Eurostar Direct St Pancras to Amsterdam

[LeeLivery]

I don't see how they intend to make that competitive with the many, many flights per day from all UK airports. They really need to extend all Brussels services to make it worthwhile.

I agree. I would have done that and have a massive marketing campaign.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Didn't the very original Waterloo-Paris/Brussels Eurostar service only start out as 2-3 trips a day? Look at it now.

Given it will take time to build a market and demand, no point running lots of trains until you've proved you can fill them.

The times that are proposed are a decent compromise to attract the target market, but absolute frequency won't be critical on a service such as Eurostar.

Fair point. Still expected a couple more trains a day, London to Amsterdam is a very popular, proven market, albeit not by train.

 

[anme]

I agree. I would have done that and have a massive marketing campaign.

You're forgetting something important. There are already good connections from Amsterdam and (especially) Rotterdam to London with a change in Brussels. The direct trains will supplement these connections. And BTW these connections are already well marketed in the Netherlands. To be honest, given the detraining required in Brussels on the way to the UK, the connections are hardly less convenient than the direct train in that direction.

Isn't it more sensible to start with a limited service to test the market, and expand later if passenger numbers justify it - especially given the UK's current political situation? Remember also that a Eurostar train carries 700-800 people, which is the equivalent of 5-6 full aircraft.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember also that a Eurostar train carries 700-800 people, which is the equivalent of 5-6 full aircraft.

To me this is the biggest design flaw in the whole Tunnel concept. It should have been designed for the operation of 5-6 car trains (tripled up if necessary) to allow the economic service of more destinations by way of portion working.

It was this that really killed Regional E* too.

 

[GingerSte]

Isn't it more sensible to start with a limited service to test the market, and expand later if passenger numbers justify it - especially given the UK's current political situation? Remember also that a Eurostar train carries 700-800 people, which is the equivalent of 5-6 full aircraft.

I agree with this. Plus I don't think the market will instantly appear on day one. It will have to be worked at. Plus, this isn't just a test of the market; it's a test of the logistics. I consider it a soft opening.

I also agree with Neil's assessment that this requirement for 400m trains is part of the problem. I believe that this is due to the cross tunnels being at 400m centres, and the need to have at least one within easy access of a train door.

I imagine that some sort of cost-benefit analysis could have been done on adding more cross tunnels. There would be a cost to digging these (bearing in mind the starts and ends of these are already in place, but with the need to work in engineering hours), and the benefit would be increased flexibility (and therefore feasibility) for shorter formations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I imagine that some sort of cost-benefit analysis could have been done on adding more cross tunnels. There would be a cost to digging these (bearing in mind the starts and ends of these are already in place, but with the need to work in engineering hours), and the benefit would be increased flexibility (and therefore feasibility) for shorter formations.

Or a less strict attitude could have been taken to this issue. Trains use tunnels the world over with far fewer evacuation opportunities. Other options, such as the provision of smoke hoods, could have been considered instead.

 

[GingerSte]

Or a less strict attitude could have been taken to this issue. Trains use tunnels the world over with far fewer evacuation opportunities. Other options, such as the provision of smoke hoods, could have been considered instead.

Agreed, but there is always a political cost to be paid for making something "less safe", even if the original requirements were far too onerous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed, but there is always a political cost to be paid for making something "less safe", even if the original requirements were far too onerous.

True. It was a serious mistake in the first place. However it was done, a setup allowing 120m trains would have been much more viable in just about every way.

 

[davetheguard]

To me this is the biggest design flaw in the whole Tunnel concept. It should have been designed for the operation of 5-6 car trains (tripled up if necessary) to allow the economic service of more destinations by way of portion working.

It was this that really killed Regional E* too.

What killed Regional Eurostar was the refusal of the British Government to allow domestic passengers to use the train as well as international ones. Trains all over the continent have operated in this way since the year dot. Even in Ireland, presumably, on the Enterprise. But not in England - can't be done!

Plus the fact that people appear to like being treated like cattle (God know's why) on certain budget airlines.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The orange airline, the one in question, doesn't these days treat you any more like cattle than E* does.

 

[anme]

To me this is the biggest design flaw in the whole Tunnel concept. It should have been designed for the operation of 5-6 car trains (tripled up if necessary) to allow the economic service of more destinations by way of portion working.

This I agree with.

The orange airline, the one in question, doesn't these days treat you any more like cattle than E* does.

And this I certainly don't.

