be the result of all the years of Eurotunnel's general PR
>operation which has managed to create a favourable impression on some
>journalists. That and a general muddle headedness and lack of
>knowledge of the facts in the mind of the specific journalist
>concerned.

Most likely to be a reflection simply of the recent up-beat figures from
Eurostar.
--
Roland Perry

In message <87vdx14xir.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk>, at 08:46:20 on Fri,
12 Sep 2008, Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> remarked:
>> However, Eurotunnel are transferring their passengers to ferries,
>> while E* are merely offering to transfer bookings to a later date or
>> refund fares.
>
>It is a pity that Eurostar removed the 3rd rail capability. Otherwise
>they could have run from St. Pancras to Ashford International on the
>high speed line and then by conventional lines to Dover or Folkstone,

Are those onward lines up-graded to allow Eurostars? Doesn't seem very
likely. What they would have to do is change to a conventional train at
Ashford (which they can do via HS1, of course).

But coaches from Ashford to Calais is the more practical solution.
--
Roland Perry

On 11 Sep, 22:30, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> Although the BBC site has not been updated for 3 hours, the 10 o'clock News
> seems to be saying that the fire is still not out (despite earlier reports
> to the contrary). It looks as though we could be in for a lengthy closure,
> followed by weeks of single line working between the French crossover and
> the French portal.
>

For what it's worth, the Today programme (R4) was contemplating a
closure of 'several weeks if not months', but I doubt anyone really
has a clue at the moment as they also reported that the fire is *still
burning*. One can only imagine that this has caused very considerable
damage to the tunnel.

I wonder if this fire is going to precipitate a radical rethink with
regards to the truck shuttles - might it even be possible that the
whole notion of carrying lorries in semi-open wagons through the
channel tunnel is deemed unsafe and will thus have to stop? If fully
enclosed wagons are not considered practical then might that spell the
end of road hauled freight using the chunnel full stop, with the
possible result that containers which are to traverse the tunnel must
travel on conventional freight trains? Who knows.

AAIU a very significant chunk of Eurotunnel's income comes from
carrying trucks on the piggybacking shuttle service, so this might
have some considerable financial implications for them. (Does that
income cover patching up the tunnel every decade after a fire me
wonders?)

On Sep 12, 8:46 am, Graham Murray <newsp...@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
> "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> writes:
> > However, Eurotunnel are transferring their passengers to ferries,
> > while E* are merely offering to transfer bookings to a later date or
> > refund fares.
>
> It is a pity that Eurostar removed the 3rd rail capability. Otherwise
> they could have run from St. Pancras to Ashford International on the
> high speed line and then by conventional lines to Dover or Folkstone,
> put the passengers on a ferry to Calais and provide E*/TGV connections
> from there to Paris and Brussels. With the reverse for passenger from
> the Continent. There would (or should) be no problems with having to
> provide separation between international and domestic passengers at
> Dover/Folkstone/Calais as the immigration/customs etc formalities would
> be handled at the ferry terminals.

Careful , thats joined up thinking your espousing there - you can't
have that in modern day business!

Even without 3rd rail , I don't see any reason why E* can't at least
run from paris to calais and bus the passengers to the ferry
terminals.

B2003

On Sep 12, 8:59 am, "Peter Masson" <peter.mass...@> wrote:
> So the only possibility would have been Dover Priory station. This is far
> enough away from Eastern Docks to need a bus connection.
>
> Similarly at Calais a bus would be needed from the Port to Ville or Frethun
> station.

So? Don't they have buses in france?

B2003

On Sep 11, 6:35 pm, Charles Ellson <char...@ellson.> wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2008 17:14:06 GMT, Ar <A...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:01:28 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>
> >>>Time lorries had to travel in enclosed rolling stock?
>
> >> No, but perhaps it is time to consider banning lorries that are carrying
> >> flammable and/or toxic materials.
>
> >I'm surprised that the alleged chemical the press are reporting was
> >allowed on the freight train. Highly flammable AND highly toxic.
>
> That depends on precisely which version of the alleged "phenol" was
> being carried. Some are non-combustible but will form harmful products
> if involved in a fire. The fuel and tyres on the vehicles being
> carried aren't entirely harmless by themselves once something starts
> burning.
>
> >I think they will now seriously have to consider making the freight
> >trains like the car passenger service, all enclosed train units to give a
> >better chance of extinguishing a fire and not get fanned by the wind of
> >the moving train.

The flash point of phenol, (or carbolic acid), is 79 degrees
centigrade, making it quite a dangerous material to transport. But no
more dangerous than a host of other products carried regularly on the
roads or rail, or even by air. Of course we don't know the quantity or
even the version, so informed decision cannot be made here.
I'm curious as to how a lorry can 'overturn' when being carried
through the tunnel. Unless there was a secondary incident such as a
derailment, however I think information would have been forthcoming by
now. IIRC this is not the first lorry fire in the Channel Tunnel. Why
is there this, albeit rare, tendancy for lorries to spontaneously
combust in a tunnel, or are lorry drivers negligent in some way? In
that case, why aren't the roads littered with burning lorries? The
point someone makes on here about thermal imageing devices, may be a
good idea. Does anyone know if there have been any incidents of cars
beiong conveyed in the Channel Tunnel randomly catching fire?

Neill

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <87vdx14xir.fsf@newton.gmurray.org.uk>, at 08:46:20 on Fri,
> 12 Sep 2008, Graham Murray <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> remarked:
>>> However, Eurotunnel are transferring their passengers to ferries,
>>> while E* are merely offering to transfer bookings to a later date or
>>> refund fares.
>>
>> It is a pity that Eurostar removed the 3rd rail capability. Otherwise
>> they could have run from St. Pancras to Ashford International on the
>> high speed line and then by conventional lines to Dover or Folkstone,
>
> Are those onward lines up-graded to allow Eurostars? Doesn't seem very
> likely. What they would have to do is change to a conventional train at
> Ashford (which they can do via HS1, of course).
>
> But coaches from Ashford to Calais is the more practical solution.

In Connex days you could get a ticket from Charing Cross to Calais via
Ashford. It was domestic train to ashford, coach to calais via
eurotunnel and back. The coaches ran in a loop - Ashford->Channel Tunnel
via Le Shuttle->Cite Europe->Calais->Cite Europe->French Eurotunnel
Terminal->Channel Tunnel->Ashford, train back to Charing Cross. One
coach an hour so you could hop on/hop off while in France.

Closure due to fire notwithstanding, are these services still operating?

On Sep 12, 9:31 am, Neillw001 <wormwood...@m> wrote:
> I'm curious as to how a lorry can 'overturn' when being carried

Thats probably just the usual OTT nonsense you get from journalists.
I'd guess tyres its have burst on one side and its leaning over maybe
touching the wall of the wagon. To the clueless it looks like its
overturned.

B2003

Am Fri, 12 Sep 2008 08:31:48 UTC, schrieb Neillw001
<wormwood001@m> auf uk.railway :

> IIRC this is not the first lorry fire in the Channel Tunnel. Why
> is there this, albeit rare, tendancy for lorries to spontaneously
> combust in a tunnel, or are lorry drivers negligent in some way?

My guess is that this comes from some components of the truck which
overheated while running on the road and then, after entering the
shuttle, has no more cooling by the head wind. This would be even
worse, I presume, with completely closed wagons of "Le Shuttle". The
previous fire, I think, came from overheated brakes.

Cheers,
L.W.