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

[Taunton]

I suspect Macron would quite enjoy knocking Eurostar on the head. He's been grossly embarrassed trying to do it over the UK-led vaccine, let's screw their transport links instead.

 

[Watershed]

On what basis do you think “Eurostar wasn’t doing better before the pandemic?”

They consistently make money, the load factors are good, they compete well using price and quality of service against the other operators on the route, they have a popular brand and a loyal customer base. That’s before you get into - what you might call the public goods - of their UK employees, their contribution to the Exchequer, their help to the environment, the social benefits and so on.

Frankly a better target of criticism would be Eurotunnel’s access charging model, and UK Gov’s refusal to countenance on-train passport checks. Changing both would do far more to help cross Channel train travel grow than simply allowing another operator.

Eurostar made a rather mediocre profit after receiving below-cost use of an asset that is publicly subsidised (HS1 and the Chunnel). Nothing to be shouting about in my view.

They are certainly hamstrung by political issues to an extent, but equally they have had more than their fair share of government support in other areas.

 

[BahrainLad]

Eurostar made a rather mediocre profit after receiving below-cost use of an asset that is publicly subsidised (HS1 and the Chunnel). Nothing to be shouting about in my view.

They are certainly hamstrung by political issues to an extent, but equally they have had more than their fair share of government support in other areas.

And yet only the other day the FT said...



Flying is generally cheaper, not least because airlines pay no fuel tax or track access charges. For every £79 Eurostar ticket, Channel Tunnel operator Getlink ends up with nearly £20. Track owners on both sides take a further £15. These costs include electricity as well as access. High-speed track access charges are almost twice as high in the UK as in any EU country.

 

[Starmill]

On what basis do you think “Eurostar wasn’t doing better before the pandemic?”

Principally that they don't carry very many people because they've bet on holding a monopoly and higher fares as a more successful strategy. And that that's the opposite strategy to the one SNCF are now pursuing in other markets.

I feel we've pretty much covered everything here but this discussion from three years ago feels very relevant: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/channel-tunnel-capacity-constraints.150554/page-2#post-3070108 Bald Rick has done a lot to explain why Eurostar hasn't achieved the numbers that might have been expected of it in the investment case to build HS1 and the Channel Tunnel.

I'm sure every one of us would rather a comprehensive international train service through the tunnel, and I'm sure everyone agrees that the UK Government's refusal to join Schengen is mainly to blame. Unfortunately it has for years been part of the nature of British politics to be opposed to immigration and 'foreigners' generally (overtly or covertly) and generally indifferent towards atmospheric carbon emissions or railways. The current government fits both criteria perfectly, though they'd probably try to claim otherwise. If people could vote for less racist politicians we'd gain a lot more than just improved international train services, though.

Finally, £20 is probably a slight underestimate of the per-passenger tunnel toll.

 

[BahrainLad]

Principally that they don't carry very many people because they've bet on holding a monopoly and higher fares as a more successful strategy. And that that's the opposite strategy to the one SNCF are now pursuing in other markets.

I feel we've pretty much covered everything here but this discussion from three years ago feels very relevant: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/channel-tunnel-capacity-constraints.150554/page-2#post-3070108 Bald Rick has done a lot to explain why Eurostar hasn't achieved the numbers that might have been expected of it in the investment case to build HS1 and the Channel Tunnel.

All that post says is that Eurostar hasn’t hit the forecast traffic numbers from before the tunnel was built. I think everyone knows they were wildly optimistic. The FT also goes on to state that Eurostar makes £8 operating profit per passenger, which doesn’t strike me as very much room to reduce yields when you consider the fixed costs involved.

Incidentally, Bald Rick refers to the impact of low cost airlines: they didn’t come about by accident but became possible in Europe because the EU deregulated aviation markets in 1992 much as the US did in the 1970s. Which is similar to what I have previously suggested - we should be trying to get the regulatory environment right rather than heaping blame on one particular operator.

 

[Starmill]

Which is similar to what I have previously suggested - we should be trying to get the regulatory environment right rather than heaping blame on one particular operator.

The regulatory environment which has, of course, become much harsher, particularly with reference to customs but also to document rules (stamps, then ETIAS) and proof of funds etc. than the last time leisure travel was permitted on Eurostar services last year. All done at the wishes of the UK government.

