Getlink aiming to double the number of destinations from London in ten years

[Krokodil]

Well yes, and SNCF is providing considerable capacity on the three trains it does run. Is there any evidence to suggest that this capacity is routinely insufficient?

Present demand is not a reliable indicator of future potential. Improving services (in this case by increasing frequencies) has often been shown to grow demand beyond just that provided by the extra service.

 

[RT4038]

Hull trains covers all of its costs and makes a commercial profit with 200 passengers a train, an average speed of 80mph and an average fare of £30 each way.

You certainly cannot really claim that a TGV couldn’t make a reasonable operating profit with 200 passengers a train and realistically I would say it was difficult to argue they couldn’t make an operating profit with 100 passengers a train given the higher speeds.

Hull trains operation may well not covering the same costs as would be expected on a high speed line in France, and the train utilisation will be a lot better on Hull trains than is going to be got running long distance to and from Lille. The costs of running through the Channel Tunnel is another level of cost.

Present demand is not a reliable indicator of future potential. Improving services (in this case by increasing frequencies) has often been shown to grow demand beyond just that provided by the extra service.

Could be, but would the service between those city pairs be where you would, as a priority, risk your money? No doubt SNCF have financial constraints too.

 

[Trainbike46]

I am really unsure what the point of this statement is - presumably the peak of long distance travel from London is between 8am and 12 noon, which is arriving in Paris between 11h30 and 15h30. Looking at the French railway timetables, there are not many (any?) routes from Paris say between [after a suitable connecting and transfer time] offering no departures between 12h30 and 18h00. So pretty much all the likely passenger journeys can be made already.

Cross-Paris transfers are a hassle. Transfers in Lille, or theoretically in Marne-La-Vallee, are much more convenient, especially where the connecting TGVs already run. Hence my suggestion of adding a Lille stop on the first Paris departure from London, which would arrive at Lille an hour earlier than currently possible, enabling more connections.

If you are referring to operating extra trains from London to points south, east or west of Paris [ which would not be serving central Paris], then these would require extra trains in the fleet. Ignoring the issues of immigration and security for the meantime [which would require through passengers to change at Lille, whether onto a different (shuttley) train or the same train], these trains would likely only get in one trip per day, which I would suggest would be uneconomic - the fares to cover the year round costs would be too high to be sufficiently competitive with air, considering the lengthy journey time and inconvenience at Lille*.

*Even though that inconvenience is little more onerous than doing these formalities at an airport before departure, I doubt it would be seen that way by the majority of potential passengers.


Well yes, and SNCF is providing considerable capacity on the three trains it does run. Is there any evidence to suggest that this capacity is routinely insufficient? The UK doesn't provide through service from Liverpool to Cardiff or Newcastle to Norwich or Bristol to Glasgow etc.

Are you seriously arguing that 3 trains a day is anything other than a terrible service, especially given the places at both ends are significant, and on the german side, are key connecting hubs further into Germany?

One of the problems with the way the SNCF works is that connections are usually a lot harder than they need to be, so comparing the SNCF to UK city pairs that may not have direct services but can be made without any significant problem by changing trains, such as Newcastle to Norwich (one change in Peterborough) or Bristol to Glasgow (one change in Birmingham) isn't remotely fair, as the connection is offered relatively frequently, which is simply not true in France.

I'd imagine they would be stationed there for several hours beforehand, since E* tells people that you should leave hours before train departure anyway

I have no experience of the Amsterdam terminal myself, but in Rotterdam the terminal opens 2 hours before departure, so I would assume that border officials will not be there for much before that.

The questions would be - how many of the full fare passengers would transfer to the cheaper fare, thereby reducing E* revenue, and (b) would the additional passengers so attracted outweigh this, and any additional costs such as security that may be incurred? Would expecting passengers to arrive 3 or 4 hours before departure, without any refreshment facilities except machines in the waiting room, be too much reputational risk? Is this a risk E* would want to take?

I suspect not, especially given that this is supposedly temporary and will be resolved in autumn, due to ePassport gates.

Present demand is not a reliable indicator of future potential. Improving services (in this case by increasing frequencies) has often been shown to grow demand beyond just that provided by the extra service.

Exactly this!

Could be, but would the service between those city pairs be where you would, as a priority, risk your money? No doubt SNCF have financial constraints too.

This is a rather curious way of stating that the SNCF does not care or is not interested.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Hull trains operation may well not covering the same costs as would be expected on a high speed line in France, and the train utilisation will be a lot better on Hull trains than is going to be got running long distance to and from Lille. The costs of running through the Channel Tunnel is another level of cost.

Even if Hull trains is getting to only cover the marginal infrastructure and they should be paying more as the East Coast Mainline is full it is difficult to argue that Lille-Strasbourg or Lille-Bordeaux or an 11am Nancy-Paris service shouldn’t get the same treatment - even if Lille-Lyon does have to pay higher charges.

Could be, but would the service between those city pairs be where you would, as a priority, risk your money? No doubt SNCF have financial constraints too

I am sure there are plenty of lower priority routes where you could be pretty sure of getting 200 passengers a train and where there is spare infrastructure to run them.

Cross-Paris transfers are a hassle. Transfers in Lille, or theoretically in Marne-La-Vallee, are much more convenient, especially where the connecting TGVs already run. Hence my suggestion of adding a Lille stop on the first Paris departure from London, which would arrive at Lille an hour earlier than currently possible, enabling more transfers.

There is also a service reduction in the middle of the day. Paris-Nancy for example is hourly in the peak but then after the 9am train there is one at 11am, 2pm and 4pm.

