Is Eurostar a Wasted Opportunity?

[edwin_m]

Presently, no. However, if the stock was sweated more on the Brussels/Amsterdam route (i.e. at the moment, the Amsterdam arrival is at 1312 and leaves again 1648, most 1005 arrivals in Brussels form the 1252 departure), I'd say 2-3 trains to Geneva a day would be plausible.

I suspect that will be driven by the need to provide extra trains at Brussels during business peaks. Re-diagramming to squeeze out enough train time in one block to get it to Geneva and back would almost certainly threaten the prime time London-Brussels trains which are one of the main sources of revenue, in favour of something which is going to be infrequent and slower than flying so unlikely to attract many business users.

The last time I travelled from St Pancras, there was a new hair salon in the departures area

I have visions of people stepping off the train in Paris with curlers still in their hair because the train was called before their appointment was finished.

 

[KingJ]

There’s not much demand London to Lyon; the air market supports 5-7 daily flights all year round, much of which is business, which is more frequency sensitive.

This is completely anecdotal, but I took Eurostar to and from Lyon a couple of months back - the direct service was completely full. Now, i'm sure the SNCF strikes disrupting travel on adjacent days may have pushed up loading, but the demand was certainly there.

Having costed getting door to door, Eurostar turned out to be slightly cheaper than flying and honestly was a far nicer experience. A whole 15 minutes from alighting from a domestic service at Ashford to chilling in the departure lounge was lovely - far far better than the hassle of getting to the airport and a much more comfortable journey overall - plenty of legroom, freedom to move around etc.

Admittedly, my experience on the way back wasn't so great - there was no direct service on that day so a change between Paris Gare-du-Lyon and Paris Gare-du-Nord was required which on the face of things didn't seem too problematic - except for the fact that a fatality on the LGV Sud-Est meant that we switched on to the old Paris-Marseille line at Vergigny, which was much slower and meant we missed our onward connection. However, at all times all of the staff were helpful and we were able to get on the next available service (the delay compensation was welcome too).

It's not put me off Eurostar overall though - the plane might be quicker purely in terms of time from take off to landing, but the train was very competitive door to door, far less hassle and much more comfortable. I'd probably try and go for a direct train all the way, or if a change is required at least changing at Lille instead of crossing Paris.

Anyhou, all anecdotal but i'm sure i'm far from the only person who would prefer it for these reasons!

 

[Bald Rick]

Those Tarentaise Valley resorts served by Eurostar account for 1300km of pistes - Les Trois Vallées, Espace Killy and Paradiski are individually some of the largest skiiable areas in Europe. The value of the ski train is that these resorts really aren't that far away from the railhead - in Les Arcs' case, you can take a funicular straight from the station in Bourg up to Arc 1600 - so there's minimal extra time required to get to the slopes. Sending a train anywhere else is going to be less useful for most people, since the resorts would still require a lengthy transfer, and it would be less efficient to serve more resorts with a smaller number of prospective passengers.

I know, I’ve been to them all. However, Les Portes du Soleil is the biggest ski area in Europe, and generally, people fly to Geneva to get there. The transfer from Geneva airport to Les Gets is actually about the same time wise as Moûtiers to Val Thorens (in my experience).

My point is that there’s around 8-9,000 people who fly from London to Geneva airport each winter Saturday, and vice versa. And at popular times, eg half term, the fares are astronomical. We are 6 months out, and the cheapest easyJet fare from London to Geneva on the morning of the first Saturday of February half term is £350 (one way) assuming you want to take a big bag. If you want the 0810 off Gatwick (arriving Geneva around 1100) it’s nearly twice that. The average across all airlines is nearly £500.

For many of the people flying to Geneva it would be quicker to get to St Pancras than to Gatwick / Stansted / Luton / Heathrow / City / Southend, and with a much shorter check in and a quicker exit the other end, then even with the same transfer the door to door time will be roughly similar. And clearly Eurostar is a much better travelling experience. I cautiously suggest it would be more reliable also. (My easyJet record to GVA is around 70% PPM, with the other 30% leading to a full refund if they played by the same rules as U.K. National Rail).

