no trains between Ebbsfleet and St Pancras

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

Yep - so E* will itself be compensated for being unable to run trains - eventually - but the passengers affected get nothing except their fare back.

I should imagine m'learned friends may have something to say about that if people have incurred hotel and other expenses as a result of Eurostar cancelling pretty much a full day's service and leaving them stranded.

[ChrisB]

Under which UK^▸ (United Kingdom) law? You would need to show that E* conditions of Carriage are unlawful.##There are no laws to compensate International rail travel like there are when you fly. Mr Calder set it out on twitter if you care to check his timeline

[TaplowGreen]

Under which UK^▸ (United Kingdom) law? You would need to show that E* conditions of Carriage are unlawful.##There are no laws to compensate International rail travel like there are when you fly. Mr Calder set it out on twitter if you care to check his timeline

You may have a point and it's something the railways generally have been getting away with for far too long - given that customers stranded at Euston recently were recompensed for hotel bills however this may set a precedent or at the very least Eurostar should do something for these stranded customers out of common decency..........you know, doing the right thing?

[ChrisB]

French company....let's see. I doubt it.

[JayMac]

Yep - so E* will itself be compensated for being unable to run trains - eventually - but the passengers affected get nothing except their fare back.

And reasonable expenses for overnight stays as per their conditions of carriage. Eurostar said this would include up to £150 per passenger for overnight accommodation. £50 for food. Up to £150 taxi to accommodation (per vehicle, not per person). Based on their average loadings, average fare and the 41 trains cancelled, they're looking at a bill of £2.5 million.

Facilities maintenance remains in place at Ashford International. A new contract was awarded for just that in December 2023.

[ChrisB]

Ok, thanks - Calder gets it wrong again.

Those facilities refer to the functioning doors & platform areas, not the IT links, facilities & connectiuons that a fully functioning border control would require.

[TaplowGreen]

Ok, thanks - Calder gets it wrong again.

A Damascene conversion! (was the road flooded?) 

[stuving]

French company....let's see. I doubt it.

Eurostar International Limited is a private limited company registered in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) (number  02462001). It's a rather odd one, however, since its two "persons with significant control" are Eurostar Group SA (a Belgian company) and the "Gouvernement De La Republique Francaise" (address as for Élisabeth Borne).

The tunnel is run by Eurotunnel, itself owned by Getlink which is a European company. The tunnel is a regulated monopoly under the provisions of an international treaty, which is certainly a bit unusual.

[ChrisB]

Indeed - the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Government shed their strake some time ago.

Waiting to hear whether those that couldn't wait fore resumption of service & made their own way across the channel will receive any additional cost compensation too.

[Electric train]

Facilities maintenance remains in place at Ashford International. A new contract was awarded for just that in December 2023.

Ashford could not handle the outbound 30,000 passengers this all day cancelation caused let alone the inbound as well. 
There are no easy train turn around (reverse) facilities at Ashford,
The Eurostar UK^▸ (United Kingdom) train care depot is at Temple Mills (Stratford) ie North of the flooded tunnel so there would be a shortage of trains.

The tunnel is run by Eurotunnel, itself owned by Getlink which is a European company. The tunnel is a regulated monopoly under the provisions of an international treaty, which is certainly a bit unusual.

Except that the tunnel that was flooded is owned by HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) Ltd

[Electric train]

Reports I have heard about the flooding, it was caused by external water build up external to the railway, it was not a failure of the railway infrastructure; this explains the message from Thames Water (Sewage and drainage) that it was not caused by them.  The volume of water exceeded the tunnel pumps capacity.

[ChrisB]

Hmmm. So it's usual to have gushing water pipes within their infrastructure? I don't think that statement holds much water, frankly

[grahame]

Hmmm. So it's usual to have gushing water pipes within their infrastructure? I don't think that statement holds much water, frankly

the pipework certainly didn't 

[stuving]

Reports I have heard about the flooding, it was caused by external water build up external to the railway, it was not a failure of the railway infrastructure; this explains the message from Thames Water (Sewage and drainage) that it was not caused by them.  The volume of water exceeded the tunnel pumps capacity.

I find that hard to make sense of as an explanation of that video of the water coming into the tunnel. Was that water in the video a red herring? I would have thought the amount of water shown there would be well within the capacity of pumps draining the whole tunnel. And was the water not coming out of the pipe at all, just using a convenient hole to get in?

Behind those questions is another - why is a pipe going straight into tunnel wall at all? It's an odd thing for it to do, even if it is not far underground at this point (which isn't what is implied by "water build up external to the railway").

[Electric train]

Reports I have heard about the flooding, it was caused by external water build up external to the railway, it was not a failure of the railway infrastructure; this explains the message from Thames Water (Sewage and drainage) that it was not caused by them.  The volume of water exceeded the tunnel pumps capacity.

I find that hard to make sense of as an explanation of that video of the water coming into the tunnel. Was that water in the video a red herring? I would have thought the amount of water shown there would be well within the capacity of pumps draining the whole tunnel. And was the water not coming out of the pipe at all, just using a convenient hole to get in?

Behind those questions is another - why is a pipe going straight into tunnel wall at all? It's an odd thing for it to do, even if it is not far underground at this point (which isn't what is implied by "water build up external to the railway").

The pipe just happened to be the penetration through the concrete wall, the hole is either cast or drilled larger that the pipe and then sealed.

It was not a burst fire main, water main or drainage discharge that was leaking, it was down to the hydraulic pressure of the "flood" water external to the tunnel that forced its was through the penetration in the concreate wall