 

[Watershed]

Flying is generally cheaper, not least because airlines pay no fuel tax or track access charges. For every £79 Eurostar ticket, Channel Tunnel operator Getlink ends up with nearly £20. Track owners on both sides take a further £15. These costs include electricity as well as access. High-speed track access charges are almost twice as high in the UK as in any EU country.

And yet even at those levels, the track access charges do not cover not the full economic cost of maintaining the infrastructure. For example, HS1 was effectively a present to Eurostar.

The uncomfortable reality is that other means of transport, such as flying, get away with imposing their negative externalities on society pretty much for free. There is little to no political impetus for the imposition of sufficient taxes to compensate for this.

The railway is much more expensive from an infrastructure and operations standpoint, but doesn't impose nearly as many negative externalities - the inherent disadvantage of that position is painfully obvious in cases like these.

 

[JonathanP]

To recap on the situation here:

Two months ago, some "business leaders"(not Eurostar!) wrote a letter saying that it would be quite handy if Eurostar got some government support.

Since then, absolutely nothing has happenned. The trains are still running, and neither side has said they will provide support, or that they won't provide support. Nor have there been any definite reports that serious negotiations are underway, or that negotiations had failed.

Despite that, this thread has the 4th greatest number of replies in the history of this forum section

At this stage, despite the hundreds of posts written on the subject of whether Eurostar deserves state support or not, I suspect that Eurostar International Ltd. will tough it out using conventional funding sources until levels are low enough for leisure travel combined with vaccine passports and rapid testing to return.

 

[EnriqueEspaña]

I would say it has become clear that Eurostar did not need urgent financial support when this thread was started, as it is still here operating. Theres not much to add but on about page 3-5 I commented in detail about their pricing structures. One thing now will make eurostar more competitive and has only become clear to me recently. I previously criticised eurostar for the lack of availability or pricing competitiveness with low cost airlines in fares purchased a week-month before travel. However, after speaking with a lot of clients I work with within the airline industry they mostly admit that prices seen pre pandemic will probably not return for some time. Demand as a whole has been reduced, but there are plenty of airlines with massive holes in their finances due to taking on extra loans who will need to increase prices and pass on these costs to the consumer to stay afloat in the long run. It may well be that the best option is what eurostar already have: a monoply. They have a better chance to survive as airlines cant compete for city to city overall journey times, even from London City Airport. If Eurostar can weather the storm, they will be fine. There is some optimism for re-opening having a similar economic impact as the roaring 20s, and so far it seems that financial markets have priced this in as likely. So theres a little optimism to end on, other sources of funding are available other that state aid, Eurostar has plenty of options financially and might do well to consider that just because the state overly interveins in France doesnt mean it is a good solution.

 

[RT4038]

The reality is that railway enthusiasts and, dare I say it, middle class people, think that Eurostar is much more important than it really is. Although frankly that affects rail widely.

Quite. Government has given exceptional (some might say inappropriate) support to the rail industry in the UK over the pandemic period, and I see no reason not to assist E* if it is necessary. I suspect that, pre-covid, it was just as well used on a passenger km/train km basis as many other inter city rail services in this country. As you point out, there are those who think that railways are more important than others do, but I guess that will always be the case with all sorts of subjects. 'Reality' is still only your (or my) take on the situation!

I think a lot of negativity around Eurostar stems from a) it doesn't serve anywhere in the UK other than London+Kent and b) it has a perception of being expensive. A lot of people say the same about British Airways!

The Tyne & Wear Metro only serves the North East, but doesn't get negativity from the rest of the country as a result. P&O ferries don't serve Manchester.

E* gets negativity on rail forums (and therefore rail enthusiasts) because it does not act like a traditional UK railway. Compulsory reservation, no railcards valid, or split ticketing deals, commercial ethos requiring concentration on the most profitable traffics, completely unlike the continental trips of the misty eyed past of through carriages to Istanbul etc. 'check-in' like an aeroplane, annoyance at modern day immigration practice as it affects them. Just a general annoyance that the company and service act like an airline rather than a traditional railway, and that is not 'right'. All the sort of things that 99% of the passengers have no concern about whatsoever. And, of course, that the company refuse to suspend the laws of transport economics and offer cheap fares to them, or provide uneconomic, uncompetitive (in the low cost flight environment) services from London to Geneva or Birmingham to Frankfurt because that is somehow what railways 'should be doing'.

