the channel tunnel - ejrcf.or.jp · supplementary ventilation system blows air directly into the...

38 Japan Railway & Transport Review 26 • February 2001

Trends in Rail Freight

Feature

Copyright © 2001 EJRCF. All rights reserved.

A 250-year Dream

Although the Channel Tunnel betweenEngland and France only opened forbusiness in 1994, the story of the projectis far, far longer. As much as 250 yearsago, people in France, at least, were tryingto think of a better way than boat ofcrossing the Channel.In 1751, the Academy of Amienslaunched a competition on how to crossthe Channel and history records that thewinner was Nicolas Desmarets, whosuggested construction of a tunnel. Inthose days, cross-Channel travel was notdominated by the leisure business as it istoday. Other than military action, themain reasons were to do with trade.For the next 100 years, a succession ofmainly French proposals emerged withincreasingly sophisticated ideas for thenew link. Since this was before thedevelopment of railways, these tunnelswere inevitably road tunnels.One proposal by Hector Thoreau involvedtwo artificial islands where stagecoachesusing the gas-lit tunnel would come aboveground to change the horses.Al though Desmare t s i s the f i r s tdocumented proponent of a fixed link, thegenerally acknowledged ‘Father of theTunnel’ was the 19th century Frenchengineer Thomé de Gamond whose

investigation of the seabed—at greatpersonal risk—was the groundwork for theeventual Eurotunnel project.

Why Not a Bridge?

De Gamond showed that the chalkmeasures underlying Kent and Nord/Pasde Calais also lay beneath the seabed.Subsequent geological studies revealedthat at an average depth of about 40 mbelow the seabed, the chalk merged withclay to form an almost uniform stratum ofchalk marl, probably the best tunnellingmedium in the world. This accident ofgeology was one of the two reasons whythe fixed link is a tunnel and not a bridge.The other reason is that the Channel isthe busiest seaway in the world, with over600 shipping movements each day. Anybridge or other structure in the Channelwould almost certainly be rammed by aship in due course. If anything, the risksof such an accident would have been evengreater during construction than duringsubsequent operation.

Previous Tunnel Attempts

Despite the French enthusiasm for atunnel, actual excavation did not start untilthe latter 19th century. The British viewed

their continental neighbours withconsiderable suspicion, particularly afterthe Napoleonic campaigns earlier in thecentury, and were reluctant to end their‘splendid isolation.’ Lord Palmerston, theTory Prime Minister, greeted one proposalwith the words, ‘You surely do not expectme to agree to shorten a distance I alreadyconsider short enough?’Many people did not share Palmerston’sdistaste for things French. Even duringAnglo-French hostilities, there was still aready market in Britain for French winesand brandy and cross-Channel tradecontinued without interruption, much ofit by smuggling. The south coast ofEngland closest to France has many relicsof the illegal trade, and the 18th- centurysmugglers have now been succeeded bya much less romantic breed of villain whotake advantage of the sharp differences inexcise duty between Britain and itsneighbours. It is estimated that 20% ofthe bottled or canned beer consumed inBritain is bought in France. Much of it isBritish beer that has been exported toFrance only to be reimported by Britishshoppers or ‘bootleggers.’In the 1880s, it did begin to seem asthough the dream of a tunnel would berealized. Colonel Beaumont, a Britishmilitary engineer, led a construction teamthat bored nearly 2 km of undersea tunnelfrom Dover. A French team of engineersbegan work on a similar tunnel fromSangatte. But it was not to be. Seniormembers o f the Br i t i sh defence

One of runnning tunnels (Eurotunnel) Breakthrough of service tunnel on 1 December 1990(Eurotunnel)

The Channel Tunnel

John Noulton

39Japan Railway & Transport Review 26 • February 2001Copyright © 2001 EJRCF. All rights reserved.

