Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
As the FT article is behind a firewall, is it definitely new trains for cross-Channel services, or is it new trains for the Eurostsr group, with a separate consideration of new routes from London?
Trains from London basically need to be 400m for commercial reasons as much as anything else, so 2x200 just makes it more awkward to operate as the train manager will only be in one half of the train at all times. Whereas trains entirely within the Schengen area might have a bit more commercial reason to explore routes that can cope with 200m sets
Now there is more info and fleet is increasing from 51 to 67 trains (there are 26 ex-Thayls units), I wonder if they will split the order, few more E320s at 400m (I think actually nearer 390m length) which can operate the core service and inter-mix with existing fleet as now.
Then some high capacity 200m units, eg TGV-M which depending on seating layout could be nearer 650-700 passengers per unit (or 1300-1400 on double unit). The TGV-M has shorter power cars and 9 intermediate vehicles (instead of 8 in older double deck TGV)
Of course if making trains of double units, can split and join and serve more destinations at one end, or even potentially (if connections and HS2 is built) continue a single set to Birmingham. Regardless of destinations if they have indicated early delivery date is a key consideration then split order seems more likely.
Of course if making trains of double units, can split and join and serve more destinations at one end, or even potentially (if connections and HS2 is built) continue a single set to Birmingham. Regardless of destinations if they have indicated early delivery date is a key consideration then split order seems more likely.
BIB - That ship has *long* since sailed. The only connections off HS1 are to the Classic line. The only connections between HS2 and the classic network for passenger trains are at Handsacre, north of Birmingham. The design of OOC and HS1 does not allow for any future tunneling.
The most likely split/join service is a London-Frankfurt/Dortmund, dividing at Cologne. Amsterdam could fill 400m trains on it's own if the passenger lounge capacity is there. I don't know if commercially and operationally a London-Geneva/Zurich service would be more viable than separate 400m trains to each (the division would likely be in a very sub-optimal place). However 200m sets have other advantages over 400m sets even if they run coupled throughout the day.
As the FT article is behind a firewall, is it definitely new trains for cross-Channel services, or is it new trains for the Eurostsr group, with a separate consideration of new routes from London?
Trains from London basically need to be 400m for commercial reasons as much as anything else, so 2x200 just makes it more awkward to operate as the train manager will only be in one half of the train at all times. Whereas trains entirely within the Schengen area might have a bit more commercial reason to explore routes that can cope with 200m sets
Anyone have any idea to what degree this order might also be spurred by all the proposals for competing services through the Channel Tunnel? If memory serves I think 5 operators expressed a strong interest with the space of a few weeks:
Evolyn trains, backed by the Spanish Cosmen business family/consortium, are seriously considering running trains on the London-Paris route (and may or may not be talking to Alstom about buying trains)
Then Heuro popped up and talked about running over a dozen trains a day on the London - Amsterdam route, as well as Amsterdam - Paris
Renfe suddenly reminded everyone that they proposed a service a few years ago on London - Paris and are apparently still seriously considering it
DB said in January that services to London were "still of fundamental interest". Any Germanophiles able to interpret that?
SBB have made positively affirming noises about a London - Basel service, possibly via Geneva
Is it possible that Eurostar and SNCF have seen these proposals, realised that one of them might actually have a decent chance of getting rolling now that Getlink is musing subsidies, and have moved up expansion plans to head off the competition?
Crossposting my reply to this from the other thread
Anyone have any idea to what degree this order might also be spurred by all the proposals for competing services through the Channel Tunnel? If memory serves I think 5 operators expressed a strong interest with the space of a few weeks:
Evolyn trains, backed by the Spanish Cosmen business family/consortium, are seriously considering running trains on the London-Paris route (and may or may not be talking to Alstom about buying trains)
Then a random Dutch firm called Heuro popped up and talked about running over a dozen trains a day on the London - Amsterdam route, as well as Amsterdam - Paris
Renfe suddenly reminded everyone that they proposed a service a few years ago on London - Paris and are apparently still seriously considering it
DB said in January that services to London were "still of fundamental interest". Any Germanophiles able to interpret that?
SBB have made positively affirming noises about a London - Basel service, possibly via Geneva
Is it possible that Eurostar and SNCF have seen these proposals, realised that one of them might actually have a decent chance of getting rolling now that Getlink is musing subsidies, and have moved up expansion plans to head off the competition?
