London to Switzerland direct?

[Sorcerer]

The travel time penalty of doing the run-round by MLV is non-existant compared to a change in Paris, while being massively more convenient

Ex. Lille Europe to Rennes (the whole run-round, serving CDG/MLV and Massy TGV) is 3h26 direct

You can do it, assuming 1h change in Paris, in 3h29 (using a faster non-stopping Paris-Rennes, taking 1h28) or 3h51 (stopping at Massy TGV and Le Mans, taking 1h50)

Not sure what you mean by added journey times. It will be what it will be by the quickest route, which for Geneva will be via the LGV Interconnexion, LGV SE to Mâcon and then conventional via Bourg en Bresse.

So taking another look at the TGV network map it doesn't seem to be as much of a detour as I originally thought. It seems like the bigger issue will be where to route it via beyond Paris. Presumably just the same as existing TGV Lyria paths but extending to London and running via MLV instead of going straight to Gare de Lyon?

 

[norbitonflyer]

I do London to Bern every few weeks and I very very rarely go via Gare du Lyon, find via Strasbourg much easier

The direct trains between Paris and Zurich go from Gare de Lyon (which is ok - its the Gare du Nord and the RER transfer which is horrible)
But on my most recent trip the train was routed from GdL via Srasbourg because the more direct route via Dijon was closed.

 

[Austriantrain]

I reckon 5h30 to Geneva, including a stop at Marne La Vallée (for traffic and crew). And I think three trains a day each way would get about a third of the current air market. The issue is going to be paths on LGV SE from Mâcon.

Trenitalia seems to get its paths on the LGV SE rather easily.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Sep 2025 ==

The interview seemed to be indicating that there was a market Basel/Zurich to London, in other words Swiss residents visiting London and the UK.

Yes, I would suspect Basel/Zurich will carry more Swiss (and some French and German too, via Basel) and Geneva more Brits (and will actually reach quite a lot of French with good rail connections to Geneva Cornavin too). But both would be useful both ways.

 

[nwales58]

The direct trains between Paris and Zurich go from Gare de Lyon (which is ok - its the Gare du Nord and the RER transfer which is horrible)

Paris Gare de Lyon - Basel is 3h05 on direct Lyria, via Strasbourg from Gare de l’Est can be 3h20 when the connections work and for some of the day is more frequent. All thanks to the half-hourly Alsace 200 km/h TERs and Paris-Strasbourg TGVs being fairly frequent, by SNCF standards.

So from Eurostar to somewhere in Switzerland via Basel, connecting via Strasbourg is often the most convenient route.

On a pass the reservations are much cheaper than Lyria too (unless you drop off at Mulhouse and lose any time saving).

Of course an interchange at CDG or Marne la Vallée with Frankfurt Flughafen kind of frequencies and no Inoui/Ouigo split would be even more attractive to passengers, throughout France as well as internationally, increasing volumes while needing fewer direct services. We know all the reasons that is unlikely to happen.

 

[RailWonderer]

Since the speed won't be competitive with flying, why not make it a sleeper service? It can use some legacy lines in France, leave St Pancras at 10pm and arrive into Basel at 7am and Interlaken at 9:30am and they could order sleeper trains instead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Sep 2025 ==

One issue with the TGV network that any London-Switzerland service will be using is it's spider-web planning centred on Paris, so even a non-step train will likely end up running around Paris via Marne-la-Vallée unless you were to use some of the classic French railways to avoid it. So whether going via LGV Sud-Est or LGV Est there will inevitable be added journey times just because of the network layout.

If they committed to providing a sleeper service alongside fast direct services running on legacy lines is plausible.

 

[signed]

Since the speed won't be competitive with flying, why not make it a sleeper service? It can use some legacy lines in France, leave St Pancras at 10pm and arrive into Basel at 7am and Interlaken at 9:30am and they could order sleeper trains instead.

LGVs and the tunnels close at 2330 AFAIR, you wouldn't achieve that running all classical.

A 4-5h journey is the sweet spot for the train in its competition with the plane, longer and it's a lot less competitive

 

[Snow1964]

Since the speed won't be competitive with flying, why not make it a sleeper service? It can use some legacy lines in France, leave St Pancras at 10pm and arrive into Basel at 7am and Interlaken at 9:30am and they could order sleeper trains instead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Sep 2025 ==


If they committed to providing a sleeper service alongside fast direct services running on legacy lines is plausible.