establishment were still obsessed by thefear of invasion and persuaded thegovernment to stop the project.Oddly enough, it was not until after thetwo World Wars that the British defenceobjection to a Channel tunnel was finallydropped. In 1957, it seemed the lastobstacle to construction of a tunnel haddisappeared and by 1973, work had re-started in a blaze of optimism. Theengineers were encouraged when theyopened up the Beaumont tunnel of 1880to find that it was still intact, despite thefact that it had never been lined. Butwithin 2 years, the optimism had vanishedand the project was cancelled by theBritish government again, although for amore complex set of political motives. Inparticular, the trade-union supporters ofthe then Labour government were fiercelyopposed to the tunnel, because they wereconcerned that members’ jobs in roadhaulage and stevedoring would be lostwith the massive shift of internationalfreight from road and ship to rail.

Private Finance

The fears of the UK government aboutpublic expenditure was another reasonfor the cancellation of the 1973 project.By 1979, when the possibility of a tunnelwas being considered again, thegovernment’s view had hardened. Thegovernment would not stand in the wayof a fixed link provided it was fundedwholly by the private sector; there wouldbe no public funding and no guaranteesof a financial or commercial nature.Although the French government had noqualms about committing public fundsto the link, they accepted the Britishinsistence on private funding, and in1985, an ‘Invitation to Promoters’ wasissued calling for bids for a privatelyfunded project.Four valid proposals were received by theOctober deadline—three road schemes

and the rail-based tunnel promoted byEurotunnel. After a detailed assessmentof the four bids, the Eurotunnel proposalwas selected. The private-sectorpromoters were awarded a concession of55 years (later extended to 99 years) inwhich time they were ‘to finance,develop, design, construct and operate thetunnel entirely at their own risk withoutrecourse to government funds.’By the time of the successful share offerin 1987, the concessionaires had finallyanswered Lenin’s scornful challenge of1913 in which he said, ‘The richest, themost civilized, and the freest countries inthe world are now discussing, in fear andtrepidation, the difficult question ofwhether a tunnel can be built under theEnglish Channel. On all sides, at everystep, one comes across problems that manis quite capable of solving immediately,but capitalism is in the way.’

Not Just a Tunnel

The winning scheme was a systemconsisting of three 50-km tunnels: tworunning tunnels of 7.5 m in diameter, anda service tunnel of 4.8 m in diameter. Eachrunning tunnel is unidirectional with astructure gauge for the huge vehicle-carrying shuttles of the Eurotunneltransportation system as well as the moreconventional international freight andpassenger trains. The service tunnel is aroad tunnel used by purpose-built, narrow,diesel vehicles for maintenance andemergency access.Although the tunnel is not the longest inthe world—at 50 km it is nearly 4 kmshorter than the Seikan Tunnel linkingHonshu and Hokkaido—the 39-kmundersea section between Dover andSangatte is the longest in the world.

Folkestone Terminal (Eurotunnel)




The tunnels themselves are only part ofthe civil engineering story. The runningtunnels are linked to the central servicetunnel by cross-passages every 375 m foremergency access and egress. Duringnormal operations, where it meets therunning tunnel, each end of each cross-passage is sealed by a heavy door. Therunning tunnels themselves are linkeddirectly by pressure relief ducts to reducethe air pressure that builds up in front ofmoving trains. This in turn reduces thepower required for traction and cooling.About 15 km from each tunnel portal,trains pass through large crossovercaverns. As the name implies, theirpurpose is to permit trains to pass fromone tunnel to the other. Tunnel sectionscan be bypassed dur ing regularmaintenance or in an emergency usingthese crossover caverns. Single-lineworking is required at such times.The shuttle trains require extensiveterminal facilities at each end; theFolkestone terminal covers 130 ha andextends to a length of 2 km. However,this huge facility is dwarfed by the Frenchterminal, covering nearly 700 ha—the sizeof a major international airport likeHeathrow. At the time, the Frenchterminal was the largest construction sitein Europe.