So there is a fair possibility of a very long wait if you miss your connection.

 

[NCT]

8 trains per day to Geneva (some extended to Lausanne) plus 3 trains per day to Lausanne not operating via Geneva. 11 trains per day to the French speaking part of Switzerland. 6 trains per day Paris-Basle-Zurich. So the French part gets nearly double that of the German speaking part.

The frequency to the German part is enough to provide a benchmark for what Frankfurt and Stuttgart/Munich frequencies should be (which is not already not far off).

Well yes, and SNCF is providing considerable capacity on the three trains it does run. Is there any evidence to suggest that this capacity is routinely insufficient? The UK doesn't provide through service from Liverpool to Cardiff or Newcastle to Norwich or Bristol to Glasgow etc. However, talking about Lyon to Toulouse is a little way off the OP - 'Getlink aiming to double the number of destinations from London in ten years'

​

When you are leaving so much of the day unserved you are leaving a lot of the market unserved.

Open access will no doubt bring competition, but this will likely only be successful on the main routes to and from Paris only, and will possibly result in less service elsewhere due to the loss of the current cross subsidisation.

This will be a good thing and will give the French political class (which the notionally independent SNCF seems unable to extract itself from) a long overdue kick in the backside. Why should Paris - Lyon passengers subsidise expensive big train sets trundling for hours on slow infrastructure? Cross subsidisation isn't the way to provide marginal services. Takt-timetabling and origin-destination ticketing are the only way.

Exactly this. TGV to Rang de Fliers-Verton-Berck. Line electrified specifically for it. It is dangerous to assume that SNCF management are necessarily entirely at 'fault' - no doubt they have financial limitations, an inheritance and plenty of politics to deal with.

The entire French railway culture and ecosystem is at fault. Given that SNCF had decades of absolute control over the country's railway culture it has to carry most of the blame. I'm totally supportive of the Fourth Railway Package. Force SNCF Voyager to behave like a commercial organisation but in a competitive environment. Cut off the abnormal profits SNCF (and the French government) is able to extract from the main markets. Force the political class to think about integration of timetables and fares. Make the French government tell SNCF to organise its services into clockface patterns so regional PSO services can connect into them. Make the French government legislate for a ticketing and settlement agreement so passengers can travel on operator-agnostic origin-destination tickets.

Why is this relevant to this thread?

The economics of an individual railway service diminishes when it doesn't have a takt to plug into. The UK has the misfortune that Eurostar plugs into France. So almost all connections are inferior to what it could be.

Eurostar and SNCF don't even attempt at making travel seamless for passengers. Search for London - Cologne on the Eurostar website and you are only offered the Eurostar connections which normally involve the 1h20m wait at Brussels. There are engineering works going on between Dijon and Basel on some weekends in June, so Lyria Zurich services are terminating in Basel. SNCF Voyager (the official retailer for Lyria) tells you we'll only sell you tickets to Basel on those dates and you can fend for yourself for Basel-Zurich tickets.

In terms of things within the control of the rail industry, the only way to improve Channel Tunnel passenger services is to break SNCF's and SNCF derivative organisations' monopoly.

 

[RT4038]

You certainly cannot really claim that a TGV couldn’t make a reasonable operating profit with 200 passengers a train and realistically I would say it was difficult to argue they couldn’t make an operating profit with 100 passengers a train given the higher speeds.

A TGV has more carriages than the average Hull Trains, plus the construction and maintenance for such high speeds will mean that the depreciation/leasing costs are going to be higher. Track access charges will no doubt be per km. I am not sure that Hull Trains is a reasonable comparator with the French Railways.

This is a rather curious way of stating that the SNCF does not care or is not interested.

No, I am saying that a company cannot do improve everything at once (even if there was impetus to improve this service, as opposed to all sorts of other equally worthwhile projects, which there may well not be) . SNCF may well not have the financial resource to take such risks Open access is coming - lets see if anyone takes on this route as a competitive operation. I won't hold my breath.

Even if Hull trains is getting to only cover the marginal infrastructure and they should be paying more as the East Coast Mainline is full it is difficult to argue that Lille-Strasbourg or Lille-Bordeaux or an 11am Nancy-Paris service shouldn’t get the same treatment - even if Lille-Lyon does have to pay higher charges.

You are looking at this with a very UK perspective. The French may well want to ensure that every train covers a proportion of its fixed costs, is not prepared to allow services to run only on the basis of marginal costs. Why would SNCF buy/lease additional trains for something like this?

 

[HSTEd]

Hull trains covers all of its costs and makes a commercial profit with 200 passengers a train, an average speed of 80mph and an average fare of £30 each way.

You certainly cannot really claim that a TGV couldn’t make a reasonable operating profit with 200 passengers a train and realistically I would say it was difficult to argue they couldn’t make an operating profit with 100 passengers a train given the higher speeds.

Hull trains pays a small portion of the true cost of the infrastructure it uses, as do essentially all UK domestic rail services.

Only HS1 sets charges on anything approaching a commercial basis and even then the sale of the concession hid much of the cost base.


Given that access charges are only a quarter of what they should be, I'm skeptical Hull trains even covers it's marginal costs.

 

[RT4038]

In terms of things within the control of the rail industry, the only way to improve Channel Tunnel passenger services is to break SNCF's and SNCF derivative organisations' monopoly.

Agreed, but I don't think this is going to result in many more destinations served directly from London, and could even worsen the existing Lille position.