I think that is answered towards the end of the interview, although will be one to Copenhagen/Malmo

Why not to operate night trains on these long-distance rail lines?​

Vincent Ducrot- No, our strategy has always focused on daytime services. Personally, I think the limited slot availability during peak hours will eventually push operators to extend service windows, maybe into the night. But night trains carry too few passengers to be viable. You can’t cover the cost of a heavy train with just 200 sleepers on board.

Meanwhile, we will start to operate a night train in Spring 2026. The train is set to operate between Basel SBB and Copenhagen/Malmö in Sweden. Malmö will be the hub for further destinations in Scandinavia. The Swiss federal government will provide substantial funding, around CHF47 million for five years as an initiative to promote climate-friendly international rail travel as an alternative to flying

https://www.travelmole.com/news/swiss-rail-ceo-interview-international-expansion/

 

[A S Leib]

Paris - Geneva services don’t go through Lyon.

Not really, Lyria goes via Bourg en Bresse for its Geneva services, via Mulhouse for its Basel/Zurich services and via Dijon for its Lausanne services.

Going to Geneva (or really anywhere in Switzerland) via Lyon is a major detour, the TER doing the Lyon-Geneva run takes 2h, existing services take 3h13 from Paris

I didn't mean for a London to Geneva to go through Lyon. I meant that, if there was a direct London to Geneva service, would Lyon passengers find it more convenient than changing in Paris? (Although the bit I forgot about at the time is that Lille is probably the best option for passengers wanting to avoid Paris.)

 

[signed]

I didn't mean for a London to Geneva to go through Lyon. I meant that, if there was a direct London to Geneva service, would Lyon passengers find it more convenient than changing in Paris? (Although the bit I forgot about at the time is that Lille is probably the best option for passengers wanting to avoid Paris.)

The most convenient London service for Lyon passengers would be MLV or CDG Airport, by far

 

[Krokodil]

Since the speed won't be competitive with flying, why not make it a sleeper service?

Because sleepers are notoriously tricky to operate without subsidy. Before even considering the spanner that a hard international border and the Channel Tunnel throw in the works.

 

[NCT]

With the half-hourly Alsace pattern, finding paths between Strasbourg and Mulhouse isn't trivial. SNCF does not fill all paths in all hours on the LGV Sud-Est, so paths via Dijon may well turn out to be easier to find.

 

[AdamWW]

I think that is answered towards the end of the interview, although will be one to Copenhagen/Malmo

Interesting comment that night trains cannot be run without subsidy.

I thought that OeBB were managing to just about cover their costs with Nightjets, and I don't believe European Sleeper has any subsidy as such, though maybe it's burning through investment money - time will tell.

It is perhaps relevant that European Sleeper runs almost entirely couchettes which must help with numbers. But it also suggests that there is still a market for traditional couchette travel as well as the one or two person sleeper with ensuite and shower etc.

 

[Sorcerer]

If they committed to providing a sleeper service alongside fast direct services running on legacy lines is plausible.

Bit late responding to this one, and others have already mentioned it, but a sleeper service by itself is already hard to operate without subsidy, so I can't see SBB wanting to run one with the added challenges with the border security. I suppose if Nox Mobility's business model is successful though then maybe we could see someone else do London and Continental sleeper services, but definitely not something for the foreseeable future in my opinion. Maybe if it were Eurostar but even then I'd have doubts.

 

[jon0844]

Interesting comment that night trains cannot be run without subsidy.

I thought that OeBB were managing to just about cover their costs with Nightjets, and I don't believe European Sleeper has any subsidy as such, though maybe it's burning through investment money - time will tell.

It is perhaps relevant that European Sleeper runs almost entirely couchettes which must help with numbers. But it also suggests that there is still a market for traditional couchette travel as well as the one or two person sleeper with ensuite and shower etc.

I would love for us to get sleeper services to destinations like Berlin or Barcelona from St Pancras, and if the trains had airline style first class seating for standard class, that are open but still provide some privacy and a seat that turns into a bed, you could fit a lot more people on. First class could be a traditional cabin, and by all means have open areas for people who are happy to save money and sit in a basic reclining seat all night. I wouldn't be a fan of the pods that you slide into, but I expect they could be considered for part of the train too (I do wonder how they'd be considered if there was a need for an in-tunnel evacuation though).