 

[Purple Orange]

Quite. Government has given exceptional (some might say inappropriate) support to the rail industry in the UK over the pandemic period, and I see no reason not to assist E* if it is necessary. I suspect that, pre-covid, it was just as well used on a passenger km/train km basis as many other inter city rail services in this country. As you point out, there are those who think that railways are more important than others do, but I guess that will always be the case with all sorts of subjects. 'Reality' is still only your (or my) take on the situation!

The Tyne & Wear Metro only serves the North East, but doesn't get negativity from the rest of the country as a result. P&O ferries don't serve Manchester.

E* gets negativity on rail forums (and therefore rail enthusiasts) because it does not act like a traditional UK railway. Compulsory reservation, no railcards valid, or split ticketing deals, commercial ethos requiring concentration on the most profitable traffics, completely unlike the continental trips of the misty eyed past of through carriages to Istanbul etc. 'check-in' like an aeroplane, annoyance at modern day immigration practice as it affects them. Just a general annoyance that the company and service act like an airline rather than a traditional railway, and that is not 'right'. All the sort of things that 99% of the passengers have no concern about whatsoever. And, of course, that the company refuse to suspend the laws of transport economics and offer cheap fares to them, or provide uneconomic, uncompetitive (in the low cost flight environment) services from London to Geneva or Birmingham to Frankfurt because that is somehow what railways 'should be doing'.

The last thing we should be seeing is a cat-o-nine-tails route network emanating from St. Pancras and performing 1 train per day trips to Geneva and such like doesn’t seem to be the most efficient way to run a business. It seems to me that the best TOCS are the ones that run clear discrete networks or have their own self contained network like Merseyrail or even the Tyne & Wear Metro. Eurostar should stick to 2 or 3 core services: London to Paris, Amsterdam via Brussels and at most one other city such as Frankfurt (if it can be timed competitively with air).

 

[RT4038]

The last thing we should be seeing is a cat-o-nine-tails route network emanating from St. Pancras and performing 1 train per day trips to Geneva and such like doesn’t seem to be the most efficient way to run a business. It seems to me that the best TOCS are the ones that run clear discrete networks or have their own self contained network like Merseyrail or even the Tyne & Wear Metro. Eurostar should stick to 2 or 3 core services: London to Paris, Amsterdam via Brussels and at most one other city such as Frankfurt (if it can be timed competitively with air).

I think E* have done that, and chose Marseilles. Not sure that such 'one-off' services can be timed competitively with air? Frankfurt-London would be at least 5.5 hr by train (non-stop). If intermediate stops were included this would rise to 6hr, and if intra Schengen passengers carried up to 7hr. Rail struggles to compete against air on Glasgow-London at 4h45, on a much, much bigger market supporting more comprehensive service than one per day.

 

[Starmill]

E* gets negativity on rail forums (and therefore rail enthusiasts) because it does not act like a traditional UK railway. Compulsory reservation, no railcards valid, or split ticketing deals, commercial ethos requiring concentration on the most profitable traffics, completely unlike the continental trips of the misty eyed past of through carriages to Istanbul etc. 'check-in' like an aeroplane, annoyance at modern day immigration practice as it affects them. Just a general annoyance that the company and service act like an airline rather than a traditional railway, and that is not 'right'. All the sort of things that 99% of the passengers have no concern about whatsoever.

I have to say it seems pretty weird to suggest this because it implies everyone who is a rail enthusiast hates air travel. That's demonstrably not the case, and I quite enjoy air travel although I almost never do it. Also, if you are frustrated by inconvenience like check-in or security and immigration the reason you put up with it is because you got the fare cheap. What do you think people would make of Ryanair's customer service if prices started at £80? People are quite happy with the process because they get what they want, a fast transport to a far away place for the price of a takeaway dinner. Eurostar has to be expensive, so it has to trade on its reputation for convenience, quality, comfort and speed, the first three of which are quite lacking in reputation.

Government has given exceptional (some might say inappropriate) support to the rail industry in the UK over the pandemic period, and I see no reason not to assist E* if it is necessary.

The support for the franchised railway is deeply inappropriate, and an enormous waste of public resources, crucially because its firms are still operating in almost exactly the same tremendously inefficient way as they were pre-crisis. In what way might bailing out a company which is struggling badly to survive be better?

 

[BahrainLad]

Eurostar has to be expensive, so it has to trade on its reputation for convenience, quality, comfort and speed, the first three of which are quite lacking in reputation.

Could you expand on this? Eurostar is far more convenient, of a higher quality and with more comfort than its competition (I would far rather sit in a E* standard seat than a BA Club Europe one, for example).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could you expand on this? Eurostar is far more convenient, of a higher quality and with more comfort than its competition (I would far rather sit in a E* standard seat than a BA Club Europe one, for example).

