Could double decker trains run on HS1?

[AlastairFraser]

Interesting proposals. the only bit I cant see working at all is Calais to set down, the lack of return journeys will put people off, and SNCF services from Calais are quite sparse. Amsterdam or Rotterdam may be an eventual aim, but as a start-up probably best to stick to Brussels. Bearing in mind there is a frequent direct service from St Pancras to Ebbsfleet so it could offer a practical lower cost alternative to budget conscious travellers. Maybe a partnership with Ouigo on the French side to offer journeys beyond Northern France.

Would Eurostar try and compete or just rely on travellers who want direct London - Brussles or Paris and are prepared to pay a premium for it. My view is there is room in the market for both types of operation. Lumo on the ECML have proved this.

What I find amusing is that growing up in the 60s during that period going by train to the near continent was usually cheaper, flying was a lot more expensive, its gone full circle with train being more expensive.

Fair point about Calais.
Part of the reason you want a portion carrying on to Amsterdam/Rotterdam is for border control reasons - the facilties for Eurostar in NL aren't super heavily used, while the Brussels ones are much busier.

Ebbsfleet is also just a few mins from Northfleet station (using the 490 bus) on the classic Southeastern network for an even cheaper option.

A Ouigo partnership would definitely be a good idea, they have some very reasonable fares from Lille to South or East of Paris changing at CDG.

I think Eurostar wouldn't compete directly as such, but may add the stop back at Ashford to grow the market if the lower end of their market went to the new operator.

As for your final point, I think people and sadly marketers have rediscovered the true value of convenience.

 

[Alfonso]

Access charges for the tunnel and HS1 are high, so these numbers might need revising upwards considerably

 

[AlastairFraser]

Access charges for the tunnel and HS1 are high, so these numbers might need revising upwards considerably

Would HS1 consider decreasing these for the first year of operation to help the development? There are empty paths not being used, so it would be more income regardless.

 

[mike57]

As for your final point, I think people and sadly marketers have rediscovered the true value of convenience.

Yes even for our location (near Bridlington) flying v train to Paris is very marginal timewise, we are a minimum 90 mins drive from the nearest airport that serves Paris, and with all the faffing about at airports, parking, baggage etc. train is more convenient

We walk to our village station, 5-10min walk, one change and we are at St Pancras, and on our recent trip our hotel was 100yds from the RER station changing at Lille and Marne-le-Vallee onto RER A.

Cost wise train is slightly more expensive, but we do travel first/premier class which adds a bit more on, but thats our choice. The flight headline prices are low, but by the time you have added in all the extras its not as cheap as it looks, I think thats where the low cost airlines 'reel you in'. With the train journey our (first class) fare that we pay is the end of it. We get light eats, hot and cold drinks, choice of seats etc and a more comfortable seat, as much baggage as we can carry (within reason), which always seems to be at the limit coming home, and there are no hidden costs.

 

[Trainbike46]

Would HS1 consider decreasing these for the first year of operation to help the development? There are empty paths not being used, so it would be more income regardless.

Eurostar would definitely complain and possibly sue over a competitor being given better prices than them (and rightly so, in my view). It would be highly unfair competition.

 

[mike57]

Eurostar would definitely complain and possibly sue over a competitor being given better prices than them (and rightly so, in my view). It would be highly unfair competition.

But if a business (Eurotunnel) decided to give an 'introductary discount' to build the business by bringing new players in is it grounds for sueing? It happens all the time in other industries, mobile phones, broadband, insurance to name a few, the only difference with Eurotunnel is they have a monopoly. Would be a minefield I agree. Cross channel services are going to be fully commercial for the foreseeable future, I dont think either the French or our gevernment of any political colour would want to introduce subsidies.

 

[Trainbike46]

But if a business (Eurotunnel) decided to give an 'introductary discount' to build the business by bringing new players in is it grounds for sueing? It happens all the time in other industries, mobile phones, broadband, insurance to name a few, the only difference with Eurotunnel is they have a monopoly. Would be a minefield I agree. Cross channel services are going to be fully commercial for the foreseeable future, I dont think either the French or our gevernment of any political colour would want to introduce subsidies.

Eurostar has already made clear comments that they see a level playing field
I'm pretty sure infrastructure charges for the tunnel and HS1 are subject to regulation. And as eurotunnel is a monopoly, them giving discounts to one but not other operators would be problematic (imagine if they tried to set up their own eurostar competitor and then charged that company less than they do eurostar!). I certainly agree it is a minefield.

