Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[Cloud Strife]

While London St Pancras International station is available to any train operator and its passengers, and Whittingham said Virgin believes there were ways to increase passenger handling capacity, it was initially unclear whether a new operator would be entitled to have access to things like the Premier lounge. It has since been confirmed that they would.

I've outlined this before, but there are quite a few options for increasing passenger capacity at St Pancras without drastic rebuilding works. The most obvious thing is to adopt an airport-style system where the upper (train) level is transformed into an arrivals area, with the area in front of the buffer stops being remodelled to act as an arrivals lounge. There's enough space there to handle customs controls, and passengers would then be able to exit St Pancras without going downstairs. Meanwhile, the downstairs (departures) area could still be expanded a bit further by taking over the adjacent shops and the existing arrivals area. It should also be possible to remodel the departures area so that passport controls take place immediately next to the check-in machines, rather than elsewhere.

The real question is whether Eurostar and new entrants can do something about the excessive check-in times. It's possible that with a new entrant, check-in times will decrease as the operators won't be able to dwell in STP for longer periods of time.

Capacity through the Channel Tunnel is not a problem. Getlink’s Leriche said the infrastructure was built to handle much more than the current traffic, which 30 years ago was predicted to now be double current levels.

I believe the original plan was that Le Shuttle would operate as a "turn up and go" service, rather than the airline-style operation that it has adopted. As a result, it never quite became the ferry-killer that it was supposed to become, and it's why the existing infrastructure in Folkestone and Calais is massively overbuilt for the amount of traffic that it serves. The departure lounges in both terminals are also smaller than you'd expect them to be, as it was expected that they would only be used for very short visits before boarding.

 

[Bald Rick]

I believe the original plan was that Le Shuttle would operate as a "turn up and go" service, rather than the airline-style operation that it has adopted.

It was, but to a certain extent it still is. I’ve used their flex fare a few times and it is a much nicer experience just driving straight through and to the next shuttle.

 

[TheGrew]

With the temple mills capacity issue could another depot not be built somewhere else along HS1. Though at an initial glance the next best option near London seems to be between Rainham and the A33 but some high voltage power lines would need to be moved.

 

[Route115?]

I am still not convinced that through services to places such as Basel & Geneva are viable as whilst there is undoubtedly traffic to be won, there is not enough to fill a train at any European location not currently served by Eurostar. What might work would be additional TGV services to/from Lille Europe connecting with a hopefully augmented Eurostar service as they could be shared by intra Schengen passengers and we might only be talking about 100 or so through passengers to places such as Basel or Geneva - the same as carried by an airliner. This would mean setting up Lille to deal with heavy flows of passengers over short periods of time. Automated processes will hopefully make immigration faster (lets so how it works when introduced), but it will mean setting up additional security lanes which will only be utilisated for part of the time - but this will also be true for the additional stations served in Europe.

I do see a role for new operators serving places such as Ashford and even Stratford Intl (although the station should have been built under Stratford Regional if it were to serve as a hub for East Anglia) as I am sure that traffic is currently being lost. The problem is that if it were to work for the new operators Eurostar would suddenly start calling at these stations! Its an interesting question whether you are best served by a single operator, possibly on a concession model, operating a public service as we see in Germany or competition as we see to some extent on Italian high speed lines. What we have now is a monopoly operating to maximise profit (although quite likely with a lack of commercial nous) with no consideration for traffic that it does not see as profitable (anything thats not to/from St Pancras), which is probably the worst of both worlds.

I think that when Eurostar started the UK joining Schengen was seen as more likely than leaving the EU. The latter is, to put it mildly, not helpful for Channel Tunnel rail traffic, but remember that there would still be the security issues, even if the UK were to become part of the Schengen area. The only way that longer distance through services will work is for seats to be occupied by more than one passenger for different parts of the journey, as we see with Cross Country. That isn't going to happen with existing security and immigration requirements.

 

[Bald Rick]

I am still not convinced that through services to places such as Basel & Geneva are viable as whilst there is undoubtedly traffic to be won, there is not enough to fill a train at any European location not currently served by Eurostar.

I agree about Basel, but rather more people fly from London to Geneva than London to Glasgow, and the rail journey time would be in the same ball park. (5h15 vs 4h30), so its reasonable to assume that 3-4 trains per day would be well filled.

