Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[Tester]

A vanishing small number of minds will be changed by this - £17 over several years is hardly a deterrent figure. Maybe some of those who are put through additional hoops because of past records? Does anyone not go on holiday to Australia or the US purely because of the Electronic Visa charge as the straw that breaks the camels back? I really doubt it.

The Australian one is free of charge - now there's a concept!

 

[Trainlog]

I am quite happy Eurostar doesn't stop at Ebbsfleet and Ashford with the current level of service.
A stop or stops slows the trains down for a negligible amount of passengers as well as potentially introducing delays and adding costs.
Your comment about ignoring "our" wishes is therefore incorrect.

There are many stations in life I wish trains didn't stop at, especially if they kill the trains momentum. If I use the ECML, do we really need to stop every intercity at Stevenage, 20mins from London? For the Maidstone East line, Bromley south feels annoying to stop at when I just want to get into central London. Its worse that the Chatham mainline and the Thameslink already cover that station.

However, people use these stations and therefore its worth stopping at, regardless if people onboard the train find it annoying or not.

As for Kent's international stations. Everyone keeps forgetting how much the contexts have more of less changed since the two Kent stations closed in the Pandemic. We are in an era where more people are environmentally conscious when it comes to travel. Go look at any travel section of any large UK newspaper and you will find at least one reference to an Interrail pass in an article, especially within the Guardian.

I would love to use the Eurostar, and so many would in Kent if it were to make a comeback. It's incredibly frustrating when I hear that argument of 'not many will use it' when there is so much potential if these services got reintroduced such as in local tourism, investment opportunities in Kent, and an opportunity for people to visit the continent without a car.

I think it should be a compromise where one Kent station gets reopened (Ashford is my pick) to minimise those delays and costs you suggested.

 

[Chester1]

There are many stations in life I wish trains didn't stop at, especially if they kill the trains momentum. If I use the ECML, do we really need to stop every intercity at Stevenage, 20mins from London? For the Maidstone East line, Bromley south feels annoying to stop at when I just want to get into central London. Its worse that the Chatham mainline and the Thameslink already cover that station.

However, people use these stations and therefore its worth stopping at, regardless if people onboard the train find it annoying or not.

As for Kent's international stations. Everyone keeps forgetting how much the contexts have more of less changed since the two Kent stations closed in the Pandemic. We are in an era where more people are environmentally conscious when it comes to travel. Go look at any travel section of any large UK newspaper and you will find at least one reference to an Interrail pass in an article, especially within the Guardian.

I would love to use the Eurostar, and so many would in Kent if it were to make a comeback. It's incredibly frustrating when I hear that argument of 'not many will use it' when there is so much potential if these services got reintroduced such as in local tourism, investment opportunities in Kent, and an opportunity for people to visit the continent without a car.

I think it should be a compromise where one Kent station gets reopened (Ashford is my pick) to minimise those delays and costs you suggested.

Eurostar won't consider opening Ashford or Ebbsfleet until EES has launched and is functioning well. I am not convinced they will bring it back even then. There is a better public service case than business case. Its why I suggested it as a stop if UK and German governments decided to subsidise a new service to Germany.

 

[zwk500]

Eurostar won't consider opening Ashford or Ebbsfleet until EES has launched and is functioning well. I am not convinced they will bring it back even then. There is a better public service case than business case. Its why I suggested it as a stop if UK and German governments decided to subsidise a new service to Germany.

I'd suggest that the last trains to stop in Kent would be ones from beyond Brussels. Kent stops should be in the trains going shorter distances, to maximise the competitiveness of the longer-distance trains against air travel. The difficulty is if Eurostar can already fill 1tph+ from London to Paris without stops, why should they make the journey worse for their customers?

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately, I think it is unlikely Eurostar will ever restore service to the minor stations (Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Calais Frethun).

They can fill their trains with St Pancras alone, all that these stations can do is cost them staffing money - even if Brexit magically went away.

 

[zwk500]

Ultimately, I think it is unlikely Eurostar will ever restore service to the minor stations (Ashford, Ebbsfleet and Calais Frethun).

