Without additional funding from government there is a real risk to the survival of Eurostar

[Wolfie]

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!

No worries. For what it's worth the diplomatic service doesn't really exist any more. The separate FCO (now FCDO) structure has been merged into the Civil Service proper.

Putting a visit to the UK into the middle of an intra-schengen service just isn't going to fly politically or operationally.

I'd missed that suggestion. You aren't kidding. It would have been problematic even when UK was an EU member.

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.

Strangely enough there are all sorts of additional safety requirements for trains which run through the tunnel.

 

[MattRat]

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.

Thalys, not Eurostar.

I'd missed that suggestion. You aren't kidding. It would have been problematic even when UK was an EU member.

Strangely enough there are all sorts of additional safety requirements for trains which run through the tunnel.

OK, I get it. If Eurostar falls, there is no way to offer a compromise service. Only 'comprise' might be Thalys serving Calais, a bus between Le Shuttle and Southeastern stations, and Le Shuttle putting carriages on for on foot traffic...

 

[Gloster]

Thalys, not Eurostar.

OK, I get it. If Eurostar falls, there is no way to offer a compromise service. Only 'comprise' might be Thalys serving Calais, a bus between Le Shuttle and Southeastern stations, and Le Shuttle putting carriages on for on foot traffic...

I should have said ‘...any replacement for...(Eurostar).

If Eurostar went, I doubt there would be any substitute services within France or Belgium in the existing services‘ times and little or no alteration to the domestic timetable. That would probably mean making your way to Calais (more likely Frethun than Ville) to board a coach that would catch a normal shuttle, just like a tourist coach. The best that could be hoped for would be guaranteed spots on the next departure. In England it would probably be straight to Ashford, or even London.

 

[MattRat]

I should have said ‘...any replacement for...(Eurostar).

If Eurostar went, I doubt there would be any substitute services within France or Belgium in the existing services‘ times and little or no alteration to the domestic timetable. That would probably mean making your way to Calais (more likely Frethun than Ville) to board a coach that would catch a normal shuttle, just like a tourist coach. The best that could be hoped for would be guaranteed spots on the next departure. In England it would probably be straight to Ashford, or even London.

Actually, you can get a TGV from Calais. You could then swap at Lille for a Thalys service. Although that would be a real pain. Honestly, it would probably be easier to get a ferry from Dover to either Rotterdam or Calais, and vice versa, and go from there, but that would be much slower than flying, especially now they don't run the fast ferries.

 

[Gloster]

Actually, you can get a TGV from Calais. You could then swap at Lille for a Thalys service. Although that would be a real pain. Honestly, it would probably be easier to get a ferry from Dover to either Rotterdam or Calais, and vice versa, and go from there, but that would be much slower than flying, especially now they don't run the fast ferries.

True, but you are introducing a numbers of negative elements compared to a through London-Lille/Paris/Brussels service: longer journey times, changes, immigration partway through the journey, greater risk of delays, etc. These are not going to make it a very attractive alternative.

 

[MattRat]

True, but you are introducing a numbers of negative elements compared to a through London-Lille/Paris/Brussels service: longer journey times, changes, immigration partway through the journey, greater risk of delays, etc. These are not going to make it a very attractive alternative.

I was just saying what you could technically do if Eurostar collapsed, not what was best.

 

[mike57]

We used Eurostar for Holidays pre covid. From what we saw all the intermediate stops with the possible exception of Lille generate relativley small numbers of passengers. So as others have said if Eurostar did collapse then scaling it back to just London - Paris and London - Brussels would probably result in something which could be run and be profitable. London - Lille could also work, there are good onward connections to Paris and Brussels, as well a connections to other parts of France. Lille could be a good interconnection, there are TGV services to the South and West of France, but Eurostar services never seemed to connect with them, and ticketing was a nightmare. If you were going to reduce Eurostar then London - Lille would work in terms of connections, but Lille Europe as it stands would not be able handle either the passenger flow, security etc or the terminating rail services, and after a collapse any new operator is not going to want to invest millions in new infrastructure.

Eurostar is also attractive to those who live a long way from any airport, our nearest airports are Humberside, Leeds and Teesside, all 3 are about a 1h 30m drive, factor in another 30mins to park and get in the airport, then the check in time, which with low cost flights tend to be longer, and train starts to look attractive. The flight options are also quite limited, which then means looking at London or Manchester, once you come into London you end up at Kings X anyway so may as well catch the train onwards as its just a walk across the road. The problem with rail is the ticketing, it will discourage travellers with significant journeys at either end as sorting it out requires a 'degree' in UK and European rail ticketing, its not so much about the cost, its about trying to join it all up. So if Eurostar or a new operator wanted to increase business with minimal outlay, sort the ticketing out, and make the punters aware.