Anglo-French differences

Quite apart from the differences inattitude towards the tunnel betweenBritain and France, there were alsotechnical differences to overcome, notleast for the international freight andpassenger trains that operate beyond theboundaries of the Eurotunnel system. TheBritish network is built mostly to a muchmore restricted structure gauge. Rollingstock from mainland Europe cannotoperate in Britain, so trains for the tunneleither had to be built specially or limitedto the UK gauge.

The rail system in the part of southernEngland served by Channel Tunnel trainsis 750 V dc, whereas the French networkis 25 kV ac. A further complication is thatthe British system delivers power througha third rail, while France has a standardoverhead catenary.

Tunnel Mechanical Systems

The tunnel contains four main mechanicalsystems—ventilation, cooling, drainage,and fire-fighting. The design of each ofthese systems was strongly influenced bythe unique characteristics of the tunnelitself, particularly its long length andlimited surface access.The normal ventilation system operatesat all times. Large fans at each coastblow fresh air into the service tunnel.The air reaches the running tunnelsthrough non-return air distribution unitsin selected cross-passage doors. Thereare air locks at each portal of the servicetunnel to ensure that the air pressure inthe tunnel is always higher than in therunning tunnels—a vital feature in theevent of smoke from a fire. A second,supplementary venti lation systemblows air directly into the runningtunnels in certain emergencies. Thesupplementary system only operatesafter trains have been slowed to verylow speeds.The Channel Tunnel is already one of thebusiest railways in the world and when itreaches its ultimate capacity it will handle30 train movements per hour in eachdirection. The power required to run the2400-tonne shuttle trains and theaerodynamic resistance of the tunnels(despite the pressure relief ducts) createswaste heat ranging from about 60 MW atpresent to about 100 MW at full capacity.The amount of heat that can be lost at theportals is limited to about 1.8 MW andthe heat dissipated by water seepage isvery slight. Therefore, the tunnel needs a

cooling system.Tunnel engineers will tell you that theFrench half of the tunnel was designed tobe watertight while the British half wasa lways in tended to l eak . Th i soversimplification reflects the fact that theground conditions in the British half of thetunnel are much more favourable thanthose in French territory, particularly nearthe French coast where the very fracturedground necessitated a lining methodinvolving segments that were boltedtemporarily together pending grouting andwatertight neoprene gaskets between eachlining segment. No such precautions wereconsidered necessary for the British tunneldrives and the drainage design assumesconstant groundwater seepage. Water iscollected by gravity drainage lines in thetunnel floor and is directed to holdingsumps prior to discharge to the surfacetreatment plant via one of three pumpingstations. The original tunnel design calledfor five pumping stations and fivechambers were excavated, but the actualseepage is so much less than predictedthat only three stations were equipped.The tunnel system has a wide range of firedetection and protection devices. To fighta major fire, a single 273-mm diameterfire main runs the entire length of theservice tunnel. Water tanks and pumpingstations are provided at four locations: thetwo portals and where the tunnels crossthe two coasts.

Control and communications

Overall control of both engineering andrail operations is carried out from the maincontrol centre in the Folkestone terminal.A standby control centre at the Coquellesterminal would take over instantly if theFolkestone centre was put out of actionfor any reason.The tunnel has a variety of telephone andradio systems for voice and datacommunication. In addition to the


administrative telephone network, therea re opera t iona l and emergencytelephones, linked to the control centre,in a multitude of locations above andbelow ground. The undergroundemergency telephone lines are protectedagainst fire.The signalling system incorporates fullautomatic train protection (ATP). Whenthere is a stationary train ahead, thepermitted speeds are gradually reducedso that a driver following the properbraking procedure slows down smoothlyand comes to a halt a full block sectionbefore the stopped train. A shuttle traintravelling at the normal 140 km/h needs1500 m—three block sections—to makea normal service stop. If the driverdisregarded the instructions to brake, theATP system would take over and bring thetrain to a halt.