They can fill their trains with St Pancras alone, all that these stations can do is cost them staffing money - even if Brexit magically went away.

I think it'll eventually be enough of a political farce that the government will either force Kent stops on a new entrant as a condition of access, or pay Eurostar to stop there. It will have to wait for the right stars to align in the right way though so it could be waiting decades, but I wouldn't say "never".

 

[Trainlog]

Eurostar won't consider opening Ashford or Ebbsfleet until EES has launched and is functioning well. I am not convinced they will bring it back even then. There is a better public service case than business case. Its why I suggested it as a stop if UK and German governments decided to subsidise a new service to Germany.

It's why it's such a shame that the UK government has sold its stake in Eurostar 10 years ago. It should never have been done. The element of the service being any use to the public in Kent seems almost lost from this, as its focus is more on profit as a monopoly company on international services than providing the intended international links benefits that were originally promised.

As well as campaigning from MPs to get the service back, there should also be campaigns for some new UK government stakes so such withdrawal of Kent's international services are less likely to happen again.

I'd suggest that the last trains to stop in Kent would be ones from beyond Brussels. Kent stops should be in the trains going shorter distances, to maximise the competitiveness of the longer-distance trains against air travel. The difficulty is if Eurostar can already fill 1tph+ from London to Paris without stops, why should they make the journey worse for their customers?

I agree it should be more for smaller stops, I wouldn't mind the service acting as a gateway service to Paris/Brussels and let passengers use the onward connecting services at Brussels/Paris as they wish. The only long-distance services that should stop anywhere in Kent should be sleeper services if such trains were introduced.

As I said in my original post, in an ideal world most people want a direct train from A-B . I can only imagine how irritating Old Oak common will be once its opened from people using the GWML from Paddington. Everyone has those stations you wished the train didn't stop at but still provide benefits to that local area and community with it doing so.

One stop in Kent seems to be the best compromise that could be achieved, even if it means closing the other station forever.

 

[HSTEd]

I think it'll eventually be enough of a political farce that the government will either force Kent stops on a new entrant as a condition of access, or pay Eurostar to stop there. It will have to wait for the right stars to align in the right way though so it could be waiting decades, but I wouldn't say "never".

I think the thing that brings things to a head is likely to be a future HS1 modernisation.

Pretending that international services are totally going to come to Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford (honest) helps noone and would make a rebuild less effective

The government would be forced to admit that they are gone for good, or appear to actually make use of them.

 

[Chester1]

It's why it's such a shame that the UK government has sold its stake in Eurostar 10 years ago. It should never have been done. The element of the service being any use to the public in Kent seems almost lost from this, as its focus is more on profit as a monopoly company on international services than providing the intended international links benefits that were originally promised.

Those shares were sold at close to the top of their value and have lost most of it since. Keeping them would have cost the treasury £250m+ and would have forced the UK government to join the bailout during the pandemic. If one of the proposed new opperators launches then the share price will take another hit. Holding onto Eurostar shares would have been too higher price just to give Kent one or two direct international trains each day. There are cheaper ways of doing that.

I'd suggest that the last trains to stop in Kent would be ones from beyond Brussels. Kent stops should be in the trains going shorter distances, to maximise the competitiveness of the longer-distance trains against air travel. The difficulty is if Eurostar can already fill 1tph+ from London to Paris without stops, why should they make the journey worse for their customers?

I agree on a practical level but if German services do start with some taxpayer funding then stopping services at Ashford is more likely than paying for a fully commercial operator to stop.

 

[AlastairFraser]

A vanishing small number of minds will be changed by this - £17 over several years is hardly a deterrent figure. Maybe some of those who are put through additional hoops because of past records? Does anyone not go on holiday to Australia or the US purely because of the Electronic Visa charge as the straw that breaks the camels back? I really doubt it.

It may be that some people who just go abroad for sun and sea type holidays every year will switch to Morocco/Albania/Montenegro (with Morocco, Ryanair basic fares can be as low as £20 to airports on the coast like Rabat, Tangier or Agadir; similar story with the other 2 countries as well) rather than pay the fee and go through the faff of applying for it.

