Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[zwk500]

Yes, but at a price that has some chance of competing with air fares. Whenever I travel to somewhere beyond Paris or Brussels I end up booking the legs separately because the through prices offered by Eurostar are pretty much always loads more expensive.

Competing with point-to-point air fares directly is going to be 1. almost impossible because of the different networks' access charges and rail's generally higher cost base, 2. comparing apples with apples because of the low-cost airlines 'add-ons' fare structure and 3. very silly as the rail market will bear higher prices than the low-cost air market.

When I book the legs separately usually I manage to find a fairly good price. But of course this needs quite a bit of prior knowledge & perseverance, and the process is not attractive to most potential customers.

So the Price for London-Paris on the 0601 tomorrow is currently £182 on Eurostar's website.
SNCF Connect is currently offering me the 11.01 Paris Montparnasse - Bordeaux train at EUR63

EUR 63 in GPB is 54.37 according to Google's current exchange rate. 182+54.37 = 234.37. So Eurostar are charging me 51 entire pennies more on the exchange rate than if I booked each leg separated direct with the train operator.

For comparison, Rail Europe would charge me £273.50 and trainline £266.61 for the same itineraries. If I shopped around and found a different itinerary I could bring the price down a bit, but then again Eurostar's journey planner was just asked to find me a journey from London to Paris.

 

[NCT]

London-Brussels used to be timetabled at 1h50 or so. It's now always 2 hours. Appreciate there is a dwell here, but it could be tighter overall.

It's essentially whether the London departure is xx04 or xx16. The xx16 is a 'bonus' path that's only available if the domestic xx16 doesn't run (it's a Maidestone, so peak only) AND the xx07 domestic path can be pushed forward to xx04. If we want greater HS1 utilisation from both domestic and international services, then the only way to do it is to increase the standardisation, which means Brussels services all departing at xx04. And all Brussels services should stop at Lille, as Lille provides a good avoiding-Paris connection into the Brussels - MdV - rest of France TGV services.

 

[BRX]

So the Price for London-Paris on the 0601 tomorrow is currently £182 on Eurostar's website.
SNCF Connect is currently offering me the 11.01 Paris Montparnasse - Bordeaux train at EUR63

EUR 63 in GPB is 54.37 according to Google's current exchange rate. 182+54.37 = 234.37. So Eurostar are charging me 51 entire pennies more on the exchange rate than if I booked each leg separated direct with the train operator.

For comparison, Rail Europe would charge me £273.50 and trainline £266.61 for the same itineraries. If I shopped around and found a different itinerary I could bring the price down a bit, but then again Eurostar's journey planner was just asked to find me a journey from London to Paris.

Fair enough - perhaps it does ok on those routes where it offers through ticketing.

I seem to remember booking a trip to Grenoble a couple of years ago where I ended up doing it as separate legs, because Trenitalia offered a very cheap ticket from Paris to Lyon that the Eurostar offers would not pick up.

I also think I have found that the Eurostar through fare to Cologne can be quite a bit more than Eurostar to Brussels plus DB to Cologne. Presumably because the Eurostar system doesn't look at the DB options. The results probably vary depending on what happens to be available on any particular day/time.

But more commonly my experiences are in booking to destinations that Eurostar doesn't offer through ticketing to. For example destinations in Germany like Frankfurt. Or destinations in Italy (which is why I mentioned Trenitalia).

 

[Sorcerer]

If we want greater HS1 utilisation from both domestic and international services, then the only way to do it is to increase the standardisation, which means Brussels services all departing at xx04. And all Brussels services should stop at Lille, as Lille provides a good avoiding-Paris connection into the Brussels - MdV - rest of France TGV services.

The only potential downside to standardised departure times would be that you're probably ruling out Ebbsfleet and Ashford ever seeing an international service again since that would require earlier departures from St. Pancras so as not to miss their path through the Channel Tunnel. Truthfully though standardised pathing allowing more regular services could still be better than intermittent usage of intermediate Kent stops when it comes to greater utilisation of HS1.

 

[zwk500]

Fair enough - perhaps it does ok on those routes where it offers through ticketing.

My example is absolutely not a scientific example as it was looking at unrealistic booking timescales when operators will have sold out of their fancy deals and so on. However to do a proper study would require a bit more spare time or a reason to get hold of the proper pricing data, so will have to wait alas.

I seem to remember booking a trip to Grenoble a couple of years ago where I ended up doing it as separate legs, because Trenitalia offered a very cheap ticket from Paris to Lyon that the Eurostar offers would not pick up.

