• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Amsterdam - London, no need to detrain

Status
Not open for further replies.

Groningen

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Messages
2,866
With the start of the service Amsterdam - London and v.v., there will only 2 trains a day. So a drop in the ocean.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
Perhaps run some of them direct, possibly at a slight premium for the reduced time?

It would make sense to stop in Rotterdam as well, for the city itself and for connections to Den Haag, Utrecht, Eindhoven, etc. The Netherlands is much less centred on Amsterdam than the UK is on London and a lot of traffic will originate in other cities. The train to London may actually be more attractive from these places than from Amsterdam, as Rotterdam is already closer to London and the trek to Schiphol is avoided.

The other obvious stop is Antwerp. I would prefer to run completely non-stop through Belgium, which is anyway already well served by Eurostar, but Antwerp is a big city so it probably makes sense to stop there.

While some people will want to get to the airport to avoid our airport taxes, many will only want to go to Amsterdam and if you're trying to compete with air, you'll want fast journey times - not a service that just connects the UK to another airport!

For flight connections at Schiphol, through ticketing is really needed. That could be done (Air France and KLM do it with Thalys and TGV, for example) - does anyone know if it's planned for the Eurostar?
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,046
Agreed with replies, thanks. I think this market will indeed be as impressive as Paris. One would like to see competition though. I wonder if DB still fancies its chances?

DB should concentrate on trying to get a Koeln/Frankfurt service up and running!
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
We will see what is offered, but I disagree that stopping additionally at Rotterdam and Antwerp is a good idea. The attractiveness of the new service will be to achieve a time from London to Amsterdam (the two financial centres and capital cities) that is competitive with air. A stop at Brussels and Schiphol would be well enough stops. One can change at Brussels for Antwerp and Rotterdam. A Ouigo type service could be run for tourists who are not interested in speed and that could call extra stops.

Even with the fast version, a stop at Schiphol does not cost much time, as the line is no longer an LGV by then and one necessarily trundles into Centraal.

Or, thinking ahead, perhaps a double unit could split /join at Brussels, one fast one stopping. I suppose, again looking ahead, it depends on how many spare slots for the Tunnel are available, where the suggestion just made could be a useful use of a slot.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
We will see what is offered, but I disagree that stopping additionally at Rotterdam and Antwerp is a good idea.

You're missing the point that Rotterdam will be a major destination and source of passengers, not just from Rotterdam itself (2nd largest city in NL), but for good connections to much of the country including the 3rd to 6th largest cities which together have a much larger population than Amsterdam, AND are not so well served by Schiphol (meaning the train will be more attractive). Also remember that the Netherlands is much less dominated by Amsterdam than the UK is by London. As you say, stopping will add only a couple of minutes, as the train anyway has to go slowly through Rotterdam Centraal station.

I don't personally see much point stopping at Schiphol. For all the nonsense about UK air passenger duty, please check out ticket prices from Schiphol (NOT connections via there, but for direct flights) before believing there's a large market.

I would happily run directly through Belgium, as it's a) already well served and b) not a place you want to visit anyway.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
28,001
Location
UK
Before you know it, you could quickly come up with a whole load of worthy destinations. I think Eurostar needs to prove to itself and others that the initial service is worth expanding.
 

williamn

Member
Joined
22 May 2008
Messages
1,123
If this to succeed I think it can only do so if border checks etc are carried out before departure or on the train. I love travelling by train but even I find the idea of getting off and on again and spending an hour at Lille hugely unappealing.
 

Bungle965

Established Member
Associate Staff
Buses & Coaches
Joined
2 Jul 2014
Messages
2,830
Location
Blackley and Broughton/ Walsall South
If this to succeed I think it can only do so if border checks etc are carried out before departure or on the train. I love travelling by train but even I find the idea of getting off and on again and spending an hour at Lille hugely unappealing.