 

[mike57]

I certainly agree it is a minefield.

Sufficently so that I will not hold my breath for any sort of low cost/competing operator to actually begin operations. I know Mobico have ambitions, but the articles I have seen are very short on details, and there seems to be an awful lot that could go wrong. St Pancras is at capacity, so its going to need a different UK terminus as discussed up thread unless Eurostar are forced to reduce their service, back to Eurostar sueing. Is the demand there, Yes. Are there paths, Yes. Can a way be found to deliver the required border control and tunnel access at a cost which allows low cost operations, possibly not.

Any infrastructure improvements required will have to be funded by Mobico as neither government will be prepared to subsidise cross border traffic, and that could get expensive.

And to get back on thread a bit, if tunnel charges are based on seats rather than train carriages/weight/length then that reduces any incentive to go double deck. The double deck OiuGo type units would be a good fit with any required mods for a low cost operation.

 

[Alfonso]

Would HS1 consider decreasing these for the first year of operation to help the development? There are empty paths not being used, so it would be more income regardless.

I have no inside knowledge, and if you've seen some of my recent posts it would be fair to argue no clue about anything much, but from a commercial point of view, doing anything that would upset one of your best customers (eurostar) is unlikely to be a smart move.

 

[Gaelan]

You could start about £20 singles for early bird adult fares London to Lille and £30 London to Brussels/Amsterdam, but use yield management software like low cost airlines.

The Eurotunnel access charge is €18/passenger*, so sadly fares are never going to be quite that low. Perils of privately-funded infrastructure…

*actually £8.23 + €8.36, plus a per-train price (in the low-mid four figures) depending on time of day.

But if a business (Eurotunnel) decided to give an 'introductary discount' to build the business by bringing new players in is it grounds for sueing?

Eurotunnel argues that the per-passenger pricing already serves as an introductory discount.

 

[RT4038]

But if a business (Eurotunnel) decided to give an 'introductary discount' to build the business by bringing new players in is it grounds for sueing? It happens all the time in other industries, mobile phones, broadband, insurance to name a few, the only difference with Eurotunnel is they have a monopoly. Would be a minefield I agree. Cross channel services are going to be fully commercial for the foreseeable future, I dont think either the French or our gevernment of any political colour would want to introduce subsidies.

As an infrastructure provider I doubt they are allowed to give introductory discounts, nor give the incumbent a 'loyalty' or 'volume' discount should a third party start competitive activity.

 

[Trainbike46]

Sufficently so that I will not hold my breath for any sort of low cost/competing operator to actually begin operations. I know Mobico have ambitions, but the articles I have seen are very short on details, and there seems to be an awful lot that could go wrong. St Pancras is at capacity, so its going to need a different UK terminus as discussed up thread unless Eurostar are forced to reduce their service, back to Eurostar sueing. Is the demand there, Yes. Are there paths, Yes. Can a way be found to deliver the required border control and tunnel access at a cost which allows low cost operations, possibly not.

Any infrastructure improvements required will have to be funded by Mobico as neither government will be prepared to subsidise cross border traffic, and that could get expensive.

And to get back on thread a bit, if tunnel charges are based on seats rather than train carriages/weight/length then that reduces any incentive to go double deck. The double deck OiuGo type units would be a good fit with any required mods for a low cost operation.

I have seen the charges document shared somewhere on this forum, and if I remember correctly it is a combination of a per-train charge (possibly per-path) with a per-passenger charge (so you only pay for seats you have actually sold, not for any seats that remained empty)

The Eurotunnel access charge is €18/passenger*, so sadly fares are never going to be quite that low. Perils of privately-funded infrastructure…

*actually £8.23 + €8.36, plus a per-train price (in the low-mid four figures) depending on time of day.

Eurotunnel argues that the per-passenger pricing already serves as an introductory discount.

Ah, ahead of me with more details

 

[RT4038]

Eurotunnel argues that the per-passenger pricing already serves as an introductory discount.

Which it does. Eurotunnel sharing the risk!