I’d say they could easily charge £150 one way at quiet times, £300-400 at busy times, and with the right promotion could get half the current market (and expand it). That’s over £1m per Saturday, £2m on the busy dates. Not a bad return on 4-5 diagrams of stock with 2 sets of crew each for a day (plus the access charges of course).

As ever, border control will get in the way. If only this country could grow a pair.

 

[DPWH]

I've said elsewhere that what I think Eurostar needs to develop is more direct high speed lines.

Specifically, a Y-shaped line starting at Antwerp, bypassing Brussels to the west, with a stop at Ghent after which there'd be a branch to Calais and a branch to the existing triangular junction to the east of Lille. That could get London-Amsterdam trains down to 3 hours and allow more capacity through Brussels.

Secondly, perhaps more ambitiously, a base tunnel under the Sonian Forest would allow Brussels to be bypassed to the South-East as well, allowing more direct London-Cologne trains.

Yes, of course Eurostar doesn't have the means to construct new high speed lines, and I never suggested it should! I don't know where you got that idea from.

From a strategic point of view the Belgians only seem interested in journeys from Brussels to other places within a rather narrowly defined sphere. Other journeys, e.g. Paris-Amsterdam, London-Amsterdam, London-Cologne and Paris-Cologne are not catered for and all needlessly trundle at low speed through the middle of Brussels because there are no alternative routes. The line from Brussels to Antwerp is also rather trundly.

Any new lines would have to come from the places that benefit from them. Mostly this isn't Belgium, but the France/the UK/the Netherlands and Germany. And there is an organisation called the EU which funds infrastructure projects. The Belgians would however benefit from direct Thalys trains from Paris-Amsterdam stopping in Ghent, so Ghent gets high speed connections direct to Paris, Amsterdam and London. But also because they could run more local trains through Brussels if international trains don't have to run through.

 

[edwin_m]

Any new lines would have to come from the places that benefit from them. Mostly this isn't Belgium, but the France/the UK/the Netherlands and Germany. And there is an organisation called the EU which funds infrastructure projects. The Belgians would however benefit from direct Thalys trains from Paris-Amsterdam stopping in Ghent, so Ghent gets high speed connections direct to Paris, Amsterdam and London. But also because they could run more local trains through Brussels if international trains don't have to run through.

You may have noticed the UK is leaving the EU. So good luck in getting the EU to fund something that benefits the UK...

The Belgians would have to be heavily involved in planning a line in their own country, including managing the objections and the regional poltics that affects every project. And the result would probably be fewer services calling at Brussels, with no significant counter-benefit to anywhere else in Belgium. Why would they?

 

[telstarbox]

What's the big draw in Cologne that would support a direct service from London?

 

[Journeyman]

What's the big draw in Cologne that would support a direct service from London?

The Haribo shop!

Serious answer is it's a huge tourist and business magnet and located near many other major German destinations.

 

[chooey]

What's the big draw in Cologne that would support a direct service from London?

There are lots of sleepers (and non-sleepers if that's your thing) to the rest of Europe from there. Not that I expect that's a large market.

 

[coppercapped]

Yes, of course Eurostar doesn't have the means to construct new high speed lines, and I never suggested it should! I don't know where you got that idea from.

SNIPPED

Because your first sentence

I've said elsewhere that what I think Eurostar needs to develop is more direct high speed lines.

was ambiguous. It can be parsed to mean that Eurostar should develop, i.e., plan and build, the routes.

Also the EU does not fund all the costs of new infrastructure. It will supply a proportion of the costs under certain circumstances if the improvement is to one of the EU's designated international corridors. If the proposal does not map to one of these the EU will not cough up. In any event, if the development is in one of the member states which is a net contributor to the EU's budget, such as Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, France, Belgium and a couple of others - all the EU funding means is that these countries get the money they have paid to Brussels back so there is no net benefit.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Cologne is a reasonable choice, but better is a continuation to Dusseldorf given the level of business located along the Rhine.

 

[Clip]

Cologne is a reasonable choice, but better is a continuation to Dusseldorf given the level of business located along the Rhine.

Surely Frankfurt would be even better because of the links with the finance world?

 

[telstarbox]

I know, I’ve been to them all. However, Les Portes du Soleil is the biggest ski area in Europe, and generally, people fly to Geneva to get there. The transfer from Geneva airport to Les Gets is actually about the same time wise as Moûtiers to Val Thorens (in my experience).