 

[MarkyT]

Perhaps they should be honest and only offer the single seat ride outbound from London. Inbound, the enforced vacation of the train of all passengers with their luggage at the Brussels gateway means the operator could switch sets and only someone who'd noted the numbers would know, unless they swapped a Velaro for a Three Capitals! The through seat planned to be offered may be factually true but is practically meaningless if you have to get out of the vehicle with all your belongings, pass through security and immigration procedures then climb back on again. The through trains from London could trundle back from Amsterdam to Brussels as Schengen domestics. Passengers would transfer and check in via the normal procedures for the next Brussels-London service, actually no more onerous than the shuffle on and off. In compensation for the lack of a through service, perhaps greater frequency of connection could be offered instead for the London bound direction through connection between other operators domestic services and Eurostar at Brussels. Flexibility in one direction, comfort in the other. For the Dutch: Book with us to get to London whatever time is most convenient via Brussels, then on return, relax in comfort on one of our special Dutch flyer direct expresses without all the Brussels bother. To the Londoner: Whisk you to your destination as fast as possible. After the meeting/break, more flexibility to get back.

 

[swt_passenger]

I also agree with Neil's assessment that this requirement for 400m trains is part of the problem. I believe that this is due to the cross tunnels being at 400m centres, and the need to have at least one within easy access of a train door.

It was a requirement, but it isn't now, it was removed a couple of years ago. The North of London sets wouldn't have met that rule either.

 

[GingerSte]

It was a requirement, but it isn't now, it was removed a couple of years ago. The North of London sets wouldn't have met that rule either.

Thanks - I didn't realise that had been relaxed. So does this mean sets of <400 metres can be used now?

I can imagine that a few passengers will not appreciate having to disembark and then re-board. I can see some refusing to move, and causing delays for everyone else!

 

[eastwestdivide]

Thanks - I didn't realise that had been relaxed. So does this mean sets of <400 metres can be used now?
...

I imagine there's a financial disincentive to operate short trains through the tunnel, as the tunnel would surely charge per path, rather than by length of train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thanks - I didn't realise that had been relaxed. So does this mean sets of <400 metres can be used now?

If that's true, I'm in a way surprised E*'s new trains weren't half-sets.

 

[coppercapped]

Thanks - I didn't realise that had been relaxed. So does this mean sets of <400 metres can be used now?

I can imagine that a few passengers will not appreciate having to disembark and then re-board. I can see some refusing to move, and causing delays for everyone else!

There is something very odd about the alleged 400m train length requirement.

In the early days of the construction of the tunnel there was considerable publicity about the emergency passages to the service tunnel and the pressure relief shafts between the running tunnels. The requirement that only 400m long trains could use the tunnel was never publicised until, IIRC, Eurostar started talking to Siemens and Alstom had its nose put out of joint.

In any case the NoL Eurostars, being shorter, would never - from the beginning - have met the 400m length requirement and the fare paying HGV drivers in the one passenger coach in the lorry shuttles would, at worst, have been 200m from the nearest passage.

Something doesn't seem right!

As for paying for transit - the original agreement had BR paying per path through the tunnel. Of course, in those days the cost would have been much lower since it wasn't then known that the tunnel would turn out costing some 80% more than estimated. I suspect that the payment model is still per path, but there might be a variation for axle load and bogie suspension properties.

Still, with the high fixed cost of using the tunnel, it seems unlikely that shorter trains would be economic. Which is a Catch 22 situation as it makes a lot of sense to build a market with shorter, and therefore cheaper, trains.

 

[NicholasNCE]

The rolling stock requirements for the Channel Tunnel are published by the Intergovernmental Commission and are available ont their website here: http://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/s...2013_07_29_NRD_CT_rules_approved_by_IGC_1.pdf

The details of access fees are available in the Eurotunnel network statement: http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uplo...Operations/Railways/DRR_NS_2016_EN_Final1.pdf

Here's a quote from it:

This regime is based on a combination of two elements:
- the reservation fee is paid by any RU which has booked a Eurotunnel train path or train paths and
varies according to the scheduled time of use (off-peak, intermediate, peak, evening peak or
maintenance period) as set out in table 2 below.
- the access fee per passenger is paid by every RU for actual operation of its trains on
Eurotunnel’s common section.

The notion of an access fee per passenger is quite unique as far as I know and whilst rather hefty (currently €8.45 + £6.79) does have the advantage of significantly reducing fixed costs.
Considering the previous quote, I don't believe the length or weight of trains are taken into account in the access fee calculation, unlike NR. This wouldn't be unique as for example SNCF Réseau doesn't either take these parameters into account.

So in effect, it would cost a TOC the same to run a half-empty 800-seat train or a full 400-seat train through the tunnel.

 

[33Hz]

This is exactly why Deutsche Bahn fought for the 400m requirement, if it ever existed, to be relaxed. What was agreed is they could run two 200m trains in multiple. Their concept was to run two units from London, split them in Brussels with one running to Amsterdam and the other to Frankfurt, and vice-versa. Only one tunnel path was needed. A much more sensible option for the likely loadings that are going to be seen on these routes.

