This is an archive of past discussions about Eurostar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
I'd have to agree somewhat, although the idea of including a schematic sounds good to me. By far the main current route served by Eurostar is the London Waterloo to Paris Gare du Nord and vice versa (with slightly less, but still a significant number, serving Brussels Gare du Midi). The graphic shown though hardly makes it obvious these are even routes. The graphics seems to concerntrate more on routes that either don't exist yet or are only served by special services. Canderra18:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I've used HandigeHarry 's worka bove to create the table at Ashford via Maidstone East Line. Eurostar's haven't used that since CTRL stage 1 opened so the above table would need copious work before it acuratly represented what takes place. There has been a rough table over on the CTRL page, but it dosen't exploit the excellent feautres of the WP:TRAIL template. Pickle22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Rethinking this link:
I see this discussion took place in May, but I was tooling around this talk page after reading about Eurostar yesterday and found the link that you have classified as SPAM. It may in fact technically be such per Wikipedia policy, but I actually went to the website http://www.findeurostar.co.uk/directory.html and found it quite useful. It has links that could take days/weeks to find on ones own. Any thoughts on putting it back into the article? I think to a traveler or someone curious about Eurostar, it could be quite useful. Believe it or not, I find myself increasingly turning to Wikipedia articles for good external links since you don't have to sort through 100's of inapposite links on the leading search engines. I am sure others are doing the same. I stand four-square with you in preventing purely commercial links, but I think this link is not commercial and moreover, the official Eurostar link *is* de facto commercial and we've obviously made an exception for that and every other official website in articles having to do with commercial enterprises (General Motors, Harrods, Tesco, Mercedes Benz etc.) Your kind thoughts please. Bundas11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"DMOZ" or Open Directory Project appears to be the answer. On several pages i watch, a link to DMOZ has been used to stop the external links section degenerating into a list of external links. Pickle10:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Cost of CTRL ?
According to the Daily Mail [5/9/07/pg4 & search for- queret] the new Eurostar line from Dover to London is mentioned to have cost (effectively)~£45000 per meter. Can anyone explain why the amount is so (extortionately?) high? --83.105.33.9111:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Two-thirds of the money went on one-third of the distance: the three sets of twin-tunnels reaching under the Thames and all the way into North London. CTRL1 (long and "cheap") opened in 2003; CTRL2 (short, underground and expensive) is the part that will open fully later this year (2007). Tunnelling is a really expensive business; the nearest equivalent of somebody trying to built a tunnel motorway under a major city is Boston MA's Big Dig ($14.6bn for 5km ≈ US$3,000,000 per metre). —Sladen12:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Trivia Section
Where is this information sourced from?
Whears some of it appears to be true, some "facts" I find hard to believe. I also wonder whether this section could not be reduced, does the article really require the explanation of the conventions used for the 4-digit ID numbers of power cars and other such extremely trivial trivia? Canderra17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say you're right to be suspicious. 'Waterloo is the only UK gateway to have French border controls'. Wonder who those guys who looked at my passport in Dover were then?
Also, 'franglais' usually is used to designate someone who can't really speak french filling in words they don't know with their english equivalents
Indigenius01:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not really correct practice to include informal "comment" in italics under each bullet point. I am apprehensive about attempting to amalgamate the italic additions with the original trvia, since I am unsure which, if either is correct. But I do feel that some effort should be made to fix this inappropriate tone or maybe just remove the "incorrect" parts entirely. 80.177.20.20221:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that the Trivia section is a shambles. Personally, I would like to see the trivia section either completely removed or at least reduced down to just a few lines of actually interesting trivia facts. There are other websites where prople can find information on every nut, bolt and serial number of every train, but Wikipedia is not the place for such pedantic information. Would anyone object to the removal of all but the remotely informative trivia pieces? Canderra21:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I've removed all the pedantic responses - I merged in some of the useful bits and deleted some of the stuff that they disagreed with. I've also reorganised the trivia by topic as the first step to making this into a proper article --Dtcdthingy02:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I have commented out the entire Trivia section for now. Apart from the issue of there being absolutly no references or way to backup any of the claims made, the vast majority of the "trivia" is not really trivia appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Most people seem to agree that it is the main detrement to the article. Information on immigration services at either end of the tunnel, advice for disabled customers and how many frequent flyer miles using the service gains a customer is not appropriate for this article. If anyone thinks that a piece of information contained within the trivia section is valid then it should be intregrated into the body of the rest of the body of the article. In a month or two's time I will completely remove the Trivia section from the source code. Canderra17:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The "Rolling Stock" section is already beginning to look like the old "Trivia" section also. This definatly needs improvement. This is an encyclopedia article. Not a train fanatic's guide to every little nut and bolt used in the Eurostar trains. Canderra17:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Canderra for you efforts and action. I truly hope tis is an end to the trivia, which quite frankly was silly. NoelWalley18:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Done I've incorporated one or two pieces of trivia into the main article, transferred some to other articles, and deleted the rest. Regarding the rolling stock section, I've transferred the technical stuff to the British Rail Class 373 article where it sits more naturally, and re-named the section to Train fleet. I hope this is an improvement. --JCG33 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a good idea to put Waterloo in the memory hole
I think the former London terminus "Waterloo" should be put back into the route diagram, using the "xHST" version. An encyclopedia is not only to show a fotographic reflection of the current reality, but should inform about the history, too. --L.Willms (talk) 12:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, Waterloo only has a connection with Eurostar through the fact that it used to terminate there, this should be and is mentioned in the article, however, Eurostar no longer terminates at Waterloo thus it can't be included on the route map. Hencetalk (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I had been considering putting it back in as it should be there for consistency with most other rail maps. In the end the reason I didn't was that although it might be logical to show it with "x" version pictograms, standard usage of pictograms is that where the line/station is still open then one doesn't use the 'defunct' version, hence it would comfuse people looking at the routemap if it appeared to show both the old and the current termini as open. Leave it to the text, therefore. --AlisonW (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Other languages
I notice that many of the "other language" versions of the Eurostar article linked via the languages panel are actually about the Class 373 rolling stock rather than the Eurostar service which is the subject of this article. Would it be too pedantic to suggest transferring such links to the Class 373 article? I'm up for doing the work if concensus is that it's worthwhile. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
'Betrayal' of Ashford International
The material about reduction in service to Ashford following the opening of Ebsfleet has recently been reworked into its own section with the above heading.
