-
Article in the Guardian this morning filed under their climate crisis section tacitly suggesting that LCY expansion should be denied on the basis that 54% of journeys from LCY are to destinations that can be reached “quickly” in under 6 hours by train.
My immediate reaction is No sh*t Sherlock! I consider LCY as a short-haul airport primarily serving European destinations especially since the demise of the BA babybus to JFK.
But I find it interesting that it’s only 54% of journeys are to destinations that can be reached within 6 hours by train. That suggests that 46% of journeys are to destinations that take longer than that if using trains. Which is a reason to fly.
The article is also defending opposing the airport expansion on the basis that it’s basically rich frequent flyers who benefit and the poor will just be left suffering the CO2 emissions.
It doesn’t even mention that the flights to EDI or AMS which take 4 hours by train only take 1 hour or less by air. Or that the UK is an island with only one rail link to the continent. It seems to be suggesting that we should all be forced to travel by train without considering the increased emissions that would result from having to run more trains to cope with the increased demand while it ignores completely the capacity constraints to such a strategy let alone considering the fact that they’re removing choices and that competition leads generally to lower fares making travel more affordable for all.
I understand the concerns about damage to the environment caused by ever increasing airport expansion but the argument the article expresses is flawed and one-sided. I hope that the government takes a more rounded approach in its decision making.
Yes the likes of Amsterdam can be reached in ~ 4 hours but it takes an additional 1 1/2 hours for me to get there and that doesn’t allow any time to get to Brighton Station or the Eurostar check in deadlines which takes it to well over 6 hours.
I’ve done the Eurostar to/from AMS a couple of times – once willingly and another due to a flight cancellation and I said “never again”
And they don’t address the capacity of the HS1 line, the tunnel itself – which has considerable freight traffic that would have to be cut to permit more passenger trains – or the capacity of the European train lines which are constrained as well.
And then, even with the expansion at Centraal there may not even be any extra platform capacity.
@AJA – while you refer to the extra emissions from extra trains, if they are electric, that electricity is generated elsewhere and can be all renewable. The problem with the airport is that all the aircraft emissions fall on local people and the added emissions from increased vehicular traffic. I wouldn’t count on the Mayor or the new government to have a ‘rounded’ approach if one reads their public statements and takes any notice of private briefings. The new PM was pressed on Heathrow expansion by the CEO of Airbus at Farnborough…
I’m not a climate change denier or anything but someone mentioned recently how little domestic air travel the U.K. actually has compared with other countries. The USA is the obvious comparison, however if you look at Spain’s domestic routes it’s possible to fly between dozens of cities within Spain and the islands.
Also these journalists should try living up north and see how the theory of rail travel matches the reality!
@JDB the current Mayor reversed the previous Mayors block on the most recent LCY expansion scheme (bigger terminal and changes to the taxiways) so he’s not totally averse to expansion when the case can be made for it.
The main issue for locals is the potential reduction of the airport closure period on a weekend and the increase in very early morning flights.
LCY has one of the highest figures for passengers using public transport to get to/from it.
Even LHR has increased numbers using public transport thanks to the Lizzie Line.
Article in the Guardian reporting fast train service in 1981 https://www.theguardian.com/world/from-the-archive-blog/2021/sep/15/france-high-speed-tgv-train-enters-service-1981
It’s a shame Mrs T’s government didn’t copy.
It is also the Mayor of Newham who is very heavily opposed. She was elected on an anti airport expansion mandate.
As many know, the local Royal Docks area is going through significant change, with a focus on residential development. It is already difficult enough to build at height in the immediate area (people want this – see green belt arguments), then add in (for example) acoustic requirements and consultations with the CAA etc. for anything within the immediate area it just makes it a lot more difficult. For example, where the CAA want to approve landscaping in new parks being designed/built for said housing in the wider area, in case it attracts the wrong type of bird. Then see arguments about building dense in urban spaces instead of the green belt.
I am not against City Airports expansion, far from it, but the argument is incredibly nuanced. Expansion is necessary for national infrastructure, but so is residential development in this area of London.