 

[Wolfie]

I agree about Basel, but rather more people fly from London to Geneva than London to Glasgow, and the rail journey time would be in the same ball park. (5h15 vs 4h30), so its reasonable to assume that 3-4 trains per day would be well filled.

There are two key factors, time and price. Enough people obviously regard the rail London to Glasgow package as appealing. Would a rail London to Geneva package be equally appealing? I fear that the probable price would put many off.

 

[TheGrew]

I agree that Geneva would make more sense than Basel as an end destination. But as above doing so profitably I can see being an issue without some sort of state intervention like adding a levy on flights to subsidise the train.

 

[zwk500]

I agree about Basel, but rather more people fly from London to Geneva than London to Glasgow, and the rail journey time would be in the same ball park. (5h15 vs 4h30), so its reasonable to assume that 3-4 trains per day would be well filled.

Is that 5h15 including the c.1h check-in? At the moment, you can arrive at Euston 5 mins before your train to Glasgow (although most would be 20-30mins), but you have to get to the airport 1.5-2h before your flight. That makes the overall journey time rather more competitive.
Interestingly when searching for flights I'm offered a 6h28 rail itinerary from St Pancras to Geneva via Paris.

There are two key factors, time and price. Enough people obviously regard the rail London to Glasgow package as appealing. Would a rail London to Geneva package be equally appealing? I fear that the probable price would put many off.

A quick gander online suggests full-service airlines are pricing Heathrow-Geneva at around £120 return - so Eurostar would have limited room on it's £40 starting point for the current advances, even once you've priced in the other factors. But it does suggest that rail fares around £80-100 each way would not be impossibly off-putting.

 

[Trainbike46]

Is that 5h15 including the c.1h check-in? At the moment, you can arrive at Euston 5 mins before your train to Glasgow (although most would be 20-30mins), but you have to get to the airport 1.5-2h before your flight. That makes the overall journey time rather more competitive.
Interestingly when searching for flights I'm offered a 6h28 rail itinerary from St Pancras to Geneva via Paris.

I did that itinerary, though in my case it was Belfast-Birkenhead-Liverpool-London-Paris-Geneva, with a stopover in london (my employer strongly supports business travel without flying!)

A quick gander online suggests full-service airlines are pricing Heathrow-Geneva at around £120 return - so Eurostar would have limited room on it's £40 starting point for the current advances, even once you've priced in the other factors. But it does suggest that rail fares around £80-100 each way would not be impossibly off-putting.

What also helps is that Geneva is a destination where most passengers are, shall we say, well-off. Competing on comfort and convenience could genuinely work.

I suspect Geneva is the most likely destination not currently or previously served by Eurostar

 

[zwk500]

I did that itinerary, though in my case it was Belfast-Birkenhead-Liverpool-London-Paris-Geneva, with a stopover in london (my employer strongly supports business travel without flying!)

Very impressive!

What also helps is that Geneva is a destination where most passengers are, shall we say, well-off. Competing on comfort and convenience could genuinely work.

Indeed

I suspect Geneva is the most likely destination not currently or previously served by Eurostar

I suspect the most likely are the destinations previously served - Avignon in the Summer, ski trains in the winter. The most likely new destination is to my mind Bordeaux, then Geneva, then Cologne (Cologne last because the change at Brussels is simpler than any changes in Paris).

 

[Bald Rick]

There are two key factors, time and price. Enough people obviously regard the rail London to Glasgow package as appealing. Would a rail London to Geneva package be equally appealing? I fear that the probable price would put many off.

time, price, convenience and comfort. A number of people happily pay more for the train on some routes, even though it costs more and takes longer, simply because it is more conveneient (keep bags with you for example) and more comfortable (seating, more space, easier to get up and walk around, etc).

London-Geneva by eurostar isn‘t that much further than London - Amsterdam, and that has attracted plenty of custom.

Is that 5h15 including the c.1h check-in?

no

A quick gander online suggests full-service airlines are pricing Heathrow-Geneva at around £120 return

I‘ve recently paid £280 return from Luton, partly because I had the temerity to want to take a large bag and sit in a seat I can fit in. Even if I was small cabin bag only and normal seat it would have been £140. This is for flights next year in the easyjet sale (at the times I wanted to go; I could have got cheaper at different times, but need to be there by lunch). Geneva flights in winter (at least) have a high proportion of people with large bags.