I think there are two problems with these changes:
The words/phrases "betray", "forced to defend", "severely cut", "scrapped", "residents ... were forced to travel" etc imply that Wikipedia supports the view that the service cuts were a bad thing. This is against Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Sorts of terms to avoid
I don't see that this issue justifies its own section. While no doubt of great concern to the residents of Ashford and the surrounding area, the article is about the train service as a whole. The situation prior to 19 Feb 08 when this was mentioned under Current routes and services seemed more balanced.
I disagree. The high speed rail link caused great disruption for the people of southern kent, but it was done with the promise that trains would stop at Ashford and so they would benefit. Lets call a spade a spade, Eurostar lied to them and betrayed their trust.
We already know that 86.29.190.44 and I have a different opinion about this because it was 86.29.190.44 who made the original changes (on 19 Feb 08). It would be helpful to get some 'neutral' views.--JCG33 (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It is very bad that the Eurostar no longer stops at Ashford. I used to travel from Paris to Ashford and it is very annoying that the train stops no more there. I know get the TGV to calais and boat. It takes nearly an hour longer but is much cheaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.203.236 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd just like to remind people that we are on an encyclopedia, NOT a general forum, please discuss the article ONLY, not your own personal experiences, that's the reason we have discussion pages. Otrin (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Otrin and JCG33. The "betrayal" section is unduly emotive, whereas the previous format stated the facts and alluded to public reaction neutrally. Sad to note that the author of the "betrayal" section, 86.29.190.44 appears to be responsible for replacing the article on SeaFrance with a line of abuse; this user seems to have problems with his/her cross-channel operators, but this is not the right place to air his/her grievances. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've deleted the 'Betrayal' of Ashford International section, but incorporated some of its less emotive material into Current routes and services. I hope people feel that's a reasonable compromise. --JCG33 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I know that Eurostar is shown on on the National Rail website, like on Heathrow Express which is not part of National rail but as Eurostar runs on High Speed 1 only in the UK I don't think its part of National Rail.Likelife (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The 'High Speed 1' section
The beginning of this section is odd. It starts with the September 2003 improvement (still using Waterloo) but the second paragraph starts 'shortly before the opening', meaning the opening of the St Pancras route. Some rewriting is needed here.
62.60.106.214 (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"Class 373s only operate now on HS1, which is built to European loading gauge"
Hammersfan removed a ref containing the sentence "Any replacement or additional trainsets for Eurostar would have to meet similar requirements to that of the current British Rail Class 373 trainsets, such as fitting the smaller British loading gauge and the stringent rules regarding use of the Channel Tunnel" on the grounds that "Class 373s only operate now on HS1, which is built to European loading gauge". Obviously this needs to be qualified with "in the UK", but even so, what about those trains that call at Ashford International station? As far as I know the station structures are built to the UK gauge. What about diversionary routes in the event of obstruction on HS1? (Are there any?) However I agree with the removal of the ref because it is unsourced editorial comment. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I would also like to know what a "European loading gauge" is, the most common in Europe that I can imagine is the Berne gauge, but it is hardly universal. The loading gauges are all over the place, even if the differences are very marginal between some sets (such as the mild differences between the Netherlands and French loading gauge, that practically don't matter, there is no European standardised loading gauge.
I was the one who wrote that ref, but it was wrote as a 'Note' rather than as a supporting reference. I tried to follow the guidelines set out elsewhere on the 373 page on the original operational requirements; didn't factor in that they might simply stick to the lies where the loading gauge isn't standard, like the Eurotunnel Shuttles. The Channel Tunnel safety regulations still stand to this day, much to the annoyence of some operators, however. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
This youtube video is an upload of an offical Eurostar advert; reliability is not a question and the content is intact; but is this suitable for referencing? It would actually be helpful for one or two things, but I very rarely see internet videos being used as a source of information on Yoube, leaving me with the two problems of A. What kind of format to compose such a Reference by, and B. Is this acceptable/objectionable? Throw some ideas around, if I get a general "Yay!" then I'll make up something decent-looking and begin referencing it to the appropriate sections. Thanks. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, i have two thoughts about this, which contradict each other. :P First, i think in general, yes, a video would be a reliable source for reference, especially for visual items, or a historical reference, such as a video of an important event, or a first achievement. I think a video record is just as valid as a written record, and could sometimes be quite explanatory in a way that even a photograph could not be. However, and this is my second thought, the video you posted does seem official, but i does not seem reliable. It appears to me a computer-generated video of what St Pancras could look like, what's sometimes called an "artist's impression". Which makes me feel like we can't really rely on the content of this video to be factual. What did you think this video might be useful for? —fudoreaper (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I had taken it to be one of the promotional materials created for advertising the 2007 transfer of services from Waterloo to St Pancras/Ebbsfield, and a run through of the services available. There are also a couple of advertising messages within it that could be used to back up existing statements.
A good example I just noticed on a video in the same channel was a Eurostar train being given the name 'Trend Lightly', with Richard Brown (The Eurostar head guy basically) explaining it as a reference to the lesser environmental impact over aircraft. Basically demonstrating thier green credentials and how they are levering that into thier public image and marketing. Interesting in the right section. At least I know the means isn't unouthodox, just have to find decent videos with reliable enough content.81.111.115.63 (talk) 10:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I've implimented a trial run of the second video I put forward (the Richard Brown comment video). See if it gets erased by an enraged editor or not. If it has staying power, it may be a suitable means for future evidence on this page. 81.111.115.63 (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The "Milestones" section
Just wanted to leave a note that it is under construction, see free to add to it but try to avoid the temptation to delete it. :P I think it might be a useful summary for the service to mark out the key events in quick one liners, with appropriate referencing. Hopefully it'll catch on.81.111.115.63 (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
"Fares" is more or less done, there is probably much that could be done with it still, but that's as far as my plan went originally. Any suggestions for a new section of content to develop? 81.111.115.63 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
"There has only been one accident involving a Eurostar train to date."
I recall a shunting collision in Forest depot which caused considerable damage to a motrice.
There was a collision between a Eurostar train and a lorry which had stopped on a fog-bound user-worked crossing in Belgium, resulting in extensive damage to a motrice which was replaced in service with 3999 for some time.
There have been several incidents of motrices losing pantagraphs when they struck Saltwood tunnel mouth, the driver having failed to deploy shoegear in time (prior to operation on HSL1) or, on one occasion, the A40(M) bridge, the driver having forgotten to switch to shoegear after leaving North Pole depot and coasted unpowered downhill towards White City.
A Eurostar train on a test run caught fire in Belgium and was attended by the fire brigade.