Even post brexit I dont think the government would want cross channel trains to cease completely so I think a deal would be cobbled together behind the scenes to keep at least a basic service running.

 

[RT4038]

If Eurostar collapsed it would be for technical financial reasons, and one of the SNCF subsidiaries would restart London-Brussels and London-Paris services as soon as sufficient economical demand resumes. In the meantime the residual demand could easily be catered for by air services and road coaches.

 

[deltic]

HS1 annual report apparently states that it expects Eurostar to be back to 50% of services by March 2022 but will not run the same number of trains as pre-covid until 2025

 

[MattRat]

If Eurostar collapsed it would be for technical financial reasons, and one of the SNCF subsidiaries would restart London-Brussels and London-Paris services as soon as sufficient economical demand resumes. In the meantime the residual demand could easily be catered for by air services and road coaches.

HS1 annual report apparently states that it expects Eurostar to be back to 50% of services by March 2022 but will not run the same number of trains as pre-covid until 2025

This is what worries me. That strategy is guaranteed to cause a loss. Too many routes, too few passengers. But if they did hopefully scale it back to just the big 2 routes, I see it surviving, but I don't know what the chances of that happening are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is what worries me. That strategy is guaranteed to cause a loss. Too many routes, too few passengers. But if they did hopefully scale it back to just the big 2 routes, I see it surviving, but I don't know what the chances of that happening are.

E* is too much of a political project. If it failed it would absolutely be replaced, though it might take a couple of years to procure stock, recruit staff etc. There is really no need to worry about London-Paris services at least (those being the most important) ending permanently.

 

[MattRat]

E* is too much of a political project. If it failed it would absolutely be replaced, though it might take a couple of years to procure stock, recruit staff etc. There is really no need to worry about London-Paris services at least (those being the most important) ending permanently.

Then why ask for money instead of cutting costs?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then why ask for money instead of cutting costs?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Clearly E* wants to continue as a business. My point is that if it didn't it would be replaced. So as a user we don't need to worry.

It's just like if easyJet, Ryanair and BA all folded, someone else would come in and restart the main routes.

 

[MattRat]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Clearly E* wants to continue as a business. My point is that if it didn't it would be replaced. So as a user we don't need to worry.

It's just like if easyJet, Ryanair and BA all folded, someone else would come in and restart the main routes.

It's more that if everyone involved wants E* to continue, cutting costs should be the main focus, not them asking for money. This could easily have been done just cutting e320 services, and leasing those units to other European railways. But instead they wanted a cash injection. It just doesn't look good for a business POV.

Of course, if E* fails and another company takes over, they might run things better, but that depends on which company that is, IMO.

 

[zwk500]

It's more that if everyone involved wants E* to continue, cutting costs should be the main focus, not them asking for money. This could easily have been done just cutting e320 services, and leasing those units to other European railways. But instead they wanted a cash injection. It just doesn't look good for a business POV.

Eurostar has debts to pay. Losing less money doesn't make a great proposition for the bank manager. They've cut costs as well.

This is what worries me. That strategy is guaranteed to cause a loss. Too many routes, too few passengers. But if they did hopefully scale it back to just the big 2 routes, I see it surviving, but I don't know what the chances of that happening are.

The core routes will be the focus. Expect Ashford and Ebbsfleet to lose out as the focus is purely on London-Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam. Marne Le vallee (Disneyland), the ski trains and anything further into France is a couple of years away at least. I suspect the German proposals will also be kept on hold as well.

 

[RT4038]

It's more that if everyone involved wants E* to continue, cutting costs should be the main focus, not them asking for money. This could easily have been done just cutting e320 services, and leasing those units to other European railways. But instead they wanted a cash injection. It just doesn't look good for a business POV.

Of course, if E* fails and another company takes over, they might run things better, but that depends on which company that is, IMO.

But I thought that E* have cut their costs - they had cancelled all their services bar one a day during the lockdown period. I cannot imagine that there was any market for them to lease their trains to - the continental railways have also suffered massive passenger losses.

This is what worries me. That strategy is guaranteed to cause a loss. Too many routes, too few passengers. But if they did hopefully scale it back to just the big 2 routes, I see it surviving, but I don't know what the chances of that happening are.

Why are these strategies guaranteed to cause a loss? Seems eminently sensible to me. The only thing that has guaranteed them to make a loss has been the short term total collapse of their market during the pandemic. This will recover eventually (by 2025 they reckon?)