Indeed, I imagine the chaos it would cause having to drag my family off the train in Lille station, which is a unappealing station anyway does not bear thinking about.
Sam
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
Agreed on this Lille-type nonsense.
That's why ideally an initial service should be non-stop from one capital to the other. One could miss out the Brussels stop altogether, as there is already a service between those two capitals. Immigration at AMS and LON and that's that. Once we all have electronic passports, that's easy peazy for EU citizens, and no delay. I can exit Gatwick South from arrival at trunk to station platform, in 10 -15 mins, with my electronic passport. It renders 'Schengen' arguments redundant.

TGVs (I use the acronym like we say Hoover for vacuum cleaner) should ideally operate like aeroplanes, one origin, one destination, and competitive with air.

If the earlier poster thinks Rotterdam should enjoy its own service, then fair enough, but to my idea, keeping it simple is the key to high speed transport. Treating pax like cattle at Lille is only acceptable perhaps to those who are afraid of flying.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
I can see myself using this service from London but I would come back by plane.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
Agreed on this Lille-type nonsense.
That's why ideally an initial service should be non-stop from one capital to the other. One could miss out the Brussels stop altogether, as there is already a service between those two capitals. Immigration at AMS and LON and that's that. Once we all have electronic passports, that's easy peazy for EU citizens, and no delay. I can exit Gatwick South from arrival at trunk to station platform, in 10 -15 mins, with my electronic passport. It renders 'Schengen' arguments redundant.

Electronic passport control is not like Schengen. Schengen means that you don't need passport control at all. And sadly electronic passport control does not mean no delays. It might mean less delay (or it might not).

TGVs (I use the acronym like we say Hoover for vacuum cleaner) should ideally operate like aeroplanes, one origin, one destination, and competitive with air.

Why? A very useful feature of trains is that they can stop at intermediate stations. This makes many services viable that would not otherwise be so. Sure, only stop when and where it makes sense to do so, but don't write off intermediate stops completely. Most high speed train services do make intermediate stops.

If the earlier poster thinks Rotterdam should enjoy its own service, then fair enough, but to my idea, keeping it simple is the key to high speed transport. Treating pax like cattle at Lille is only acceptable perhaps to those who are afraid of flying.

Missing out Brussels and Antwerp is fine by me (I'd prefer to miss out Belgium altogether but sadly that's geographically tricky). Whether it's done or not will depend on the business case for the train. But Rotterdam may well be a bigger source/destination of passengers than Amsterdam, not just for the city but also for connections. And remember that a train from London to Rotterdam is relatively more competitive with flying than a train from London to Amsterdam, as the train will arrive in Rotterdam first, and Amsterdam is already very well served by air and is closer to Schiphol.

The Lille problem is only solved if we have full immigration, security and customs at all entry stations (or on arrival at St Pancras, which still seems a good option). Can anyone confirm whether this is actually planned for Amsterdam and any other stops? Is it even practical for a couple of trains per day?
 
Last edited:

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Paris to Rotterdam/Amsterdam on Thalys is quite a comparable journey in terms of time and distance to London to Rotterdam/Amsterdam so you might expect the split between Amsterdam and Rotterdam usage to be quite similar.
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
@Anme
If stopping at Rotterdam made commercial sense, then I would only allow pick up on the way from AMS to LON and vice versa, only set down, (yes of course I know what Schengen is BTW). But then, an extra passport control is needed at Rotterdam, unless the Lille nonsense is to be perpetuated.
Of course, I would join Schengen and have done. In the meantime non-stop services are the only way to help minimise the nuisance caused by our exclusion from membership, IMO.
 

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,472
@Anme
If stopping at Rotterdam made commercial sense, then I would only allow pick up on the way from AMS to LON and vice versa, only set down, (yes of course I know what Schengen is BTW). But then, an extra passport control is needed at Rotterdam, unless the Lille nonsense is to be perpetuated.
Of course, I would join Schengen and have done. In the meantime non-stop services are the only way to help minimise the nuisance caused by our exclusion from membership, IMO.

Remember Schengen isn't the only thing at play here, but also the security scan (metal detector, x-ray, etc.). Of course, as far as I'm aware, cars aren't subject to such things on the shuttles, so that's fairly pointless…
 

hulabaloo

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2015
Messages
134
The Lille problem is only solved if we have full immigration, security and customs at all entry stations (or on arrival at St Pancras, which still seems a good option)

The issue with having these just on arrival is that if anyone "illegal" presents themselves there claiming asylum, then it will be that particular country's duty to deal with it. I think.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
The issue with having these just on arrival is that if anyone "illegal" presents themselves there claiming asylum, then it will be that particular country's duty to deal with it. I think.