Could always stipulate that the expansion is for only the quietest and most efficient versions of the airplane types that are able to actually fly into LCY. The reality is we will fly from somewhere so its it futile to say you can get to continental Europe by train in 6 hours (that’s not quick for a weekend away)
I think comparing it purely to train travel is a little short sighted as surely it should be compared to the expansion of other airports in and around the U.K.?
What’s the total impact on emissions from how people get there, leave there and possible stay near there as well as flying.
Decision released.
Most of the airport plans have been approved with conditions.
Sat PM / Sunday AM closure is maintained.
Extra easily AM flights approved but only permitted when using listed lower noise aircraft.
Passenger cap increased to 9m
Are BACF’s E190 aircraft quiet enough for the additional morning flights?
Brilliant.
NIMBYs must be seething with anger.
HS1 and the tunnel has plenty of surplus capacity, this isn’t the problem. The issue is twofold: Eurostar is a monopoly and inherently keen on sustaining this status as it allows them to charge high fares for relatively short train journeys, far in excess of what you usually pay for a two hour high-speed train ride in Europe. Other potential operators are snapping at their heels and I think it’s only a matter of time before we see a competitor starting up. The second problem is a lack of processing capacity at St. Pancras station, conveniently allowing Eurostar to claim that there’s no spare capacity to hand to a competitor. The incoming EU Entry-Exit system requirements further compounds these space constraints. Therefore I can foresee that a competitor will be forced to and indeed, may prefer to operate from Ebbsfleet International at lower cost which already has the necessary infrastructure in place for operating international trains, they’d just need to pay for the required UK and French immigration and customs staff. This further negatively affects Eurostar as they’ll be under pressure to stop certain trains at Ebbsfleet, which they don’t want to do as it’s more operationally efficient to only offer St. Pancras as a departure point even if they lose a few customers who’d otherwise much prefer a departure point in Kent.
There would be potential in offering direct services to elsewhere in Europe, Cologne being the obvious choice, but the yield would be significantly lower for Eurostar versus their existing Paris and Brussels routes so they’re not keen to see this open up. DB however would be highly motivated to run trains to London. A direct service to Cologne would absolutely transform the options for travelling by rail all over Europe as you can get excellent value Sparschiene fares much further afield from there, often on direct services. At present you’re competing with existing Brussels-Cologne passengers on a busy and fairly expensive route, adding a change and another ticket into the equation making a long train journey one change too many (and too expensive) for most people.
That’s incredibly interesting @Londonsteve.
In the merger with Thalys, was it Thalys who took over Eurostar and not vice versa?
If so, then it looks like the through routes to Cologne are in the pipeline.
I once had to come back from Munich by train and most of it was Thalys then Eurostar from Brussels – which was quite a good way to travel, relatively fast back to the UK and decent trains (and not expensive).
I believe it was Eurostar that took over Thalys, as evidence by the fact that Thalys has been rebranded Eurostar. This hasn’t been without downsides in terms of service and ticket prices. Eurostar operates far more like the predatory private operator that it is seeking to further its monopoly position than like a state run railway company like DB, who seeks to make a profit (if it can, and use this to cross-subsidise other loss making routes) but without eroding the appeal and affordability of rail travel or restricting capacity in such a way that serves to force people off the railways.
You can already travel to Cologne with Eurostar branded services changing at Brussels, or book on one of the competing DB ICE services that run Brussels-Cologne, but to really open the market to competition as a minimum you’d need a second operator between London and Brussels, preferably one that operates a direct service to Cologne that stops in Brussels. In the interim passengers would need to disembark in Brussels on the return leg to clear EU and UK immigration and customs, but I could foresee an international ‘terminal’ in Cologne too if there were sufficient passengers to justify the expense.
Munich is a relatively easy and quick single day journey from London, IF you can find sensibly priced Eurostar tickets to Brussels (or Paris). An issue at present is the timekeeping of DB trains such that a late arrival in Brussels could easily result in missing your booked Eurostar train and losing a non-redundable, non-amendable ticket. All the more reason why direct DB services from Cologne would be wonderful because then DB is on the hook for the late arrival and they would automatically rebook you.