Power Supply

The tunnel has a high demand forelectrical power. Traction accounts forabout 80% of total consumption withremainder used for auxiliary facilities suchas ventilation, cooling and lighting.U n u s u a l l y, t h e p o w e r c o m e ssimultaneously from the British andFrench national grids. In the event of atotal power failure on one side, it ispossible for tunnel services to be keptrunning with power from one side.

Capacity/Services

The capacity is measured in standard paths,meaning the capacity required for a shuttletrain travelling at the normal operatingspeed of 140 km/h. Trains travelling atspeeds greater than 140 km/h use morecapacity.The presently available number of standardpaths in each direction is 20 per hour, andabout two-thirds of this capacity is already

being used. Improved operating techniqueswill stretch the available capacity to about24 standard paths per hour. The ultimatecapacity, which would require movingblock signalling, is 30 standard paths perhour. Under a usage contract signed byBritain and France, up to 50% of tunnelcapacity is available for internationalpassenger and freight trains.

National Trains

The opening of the Channel Tunnelconnected Britain’s 16,000-km railwaynetwork to more than 150,000 km ofstandard-gauge tracks in continentalEurope. Before the Tunnel opening,international rail freight between Britain

Railway control centre at Folkestone (Eurotunnel)

Terminal traffic control centre at Folkestone (Eurotunnel)




and France was limited to some 2 milliontonnes per year, all of which had to crossthe Channel on train ferries. Due to therestricted loading gauge in Britain, mostcontinental freight wagons cannot use theTunnel and most freight traffic consists ofintermodal containers that are transferredfrom rail to road for final delivery. To carrythese containers, it was necessary for theoperators to purchase a new fleet ofwagons with low-level decks.To haul freight trains through the Tunnel,completely new Class 92 electriclocomot ives were bui l t . Theselocomotives can operate on both 750 Vdc third-rail and 25 kV ac catenarysystems. They have a maximum outputof 5 MW (6700 hp) and normally operatein pairs, but are designed to a full trainplus a ‘dead’ locomotive up the 1:90 (11per mill) grade to the Folkestone portal at30 km/h. The Class 92s have Tunnel-compatible TVM430 in-cab signalling.Freight volumes have grown slowly butsteadily since freight services began in1994 and more than 3 million tonnes willbe carried through the Tunnel this year.Like the Class 92s, the Eurostar high-speedpassenger trains were built specially. Theycan operate on three separate systems(Britain, France and Belgium), and, unlikethe French TGVs (on which they arebased) are able to operate on the Britishnetwork.

There are about 30 Eurostar services eachway each day between London and Parisor Brussels. Each train is operated by asingle driver, working from one capital tothe other. The Eurostar trains also haveTVM430 in-cab signalling system usedin the tunnel as well as the conventionalin-cab warning systems used on the threenational rail networks. In the tunnel, theEurostar trains run at speeds of 160 km/h,but when they reach the high-speed linesin Belgium and France, they accelerateto 300 km/h. Because the higher-speedEurostars are relatively wasteful of tunnelcapacity, the Brussels and Paris servicespass through in ‘flighted’ pairs with 4-minutes headway.Journey times are 3 hours from London toParis and 2 hours and 25 minutes fromLondon to Brussels, making them verycompetitive with air in terms of city centreto city centre journey times. As a result,the Eurostar services have captured a 60%share of these markets with over 6 millionpeople travelling by Eurostar each year.High-speed lines have been constructedon the French and Belgian sections of theEurostar routes and work has started on anew 112-km high-speed line in Britain toconnect the tunnel to St. Pancras Stationin London. When this section is fullyopened in 2007, Eurostar journey timeswill be cut by a further 30 minutes.