From my perspective, the most interesting thing in that article was the comments around terminal expansion in both St Pancras and Paris, which I believe bottleneck Eurostar's (and frankly anyone else's) ability to expand services where border checks are required. The Thalys PBA and PBKA stock are also getting on a little bit (both built in the mid-late 90s) as of course are the E300s. On the Schengen services, they probably need to strongly rethink their offer based on potential lower-cost competition on some routes (Ouigo springs to mind) do they stay premium or increase density? I'll be interested to see if they opt for something AGV, TGV M, or Velaro-based (other options are available of course!)
A ~360m rake of TGV-M trailers probably isn't going to be much heavier than the rake of trailers on a first-generation Eurostar set.
Its probably possible to get the performance necessary to path things on LGV Nord with modern power cars.
probably not, because just the e320s would mean a significantly smaller fleet for the routes to/from london - and they say they want to offer more routes, which will require more stock, not less
From my perspective, the most interesting thing in that article was the comments around terminal expansion in both St Pancras and Paris, which I believe bottleneck Eurostar's (and frankly anyone else's) ability to expand services where border checks are required.
I'd say that we're actually in the position where St Pancras is going to become a huge bottleneck. Gare du Nord can be relatively easily expanded, but St Pancras would need substantial amounts of remodelling to accommodate more trains.
It's probably possible to acquire another train worth of capacity with some interior remodelling, but any more than that will probably require transforming the area at the end of the tracks (under the clock) into a new arrivals area. In fact, looking now, I wonder why this hasn't been done to begin with? International arrivals could easily be accommodated there, leaving the entire undercroft for departures.
The subsidy or incentive scheme ETICA rewards new services, not new operators. Eurostar is eligible if starts to serve a new route. All the details of ETICA and the standard charging rules (in the network statements) are available via links on this page. (See also the other current thread on ETICA.)
Here is a short quote for the ETICA-Pax document:
2. PRINCIPLES OF THE SCHEME
The ETICA-Pax scheme is based on payment by Eurotunnel to the successful candidate of a one-off
financial incentive on a strictly non-renewable basis, in return for the creation by a railway undertaking of a
new rail service using the Channel Fixed Link, distinct from existing services.
This mechanism applies transparently alongside (and without modifying) the pricing system for access to
the Channel Fixed Link described in the Eurotunnel Network Statement, which is destined for permanent
application, unlike the ETICA-Pax system which is a one-off, non-renewable payment intended solely for
the development of new services for specified passenger routes and markets.
In accordance with the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2012/34/EC, this scheme is open to all
railway undertakings (RUs) who submit an application and accept its conditions, and whose projects meet
the selection criteria described below.
3. DURATION
The ETICA-Pax scheme is intended for new rail passenger services to be launched before 31/12/2030
(start date of regular commercial services), subject to the provisions of article 6.6 below. The scheme is
formally proposed and open for applications annually for services launched during a given timetable
period through the publication of General Conditions referenced as an Annexe to the Network Statement
for the corresponding timetable period. Eurotunnel makes no commitment and has no obligation to launch
any subsequent ETICA-Pax calls (nor any other amended incentive mechanism) for periods beyond those
for which General Conditions are referenced in annual publications of its Network Statement, and railway
undertakings are invited to apply for ETICA-Pax grants as soon as possible to assist the development and
launch of new services as part of the present call for candidate projects.
4. CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO THE CANDIDATE
This system is open to railway undertakings which have requested or obtained the regulatory permits
necessary for access to the infrastructures concerned (licence and safety certificates). These general
conditions for access, with regard to the Channel Fixed Link (CTFL), are described in the Eurotunnel
Network Statement2, which the railway undertakings are invited to read. Applications for ETICA-Pax grants
are open equally to all railway undertakings wishing to take part in the development of new cross-Channel
rail passenger services and that undertake to accept CTFL access conditions and charges and comply
with the scheme’s principles and conditions.
Cologne/Frankfurt, Basle/Geneva and Lyon/S of France are the obvious ones along with increased frequency on Amsterdam. But we've discussed on here numerous times the obstacles to new routes, primarily the inability to carry intermediate traffic on international services inbound to the UK and the need for pre-boarding border controls (or the Lille shuffle). Personally I can see a point in the future where Brussels is hourly and all services are extended to Amsterdam, Cologne or elsewhere.
Most got replaced at 20 years these are now 30 years old almost and the refit was ten years ago. Seems they lasted well may be a few years before they go out of service.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The first trains are expected to enter service in the early 2030s.
If Eurostar spend a fortune expanding the facilities they will not be happy if someone else the comes and offers cheaper fares taking advantage of the increased capacity. I cannot see it being funded by a governement formed from either major party, so where will the money come from?
Could you have a 3rd party company come in and expand the facitilities, and charge the operators a fee for each passenger processed?
The need to expand is clear, what is not clear is how, either commercially or in terms of space.