Cross-Paris transfers are a hassle. Transfers in Lille, or theoretically in Marne-La-Vallee, are much more convenient, especially where the connecting TGVs already run. Hence my suggestion of adding a Lille stop on the first Paris departure from London, which would arrive at Lille an hour earlier than currently possible, enabling more connections.

Of course Cross-Paris transfers are a hassle, but I think it unlikely that more trains are going to run from Lille to south/west/east France, because as open-access comes along this will be concentrated on the main routes to and from Paris, probably at the expense of peripheral services. Hence why rail is not going to be a serious contender against air travel on these corridors, or much over 5 hours at the most and then only between the big population centres.

 

[Trainbike46]

Agreed, but I don't think this is going to result in many more destinations served directly from London, and could even worsen the existing Lille position.


Of course Cross-Paris transfers are a hassle, but I think it unlikely that more trains are going to run from Lille to south/west/east France, because as open-access comes along this will be concentrated on the main routes to and from Paris, probably at the expense of peripheral services. Hence why rail is not going to be a serious contender against air travel on these corridors, or much over 5 hours at the most and then only between the big population centres.

All your arguments are focused on justifying the current situation, even when the justification doesn't really extend beyond "that is not the way we in France do things", yet you say nothing about improving any situations. Do you have any suggestions for how ANY connection through the channel tunnel could be improved?

For example, adding a Lille stop on the first Paris service of the day, and offering through tickets (or some other method of seamless booking) onto existing TGVs from Lille, would likely increase the number of Lille-elsewhere in France tickets being sold, as there would be more connections possible, and the ones that are already possible will be easier to find and book. The increased passenger numbers would then contribute to the case for offering more direct services from Lille, etc. In the end, both passengers to/from Lille itself and across Lille benefit.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Hull trains pays a small portion of the true cost of the infrastructure it uses, as do essentially all UK domestic rail services.

Only HS1 sets charges on anything approaching a commercial basis and even then the sale of the concession hid much of the cost base.


Given that access charges are only a quarter of what they should be, I'm skeptical Hull trains even covers it's marginal costs.

If the cost of the fixed infrastructure from Paris to Nancy say is €100,000 a day and the marginal cost of an extra train is say €250 then if I pay you €300 to run an 11am Nancy-Paris service then you should let me. By all means maybe there should be a profit-share on this so if I do get 1000 passengers on board that I cover some of the fixed costs. But if I only get enough to make a small operating profit with that train it is still better than nothing.

I assume that is crudely how the UK model is supposed to work.

I would also be extremely surprised if the marginal costs were as high as 1/3rd of the fixed costs to be honest.

All your arguments are focused on justifying the current situation, even when the justification doesn't really extend beyond "that is not the way we in France do things", yet you say nothing about improving any situations. Do you have any suggestions for how ANY connection through the channel tunnel could be improved?

For example, adding a Lille stop on the first Paris service of the day, and offering through tickets (or some other method of seamless booking) onto existing TGVs from Lille, would likely increase the number of Lille-elsewhere in France tickets being sold, as there would be more connections possible, and the ones that are already possible will be easier to find and book. The increased passenger numbers would then contribute to the case for offering more direct services from Lille, etc. In the end, both passengers to/from Lille itself and across Lille benefit.

And also passengers from Belgium and the Netherlands would be more likely to use the train if there were also British passengers covering some of the costs.

because as open-access comes along this will be concentrated on the main routes to and from Paris

The British open access operators have typically served marginalised destinations. Albeit from London.

 

[NCT]

From what I gather, France is almost unique in expecting infrastructure capital depreciation to be paid for by ticket revenue. This is another manifestation of the French government being stingy on the railway. I believe Britain is in line with European norms where infrastructure is paid for by the state and commercial rail operations cover the infrastructure wear-and-tear (sometimes with a capacity scarcity element) and train operating costs (rolling stock depreciation and your other milage and time driven costs).

On the 50 new trains eurostar is apparently ordering (has anyone seen any more recent updates), by my count it is not actually that big a fleet expansion, assuming the new trains will be 200m.

It will be replacing all ex-thalys sets (26 200m sets) and the e300s (11 400m or 22 200m-equivalent sets), so they are replacing 48 sets with 50 sets, which is barely an increase at all. So I do wonder how they are going to achieve that growth they are apparently planning. Maybe the passenger growth will in fact be achieved by their new competitors?

Let's hope at least some of the 50 will be 400m sets for the Blue services, otherwise Eurostar's narrative of growth would sound like complete smoke and mirrors

Agreed, but I don't think this is going to result in many more destinations served directly from London, and could even worsen the existing Lille position.

Of course Cross-Paris transfers are a hassle, but I think it unlikely that more trains are going to run from Lille to south/west/east France, because as open-access comes along this will be concentrated on the main routes to and from Paris, probably at the expense of peripheral services. Hence why rail is not going to be a serious contender against air travel on these corridors, or much over 5 hours at the most and then only between the big population centres.

Or a competent and proactive SNCF would start thinking about takt and OD-ticketing, or a competent and proactive French state would let a PSO with those characteristics. Sometimes you need to create a political embarrassment to force parties into actions.

 

[Trainbike46]

Let's hope at least some of the 50 will be 400m sets for the Blue services, otherwise Eurostar's narrative of growth would sound like complete smoke and mirrors

Theoretically passenger growth could be achieved by higher-capacity rolling stock, e.g. double-deck 200m trains, but growth in service frequency or routes would likely require more units. Or maybe the 50 trains is a base order, with options for more trains if required. It would be nice if there was some evidence of progress or more information, but I guess this might be commercially sensitive.