But I agree that it won't be significant enough to drastically change the chances of the UK joining Schengen.

 

[Chester1]

It may be that some people who just go abroad for sun and sea type holidays every year will switch to Morocco/Albania/Montenegro (with Morocco, Ryanair basic fares can be as low as £20 to airports on the coast like Rabat, Tangier or Agadir; similar story with the other 2 countries as well) rather than pay the fee and go through the faff of applying for it.

But I agree that it won't be significant enough to drastically change the chances of the UK joining Schengen.

If they are going every year then its £5.50 a year. Montenegro is a middle to high end destination that isn't particularly attractive to a budget traveller. Albania is rapidly emerging as a major holiday destination and ETIAS will help it but very little. The amount of lost travel to EU will have been modelled and estimated to be tiny.

 

[Krokodil]

As for Kent's international stations. Everyone keeps forgetting how much the contexts have more of less changed since the two Kent stations closed in the Pandemic. We are in an era where more people are environmentally conscious when it comes to travel

The flip side of changing eras is that the number of international weekly commuters will have reduced following a certain political event.

The difficulty is if Eurostar can already fill 1tph+ from London to Paris without stops, why should they make the journey worse for their customers?

Yeah, Kent stops shouldn't be at the expense of the core hourly service. I could see an argument for a future service pattern along the 1tph fast Paris, 1tp2h Amsterdam, 1tp2h Frankfurt, 1tp2h Interconnexion Est and beyond (Disney/Avignon/Ski train/Italy/Switzerland etc.) and 1tp2h stopping Paris.

The last would probably require some support on public service grounds.

 

[AlastairFraser]

If they are going every year then its £5.50 a year. Montenegro is a middle to high end destination that isn't particularly attractive to a budget traveller. Albania is rapidly emerging as a major holiday destination and ETIAS will help it but very little. The amount of lost travel to EU will have been modelled and estimated to be tiny.

£5.50 a year, plus paperwork for all regardless of age.

Montenegro isn't particularly expensive and Albania will cater to all tastes.
I agree it won't be a huge factor, but there's also other push factors helping the decision to move away from major EU sun and sea destinations e.g. the anti-tourism movement in Spain, the expense of holidaying in countries like Italy etc..

 

[NCT]

The flip side of changing eras is that the number of international weekly commuters will have reduced following a certain political event.


Yeah, Kent stops shouldn't be at the expense of the core hourly service. I could see an argument for a future service pattern along the 1tph fast Paris, 1tp2h Amsterdam, 1tp2h Frankfurt, 1tp2h Interconnexion Est and beyond (Disney/Avignon/Ski train/Italy/Switzerland etc.) and 1tp2h stopping Paris.

The last would probably require some support on public service grounds.

From a purely timetabling point of view - the London - Brussels - Amsterdam/Frankfurt standard paths would have 20 minutes of festering time if using the standard xx04 (and theoretically 34) path - so there should be enough slack for an Ebbsfleet or an Ashford call.

 

[Trainbike46]

The flip side of changing eras is that the number of international weekly commuters will have reduced following a certain political event.


Yeah, Kent stops shouldn't be at the expense of the core hourly service. I could see an argument for a future service pattern along the 1tph fast Paris, 1tp2h Amsterdam, 1tp2h Frankfurt, 1tp2h Interconnexion Est and beyond (Disney/Avignon/Ski train/Italy/Switzerland etc.) and 1tp2h stopping Paris.

That's less Paris services than today. There are currently 17 / 18 Fast services over 13 hours scheduled for Wednesday / Friday.