Paris is also constrained by the exiting station, and there is no room to grow outwards.
Is this in any way related to the multiple new operators supposedly considering routes via the Channel Tunnel? Is that what has convinced Eurostar there is "huge demand"? They've never seemed massively bothered before.
I mean, having the new e320 have 150ish more seats than the e300s did, and expanding capacity at St P, though not nearly enough, are things that point to an attempt to grow
The problem is more that so far they've been rather slow - see how long it took to start Netherlands services
Or something else scares them off - while various companies (notably DB), have previously talked about starting services in competition with eurostar none of them ever actually started, and most of the challenges are still there, and though some have gotten easier, there's some new ones as well
The article states that fleet size would grow from 51 to 67 after the new trains arrive. That suggests 50 new and the existing 17 x E320s, replacing everything else then?
The subsidy or incentive scheme ETICA rewards new services, not new operators. Eurostar is eligible if starts to serve a new route. All the details of ETICA and the standard charging rules (in the network statements) are available via links on this page. (See also the other current thread on ETICA.)
Cologne/Frankfurt, Basle/Geneva and Lyon/S of France are the obvious ones along with increased frequency on Amsterdam. But we've discussed on here numerous times the obstacles to new routes, primarily the inability to carry intermediate traffic on international services inbound to the UK and the need for pre-boarding border controls (or the Lille shuffle). Personally I can see a point in the future where Brussels is hourly and all services are extended to Amsterdam, Cologne or elsewhere.
And in those threads we did identify that some routes are more likely than others, due to factors such as demand (approximated by current air passenger numbers), availability of demand that is willing to pay a (higher) price point, potential journey times, station capacity at the European end, etc.
If I remember correctly, Geneva (and potentially other Swiss destinations), came out pretty well in that year-round, though demand is higher during skiing season
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If Eurostar spend a fortune expanding the facilities they will not be happy if someone else the comes and offers cheaper fares taking advantage of the increased capacity. I cannot see it being funded by a governement formed from either major party, so where will the money come from?
Could you have a 3rd party company come in and expand the facitilities, and charge the operators a fee for each passenger processed?
The need to expand is clear, what is not clear is how, either commercially or in terms of space.
Paris is also constrained by the exiting station, and there is no room to grow outwards.
Throwing it out there, if they chose the Zefiro could they order a mix of continental loading gauge trains and a few British loading gauge trains to have another go at north of London services?
The problems with the connection to HS2 have been well documented but they could run a pair of 200m long trains from the continent and have one 200m portion reverse out and use the chord to join to ECML and go up to Edinburgh with stops at York and Newcastle. Of course some sort of customs agreement would have to be sorted out and a good path on the ECML found.
Transilien lines H and K still terminate in Gare du Nord. Yes they could do an 'RER' but with all the other work going on associated with Paris Grand Express I cant see it happening. I would also see the same problem as the UK, the French government are not going to want to spend money to effectivley subsidise trains to the UK.
If Eurostar spend a fortune expanding the facilities they will not be happy if someone else the comes and offers cheaper fares taking advantage of the increased capacity. I cannot see it being funded by a governement formed from either major party, so where will the money come from?
Could you have a 3rd party company come in and expand the facitilities, and charge the operators a fee for each passenger processed?
The need to expand is clear, what is not clear is how, either commercially or in terms of space.
Paris is also constrained by the exiting station, and there is no room to grow outwards.
So if station platform capacity is an issue then carrying more passengers per train is one potential option. That would likely mean going double-deck, which points to TGV-M. Two TGV-M sets would allow at least 1200 passengers per train, or around 30% increase on an e320, even allowing for four power cars in the formation. It also allows for portion working if needed (eg Amsterdam portion off at Brussels).
New routes could be reinstating Calais or Disney.. or the ski and South of France trains.
I see that foundational Brussels growth being key. More Amsterdam of course playing a big role - hopefully they can tighten the journey times a little more. But the Cologne/Frankfurt flow could be trialled too. This I doubt would call Aachen or Liege (or FRA), so it would have a faster journey time.
They could also expand more services out of Lille. Which doesn't otherwise have direct Rotterdam/Amsterdam (other than E* calls), or Germany services which avoid it ex-Paris. It's not a huge destination by itself, but it is a big connection point.
Gare du Nord is trickier to expand than St Pancras, easily.
In london the capacity issue isn't really platforms but security & border, and the waiting space beyond it
In gare du nord I'm not sure - if platforms RER'ing the remaining commuter service could be a solution (and benefit the commuter service as well) Though if their issue is also border capacity that won't work
That's all assuming thier major growth plan isn't on non-uk routes anyway
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
