Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

• Futura, London, UK

  It's time for Russian Railways to operate a Trans-Siberian service from London via Moscow to Beijing without having to change in France for the Paris-Moscow train and then again in Moscow for the Trans-Siberian itself. It would be an amazing journey with no changes whatsoever!

• rogerh, Bath, UK

  "There were special connecting services for a while from British regional centres to Waterloo, but these were barred to domestic passengers"
  
  Not barred, just not advertised - at least that was the case with the one I sometimes used which ran from Cardiff to Waterloo. I'd catch it at Bath (so I could go to Canterbury without crossing London) and there'd be about 12 people on the whole train (a 125 with buffet car). It wasn't listed on the timetable and I only learnt about it from an article in Private Eye. The service was withdrawn after about a year.

• steve dawson, Bristol, uk

  Why not let DB take over the whole system. At least DB trains are long enough to carry passengers in a seat!

• Rob Harris, Stinchcombe, England

  I am trying to remember if there is a continuous 'platform' down one or both of sides of the running tunnels to deal with de-training; in which case the length of the ICE would not be so relevant. Insofar as journey opportunities are concerned, isn't it so predicatable how anglo-centric we are? The tunnel isn't just for the Brits to go to Paris/Lille/Brussels, it's also about international travellers like Americans and Japanese exploring Europe and using the train between UK and France, not to mention fellow-Europeans visiting us. There are also a few commuters in each direction and very many business travellers who have also eschewed the inconvenience of flying. Also, if we want to go by rail direct to Cologne, Frankfurt and Amsterdam, it follows that there are many people from the near continent who would want to go direct to our major provincial centres like Birmingham and Manchester, too. Roll on HS2!

• Robert, formerly London, now Canada

  The RMT are opposed to anything that could vaguely be described as progress.
  
  Even though Chris points out that this article doesn't portray them as such, the RMT *are* "a band of rampant militants hell-bent on preventing change". (Does anyone know how many RMT members work for Eurostar?)

• Alex, Milan

  I would like to se a London Milan Route as well for 2015 Expo.

• Phillip, London, UK

  The way I read what the IGC have said (and this came out months ago), the 375m rule remains in force, but if a potential operator can devise an evacuation plan for a shorter train, which is agreed on by both the IGC (as the safety regulator) and Eurotunnel (the infrastructure operator), then the IGC will sign off on it. There is no derogation of safety rules, as there will be a working evacuation plan for all length of trains. If the RMT were so put out by this, why didn't they speak out when the IGC first announced they were looking at revising the Tunnel safety rules, which was back in March?

• Greg Tingey, London, England

  The overall length of the trains is irrelevant, and the so-called "safety" rules in the channel tunnel are a political restriction on real safety, as recent incidents have shown.
  Being able to divide in-tunnel is totally unnecessary.
  If ICE-3 is unsafe in the CT, then why are they safe in the long Swiss tunnels?
  
  Can't come soon enough for me - one change at Köln, and away!

• Paul, Tunbridge Wells, UK

  It would be fantastic for London to become another major link in the European rail network. So far Paris has retained it's hub status and London should be no different. We should be able to travel to more European cities from London by train with no changes at Paris.
  I thought that by now we would be seeing direct trains from Manchester, Birmingham etc straight through the tunnel .. but alas no. We seem to lag behind in some areas where it comes to planning etc. Bring back the Victorian idea and just go and do it! If we never had our Victorian era, we'd never have been successful. But, some of the advances we make we give away to others and they make it work better. *sigh*

• Ben, London, UK

  So ICEs are too short? The Regional Eurostar trains, which were specifically built for the proposed services from Glasgow/Edinburgh and Manchester/Birmingham to Paris, are only 320 metres long, although the current requirement is for trains to be at least 375m long.
  
  Does this mean this they would not have been allowed through the tunnel if the proposed regional services had actually gone ahead? Otherwise, when did the rules change, and why?
  
  Also, because the end cars of the Regional Eurostars (like the other Eurostars) are powercars only and do not have passenger access doors, the distance between first and last doors is only about 260m. This is not much less than the 200m for an ICE and would still have required passengers to walk through the tunnel if evacuation was required.
  
  Finally - the Eruotunnel HGV shuttles have only one passenger coach, 26m long, in which HGV drivers travel as passengers. Clearly this does not have to comply with the 375m rule.
  

• Ben Oldfield, Kilkenny, Ireland

  What happened to the regional Eurostar trains which actually ran from north of Watford but were kept secret so no one used them.
  
  EDITOR'S NOTE: Nothing happened to them because true Regional Eurostars never ran. SNCF use some of the 14-car 'NOL' (North Of London) sets which were built for them on domestic services in France. There were special connecting services for a while from British regional centres to Waterloo, but these were barred to domestic passengers and, as this correspondent suggests, not much used.

• Billy Campbell, Paisley

  It would be good to see international services from other countries providing a service in the UK.
  It appears the fragmented system in the UK is a hinderance, possibly even a farce, to British railway companies.
  The UK has been playing catch up with other European countries for years as far as high speed rail is concerned, why should this be any different?

• brian goss, Beeston, England

  Agree that having more modern and reliable stock with less passengers per train ought to be a consideration in the safety case, hardly rocket science that these are significant factors in the overall risk exposure.
  