I could go on.
I realise that many of these accident did not occur in passenger service; however the lorry strike and many incidents at Saltwood tunnel, some of which caused extensive damage to the motrice and common bloc, affected passenger services.
Can't find anything more than this at the mo; sadly these happened before the advent of mass publication of news on the internet. I had a photo of the Forest sideswipe (the result of leaving the Eurostar foul of points), but it's not mine and I couldn't now find the copyright holder. -- Timberframe (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Other notes; Ashford (opened 1995-09-06 by Duke of Kent) first use on 1996-01-08; class routes to the Chunnel denoted as BTR1/BTR2 (Boat Train Route) and later CTR1/CTR2 (Channel Tunnel Route). [1] reckons the pantograph hit the footbridge at Salding.
2008-11-07: Concrete on LGV Nord, services diverted via classic lines[12]
2009-02-03: various, France/England, 5 hours delays because of heavy snowfall [13]
I'm former editor Jel (withdrawn because of Admin): the following is my personal eyewitness testimony and therefore infringes NPOV and OR, which is why I'm not posting directly. I'm a Brit expat living in Brussels and occasionally travelling by Eurostar - there are hyper-lessons to be learned.
The Operating Unit fire occurred on a scheduled passenger service during the work-up phase in 1994 on the approaches to Brussels. No passengers were at risk, and given that it was during the trial period, excuses can be made, we were however stopped for several hours before limping in to Brussels. During that time, we had no ventilation, but as the temperature outside was low, this was not a disaster, we simply started shivering with coats on.
I was also on the Olympia Eurostar. This was a very different story. The train left Waterloo somewhat late, and passed through Vauxhall station on the second track from the north. That was my first indication things were not well, as it should have been closer to the centre of the tracks to get onto the Battersea flyover onto the Victoria-Bromley line it normally took. Soon after, the flyover passed to our left, leaving the only option that the train might be taking the Reigate-Tonbridge line crossing the countryside south of London, or a peculiar loop through Selsdon to Peckham. However, we soon branched off north and passed across the Thames, so we were clearly bound for the North Pole (depot, although the way things were going, no bets were off we might not find ourselves bound for the real thing, as matters became so surreal the appearance of Father Christmas might not have been a hallucination). We eventually stopped in Kensington Olympia, in the sun, for two and a half hours, while Eurostar attempted to sort things out. After they attempted to blame the passengers for being on the wrong train, the train staff locked themselves in their cubby-holes: the buffet had not been serviced, and as temperatures in the train soon passed 40°C and passengers started fainting, it became clear there was no water, even in the toilets. Appeals to passengers on the platform to call the police to rescue us were laughed off as a joke, and we eventually backed out towards Waterloo. Rather than put us on a correctly-serviced train, they again reversed onto the correct line, and we continued to Brussels, arriving dessicated and in a foul mood. I had one five-year-old child and two cancer sufferers with me.
The renovation of the rolling stock in 2004-5 failed to address these questions, despite the in-train crews being fully aware of the ventilation problems, and no provision appears to be planned in the current renovation program.
These were simply the accidents directly attributable to Eurostar. However, the tunnel is also shared with the Shuttle, which also experienced a number of incidents which had knock-on effects directly affecting Eurostar:
I was on the Eurostar behind the first minor Shuttle fire during the trial period, when a small passenger car caught fire. We were simply stopped in the tunnel not far behind, with no information about the risk in front of us: it was only on arrival at Waterloo that we learned from the newspapers what had happened. NO consideration was made to the risks we were in, we were not evacuated, while the Shuttle simply put the hammer down to get out of the tunnel before the fire spread: the flames blown backwards by the displaced air in the tunnel affected the cars behind, so we were left at considerable risk of a fire-blast back up the tunnel.
I was also booked to travel on 12th September 2008, the day after the second serious tunnel fire. As perturbances were to be expected, I arrived at Brussels Midi early the next morning, to discover Eurostar had nocked off early the previous night and were planning on opening as normal as if nothing was happening. When their staff eventually turned up, they had no resolution planning, information on alternatives, compensation or anything other than TUBAMIN (the military will know that one, it's otherwise unprintable but my honest opinion): the near-riot which resulted ended when they attempted to set guard dogs on about 100 outraged customers. As one of the few who had travelled by sea before, I then led a group of about 20 by local trains through Lille to Calais, where we narrowly beat the Royal Philharmonic (we were feeling Titanic by then) to the ferry counters, which were manned by two thoroughly bewildered clerks about to be inundated by maybe as many as ten thousand stranded foot-passengers, there were about thirty in front of us but by the time we were dealt with, something like five hundred behind and building by dozens a minute. We eventually reached Dover, where we met the first Eurostar reps, who were no more use. By the early afternoon, 12 hours after the event, we were at Dover Priory, where we met the first Eurostar management, who refused to validate our tickets or make any arrangements for our onward fares to be paid. This is consistent with their refusal to give refund tickets out on the train, but force you to fight a claim, when things have gone wrong. They know damned well who was affected by any incident, but will they take the least initiative to do anything proactive about it? Not on your nelly.
I am an experienced crisis manager in International Security, and in my opinion, despite its exposure to one of the prime terrorist targets, Eurostar management continues to be an operational joke. To be fair, it had profitability concerns as a knock-on from the now-resolved building costs of the Tunnel, but in practice it is falling seriously short of its design capacity of 21m passengers per year for a number of reasons:
Reliability. During its fifteen years in operation, fires have seriously disrupted services during two years, or 13% of the time. My own experience in addition rates a something like 30% probability of a seriously delayed arrival, although this may have improved since escaping from the clutches of the UK's Southern Region railways (or whatever they call it now), plus the 5% experience of more serious disruption, means that one is rather more likely to suffer some form of disruption than not. This inevitably impinges on the theoretical time-saving of Eurostar by comparison with airline services, which are price-competitive.
Management incompetence. Either they are purely driven by a short-term profit motive or are fundamentally incompetent: it comes down to the same thing either way. This is evident from the thouroughly annoyed passengers reported every time anything goes wrong, and the ostrich-like refusal of their senior management to acknowledge the dissatisfaction which delivers messages to the general public.