I also think I have found that the Eurostar through fare to Cologne can be quite a bit more than Eurostar to Brussels plus DB to Cologne. Presumably because the Eurostar system doesn't look at the DB options. The results probably vary depending on what happens to be available on any particular day/time.

Do you think Trenitalia will be better about scanning other operator's trains? Or that Trenitalia will simply offer lower fares to start with so that their internal through-fares are cheaper?

But more commonly my experiences are in booking to destinations that Eurostar doesn't offer through ticketing to. For example destinations in Germany like Frankfurt. Or destinations in Italy (which is why I mentioned Trenitalia).

Fair enough, but how many people would even consider spending so long on a train to Italy when they can fly there in 1.5 hrs?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 May 2026 ==

The only potential downside to standardised departure times would be that you're probably ruling out Ebbsfleet and Ashford ever seeing an international service again since that would require earlier departures from St. Pancras so as not to miss their path through the Channel Tunnel. Truthfully though standardised pathing allowing more regular services could still be better than intermittent usage of intermediate Kent stops when it comes to greater utilisation of HS1.

Ebbsfleet's and Ashford's best hope of seeing services again is as part of a secondary slower service. An hourly slot from St Pancras to the Tunnel calling either Ebbsfleet or Ashford, and then a path on the French side calling either Calais or Lille that could feed into a path to Paris or Brussels. Amsterdam would want to be London, Brussels, Rotterdam, Amsterdam as much as humanly possible.

 

[Krokodil]

and people from here connecting to AF

If Interconnexion services ever resume and call at CDG there is surely an opportunity to form a codeshare agreement with AF for this leg.

Fair enough, but how many people would even consider spending so long on a train to Italy when they can fly there in 1.5 hrs?

At the moment the journey takes 10h40 at best which is longer than most people would consider without breaking it overnight somewhere. However completion of the Mont d'Ambin Base Tunnel will remove three hours from this, putting it into more people's "reasonable" bracket.

Otherwise, crossing Paris and going through check-in penalises you by an hour. Should direct services ever materialise (this forum has discussed this many times before, UK entry into Schengen is pretty much a prerequisite for international services expanding to pretty much anywhere except perhaps Frankfurt) then they would be competitive.

 

[BRX]

Do you think Trenitalia will be better about scanning other operator's trains? Or that Trenitalia will simply offer lower fares to start with so that their internal through-fares are cheaper?

We'll have to wait and see what happens of course. But it seems likely that Trenitalia might start offering, say, London-Lyon through prices (utilising their own services on both legs) that are directly in competition with Eurostar's through prices.

Maybe either of Trenitalia or Virgin will be interested in doing a deal with DB for through-prices from London. For whatever reason, Eurostar & DB don't currently seem interested in doing such deals. It used to be the case (unless my memory is wrong) that you could get through tickets from London to say Frankfurt or Stuttgart but at some point these disappeared and now it always seems necessary to book those journeys as separate legs.

In any case, the existence of some competition on these kinds of through tickets might encourage all operators to offer a bit more than is currently available.

 

[cle]

If all trains returned to the previous fastest timings you'd be saving between 3 and 9 minutes. In theory there's an appreciable time saving in the dwells, but only if the paths line up. Maybe, just maybe, with the increased frequency all Amsterdam trains could be standardised as non-stop between London and Brussels, so that the paths from HS1 and through Lille could be standardised as well (with the remaining Brussels terminators keeping the Lille stop). Then you could maximise the dwell and Journey time savings to bring the fasts London-Amsterdam times down to 3h55-3h59 or so on a consistent basis.

3h55/59 would be a great outcome... I agree it probably can't get much tighter without a new line, and a new line wouldn't be viable (or politically approved) missing Brussels - unless it had a parkway or Lille Europe type of set-up.

It's essentially whether the London departure is xx04 or xx16. The xx16 is a 'bonus' path that's only available if the domestic xx16 doesn't run (it's a Maidestone, so peak only) AND the xx07 domestic path can be pushed forward to xx04. If we want greater HS1 utilisation from both domestic and international services, then the only way to do it is to increase the standardisation, which means Brussels services all departing at xx04. And all Brussels services should stop at Lille, as Lille provides a good avoiding-Paris connection into the Brussels - MdV - rest of France TGV services.