I've done the Marseilles-London Eurostar which does exactly the same complete detraining process at Lille Europe. It's horrible. You queue with 800 other pax and when you do get inside the check-in there is no business lounge and a rather sterile, cold seating area to wait in. Then when they call you back you are trying to get down the one escalator with the same 800 pax. In future I would undoubtedly go back to the cross-Paris transfer or direct to Lille Europe TGV, where I have more choice on time and price.

Plus if you have a business first ticket or carte blanche you can check in to a regular Eurostar with 10 minutes to spare, so in fact this new route wastes even more time with less choice. The existing arrangement means I can leave Holland later (doing a full day's work), have enough time to get something hot to eat in Brussels and still get back to London at a reasonable time.

 

[33Hz]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...m-trains-despite-passenger-fall-a3386921.html

 

[Groningen]

As long as the British Pound will fall and fall. If it rises again that the tourists will stay at home.

 

[Goldfish62]

The indicative timetable shows a 28 minute stop at Brussels inbound. This is surely not enough time to detrain and process passengers. Does this not suggest that there is a different plan from the Lille fiasco on the Marseilles service?

 

[Groningen]

Currently the change from Amsterdam to London in Brussel is around 50 minutes. When the change in Lille it is less than 40 minutes.

 

[eastwestdivide]

The indicative timetable shows a 28 minute stop at Brussels inbound. This is surely not enough time to detrain and process passengers. Does this not suggest that there is a different plan from the Lille fiasco on the Marseilles service?

Probably not enough time for a full trainload. However, the Amsterdam services are essentially extensions of the Brussels services, so I guess they aren't expecting full loads from NL through to London, and many seats, perhaps the great majority, will be filled by passengers starting in Brussels or Lille.

 

[JonathanP]

I don't know what the source is, but the Man in Seat 61 has posted about the security arrangements for the new service, and it seems like they are going to go to much more trouble than just the easy way out of de-training at Lille.

Apparently, passport and luggage checks will be done before boarding at each Dutch station.
This means needing space to do the checks and a segragated platform at these stations, and presumably UK border staff working there, which I thought UKBA had said they weren't prepared to expand to any additional locations.

From Amsterdam to Brussels one half of the train will be used for international passengers, and the other for domestic, then at Brussels the domestic half will be cleared and filled with Brussels - London passengers. So not only do they need to do checks at the stations, they also need to make sure no-one sneaks on to the "wrong" portion of the train or stows away at Brussels - given the general hyper-paranoid attitude of Eurostar security, and surrounding high speed rail travel in general at the moment this seems impressively adventurous to me!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the other railways are a little more receptive to the idea of airport style security now, though, as the Governments seem to be wanting it for Thalys. Given this, having it for both makes it much less of an overhead.

 

[stut]

presumably UK border staff working there, which I thought UKBA had said they weren't prepared to expand to any additional locations.

Unless they're doing a Kastrup style private pre-boarding inspection, followed by UKBF at St Pancras.

 

[AndrewNewens]

Unless they're doing a Kastrup style private pre-boarding inspection, followed by UKBF at St Pancras.

Is 'Kastrup style' the security bit, ie checking baggage and person for concealed weapons/explosives etc? And is it just lack of space that prevents in-bound immigration checks from being conducted at St P?

It seems to make intuitive sense to do in-bound AND out-bound immigration checks in London or maybe simply install electronic passport checks at continental stations.

I bet G4S or some other security company would be happy to take on the job at continental stations if HM customs cannot be bothered to.

Let's just get some more direct trains as soon as possible.

 

[jon0844]

When you have the exit checks at St Pancras, I know the French are 'real' but isn't it just agency staff with phones doing the British checks?

I can imagine it being easy to outsource the basic checks abroad, and then do 'proper' checks back in the UK.

Bag checks and metal detection is something anyone can do, and if it's like StP then it isn't very thorough compared to an airport.

 

[stut]

Is 'Kastrup style' the security bit, ie checking baggage and person for concealed weapons/explosives etc? And is it just lack of space that prevents in-bound immigration checks from being conducted at St P?

It seems to make intuitive sense to do in-bound AND out-bound immigration checks in London or maybe simply install electronic passport checks at continental stations.

I bet G4S or some other security company would be happy to take on the job at continental stations if HM customs cannot be bothered to.

Let's just get some more direct trains as soon as possible.

Sorry, should have been more explicit. 'Kastrup style' is having agency staff check immigration status, without formally admitting the person to the country. This fulfils the carrier's obligation to check passengers' eligibility to enter the country before departure, and has nothing to do with security.

The setup should be easy at Amsterdam CS, as track 15 is used for international services, and deliberately set up to be isolable (e.g. for Thalys screening).

 

[stut]

When you have the exit checks at St Pancras, I know the French are 'real' but isn't it just agency staff with phones doing the British checks?

IIRC the British checks aren't checks as such, as we don't have formal emigration checks save for special circumstances (e.g. football tournaments). They're more of a data gathering exercise, in the same way that APIS is used by the airlines.