Shuttle Services

Unlike the roll-on/roll-off ferries crossingthe Channel, passenger and freightcustomers of Eurotunnel’s shuttle servicesare conveyed separately by dedicatedshuttles and separate terminals.The passenger shuttles are 776-m long andtheir vehicles are the largest in the railwayworld. Each shuttle comprises tworakes—12 double-deck wagons for cars,and twelve single-deck wagons forcoaches caravans and other high-sidedvehicles. Customers drive their vehiclesinto special loader wagons at the rear ofeach rake and continue through the bodyof the train until told to stop by a memberof the crew. During transit through thetunnel, fire-resistant doors between thewagons are closed. Passengers stay intheir vehicles during the 35-minutejourney to the other terminal. A uniquefeature of the shuttle system is that Britishoutward and French inward bordercontrols are carried out in Folkestone (thereverse occurs on the return journey). Thismeans that on arrival at the other terminal,customers can drive directly onto themotorway with no further controls. Theshuttle locomotives, which are used forboth passenger and freight services, areamong the most powerful in the world.They produce 5.6 MW (7500 hp) and can

Loading passenger shuttle at Folkestone and Coquelles (right) (Eurotunnel)


each pull a 2400-tonne train through thetunnel, although they are invariably usedin pairs, one at each end of a train.Eurotunnel operates two to threepassenger shuttles per hour in eachdirection, rising to four at peak times. Asoriginally conceived, passenger shuttleswere to have operated on a ‘turn up andgo’ basis, with no pre-booking. Whencapacity was restricted following the 1996fire, a booking system was introduced andthis proved so popular with customers andprovided such operational benefits, thatit was made a permanent feature evenafter full capacity was restored. It is stillpossible to simply ‘turn up and go’ butbooking ahead is advisable at times ofhigh demand.The major business of the passengershuttles is leisure travel and the biggestflows are in the summer holiday period.The short-break business is alsoflourishing, but the end of duty free salesin Europe in June 1999 saw a dramaticfall in traditional day-trip traffic. Over 3million cars used the passenger shuttlesin 1999 as did 82,000 coaches..Unlike the passenger shuttles, the freightshuttle wagons are semi-open. Truckdrivers do not stay with their vehicles buttravel instead in a ‘club’ car at the front ofthe train where they are served a meal.Originally 28-wagons long, the freightshuttles have been extended to 32 wagonsbecause of rapidly rising demand. Up tofour trains run each hour in each directionand carried 839,000 trucks in 1999.The cross-Channel road freight marketuses both driver-accompanied trucks andunaccompanied trailers. Eurotunnel’sshuttles only cater for accompaniedvehicles, although the system does acceptvehicles weighing up to 44 tonnes—themaximum permitted in Europe oninternational journeys.

Fire!

The very serious fire in November 1996was on one of the freight shuttles. Late inthe evening, two security guards in theBeussingue Cutting, close to the Frenchtunnel portal noticed smoke coming froma wagon towards the back of a freightshuttle that was about to enter the tunnel.They reported the smoke and the railcontrol centre in Folkestone advised thedriver. By this time, the train was in thetunnel and the control centre had begunto rece ive ind ica t ions f rom theunderground smoke and fire alarms.In accordance with the standard operatingpractice, the driver was instructed tocontinue his transit and a route was setfor the train to enter the emergency sidingat the Folkestone terminal.Just after passing the French crossover, thedriver received a cab warning of a possibletrailing jack (jacks are used during loadingto steady the train). As he still had to passthe English crossover, the trailing jackcould have caused derailment. Indiscussion with the control centre, thedriver brought the train to a controlledhalt, with the ‘club’ car alongside a cross-passage. Anxious minutes passed as thefront of the train became enveloped insmoke. Fortunately, the control centrewas able to identify and open the cross-passage door. The inflow of ventilationair from the service tunnel cleared thesmoke and the train captain was able toevacuate the truck drivers to the safehaven of the service tunnel. Meanwhile,rescue teams had arrived on the scene andthe evacuated passengers and crew wereloaded onto a shuttle that had beenstopped in the other tunnel and taken backto Coquelles.The fire burned all night before it wasfinally brought under control and theextensive damage closed the affectedtunnel for 7 months while repairs werecarried out. During that period, a

restricted passenger shuttle serviceoperated together with national trains.The freight shuttle service was suspendeduntil both tunnels were open.A police investigation showed that the firewas arson but no one has been chargedso far.

