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

who actually owns the international facilitates Eurostar uses?

Status
Not open for further replies.

popeter45

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2019
Messages
1,105
Location
london
thinking about old plans other companies have had over the years for non eurostar services to London like DB's plans for Frankfurt-London and RENFE's Madrid-London plans and even newer ideas like a non Eurostar Bordeaux-London Service and got me thinking that the current International sections of St Pancreas,Gare Du Nord and Brussels Midi are all in Eurostar branding and would anybody else be free to use them especially if services could directly compete with Eurostar like with DB's Frankfurt plan they would have gone via Brussels?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,086
Is it any different to HEX branding at Paddington or Gatwick Express branding at Victoria? Is the branding there to direct passengers rather than to identify ownership?
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,086
Thinking about it, wasn't Waterloo owned by Continental Railways rather than Eurostar? I don't know who owns the St Pancras continental platforms.
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
LCR (UK government) owns St Pancras terminal and the freehold of HS1.
The concession for HS1 services is owned by a group of fund managers in London.
International services are regulated by the Channel Tunnel treaty and anybody can bid for paths.
Eurostar can't prevent a competitor starting up.
 
Last edited:

TheSeeker

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2016
Messages
314
Location
Braine-l'Alleud
Is there anything to stop OuiGo for example running to somewhere in London other than St Pancras? Much like their Brussels Paris service that uses some conventional lines and which I understand ends up somewhere else, not Gare Du Nord. Presumably cheaper for them.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,086
Is there anything to stop OuiGo for example running to somewhere in London other than St Pancras? Much like their Brussels Paris service that uses some conventional lines and which I understand ends up somewhere else, not Gare Du Nord. Presumably cheaper for them.

Apart from lack of terminal space and platform space to accommodate 400m long trains? Also, customs and passport control would have to be set up which would not be cheap.
 

TheSeeker

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2016
Messages
314
Location
Braine-l'Alleud
Apart from lack of terminal space and platform space to accommodate 400m long trains?

Yes, indeed. Ebbsfleet maybe a bit far out of town but maybe Stratford. I guess all the passport gear is still there. Or at least the room for it. Is there space at Stratford to hold stock before it would head back?
 

pdeaves

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
5,632
Location
Gateway to the South West
Apart from lack of terminal space and platform space to accommodate 400m long trains? Also, customs and passport control would have to be set up which would not be cheap.
... but all theoretically solvable if the will/money were there. If 'new company' wishes to invest in the required facilities, there is nothing to stop them running to somewhere other than St Pancras. However, the outlay is likely to be excessive compared to the return.
 

superjohn

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2011
Messages
531
Stratford International would probably be practically viable but maybe not economically. The two outer platforms are never used and there is a large area of empty space upstairs since Eurostar moved their offices out. The Border Force could be run as an outstation of those at St Pancras. It would be expensive but, if Eurostar consider Ashford still viable for the handful of services and passengers it gets, Stratford might well work if a whole trainload went there. Depending on what happens with the airlines SNCF might give a whirl with yet another of their cheapo brands.
 

BahrainLad

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2015
Messages
311
Yes definitely. There is a place called the Rue des Marroniers just off Bellecour (on the Rhône side) which is full of good restaurants where you can get a fast and appetising dinner for about 20 euros as the going rate. Or indeed if you stay elsewhere, look for the 'Bouchon Labellisé' sign - A cartoon of a man with top hat if I remember correctly.
Stratford International would probably be practically viable but maybe not economically. The two outer platforms are never used and there is a large area of empty space upstairs since Eurostar moved their offices out. The Border Force could be run as an outstation of those at St Pancras. It would be expensive but, if Eurostar consider Ashford still viable for the handful of services and passengers it gets, Stratford might well work if a whole trainload went there. Depending on what happens with the airlines SNCF might give a whirl with yet another of their cheapo brands.

The problem with Stratford - and I am gobsmacked this was never considered at the original design stage - is that the only way to reverse a train out of the international platforms back towards the tunnel is by sending it all the way to St Pancras (either a platform, or the chord up to the NLL) and reversing there. Nuts.

Also - St Pancras is far more "Eurostar-ised" than say the HEx platforms at Paddington. Adding another operator would require quite a few changes in the terminal (even afaik things like the ticket gates, which for example can't accept anything other than a Eurostar-issued QR code).
 

popeter45

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2019
Messages
1,105
Location
london
The problem with Stratford - and I am gobsmacked this was never considered at the original design stage - is that the only way to reverse a train out of the international platforms back towards the tunnel is by sending it all the way to St Pancras (either a platform, or the chord up to the NLL) and reversing there. Nuts.

