From: Martin Young MSc (Eng) IEng CMILT MIET
Topic: Channel Tunnel Services

I worked on the Channel Tunnel Project from 1987 to 1994, and at that time it was considered as ‘The Cash Cow’ for growth in the EU market. The operating agreement has led to a monopoly situation, and instead of the then published advantage of a cheap ‘turn up and go’ Eurotunnel service instead, as mentioned, there exists a rather complex booking and fares structure for public and freight traffic – hence the spare capacity.

This spare capacity has been known about for years, so why is it now that it is being ‘highlighted’?

I would dearly love to be able to just drive down to the Eurotunnel Folkestone Terminal, pay my fare and drive on to the next shuttle without the need to pre-book via the internet to get the best deals. And there should have been, and has to be an open access agreement for passenger train operators. The rigorous evacuation procedures, linked to the type of passenger trains that can be approved for running through the Channel Tunnel must also be revised. I distinctly remember that when working on evacuation scenarios prior to the formal opening, that even an with extreme failure of a train in one of the tunnels, that emergency operating procedures were exercised to demonstrate to the Maitre d’Ouvre, etc, that the failed train, and any others affected by the failure could be evacuated from the tunnels to both terminals within 90 minutes. It has been apparent on many occasions over the past 17 years that Eurotunnel has failed on a number of occasions to meet this exacting safety criteria.

I weep when I think how long it took to get HS1 in service! HS1 should have been built in its entirety in tandem with construction of the Channel Tunnel. Is that not common sense?

Section 1 was a ‘laughing stock’: ‘High speed’ from Folkestone to Fawkham Junction, then ‘snail’s pace’ to the now disused Waterloo International.

Watch out for ‘lessons learnt’ not being applied to HS2. Again, as with HS1, we have a similar situation. Build a bit of it to somewhere, then a few decades later try to join it up with the proposed second bit; and in the process, upset the locals, cause political wrangling, and ‘balls it up’ through short-sighted fiscal constraints!

Great Britain needs new railways. So, why not let common sense reign? Build HS2 from London to Scotland in one go throughout. In addition, tunnel under the Chilterns, which will reduce the (current artificially inflated) capital costs of tunnelling over the route length.

So, yes! I agree with creating more services through The Channel Tunnel, but let’s see some proper ‘joined up’ thinking on rail projects first, and in addition relax the rolling stock requirements so that regional UK – France/Belgium commuter services could be operated.