Ancillary businesses

As well as running trains and managingthe Tunnel infrastructure, Eurotunnel hasbecome involved in other businessactivities. Before the end of duty-free salesin Europe, Eurotunnel was a verysuccessful retailer with income from itsduty-free shops rising to £170 million ayear. It is also in the telecommunicationsb u s i n e s s a n d h a s l a i d s e v e r a ltelecommunications cables through thetunnel for major telephone companies.

Future developments

Because of the very strong growth in thecross-Channel road freight market,following its recovery from the 1996 fire,Eurotunnel decided to double its fleet of8 freight shuttles. This expansion of itsfreight business was the key ingredient inEurotunnel’s strategy to replace the lost£170 million in annual revenues fromduty-free sales. The current fleet of freightshuttles numbers 11 and further trains arebeing manufactured. This expansion ofcapacity enabled Eurotunnel to carry 42%more trucks in the first half of 2000compared to the same period in 1999.The freight shuttle is the most successfulof Eurotunnel’s businesses. It is also a verysatisfying business because it is year-roundand not seasonal like the passengerbusiness. Freight peaks in the earlymorning, late evening and mid-weekoccur conveniently at times of lowpassenger-shuttle demand. However, thissuccess is not without its problems.




Since the opening of the Tunnel there hasbeen a concentration of road freight trafficon the Channel Tunnel and Dover ferryroutes, at the expense of the longer ferryroutes in the North Sea and the westernChannel. This means that if there isdisruption of either the ferries or Tunnel,queues build up rapidly on the approachmotorways. The volume of trucks likelyto be held up in this way is so huge thatthe police have introduced ‘OperationStack’ in which the motorway is closed toall other traffic and is used as a lorry park.Apart from technical dif f icult ies,disruption has been caused recently bybad weather in the Channel, strikes byseamen and port operators, and blockadesin France by farmers, fishermen andhauliers. The Tunnel was even blockedon one occasion by people protesting theend of duty-free sales.The new trains are not identical to thosein the original fleet. Experience ofoperating the existing vehicles has ledEurotunnel to develop a simpler designmore suited to the intensive shuttle-basedsystem.Expansion of the freight shuttle businessis not simply a matter of buying moretrains. Substantial modification of theterminals will also be necessary, such as

doubling the number of platforms from 8to 16. Fortunately, space for such anexpansion was provided in the originaldesigns.One direct result of the fire was thedecision to develop an on-train firesuppression system for freight shuttles.The existing safety systems proved thatthey could save the lives of passengers andcrew, but the Tunnel itself was notprotected. A prototype system is nowundergoing in-service trials.

Next—A Road Tunnel?

When the governments awardedEurotunnel its concession in 1986, therewas some disappointment in bothcountries that the chosen scheme was arail tunnel. Competing ‘drive through’projects had been judged impractical butthe promoters of those schemes attractedconsiderable public and political support.The governments therefore imposed anobligation on Eurotunnel to developproposals for a ‘drive through’ link by lastyear. The company does not have to buildsuch a link unless it is technically andfinancially feasible and, even then, thereis no binding obligation to go ahead with

the project. However, the governmentswould be free to invite other promotersto build such a link that would enterservice no earlier than 2020.To comply with this requirement,Eurotunnel submitted a feasibility studyfor a second tunnel to the British andFrench governments in December 1999.Because of changes in public attitudestowards pollution and the motor car, thestudy looked at both ‘drive through’schemes and at the possibility of a secondrail tunnel. It identified two possibleoptions, one rail and one road. Both werelarge single tunnels of about 15 m inexternal diameter, within which, it isbelieved, all the safety features of thepresent three tunnels could be combined.The road tunnel was based on two one-way two-lane carriageways on separatelevels for cars and light vehicles only.Heavy vehicles would continue to use thefreight shuttle as now.The rai l opt ion would have twounidirectional tracks side-by-side, butseparated by a fire wall. It would caterto Eurostar passenger t rains andinternational freight trains, leaving thewhole capacity of the present tunnel forthe Eurotunnel shuttles.Paradoxically, the road option would not