Brussels terminators need the Lille calls - but I don't think the Amsterdam one does. But perhaps this is something Eurostar gain on, as it sounds like every newcomer is planning non-stop (+ Brussels) - unclear on Rotterdam.

On that note, do we have any data or anecdata on how well Rotterdam does?

 

[Trainbike46]

3h55/59 would be a great outcome... I agree it probably can't get much tighter without a new line, and a new line wouldn't be viable (or politically approved) missing Brussels - unless it had a parkway or Lille Europe type of set-up.


Brussels terminators need the Lille calls - but I don't think the Amsterdam one does. But perhaps this is something Eurostar gain on, as it sounds like every newcomer is planning non-stop (+ Brussels) - unclear on Rotterdam.

Due to the infrastructure set-up* and paths, it's unlikely the journey time to Amsterdam would be even a minute faster if you skipped Rotterdam.

* You would have to leave the high-speed line and slow down to 40km/h if you didn't stop at Rotterdam, so there's very limited potential for gaining time

On that note, do we have any data or anecdata on how well Rotterdam does?

It's busy every time I use it (which is a few times a year).

The capacity is fairly limited though, at ~165 pax/train

 

[NCT]

Brussels terminators need the Lille calls - but I don't think the Amsterdam one does. But perhaps this is something Eurostar gain on, as it sounds like every newcomer is planning non-stop (+ Brussels) - unclear on Rotterdam.

The paths are anchored at both ends anyway. St Pancras standard departure is xx04, and Brussels departure towards Amsterdam is xx22. Even with a Lille Call the Brussels arrival is xx05.

Two reasons for the fixed xx22 departure to Amsterdam:

A) There are no other paths other than xx22 towards Amsterdam
B) The xx22 departure allows a Paris - Cologne (arriving xx17) to connect into Amsterdam through a cross-platform

 

[Zomboid]

The capacity is fairly limited though, at ~165 pax/train

Wonder how an Ashford or Ebbsfleet call would compare.

It's limited by immigration/ security capacity, right?

 

[zwk500]

Wonder how an Ashford or Ebbsfleet call would compare.

London St Pancras HighSpeed's Ashford Prospectus claims 850-900 passengers per train capacity:

https://stpancras-highspeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Ashford-International-Train-Station-Prospectus.pdf

The prospectus was launched in October 2025 with the Borough Council.

The station is maintained to international operational standards and built to handle high-capacity trains with ease, accommodating 850–900 passengers per train

Jon Worth claims 250 passengers per train for Ebbsfleet, although doesn't give a source: https://jonworth.eu/ebbsfleet-or-as...he-other-not-both-and-it-needs-to-be-ashford/

Ashford's international terminal - with capacity for 800 passengers versus just 250 at Ebbsfleet - is considerably larger, and is the best channel tunnel terminal of the lot.

It's limited by immigration/ security capacity, right?

Rotterdam is also limited by the available seats - Amsterdam's terminal can now take 650 passengers so between them they fill a train: https://www.nsinternational.com/en/news/uk-terminal-opened

The modern and much larger Amsterdam terminal is equipped with all the necessary facilities for passengers to check in and go through passport control quickly and conveniently. When fully completed, the terminal will have a capacity of around 650 passengers. Together with around 160 passengers boarding at Rotterdam station, it will accommodate around 800 passengers per train from the Netherlands to London.

 

[absolutelymilk]

What does it mean per train? Surely it's how many people can it process per hour, and if it has more trains per hour then the number of people per train would go down? Or is it assuming that there will be enough time between trains to get everyone through before the next one?

 

[Trainbike46]

What does it mean per train? Surely it's how many people can it process per hour, and if it has more trains per hour then the number of people per train would go down? Or is it assuming that there will be enough time between trains to get everyone through before the next one?

It means that at these terminals the limiting factor is post-security waiting space. The trains are also sufficiently far apart in time that only one trainload would be going through security at any one time.

There's only 5tpd at the moment, and even if the frequency increased, there'd likely still be 2 hours between subsequent departures

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, but at a price that has some chance of competing with air fares. Whenever I travel to somewhere beyond Paris or Brussels I end up booking the legs separately because the through prices offered by Eurostar are pretty much always loads more expensive.

The inconvenient truth is that the train is simply more expensive to provide a service than the plane per passenger over a certain distance.

 

[flitwickbeds]

The only potential downside to standardised departure times would be that you're probably ruling out Ebbsfleet and Ashford ever seeing an international service again since that would require earlier departures from St. Pancras so as not to miss their path through the Channel Tunnel. Truthfully though standardised pathing allowing more regular services could still be better than intermittent usage of intermediate Kent stops when it comes to greater utilisation of HS1.

