Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[BahrainLad]

The problem with these intermediate stops in general, but particularly Ashford, is that every seat you sell from them is one less seat you can sell from London. So you have to make your Ebbsfleet-Paris price identical to your London-Paris price otherwise you'll just reduce your yields. It makes it very hard to stimulate demand using pricing.

To take an airline example, it's the same reason flying from London to Dubai on Emirates is relatively expensive. Every seat they sell just to Dubai, is one less seat they can sell to somewhere much further east. So it's priced accordingly.

 

[weeklycommuter]

The target markets are very different. Ashford really just appeals to those from East Kent; it did very little inwards traffic despite all the French tourists one encounters in the area, particularly Canterbury. Ebbsfleet even more so, its users almost wholly arriving by car, from surprisingly far away (I encountered Cambridgeshire residents there), and also from a lot of NE/SE/outer London. Major Eurostar flows of those coming from the Continent, and a notable quantity of touring Americans, head wholly to St Pancras, along with all from provincial Britain who come into London by train, and these groups may well be a majority of those on Eurostar. They are actually quite different markets.

The directional flow issue is similar to that experienced by international airlines. From the UK to the USA there is a reasonable demand from provincial areas, but a plane takes everyone, and those Americans travelling in the opposite direction are almost entirely travelling to London - Edinburgh is apparently the single UK outlier in this.

That was the problem with Ebbsfleet. Its users almost wholly arrived by car. It encouraged UK passengers to join the Eurostar by car instead of by train to St Pancras. That really was the only reason for Eurostar calling at Ebbsfleet. It is of no benefit to anyone who travels by train to join Eurostar. I can see the point of international trains calling at Ashford but not Ebbsfleet or Stratford.

 

[Sorcerer]

Though they were so close in practice that a lot of staff only found out who they worked for when Virgin lost XC.

Which just makes the perception of it being the same company all the more justified in my opinion. As I understand it the managing director of West Coast is involved in this new Channel Tunnel service which arguably makes it closer to the Virgin Trains everyone remembers than CrossCountry was. Whether the new company runs with the Virgin Trains brand or chooses something else is another question entirely.

 

[williamn]

It is of no benefit to anyone who travels by train to join Eurostar.

People who want to drive to take Eurostar are a valid market however! Parkway stations are an established thing. For one reason or another a lot of people will find it more convenient to drive.

The Ashford market extends West too - may parents live near Tunbridge Wells and would join the train at Ashford. I suspect it's just not a very big market though.

 

[Sorcerer]

Ashford is kind of a pound shop Lille in that you've got a pretty upmarket shopping centre right next door to the station and that it acts as a regional interchange for most trains in East Kent. There's a lot more appetite for reinstatement there than Ebbsfleet.

Certainly more so than Ebbsfleet, and if only one had to be brought back I would definitely say Ashford is the obvious choice. But at the moment Virgin don't plan to finance it's operation, and neither does Eurostar, so it'll inevitably need to come from elsewhere, most likely subsidies. Do we even know if Virgin plans to stop at Lille Europe though? I don't see why they wouldn't since it's fully operational, but I don't recall it ever being explicitly confirmed outright.

 

[RT4038]

It's valid on Eurostar Standard and Plus on a Global Pass, so I don't see why it shouldn't be valid with Virgin either.

I expect that will depend on whether they think the revenue (whatever small sum they get from Interrail + the reservation charge) will be worth it, compared to selling the seat (if they can) to the full price passenger.

Interrail tickets tend to be booked out on most services, often few days in advance but sometimes weeks in peak season. I imagine Virgin might try to undercut Eurostar on that front as the interrail reservations on Eurostar are very expensive compared to other high-speed operators

I don't think Interail E* reservations work quite like that. Each train has a quota of Interrail reservations, and these are linked to the normal price tickets. When the normal price tickets get to a certain level, the Interrail quota falls away. So a given train may start off at (for example) £69 for normal price and 50 Interrail reservations available at £30. As the normal price tickets sell, their price goes up. When they get to (say) £159, the Interrail quota is closed, even if only 4 Interrail reservations have been sold. This is because (a) E* only get a small amount of money from Interrail for each use, + £30 reservation fee, but if they are starting to sell at £159+ to ordinary passengers they would rather get that, and (b) the cost of an Interrail ticket + reservation charge starts undercutting their fare, and they won't want that.