 

[Gaelan]

I have seen the charges document shared somewhere on this forum, and if I remember correctly it is a combination of a per-train charge (possibly per-path) with a per-passenger charge (so you only pay for seats you have actually sold, not for any seats that remained empty)

For anyone curious, it's the "fixed link usage annual statement" linked here:

Eurotunnel railway network

Eurotunnel, concessionaire of the cross-Channel Fixed Link, makes available paths to train operators who are licensed to operate cross-channel rail services.

www.getlinkgroup.com

The charges themselves are in annexe 3 starting page 34.

 

[Bald Rick]

You could start about £20 singles for early bird adult fares London to Lille and £30 London to Brussels/Amsterdam

Given the per passenger element of Eurotunnel‘s fees, this is hopelessly optimistic. theres a reason why Eurostar charge what they do!

but use yield management software like low cost airlines.

and like Eurostar do…

Even with an average fare of £35, services 2tph for 1016 seats max an hour (let's say 900 filled on average), 15hrs of operation a day. That is £472,000 a day, approx. £3.3 million a week and (assuming 350 days of normal operation)approx. £165.3 million revenue a year.
Depending on your staff costs, you could make it work.

Suggest you look at Eurostar’s accounts. And timetables!

It costs them a lot, lot more than that to run around 50 trains a day.

The Eurotunnel access charge is €18/passenger*, so sadly fares are never going to be quite that low. Perils of privately-funded infrastructure…

*actually £8.23 + €8.36, plus a per-train price (in the low-mid four figures) depending on time of day.

For anyone curious, it's the "fixed link usage annual statement" linked here:

Eurotunnel railway network

Eurotunnel, concessionaire of the cross-Channel Fixed Link, makes available paths to train operators who are licensed to operate cross-channel rail services.

www.getlinkgroup.com

The charges themselves are in annexe 3 starting page 34.

Thanks for that. I understood the tunnel ‘toll’ to be £23 pp each way; evidently its somewhat more complex.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Eurostar would definitely complain and possibly sue over a competitor being given better prices than them (and rightly so, in my view). It would be highly unfair competition.

Maybe we should mandate them to use the paths then, at least from Ebbsfleet onwards.

I have no inside knowledge, and if you've seen some of my recent posts it would be fair to argue no clue about anything much, but from a commercial point of view, doing anything that would upset one of your best customers (eurostar) is unlikely to be a smart move.

Not sure if this is a major concern given they've essentially got a captive market.

The Eurotunnel access charge is €18/passenger*, so sadly fares are never going to be quite that low. Perils of privately-funded infrastructure…

*actually £8.23 + €8.36, plus a per-train price (in the low-mid four figures) depending on time of day.

That's absurd. Thanks for showing me this.
I guess that puts paid to any reasonably priced extra services, unless Eurostar order extra sets themselves (perhaps double deckers to replace the remaining Class 373s) and increase capacity using elements of the plan I set out above (i.e. terminate at Ebbsfleet).
Even with higher prices, there's demand for at least another 1 service an hour.

Given the per passenger element of Eurotunnel‘s fees, this is hopelessly optimistic. theres a reason why Eurostar charge what they do!

I've only just seen the absurd fees, to be fair. I guess EasyJet and co. are the only option for reasonable low cost travel to the Continent in the near future!
Even LuxAir wanted 60 quid less for their Antwerp to London City turboprop flight than Eurostar 2 weeks out, so it just isn't competitive on certain flows, unless you book well in advance.
As you seem to be more in the know than myself, I wonder if you could reinstate RailSail for the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry as a lower cost option available closer to departure (following the recent introduction of rail sail on the Cherbourg route to Ireland)?

and like Eurostar do…

Most of their base fares are too high to start with though.

Suggest you look at Eurostar’s accounts. And timetables!

It costs them a lot, lot more than that to run around 50 trains a day.

I have had a look and have seen the costs, although I suspect some of the costs could be pared down with a single-class competitor.

 

[Trainbike46]

Maybe we should mandate them to use the paths then, at least from Ebbsfleet onwards.

Not sure if this is a major concern given they've essentially got a captive market.

That's absurd. Thanks for showing me this.
I guess that puts paid to any reasonably priced extra services, unless Eurostar order extra sets themselves (perhaps double deckers to replace the remaining Class 373s) and increase capacity using elements of the plan I set out above (i.e. terminate at Ebbsfleet).
Even with higher prices, there's demand for at least another 1 service an hour.