My point is that there’s around 8-9,000 people who fly from London to Geneva airport each winter Saturday, and vice versa. And at popular times, eg half term, the fares are astronomical. We are 6 months out, and the cheapest easyJet fare from London to Geneva on the morning of the first Saturday of February half term is £350 (one way) assuming you want to take a big bag. If you want the 0810 off Gatwick (arriving Geneva around 1100) it’s nearly twice that. The average across all airlines is nearly £500.

For many of the people flying to Geneva it would be quicker to get to St Pancras than to Gatwick / Stansted / Luton / Heathrow / City / Southend, and with a much shorter check in and a quicker exit the other end, then even with the same transfer the door to door time will be roughly similar. And clearly Eurostar is a much better travelling experience. I cautiously suggest it would be more reliable also. (My easyJet record to GVA is around 70% PPM, with the other 30% leading to a full refund if they played by the same rules as U.K. National Rail).

I’d say they could easily charge £150 one way at quiet times, £300-400 at busy times, and with the right promotion could get half the current market (and expand it). That’s over £1m per Saturday, £2m on the busy dates. Not a bad return on 4-5 diagrams of stock with 2 sets of crew each for a day (plus the access charges of course).

As ever, border control will get in the way. If only this country could grow a pair.

I've not been skiing but would you say the punters are less price sensitive than say people going for a week or two in Spain, as the accomodation / skiing itself doesn't come cheap? I've never seen an easyJet fare above £100 before!

Also is it just as easy to put ski gear on a designated train as it is to handle via an airport?

 

[jopsuk]

I've never seen an easyJet fare above £100 before!

How sheltered! I booked in April to fly to Corfu at the end of June; I flew on Fridays each way as that brought the fares below £100 each, if I'd gone on the Saturday it would have been more than £200 each way

 

[cle]

Cologne and Frankfurt loooks good on the map, but I did always wonder if it’d be as poultry given less leisure demand and that business targeted flights are so frequent, and from all over the South East.

One advantage Eurostar has, as seen with Amsterdam, is that they can skip places like Antwerp and Schiphol, or Aachen/Liege, without much political scrutiny, so can perhaps compete on the ground on speed.

If only the Brussels-Antwerp stretch wasn’t such a state. And the final chug into Centraal. 3h30 would be nice to hit.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Surely Frankfurt would be even better because of the links with the finance world?

Yes and no. Cologne to Dusseldorf is a very short distance. Frankfurt is much further so arguably the journey times could be less competitive?

{Edit} Frankfurt also gets a plentiful supply of flights including from London City. Dusseldorf however is less so - I believe only two flights a day from City Airport operated by British Airways and the morning flight isn't at the best of times.

 

[Clip]

Yes and no. Cologne to Dusseldorf is a very short distance. Frankfurt is much further so arguably the journey times could be less competitive?

{Edit} Frankfurt also gets a plentiful supply of flights including from London City. Dusseldorf however is less so - I believe only two flights a day from City Airport operated by British Airways and the morning flight isn't at the best of times.

If it doesn't get a lot of flights it shows demand is not there - with Frankfurt you could get a nice mix of tourism and business - there was when i took the train to it a few years back but it will never match the plane on timings thats for sure - not many places will

 

[Bletchleyite]

How sheltered! I booked in April to fly to Corfu at the end of June; I flew on Fridays each way as that brought the fares below £100 each, if I'd gone on the Saturday it would have been more than £200 each way

I used to weekly commute to Switzerland, and I'd book flights about 3 months in one go[1] and well in advance.

I tended to get £19, £29, £19, £29[2], £270, £280, £19, £29, £19....

It wasn't hard to work out when it was half term.

[1] It used to be the case that if one flight on the booking (of about 12 return flights) was disrupted the whole thing became changeable for free, which was useful. I think they've now fixed that, sadly.

[2] The £29 (out)/£19 (return) difference being UK Air Passenger Duty at the time.

 

[Bald Rick]

I've not been skiing but would you say the punters are less price sensitive than say people going for a week or two in Spain, as the accomodation / skiing itself doesn't come cheap? I've never seen an easyJet fare above £100 before!