 

[eastwestdivide]

It is of no benefit to anyone who travels by train to join Eurostar

(Ebbsfleet for clarity). Apart from the easy change for people from stations down the line via Gravesend, Medway, Sittingbourne etc. I used Ebbsfleet a good few times starting from Medway on a SE train.
Would help if Ebbsfleet was better integrated with Northfleet station though.

 

[MikeFromLFE]

The target markets are very different. Ashford really just appeals to those from East Kent; it did very little inwards traffic despite all the French tourists one encounters in the area, particularly Canterbury. Ebbsfleet even more so, its users almost wholly arriving by car, from surprisingly far away (I encountered Cambridgeshire residents there), and also from a lot of NE/SE/outer London. Major Eurostar flows of those coming from the Continent, and a notable quantity of touring Americans, head wholly to St Pancras, along with all from provincial Britain who come into London by train, and these groups may well be a majority of those on Eurostar. They are actually quite different markets.

The directional flow issue is similar to that experienced by international airlines. From the UK to the USA there is a reasonable demand from provincial areas, but a plane takes everyone, and those Americans travelling in the opposite direction are almost entirely travelling to London - Edinburgh is apparently the single UK outlier in this.

We drove from Leicester to Ebbsfleet a couple of times - we were meeting with relatives who had driven from Hertfordshire to travel onward to France. Excellent car parking and not too far from the M25.
I'd certainly consider Ebbsfleet over Ashford if I were driving (which to be fair is unlikely - I tend to use EMR to St Pancras these days)

 

[Birkonian]

(Ebbsfleet for clarity). Apart from the easy change for people from stations down the line via Gravesend, Medway, Sittingbourne etc. I used Ebbsfleet a good few times starting from Medway on a SE train.
Would help if Ebbsfleet was better integrated with Northfleet station though.

As I said in an earlier post, I travel from Wirral and sometimes stay overnight in London. Hotels are very expensive. There is a Travelodge next to Stone Crossing station which is much cheaper than Central London. 8 minutes on the train to Northfleet plus 20 mins max walk to Ebbsfleet or if with a heavy suitcase, train from Stone Crossing changing at Gravesend. It's an option that I would consider.

 

[ShadowKnight]

Perhaps if southeastern high speed services went north of London to MK/ Birmingham via the NNL link international connections at ebbsfleet/Ashford would be more attractive? I don't know if there is enough of a market for that but anecdotally in my life I have met many people who try to avoid travelling to/through London for international or long distance journeys

As I said in an earlier post, I travel from Wirral and sometimes stay overnight in London. Hotels are very expensive. There is a Travelodge next to Stone Crossing station which is much cheaper than Central London. 8 minutes on the train to Northfleet plus 20 mins max walk to Ebbsfleet or if with a heavy suitcase, train from Stone Crossing changing at Gravesend. It's an option that I would consider.

 

[Cach17]

Perhaps if southeastern high speed services went north of London to MK/ Birmingham via the NNL link international connections at ebbsfleet/Ashford would be more attractive? I don't know if there is enough of a market for that but anecdotally in my life I have met many people who try to avoid travelling to/through London for international or long distance journeys

I've floated the idea of a Southeastern service between Ebbsfleet and Watford Junction on this forum before (if Southern run to Watford, why not SE too?). Aside from demand, capacity constraints on the NLL/Mildmay Line would certainly be an issue.

Maybe something to consider when the WCML is relieved by HS2, if not sooner!