I've only just seen the absurd fees, to be fair. I guess EasyJet and co. are the only option for reasonable low cost travel to the Continent in the near future!
Even LuxAir wanted 60 quid less for their Antwerp to London City turboprop flight than Eurostar 2 weeks out, so it just isn't competitive on certain flows, unless you book well in advance.
As you seem to be more in the know than myself, I wonder if you could reinstate RailSail for the Newhaven to Dieppe ferry as a lower cost option available closer to departure (following the recent introduction of rail sail on the Cherbourg route to Ireland)?


Most of their base fares are too high to start with though.

I have had a look and have seen the costs, although I suspect some of the costs could be pared down with a single-class competitor.

Why should eurostar be mandated to use all paths for requesting that other operators get charged the same for access to the infrastructure as they do?

For reference, on the cheapest tickets eurostar regularly sells (£39 each way) about half of the price goes into channel tunnel access costs. After rolling stock, staff, and access costs on other infrastructure there can't be much left, if anything...

 

[mike57]

Maybe we should mandate them to use the paths then, at least from Ebbsfleet onwards.

The problem is how, Eurostar are a commercial operation not in receipt of any subsidy, in effect they will see it as an increased cost and add it on to fares. I think the issue is that St Pancras is at capacity. certainly on our recent trip a month ago the waiting area was rammed. Queues at border control were not too bad, it took about 20 mins to get from the side entrance by Kings Cross station to the waiting area, but there is no slack, if anything goes wrong I can see it degenerating into chaos in a flash.

I dont think anyone denies that the demand for more services is there, the question is how to you release resources to meet it. The government are not going to want to subsidise or be seeing to pay for international travel facilities. I dont think this approach will change even with a change of government.

As stated up thread I were trying to start a low cost option I would begin with a Ebbsfleet - Lille shuttle, there is good connectivity at both ends and most of the infrastructure exists, at Lille the border control could be moved forwards to create a larger waiting area, but this is not a major rebuild. Offer through ticketing with HS1 domestic services and SNCF/OuiGo from Lille and try and build up a customer base.

The £39 Eurostar fares to from Paris (or Brussles) tend to be at the less popular times, and a long way in advance, well before any connecting tickets are released, so not much help if you are travelling from away from London. A more realistic fare is £60 to £100 depending on time of day and popularity. If you pick the wrong day/time then standard class one way can get into the £150 area

The question for a potential low cost operator is how much cheaper would they need to be to get people on to their trains, bearing in mind for a lot of journeys it will be less convenient. I am not going to suggest a figure because when we go to France we are more interested in comfort and convenience, so I am not sure we would have a price and we would not be there target customers, but others who may be fly or drive currently to save money would switch.

I do think ultimately this type of operation probably would succeed, as well as existing travellers using other modes of transport I think you would get new travellers as well.

 

[Gaelan]

The government are not going to want to subsidise or be seeing to pay for international travel facilities. I dont think this approach will change even with a change of government.

Not that I have any hope of it changing, but it's a completely arbitrary view. Every other European country's international road/rail links are - as far as I'm aware - publicly funded, as are the Enterprise and the track it runs on. The fact that the Channel Tunnel was privately built is a historical quirk, not the natural way of things.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Why should eurostar be mandated to use all paths for requesting that other operators get charged the same for access to the infrastructure as they do?

For reference, on the cheapest tickets eurostar regularly sells (£39 each way) about half of the price goes into channel tunnel access costs. After rolling stock, staff, and access costs on other infrastructure there can't be much left, if anything...

Because other operators could be using those paths and kickstarting more economic growth.
And I agree that a low cost operator would be unsustainable in those circumstances.
This is why Getlink/Eurotunnel need to reduce their access charges.

The problem is how, Eurostar are a commercial operation not in receipt of any subsidy, in effect they will see it as an increased cost and add it on to fares.

Even if they used one extra path only from Ebbsfleet to Brussels, they could still make a marginal profit on mid ranging fates e.g £75 per passenger in Standard, which is more reasonable.

 

[Trainbike46]

Because other operators could be using those paths and kickstarting more economic growth.
And I agree that a low cost operator would be unsustainable in those circumstances.
This is why Getlink/Eurotunnel need to reduce their access charges.

As I understand it, the unused paths are available for other operators. Evolyn/mobico (discussed on a different thread) is the closest to actually using these paths, and there are some rumblings RENFE might also start running through the channel tunnel.

Asking that all operators get charged the same is not unreasonable.