Or a competent and proactive SNCF would start thinking about takt and OD-ticketing, or a competent and proactive French state would let a PSO with those characteristics. Sometimes you need to create a political embarrassment to force parties into actions.

The way SNCF ticketing works has never made any sense to me, I have to agree on that.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The questions would be - how many of the full fare passengers would transfer to the cheaper fare, thereby reducing E* revenue, and (b) would the additional passengers so attracted outweigh this, and any additional costs such as security that may be incurred? Would expecting passengers to arrive 3 or 4 hours before departure, without any refreshment facilities except machines in the waiting room, be too much reputational risk? Is this a risk E* would want to take?

I don't think many full fare passengers would transfer to advances, because you'd lose so much time in Amsterdam and it would be frustrating stuck in a waiting room. Add to that, the demographics of people who use E* in comparison to the ferry/coach/low cost airlines means that people with the resources to pay for the premium service often will do as a matter of course, because it is the best use of their time.
I don't think one summer season of these restricted advances would really damage the E* brand.

I have no experience of the Amsterdam terminal myself, but in Rotterdam the terminal opens 2 hours before departure, so I would assume that border officials will not be there for much before that.

Fair enough

 

[The Ham]

Hull trains pays a small portion of the true cost of the infrastructure it uses, as do essentially all UK domestic rail services.

Only HS1 sets charges on anything approaching a commercial basis and even then the sale of the concession hid much of the cost base.


Given that access charges are only a quarter of what they should be, I'm skeptical Hull trains even covers it's marginal costs.

Track access charges in the UK are a fairly limited cost for the TOC's.

Take a 10 coach 221 (assuming they are all the most expensive rate, as they are also amongst the least effective in terms of capacity and are amongst the most expensive per coach) and it doing a 500 mile return trip (250 miles each way) and the cost is £2,500. Which works or at least than £2.50 each way per seat.

Conversely do the same for the most expensive 801 and as a 5+5 train (with the lowest seating capacity) and the total cost is £978 and per seat is £0.81 each way per seat.

Even at 1/3 full (201 passengers on a 80x) that's still £2.43, so doubling that to give a more realistic number might add up to £5 to a return which could be costing £50 (assuming a ticket price based on 10p a mile). Of course increasing the passenger loading number would mean less of an increase per ticket, as would running more efficient trains (so a 9 coach unit rather than a 5+5 train).

For example, if you ran a 16 coach train with 1,100 seats at the rate for a 395 (assuming the TGV's are close to them in terms of track impact) doing a 500 mile round trip is £1,315 and so the per seat rate is £0.60 each way. However, if you can run them at 45% full rather than 33.3% then the extra to double the track access costs would add £1.33 to a return ticket.

Even at the quoted 200 passengers, it's an extra £6.58 per passenger on a return ticket for a 500 mile round trip. That might mean that (using Hull trains ticketing as an example) that ticket prices would need to rise to £32.20 each way from £30 (note Hull is about 330 miles round trip from London so I've adjusted accordingly).

Obviously that would require us to be in a world where Hull Trains is running 16 coach trains with the capacity of a HS2 train.

 

[Bald Rick]

Track access charges in the UK are a fairly limited cost for the TOC's.

Presumably these are the variable charges, and don’t include the fixed track access charges paid at operator level (but do vary by the number, tonnage and distance travelled of servcies operated)

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Exactly this. TGV to Rang de Fliers-Verton-Berck. Line electrified specifically for it. It is dangerous to assume that SNCF management are necessarily entirely at 'fault' - no doubt they have financial limitations, an inheritance and plenty of politics to deal with.

Rang de Fliers was at the border of the old regions of Nord and Picardie, the former being more pro-rail than the latter. Not chosen because of its huge traffic potential! Ironically it is quicker to R de F via Amiens on the old main line than by TGV - Boulogne isn't much slower either. It also means Calais Ville has no TGVs.

 

[The Ham]

Presumably these are the variable charges, and don’t include the fixed track access charges paid at operator level (but do vary by the number, tonnage and distance travelled of servcies operated)

That is correct.

 

[Chester1]

The problem in Amsterdam is that the border area was expanded significantly (from ~275 passengers per train to ~600 passengers per train), but that the government is unwilling to increase the number of border officials at that station. Eurostar and NS blame the Dutch government for that, and rightfully so in my view. The Dutch government, in its reaction, claimed this was Eurostar's, NS's (operator for Eurostar within the Netherlands), and Prorail's (infrastructure operator, Dutch equivalent of Network Rail) fault for increasing the infrastructure capacity. There is also apparently a conflict between Eurostar and the Dutch government around the costs of border force, which is covered by the government at Schiphol airport, but covered by Eurostar at Amsterdam Centraal. Source here in Dutch.

Eurostar says this will be resolved when ePassport gates are installed after the end of summer.

That is such a poor decision by the Dutch government that it is barely believable. It is a high profile service that offers a green alternative to a major air travel market. 4tph having 325 additional seats would cut about 6 x A320s or 737s of services. Hopefully Eurostar is right and e gates are sufficient.

 

[MatthewHutton]

That is such a poor decision by the Dutch government that it is barely believable. It is a high profile service that offers a green alternative to a major air travel market. 4tph having 325 additional seats would cut about 6 x A320s or 737s of services. Hopefully Eurostar is right and e gates are sufficient.

There is a fair amount of evidence in this thread and elsewhere that even the best run rail networks have significant flaws in how they do things.