Cross Section of Channel Tunnel Structure

Shuttle trainPiston relief duct

Cross-passage

Eurostar

Running tunnel Running tunnelService tunnel

Cross-passage

(Eurotunnel)


inhibit transfer of road freight to rail,because a road tunnel would free capacityin the existing tunnel for the passage of51 million tonnes of rail freight each year,or 13 times the volume expected to becarried this year. The rail option wouldpermit carriage of up to 73 million tonnesper annum, 20 times the current level.Both schemes appeared to be technicallyfeasible, but the viability of the rail optiondepends very much on the evolution ofthe cross-Channel freight business.

Changing Public Attitude

One reasons why the feasibility studyencompassed both road and rail optionswas the perceived change in publicattitudes to roads since the Eurotunnelconcession was awarded. Europeangovernments have repeatedly said thatthey want to encourage a massive shift oftraffic, particularly freight traffic, from roadto rail. The 10-year transport plan recentlypublished by the UK government hassuggested a target of 80% growth in railfreight within the next 10 years. Thiswould translate to an increase in rail’smarket share from the present 6% to 10%over the same period. International railfreight, which can operate over thedistances at which rail competeseffectively with road, clearly has animportant part to play if these targets areto be met.There is growing resistance in the so-called ‘transit’ countries of Europe(Switzerland, Austria, Hungary) to theflood of heavy vehicles using their roads.Switzerland has imposed a maximumweight limit of 28 tonnes on trucks passingthrough its territory and is developing newrail-based tunnels through the Alps for thecarriage of goods vehicles. Germany hasits rolling motorways, with heavy freightvehicles carried ‘piggyback’ on railwagons. Consequently, the omens for railfreight look good.

Unfortunately, as things stand, rail freightis anything but competitive with road sincethe European road haulage market has beenfully liberalized. Less than 20 years ago,road hauliers needed a permit for everyinternational journey, but today there iscomplete freedom of access to most roadsin Europe. Hauliers also have the right topractice cabotage and, if necessary, can setup in business in another member state withlittle difficulty. Liberalization, in turn, hascaused s t rong compet i t ion andconsolidation in the market, leading to amarked fall in freight rates. The completionof the European single market has seendouble-digit annual growth in internationalroad freight.By contrast, rail freight has been in thedoldrums and it is not just market share thathas been lost. Freight volumes carried onEU railway networks fell 14% from a peak

of 283 billion tonne-km in 1970 to 241billion tonne-km by 1998. In the sameperiod, the volume of road freight grew by50% to 1255 billion tonne-km and thegrowth is quickening. It is no coincidencethat the length of motorways in the EUtripled from 16,000 to 49,000 km between1970 and 1998, while the length of railwaylines fell from 170,000 to 153,000 km inthe same period.Eurotunnel has until 2010 to decidewhether it wants to pursue a secondtunnel. After that date, the British andFrench governments can invite others toprepare proposals if they wish. Thefinancial restructuring prospectuspublished in 1997 shows that the presentsystem will not reach saturation until atleast 2023, suggesting that the long storyof the Channel Tunnel still has severalunwritten chapters. �

View of tunnel system showing shuttle train, Eurostar and service tunnel vehicle (Eurotunnel)

John Noulton

Mr Noulton is Eurotunnel Director of Public Affairs. Prior to this, he was Director of Administration at

Transmanche-Link, the Channel Tunnel contractors. He has also held a number of other public posts

including Director of International Transport at the British Department of Transport and in the British

Civil Service. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Transport and a Companion of the Institution

of Civil Engineers.

the channel tunnel - ejrcf.or.jp · supplementary ventilation system blows air directly into the...

Documents