There's space for up to 4/5 services per hour, so that enables:
2 tph Paris Fast*
1 tph Brussels (continuing to Rotterdam and Amsterdam one hour, Köln and Frankfurt the next)*
1 tp2h Paris slow (Ashford, Calais Frethun)*
1 tp2h Marne-la-Vallee (extending to Geneva 2/3 tpd, Milan 2 tpd, and possibly South of France and Ski train)

At least 1tph Lille stops, spread across the services with * , depending on capacity and LGV nord timetabling constraints.
Out of these, I think the 2 tph Paris will happen, the 1 tph Brussels likely will happen IF the Frankfurt route happens. The paris slow is unlikely, even when Ashford and Calais were served, the service was only a few trains per day. A returned Marne-la-Vallee service would likely be irregular, driven by the long distance destinations instead of 1tp2h.

so more likely would be something like:
2 tph Paris Fast
1 tph Lille, Brussels, Rotterdam (1tp2h), Amsterdam (1tp2h), Köln (1tp2h) Frankfurt (1tp2h)
Irregular Marne-la-Vallee, (Geneva, Milan, Ski Train (if it returns), South of France (if it returns))

If the Ski Train and South of France do return, you could do a MLV shuffle instead of a Lille shuffle.

From a purely timetabling point of view - the London - Brussels - Amsterdam/Frankfurt standard paths would have 20 minutes of festering time if using the standard xx04 (and theoretically 34) path - so there should be enough slack for an Ebbsfleet or an Ashford call.

The festering time is all after the channel tunnel, because the Channel tunnel paths and paths north of Brussel don't line up. You can't use that time for stops before the tunnel. And if you could move the tunnel time, then you can just depart St Pancras later and avoid the long wait.

 

[Farnborough]

The flip side of changing eras is that the number of international weekly commuters will have reduced following a certain political event.

I respectfully suggest that Brexit has had limited (if any) affect on the number of regular commuters... those who are to-ing and fro-ing for work will have to try really hard to breech the 90/180 limit - pre-covid, most were doing a four-day-week anyway, and post-covid WFM is obviously more prevalent.

For suitably qualified people and where necessary, an EU work permit is a triviality, especially with a sponsoring employer.

 

[Krokodil]

I respectfully suggest that Brexit has had limited (if any) affect on the number of regular commuters... those who are to-ing and fro-ing for work will have to try really hard to breech the 90/180 limit - pre-covid, most were doing a four-day-week anyway, and post-covid WFM is obviously more prevalent.

For suitably qualified people and where necessary, an EU work permit is a triviality, especially with a sponsoring employer.

I had in mind the British officials, MEPs and their staff who used to be employed by EU institutions. Eurostar's poor performance while they adjusted to new border arrangements and the work from home revolution will have changed things too.

 

[cle]

A Paris slow could also call at Lille and provide that London connectivity (alongside Brussels 'slows' - anything for Amsterdam should run fast to Brussels) - - - - as well as the connections to the south/elsewhere. And then sell cheaper Paris tickets to fill the train.

MdV should be a call on a future Geneva service. That pairing in itself might also sell tickets, with no directs today. Obv some mingling / security things to consider. It could also be a scissors with an e.g. Brussels - Bordeaux service, and enable swaps between both.

 

[Krokodil]

That's less Paris services than today

I looked at westbound services and it looked like 14 hours with 17 services. So you'd lose three fast services but gain eight slow ones so it's still a net increase in capacity with only a minority of passengers now on slower services. But if 2tph fast can be accommodated with everything else listed (looks like we're in agreement otherwise) then great.

In terms of services going beyond MLV, one important consideration if they are to succeed is that the timings need to suit the customers, not Eurostar's operational convenience. The old south of France service used to leave London very early in order for the unit to do out and back in the same day. That just doesn't work for the passenger. Future services (south of France, Switzerland, Italy etc.) need to run at more sensible times, and in order to keep the units productive (i.e. not have them do a single one-way journey per day, overnighting at the far end) it would be better if they could run Paris-Avignon-London-Paris (substitute Avignon for any of the other destinations), in other words their first or last run would be as if they were a TGV (or TGV Lyria) that just happens to be painted blue. That would open a can of worms though, given that it treads directly on SNCF's toes.

 

[HSTEd]

Is there any precedent for a train carrying domestic passengers to then carry international passengers the same day?

Right now a sweep of a train can be fairly cursory because everything that has ever been aboard has been through security. But if the train does an unsecured domestic journey the smuggling possibilities are endless.

You'd have to search down seat cushions etc for drugs and weapons.

 

[zwk500]

Is there any precedent for a train carrying domestic passengers to then carry international passengers the same day?