I would be in favour of reduced access charges, but they should apply to all operators equally, so including Eurostar

 

[D365]

You have to remember that within Europe mostly France, Germany and Switzerland the double deck trains are Inter-City trains within those countries for the most part. There is very few double deck trains being used on fast services either within those countries or country to country.

The reason why the double deck trains are not used, is that I believe in many places on any of the new fast lines built over the last 20 plus years, there is possible not the room for double deck trains to go through any tunnels, where as on the European classic lines, the tunnel entrances where pretty much built at twice the height almost as any of the tunnels in the UK.

you seem somewhat confused. France has loads of double-decker high-speed trains (TGV Duplex), and those run into various neigbouring countries (Definitely Belgium, Germany and Switzerland). The loading gauge certainly hasn't been reduced, so the suggestion that new lines can't fit double-deckers is not true

I certainly don't remember having my head lopped off when I arrived on a TGV Duplex at the underground Barcelona Sants station!

 

[LLivery]

If anyone knows, how does the cost of Channel Tunnel access compare with the Oresund Crossing or Gotthard Tunnel for example? Is it expensive compered to them?

 

[RobShipway]

you seem somewhat confused. France has loads of double-decker high-speed trains (TGV Duplex), and those run into various neigbouring countries (Definitely Belgium, Germany and Switzerland). The loading gauge certainly hasn't been reduced, so the suggestion that new lines can't fit double-deckers is not true

I have been trying to find the details on it, but there was a station I believe that was built in the last 10 years in France that could not accept the width of the new TGV trains passing and the height was such that it could not accept TGV Duplex trains either.

 

[D365]

I have been trying to find the details on it, but there was a station I believe that was built in the last 10 years in France that could not accept the width of the new TGV trains passing and the height was such that it could not accept TGV Duplex trains either.

Wasn't that just the hyperbole about station platforms needing to be reprofiled for new SNCF trains?

 

[Trainbike46]

I have been trying to find the details on it, but there was a station I believe that was built in the last 10 years in France that could not accept the width of the new TGV trains passing and the height was such that it could not accept TGV Duplex trains either.

Given that the SNCF is moving towards a duplex-only fleet that seems like a misrepresentation by the media

 

[zwk500]

Because other operators could be using those paths and kickstarting more economic growth.
And I agree that a low cost operator would be unsustainable in those circumstances.

Given there have been many attempts by various parties to make more services to London (one of the most desirable destinations from a commercial POV in the world) work, and yet come to nothing, I would suggest you are extremely optimistic about the chances of any operator actually being able to generate more growth.

This is why Getlink/Eurotunnel need to reduce their access charges.

Funnily enough, the charges are high because the tunnel is 1. expensive to run and 2. paying back a sackload of debt.

Even if they used one extra path only from Ebbsfleet to Brussels, they could still make a marginal profit on mid ranging fates e.g £75 per passenger in Standard, which is more reasonable.

Not once you've paid to reactivate Ebbsfleet....

 

[Bald Rick]

Even if they used one extra path only from Ebbsfleet to Brussels, they could still make a marginal profit on mid ranging fates e.g £75 per passenger in Standard, which is more reasonable.

How have you calculated that?

 

[alf]

Given there have been many attempts by various parties to make more services to London (one of the most desirable destinations from a commercial POV in the world) work, and yet come to nothing, I would suggest you are extremely optimistic about the chances of any operator actually being able to generate more growth.

Funnily enough, the charges are high because the tunnel is 1. expensive to run and 2. paying back a sackload of debt.

Filling the spare paths with more trains will increase Eurotunnel revenue.
Thus the fixed annual amount needed to repay the “sack load of debt” will be shared between more trains so that the charge per train can be reduced.
That allows operators to reduce fares & so increase demand.

On top of that, Duplex trains with higher capacity, if full, will increase the total revenue to Eurotunnel & reduce the fee per passenger due to servicing the debt.

There is no downside to filling all the paths...apart from St Pancras
capacity which can be resolved by using Ebbsfleet.

The upside is lower fares & therefore more people able to afford & enjoy continental/UK trips.

 

[Bald Rick]

Filling the spare paths with more trains will increase Eurotunnel revenue.
Thus the fixed annual amount needed to repay the “sack load of debt” will be shared between more trains so that the charge per train can be reduced.

How does more paths but reduced charge per train equal increased revenue?