The Germans on reliability, the Swiss on speed, the British on infrastructure costs, the French on service levels and flexible ticketing.

 

[Backroom_boy]

The Swiss on speed

Yes I was suprised by this; from just outside Geneva to Landquart took me over five hours. It's one side of the country to the other but it's a smallish one.

 

[RT4038]

All your arguments are focused on justifying the current situation, even when the justification doesn't really extend beyond "that is not the way we in France do things", yet you say nothing about improving any situations. Do you have any suggestions for how ANY connection through the channel tunnel could be improved?

For example, adding a Lille stop on the first Paris service of the day, and offering through tickets (or some other method of seamless booking) onto existing TGVs from Lille, would likely increase the number of Lille-elsewhere in France tickets being sold, as there would be more connections possible, and the ones that are already possible will be easier to find and book. The increased passenger numbers would then contribute to the case for offering more direct services from Lille, etc. In the end, both passengers to/from Lille itself and across Lille benefit.

There have been plenty of suggestions in this thread of things that would 'improve the situations', but I have been commenting on why I think these will not happen, or not happen quickly, mostly for logistical and/or [ultimately] economic reasons. Much as these reasons annoy UK (and other foreign) contributors but, unless the basic laws, rules and practices of economics are suspended, they are likely to remain.

I have no idea why the 6h16 from London does not call at Lille - every other Brussels/Amsterdam train in both directions appear to. Maybe there is a good reason (platform occupancy at that very time it passes possibly?) Perhaps write to E* and ask them? However, it seems that this would only offer one additional connection over the following 7h04 London-Brussels train. I have just had a look at the E* website, and the SNCF Voyageurs website, and see that seamless through booking appears to be offered between London and Lyon or Strasbourg (for instance - various other provincial French stations seem to be available) changing at Lille.

All the countries in Europe would benefit passengers by having a unified ticket booking system, however the financial implications of that in regard to missed connections etc and the sheer cost of development mean that this is unlikely in the short to medium term.

However much train enthusiasts might like to believe, France does not have the same demographics, geography, economy and politics as Germany or the Netherlands or Austria. The demand profile is just not the same, with the presence of an all encompassing mega city of Paris (the likes of which are in none of those countries) and such a huge area of thinly populated countryside. To the people outside, a German style timetable system is just obvious, but I don't think it is at all as simple as that from an economic point of view. As for blaming the current service on some sort of conspiracy of the French political class, just laughable even if there is a grain of truth in that all political systems favour the status quo.

So far, the main solutions proposed have been to force the French Government to: find billions to end cross subsidisation between Intercity/International services and other activities; run services at unlikely marginal rates, requiring additional trains and staff, which are to mainly benefit long distance foreign passengers; introduce more frequent long distance regional services requiring extra trains and staff with uncertain financial result; introduce clock face timetables on main lines flattening peaks of travel to and from the mega-city (presumably with resultant overcrowding) or requiring additional trains and staff to cope with the peak, again with uncertain financial result. All in a country which has well known financial issues facing it funding social care/pensions.

 

[Trainbike46]

There have been plenty of suggestions in this thread of things that would 'improve the situations', but I have been commenting on why I think these will not happen, or not happen quickly, mostly for logistical and/or [ultimately] economic reasons. Much as these reasons annoy UK (and other foreign) contributors but, unless the basic laws, rules and practices of economics are suspended, they are likely to remain.

Okay, but are there any improvements you DO consider feasible?

I have no idea why the 6h16 from London does not call at Lille - every other Brussels/Amsterdam train in both directions appear to. Maybe there is a good reason (platform occupancy at that very time it passes possibly?) Perhaps write to E* and ask them? However, it seems that this would only offer one additional connection over the following 7h04 London-Brussels train. I have just had a look at the E* website, and the SNCF Voyageurs website, and see that seamless through booking appears to be offered between London and Lyon or Strasbourg (for instance - various other provincial French stations seem to be available) changing at Lille.

Seamless bookings do seem to be much improved since last time I tried it (London-Geneva a few years ago), but booking that in one go is now possible again on the Eurostar website, and it wasn't when I previously tried it, so that is good at least.

On the Amsterdam service, the 6:16 (and 8:16 on the days it runs) don't stop in Lille. I suspect this is because the later departure means that there isn't sufficient time to allow a stop. the .04 departures are in the same path from Brussels onwards as the .16 departures, so those have 12 extra minutes, which I suspect is (partially) used to allow the Lille stop. Paths from Brussels northwards are very constrained. This is why I suggested adding a Lille stop on the 06:01 PARIS service. Most of the day, Paris trains can be filled with just Paris passengers, but it seems unlikely for the 6am train to fully sell out, so there should be capacity for some extra Lille passengers.

All the countries in Europe would benefit passengers by having a unified ticket booking system, however the financial implications of that in regard to missed connections etc and the sheer cost of development mean that this is unlikely in the short to medium term.

The cost of missed connections exists whether people have through tickets / tickets bought in one go or separately, so that isn't an extra cost from making booking easier.

However much train enthusiasts might like to believe, France does not have the same demographics, geography, economy and politics as Germany or the Netherlands or Austria. The demand profile is just not the same, with the presence of an all encompassing mega city of Paris (the likes of which are in none of those countries) and such a huge area of thinly populated countryside. To the people outside, a German style timetable system is just obvious, but I don't think it is at all as simple as that from an economic point of view. As for blaming the current service on some sort of conspiracy of the French political class, just laughable even if there is a grain of truth in that all political systems favour the status quo.

