Jon WorthOct 30
Important? Or a technical loose end? Does the distinction between a 200m and a 202m long train matter to the future of the Channel Tunnel? I have tried to work it out... https://jonworth.eu/all-about-2-metres-the-importance-of-the-difference-between-a-200m-and-a-202m-train-is-scarcely-plausible/ #CrossChannelRail
Show threadSimon WaldmanOct 30
@jon does 2x200(ish)m actually meet tunnel safety requirements? My understanding was that the 400m rule was so that some part of the train would be next to an escape tunnel - but without a Gangway between two halves of a train, does this work?
Show threadJon WorthOct 30
@swaldman Depends on the train type. If distributed traction (motors under the floor) then yes, probably. If motor cars front and back, it's harder. But we do not know yet for sure.
Show threadChiel
@jon @swaldman this text from the channel tunnel IGC it seems to be a minimum of 375 meters if companies don’t want to prove the safety again? But running 2x200m doesn’t seem to be banned (source https://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/spip.php?page=documents&lang=en )
Oct 31 at 12:59amWeb
Show threadSimon WaldmanOct 31
@Chiel oh, thanks, that page also mentions coupling two shorter trains without a gangway. The approach appears to be "you don't *have* to have a gangway, but if not it's on you to demonstrate safety"
@jon