We should forget about ever reopening either of the Kent stations for international traffic - at least until the political climate around immigration significantly changes.

 

[Sorcerer]

We should forget about ever reopening either of the Kent stations for international traffic - at least until the political climate around immigration significantly changes.

Being in Schengen would've definitely made them more viable given the reduced costs from not having border security facilities, to the point where it might've actually been somewhat economical to have a few non-stop trains running every hour with a single path for a stopping service every hour or two. But that won't happen anytime soon so until then, no Kent stations unless someone is prepared to pay for it.

 

[cle]

We should forget about ever reopening either of the Kent stations for international traffic - at least until the political climate around immigration significantly changes.

Because folks who arrive on boats might also take the Eurostar? Anyone fraudulently taking E* could just as easily get off at St Pancras…

Or because Kent is the hotbed of the ‘climate’ ?

 

[renegademaster]

Because folks who arrive on boats might also take the Eurostar? Anyone fraudulently taking E* could just as easily get off at St Pancras…

Or because Kent is the hotbed of the ‘climate’ ?

Because immigration controls are expensive and smaller stops aren't economical with them

 

[gingerheid]

Because folks who arrive on boats might also take the Eurostar? Anyone fraudulently taking E* could just as easily get off at St Pancras…

Or because Kent is the hotbed of the ‘climate’ ?

Logic isn't necessarily what would get applied to this situation, and in the context, politically Kent is a hotbed of "climate"...

 

[signed]

Because immigration controls are expensive and smaller stops aren't economical with them

IMHO that argument barely stands

Airports as small as a hangar in some countries afford (or are paid by airlines, or are subsidised to of course, but that makes the use of public funds even more startling) to have border controls yet have few (or one) commercial flights a day (like BIQ (Biarritz) with 2 flights out of Schengen (DUB and LGW) per day off-season, and I do not buy that private jets pay enough to cover it) outside of peaks, but not the Kent stations that would be getting a tp2h/tp3h each way everyday, especially as the flow would be <100 passenger per way that would easily be manageable by 2 (or even one) officers on each side with no eGates.

Bank the flows and you could even have a single shift of UK and one shift of French border control but that makes the service much less useful.

Eurostar makes plenty profits that if the powers in place truely wanted it they could pressure whatever operator into serving them, they did before and there were border controls.
IMO the only large cost increase compared to UK in EU is that you need a customs officer now.

It's politics, and only politics, and of course Eurostar won't force politicians to do something that loses them a few dozen £ worth of profits per service.

What is expensive is the physical works that would be needed to reactivate those facilities at the stations.

 

[Zomboid]

Where's the incentive to pay the station costs for Ebbsfleet/ Ashford if they can fill the trains at St Pancras? It's not as good for passengers from Kent, but Eurostar/ Virgin/ Trenitalia aren't running a public service.

 

[SynthD]

Because folks who arrive on boats might also take the Eurostar? Anyone fraudulently taking E* could just as easily get off at St Pancras…

Or because Kent is the hotbed of the ‘climate’ ?

The stations have to be staffed by Border Force and their French counterparts, funded by, ultimately, the operators stopping there. The first operator also has to pay for bringing the building up to modern BF standards. The more work involved in one passenger going through, the more staff are needed for each shift. It’s perfectly possible, but not at prices people are willing to pay.

Eurostar makes plenty profits that if the powers in place truely wanted it they could pressure whatever operator into serving them, they did before and there were border controls.

Is the “they did before” the government pressured them, or Eurostar chose to serve the stations?

 

[signed]

Is the “they did before” the government pressured them, or Eurostar chose to serve the stations?

"They did before" in ES did serve both, I don't know which one of the 2 (or both) was true at the time.

 

[RT4038]

IMHO that argument barely stands

Airports as small as a hangar in some countries afford (or are paid by airlines, or are subsidised to of course, but that makes the use of public funds even more startling) to have border controls yet have few (or one) commercial flights a day (like BIQ (Biarritz) with 2 flights out of Schengen (DUB and LGW) per day off-season, and I do not buy that private jets pay enough to cover it) outside of peaks, but not the Kent stations that would be getting a tp2h/tp3h each way everyday, especially as the flow would be <100 passenger per way that would easily be manageable by 2 (or even one) officers on each side with no eGates.