Air comfort is slightly lower (not that much lower; E* cheaped out on the interiors, they are no ICE) but it is of course quicker. Most people aren't going city centre to city centre, they are going home to city centre or home to business suburb.

 

[liam456]

..... firms are still operating in almost exactly the same tremendously inefficient way as they were pre-crisis .....

as in running high frequencies during the pandemic when many trains clearly carry around fresh air, or operational inefficiencies before covid was a thing?

 

[BahrainLad]

Yes, and for home to city centre it’s extremely convenient - I live in Zone 4 about 20 minutes from LCY and it’s far more convenient to take Eurostar to Paris or Brussels than fly. I’d wager anyone who lives near a tube line or suburban railway that feeds into KXSTP feels the same - a market of millions of people.

Another example: I once had to be in Paris for work on Wednesday/Thursday and on Friday afternoon was due to fly from Heathrow to Madrid for a weekend away. I thought I would be clever and bring my weekend stuff with me to Paris on the train, and then fly CDG-LHR on Friday morning. Nothing more simple, just a connection and the chance to have a bonus evening in Paris with colleagues

Friday dawned...
- the RER was down, so we had to take a taxi to CDG
- BA use T2A at CDG. Ever been? Don't. Checkin is in the basement. People are everywhere (at the time, Emirates and Etihad were both sending A380s for their morning departure)
- The French insist on outbound passport control, so the queues were absolutely massive. No time for luxuriating in the Cathay lounge, so we went straight to the gate
- Obviously, using a jetway would've been too easy so they bussed us out to the aircraft several miles away (CDG is big...)
- Sat on the ground for a bit the inevitable slot delay
- Took off, flew the 25 minutes over to London airspace where we went round the loop a couple of times
- Landed, backtracked the length of LHR to get to T5
- T5 flight connections was an absolute zoo, as usual and took almost an hour to clear

I worked out it would've been far more convenient, far more comfortable to Eurostar to STP and Piccadilly line out to Heathrow.

 

[RT4038]

I have to say it seems pretty weird to suggest this because it implies everyone who is a rail enthusiast hates air travel. That's demonstrably not the case, and I quite enjoy air travel although I almost never do it. Also, if you are frustrated by inconvenience like check-in or security and immigration the reason you put up with it is because you got the fare cheap. What do you think people would make of Ryanair's customer service if prices started at £80? People are quite happy with the process because they get what they want, a fast transport to a far away place for the price of a takeaway dinner. Eurostar has to be expensive, so it has to trade on its reputation for convenience, quality, comfort and speed, the first three of which are quite lacking in reputation.


The support for the franchised railway is deeply inappropriate, and an enormous waste of public resources, crucially because its firms are still operating in almost exactly the same tremendously inefficient way as they were pre-crisis. In what way might bailing out a company which is struggling badly to survive be better?

I am not suggesting that everyone who is a rail enthusiast hates air travel. However there are many who hate trains (E*) being like air travel. Less to do with the prices (although who wouldn't like any prices to be cheaper?) but more the ambience and the principle as mentioned already. I do not agree that E* has a lower convenience, quality or comfort to its competitors on comparable journeys.

The support for the franchised railway could be considered deeply inappropriate because so few passengers were using the services, and costs were not being reduced anything like as much as they could have been. At least E* responded to the reduction in business in a more commercial manner.

 

[Starmill]

I think think this is where fundamentally we differ. Prices should be economically efficient, not 'cheap'. I'd like the doughnuts in Morrisons to cost three times what they do, because although I usually walk past without picking them up, I give in every once in a while. A higher price would have me thinking twice. Eurostar's operations are evidence of a market failure. So are airlines. I just happen to be of the view that replacing that market failure with a government failure will not increase economic efficiency. There's no more or less to it than that.

 

[BahrainLad]

I'm truly lost now. You've gone from arguing Eurostar is too expensive to saying they should not be 'cheap' in the space of two pages.

 

[DavidCarbonis]

Yes, and for home to city centre it’s extremely convenient - I live in Zone 4 about 20 minutes from LCY and it’s far more convenient to take Eurostar to Paris or Brussels than fly. I’d wager anyone who lives near a tube line or suburban railway that feeds into KXSTP feels the same - a market of millions of people.

