RENFE considering London to Barcelona (and perhaps beyond) services

[Chester1]

I can't see the route being viable until the whole line is high speed. That might just about enable one return journey per day and a service frequency like the Eurostar Marseille service. London - Milan is probably similar. I can't see any UK government supporting Schengen, if we where to rejoin the EU at some point then a lot of political capital would be put into requesting some sort of associate membership of Schengen for UK (if Ireland agreed), to retain border controls.

Until such time that our country grows a pair and joins Schengen, there wont be any long distance (over 7hrs) trains from London.

Ireland effectively has a veto over UK membership of Schengen for as long as Northern Ireland is part of the UK. I think they would have joined if UK had pre migrant crisis but would have little interest now. In the event of a United Ireland either country could join seperately but the politics of that would be fraught.

 

[AlbertBeale]

I can't see the route being viable until the whole line is high speed. That might just about enable one return journey per day and a service frequency like the Eurostar Marseille service. London - Milan is probably similar. I can't see any UK government supporting Schengen, if we where to rejoin the EU at some point then a lot of political capital would be put into requesting some sort of associate membership of Schengen for UK (if Ireland agreed), to retain border controls.



Ireland effectively has a veto over UK membership of Schengen for as long as Northern Ireland is part of the UK. I think they would have joined if UK had pre migrant crisis but would have little interest now. In the event of a United Ireland either country could join seperately but the politics of that would be fraught.

Having one of GB/UK and (all of) Ireland in Schengen and the other not would mean scrapping the Common Travel Area, which predates anything to do with EU-style link-ups and is a result of the historic to-ing and fro-ing between these islands (and the CI and IoM too are part of it of course). There would be major social/cultural/political reasons against losing that interconnectedness. Hence I'd say Schengen for these islands would be all or nothing - and until migration issues recede (and the opposite is likely given the state of the world), then it's nothing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Your market share comment may be accurate, but it's a fallacy that a 'flight takes less than two hours' if one is measuring door-to-door times.

With the TGV, one could arrive at its Paris or Barcelona stations (notwithstanding luggage check at latter) say 20 minutes before scheduled departure (in Paris, the barrier gates never seem to open much more than 15 minutes prior), so let's say 30-40 minutes to be on the safe side.

With air, one might have to arrive 1.5 to 2 hours prior to scheduled departure.

While not everyone is bound for the CBDs of cities, airports also tend to have lengthy travelling times to reach or leave. That's additional total journey time as well.

I dont think anything I said contradicts that.

For me, personally (other opinions apply!) whilst I treat door to door time as the key measure I also place value on some variety. For example being on the same train for 6 hours is really quite a drag, but being on a train for one hour, airports for two hours, plane for hour and a half, train an hour and a half the other end is more baried and therefore less boring. i know others dont see it this way.

 

[AdamWW]

Your market share comment may be accurate, but it's a fallacy that a 'flight takes less than two hours' if one is measuring door-to-door times.

With the TGV, one could arrive at its Paris or Barcelona stations (notwithstanding luggage check at latter) say 20 minutes before scheduled departure (in Paris, the barrier gates never seem to open much more than 15 minutes prior), so let's say 30-40 minutes to be on the safe side.

With air, one might have to arrive 1.5 to 2 hours prior to scheduled departure.

While not everyone is bound for the CBDs of cities, airports also tend to have lengthy travelling times to reach or leave. That's additional total journey time as well.

And that's for people travelling between cities with direct flights.

The train can be even more attractive if one end of the journey is at or near an intermediate stop.

To me also matters how you spend the time.

I'd much prefer to settle into a train and have an uninterrupted journey to read/use my laptop/look out of the window/whatever than the experience at an airport of multiple stages of queuing and waiting around even if the door to door time is quicker.

And I don't think I have ever seen comparisons of flight vs rail time include time spent waiting for luggage to appear on a carousel either. Not everybody can or wishes to travel with only what can be taken into an aircraft cabin (especially as the rules can be quite strict nowadays).

 

[railfan99]

To me also matters how you spend the time.

I'd much prefer to settle into a train and have an uninterrupted journey to read/use my laptop/look out of the window/whatever than the experience at an airport of multiple stages of queuing and waiting around even if the door to door time is quicker.

Great point, to which we can add what can be the slow, or peeving, security experience at airports worldwide, especially medium sized to larger ones. Plus in Europe, some el cheapo airlines make an art form of not conveying us between the closest airport to a major city: in some cases these can be 40-60 kilometres from a CBD.