Trains could split when they arrive in France to give two destinations from one train starting in London.

There must be stacks of capacity in the small hours for such trains to run, and there wouldn't be the usual capacity issues at St Pancras beyond the need to have border staff work a bit later or earlier (but by how much? Chances are the train would leave around the same time as the last Paris service anyway).

I expect the cost of new trains is the barrier here, and there's the perception that will tell a lot of people that it's so much quicker to fly that nobody would ever bother to take a train. Well, I for one would because when I go to places like, funnily enough Berlin and Barcelona (hence my examples) it either requires trying to go to bed early and getting up at 2 or 3am to get to the airport for an early flight - which invariably means getting almost no sleep and having to pay for a taxi or peak fares to the airport OR you go the night before and stay in a hotel at the airport, which isn't often cheap.

So I'd sooner get on a train in the evening and relax, and if my space was designed well enough that I could sit and watch my phone/tablet/laptop until I felt tired, I'd barely feel like I'm travelling at all. When I wake up, there's no going to an airport for an early flight - I've already arrived.

Europe seems to be going all in on sleepers to reduce flights, so it's disappointing that we're not really interested.

Obviously engineering work is a factor when running services through the night, but I'd assume that if Europe is getting onboard with sleeper trains then they're already working on how to manage that. At the very least, long term works can just mean certain trains not running, or partly run with coaches if people would be happy to have that option over no train at all.

 

[TheWierdOne]

There must be stacks of capacity in the small hours for such trains to run, and there wouldn't be the usual capacity issues at St Pancras beyond the need to have border staff work a bit later or earlier (but by how much? Chances are the train would leave around the same time as the last Paris service anyway).

There’s probably not as much capacity as you might suppose. The Chunnel and LGV Nord both shut at night, I believe at 23:30 and 23:00 respectively, meaning there would be a hard cut off of around 22:45 for any cross-Channel departure from St Pancras, and then the train would be required to use French classic lines, limiting the range of a sleeper service.

 

[jon0844]

There’s probably not as much capacity as you might suppose. The Chunnel and LGV Nord both shut at night, I believe at 23:30 and 23:00 respectively, meaning there would be a hard cut off of around 22:45 for any cross-Channel departure from St Pancras, and then the train would be required to use French classic lines, limiting the range of a sleeper service.

That's fair enough but I am sure there are still possibilities - even more so if we were seriously interested in the concept, which we seemingly aren't so if nobody is pushing the idea then nobody is going to consider ways to make it work.

 

[AdamWW]

The Chunnel and LGV Nord both shut at night, I believe at 23:30 and 23:00 respectively, meaning there would be a hard cut off of around 22:45 for any cross-Channel departure from St Pancras, and then the train would be required to use French classic lines, limiting the range of a sleeper service.

Le Shuttle offer departures through the night. If the shuttles can run through the tunnel couldn't a regular train also do so?

 

[johncrossley]

Le Shuttle offer departures through the night. If the shuttles can run through the tunnel couldn't a regular train also do so?

Overnight engineering work even affects that. On more than one occasion I have been on an overnight coach to London when we have just missed the booked tunnel crossing so we ended up either parking up in Coquelles for several hours or went on the ferry instead.

 

[AdamWW]

Overnight engineering work even affects that. On more than one occasion I have been on an overnight coach to London when we have just missed the booked tunnel crossing so we ended up either parking up in Coquelles for several hours or went on the ferry instead.

Perhaps but that doesn't seem quite the same as a complete closure every night as was suggested above.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Chunnel and LGV Nord both shut at night

The tunnel doesn’t close at night except in exceptional circumstances. All the LGVs do though. A conventional trip to Barcelona from Calais is going to be 12 hours. Albeit by the time a train leaving London at, say, 2200 is past Mâcon, the LGVs would be open again. But youd be joining the LGV at 0630 and still 5 hours away…

 

[Cloud Strife]

Perhaps but that doesn't seem quite the same as a complete closure every night as was suggested above.

It doesn't shut, there are freight services also running overnight. They don't have a set timetable, they run according to demand, except on Saturday nights when they carry out scheduled maintenance, meaning that it can be closed for a while or not at all. They generally are very flexible, so it's not a problem to operate a sleeper there.