Also - St Pancras is far more "Eurostar-ised" than say the HEx platforms at Paddington. Adding another operator would require quite a few changes in the terminal (even afaik things like the ticket gates, which for example can't accept anything other than a Eurostar-issued QR code).
issue is Stratford was never designed for Reversing, it was for regional services but the trackwork needed shouldn't be that hard to add if really required
 

LNW-GW Joint

Veteran Member
Joined
22 Feb 2011
Messages
19,555
Location
Mold, Clwyd
Why would SNCF want to start Channel Tunnel services in competition with Eurostar of which they own 55%?
SNCB owns 5% so are also unlikely to want to run competitive services.
NS also provides services for the Amsterdam operation.
Any newcomer is going to be outside that group.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
thinking about old plans other companies have had over the years for non eurostar services to London like DB's plans for Frankfurt-London and RENFE's Madrid-London plans and even newer ideas like a non Eurostar Bordeaux-London Service and got me thinking that the current International sections of St Pancreas,Gare Du Nord and Brussels Midi are all in Eurostar branding and would anybody else be free to use them especially if services could directly compete with Eurostar like with DB's Frankfurt plan they would have gone via Brussels?

I notice at Brussels it is branded the "Channel Terminal" rather than Eurostar

The problem with Stratford - and I am gobsmacked this was never considered at the original design stage - is that the only way to reverse a train out of the international platforms back towards the tunnel is by sending it all the way to St Pancras (either a platform, or the chord up to the NLL) and reversing there. Nuts.

How do you know it wasn't considered and ruled out? Getting the necessary crossovers in at the Eastern end would add a good 200 metres or so to the length of the box at least (and significant extra £££ to excavate, plus land take). I'd hardly call that reasoning "nuts".

Turning back in the domestic platforms is catered for .

issue is Stratford was never designed for Reversing, it was for regional services but the trackwork needed shouldn't be that hard to add if really required

See above.

You are correct, Regional Eurostar is the reasoning.

It makes no sense to add significant additional turnback infrastructure for essentially a "budget" service.
 

BahrainLad

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2015
Messages
311
How do you know it wasn't considered and ruled out? Getting the necessary crossovers in at the Eastern end would add a good 200 metres or so to the length of the box at least (and significant extra £££ to excavate, plus land take). I'd hardly call that reasoning "nuts".

Yes I suppose "considered" was the wrong word, I meant "included!" Presumably - getting the crayon out - you could just use the current international platforms for domestic and vice versa, or is there a specific requirement for domestic to be an island platform? Or for domestic trains to reverse? I have often mused these points whilst waiting for a Javelin.

Can anything reverse at Ebbsfleet?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Yes I suppose "considered" was the wrong word, I meant "included!" Presumably - getting the crayon out - you could just use the current international platforms for domestic and vice versa, or is there a specific requirement for domestic to be an island platform? Or for domestic trains to reverse? I have often mused these points whilst waiting for a Javelin.

Can anything reverse at Ebbsfleet?

The domestic platforms at Stratford are cut short at their western end as that's where the Temple Mills depot line drops in, so are too short for 400m International trains.

Can't remember Ebbsfleet track layout off top of my head, but distributing a trainload of passengers onwards would be a much bigger challenge!
 

BahrainLad

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2015
Messages
311
From looking at Google there is space for a short platform extension at the east end...not to 400m, but hasn't that rule been dropped? 200m for a Ouigo would suffice.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
From looking at Google there is space for a short platform extension at the east end...not to 400m, but hasn't that rule been dropped? 200m for a Ouigo would suffice.

Trains through the tunnel must be 400m long and divisible to meet the tunnel safety requirements.
 

popeter45

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2019
Messages
1,105
Location
london
Trains through the tunnel must be 400m long and divisible to meet the tunnel safety requirements.
i dont this the divisable rule is still in place as i dont believe the 374's can split
i think 375m rule is still in place but can now be 2 sub units without a thru passage instead with enough paperwork
 

BahrainLad

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2015
Messages
311
It seems the requirements to a) have a qualified driver in the rear cab b) to be able to split trains and c) for trains to be a specific length have all been dropped.

From the IGC annual safety report in 2011:

Other Significant Regulatory Issues Considered by the IGC and CTSA - Other important issues considered by the IGC and the CTSA during the course of the year were as follows:

(i) Review of specific safety rules for trains transiting the tunnel – The IGC published the conclusions of its review on 31 March 2010. The IGC asked ERA for a technical opinion on these conclusions in December 2010. The opinion was published in March 2011.