I never claimed France was like the Netherlands, the UK, or Germany, so whoever you are replying to with this it isn't me.

So far, the main solutions proposed have been to force the French Government to: find billions to end cross subsidisation between Intercity/International services and other activities; run services at unlikely marginal rates, requiring additional trains and staff, which are to mainly benefit long distance foreign passengers; introduce more frequent long distance regional services requiring extra trains and staff with uncertain financial result; introduce clock face timetables on main lines flattening peaks of travel to and from the mega-city (presumably with resultant overcrowding) or requiring additional trains and staff to cope with the peak, again with uncertain financial result. All in a country which has well known financial issues facing it funding social care/pensions.

I would say that the primary beneficiary of connecting Lille with other French regions would be the various regions of France involved. That there are some international passengers also using the services (and paying fares, thus contributing to the costs of the service and the infrastructure) does not reduce this.

If the intention wasn't to offer TGVs bypassing Paris, why was the LGV interconnexion built at all?

 

[Cloud Strife]

Back on St Pancras, any border facililty can be made to work if you fund it properly, for operations as well as capital. In my former life in project evaluation, many poorer countries start from assuming that their ports and airports are inadequate and new ones are nedeed. When you look at demand and get good operational people involved with enough day-to-day budget you can generally get a lot more out of the existing infrastructure until you hit real constraints.

The interesting issue with St Pancras is that it's also very overbuilt for what it is. If you look at some other past and present examples from Europe, you can see that there's really no need to have immensely elaborate departure halls for travellers as long as you have space to keep them until the train is ready for boarding.

A good example is with Terespol in Poland. The international station for departures is nothing more than a small ticketing/waiting area, an exit customs check and an exit passport control check. You then go down some stairs and up into the departure platform, where you wait for the train to start boarding. There are no shops, no duty free shops, just toilets and nothing else. The same story is with Brest in Belarus, where the international hall is just a large hall for customs control, booths for passport control, then a corridor with a duty free shop and a set of doors to the departure platform. It's enough for 200-300 people, and the departure platform could probably accommodate 500-600 under the roof if needs be.

What should be the main focus in St Pancras is speeding up the whole departure process so that they can get people to only enter the complex at T-30 or so. With the ETA, API and ETIAS, the vast majority of travellers should not need anything more than a single scan of the passport on exit at an e-gate, and security should also be improved so that there are no tailbacks there.

I think it's also worth remembering that Schengen does not impose hugely bureaucratic requirements on border stations too. For example, when Bratislava-Petrzalka was in operation for international border control, the Austrians did the control on the platform. Likewise, until 2023, Slovenia carried out entry and exit Schengen controls onboard local trains without any drama, the train simply waited at the border station. Yes, StP is much larger, but the processes themselves are not particularly problematic in the UK->France direction.

 

[NCT]

The interesting issue with St Pancras is that it's also very overbuilt for what it is. If you look at some other past and present examples from Europe, you can see that there's really no need to have immensely elaborate departure halls for travellers as long as you have space to keep them until the train is ready for boarding.

A good example is with Terespol in Poland. The international station for departures is nothing more than a small ticketing/waiting area, an exit customs check and an exit passport control check. You then go down some stairs and up into the departure platform, where you wait for the train to start boarding. There are no shops, no duty free shops, just toilets and nothing else. The same story is with Brest in Belarus, where the international hall is just a large hall for customs control, booths for passport control, then a corridor with a duty free shop and a set of doors to the departure platform. It's enough for 200-300 people, and the departure platform could probably accommodate 500-600 under the roof if needs be.

What should be the main focus in St Pancras is speeding up the whole departure process so that they can get people to only enter the complex at T-30 or so. With the ETA, API and ETIAS, the vast majority of travellers should not need anything more than a single scan of the passport on exit at an e-gate, and security should also be improved so that there are no tailbacks there.

I think it's also worth remembering that Schengen does not impose hugely bureaucratic requirements on border stations too. For example, when Bratislava-Petrzalka was in operation for international border control, the Austrians did the control on the platform. Likewise, until 2023, Slovenia carried out entry and exit Schengen controls onboard local trains without any drama, the train simply waited at the border station. Yes, StP is much larger, but the processes themselves are not particularly problematic in the UK->France direction.

Entering Schengen area from a non-Schengen EU member state and entering Schengen area from a non-EU country are different things. This is the difference between the pre- and post-Brexit arrangements that 'broke' St Pancras. Unless the UK can grow up with about its relationship with the EU then I'm afraid any talk about St Pancras procedures being easier than it is, or indeed mixing arriving and departing passengers at platform level is wishful thinking.

Done inbound at BER twice in the past 6 weeks, once evening once middle of day. 5-8 minutes from arriving at immigration to out the other side. Outbound to non-Schengen was even shorter each time (but outbound security was a disaster).

This difficulty with everyone's experiences is that you see a small number events and you can document the worst (e.g. mine is nearly passing out with low sugar in the 45 minute queue on the apron to get into immigration at Liverpool, 2nd worse was at Delhi). Manchester T2 managed to strand arriving people on an airbridge recently as the handlers hadn't realised the aircraft had arrived.

Back on St Pancras, any border facililty can be made to work if you fund it properly, for operations as well as capital. In my former life in project evaluation, many poorer countries start from assuming that their ports and airports are inadequate and new ones are nedeed. When you look at demand and get good operational people involved with enough day-to-day budget you can generally get a lot more out of the existing infrastructure until you hit real constraints.