Bank the flows and you could even have a single shift of UK and one shift of French border control but that makes the service much less useful.

Eurostar makes plenty profits that if the powers in place truely wanted it they could pressure whatever operator into serving them, they did before and there were border controls.
IMO the only large cost increase compared to UK in EU is that you need a customs officer now.

It's politics, and only politics, and of course Eurostar won't force politicians to do something that loses them a few dozen £ worth of profits per service.

What is expensive is the physical works that would be needed to reactivate those facilities at the stations.

I think you are forgetting the cost of the extra security staff - both for checking bags and keeping the platforms secure, none of which are needed for non-International passengers.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Because folks who arrive on boats might also take the Eurostar? Anyone fraudulently taking E* could just as easily get off at St Pancras…

Or because Kent is the hotbed of the ‘climate’ ?

I wasn't referring to the boats or claiming asylum. I was more thinking that unless/until we join Schengen (which, unfortunately, is not going to happen for a while, if ever) then small Eurostar stops in Kent are not sustainable. Especially when there are high-speed services (albeit in the wrong direction) from those exact stations to the existing London terminal where they can join the exact same service.

Were we ever to join Schengen, the possibility of through trains from other UK destinations becomes a possibility as well (though I know that would require infrastructure and/or rolling stock changes).

 

[TheWierdOne]

SBB, SNCF and Eurostar have signed a memorandum of understanding to launch direct UK-CH trains, targeting the 2030s.

https://news.sbb.ch/de/019e081f-eeb...-direktverbindung-schweizlondon-unterzeichnet (In German)

(Translated) The three partners are committed to offering the potential direct connection to London as soon as possible and are continuously moving the project forward. However, there are still a few steps to introduce the new offer. This includes the preparation of entry formalities, the clarification of the necessary infrastructure and intergovernmental agreements, and the availability of suitable trains and routes. Implementation would be possible in the course of the 2030s at the earliest.

 

[Snow1964]

Competing with point-to-point air fares directly is going to be 1. almost impossible because of the different networks' access charges and rail's generally higher cost base, 2. comparing apples with apples because of the low-cost airlines 'add-ons' fare structure and 3. very silly as the rail market will bear higher prices than the low-cost air market.

So the Price for London-Paris on the 0601 tomorrow is currently £182 on Eurostar's website.
SNCF Connect is currently offering me the 11.01 Paris Montparnasse - Bordeaux train at EUR63

EUR 63 in GPB is 54.37 according to Google's current exchange rate.

Which shows how lack of competition is affecting prices

London-Paris via Lille is about 510km, Paris-Bordeaux is further, about 580km

So paying about 4 times the price per kilometre on Eurostar.
Even if factor in premium for using tunnel, it's hard to comprehend how it gets to as much as 4 times the rate for using Atlantique LGV track

 

[43096]

Which shows how lack of competition is affecting prices

London-Paris via Lille is about 510km, Paris-Bordeaux is further, about 580km

So paying about 4 times the price per kilometre on Eurostar.
Even if factor in premium for using tunnel, it's hard to comprehend how it gets to as much as 4 times the rate for using Atlantique LGV track

What competition is there to SNCF on Paris - Bordeaux?

 

[Sorcerer]

SBB, SNCF and Eurostar have signed a memorandum of understanding to launch direct UK-CH trains, targeting the 2030s.

https://news.sbb.ch/de/019e081f-eeb...-direktverbindung-schweizlondon-unterzeichnet (In German)

It might not be as frequent as the flagship London to Paris or Brussels trains, but London to Geneva/Basel could definitely have a market for the business traveller who might want to get work done while on the move or just prefers the comfort of rail travel compared to flying. I think SBB in particular have been eyeing up potential services including hopes for international 300km/h rolling stock alongside Eurostar's new rolling stock order.

So paying about 4 times the price per kilometre on Eurostar.
Even if factor in premium for using tunnel, it's hard to comprehend how it gets to as much as 4 times the rate for using Atlantique LGV track

There's not just the premium of using the Channel Tunnel, there's also track access charges of HS1 along with continental track access charges. For France specifically there is the short-haul flight ban on routes where TGVs are available, creating an effective monopoly, and most passenger rail services in France are also part of an integrated state-owned system, including some high-yield LGV routes like Paris-Lyon. Meanwhile Eurostar is a private company operating on an open access basis with a very limited route portfolio, so naturally it won't have the same economies of scale as SNCF to keep fares competitive without operating at a loss.