 

[Bald Rick]

Aside from demand, capacity constraints on the NLL/Mildmay Line would certainly be an issue.

And on the WCML

Maybe something to consider when the WCML is relieved by HS2, if not sooner!

HS2 doesnt help relieve capacity on the NLL.

 

[Cach17]

And on the WCML




HS2 doesnt help relieve capacity on the NLL.

I meant relieving capacity on the WCML, but yes the NLL would still be an issue, and I accept that even a third platform at Camden Road would do little, if anything, to alleviate it.

 

[NCT]

It’s not the state’s responsibility to pander to the minority who are irrationally scared of London.

 

[BRX]

My solution for regional Eurostar: a tram line from Euston to St Pancras is built, and on this, special trams operate. You get on at one end, and on board there are border controls and security checks. You go through these as the tram makes its way between stations and by the time you get to St Pancras you are ready to go straight into the departures lounge and get on your train. Thus the issue of transferring with baggage is dealt with in parallel with the border/security checks, using time efficiently and minimising pressure on the facilities at St Pancras. Can't believe no-one has suggested this before.

 

[D6130]

My solution for regional Eurostar: a tram line from Euston to St Pancras is built, and on this, special trams operate. You get on at one end, and on board there are border controls and security checks. You go through these as the tram makes its way between stations and by the time you get to St Pancras you are ready to go straight into the departures lounge and get on your train. Thus the issue of transferring with baggage is dealt with in parallel with the border/security checks, using time efficiently and minimising pressure on the facilities at St Pancras. Can't believe no-one has suggested this before.

It would have to be an extremely slow tram!

 

[eastwestdivide]

Can't believe no-one has suggested this before.

I can believe it.

 

[Krokodil]

It’s not the state’s responsibility to pander to the minority who are irrationally scared of London.

There are plenty of good reasons to want a one-seat ride, including the time saving and the inconvenience of traipsing down Euston Road with luggage.

 

[TheWierdOne]

It’s not the state’s responsibility to pander to the minority who are irrationally scared of London.

There is a definite preference in the UK to minimise changes. Our rail system doesn’t after all have the reputation (whatever the stats might say) of reliability that the Swiss have to make travellers comfortable with multiple tight changes en route.

 

[NCT]

There is a definite preference in the UK to minimise changes. Our rail system doesn’t after all have the reputation (whatever the stats might say) of reliability that the Swiss have to make travellers comfortable with multiple tight changes en route.

London and the South East and the London end of Intercity main lines generally run OK. When most services run at least a basic half hourly frequency, it's not unreasonable to go one train earlier for long-distance connections. Making the network more complicated through loads of irregular direct services would make the network more unreliable for the other passengers who would have to change trains somewhere else. Or, put it another way, improving existing asset reliability to get punctuality to top end European levels (even if below Swiss) would be far less expensive than trying to give direct services to everyone.

There are plenty of good reasons to want a one-seat ride, including the time saving and the inconvenience of traipsing down Euston Road with luggage.

Except in the case of London providing a one-seat ride would be a zero-sum game (possibly negative sum). All our main lines are operating at maximum capacity with clockface timetables. Running a Manchester - Paris service (ignoring immigration/custom buggerations) would mean pulling a Euston path from the standard pattern, and that's before checking that a diverted Euston path would match up with a 01/04/31/34 path out of St Pancras (they need to be those paths otherwise you affect Southeastern HS services). In any case addressing capacity on the NLL would be prohibitively expensive. It's not the state's job to spend finite resources to subsidise people incompetence - yes wanting a one-seat ride without considering wider societal trade-offs is incompetence.

The examples given in previous posts were actually journeys from the MML. And they even said that after Ebbsfleet got pulled they simply got the train into London. This is a classic case where the after is better than the before. In such a case an Ebbsfleet passenger just becomes a St Pancras passenger, and Eurostar gets probably a marginally better yield. EMR also gets more Leicester - London ticket sales. Everyone is a winner.