Which we seem to cope with at airports. I can't believe that's the reason.

Bigger problems are the rather pointless requirement to do security scans of passengers (but not cars) before entering the tunnel (as noted by gsnedders), and need for passengers leaving the Schengen area to go through an emigration check.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,719
Location
Nottingham
Which we seem to cope with at airports. I can't believe that's the reason.

Isn't the issue that people can pull the emergency handle once the train arrives in the UK, then open a door and disappear into the distance? That doesn't seem to happen on planes for some reason...

Bigger problems are the rather pointless requirement to do security scans of passengers (but not cars) before entering the tunnel (as noted by gsnedders), and need for passengers leaving the Schengen area to go through an emigration check.

Agreed. Security screening is needed for planes because a bomb or a gun can bring down an aircraft. But more harm would be caused if the perpetrator used it in a crowded street, or indeed a security queue, than on a train.

Passport control could be done by a sweep through the train if the will was there, though it would need more people and some passengers wouldn't be able to visit the buffet for part of the journey. That's not possible with baggage security though.
 

AlexNL

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
1,682
Bigger problems are the rather pointless requirement to do security scans of passengers (but not cars)

Cars and lorries also go through security checks before entering the tunnel, but you don't see it. Eurotunnel has fully automatic scans for stowaways (PMMW), explosives (Euroscan) and even radioactive materials (Cyclamen).
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,012
You can see it if you look, and not even very hard!

If you're driving, and not looking carefully, you'll hit it!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But Rotterdam may well be a bigger source/destination of passengers than Amsterdam, not just for the city but also for connections.

Doubt it. Look at the number of LON-AMS flights compared to LON-RTM.
 

anme

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2013
Messages
1,777
Doubt it. Look at the number of LON-AMS flights compared to LON-RTM.

1. AMS is a much bigger airport than RTM.
2. AMS is pretty close to Rotterdam, so many air passengers for Rotterdam will fly to/from Schiphol anyway.
3. Look at a map. As I wrote above, four of the five largest Dutch cities would connect to this train in Rotterdam, not Amsterdam. That's a much larger number of people than the population of Amsterdam (which is much less dominant of the Netherlands than London is of the UK).
4. Rotterdam is closer to London than Amsterdam (by rail) and the train will arrive there earlier from London, and leave there later on the way to London. In combination with point 3, this makes it even more attractive for connections.
5. As you say, there are many more LON-AMS flights than LON-RTM. Connected to this, and points 3 and 4, the train will be a relatively more attractive option from Rotterdam than from Amsterdam, so may attract a larger market share.

To be honest, the numbers aren't public so none of us can say whether Rotterdam or Amsterdam will bring more passengers. I can say that all Thalys services to/from Amsterdam stop at Rotterdam and many people leave/board the train there. I am sure the Eurostar will stop there, and justifiably so.
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
What is the split of Thalys usage between Amsterdam and Rotterdam?
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
The populations around Amsterdam and Rotterdam are quite comparable with metropolitan areas of about 2 to 2.5 million. If you are interested in strict urban areas (that is looking at contiguous built up area) then the Rotterdam Den Haag is higher at 2.6 million compared to about 1.4 million for Amsterdam. Amsterdam "proper" is a bit bigger than Rotterdam "proper" (838,000 vs 620,000)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_European_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Metropolitan_Area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_The_Hague_Metropolitan_Area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,983
Thanks for reactions. We will see what competitors propose. The main issue for beating airlines (the competition) is maximum convenience (for business users) coupled with minimum cost (for leisure users). I believe that straightforward end to end services is the best marketing strategy and if Rotterdam is a goer for end to end, a few services per day, non-stop for commuting businessmen, would do well, I'm sure.

Remember that Thalys can stop at Rotterdam and Brussels on the way to Paris, because it's all inter-Schengen. Another few more outrages and that may not last, by the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top