Eurostar to Amsterdam?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2025 ==

There's space for up to 4/5 services per hour, so that enables:

I would personally seek a base service of:
1tph London-Paris fast
1tph London-Paris calling Ebbsfleet/Ashford alternating and Lille
0.5tph London-Brussels fast that extends to Amsterdam or Frankfurt/Cologne (portions for germany)
0.5tph London-Brussels calling Ashford and Lille.

That gives 2tph London-Paris, 1tph London-Brussels, Ashford has 1tph to Lille alternating to either destination and Ebbsfleet can be a M25 Parkway for people holidaying to france. Javelin services can backfill Ebbsfleet to Ashford service gaps.

Long-term the Brussels fasts would all go to Germany and the Amsterdam services would run non stop to Rotterdam (or Antwerp, if facilities can be provided) as a separate group.

 

[Trainbike46]

Eurostar to Amsterdam?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2025 ==


I would personally seek a base service of:
1tph London-Paris fast
1tph London-Paris calling Ebbsfleet/Ashford alternating and Lille
0.5tph London-Brussels fast that extends to Amsterdam or Frankfurt/Cologne (portions for germany)
0.5tph London-Brussels calling Ashford and Lille.

That gives 2tph London-Paris, 1tph London-Brussels, Ashford has 1tph to Lille alternating to either destination and Ebbsfleet can be a M25 Parkway for people holidaying to france. Javelin services can backfill Ebbsfleet to Ashford service gaps.

What do you mean by the final sentence?

Long-term the Brussels fasts would all go to Germany and the Amsterdam services would run non stop to Rotterdam (or Antwerp, if facilities can be provided) as a separate group.

Just to get this clear, you're proposing 1tp2h to Rotterdam and Amsterdam?

Unfortunately, I don't think there is space for security at level -2 in Antwerp, and that is the level a Eurostar continuing to Amsterdam would have to use.

Honestly, given the 650 pax restriction from Amsterdam, as well as the ~160 pax capacity from Rotterdam, you would probably still want to serve Brussels, to fill the remaining ~90 seats, as well as any seats that don't sell from Amsterdam/Rotterdam.

 

[zwk500]

What do you mean by the final sentence?

Under my plan Ashford has 1tph to Lille but Ebbsfleet only 0.5tph, so passengers for Ebbsfleet would need to either time their journeys quite carefully or use Javelin from Ebbsfleet to connect into Eurostar at Ashford/St Pancras.

Just to get this clear, you're proposing 1tp2h to Rotterdam and Amsterdam?

Honestly, given the 650 pax restriction from Amsterdam, as well as the ~160 pax capacity from Rotterdam, you would probably still want to serve Brussels, to fill the remaining ~90 seats, as well as any seats that don't sell from Amsterdam/Rotterdam.

Eventually, after NS/ProRail have finished rebuilding most of Amsterdam's rail network. Ashford and Ebbsfleet aren't reopening in less than 5 years anyway. The demand from the UK to the Netherlands certainly exists for at least 1tp2h between London and Amsterdam. For current infrastructure, my initial service plan gives 4-5 trains per day from Amsterdam and Cologne to London, with a Brussels pickup, which is a small uplift on what the existing service is.

Remember that to allow Eurostar to run non-stop between London and the Netherlands requires SNCB/Infrabel to give a high-priority path to an operator not providing any benefit to Belgium. That's not going to happen overnight.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is space for security at level -2 in Antwerp, and that is the level a Eurostar continuing to Amsterdam would have to use.

Yes, I wasn't sure if there would be room for it and given I'd expect London-Amsterdam trains to be able to be largely filled with point-to-point traffic if passenger terminal restrictions are removed as planned then I wouldn't break backs to get Antwerp stops in.

 

[Trainbike46]

Under my plan Ashford has 1tph to Lille but Ebbsfleet only 0.5tph, so passengers for Ebbsfleet would need to either time their journeys quite carefully or use Javelin from Ebbsfleet to connect into Eurostar at Ashford/St Pancras.

Ah that makes sense

Eventually, after NS/ProRail have finished rebuilding most of Amsterdam's rail network.