Also is it just as easy to put ski gear on a designated train as it is to handle via an airport?

I wouldn’t say less price sensitive, but the main leg travel forms a relatively small part of the holiday cost. Particularly with the euro as it is now. The days of getting to Geneva and back with bags for £80 are long gone, but even at £150 return it’s probably only about 20% of the holiday. A week’s ski pass and kit hire (if you need it) will be over £400, and then food and drinks are all at mountain prices - the beer is typically £7 a pint+.

It is much easier to get ski gear on the train. And most importantly it’s free. With easyJet it’s an extra £37 each way. And if you want a seperate hold bag that can be up to another £30 each way. It’s more with Ryanair’s obviously. BA and Swissair allow you to take skis / snowboards up to a certain size as your hold baggage allowance (if your ticket has that; basic BA fares don’t).

 

[BananaRepublic]

About 3 or 4 years ago, I used to attend various meetings in Frankfurt.
My colleagues from Belgium and from Paris invariably chose to fly from Brussels and Paris to Frankfurt for the meetings, rather than use the high speed train network.

I questioned a couple of my Belgian friends about the rail option and they said it was quicker to drive to Brussels airport, than travel into the centre of Brussels to catch the train.
The train journey (Brussels - Frankfurt) is just over 3 hours, compared to a 1 hour flight and even allowing for turning up in good time to negotiate themselves through security and the airport complex, it was still much quicker to fly.
Like most travellers, they checked in online and only had a cabin bag and laptop bag/case.
The meeting location was a similar distance in time from both the Frankfurt railway station and airport.
It also made it possible to travel out and back on the same day, for the one day meetings, or if certain individuals were only there for the day.

I don't know how many business travellers would be enticed to spend an even longer time on the train from London to Frankfurt (5 hours each way), especially if departing from home where it may be just as easy, or easier, to get to the airport than into central London and St. Pancras Int.

DB looked at this and concluded there wasn't a worthwhile market.

 

[Bromley boy]

OFF TOPIC, but watch this...!

Brilliant! Many thanks for posting this.

 

[edwin_m]

About 3 or 4 years ago, I used to attend various meetings in Frankfurt.
My colleagues from Belgium and from Paris invariably chose to fly from Brussels and Paris to Frankfurt for the meetings, rather than use the high speed train network.

I questioned a couple of my Belgian friends about the rail option and they said it was quicker to drive to Brussels airport, than travel into the centre of Brussels to catch the train.
The train journey (Brussels - Frankfurt) is just over 3 hours, compared to a 1 hour flight and even allowing for turning up in good time to negotiate themselves through security and the airport complex, it was still much quicker to fly.
Like most travellers, they checked in online and only had a cabin bag and laptop bag/case.
The meeting location was a similar distance in time from both the Frankfurt railway station and airport.
It also made it possible to travel out and back on the same day, for the one day meetings, or if certain individuals were only there for the day.

I don't know how many business travellers would be enticed to spend an even longer time on the train from London to Frankfurt (5 hours each way), especially if departing from home where it may be just as easy, or easier, to get to the airport than into central London and St. Pancras Int.

DB looked at this and concluded there wasn't a worthwhile market.

Your example is a little unusual in that the destination was equally accessible from the airport - a lot of business trips end in a city centre even if they start in a suburb.
It's a general rule of thumb that if the train can achieve a 3hr journey time it will win most of the custom from air, but I agree 5hr is beyond the limit for most business travellers. However I do sometimes point out that I can travel to central Glasgow by train in around 6hr door to door, and about 3hr by air, but if I take the train I do about four hours work on the way and if I fly I do virtually nothing productive.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Your example is a little unusual in that the destination was equally accessible from the airport - a lot of business trips end in a city centre even if they start in a suburb.......

Not unusual at all.
There are a large number of company offices, headquarters and businesses around the periphery of the city and the autobahn routes from the airport provide fairly quick access.
In addition, if going to the city centre, there are frequent trains between the airport and Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof, which take something like just 11 minutes to get there.

If lots of Belgian and French business people prefer to fly from Brussels and Paris to Frankfurt (there are lots of flights per day), then I think it's fair to question whether business travellers from London will be tempted to switch to an even longer train journey.