 

[StephenHunter]

They still have to pay staff.

 

[MattRat]

But I thought that E* have cut their costs - they had cancelled all their services bar one a day during the lockdown period. I cannot imagine that there was any market for them to lease their trains to - the continental railways have also suffered massive passenger losses.


Why are these strategies guaranteed to cause a loss? Seems eminently sensible to me. The only thing that has guaranteed them to make a loss has been the short term total collapse of their market during the pandemic. This will recover eventually (by 2025 they reckon?)

They are still going to serve unprofitable routes, which they simply can't afford right now. By cutting costs I mean cutting routes, to only the profitable ones. And if they can't lease excess rolling stock, they'd just have to sell it. Maybe they could sell units to operate HS2.

 

[zwk500]

They are still going to serve unprofitable routes, which they simply can't afford right now. By cutting costs I mean cutting routes, to only the profitable ones.

That's what they've done!

And if they can't lease excess rolling stock, they'd just have to sell it. Maybe they could sell units to operate HS2.

HS2 will need 200m-long trains that can fit the british loading gauge. Eurostar Sets are 400m long and won't fit. While in theory they could operate the captive only services Between Euston and Birmingham International (and eventually Manchester) I suspect that having a separate captive and classic-compatible fleet will be operationally too constricting. It would also mean E* couldn't then pick their services up again if demand recovers quickly, as purchase of trains takes years to complete for legal, operational and financial reasons.

Train companies make huge decisions like selling stock on a very long term basis. Covid isn't even over yet. Don't be hasty.

 

[MattRat]

That's what they've done!

HS2 will need 200m-long trains that can fit the british loading gauge. Eurostar Sets are 400m long and won't fit. While in theory they could operate the captive only services Between Euston and Birmingham International (and eventually Manchester) I suspect that having a separate captive and classic-compatible fleet will be operationally too constricting. It would also mean E* couldn't then pick their services up again if demand recovers quickly, as purchase of trains takes years to complete for legal, operational and financial reasons.

Train companies make huge decisions like selling stock on a very long term basis. Covid isn't even over yet. Don't be hasty.

Apologies. It's hard to find news on the full matter. Plus you have to factor in good old scaremongering....

The rolling stock options were just seeing how they could reduce rolling stock cost, although the best course of action sounds like just mothballing them until they are needing again.

 

[zwk500]

Apologies. It's hard to find news on the full matter. Plus you have to factor in good old scaremongering....

The rolling stock options were just seeing how they could reduce rolling stock cost, although the best course of action sounds like just mothballing them until they are needing again.

It will cost far less to store them in the depot while not needed than to sell them to an operator who is still years away from actually needing trains only to find they need them back in 2025.

 

[biko]

But I thought that E* have cut their costs - they had cancelled all their services bar one a day during the lockdown period. I cannot imagine that there was any market for them to lease their trains to - the continental railways have also suffered massive passenger losses

Indeed, and added to that, they are way too long for most services, especially now.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed, and added to that, they are way too long for most services, especially now.

Are they? Pre-Covid, the Eurostars I've been on pretty much universally have had nearly every Standard seat occupied.

 

[biko]

Are they? Pre-Covid, the Eurostars I've been on pretty much universally have had nearly every Standard seat occupied.

Not for Eurostar use, but I was replying to the suggestion to lease them to other railways on the continent. They are way too long to fit in most platforms and demand is not high enough to add multiple 16-car trains

 

[Ianno87]

Not for Eurostar use, but I was replying to the suggestion to lease them to other railways on the continent. They are way too long to fit in most platforms and demand is not high enough to add multiple 16-car trains

Ah, I see. Their only use might be for strengthing (say) Paris-Mediterranean services during peak periods.

 

[SamYeager]

I'm sure the latest regulations mandating quarantine for UK visitors to France will help E* travel to increase.

 

[MattRat]

I'm sure the latest regulations mandating quarantine for UK visitors to France will help E* travel to increase.

Which countries that E* served don't require quarantine right now?

 

[DanielB]

Which countries that E* served don't require quarantine right now?

None I suppose? There's actually a ban on travelling into the EU/Schengen area for non-essential purposes when you're coming from a country that is not on the safe list (and the UK isn't on that list)

 

[MattRat]

None I suppose? There's actually a ban on travelling into the EU/Schengen area for non-essential purposes when you're coming from a country that is not on the safe list (and the UK isn't on that list)

So the UK isn't on the safe list, despite being safer than most of Europe. I understand the other way around, but the way you describe sounds like shenanigans.

 

[StephenHunter]

Some countries in the EU are exempting fully vaccinated people from the UK from that ban.