A failure to learn lessons. Things inevitably go wrong, but refusal to learn from it is a serious failure. It implies reactivity, not proactivity, yet they have an appalling track-record when it comes to reaction. Formal disaster plans must be made - for instance, switching to single-track runnning in the tunnel immediately an incident occurs, and the immediate implementation of boat-trains if the entire tunnel is lost - and must be implimented within 30 minutes of a serious incident being declared. Liaison must be in place between Eurostar, Shuttle, Tunnel, SNCF, SNCB, UK rail, Ferries, emergency services, and must be under the instruction of a single person of Magistrate rank responsible for the decision and with the authority to make it stick or remove the obstacle. This may require reimplementation of rarely-used tracks to boat terminals, but given the above probabilities, it is very necessary.
A failure of accountability and competition. If a commercial undertaking is to be allowed this kind of monopoly, then its senior managers must be publicly accountable for their jobs. Other operators are ready in the wings, approval for them to use the tunnel must be given immediately. The stations must be operated separately from Eurostar.
References please
The article is fun and well written, but it feels journalistic, not encyclopaedic.
I'd lke to see either more references or a serious rewrite. While I would regret the lack of fun, the wiki ethos means we need to have this backed up with references or ot should go. Thsi is, in partm, the trivia section.
Done I've re-written quite a bit of the article, and re-organised most of it. I've also added some references, although it probably needs more. I hope you think it's more encyclopaedic now. --JCG33 (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to make a record of this; we have reached 50 references on the page now! This is a good mark, but we can do better. I'll keep my eye on the news and add significant things when I see them. We've come a long way, lets keep it up! 81.111.115.63 (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've done some more work on it, we've now hit 80 references. Feel free to look them over, this page is now becoming highly sourced, with no small part to myself if I don't mind saying so. :P Keep on working wiki'ers! 81.111.115.63 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
152 references now on the page, I've added over a hundred references to the page in the last month. Glad to know it is being appreciated :) 81.111.115.63 (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not submit it for WP:GAN? It does not appear to be a candidate for an immediate failure; I suspect that it will either be passed, or put On Hold (for remedial action).Pyrotec (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
That would make sense, I was just waiting for some confirming opinions that this article was ready for it; and to see if there were any more obvious flaws that could be drawn out and resolved (as to not stain a GA with simple mistakes I didn't notice). If you think it is good and ready, I'll look up how to submit it.81.111.115.63 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
New Split-off article: Route and Stations of the Eurostar
I feel that some sections of this article can be better reflected, fleshed out upon, and detailed in a seperate article page without continually expanding this one. I would like to complete remove the "Ashford International" paragraph, which feels out of place, and put it onto this new proposed article. As well, sections would be created for Waterloo and St Pancras with ease, and I've already got a strong academic source to form the basis for LGV Lille in France. There would be a "main article: ..." listed at the top of the current Routes section here, where the current four mainlines are listed and shall remain, initially there will be a duplicate of them made in the new focused article, but they'll be expanded over time, as priority is likely to be given to developing profiles for all the major stations Eurostar operate from.
The title is workable, better suggestions are welcome. Would this be an appropriate idea to undetake, or is it felt that this is going into unnecessary detail and will generally be unappreciated? 86.155.132.194 (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
This service i don't think counts as a National Rail service as whilst it serves some national stations its primary role is for being international. Anyone object if I change S-rail to show this? Simply south (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably not - but what is "S-rail" - totally stumped? :)
{{S-rail}}. It is whats used for the navgation of services at the bottom of station articles. This one is becoming more common although others exist. Simply south (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
2009 section
One minor problem - the problems were initially characterised as being due to condensation in the humid tunnel (by eurostar executives themselves) - later reports change this to injestion of snow melting - can anyone reference the first reports, or maybe it's irrelevant. (It's marked with a fact tag in that section) Found a reference
Can the weighting of the winter 2009/2010 section be looked at again? I'm not necessarily saying that it is too long, but it seems strange to give this so much more coverage than a 180mph derailing. WFCforLife (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I've hacked away a large amount of the bloated content; thankfully now all the fly-in, fly-out editors have got this out of their system and moved onto something else, this is likely to stick to this more sensible summary rather than an over the top mini-article on jammed into the text. The 180 MPH derailing, quite rightly, is more important but didn't get hyped to oblivion and back, which drove this section to excess to begin with. Kyteto (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I am growing tired of Hammersfan continously adding uncitable statements regarding a "European Loading Gauge", they are being deleted regularly yet he continues to readd it, ignoring the note that if it is to be accepted and stay within the article, it had to have a reference. This issue was already raised on this talk page over half a year ago to no response from Hammersfan. I am not sure what to do, as he is neither paying heed to the talk page nor becoming aware of why his edits are being reverted as unsuitable. If you are actually reading this, could you please justify the statment with a reference? It is beyond worthless if it isn't citably true. I hope that this time you decide to respond. Kyteto (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The reference states "Significant clearance costs would of course be incurred to operate double-deck trains on existing UK rail infrastructure but it is expected that any UK high speed line would be built to a Continental loading gauge (as is High Speed 1) so that double-deck services might be possible on point-to point journeys wholly made on the new infrastructure" (note 1) page 1 [14] (emphasis mine) - it's not easy to rely on this as a reference for what is said without qualification and in passing.
It's easy to see how confusion might arise - what would be useful is to get the full picture in the article - there are after all several "continental loading gauges" Loading_gauge#Europe - I'd be interested to see this resolved - [15] page 15 section 20.5 says that there is a GB+ loading gauge as far as barking (I assume on HS1)? I don't know about the platforms - but clearly only going as far as barking isn't quite far enough..Shortfatlad (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
However GB+ is one of the bigger ones - allowing "double decker" high-cube iso container trains (I think) - so the second reference doesn't mean that beyond barking the line isn't within a lesser 'european' gauge - I would be suprised if it wasn't. Does Network Rail provide documents on it's website detailing the network's loading restrictions?Shortfatlad (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The links probably want to go to the Berne gauge article. GA/GB/GC are equivalent, except for what happens at the top. GA provides basically a nice curved roof, GB is the same height as GA (4.35 m) and also curved, but flatter/more angular at the top to allow for the top corner ("ears") of taller containers/swap-bodies. GC instead has parallel flat sides that go almost straight up to 4.7 metres (without the requirement for a curved roof profile) and this is what is designed for piggy-back HGV trailers. Eurotunnel have their own crazy massive drive-in RO-RO gauge. You'll also hit the electricity if you stack it too high; nominal contact line heights are: Network Rail=4.68 m, CTRL=5.07 m, French LGV=5.08 m, Eurotunnel=5.87 m, Finland=6.15 m, United States=6.86 m(?)... —Sladen (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
My main problem with the statement is it refers to High Speed 1 as conforming to a single "European Loading Gauge". Putting aside the issue that there is no divine, singular Loading Gauge to begin with; High Speed 1 isn't even built to a single loading gauge right the way though! Most of Section 2, the London Tunnels, were built to a slightly smaller gauge (UIC B) than the first part (UIC C), the first part once again smaller than the very beginning of High Speed 1 which is comparitively massive for the shuttle trains. And then the stations themselves haven't been re-loading gauge'd, thus they're on the standard UK W6 Gauge. It is a sheer, sheer falsehood to say that High Speed 1 is build to a Continental Loading Gauge or some such, because it isn't even built to one, consistant gauge. I'm not sure, but I don't think the TGV Duplex and such can actually get to St Pancras due to the gauge drop in the London Tunnels (not that they'd be able to enter the platforms without scrapping along the sides). Hence why I detest the implication that the line is either conforming to a single gauge, or that the non-existent consistancy throughout would necessarily allow any train that happens to wish to come past though, as the gauge it works upon is certainly not the most open or generous of the UIC gauges which are used across Europe. The statement is at odds with the reality that High Speed 1 is not a unison-gauge railway, and as such creates a false impression of that being the case. Kyteto (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
About the platforms, all of the stations each have two sets of platforms: one or more pairs of domestic at 915-millimetre height (the UK standard), and one or more pairs of international platforms at 760-millimetre (European high-speed rail TSI mandated, higher option). This includes Ashford, where the International platforms (3 and 4) are 760 mm in height and cleared to GB+.