  Direct trains between UK-Germany will encourage business and investment in Britain by virtue of better links into european high speed rail network, (think about why eurodisney went to Paris - dedicated high speed station). & will benefit industry in general and secure more rail jobs in the uk in general.
  
  Do the RMT have 'tunnel vision'?
  
  NB: I think the test train will be a Class 407 Siemens Velaro, which has improved fire protection added to the Class 403 ICE-3 design

• H. Harvey, Birmingham

  Where are the real entrepeneures. St pancras and HS1 provided the golden opportunity to run trial Paris to NE/NW England and Scotland. The 'spare' Eurostar trainsets have operated services for National Express and the West Coast was cleared for them I seem to remember.
  
  Surely East Coast and/or Virgin could form a 'open access' service of one or two return trains per day. If not what about existing open access operators doing something or are they all bereft of real enterprise.

• H. Harvey, Birmingham

  The safety rules for the Channel Tunnel were over restrictive and bore all the signs of pressure from the FireBrigade union(very militant at the time) and bodies not entirely unrelated to ferry interests.
  
  
  Why does the Channel Tunnel require safety measures that are not required in longer tunnels in Europe,
  
  RMT should be encouraging such tests that benefit rail or is their a distinct conflict of interest from the Big Black Bird not unrelated to the M in RMT..
  

• Anoop, London

  Harmonisation of Channel Tunnel safety rules with the rest of Europe would enable standard European high-speed trains to be used in the Channel Tunnel. It is likely that these would be more reliable than a small fleet of highly specialised trains.

• Dave Boddy, Peterborough

  I think eurostar* proved their own trains have serious safety issues as evidenced last December, and the question is whether DB's train would experienced the same safety issues? I suspect the length of train is a non-issue given the number of times trains have had to be evacuated since the tunnel opened. I would also suggest that the safest safety system involves trains not breaking down in the first place....

• Fred, London, UK

  If it will be so unsafe to run the next generation of ICE3s - state-of-the-art trains meeting the latest international standards - will the RMT also be calling for the immediate closure of all tunnels that have older trains and where there are no cross passages at all? Perhaps they could start with shutting down the Severn Tunnel and the underground sections of London Underground?
  
  Eurotunnel is going through the established procedures to change the rules to meet real-world needs in the light of experience. The process has been going on for months (has the RMT really only just noticed?). Experience as has shown that (say) the facility to split a train will never be used, and in practice getting people to walk along inside a train takes a very long time. A shorter train would have fewer people on board to deal with, even if there was wasn't a door right opposite. Modern off-the-shelf trains also meet much tighter fire rules than were current when the special Channel Tunnel rules were first devised.

• Brian Blackmore, Coventry, UK

  Most of the Eurotunnel safety rules were invented before it opened, and before the practicalities of actually running trains through the tunnel were known. Surely its common sense that a longer train simply means more people to evacuate, it anything its less safe. The severn tunnel has been running for over 100 years without this requirement.
  
  Just sounds like another attempt by the RMT to use safety as an excuse to maintain their closed shop and high wages, its about time someone stood up to them, roll on DB!

• Sam, London, United Kingdom

  Given that this is a test run and not a revenue service, I think the rules shouldn't apply as there will be the driver and probably some DB staff monitoring performance throughout the journey. I imagine DB are prepping their new ICE trains so that they meet the existing regulations. Afterall, Siemens have already included the fire-doors on the new ICE, matching those in Eurostar trains. The RMT are being rather sensationalist about this.

• Matt, Landau, Germany

  If the DB trains are 200m long, then the sensible solution is to couple two trains together surely. Not sure that the sensible solution is ignore the safety rule becasue it doesn't suit them. Sometimes I think safety rules can be too onerous, but this one seems very sensible.
  I would love DB trains to London, but it seems as usual DB are trying to cut corners by dictating what they want.

• Chris, London, UK

  Good to see a report that does not portray the RMT as a band of rampant militants hell-bent on preventing change.
  
  I doubt the wider media will report the length of trains as an important safety issue in the same way, preferring to stigmatise the unions and pander to public sentiment.
  
  Until the safety case relating to the length of trains is either amended or removed, the test run of the ICE 3 is nothing more than an attempt by Eurotunnel to force a change to the rules without going through the established procedures.
  
  Recent problems in the tunnel have shown how badly wrong things can go but for all the horror stories in the media, there was no actual threat to life. If there had been 5 ICE-3 trains stuck in tunnels and a fire broke out, how dangerous would the evacuation of trains be with people walking around trying to find a way to reach the service tunnel ?
  
  An emergency stop would not guarantee that the train is alongside a door. In a smoke filled tunnel the safety case has been designed to ensure that the majority of people reach the cross passage door by moving inside the length of the train particularly important for elderly passengers, children and those with limited mobility.
  
  The fortunes of Eurotunnel have turned a corner since the refinancing of their crippling debt but this rush to increase traffic at no cost must not be allowed to progress at the expense of safety and certainly without a proper investigation and debate free of preconceived ideas about the role of unions.
  

• Tom, London, UK

  Screw the RMT, and the best of success to DB!! I hope we have direct services to Germany as soon as possible