On short distance air trips, one can be treated like cattle. On rail, one can as you say engage in multiple activities and stroll around, or visit the buffet/dining car. Try walking up and down the aisle of an A320 or B738: always blocked with attendants or those queuing for the loos.

 

[AdamWW]

For me, personally (other opinions apply!) whilst I treat door to door time as the key measure I also place value on some variety. For example being on the same train for 6 hours is really quite a drag, but being on a train for one hour, airports for two hours, plane for hour and a half, train an hour and a half the other end is more baried and therefore less boring. i know others dont see it this way.

Interesting. I hadn't read your comment when I posted mine about preferring to sit on a train for the whole journey.

Though my point was not so much about changing modes as how time is spent in airports.

Sitting on a train can be productive or relaxing. Queuing to drop off luggage, queuing again for security, waiting for the gate to be announced, waiting at the gate until boarding (then sometimes standing in another queue because "boarding" doesn't actually mean that), then at the other end waiting for luggage to turn up is neither of those in my experience.

 

[edwin_m]

Even though the centre to centre time might be around five hours for a two-hour flight, it's still a lot less than a train journey that takes all day.

 

[AdamWW]

Even though the centre to centre time might be around five hours for a two-hour flight, it's still a lot less than a train journey that takes all day.

The original comment was a reponse to:

Paris - Barcelona 2 x direct trains a day, taking 6.5-7hrs, vs around 16 flights a day taking less than 2hrs

I would argue that this is not making an accurate comparison because you would need to get to the airport somewhat earlier before the flight than you would at a station for a train even allowing for security at the station, and you just step off a train whereas at an airport it normally takes some time from wheels stop to being out of the airport even if you don't have luggage to collect.

And the difference will presumably be even less for some of the intermediate stops.

 

[edwin_m]

The original comment was a response to: "Paris - Barcelona 2 x direct trains a day, taking 6.5-7hrs, vs around 16 flights a day taking less than 2hrs!

I would argue that this is not making an accurate comparison because you would need to get to the airport somewhat earlier before the flight than you would at a station for a train even allowing for security at the station, and you just step off a train whereas at an airport it normally takes some time from wheels stop to being out of the airport even if you don't have luggage to collect.

And the difference will presumably be even less for some of the intermediate stops.

Noted and agreed, I'd assumed we were talking about London-Barcelona per the thread subject.

As a rule of thumb, rail wins over air when the rail journey time is less than 3hr and is fairly competitive up to 4hr or a bit more. At those distances the time in the air is likely to be well under 2hr. Clearly rail is more competitive for intermediate stops at places that may not have a convenient airport with frequent flights, but of course those stops also extend the end to end journey.

I agree with suggestions above that few people will be making the through journey between Paris and Barcelona by train, and the passengers are predominantly joining or alighting or both at intermediate stations. A London-Barcelona journey would also have to make the extra stops to attract enough passengers, with the attendant security issues.

 

[AdamWW]

I agree with suggestions above that few people will be making the through journey between Paris and Barcelona by train, and the passengers are predominantly joining or alighting or both at intermediate stations. A London-Barcelona journey would also have to make the extra stops to attract enough passengers, with the attendant security issues.

I'd be very interested to know how many people are actually making the full journey.

I suspect that there is a tendency to underestimate how many people are willing to spend that long on a train instead of a plane for various reasons (fear of flying/medical restrictions/fed up with airport hassle/luggage rules/luggage charges) but it's only a guess.

I struggle to see how a hypothetical London to Barcelona service works without intermediate stops, but I'm less convinced than some that having to get out and back on again at Lille is a show-stopper in itself.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sitting on a train can be productive or relaxing.

It usuallyis on a long distance train. My point is that more than about 4hours of it, for me, gets really tiresome.

Queuing to drop off luggage, queuing again for security, waiting for the gate to be announced, waiting at the gate until boarding (then sometimes standing in another queue because "boarding" doesn't actually mean that), then at the other end waiting for luggage to turn up is neither of those in my experience.

Agreed - mostly. I usually spend time waiting for the gate to be announced relaxing & reading with a coffee or pint (or three). Although for most short haul flights I take to europe, the gate is usually confirmed by the time im in the departure lounge.

I would argue that this is not making an accurate comparison because you would need to get to the airport somewhat earlier before the flight than you would at a station for a train even allowing for security at the station,

I agree comparing flight time to train time is not an accurate comparison. It is door to door that reallymatters, but not everyone thinks like that.