Nobody took over anybody. The Eurostar brand was retained as it is a stronger brand, after all it has the word “euro” in it.
Ebbsfleet isn’t happening as UKBF can’t afford to staff it without removing staff from StP.
Even if funding was magically found, StP serves anyone who can get to London (including Americans etc). Ebbsfleet serves a comparatively tiny catchment around Kent and onward transport is by roads with poor connectivity. If you don’t live in Kent, why would you want to go all the way to Ebbsfleet rather than fly from a “London” airport? The low cost traveller can also use coaches from London.
The station facilities (including immigration) cannot support a full train load of passengers. Say a train from Cologne terminates at Ebbsfleet and disgorges 900 passengers – 850+ of them will want to pile onto the next Southeastern train to St Pancras, which are already full in the peaks and shoulder peaks.
It would be nice to restart the several trains a day which called at Kent, but when their monopolistic price gouging results in full trains from StP why bother wasting 10-15 minutes stopping twice. Ashford makes slightly more sense as at least there are other onward train routes.
Also note that it’s not possible for trains to turn around at Stratford (not sure why this oversight wasn’t foreseen).
Kent voted for Brexit and this is the result.
I’m not sure how Brexit relates to any of that, bar possibly an immigration staffing requirement, but wasn’t that always the case when travelling in and out of the Schengen Zone?
That’s a major oversight in Stratford international design. But surely a cross over can be added to divert the arriving train on to departing line? It’ll be a one off task and not a massive project. Not ideal, but it can be a workaround?
This is what happens when Treasury is focussed on cutting costs instead of thinking long term. Read somewhere that Treasury almost forced M25 to be dual lane due to concerns over costs!
HS1 and the tunnel has plenty of surplus capacity, this isn’t the problem. The issue is twofold: Eurostar is a monopoly and inherently keen on sustaining this status as it allows them to charge high fares for relatively short train journeys, far in excess of what you usually pay for a two hour high-speed train ride in Europe. Other potential operators are snapping at their heels and I think it’s only a matter of time before we see a competitor starting up. The second problem is a lack of processing capacity at St. Pancras station, conveniently allowing Eurostar to claim that there’s no spare capacity to hand to a competitor. The incoming EU Entry-Exit system requirements further compounds these space constraints. Therefore I can foresee that a competitor will be forced to and indeed, may prefer to operate from Ebbsfleet International at lower cost which already has the necessary infrastructure in place for operating international trains, they’d just need to pay for the required UK and French immigration and customs staff. This further negatively affects Eurostar as they’ll be under pressure to stop certain trains at Ebbsfleet, which they don’t want to do as it’s more operationally efficient to only offer St. Pancras as a departure point even if they lose a few customers who’d otherwise much prefer a departure point in Kent.
There would be potential in offering direct services to elsewhere in Europe, Cologne being the obvious choice, but the yield would be significantly lower for Eurostar versus their existing Paris and Brussels routes so they’re not keen to see this open up. DB however would be highly motivated to run trains to London. A direct service to Cologne would absolutely transform the options for travelling by rail all over Europe as you can get excellent value Sparschiene fares much further afield from there, often on direct services. At present you’re competing with existing Brussels-Cologne passengers on a busy and fairly expensive route, adding a change and another ticket into the equation making a long train journey one change too many (and too expensive) for most people.
Other operators (DB in particular) have talked about running services through the tunnel for over a decade now and there’s still no sign of anyone actually starting services.
I think DB got their trains approved to run through the tunnel, but for other operators they have to either buy trains that are already type approved or spend years trying to get their trains approved to run through the tunnel, so that’s a signifcant barrier to competition. It was worse originally as only Alsthom trains were approved and the French were very keen to retain that situation.
Nobody took over anybody. The Eurostar brand was retained as it is a stronger brand, after all it has the word “euro” in it.
I believe technically it was a merger and you’re right, they decided to retain the Eurostar branding as the single, unifying brand as it was more recognised overseas.
Ebbsfleet isn’t happening as UKBF can’t afford to staff it without removing staff from StP.