With the LGV lines, I believe that the old practice of closing the lines down completely overnight is no longer the case, but rather they're more flexible about the opening times.

 

[Starmill]

The tunnel doesn’t close at night except in exceptional circumstances. All the LGVs do though. A conventional trip to Barcelona from Calais is going to be 12 hours. Albeit by the time a train leaving London at, say, 2200 is past Mâcon, the LGVs would be open again. But youd be joining the LGV at 0630 and still 5 hours away…

A train with sleeping accommodation at 300km/h sounds quite novel. I'm not sure how much sleep one would be getting though.

 

[Sorcerer]

A train with sleeping accommodation at 300km/h sounds quite novel. I'm not sure how much sleep one would be getting though.

I could be wrong about this, but some Chinese high-speed sleeper trains reach that speed and sometimes above, however they are not like European sleepers because of their use of capsules rather than private rooms. I can't imagine it's too comfortable not only lacking a sense of true privacy but also possibly having to deal with loud snoring at the other end of the coaches. But I do wonder if high-speed sleepers trains could be done European style.

 

[AdamWW]

A train with sleeping accommodation at 300km/h sounds quite novel. I'm not sure how much sleep one would be getting though.

Novel but done already in China I believe, at 300 km/h and more.

I don't see what would prevent people from sleeping - I've generally found travel on high speed lines to be a lot smoother than a lot of travel on conventional lines.

 

[Starmill]

Novel but done already in China I believe, at 300 km/h and more.

I don't see what would prevent people from sleeping - I've generally found travel on high speed lines to be a lot smoother than a lot of travel on conventional lines.

Experience of many TGVs is that they are rather loud in many parts of the saloon.

They're probably not as loud as CS are though!

 

[bspahh]

I wonder if normal Eurostars could run a bit earlier and a bit later. This wouldn't need a different design of train. I might then sleep in a hotel or pod near the station if the departure is too early or the arrival is too late to complete the journey in one day.

Tomorrow, these are the first and last departure times between London and Paris, Brussels and Lille

Route	First Departure	First Arrival	Last Departure	Last Arrival
St Pancras-Paris	06:01	09:30	20:01	23:28
Paris-St Pancras	07:07	08:30	21:01	22:30
St Pancras-Brussels	06:16	09:13	19:34	22:35
Brussels-St Pancras	07:56	08:57	20:56	21:57
St Pancras-Lille Europe	07:04	09:26	19:34	22:00
Lille Europe-St Pancras	08:35	08:57	21:35	21:57

 

[Bald Rick]

A train with sleeping accommodation at 300km/h sounds quite novel. I'm not sure how much sleep one would be getting though.

Well quite.

My experience of LGVs over the past 35 years has been that the ride can be somewhat exciting; rushing up (or down) a 3.5% gradient at 300km/h is something I can very much feel.

But the point is that they are all closed at night - typically by 2300 and opening at 0600/0630, although LGV Nord opens at Lille for 0550 southbound, and the bottom end of the LGV Méditeranée is open not long after 0500. Generally speaking, if you were on an LGV, you’d be in waking hours.

 

[Austriantrain]

Well quite.

My experience of LGVs over the past 35 years has been that the ride can be somewhat exciting; rushing up (or down) a 3.5% gradient at 300km/h is something I can very much feel.

But the point is that they are all closed at night - typically by 2300 and opening at 0600/0630, although LGV Nord opens at Lille for 0550 southbound, and the bottom end of the LGV Méditeranée is open not long after 0500. Generally speaking, if you were on an LGV, you’d be in waking hours.

I think the only exception is Tours - Bordeaux, where they even ran a classic night train (do they still?). But then it is not operated by SNCF and they need to earn money…

Still, running night trains economically is very difficult. Doing it with very expensive, purpose-built 300 km/h-stock and very high track access charges on French LGV - probably impossible.

 

[Birkonian]

I don't fly, but travel by train to Italy, south of France and Barcelona. Anything to help with journey times would wonderful, especially if it included night time travel.

 

[ShadowKnight]

There is already a sleeper from Paris to latour de carol on the Spanish border near Andorra. Where there is a direct train to Barcelona

I don't fly, but travel by train to Italy, south of France and Barcelona. Anything to help with journey times would wonderful, especially if it included night time travel.