 

[cle]

It really is a mix. Bigger urban areas will have clusters, dotted around plus notably close to the airports - as well as a city centre. And it depends where you are leaving from - most people leave for business trips from home, but not always.

I doubt anyone visiting RB who are based at Schiphol will switch to the train for example. But Clifford Chance - Centraal is great for the train. But conversely, they are in Canary Wharf on the London end, so City Airport is really easy if leaving from work. But suppose you live in Islington? St Pancras is great.

Every example will have pros and cons, and only a few of the most important European business cities really throw up these dilemmas - hence the talk of SNCF extending the LGV to La Defense, and having Eurostar there - which is poorly located for both airports and also Gare du Nord.

 

[edwin_m]

The 3hr "rule of thumb" I mentioned has been demonstrated to be valid on various high speed routes across Europe. It is the basis of the journey time target for extending high speed running to Scotland. Perhaps Frankfurt is an exception having unusually good orbital links?

 

[Altnabreac]

The 3hr "rule of thumb" I mentioned has been demonstrated to be valid on various high speed routes across Europe. It is the basis of the journey time target for extending high speed running to Scotland. Perhaps Frankfurt is an exception having unusually good orbital links?

I think broadly two hours is where "most" of the market can be won from air and the only remaining air routes will be primarily aimed at interlining. 3 hours is where rail is strongly competitive and will likely get somewhere in the region of 50-75% market share depending on other circumstances in the target markets.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think broadly two hours is where "most" of the market can be won from air and the only remaining air routes will be primarily aimed at interlining. 3 hours is where rail is strongly competitive and will likely get somewhere in the region of 50-75% market share depending on other circumstances in the target markets.

Agreed. Although for 3hr journeys the rail share will be 100% depending on the air competition (London - Plymouth being an excellent example).

It’s interesting that Air France has yet to contract its Paris - Bordeaux route significantly since the LGV SEA opened. 15 flights a day, compared to only 8 to on the Paris - Lyon route, with similar journey times, and the latter with (I think) a bigger market.

Perhaps a good example is Marseille and Nice from Paris on weekdays; flight times are approximately the same.

The former has 16 TGVs (taking around 3h15) and 18 flights a day.
The latter has 9 TGVs (taking around 6h, although I thought it was nearer 5h), and 30 flights for what is a smaller market.

From those numbers it looks like SNCF have around 60-70% of the market for Marseille, and 20-30% of the Nice market.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair if you wanted to go from London - Amsterdam I suspect most would probably still fly. The end to end journey isn’t quick (or cheap!) enough to be fully competitive with air.

I found it fifty quid each way (which is exactly what the rest of my party paid by air).

 

[cle]

Agreed. Although for 3hr journeys the rail share will be 100% depending on the air competition (London - Plymouth being an excellent example).

It’s interesting that Air France has yet to contract its Paris - Bordeaux route significantly since the LGV SEA opened. 15 flights a day, compared to only 8 to on the Paris - Lyon route, with similar journey times, and the latter with (I think) a bigger market.

Perhaps a good example is Marseille and Nice from Paris on weekdays; flight times are approximately the same.

The former has 16 TGVs (taking around 3h15) and 18 flights a day.
The latter has 9 TGVs (taking around 6h, although I thought it was nearer 5h), and 30 flights for what is a smaller market.

From those numbers it looks like SNCF have around 60-70% of the market for Marseille, and 20-30% of the Nice market.

Nice airport is a much larger market than Marseille airport. It’s the most important and busiest French airport outside of Paris. The train will play some small domestic part in that, but it’s more due to the area it serves (rather than city of Marseille v city of Nice specifically)

 

[CMS]

I suspect that will be driven by the need to provide extra trains at Brussels during business peaks. Re-diagramming to squeeze out enough train time in one block to get it to Geneva and back would almost certainly threaten the prime time London-Brussels trains which are one of the main sources of revenue, in favour of something which is going to be infrequent and slower than flying so unlikely to attract many business users.