So in 2195 maybe

Ashford and Ebbsfleet aren't reopening in less than 5 years anyway. The demand from the UK to the Netherlands certainly exists for at least 1tp2h between London and Amsterdam. For current infrastructure, my initial service plan gives 4-5 trains per day from Amsterdam and Cologne to London, with a Brussels pickup, which is a small uplift on what the existing service is.

There will be 5 tpd from December, so it is in line with current short term plans. I agree the demand exists for at least 1tp2h service, and possibly for even more than that in the future.

Remember that to allow Eurostar to run non-stop between London and the Netherlands requires SNCB/Infrabel to give a high-priority path to an operator not providing any benefit to Belgium. That's not going to happen overnight.

This would likely be the largest blocker tbh

Yes, I wasn't sure if there would be room for it and given I'd expect London-Amsterdam trains to be able to be largely filled with point-to-point traffic if passenger terminal restrictions are removed as planned then I wouldn't break backs to get Antwerp stops in.

Plus Antwerp passengers could transfer in Brussels without too much faff anyway.

 

[NCT]

The festering time is all after the channel tunnel, because the Channel tunnel paths and paths north of Brussel don't line up. You can't use that time for stops before the tunnel. And if you could move the tunnel time, then you can just depart St Pancras later and avoid the long wait.

Well there's a bugger. Yes, I remember now that Eurostar paths through the Channel Tunnel want to be flighted so they get a discount (or a lower 'penalty') on access charges.

Theoretically though, couldn't the Paris departure at St Pancras be moved to xx08? It overtakes the xx04 Brussels at Ebbsfleet or Ashford so the two still go through the chunnel in one flight.

Of course that depends on a later path existing into Gare du Nord (ought not to be a show stopper) and Southeastern High Speed being able to be recast around these revised chunnel service timings (more of a risk).

... anything for Amsterdam should run fast to Brussels ...

That would unnecessarily upset the Taktfahrplan structures in Belgium and and the Netherlands.

Brussels South acts as a takt node with fast paths from Paris and London arriving together, then then departure towards Amsterdam is xx22/52 and towards Cologne being xx25(/xx55). Yes, currently the implementation of the takt node is bastardised as there are gaps in the timetable and ticketing isn't quite streamlined but there are (slow but sure) EU wide efforts to address those issues. Yes there will always be snags on the way but the ticketing direction of travel is to make multi-leg ticket booking through one transaction easier with all TOCs signing up to HOTNAT (hop on the next available train). Abandoning the takt timetable structure just devalues the whole endeavour. SNCB and NS concessions mean that realistically only these standard 'takt' paths are available and they will make sure of that. However early you arrive at Brussels you will always fester until xx22.

Realistically in the medium term London - Brussels is a 1tph market with Amsterdam services 1tp2h (the December 5tpd timetable means there's only one service missing). For reasons of not introducing hour-to-hour irregularities on HS1 (makes planning South Eastern High Speed difficult) and providing a regular hourly interchange opportunity at Lille it's better to keep the London - Brussels portion of the Amsterdam paths standardised. And of course, wanting the paths through the Channel Tunnel to always be flighted with a standardised hourly London - Paris paths reinforces the case for wanting standardised hourly London - Lille - Brussels paths.

 

[Trainbike46]

Well there's a bugger. Yes, I remember now that Eurostar paths through the Channel Tunnel want to be flighted so they get a discount (or a lower 'penalty') on access charges.

Theoretically though, couldn't the Paris departure at St Pancras be moved to xx08? It overtakes the xx04 Brussels at Ebbsfleet or Ashford so the two still go through the chunnel in one flight.

I'm not sure if that would be possible, I think the .01, .04, .31, .34 paths are guaranteed passenger paths by treaty, so moving them might be a challenge.

However, at 06:16 and 08:16 there is an extra path used for some Amsterdam departures (which skip Lille and have reduced standing time in Brussels, as the path north of Brussel is the same), so it may be possible to introduce a similar path in other hours.