However for international jouneys from St Pancras the recommended arrival time is 90 mins before departure and check in closes 30 min before departure. In practice I guess most people allowaround an hour. For easyjet at Luton the same times are 2hours (for bagdro, you can check in on line a month before!) and 30 mins for being at the gate. In practice I allow 90mins from terminal front door to gate if dropping bags, 75 minutes if not. Experience shows this as being quite typical for what appear to be savvy / regular travellers.

So, for me (and of course I am just one of millions of examples) my door to door from home to Plaça de Catalunya in Barcelona would be:

5h30 with easyjet fom Luton (20min to airport, 90min at airport, 2h10 flight, 40 mins at BCN airport for bags and immigration, 40 minute train journey to Passeig de Gracia inc wait at the airport, 10 min walk)

10h20 with a train from St Pancras (15 minutes to station, 25 min train to St P, 60 mins there, 8h30 train (at best), 10 minutes for interchange and train to Plaça de Catalunya)

 

[zwk500]

I struggle to see how a hypothetical London to Barcelona service works without intermediate stops, but I'm less convinced than some that having to get out and back on again at Lille is a show-stopper in itself.

In the 30 years that Eurostar has been operating, only very limited services have used the Lille shuffle, which suggests that although it is not a show-stopper it is a major demerit point for people choosing whether to use the train or not. Given the efforts put in to avoid the Lille Shuffle (Checking the Disney train at St Pancras both ways, checking the ski trains at origin) it suggests that you would need significant plus points in the train service to outweigh the shuffle demerit. Barcelona will not be competitive against the plane on time or cost, so it's main selling point will be convenience. The Lille Shuffle badly limits the convenience of a High-speed train as you have to pack everything up, circulate through and then settle down again only an hour from St Pancras. Comfort is also affected by being booted off and sent through security. Only green credentials are relatively unaffected by the shuffle, and they're a very minor factor in any decision to travel.

 

[nwales58]

How about trying to capture a wider range of shorter duration journeys:

1) Decent connections at Lille Europe (Lyon, Strasbourg, Bordeaux and Atlantique - admittedly some of those exist 1-2 times a day but SNCF doesn't seem to care much about improving the inter-regionals).

2) Through ticketing/single booking that is value for money and works well.

3) A better 'customer experience' during waits in both directions.

4) Combined SNCF/Eurostar staff dedicated to caring about and re-reserving missed connections.

5) Marketing.

That is what the airline hubs at Amsterdam, Brussels, Frankfurt, Munich and maybe CDG achieved in the 80s/90s with 3-4 waves daily before point-point lower frequency low cost took over much of the traffic.

But with every tunnel journey involving 2 operators I can't see either putting much into a joint effort.

 

[AdamWW]

In the 30 years that Eurostar has been operating, only very limited services have used the Lille shuffle, which suggests that although it is not a show-stopper it is a major demerit point for people choosing whether to use the train or not. Given the efforts put in to avoid the Lille Shuffle (Checking the Disney train at St Pancras both ways, checking the ski trains at origin) it suggests that you would need significant plus points in the train service to outweigh the shuffle demerit. Barcelona will not be competitive against the plane on time or cost, so it's main selling point will be convenience. The Lille Shuffle badly limits the convenience of a High-speed train as you have to pack everything up, circulate through and then settle down again only an hour from St Pancras. Comfort is also affected by being booted off and sent through security. Only green credentials are relatively unaffected by the shuffle, and they're a very minor factor in any decision to travel.

Perhaps.

But plenty of people seem keen on the idea of connecting services at Lille and that means getting on and off a train in both directions and the added risk of missing a connection.

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps.

But plenty of people seem keen on the idea of connecting services at Lille and that means getting on and off a train in both directions and the added risk of missing a connection.

'Plenty' needs quantification here. This forum is highly likely to over-represent people who will look to travel by train in preference to any other option. I've travelled about half a dozen times by Eurostar in the past 18 months, and most of those have stopped at Lille. The only train where more than a handful of passengers joined the train was a service arriving London at 7pm on a Sunday. Granted I am normally traveling deliberately at off-peak times because I had the flexibility to go for cheaper tickets, but it does tally with Eurostar's commercial strategy - the station is important enough to make it worth serving, but not so important that every service needs to stop there.

I agree with @nwales58 above that Through Tickets with protection for a full itinerary that can be booked easily is a much more significant part of encouraging wider travel on Eurostar. Although I would say Eurostar staff have generally been pretty good resolving problems from delays. Good connections at Lille for Lyon and the south of France should be the top target, together with a more coordinated market effort. Now the Thalys merger has gone ahead coordination especially with SNCF should be slightly easier.