That's a very good point and I do agree with it. I feel that Brussels and Lille could be "de-prioritised" once Amsterdam services ramp up and if Bordeaux/Geneva ever got the go ahead. Most worryingly is that NS have said that any third or fourth train from NL would be set-down Brussels only then fast to London. If that caused significant service gaps at Brussels/Lille, that would really not go down well, especially since Lille is losing its Thalys and the last train on Sundays is 1930 since the start of Amsterdam trains. The Mayor wrote to the French government about it and there was a protest by commuters recently, I don't think that has changed anything though. https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/tra...e-contre-la-suppression-des-thalys-1520931219

I have visions of people stepping off the train in Paris with curlers still in their hair because the train was called before their appointment was finished.

It looked very out of place, but there was one person using it. No curlers visible.

Yes, of course Eurostar doesn't have the means to construct new high speed lines, and I never suggested it should! I don't know where you got that idea from.

From a strategic point of view the Belgians only seem interested in journeys from Brussels to other places within a rather narrowly defined sphere. Other journeys, e.g. Paris-Amsterdam, London-Amsterdam, London-Cologne and Paris-Cologne are not catered for and all needlessly trundle at low speed through the middle of Brussels because there are no alternative routes. The line from Brussels to Antwerp is also rather trundly.

Any new lines would have to come from the places that benefit from them. Mostly this isn't Belgium, but the France/the UK/the Netherlands and Germany. And there is an organisation called the EU which funds infrastructure projects. The Belgians would however benefit from direct Thalys trains from Paris-Amsterdam stopping in Ghent, so Ghent gets high speed connections direct to Paris, Amsterdam and London. But also because they could run more local trains through Brussels if international trains don't have to run through.

Thalys used to go to Ostende via Ghent and Bruges but was withdrawn. Also, it would actually be quicker if a Tourcoing TGV was back-projected into Ghent but idea has never come to fruition. Thalys also had a train per day which avoided Brussels, running instead via Charleroi but that was also axed. A reminded that both Thalys and Eurostar offer tickets to 'Any Belgian Station' which, at least for now is a very good option for customers. Of course, no country would agree to having high speed lines storimg through their land with zero benefit to them. Belgium needs to sort out Brussels-Mechelen-Antwerp before it worries about cutting down cross-European journey times.

The train journey (Brussels - Frankfurt) is just over 3 hours, compared to a 1 hour flight and even allowing for turning up in good time to negotiate themselves through security and the airport complex, it was still much quicker to fly.

I still think the train is a good option though. I always think it's bizarre that there are so many Brussels-Schiphol flights given that Thalys does it quicker. Form an environmental perspective, flights like these should be banned. The service level is not great out of Brussels on ICEs though, an extra 2 per day would claw some market share for sure.

I don't know how many business travellers would be enticed to spend an even longer time on the train from London to Frankfurt (5 hours each way), especially if departing from home where it may be just as easy, or easier, to get to the airport than into central London and St. Pancras Int.

DB looked at this and concluded there wasn't a worthwhile market.

I do agree with you here. If it was worth it, DB would have done it for sure by now, especially with all the Eurotunnel paperwork they did. If they sat down with Eurostar and looked at how to market the route as a quality through-connecting-service via Brussels, it would do better.

Every example will have pros and cons, and only a few of the most important European business cities really throw up these dilemmas - hence the talk of SNCF extending the LGV to La Defense, and having Eurostar there - which is poorly located for both airports and also Gare du Nord.

To my knowledge, that plan was scrapped along with LGV Normandie by the government, with the priority going to Grand Paris Express to improve La Défense connectivity. The RER E extension will also be a great boost for La Défense, just a shame that Crossrail can't get to Ebbsfleet so that Canary Wharf-La Défense would be doable within 3 hours.

 

[Groningen]

You have to love Eurostar (source: Seat61).

Yet another email from an Italy to London passenger punished for choosing to go by rail. Eurostar charged her a whopping £250 on top of the ticket she’d already bought to get her home - for the crime of being delayed between Italy & Paris.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You have to love Eurostar (source: Seat61).

Yet another email from an Italy to London passenger punished for choosing to go by rail. Eurostar charged her a whopping £250 on top of the ticket she’d already bought to get her home - for the crime of being delayed between Italy & Paris.

Did she have a CIV ticket, and did she leave the required connection time (and checkin time) between the trains she had intended to take?