For the TGV Duplex to meet the TSI requirements, it would have been built to be GB+ gauge, so would be fine both calling at Ashford 3/4, and through to St Pancras platforms 5–10. I'm not clear about the London tunnels, but my personal memory was that the London Tunnels were constructed to GB+ (rather than GC for the rest of the main route); but the Network Statement does not mention this... —Sladen (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I would be careful about Ashford. It has been stated that the rescue locomotives used to drag the first of the failed trains out of the tunnel could not use Ashford and hence they dragged the train to St Pancras. If they had been able to use the platforms at Ashford, then they could have returned to the tunnel to rescue a second train earlier than actually happened. So if the Eurotunnel rescue loco's coul not access Ashford, then I would have reservations about stating what could and could not use the station. As for a TGV Duplex, I think that is being very optimistic. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
In the Eurostar Independent Review[17] (p.31) it is quite clear that the restriction on the Eurotunnel Class 0001 ("Krupp") rescue locomotives entering Ashford platforms 3/4 was a legal restriction, not a physical restriction (certification/permission had not been granted at the time—it was later issued).
The decision to travel to St Pancras using the Krupp locomotives was taken as these units were not authorised to operate on Network Rail's classic infrastructure through Ashford International station (authority for this operation has since been received).
Similarly, the issues for the TGV Duplex are legal certification for the Channel Tunnel, not physical gauging issues. The Alstom brochure[18] (p.3) states:
The [TGV Duplex] double-deck train is for dense traffic. ... It will also comply with the latest TSI* requirements
Thanks for clarifying the issue about Ashford. By itself it shows the lack of prepardness of both Eurostar and Eurotunnel. Being able to move a failed train the nearest train station (i.e. Ashford) seems fairly basic requirement to my way of thinking. To be fair, I would even ask why the train could not be moved to one of the platforms at Eurotunnel!
One restriction on the use of the Channel Tunnel that a TGV and a German ICE may fail to comply with is the doors between coaches that Eurostar trains have. These are additional to the normal vestibule doors. From memory, I believ that they were specified as part of the fire withstand of the trains. Not sure if a TGV or ICE would have this equivalent. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
winter 2010
Referenced additions but removed
"After several hours' wait, it was finally pulled out as far as Ashford, whence it continued to arrive in London in the late afternoon. Other trains behind returned to Brussels, and the passengers were off-loaded with instructions to try again the next day: no rebooking arrangements were made, and the services for the next four days were more than halved."
Stand back a bit. The [Independent Review] into the December 2010 incidents classifies the problems into 3 heads, reliability, evacuation/rescue and disruption management. The December problems were an almost carbon-copy replication of the 11.9.2008 fire under the latter 2 heads, showing Eurostar Management had learned nothing, and that much was already clear in December before the Report was published. This detail is therefore relevant as it shows that they did the same yet again in January, still refusing to change - I say "refusing" deliberately rather than "failing", as enough complaints have been ignored over the months as to make it clear as day this is a policy matter, not simple bumbling. Please therefore reinstate it.
There is a second question to decide concerning NPOV. This page tends towards the anodyne, as routine travellers on this service can tell you many tales missing from here. The Report was fairly castigating about Eurostar's performance, and is not mentioned adequately: the conclusion I draw is that the current balance is unfairly biased towards Eurostar, who follow Pangloss' maxim of "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds" in disposing of the link to the report with all convenient alacrity, a malevolent dynamic under the circumstances - last night's French problem, for instance, suggests a power car uncoupled from the rest of the train, which could have been a disaster if it had happened at speed. Similarly, the Report makes a number of recommendations about the mid-life review which are similarly missing from that section, which suggests it is a done deal, contrary to the Report's view. Such details are becoming relevant and whilst they may in the long term be relegated to detail, at the moment they are part of a more troubling set of circumstances. It's the historian's question, to what extent is current affairs objective, of course, but to ignore all patterns is not NPOV - we should put both sides at the earliest possible opportunity, or indicate if Eurostar refrain from comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Having read the opening paragraphs and scanned the rest of the article I can't find the travel times. Time-tabled London to Paris time (non-stop service) at the very least should be prominent. It would be useful to compare the current travel time to the time it took before High Speed 1 was operating, and to estimated airport-to-airport times (taking into account the extra security and time to load the plane, etc.) Robertbyrne (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
It is covered twice, in detail, in two areas, History-Records achieved and Mainline routes-High Speed 1. The full reduction in transit time information is in the second. Security and Controls notes and references how the Airports take more time than the Eurostar service. Kyteto (talk) 09:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Opening to competition
This article is based upon the premise that Eurostar and passenger services through the Channel tunnel are synonymous: that will probably soon cease to be the case, as demonstrated by the "Competition" section: you will soon be in infraction of NPOV.