 

[AdamWW]

'Plenty' needs quantification here. This forum is highly likely to over-represent people who will look to travel by train in preference to any other option.

Oh I'm not suggesting that the views on here are in any way representative of the travelling public at large.

It just seems that people in this discussion seem keener on connecting services than having to get off and on the same train again.

I agree with @nwales58 above that Through Tickets with protection for a full itinerary that can be booked easily is a much more significant part of encouraging wider travel on Eurostar.

Eurostar seem to fill their trains nicely, so through tickets would presumably only be of interest to them if it would mean they could sell their seats for more. I'm not sure if that's the case.

 

[Clayton]

And that's for people travelling between cities with direct flights.

The train can be even more attractive if one end of the journey is at or near an intermediate stop.

To me also matters how you spend the time.

I'd much prefer to settle into a train and have an uninterrupted journey to read/use my laptop/look out of the window/whatever than the experience at an airport of multiple stages of queuing and waiting around even if the door to door time is quicker.

And I don't think I have ever seen comparisons of flight vs rail time include time spent waiting for luggage to appear on a carousel either. Not everybody can or wishes to travel with only what can be taken into an aircraft cabin (especially as the rules can be quite strict nowadays).

I probably wouldn’t go by train to Barcelona, but I’ve been from Oxford to Edinburgh a few times and although it takes six hours or more the train is competitive with a flight from Birmingham or Heathrow in both time and cost. And the train is more chilled as long as nothing goes wrong (a big proviso).

 

[zwk500]

Eurostar seem to fill their trains nicely, so through tickets would presumably only be of interest to them if it would mean they could sell their seats for more. I'm not sure if that's the case.

Through tickets would be of interest to them commercially, as they'd be able to get more reliable data for travel outside of their service area which helps marketing, strategic planning, service aspirations etc. They'd be selling their seats for the same amount, but if Eurostar could act as the retailer for further journeys there's a potential additional revenue stream, as well as formalising rights and responsibilities for connecting itineraries, which gives consumers confidence and therefore may help sell tickets a bit faster once the prices start rising.
Mind you, they used to offer various forms of onwards tickets and it wasn't worth updating their systems to keep them on sale so I suspect the theory may not see a substantive uptake in practice.

 

[Snow1964]

Eurostar seem to fill their trains nicely, so through tickets would presumably only be of interest to them if it would mean they could sell their seats for more. I'm not sure if that's the case.

This is really a question of definition, yes for those they run, but they have lots of trains stored, so as fraction of the seats in whole fleet not so good.

 

[miklcct]

In my opinion, such a long distance service will only work if either the following becomes true:

1. The Lille shuffle becomes a commuter train departing at least every half hourly, so there is no risk of missing connections.

2. The UK leases St Pancras International station to France, in the same way HK West Kowloon is leased to mainland China.

I can't see any of the above can become reality though.

 

[RT4038]

Through tickets would be of interest to them commercially, as they'd be able to get more reliable data for travel outside of their service area which helps marketing, strategic planning, service aspirations etc. They'd be selling their seats for the same amount, but if Eurostar could act as the retailer for further journeys there's a potential additional revenue stream, as well as formalising rights and responsibilities for connecting itineraries, which gives consumers confidence and therefore may help sell tickets a bit faster once the prices start rising.
Mind you, they used to offer various forms of onwards tickets and it wasn't worth updating their systems to keep them on sale so I suspect the theory may not see a substantive uptake in practice.

Formalising rights and responsibilities for connecting itineraries may well expose them to risks of costs in excess of the likely additional revenue that may be gained.

 

[paul1609]

I dont think anything I said contradicts that.

For me, personally (other opinions apply!) whilst I treat door to door time as the key measure I also place value on some variety. For example being on the same train for 6 hours is really quite a drag, but being on a train for one hour, airports for two hours, plane for hour and a half, train an hour and a half the other end is more baried and therefore less boring. i know others dont see it this way.