 

[Krokodil]

Except in the case of London providing a one-seat ride would be a zero-sum game (possibly negative sum).

I never disputed that the current infrastructure wouldn't be adequate. I'm just objecting to the characterisation of people as "irrationally scared of London"

It's not the state's job to spend finite resources to subsidise people incompetence

Roughly 99% of the state's resources are spent on helping people ("subsidise people incompetence" in your words). The state provides education so that people do not have to provide their own, healthcare regardless of means, defence so that people don't have to band together and form local militias, subsidised bus services for those incapable of cycling everywhere etc.

Whether a given item is justifiable compared with another is a different question, but it certainly is within the state's remit.

 

[NCT]

There's a huge difference between providing statutory services and subsidising discretionary consumer choice.

 

[Krokodil]

There's a huge difference between providing statutory services and subsidising discretionary consumer choice.

We do both.

 

[NCT]

We do both.

Traditionally the state concentrated on the former. The creeping expansion into the latter is not sustainable (or some people want that expansion to continue in ways that are totally unrealistic and inappropriate).

 

[Krokodil]

Traditionally the state concentrated on the former. The creeping expansion into the latter is not sustainable (or some people want that expansion to continue in ways that are totally unrealistic and inappropriate).

This sort of thing is a drop in the ocean. It's the statutory services (particularly social care) that are becoming unsustainable.

 

[ShadowKnight]

Perhaps a last point before drifting too off topic. There is a potential for avoiding London rail travel crosscountry is an example of this exactly with overcrowded and overpriced services. Likewise southeastern high speed services up the WCML or GWML could connect well with international services at Ashford international. High speed services are already niche in the UK and long distance travellers value minimal hassle free journeys with minimal interchange when carrying luggage or with children. Changing in London is not convenient, simple or hassle free.

 

[Zomboid]

How many full trains per hour can St Pancras handle, in terms of security etc? If it has less capacity than HS1 then perhaps a time will come when the case for opening Ebbsfleet or Ashford will be more positive from a load spreading point of view.

 

[TheWierdOne]

How many full trains per hour can St Pancras handle, in terms of security etc? If it has less capacity than HS1 then perhaps a time will come when the case for opening Ebbsfleet or Ashford will be more positive from a load spreading point of view.

Currently I think 2 per hour due to security bottlenecks but LSPH are in the process of upgrading it to around 4-5 per hour.

 

[NCT]

This sort of thing is a drop in the ocean. It's the statutory services (particularly social care) that are becoming unsustainable.

A conversation could be had on what level of statutory service provision is sustainable and appropriate, but statutory services will remain the core function of government, and discretionary spending will always be with whatever pennies that are left. The value-for-money threshold for such discretionary spending has to be far higher than benefiting the small number of passengers who won't change in London.

Perhaps a last point before drifting too off topic. There is a potential for avoiding London rail travel crosscountry is an example of this exactly with overcrowded and overpriced services. Likewise southeastern high speed services up the WCML or GWML could connect well with international services at Ashford international. High speed services are already niche in the UK and long distance travellers value minimal hassle free journeys with minimal interchange when carrying luggage or with children. Changing in London is not convenient, simple or hassle free.

The only realistic way of providing an avoiding-London Channel Tunnel service is by replacing a standard London terminal path on the WCML/MML/ECML. Even before considering immigration/custom logistics and costs. This is a negative sum game.

 

[Krokodil]

The value-for-money threshold for such discretionary spending has to be far higher than benefiting the small number of passengers who won't change in London.

You keep trying to paint people as some kind of awkward squad "terrified of London". I don't dispute that we have no WCML paths and that a HS1-2 link is not on the cards. That the costs of providing a through service may exceed the benefits of doing so doesn't change the fact that there are benefits, and that - in a world where we had spare capacity - direct connections with the continent would provide an economic boost to places like Manchester.

By all means, argue the issues of capacity etc. But don't be so dismissive of the human beings involved.