Further to the opinion, the IGC asked to make the necessary changes to its operating rules to remove rules requiring compliance with particular fire protection standards for the design and performance of vehicles and their fittings, and for call buttons at the end of each coach, as these requirements are dealt with by the rolling stock TSIs. It was also decided that trains no longer had to have the ablility to be split. Finally, trains were no longer required to be of a particular length; have a through-corridor; and motor units at each end, and applicants were invited to propose such systems with a requisite risk assessment using EC Regulation 352/2009.


Also worth pointing out the "Channel Tunnel Reference Document for cross-acceptance of rail vehicles" makes no mention of length:




"
 

TheSeeker

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2016
Messages
314
Location
Braine-l'Alleud
Why would SNCF want to start Channel Tunnel services in competition with Eurostar of which they own 55%?

I always assumed QuiGo was to capture the low cost end of the market, older rolling stock, non central in the city on arrival, takes longer, no food, stand if you have to etc. Students and people who are not bothered about service, just want to get there and might otherwise take a budget airline. Same for the SNCF coach services, TGV travel is relatively expensive so they go for the cheap end with coaches. Some friends travel back to Poland in those white minibuses you see with curtains. They're not bothered how long it takes as long as it is as cheap as possible.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Trains through the tunnel must be 400m long and divisible to meet the tunnel safety requirements.
i dont this the divisable rule is still in place as i dont believe the 374's can split
i think 375m rule is still in place but can now be 2 sub units without a thru passage instead with enough paperwork
It seems the requirements to a) have a qualified driver in the rear cab b) to be able to split trains and c) for trains to be a specific length have all been dropped.

From the IGC annual safety report in 2011:




Also worth pointing out the "Channel Tunnel Reference Document for cross-acceptance of rail vehicles" makes no mention of length:




"

Good spots by all.

Although the restrictions were very much in force when Stratford/HS1 was being designed, of course.

Even if international/domestic platforms were switched there'd be issues with:
-The current domestic facilities are quite minimial and not sized to be swicthed to international use (you'd need some major reconfiguration of escalators etc. within the station to match everything up)

-The tunnel access path is charged per train; obviously works out as more ££££ per passenger for a shorter train, thus less economic (and competitive) than a 400m train.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,542
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
-The tunnel access path is charged per train; obviously works out as more ££££ per passenger for a shorter train, thus less economic (and competitive) than a 400m train.

True, though if splitting/joining of double units was allowed you could portion work, such as sending only 200m of a train onwards into e.g. Germany.
 

superjohn

Member
Joined
11 Mar 2011
Messages
531
Why would SNCF want to start Channel Tunnel services in competition with Eurostar of which they own 55%?
To preempt any third parties that might start up a low cost, no frills service. Just as they have done with the bargain TGV offerings within France. A completely new brand would be more likely to attract new customers, mainly from the low cost airlines, rather than abstract from the existing Eurostar market by reducing fares there. Charles De Gaulle airport to Stratford International would fit the bill perfectly.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
True, though if splitting/joining of double units was allowed you could portion work, such as sending only 200m of a train onwards into e.g. Germany.

Point being responded to was if the Intl/Domestic platforms were switched at Stratford. You'd be forced into a less economic train length through the tunnel due to the shorter platform at Stratford.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,086
Point being responded to was if the Intl/Domestic platforms were switched at Stratford. You'd be forced into a less economic train length through the tunnel due to the shorter platform at Stratford.
Unless you detach half of the train at Ashford or Ebbsfleet and again at Lille, so you have an Ashford / Ebbsfleet to Paris Gare du Nord, and Stratford to Charles de Gaulle, for example?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Unless you detach half of the train at Ashford or Ebbsfleet and again at Lille, so you have an Ashford / Ebbsfleet to Paris Gare du Nord, and Stratford to Charles de Gaulle, for example?

Starting to add a lot of operational complexity and cost when, frankly, there's little hope of filling even a 200m train from either Ebbsfleet or Ashford (in my opinion).
 

BahrainLad

Member
Joined
3 Aug 2015
Messages
311
-The current domestic facilities are quite minimial and not sized to be swicthed to international use (you'd need some major reconfiguration of escalators etc. within the station to match everything up)

I think the escalators would be fine...assuming you could change the layout of the entire station above...

But yes, agreed on tunnel charges.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
Also, customs and passport control would have to be set up which would not be cheap.

It's actually not that difficult. You only need some desks and an area for secondary control, not much more.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
It's actually not that difficult. You only need some desks and an area for secondary control, not much more.

...but somebody needs to pay the running costs of it (i.e. border staff). Not great if the intent is for a "budget" operation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top