I suspect the most likely are the destinations previously served - Avignon in the Summer, ski trains in the winter. The most likely new destination is to my mind Bordeaux, then Geneva, then Cologne (Cologne last because the change at Brussels is simpler than any changes in Paris).

Geneva is by far the largest market within Eurostar range. It is 5 times the market of Bordeaux, albeit Geneva has a fairly high skew to the winter months for skiing. However even in high summer, 3 times as many people fly to Geneva than Bordeaux, and there is year round business traffic. And it is lucrative. It’s perfect for Eurostar really, if only they had the trains, the paths on LGV SE, and could get border control at the swiss end.

 

[Wolfie]

time, price, convenience and comfort. A number of people happily pay more for the train on some routes, even though it costs more and takes longer, simply because it is more conveneient (keep bags with you for example) and more comfortable (seating, more space, easier to get up and walk around, etc).

London-Geneva by eurostar isn‘t that much further than London - Amsterdam, and that has attracted plenty of custom.



no



I‘ve recently paid £280 return from Luton, partly because I had the temerity to want to take a large bag and sit in a seat I can fit in. Even if I was small cabin bag only it would have been £140. And this is for flights next year in the easyjet sale. Geneva flights in winter (at least) have a high proportion of people with large bags.




Geneva is by far the largest market within Eurostar range. It is 5 times the market of Bordeaux, albeit Geneva has a fairly high skew to the winter months for skiing. However even in high summer, 3 times as many people fly to Geneva than Bordeaux, and there is year round business traffic. And it is lucrative. It’s perfect for Eurostar really, if only they had the trains, the paths on LGV SE, and could get border control at the swiss end.

Good point well made about the comfort (unless you are in a DfT specified seat lol) ...

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

SBB - who presumably know something about the Swiss market - were (are?) targeting Basel - London. Zürich has the same number of daily flights to London (Heathrow at least) as Geneva. I am always surprised that Geneva has so many flights - I can understand the winter sports market - but the city is the dullest and most expensive in Switzerland. Is it the well heeled spending more time with their money? Geneva by train, although further from London, does have the advantage of more LGV en route than Basel.

 

[zwk500]

SBB - who presumably know something about the Swiss market - were (are?) targeting Basel - London. Zürich has the same number of daily flights to London (Heathrow at least) as Geneva. I am always surprised that Geneva has so many flights - I can understand the winter sports market - but the city is the dullest and most expensive in Switzerland. Is it the well heeled spending more time with their money? Geneva by train, although further from London, does have the advantage of more LGV en route than Basel.

The presence of a large number of international organisations in Geneva probably has something to do with it.

For reference, Eurotunnel has a charging incentive to start new markets (it was in place in 2018 and possibly before). This gives an indication of where Getlink/Eurotunnel see the most likely potential markets. The scheme offers funding for five years to help develop new markets. https://www.getlinkgroup.com/conten...-for-high-speed-rail-passenger-services-1.pdf

It lists the following destinations for the 2025 scheme:
D1 - London - (Antwerp) - Rotterdam - Amsterdam (Funding given 2018, now extended to 2030 under exceptional circumstances provisions)
D2 - London-Köln-Frankfurt
D3 - London-Geneva / London-Basel-Zürich
D4 - London-Lyon-Marseille
D5 - London-Bordeaux
D6 - Other New Cross-Channel Rail Passenger Markets

In the 2018 Scheme, the routes were:
D1 - London-Lyon-Marseille (funding given 2015, scheduled end 2020, somewhat unfortunately for the route)
D2 - London-Amsterdam (funding given 2018, scheduled end 2023)
D3 - London-Köln-Frankfurt
D4 - London-Genève
D5 - London-Bordeaux
D6 - Other New Cross-Channel Rail Passenger Markets

My thinking with Bordeaux is that it suited a service pattern of 2 return trips each day (one early, one late) rather well and had a good core market of people keen to avoid flying, as well as Eurostar already having the close relationship with SNCF and not needing to get SBB involved. Obviously the logistical problems are relatively easy to overcome if the market is there.

 

[Bald Rick]

SBB - who presumably know something about the Swiss market - were (are?) targeting Basel - London. Zürich has the same number of daily flights to London (Heathrow at least) as Geneva. I am always surprised that Geneva has so many flights - I can understand the winter sports market - but the city is the dullest and most expensive in Switzerland. Is it the well heeled spending more time with their money? Geneva by train, although further from London, does have the advantage of more LGV en route than Basel.