Might I suggest, considering this article is already somewhat large, that it be renamed Eurotunnel Passenger Services, most of it be hived off into a History page, keepîng short sections dedicated to the current situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You have a point, but we still need an article called Eurostar about the company, just as we have an article for every other railway operator. Probably there will need to be a separate article about the route, by analogy with Virgin Trains vs. West Coast Main Line. Some of the information in this article will then need to be transferred to the new one, though some overlap will be inevitable. I don't think the new article should be called "Eurotunnel Passenger Services", however: Eurotunnel the company is not directly concerned with the through passenger trains. We don't want to add to the public confusion that has existed from the outset between Eurostar and Eurotunnel. Alarics (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Another minor incident - 2008
Similar to the 1996 incident so might be worth including. April 18-19th, 2008. Paris bound passengers were moved at Lille to a train known to be faulty. This train later failed and left pax stranded overnight without power. AFP Source171.66.88.128 (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Too many railway articles on WP list too many recent incidents that are trivial in the context of history. It is a form of WP:Recentism. Let us include only the most major incidents: I'd say those involving significant loss of life might be a good criterion for inclusion. Alarics (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
On the other hand, recent incidents are much more likely to get the kind of coverage in multiple sources that underlines notability &c.
At the moment, there are three little tables of rolling stock. Two of them have only a single row, which I think is a bit pointless (you could convey the same information more clearly in a short paragraph). I'd like to merge the tables together, to have a single table of 5 rows covering current, ordered, and recent rolling stock. Maybe an extra row for rescue locomotives which are not currently mentioned. I think this would be more readable and more practical. Any criticism/comments/complaints? bobrayner (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Are there any plans for extending the Eurostar across Europe in the future? For example extending the line to Berlin etc. Or if it is not planned could it be one day expected to happen?
Generally passengers change at Paris or Brussels onto other international trains. -- malsdavis
The Eurostar trains were designed for the specification of going through the Chunnel Tunnel and operating on the system they do (safety features, electrical pickups...) and as such they are wasted on journeys that don't go through the Chunnel. Three repainted sets are used domestically within France (and the line to Brussels). There are the Eurostar ski-services, the daily service to Disney-Land and weekly service to Avignon, all of which combine extra distance with the cross-channel segment. The only other route that has been talked about (by the CEO of Eurostar) is having a direct service to London->Amsterdam on the Dutch HSL-Zuid. The trade-off of is asking passengers to walk across the platform, verses running an entirely duplicated service; additional passport handling in Amsterdam and of course the signalling and possibly pantograph upgrades for the new High Speed line. Sladen00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're asking for Eurostar trains that do not travel through the tunnel, definitely not. Direct connections between Berlin and London are also unlikely to happen because they would require security checks in Berlin Central Station and other stations that compare to an airport. Of course, these would only apply to trains which go through the tunnel, however, they would also apply to passangers who want to travel from Berlin to Brussels. Given that DBAG and German politians don't want such things in their stations, direct trains between Berlin and London are unlikely to happen. However, I recently read that DBAG has acquired Arriva, a UK-based railway company and that DBAG has plans to operate ICE trains through the channel tunnel. Unfortunately, present security regulations make it impossible to operate ICE trains in the Channel Tunnel because
ICE trains are too short (On the channel tunnel, trains must at least be as long as the distance between two emergency exists so that the train will always stop next to an emergency exit, wherever it stops)
ICE trains cannot be split in the middle (so one half can be left behind in case of an emergency with passengers leaving in the other half of the train)
Coupling several ICEs together doesn't help either because in this case, it wouldn't be possible to walk from one part of the train to another. (Channel tunnel regulations require that one must be able to walk from one end of the train to the other without leaving the train)
Given that DBAG has no trains that comply with these regulations, there have been considerations to relax security regulations on the Channel Tunnel, just for DBAG and their ICEs. These changes to security regulations might also open the way for direct connections between Berlin and London, as I don't think that DBAG would want to have their trains end in Brussels. -- 62.156.54.241 (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
STamping of passports
The article shows two stamps which were stamped into the passport of a US citizen who travelled through the tunnel. I am now wondering whether EU citizens get such stamps as well, because: I remember very well that in 1996 when I took a Eurostar train from Brussels to London I saw a stamp with a steam loco in the upper right corner somewhere. I remember that I found it a bit strange that we got a stamp with a steam loco when we were in fact using a train with an electric loco. I am very sure that either I or a family member (not some random stranger) got such a stamp; However, I just checked my "Children's travelling document" which I used back then, and the stamp is not in there. They might have put the stamp into my parents' passports, however I don't see why they should have stamped my parents but not me. Also, stamping passports of EU citizens at borders within the EU is not allowed under european law (and this does also apply non-Schengen EU members). Another issue is that a German ID card (which has no room for stamps or visa) would suffice for travelling to the UK (which makes it a bit difficult to put a stamp somewhere). So ... I am wondering where they put the stamp. Did they put it on our ticket? -- 62.156.54.241 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a number of stamps from boarding at Brussels, Lille and London, but they are increasingly hard to get (you really need to ask, and even then your odds are fairly low). It is indeed an icon of a stream locomotive and an ID card with no pages doesn't get stamped at all. —Sladen (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
1. Child passport stamp question: The reason that stamps are given is to show the police that the visitor was entering legally. Children are supposed to be together with their parents and therefore need no stamp. 2. ID card stamp question: EU identity cards are allowed now to enter UK, and EU/EES citizens will not get a stamp at all. 3. Steam loco question: The look of the stamp is described in Passport stamp. EU/Schengen stamps have a symbol of a car, a steam loco, a boat, or an air plane, depending what travel method you used to enter the EU. The steam loco is just a symbol, does dot say what energy source the train has. --BIL (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Why does Eurostar have check-in and Security Scanning?
"any potential Eurostar services beyond Paris and Brussels would also require the installation of stringent security measures, due to the UK not having signed up to the Schengen Agreement"
"Due to the UK not having signed the Schengen Agreement, London bound trains must therefore use platforms that are physically isolated".
This is not true. There is nothing in Schengen which says you cannot have on-train passport controls, which take place while the train is moving. The passport officers get on the train at the last stop in country A, and get off at the next stop in country B, and go from one end of the train to another, like ticket inspectors. Anybody who is refused entry is just escorted onto the first train going back the other way. This was common practice on the Swiss border until Switzerland joined Schengen earlier this month.
I have been trying to find out for a long time why Eurostar insists on checking-in passengers, doing border controls before getting on the train and screening luggage. All of which adds to the total journey time and adds some of the disadvantages of air travel to a rail journey.