We know the only serious constraint at St Pancras currently is the commercial objectives, maximise retail rents. Change the objective (renegotiate LSPHSwhatever it's now called's long term lease) to running an efficient transport interchange.

Unfortunately we have grown into this bizarre way of thinking about transport interchanges in britain becoming normal because 30-40 years ago everything (outside London rail terminals at peak), including most airport terminals, was well under capacity. It was a no-brainer to use space for secondary revenue, it had no operational impact. We then assumed the secondary revenue was essential even when passengers started to reach the capacity of the infrastructure. Tail now wags the dog, but most don't realise it.

Getting back to the more general point - the proportion of space dedicated to retail in St Pancras is actually tiny - simply getting rid of that retail would only add a small slither of space to the Eurostar departure area. As to overall objectives - it's about maximising overall commercial and social welfare, and the balance between transport and retail outcomes isn't for some policy diktat to decide. If you have to sacrifice commercial objectives just so transport capabilities can stand still that's still a net reduction in the overall value envelope to LSPH and it's up to its shareholders to decide what the new equilibrium looks like. All else being equal it's Brexit that has imposed a compromise that wouldn't otherwise be needed. Britain actually lags behind in commercialising station spaces compared with our European peers. Station retail isn't unimportant for transport users - especially in the context of our ~2h intercity journey times, good station food offering is more effective, a more economically efficient offer than every inter-city train carrying a full dining car. It's easy to say 'just get rid of station retail' in a handwavy way - the economic and commercial realities are far more finely balanced - you would be imposing a commercial loss and a welfare loss for the passengers who use the commercial facilities, and the public sector often doesn't have the commercial or legal levers to simply impose that loss.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Entering Schengen area from a non-Schengen EU member state and entering Schengen area from a non-EU country are different things. This is the difference between the pre- and post-Brexit arrangements that 'broke' St Pancras. Unless the UK can grow up with about its relationship with the EU then I'm afraid any talk about St Pancras procedures being easier than it is, or indeed mixing arriving and departing passengers at platform level is wishful thinking.

Generally speaking, it's not really that different. The processes for non-EU citizens are pretty much the same, the only difference is that in the case of St Pancras, they needed to have more desks available for "All Passports" than previously, and processing took longer because of the (possible) need to verify certain things about the traveller. In the aforementioned case of Bratislava-Petrzalka, nothing really changed once Slovakia joined the EU except that Slovakia and Austria no longer needed to do a full check on most travellers.

The issue was really that France had been undermanning the border for a long time, not only at St Pancras, but also in other places such as Dover. It was quite normal to be waved through the French entry checks in Dover, or even for no-one to be present. Once the French PAF started checking Brits en masse, St Pancras 'broke' because they simply didn't have the space.

However, with the ETIAS and EES coming into force, there's no reason why St Pancras couldn't open check-in from T-30 for travellers. This would also massively ease the current situation, as passport control shouldn't take more than a minute or two to get through. What I don't know is whether it would be possible for trains to dwell in St Pancras for 20 minutes: if yes, then T-30 minute check-ins would be fine as passengers would go straight to the train. Combine this with a special provision that any passenger delayed as a result of border control can take the next available train as long as they're at passport control before T-10, and job done.

Again, in the days before the EU and Schengen, it was absolutely normal for passengers at Bratislava-Petrzalka to turn up even 5-10 minutes before departure and to get through both Slovak exit controls and Austrian entry controls. Yes, Eurostar is specific in that these are not local trains, but the frontier is not a problem in itself, it's just a question of organisation. In other comparable places, such as Vilnius or Narva, there was no requirement to turn up 30 or even 45 minutes before departure just to get through border control.

 

[MatthewHutton]

However much train enthusiasts might like to believe, France does not have the same demographics, geography, economy and politics as Germany or the Netherlands or Austria. The demand profile is just not the same, with the presence of an all encompassing mega city of Paris (the likes of which are in none of those countries)

If London is less dominant in Britain than Paris is in France then that is actually a criticism of the French.

So far, the main solutions proposed have been to force the French Government to: find billions to end cross subsidisation between Intercity/International services and other activities;

France will spend less public money on its railways if it runs suitable services for the French regions, the British and other foreigners.

What I don't know is whether it would be possible for trains to dwell in St Pancras for 20 minutes

There are 6 platforms so with current service levels of 3tph they could be board able an hour before departure.

 

[RT4038]

Okay, but are there any improvements you DO consider feasible?

Well, I know that it is our national psyche of rivalry to assume the French as a people are inferior of thinking (after all, one of them did put an arrow in our King's eye which quite rightly is unforgiveable!) but I have found that individually they are pretty switched on in their logistical and economic understanding. I do not think there is some magic wand to make improvements - if there was I would expect much of it to be done already - I doubt there is the political or commercial impetus nor the financial priority for anything major anyway. If there is anything that could be done to improve connections between E* and the existing services from Lille that would be good, but again I would expect that this has been thought of and gone through already and the various competing demands prioritised - which may not always be the relatively small market of International connecting passengers in every case of course.

On the Amsterdam service, the 6:16 (and 8:16 on the days it runs) don't stop in Lille. I suspect this is because the later departure means that there isn't sufficient time to allow a stop. the .04 departures are in the same path from Brussels onwards as the .16 departures, so those have 12 extra minutes, which I suspect is (partially) used to allow the Lille stop. Paths from Brussels northwards are very constrained. This is why I suggested adding a Lille stop on the 06:01 PARIS service. Most of the day, Paris trains can be filled with just Paris passengers, but it seems unlikely for the 6am train to fully sell out, so there should be capacity for some extra Lille passengers.