The London-Geneva market is 5 x the size of Basel; It is also about 30% larger than London-Zurich, the latter of which is heavily concentrated on Heathrow which suggests a high number of transfer passengers who would be less likely to transfer to eurostar. Zurich would also be nudging 7h on the train, and that is on the uncompetitive side.

AIUI Geneva has a good level of business traffic year round which justifies a baseload flight schedule year round, but is also the most convenient airport for a wide area of France including the northern half of the French alps, the Saône valley and the northern Rhône valley. (Lyon has a rather infrequent flight schedule from London, typically 4/5 a day, whilst Grenoble is usually winter only). Plenty of tourists heading to all those places year round.

 

[cle]

Geneva is a great pick because there is business demand both ways, and heavy leisure at winter time especially, but year round, really. I think it's stronger than Bordeaux or Marseille year round / multiple times per day, great as those places are. Amsterdam works similarly because of a business and leisure mix - and a Brexit boom (which also necessitated Brussels services being propped up) - and strong inbound/reciprocal demand from the place to London.

Basel also has business demand - far less than Geneva of course and not much leisure - but plenty of pharma and is a bigger rail hub for a broader hinterland. But it is no Geneva and wouldn't justify a dedicated service but it could easily be a well-used call on the way to Zurich, for instance.

The banks, pharma companies and P&G alone would fill the nice end of the Swiss trains. Ski deals seal it. I would assume no Bourg en Bresse etc so sub 3 hours from CDG-ish, passing at speed.

 

[signed]

Geneva would be a great opportunity to serve CDG Airport on the way down from London and give another option to business travellers instead of flying to Zurich and then connecting

 

[StephenHunter]

As an old TV show once said "Geneva. It's great for conventions".

You could have two units and split en route somewhere, with the other one for Basel and Zurich.

 

[signed]

You could have two units and split en route somewhere, with the other one for Basel and Zurich.

The biggest issue with that would be self-competition with Lyria which SNCF may not like

 

[mad_rich]

Geneva would be a great opportunity to serve CDG Airport on the way down from London and give another option to business travellers instead of flying to Zurich and then connecting

Given Eurostar's recent deal to join Skyteam, serving CDG from London would be a great shout. It would give them another avenue to feed one of the big Skyteam hubs with UK traffic.

 

[signed]

Given Eurostar's recent deal to join Skyteam

I didn't know that, that would make perfect sense then (Air France/KLM and SNCF already have a quite well integrated TGV+Air system both in the country where you check in at your departure TGV station for your flight and with Brussels where you even drop off your bag at Brussels midi and see it at your destination)

 

[StephenHunter]

where you even drop off your bag at Brussels midi and see it at your destination)

https://wwws.airfrance.be/information/prepare/voyages-combines-avion-train/depose-bagages-bruxelles

We offer a free baggage drop-off service for your AIR&RAIL trips departing from Brussels-Midi/Zuid station. Head to the Brussels-Midi/Zuid station on the day before your departure and travel light on the day of your trip!

Now that's a blast from the past!

 

[cle]

The biggest issue with that would be self-competition with Lyria which SNCF may not like

This may not be Eurostar!

Re Basel/Zurich, I’d expect that would take a completely different (Dijon or even Est) routing than to Geneva, so the split would have to be at CDG.

CDG is a decent aim in itself. Much quicker than getting to Schiphol.

 

[TheGrew]

I wonder what a London-Milan time might look like once the Lyon-Turin line is finished.

 

[TheWierdOne]

I wonder what a London-Milan time might look like once the Lyon-Turin line is finished.

It’s predicted to cut Paris-Milan to four hours from seven, so would put London-Milan times at around six hours. Maybe just on the edge of being viable, for two trains a day. Paris-Barcelona is a similar distance and has two train pairs a day, although that service benefits from all the partial length journeys. Ski trains to Chambery, Grenoble and Turin might be more viable.

 

[Chester1]

It’s predicted to cut Paris-Milan to four hours from seven, so would put London-Milan times at around six hours. Maybe just on the edge of being viable, for two trains a day. Paris-Barcelona is a similar distance and has two train pairs a day, although that service benefits from all the partial length journeys. Ski trains to Chambery, Grenoble and Turin might be more viable.

