# CHUNNEL – BUSIEST LINE IN EUROPE



## DET63 (Aug 26, 2009)

> Posted on 20 August 2009 by Railways Africa Editor
> It is reported that the Channel Tunnel between England and France is the most heavily used railway line in Europe, with annual traffic of more than 100 million tons. The heavy traffic causes rapid degradation of the rails, both in the tunnel and in the terminal loops. Studies initiated by Corus with its bainitic and MHH extra-hard heat-treated rails are aimed at increasing their life by 50%.
> 
> 
> ...


More

Wouldn't it have been simpler to reverse the shuttles at the terminals instead of putting in loops?


----------



## Neil_M (Aug 26, 2009)

DET63 said:


> Wouldn't it have been simpler to reverse the shuttles at the terminals instead of putting in loops?


It was designed like that to avoid crossing trains across the mainlines when going into and leaving the car and truck loading terminals, and cut down on conflicting moves.


----------



## DET63 (Aug 26, 2009)

Color me naïve, but I would think that they could have used flyovers or the like to avoid conflicting moves and/or having trains cross mainlines.

Actually, I'm looking at a map of Calais (or wherever the French end of the tunnel is), and it appears that there are flyover tracks and the like, but also a big loop. I would have looked to design the whole place differently, perhaps, though hindsight is always 20/20 and I don't get paid the big bucks like the engineers do.


----------



## Neil_M (Aug 26, 2009)

DET63 said:


> Color me naïve, but I would think that they could have used flyovers or the like to avoid conflicting moves and/or having trains cross mainlines.


I don't know why they didn't go down that route, but there is enough space on the French side to have done that, but at Cheriton on the UK side, there is not a lot of space as you come out of the tunnel and head towards the shuttle terminal, maybe the idea of running the loop came about from moving the connection further back from the tunnel mouth.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 28, 2009)

How about: The operational advantages of the loop arrangement far exceed the additional cost of maintenance due to shortened rail life? Whether this is true or not is the real question. Operationally it would seem that the loop arrangement was the right decision.

As to the 650 MGT life of the rail in the tunnel itself: 650 MGT is just barely broke in good for the section of rail used in the US. The fatigue cracks are due to a stress riser in the head to web area that is inherent in the shape of the rail section they use. IMHO, this problem will not be solved by changing the metallurgy. A similar issue on this side of the Atlantic was recognized and the rail shapes modified accordingly in the late 1940's. Most of the lines in Europe have neither the axle laods nor the total tonnage per track for the issue to have arisen there. They need to swallow their pride and look at the rail sections used here.


----------



## Neil_M (Aug 28, 2009)

George Harris said:


> They need to swallow their pride and look at the rail sections used here.


And maybe the US railroads could learn about laying some track that actually gives a smooth ride?!


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > They need to swallow their pride and look at the rail sections used here.
> ...


That is so true! On this side of the pond they seem to be completely incapable of laying and maintaining track that actually gives a smooth ride! I suspect it may have something to do with the generally heavier cars which require firmer suspension and also lead to more significant yawing problems or something like that. I don;t know what the reason is.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 28, 2009)

Neil_M said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > They need to swallow their pride and look at the rail sections used here
> ...


Nothing to learn. The way to do it is known. Give us the money and it will happen. It just makes no economic sense for the freight haulers to go too far beyond the FRA *safety* standards.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 28, 2009)

jis said:


> Neil_M said:
> 
> 
> > George Harris said:
> ...


I knnow theres inspections etc. etc. but lots of our rail lines are very old and were poorly maintained by failed roads,cutting corners on maintence etc.wouldnt surprise me to learn that most of Europes rails were fairly new since we bombed Europe to rubble during WWII and then paid to rebuild it just like we always do!In my memory the trains I rode as a boy were much smoother and the tracks I walked and played on(hypocrite me!)were better ballasted,the rails seemed to be truer and not as rusted and the old manual switches and signals seemed to not be such a problem!Theres lots of variables but basically I think when we let passenger rail go to hell in the 50s and 60s no-one cared so they could skimp on maintence and upgrades and who cared since it was only freights running the rails and of course Amtrak was @ the lines mercy where they didnt own the routes!


----------



## jis (Aug 28, 2009)

Um, I was actually comparing NEC tracks with say any upgraded Classic tracks in France or Germany, using Acela as example rolling stock here and say TGV Atlantique generation (second gen) TGV in France. AFAIK as soon as you go to upgraded track whether it be on the NEC or on the St. Pierre des Corps - Bordeaux line whether they were bombed 65 years ago or had weeds growing on it back in the 60's or not becomes quite irrelevant IMHO.


----------



## Neil_M (Aug 28, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Nothing to learn. The way to do it is known. Give us the money and it will happen. It just makes no economic sense for the freight haulers to go too far beyond the FRA *safety* standards.


Safety standards=do as little as possible!

Given the NEC is rough riding track, what freight hauler runs that?!


----------