I daresay that E* are prioritising the speed and commercial advantages of the departure and arrival times (and possibly pathing into Paris) of the 6h01 London-Paris over a trickle of potential connecting passengers and the concomitant additional journey time stopping at Lille. Possibly the 6h16 could leave at 6h04 and make a stop but I am unsure of platform occupancy at Lille Europe to know whether this is possible. As I said earlier, write to E* and you might find out some background?

I would say that the primary beneficiary of connecting Lille with other French regions would be the various regions of France involved. That there are some international passengers also using the services (and paying fares, thus contributing to the costs of the service and the infrastructure) does not reduce this.

If the intention wasn't to offer TGVs bypassing Paris, why was the LGV interconnexion built at all?

I should imagine they are beneficiaries, and no issue with International connecting passengers making use of such services, but whether they are financially viable (at their present high frequency) may well be a moot point. Even if they are, I would expect them to be weaker than central Paris services and more likely to be reduced / eliminated if Open Access battles break out.

I expect that Interconnexion was built for political reasons and/ or even possibly long, long term planning of the like that the UK has no truck with!!!

If London is less dominant in Britain than Paris is in France then that is actually a criticism of the French.

I don't think it really advisable to be criticising another country or its people on such a flimsy basis.........

France will spend less public money on its railways if it runs suitable services for the French regions, the British and other foreigners.

Perhaps you will have the opportunity in the future to put your money in such a venture, instead of just telling others how to spend theirs? Invest in an Open Access operator maybe?

 

[Trainbike46]

Well, I know that it is our national psyche of rivalry to assume the French as a people are inferior of thinking

I wasn't expecting to have to point this out, but I do not believe this. I've seen examples of really good policy coming out of France. The question was also posed to you as an individual, not to "the French" as a concept.

(after all, one of them did put an arrow in our King's eye which quite rightly is unforgiveable!) but I have found that individually they are pretty switched on in their logistical and economic understanding. I do not think there is some magic wand to make improvements - if there was I would expect much of it to be done already - I doubt there is the political or commercial impetus nor the financial priority for anything major anyway. If there is anything that could be done to improve connections between E* and the existing services from Lille that would be good, but again I would expect that this has been thought of and gone through already and the various competing demands prioritised - which may not always be the relatively small market of International connecting passengers in every case of course.

Thank you for clarifying.

I should imagine they are beneficiaries, and no issue with International connecting passengers making use of such services, but whether they are financially viable (at their present high frequency) may well be a moot point. Even if they are, I would expect them to be weaker than central Paris services and more likely to be reduced / eliminated if Open Access battles break out.

Has this happened in Spain, where an open-access battle has broken out? As far as I can tell service frequency has increased on some routes, and stayed the same on others, but hasn't decreased significantly anywhere. The one exception being services between France and Spain, which reduced after what appears to be a conflict between RENFE and the SNCF.

While France and Spain clearly are different countries, they have some similarities; namely a massive capital city in the centre surrounded by relatively empty countryside, with some key cities that mostly connect to the capital. Both also have a very well-developed high-speed railway network.

Bringing this back to Eurostar and the Channel Tunnel, Eurostar did cancel the Amsterdam-south of France services this summer, and no open-access battle has broken out yet, despite this service having >95% seat occupancy across the entire season in 2019, with 70% of the trains fully selling out. It does appear eurostar will cancel what they view as "non-core" routes whether an open-access battle materialises or not.

I expect that Interconnexion was built for political reasons and/ or even possibly long, long term planning of the like that the UK has no truck with!!!

I think building the Interconnexion was a good idea! It does seem to me however, that the intent was to run services over it, and likely more than run at present,in the long term.

 

[MatthewHutton]

I don't think it really advisable to be criticising another country or its people on such a flimsy basis.........

People (rightly IMO) in Britain criticise Britain for being London centric. If France is worse then that isn't a complement.

I should imagine they are beneficiaries, and no issue with International connecting passengers making use of such services, but whether they are financially viable

They clearly are on routes that aren’t running at capacity (I.e everything but LGV Sud Est). If the route isn’t running at capacity marginal services don’t need to pay back the construction capital costs or the fixed costs of the link existing at all. Those can be covered by the long distance Paris services.

Perhaps you will have the opportunity in the future to put your money in such a venture, instead of just telling others how to spend theirs? Invest in an Open Access operator maybe?

France has made running open access operators very difficult.

I think building the Interconnexion was a good idea! It does seem to me however, that the intent was to run services over it, and likely more than run at present,in the long term.

It’s difficult to say much at all bad about the LGV construction. It all looks pretty solid to me.

The main “flaw” is the lack of capacity on LGV Sud Est - but that clearly wasnt obvious in 1980 when it was built.

 

[Krokodil]

Again, in the days before the EU and Schengen, it was absolutely normal for passengers at Bratislava-Petrzalka to turn up even 5-10 minutes before departure and to get through both Slovak exit controls and Austrian entry controls. Yes, Eurostar is specific in that these are not local trains, but the frontier is not a problem in itself, it's just a question of organisation. In other comparable places, such as Vilnius or Narva, there was no requirement to turn up 30 or even 45 minutes before departure just to get through border control.

How many passengers did that involve though? Obviously with Eurostar you're talking 900 passengers, you're never going to process all of those in a few minutes before boarding. Though 10 minutes for Premier passengers should eventually be achievable.