Of course that depends on a later path existing into Gare du Nord (ought not to be a show stopper) and Southeastern High Speed being able to be recast around these revised chunnel service timings (more of a risk).



That would unnecessarily upset the Taktfahrplan structures in Belgium and and the Netherlands.

Brussels South acts as a takt node with fast paths from Paris and London arriving together, then then departure towards Amsterdam is xx22/52 and towards Cologne being xx25(/xx55). Yes, currently the implementation of the takt node is bastardised as there are gaps in the timetable and ticketing isn't quite streamlined but there are (slow but sure) EU wide efforts to address those issues. Yes there will always be snags on the way but the ticketing direction of travel is to make multi-leg ticket booking through one transaction easier with all TOCs signing up to HOTNAT (hop on the next available train). Abandoning the takt timetable structure just devalues the whole endeavour. SNCB and NS concessions mean that realistically only these standard 'takt' paths are available and they will make sure of that. However early you arrive at Brussels you will always fester until xx22.

The exact timing of the paths in at least the Netherlands could change*, but is unlikely and certainly not anytime soon. For the time being, the path north of Brussels is fixed.

There were very significant whole timetable recasts in the Netherlands in 2007 and 2017, the next one isn't likely for a good few years as, these only really happen if there is either a significant increase in services on key corridors, or a very significant infrastructure upgrade.

Realistically in the medium term London - Brussels is a 1tph market with Amsterdam services 1tp2h (the December 5tpd timetable means there's only one service missing). For reasons of not introducing hour-to-hour irregularities on HS1 (makes planning South Eastern High Speed difficult) and providing a regular hourly interchange opportunity at Lille it's better to keep the London - Brussels portion of the Amsterdam paths standardised. And of course, wanting the paths through the Channel Tunnel to always be flighted with a standardised hourly London - Paris paths reinforces the case for wanting standardised hourly London - Lille - Brussels paths.

 

[NCT]

I'm not sure if that would be possible, I think the .01, .04, .31, .34 paths are guaranteed passenger paths by treaty, so moving them might be a challenge.

Is the treaty text really that prescriptive? Surely it's only the quantum and flighting of the paths that matter, as Le Shuttle paths aren't tied to anything?

In any case, I'm almost impressed that the treaty was written to such a level of technical detail. Someone must have thought very hard about how an international taktfahrplan centred around Brussels Midi could work and this kind of technical thinking got carried through to the highest political level.

 

[Trainbike46]

Is the treaty text really that prescriptive? Surely it's only the quantum and flighting of the paths that matter, as Le Shuttle paths aren't tied to anything?

In any case, I'm almost impressed that the treaty was written to such a level of technical detail. Someone must have thought very hard about how an international taktfahrplan centred around Brussels Midi could work and this kind of technical thinking got carried through to the highest political level.

We'd have to go check the treaty text to be entirely sure!

As I said, it likely can be changed, just may not be particularly easy. There's also through tunnel freight (paths) to consider, that aren't as easy to move as the shuttle services are. The fact an extra service departing around .16 was added in some hours does make clear that it is possible to make changes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2025 ==

I think the bigger issue for serving Ashford on Amsterdam-bound services will be that, if the channel tunnel path can be changed, eurostar will choose to use that to speed up the Amsterdam service, not to enable an extra stop before the channel tunnel. And I can't see Eurostar or any comptetitor do any difference short of either a subsidy or an obligation to serve Ashford.

 

[bspahh]

We'd have to go check the treaty text to be entirely sure!

The Wikipedia page for the 1986 Treaty of Canterbury has a link to the treaty text from the Internet Archive

I can't see anything in that about precise timings, just setting up the Intergovernmental Commission and Safety Authority, which presumably came up with the timetable.

 

[Trainbike46]

We'd have to go check the treaty text to be entirely sure!

I just checked the treaty and it doesn't appear to state any specific times. The Eurotunnel access statement for 2026 only states that there are 4 guaranteed passenger paths and 2 guaranteed freight paths per hour, so changing it doesn't appear to require changing the treaty, but only that it can be made to fit on both HS1 and on LGV nord (and gets Eurotunnel to agree!)

Which is probably enough of a challenge in itself.