The main issue with the long distance Eurostar services is train size. While the minimum unit length size through the Channel Tunnel has been scrapped, it doesn't mean small trains will be economically viable. A three coach set has a similar number of seats as a 737 or A320. Filling a train even half the length of the current Eurostar fleet will be challenge for London - Geneva or Milan. The same problem wrecks the business case for regional Eurostar services. One Eurostar has more seats than five A320s or 737s. It's simply too many seats to fill more than once a day and five flights can be spread throughout the day.

If a decent but not overwhelming business case can be made for either route then there is an argument for the British and Swiss / Italian government's paying Eurostar or another operator to run the services as a management contract. A significant long term subsidy wouldn't be justified but it is different if the business case leans towards it being profitable but too marginal to be worth the risk for private investors.

I am always amazed at how every time these topics come up people suggest massive relaxation of border procedures or bemoan UK staying out of Schengen. It's totally out of sync with cross party consensus and the current zeitgeist. The challenge for Schengen members over the long term is keeping it together, not British entry!

 

[cle]

Agree, sadly, re Schengen.

But on flights, tomorrow there are 23 flights between London and Milan airports. Admittedly spread across all the airports, but certainly enough demand for 2 RT trips, one day.

Assuming an A319 (smaller end but balanced re LCY metal) - and 80% load, let's say 100 per flight - that's 2300 people per day. If we added Turin (3-6 flights a day)and a France call (Disney - might also have inbound Italian demand?) - or Lyon - it gets interesting.

14 to Geneva, which seems low but many more after December.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I am always amazed at how every time these topics come up people suggest massive relaxation of border procedures or bemoan UK staying out of Schengen.

I think the real issue is that there's actually no need to relax anything. The UK ETA system should make it perfectly possible to refuse entry to anyone who isn't pre-approved for travel, and with a little bit of goodwill, it could easily be extended to include an ETIAS and EES check even at the point of check in. If someone isn't in compliance with all three systems, then it would be an automatic "no". Combine that with a deal with the EU to return any EU citizens denied at the UK Border, and the problem is pretty much solved.

Essentially, the UK would have pre-authorised anyone travelling to the UK on Eurostar or similar, and the train companies would ensure that the check-in took biometric data which would then be used by the border police to verify that the passenger is who they say they are. Someone who turns up at the UK border without documents would already be 'on file', so their real identity could be quickly ascertained.

The juxtaposed controls made sense when there was no other way to prevent people from travelling to the UK, but now that we have biometric everything, their purpose has all but gone. We could retain the juxtaposed control in St Pancras for Schengen-bound travellers, but the controls in Gare du Nord/etc would be relocated to St Pancras.

 

[signed]

but the controls in Gare du Nord/etc would be relocated to St Pancras

Station layout at STP makes it absolutely nonsensical for something that isn't emergency situations. There is absolutely no room to deal with the load on arrivals which would cause hell crowds with 900 pax dumping every 30min to an hour. There isn't enough room to appropriately deal with departures.

Plus doing that would still require all the same controls. Which would defeat the whole purpose of Eurostar which is to dump you in the city center without any further formalities.

Australia and New Zealand have both a fully electronic border system with full preauthorization before boarding the plane and still have a need for checks on arrival as you can't just rely on a third-party to do a job as sensitive

 

[Cloud Strife]

Station layout at STP makes it absolutely nonsensical for something that isn't emergency situations. There is absolutely no room to deal with the load on arrivals which would cause hell crowds with 900 pax dumping every 30min to an hour.

It's not impossible, there's a lot of wasted space on the platform level in front of the buffer stops. By transforming that part of STP into a new arrivals area, you pretty much can get ~800 people through eGates while retaining enough space for the 100 (maximum) to be checked manually. If you use a bit of common sense, you can also allow children to travel through the eGates with their parents if they're under 10, as long as they're on the same booking and with random checks.

Plus doing that would still require all the same controls.

It would, but it would remove the need for the UK border controls in every station in Schengen, they'd only need to have exit-Schengen controls, nothing more.

Australia and New Zealand have both a fully electronic border system with full preauthorization before boarding the plane and still have a need for checks on arrival as you can't just rely on a third-party to do your job.

Yup, that's exactly how it should work. The pre-authorisation simply makes sure that no-one gets on the train who isn't authorised to do so.

It amazes me that we're still stubbornly sticking to the idea that there must be UK entry controls everywhere, when in reality, we only need them in St Pancras once the ETA is live and linked to check-in systems.