I agree Ashford to Barcelona by train was really tedious on the three occasions I did it. I think I did it on Thursdays and the passenger demand didn't seem to be anything like what is being suggested. I suspect that demand only exists peak season at weekends

 

[AlbertBeale]

In the 30 years that Eurostar has been operating, only very limited services have used the Lille shuffle, which suggests that although it is not a show-stopper it is a major demerit point for people choosing whether to use the train or not. Given the efforts put in to avoid the Lille Shuffle (Checking the Disney train at St Pancras both ways, checking the ski trains at origin) it suggests that you would need significant plus points in the train service to outweigh the shuffle demerit. Barcelona will not be competitive against the plane on time or cost, so it's main selling point will be convenience. The Lille Shuffle badly limits the convenience of a High-speed train as you have to pack everything up, circulate through and then settle down again only an hour from St Pancras. Comfort is also affected by being booted off and sent through security. Only green credentials are relatively unaffected by the shuffle, and they're a very minor factor in any decision to travel.

For me "green credentials" - assuming you mean how destructive the travel mode is - are the major factor in how I choose to travel. And I know plenty of people who take that same view.

 

[edwin_m]

It just seems that people in this discussion seem keener on connecting services than having to get off and on the same train again.

Connecting services can serve a range of destinations whereas a "shuffle" implies everyone continuing to the same place. So it's only viable if you can fill a train reasonably well with people making the same journey.

Also there's the optics of telling people to get off the train, spend however long being scanned and scrutinised and re-board the exact same train. While most here can understand (though not necessarily agree with) the logic, it just seems totally pointless to "normals".

 

[zwk500]

Formalising rights and responsibilities for connecting itineraries may well expose them to risks of costs in excess of the likely additional revenue that may be gained.

For sure, hence why Eurostar are reluctant to do so.

For me "green credentials" - assuming you mean how destructive the travel mode is - are the major factor in how I choose to travel. And I know plenty of people who take that same view.

Yes but an individual who prioritises the environment so much is more likely to know others who think similarly. However for the vast majority of people the two most important factors are budget and convenience. Green credentials are a nice bonus to get, not an actively sought characteristic for the majority of decisions on which mode to travel. Environmental awareness is growing, but it's far from dominant yet, otherwise people wouldn't be driving as much.

 

[AdamWW]

This is really a question of definition, yes for those they run, but they have lots of trains stored, so as fraction of the seats in whole fleet not so good.

I didn't think there was capacity in the terminals for a large increase in services (and none at all at peak times).

 

[mad_rich]

I expect having UKBF and Spanish equivalent, plus security and sealed off platform, for one train a day at Barcelona would be grotesquely expensive per passenger and sink the train economically.

They managed this for the ski train. Full departure facilities at two small Alpine stations, for a train that operated twice a week for a few months a year. I don't know how the costs were apportioned, but somehow it was financially viable.

 

[RT4038]

They managed this for the ski train. Full departure facilities at two small Alpine stations, for a train that operated twice a week for a few months a year. I don't know how the costs were apportioned, but somehow it was financially viable.

So is it running like that now then? Ah, no..... Perhaps not so financially viable then. It is effectively a hire to package holiday companies now , with no 'walk-ups' and little potential immigration issues. Barcelona, with much more air competition and on a well trodden illegal immigration route, is a completely different kettle of fish.

 

[mad_rich]

So is it running like that now then? Ah, no..... Perhaps not so financially viable then. It is effectively a hire to package holiday companies now , with no 'walk-ups' and little potential immigration issues. Barcelona, with much more air competition and on a well trodden illegal immigration route, is a completely different kettle of fish.

The ski train has changed again this year.

For a couple of years it was as you say: only sold via tour operators, but direct and with departure facilities in the Alps.

This year it's back to a regular scheduled service on which you can buy normal tickets. But it's a connecting service now: Eurostar Blue for London-Lille, and Eurostar Red from Lille-Alps. And so you have to do the Lille shuffle in both directions.

If they built the service up into a mini-hub at Lille it might be more appealing. Trains coming from UK, BE and DE, and onward connections to three or four trains going to different Alpine valleys.

 

[Bald Rick]

They managed this for the ski train. Full departure facilities at two small Alpine stations, for a train that operated twice a week for a few months a year. I don't know how the costs were apportioned, but somehow it was financially viable.

It was financially viable (just) because the fares were in the region of £150-£200 one way for the day train in standard (rwice that in Premier), and it was the quickest way to get door to door from most of London to the 3 Valleys / Paradiski / Espace Killy (short of a helicopter transfer from Chambery or Geneva). It was almost exclusively used by Brits on return tickets from London, with very few non Brits making single or return trips starting in France (which makes the immigration checks a lkttle easier).

AIUI the departure border control facilities were provided by staff who travelled out specifcally for that purpose for the two in bound departures each Saturday.

Comoare to what would be required for Barcelona!