As far as I’m aware UKBF wouldn’t be paying for costs, they’d be billed to the service providers. UKBF would need to recruit more staff, but surely that’s a good thing as it provides more employment opportunities for UK workers and their salaries would be worked into the ticket price. They had enough capacity to provide staff at Ebbsfleet AND Ashford pre-pandemic, I’m sure it’s not insurmountable to get staff numbers back to the same levels if required.
Even if funding was magically found, StP serves anyone who can get to London (including Americans etc). Ebbsfleet serves a comparatively tiny catchment around Kent and onward transport is by roads with poor connectivity. If you don’t live in Kent, why would you want to go all the way to Ebbsfleet rather than fly from a “London” airport? The low cost traveller can also use coaches from London.
The station facilities (including immigration) cannot support a full train load of passengers. Say a train from Cologne terminates at Ebbsfleet and disgorges 900 passengers – 850+ of them will want to pile onto the next Southeastern train to St Pancras, which are already full in the peaks and shoulder peaks.
The point about Ebbsfleet departure point is not that it’s per se desirable, it’s an alternative and lower cost departure point for competing services to Paris or Brussels in the manner of SNCF OUIGO who also operate from secondary stations. Also the fact that there’s presently capacity at Ebbsfleet (and Ashford) that there just isn’t at StP. Any Cologne trains being the sole service, would want to arrive and depart from StP. Capacity for these could be easily found by supplanting a Eurostar departure to Brussels that would carry pax destined for both Brussels and Cologne, with the free seats between Brussels and Cologne being sold to the same passengers that currently take the existing ‘Eurostar’ branded ex-Thalys and DB ICE services. But Eurostar wouldn’t like this as it wouldn’t be run by them, the alternative being routing a legacy Eurostar direct train to Cologne removes their capacity to shuttle on high yielding routes solely to Paris and Brussels.
Any trains terminating in Ebbsfleet would almost certainly also stop at Ashford, at least on the arrival leg if the UKBF costs at Ashford can’t be justifed, and perhaps they can’t as the catchment area is too small. Many passengers would find connecting services from both stations and not seek to travel into London. At off peak arrival times, which is most of the day after 0930, there would be plenty of surplus seats on Javelin trains heading into London for passengers that were seeking to terminate at StP. Southeastern would be delighted to receive such a large chunk of reliable extra business.
Stratford International has never operated any international services contrary to its name, so there isn’t the infrastructure in place for it to function as the secondary departure point for international services. That and the lack of an ability for trains to terminate and reverse here, as you point out.
I think DB got their trains approved to run through the tunnel
If this is correct that opens up a slew of options for rolling stock as the DB ICE trains are used elsewhere in Europe, by OEBB at RENFE for example. These train sets could be leased, either by DB or by a new operator and the missing trains backfilled with rolling stock already authorised to run these existing services. The high margins on direct London services would be plenty of motivation to cook up a deal that effectively downgrades these existing continental services that are either domestic or run only to neighbouring countries.
I’m not sure what the impediment to DB ICE services from Germany has been thus far but it’s surely down to Eurostar’s existing monopoly and both the operator of the tunnel and the French government and rail regulator working hard to erect baricades to DB’s entry that maintains the Eurostar monopoly on cross-channel train services.
A further thought. Lower ticket prices through the tunnel would be absolutely transformative as to the economics of taking the train to a variety of destinations in Europe. It’s seldom the issue that the continental legs are unavailable, or too expensive, the block is securing a sensibly priced seat on Eurostar to start the journey. With this block lifted, I could undertake journeys of anything up to 1000 miles for prices that compete with air travel. BA wouldn’t be too happy if this came to pass as I could see my flying halving in frequency and I wouldn’t be the only one.
Now we have a Labour council considering taking a Labour government to court!
This went off topic more than usual 🤣
Now we have a Labour council considering taking a Labour government to court!
Yes, it seems fairly likely Newham Council will spend a lot of council taxpayer money on a Judicial Review of the decision.
Looks like BACF’s E190s don’t qualify as quieter aircraft, but the A221 and E190-E2 do.
So seems this isn’t great news for BACF.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