Another example: I once had to be in Paris for work on Wednesday/Thursday and on Friday afternoon was due to fly from Heathrow to Madrid for a weekend away. I thought I would be clever and bring my weekend stuff with me to Paris on the train, and then fly CDG-LHR on Friday morning. Nothing more simple, just a connection and the chance to have a bonus evening in Paris with colleagues

Friday dawned...
- the RER was down, so we had to take a taxi to CDG
- BA use T2A at CDG. Ever been? Don't. Checkin is in the basement. People are everywhere (at the time, Emirates and Etihad were both sending A380s for their morning departure)
- The French insist on outbound passport control, so the queues were absolutely massive. No time for luxuriating in the Cathay lounge, so we went straight to the gate
- Obviously, using a jetway would've been too easy so they bussed us out to the aircraft several miles away (CDG is big...)
- Sat on the ground for a bit the inevitable slot delay
- Took off, flew the 25 minutes over to London airspace where we went round the loop a couple of times
- Landed, backtracked the length of LHR to get to T5
- T5 flight connections was an absolute zoo, as usual and took almost an hour to clear

I worked out it would've been far more convenient, far more comfortable to Eurostar to STP and Piccadilly line out to Heathrow.

I'd expand "near a tube line or suburban railway" to include shorter distance intercity as well! In my old neck of the woods, my family would chose to travel down to KGX for E* rather than fly as 90 ish mins by rail to get to STP was still quicker, more convenient, and usually price competitive than going to the nearest airport that flew directly to either Paris or Brussels!

 

[Starmill]

I'm truly lost now. You've gone from arguing Eurostar is too expensive to saying they should not be 'cheap' in the space of two pages.

In that example, it was doughnuts that are underpriced, and train tickets that are overpriced, generally and certainly in the case of Eurostar - not the other way around.

However there are many who hate trains (E*) being like air travel.

Why would someone be bothered about that? You're suggesting that someone who's indifferent to the experience of check-in and passport control does not complain about it in an airport but does on a train? That's an extremely weird thing to say. I'm beginning to think you're just enjoying yourself rather than considering the best way to earn overall benefits to the world.

Another key point is this, it's a very short flight from London to Brussels. We're probably closer now to the development of an electric aircraft capable of that than we were when the Channel Tunnel carried its first passengers. If, by 2040, electric air is faster and more efficient than electric high speed rail this will be yet another threat to passenger traffic through the tunnel. The impact on the freight market has been rather greater, and will be rather more long-term (subject to whatever the trading relationship does next).

not that much lower; E* cheaped out on the interiors, they are no ICE

It's very confusing indeed that they've managed to make their standard service feel budget while claiming it's premium and charging appropriately. ICE almost manages to achieve the inverse.

 

[BahrainLad]

If - and it's a big if - a viable electric commercial aircraft can be produced then it will be around 100 seats. It will be entirely unsuited to flying trunk routes like London or Paris to Brussels. It will still have to use existing infrastructure with all the downsides that entails.

If Eurostar is too expensive, how much lower should the "economically efficient" ticket prices? Bearing in mind the fixed costs of carrying a passenger that have been explained ad nauseam, and are almost entirely out of Eurostar's control.

Or are you suggesting the operation should be subsidised?

 

[Starmill]

The relatively low frequency and lack of early morning and late night trains between London and Brussels, plus the fact that a portion of space gets given over to Belgium - France travellers, and increasingly Eurostar were catering to London to Lille and even a handful of Calais stops, all strongly suggests that a 1000 seat 400m train is much too much for the route too. Of course, using a train which is too long for your needs and then still focusing your energy on the highest yield market is exactly the criticism of Eurostar I was making.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The relatively low frequency and lack of early morning and late night trains between London and Brussels, plus the fact that a portion of space gets given over to Belgium - France travellers, and increasingly Eurostar were catering to London to Lille and even a handful of Calais stops, all strongly suggests that a 1000 seat 400m train is much too much for the route too. Of course, using a train which is too long for your needs and then still focusing your energy on the highest yield market is exactly the criticism of Eurostar I was making.

One of the major errors in the original build was the design of the evacuation infrastructure to require a single through-gangwayed 400m train rather than basing it on 200m trains which would have allowed for much more flexibility, both in allowing smaller trains to be used when quieter and in allowing portion working.

I think going forward there would be great benefit in revisiting that. Indeed, prior to pulling out hadn't DB managed to get 2x200m near enough agreed?