It also has an impact on the costs. Apart from the cost of providing the station facilities etc., it means Eurostar has to use segregated platforms and cannot easily transport non-international passengers. If a passenger gets on at Ashford for Paris, Eurostar cannot use the seat from London to Paris, and they charge the same fare as from London. In the rest of Europe there is no distinction between national and international trains.
As for security risks, why is it greater on a Eurostar train than in the (undersea) Severn tunnel or in the London Underground where that goes under the Thames?
Why do they keep shooting themselves in the foot like this? Why aren't local trains from London to Ashford just extended through the tunnel to Calais Ville to cope with the local traffic? TiffaF (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding passport control, the first part could perhaps read better as "owing to the United Kingdom not being a par of the Schengen Area, it chooses to apply additional security controls, and at the point of entry". I have on occasions encountered no passport controls at Brussels and instead had an on-train check, or controls at Waterloo, or both. I have been at Brussels at busy time and seen them waving past people with Lille tickets (meaning you could complete an international journey without hitting passport control).
Regarding scanning, this is associated with the Channel Tunnel, and the intergovernmental commission requirement to scan 25% of passengers (which Eurostar fulfill by scanning 100% of passengers). Metal detectors/X-ray machines are also used before boarding high-speed services in Spain.
Regarding local trains. I suspect you have in mind the impact of the Oresund Railway. However, Calais is a tiny town and there is very little demand for through traffic. The Channel Tunnel (and Eurotunnel) impose additional technical requirements (fire protection, train length, redundancy) for transit. The transit fees are very high and extra equipment is needed to match pantograph height, electrical supply, signalling and radio in the Tunnel. (See Eurotunnel Network Statement 2008).
Thanks it does. The passport control is as I suspected a British Government decision (nothing to do with Schengen, obviously since the UK hasn't joined Schengen it has no duty to follow its requirements, which anyway would ban passport checks), and the scanning is a result of the "intergovernmental commission requirement" - does this mean it comes from the Treaty of Canterbury?
The Eurotunnel Network Statement 2008 has lots of good stuff, including the actual toll charged for a train passing through the tunnel and the technical requirements.
I suggest somebody with more knowledge than I incorporates all this into this article.
As for Calais, there is lots of "local traffic" across the channel (see booze cruise), and Calais Ville is an interchange for TGV services, which would give many towns in Kent access to "TGV" services, not just Ashford. Plenty of other local services in Europe extend across borders. Not all passengers on the train take the cross-border leg, it is just more convenient not to have two separate services either side of the border TiffaF (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add some explanation on why there are security checks into the article. Now it says the reason is to avoid disallowed passengers getting onboard. But that does not explain why they scan people's pockets, require people to remove belts and wallets for scanning. They spent £2.5bn on a faster railway and throw away travel time again though security check. If they are afraid of bombs, it would be enough to scan bags. --BIL (talk) 08:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm considering another reason for requiring off - board passport control: In order to make on - board passport control, the passport officers have to use hand terminals; which need to connect to national and international databases. On - board passport control has to be done between the last stop in country A and the first stop in country B; that is; through the Channel tunnel for Eurostar case. Clearly, these terminals won't operate underwater! Gokaydince (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
"This is not true. There is nothing in Schengen which says you cannot have on-train passport controls, which take place while the train is moving." I agree. There are direct trains between Berlin and Moscow which don't require physically seperated platforms and check-in either. However, they do (afair) require transit visa for Belarus because the trains travel through that country. -- 62.156.54.241 (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Here I give some additional thoughts about requiring passport control in the stations. These are my own thoughts and guesses, I don't have a reliable source to confirm them.
Eurostar is way different than other international trains. Most international trains (including the high speed ones) are indeed intercity trains that cross a border; with SOME international passengers on board. Eurostar is a pure international train. All passengers on board are international passengers. It can seat 800 people. Checking the passports of 800 people on board can be a real mess; a very time - consuming and workforce - intensive process. A very large group of passport officers should be on board to do this.
If you look at the timetables, you see that more than half of the London - Paris services are non - stop. That means, you have to transport this very large group of passport officers all the way from London to Paris (and vice versa). This causes a drastic increase in the number of passport officers to be employed. In this case, Eurostar company would be asked to pay for that, which will certainly translate into the fares.
Intermediate stops would be another problem. Some services stop at Ashford, some at Calais and some at both. Since hand devices to connect security databases cannot operate in the tunnel, passengers from Ashford to Calais may not be checked on board. Even, due to very large number of passengers, some passengers from London to Calais can escape uncontrolled. This issue can be resolved by requiring in - station control for passengers from/to Ashford and Calais (and in similar stations), but this will create its own problems. For example, if the on - board control is not finished before Ashford, a passenger from Ashford may be double checked. Once in the station and once on - board. Certainly, this is not a nice treatment.
The section mixes two different refurbishment schemes, so far neither has been completed. The new look in 2009 for Leisure select never materialized and the class itself has been downgraded to Standard Premier, still with the old interior. There have also been various annoucements for the 2013/14 Pininfarina refurb where some sources claim that the new interior shall be identical to the E320/Class374 although at least the seats will be different with Grammer providing those on the E320 and Compin those on the Class 373. New seats had already been promised for the 2004 refurb and promotional material suggested a design similar to the eggchairs in recent Thalys, but in the end they just changed the moquette and headrests.--77.180.244.182 (talk) 09:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
A change was recently made adding information about a proposed future destination [19] to the first sentence in the WP:LEAD. service connecting London with Paris, Brussels and as of May 1, Marseille.. The core network of Brussels/Paris/London makes up ~200 services per week. Extension services—including the next most frequent service (to Disneyland)—were previously only mentioned introduced further down, along with the seasonal services to the Alps (winter) and Provence (summer). This distinction is maintained in the infobox. I attempted to reword[20] these per WP:LEAD and WP:TENSE to maintain high-level context in the style of Wikipedia. I'm surprised to see this has been reverted without discussion,[21] despite WP:BRD. Could 82.132.245.110 or another editor help suggest an alternative wording? —Sladen (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Due to additional new seasonal destinations the services box needs to be expanded to include Lyon Part-Dieu (4h34), Avignon TGV (5h36) and Aix-en-Provence (6h17). IS there possibilty for a moderator to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.193.51 (talk • contribs)
Thankyou very much for this. However it's still not quite correct. There needs to be an additional branch for the avignon only branch as this goes to Centre and not TGV. I really can't work out how the codes work to do it myself sorry
I think another update is needed. According to their webseite, Eurostar started offering a London-Marseille service in May 2015. It's not a daily service (it runs Thursday-Monday, if I remember correctly), however, the southern France line is no longer a seasonal service. I think these changes should be reflected in the services box. --Silvercowcreamer (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Networks of Major High Speed Rail Operators in Europe
I propose to add the map "Networks of Major High Speed Rail Operators in Europe" (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Networks_of_Major_High_Speed_Rail_Operators_in_Europe.gif), which I created myself, to the article, perhaps right below the services box. Right now, there is no Eurostar system map, only the services box. The map cites its sources (see Wikimedia page above), shows interchange points with other high speed rail systems in Europe and, to the best of my knowledge, accurately reflects the current situation. It also contains the new Eurostar service London-Marseille, which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article as of yet. --Silvercowcreamer (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Eurostar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Eurostar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Eurostar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
* — Expand article with more information and sections eg History and New development sections
Last edited at 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC).
