-
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!
Without additional funding from government there is a real risk to the survival of Eurostar
- Thread starter Sniffingmoose
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I've added the 'good' for you
Oops! Fast typing on my phone!
It has alway been run as a commercial operator. What would leverage ensure, that commercial reasons won't provide? There would need to be substantial additional benefits to justify spending taxpayers cash. It looks like the pre pandemic service will return eventually under the new merged company.
daodao
Established Member
Post Brexit, that is likely to be over-optimistic, at least in the medium term.
Brexit shouldn't make a huge difference. There will be a reduction in demand for London-Brussels by government officials, lobbyists and probably a small drop in business travel. The extra hassle from border checks is minimal e.g. disincentivising changing trains at Brussels. This all follows the successful extension of Brussels services to Amsterdam in 2018. 2017 passenger numbers but spread across two more destinations should be very achievable once the pandemic ends.
Lobbyists and bureaucrats might decrease, but diplomats will likely increase, given we now need.to negotiate everything rather than allowing the European Parliament to manage the minutiae. Government
Last edited:
I mean I know we still have some overseas territories remaining but I'm not sure getting rid of them is required by the Brexit deal nor that describing it as 'decolonisation' is particularly accurate in most cases!
Ta, Auto-not-correct fail!I mean I know we still have some overseas territories remaining but I'm not sure getting rid of them is required by the Brexit deal nor that describing it as 'decolonisation' is particularly accurate in most cases!
Have amended the original post.To not clog up forum space, I will post my question here. I also apologise if this has already been discussed. I'm too lazy to read the entire thread. Anyway: If Eurostar did collapse, would anything likely replace it? And if so, what? I ask becuase I am highly sceptical passengers would be very happy to use 3-4 trains to get to their destination instead.
It'd almost certainly go into administration first, and in that case I'd imagine that either SNCF/SNCB would buy out the bits worth having and let the rest sink or a new company would be set up to take over E* as a going concern, presumably with a fairly hefty writing off and restructuring of debts along the way.
Doesn't that just kick the can further along? If E* remains unprofitable for whatever reason, I doubt even SNCF would pick it up. They were already stingy giving the investment, and trying to force the UK government into helping despite them cutting ties a good few years ago.
It depends how the deals all went down and who got what for which prices. There's far too many variables to speculate about at this point, given that the immediate threat has been taken off the table.
Then my original question becomes a hypothetical I suppose.....
Noone in their right mind would run trains that only went from Ashford to Calais. If there is going to be a cross-channel rail service at all it needs to at least run through to places where it can connect directly with long distance trains on both sides.
Realistically I don't think it would make sense to run anything less than London to Paris and Brussles. Maybe if you were really scaling things back you could move all the security/customs/immigration processing for UK bound trains to lille, but afaict that would both significantly increase journey times and severely limit the number of trains that could run.
Last edited:
Yes, post #620 has a link to the article confirming a rescue package was agreed.
That wasn't what I was talking about. I'm talking services that would be as viable as Eurostar, as in London to Lille, or [insert Europe terminus] to Ashford, minimum (only one train change compared to Eurostar).
Edit: It gets a bit complicated if it's Europe to UK, given how many destinations Eurostar serves.
Anything on the UK side is only viable if it goes to London, because of the catchment area, local demand and onward travel. On the continent it's a similar story for Paris and Brussels. Lille really isn't big enough on it's own, and it doesn't offer the same level of connectivity.
The extended trains to Amsterdam/Alps etc would possibly/probably be cut back to focus on the core '3 Capitals' routes.
I admit I don't know much about stations. I just did some basic research and Lille and Ashford seemed like decent interchange stations, as TGV and Thalys use Lille also, and Javelin trains (Southeastern), use Ashford International. Obviously, direct to direct is better, but is one change really seen as that bad to passengers? See, my POV would be extending current services a little, as that is much easier to do for train companies.
Eurostar's main depots/sidings are in London, Paris and Brussels.
I'll explain further. I was thinking about current train operators. You have Southeastern, TGV, and Thalys, in the best position to plug the gap. For ease of execution, they would extend their services slightly, to good interchange stations that can take passengers the rest of the way, with 1 change only preferred. So, we have three scenarios:
1) Southeastern extends into Europe, to an interchange with TGV and Thalys, with services to Dover/Ramsgate now requiring interchange to other services (which already exist btw). This makes the most logical sense out of the 3, but well, politics....
2) TGV extends to Ashford. Easy enough, except you can't get to Belgium/Amsterdam with only 1 interchange....
3) Thalys diverts to Ashford. The one I see everyone involved agreeing to, but just feels the silliest with how it takes the long way around between France and Belgium/The Netherlands.
As a "bureaucrat" who did diplomacy type things in Brussels at the EU in the past l really wonder who you think does all of the legwork prior to the politicians signing things....
Do any of those companies operate rolling stock suitable for operation through the Channel Tunnel?
It runs on the same power as the rest of the tracks Eurostar runs on, right? Bar the voltages in Belgium/The Netherlands which none of my scenarios will have a problem with for various reasons.
I certainly don't think politicians get anywhere near it until there's a camera ready. I was counting diplomats fairly loosely, meaning a civil servant or member of the diplomatic service. Apologies if any offence was caused!
All those operators are for services specified by their respective governments. Whereas Eurostar is much more akin to an Open Access operation. The latter two are owned by the French and Belgian governments, who also own most of Eurostar. If they felt providing these services was important, the easiest way for them to make that happen is to continue investing in Eurostar, not trying to extend ‘domestic’ trains.
Were Eurostar to go into administration, the most likely result would be someone coming in to buy the assets (ie the trains and the paths) and then trying to run a profitable service with them. They would most likely start off with the core of London Paris Brussels and go from there.
And if they don't feel the service is important, due to being unprofitable, what then? Goodbye full rail link between Britain and Europe? That would be a sad day for the railways, particularly when we need to get people off planes and into trains if we hope to save the planet.
If you are going to go to Ashford you may as well go to London, there are much better connections and facilities there.
More broadly, the problem with trying to integrate Eurostar with other rail services are
1: customs/immigration/security requirements. The governments are apparently not satisfied with on-train checks and have pushed a preclearance based approach. Some of the more unusual Eurostar services do a "lille shuffle" where they offload the passengers at lille, check them and re-board them but I don't think the Eurostar facilities at Lille Europe have the capacity to do that on a large scale.
2: running trains from the UK, through the tunnel and onto the mainland European network brings some pretty specific rolling stock requirements.
Well I've been reading comments, and I'm now leaning towards Thalys as the best compromise. Ashford wouldn't be a terminus, it would be on the route between Paris and Amsterdam, the company is already international, so are best equipped to handle such operations, and some of the rolling stock is very similar to the Class 373 (e300). Obviously the route is a little convoluted, but I think that's the only downside.
It's more than an hour's diversion! Lille to Ashford is 180km, so a return trip is 360km. The fastest rolling stock operated by either Thalys or E* is the 374s at 320kph. Add in the reversal at Ashford and wave goodbye to all your passengers at Charles De Gaulle Airport...
There's no way round it, by the time you've sent a train through the tunnel the only way you make any money whatsover is if it goes on to London.
Except it isn't making money. What about Folkstone, how far is that?
Gloster
Established Member
Not very far, but in the wrong direction, so requiring a reversal on plain line (and a new station, unless they want to reuse the old Harbour one (I don’t think)). Any terminus short of London for Eurostar is totally uneconomic and impracticable.
- Status