 

[BahrainLad]

Is it really a revelation that not everyone on a London to Brussels Eurostar is travelling from London to Brussels? I'll let you in on a secret...not everyone flying BA is either!

One of the major errors in the original build was the design of the evacuation infrastructure to require a single through-gangwayed 400m train rather than basing it on 200m trains which would have allowed for much more flexibility, both in allowing smaller trains to be used when quieter and in allowing portion working.

I think going forward there would be great benefit in revisiting that.

The requirement for trains to be a certain length was dropped a decade ago.

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.

https://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/spip.php?action=acceder_document&arg=219&cle=a02b070c77e16c4da14bd9612ff221bc&file=pdf/20120928_-_IGC_Annual_Report_2011_EN-3.pdf

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

https://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/spip.php?action=acceder_document&arg=512&cle=9679e069e9e2a98e15e71f72c40a0263&file=pdf/Revised_CT_reference_document_national_rules_for_rail_vehicles_-_post_Agency_Opinion_revised_version.pdf

I believe DB's plans involved two ICE3 sets splitting at Brussels, one for Amsterdam and one for Frankfurt.

Actually I think a bigger error was not to build in the capability to reverse an international train at Stratford.

 

[Starmill]

I think in closing the most important thing to remember is that just because a train suits your lifestyle well and is of benefit to railway enthusiasts, unfortunately that just doesn't count enough for the consideration of special treatment. Bear in mind that airline managers and customers genuinely believe that they should have special treatment too, and ao do cruise ship operators and fans, pubgoers and pub landlords and so on and so forth. Incidentally the fact that almost everyone genuinely believes that is the reason for having a strong subsidy control regime in the first place. I'd love for Eurostar to be rescued because it is so much a better use of public money than procurement of unusable PPE from close contacts of ministers. But I can't argue against dishonesty in the cabinet very effectively by also suggesting that just because I'd like an international train service more than an air or sea service that's sufficient to give it different treatment. Indeed in this particular example I have sought to bring that perspective out clearly. It is not the case that Eurostar doesn't often any sort of benefits at all. For similar reasons, owning airline stocks isn't a good enough reason to hope Eurostar fails, though this is the position of at least one person and probably many.

 

[RT4038]

Why would someone be bothered about that? You're suggesting that someone who's indifferent to the experience of check-in and passport control does not complain about it in an airport but does on a train? That's an extremely weird thing to say. I'm beginning to think you're just enjoying yourself rather than considering the best way to earn overall benefits to the world.

I am not suggesting that. They may well complain about the check-in and passport control at an airport, but have an expectation that a train journey does not have check-in and has immigration control like it was done in the days of yore, i.e. on board as the train travels along. Plenty of evidence on this forum and elsewhere.

The sort of 'earning overall benefits to the world' is not really within the gift of E*, as it is the regulatory and financial framework that it works in that needs changing to facilitate. Allowing the operator to fail is unlikely to change this one bit.

I think think this is where fundamentally we differ. Prices should be economically efficient, not 'cheap'. I'd like the doughnuts in Morrisons to cost three times what they do, because although I usually walk past without picking them up, I give in every once in a while. A higher price would have me thinking twice. Eurostar's operations are evidence of a market failure. So are airlines. I just happen to be of the view that replacing that market failure with a government failure will not increase economic efficiency. There's no more or less to it than that.

Post #427 of @Watershed sums the issue up quite well. Until the external costs of eating doughnuts are charged at the point of sale, lettuces have difficulty in competing! This is not really the fault of lettuces.

 

[Watershed]

Post #427 of @Watershed sums the issue up quite well. Until the external costs of eating doughnuts are charged at the point of sale, lettuces have difficulty in competing! This is not really the fault of lettuces.

Exactly. I don't think that financial assistance should be withheld from Eurostar just because it is a service primarily used by people who are, on the whole, more affluent.

If Eurostar collapses, a viable low-carbon method of travelling from London to Paris and Brussels will disappear. You can be sure the airlines will be glad to pick up the slack. So preventing Eurostar from collapsing prevents the inevitable emissions that will result from the alternative that will fill any gap in the market.

The only alternative would be to tax flying and other carbon intensive activities more heavily, but there is already consternation at the current level of Air Passenger Duty, so it seems unlikely that there will be any notable movements in this direction during the current government's reign.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Eurostar collapses, a viable low-carbon method of travelling from London to Paris and Brussels will disappear.

Temporarily. If there's a profitable business to be had, which there is, someone would restart it.