Substituted at 14:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Eurostar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 2 external links on Eurostar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 13 external links on Eurostar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 13 external links on Eurostar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I can see on the TGV page, there is a 2005 reference to the fact that double decker trains could be used. Can this be added "The chief executive of Eurostar, Richard Brown, suggested that the trains could be replaced by double-deck trains similar to the TGV Duplex when they are withdrawn. A double-deck fleet could carry 40 million passengers per year from Britain to Continental Europe, equivalent to adding an extra runway at a London airport" sailor iain (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 2 external links on Eurostar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Eurostar, page 9, Op de rails, Spoor buitenland, issue januari 1994
Start traintests in Belgium from 8 november 1993. The test routes include the section Tournai - Lille and Tournai - Edingen, sections wich form part of the route Lille - Brussels wich will be used by the Eurostar trains.
Eurostar, page 333, Op de rails, Railnieuws, issue september 1994
The planned start on 15 july is moved to the end of the year. The tests encountered many problems on the English Third rail sections, with stray currents disrupting signaling systems. (I remember that Modern Railways discussed that the current interruptions at level crossing with sparks created a very bad electric environment).
Eurostar, page 443, Op de rails, Spoor buitenland, issue december 1994
Start of service from 14 november 1994 with a very limited service: Two trains a day to Brussels and Paris each, under the name of 'Discovery service' with a special Discovery-tarif. From 21 januari 1995 there wil be increased service (and probably price) By the way http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2014/eurostar-20th-anniversary/ mentions 5 trains a day.
I deleted the following addition from the article,
Until the opening on 2 june 1996, of the first fase of the Belgian high speed line (until the junction with Belgian railway line 94), the eurostar trains where routed via the Belgian railway line 94.[1]
I deleted this because it was unsourced.
Smiley.toerist then replied saying
You didnt even bother to do some research. The picture is a source supported by other sources. In the English article HSL 1 it is not mentioned that the line opened in two fases:
From the triangular junction with the LGV Nord to the Maubray junction (Look at the Dutch version for the routenl:HSL 1) opened on 2 june 1996, for Thalys and Eurostar services. In Dutch: werd op 2 juni 1996 geopend (Belgian source: [22] Geopend: Y Antoing - Franse grens 2 juni 1996; Halle - Y Antoing 14 december 1997.]
The second part is opened on 14 december 1997. Only this opening is mentioned in the English articles. The Eurostar source is also incomplete about the Eurostar routes in France and Belgium for the Brussels destination.
The Eurostar started services to Brussels before the opening of the first fase of the HSL 1 on 14 november 1994, so the trains have to take the classic Belgian railway lines all the way to Brussels. You should have asked unstead of automaticaly deleting everything.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
To reply, the source provided looks like a Dutch railway fan page, not a reliable source as per WP:RS. If you want to add this content to the page, then you will need a reliable secondary source which supports your content. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
To judge is if a source is reliable should be be left to (local) expert people in the know. In the Dutch Wikipedia this source is used by nearly all railway articles about Belgian railway lines. Furthermore if the source is not up to scratch, the railway fans and experts would know about it. The source matches all personal experience (and traintime tables) about the railways. I took the picture. There is no alternative official digital source. By the way some amateur rail experts write excellent articles and books wich are well sourced. Any errors are quicly discovered by the community causing reputation damage.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Point of order re. "The picture is a source"- no; images are not reliabe sources and are not to be used as such. — fortunavelut lunaRarely receiving (many) pings. Bizarre.13:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
This picture proves that a Eurostar train passed througth the station of Tournai. No more or less. As such this is a primairy source. It needs confirming of a secondairy source for context. It could for example be a testrun and not a regular service run. The whole point of using sources is verification and reliabilty. If this can be achieved by unusual ways, i.e. not written 'official' sources, its OK. The English Wikipedia has a overly dogmatic interpretation of use of sources. Go back to the purpose and spirit of the use of sources, not the formalities and the letter of the rules.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
This Eurostar article uses the very simplified Eurostar history from the commercial Eurostar website. (source 10) It does not mention when the Eurostar trains started using the first fase of the English High Speed line. (2003-09-28). In the French fr:LGV Nord article The section to the Belgium is opened on on 2 june 1996. So between the start of service in november 1994 and june 1996 the Eurostar could not have used the high speed route in Belgium. The two fases of the Belgian High Speed can also be found in this source over the Thalys service (Uses the same line in Belgium)Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Can I use this source http://www.railfaneurope.net/tgv/eurostar.html for the delay of the Eurostar service caused by third rail problems? At the time I read the same kind of discussions on the Modern Railway magazine. Last time this kind of source was dismissed as 'fan' discussions. The name 'railfan' suggest that the source is unreliable but in practice railenthousiast are very fanatic about crusifying anybody who supplies erronous information. Certainly for past events wich are wel documented.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Traffic on eurostar appears to be way below original forecasts when the tunnel was built. I see 7.3m passengers in 2004 [23], compared with original forecast of 17.1m [24]. This explains the financial problems in debt servicing of eurotunnel. Unsigned comment: 10:00, 14 July 2005 192.250.34.161
Stations and Information for Passangers
The London stations are mentioned breifly but the Paris and Brussels stations are not. It could be useful for future passengers of the Eurostar to include a bit more information on the various stations served aswell as other such journey details.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malsdavis (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Done I've incorporated one or two pieces of trivia into the main article, transferred some to other articles, and deleted the rest. Regarding the rolling stock section, I've transferred the technical stuff to the British Rail Class 373 article where it sits more naturally, and re-named the section to Train fleet. I hope this is an improvement. --JCG33 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
— Expand article with more information and sections eg History and New development sections
DoneSmiley.toerist (talk) 12:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
