Eurostar rivals given ‘green signal' for cross-Channel trains: What could it mean for passengers?
ADVERTISEMENT
For nearly three decades, Eurostar has been the only rail operator running through the Channel Tunnel, connecting the UK with mainland Europe. But recent shifts in regulation and burgeoning demand for lower-carbon travel options have boosted interest from competitors.
Companies from the UK and Europe are eagerly eyeing a share of the market, but starting services hasn't been easy. Expensive trains, limited space for them to be serviced, maintained, and stored, and
Eurostar's
dominance have conspired to maintain the monopoly. But things are starting to change.
A new report commissioned by the Office of Road and Rail has ruled that Eurostar must provide access to new operators at Temple Mills depot. It also demanded that HS1, the high-speed rail link between London and the Tunnel, reduce its fees from almost €30 per mile. Currently these are the highest fees in Europe.
As each barrier comes down, excitement for new cross-Channel options rises. Several companies are confident their bids will be a success and claim that increased competition will ultimately mean lower prices for passengers.
Which rail operators want to run Channel Tunnel services?
While the Channel Tunnel has been open to competitors since 2010, no other operator has attempted to challenge Eurostars' dominance. But recent regulatory shifts and legal challenges have seen interest accelerate, with several companies vying to provide new services.
The
Virgin Group
is one such company and has stated a desire to launch cross-channel train services by 2029. Discussions are already underway for a fleet of trains to operate the service.
Competing for access to the 'Chunnel' is a Spanish-led consortium known as Evolyn. The company wants to launch
high-speed services
between London and Paris and has indicated it has reached an agreement with Alstom to purchase 12 high-speed trains for the service.
Also throwing its hat in the ring is a start-up called Gemini Trains. led by Lord Tony Berkeley, a British aristocrat and former Eurotunnel engineer. Gemini has applied for an operator's license to service Paris, Strasbourg, Cologne, and Geneva with a fleet of 10 trains by 2029.
Other operators have previously
expressed an interest
in open access to the Channel Tunnel. Deutsche Bahn showcased a high-speed train at London's St Pancras in 2010, signaling its intent to connect London with destinations in Germany, such as Frankfurt and Cologne. However, it has not yet officially joined the bidding war for services.
Related
Eurotunnel operator offers cash to attract new cross-channel services
Irony of history: How Channel Tunnel breakthrough miner Graham Fagg became a Brexiteer
New destinations and cheaper tickets: How Channel Tunnel rail travel might change in the future
New report brings Eurostar competition closer
Since the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1994,
Eurostar
has held a monopoly on rail services between the UK and Europe. Although there's been nothing stopping new operators from venturing into the market, barriers to entry have been high.
For a start, trains must be long enough to align with tunnel evacuation points, and there are various technical requirements that not many manufacturers can meet. The cost of acquiring new trains that comply with these requirements, estimated at €35 - €60 million per train, has deterred competitors from getting involved.
In order to operate a cross-channel service, operators also need a depot. London's St Pancras International and the Temple Mills maintenance depot are under Eurostar's control, and it has frequently argued that Temple Mills is already at capacity.
However, a new report, commissioned by the UK's Office of Road and Rail (ORR) and conducted by independent consultants IPEX, suggests this is not necessarily true.
In its report, IPEX stated that there is 'some' capacity at Temple Mills for more trains to be serviced, maintained, and stored. It says that some of the capacity can be accessed immediately, without any changes, but that the rest will be delivered through investment.
Virgin Group
applauded the findings of the report, saying that claims suggesting Temple Mills was at capacity have been blocking Virgin's bid for cross-Channel services. 'Finally a green signal for competition,' a spokesperson for Virgin says. 'There are no more major hurdles to overcome, and Virgin is ready to take up the challenge.'
ADVERTISEMENT
However,
Eurostar
argues that the report effectively validates its claim that the depot is at capacity. A spokesperson said, 'It confirms what Eurostar has said all along: the Temple Mills depot is effectively almost full today for major maintenance work and would require investment to meet the growing demands of international rail.'
Eurostar notes that the options in the report could create some capacity, but this would not be enough to accommodate any single additional operator.
Related
Combined air-rail tickets: How to fly, ride and explore Europe on one booking
Eurostar and SkyTeam join up to offer plane to train journeys in a single booking from 2025
The European tube: Inside the project to launch a continent-wide rail system
Will new options be good for cross-Channel passengers?
Increased competition on the
Eurotunnel services
is widely considered to bring benefits to passengers. In any market, more competition tends to lead to lower prices, better services and more choice, and the cross-Channel rail market is no different.
Yann Leriche, CEO of Getlink (the company that operates the Channel Tunnel), told the BBC that through competition, 'the market will be more dynamic, all operators will improve their offer.'
ADVERTISEMENT
'I love Eurostar's service, but competition keeps everyone on their toes,' says Mark Smith, also known as the Man in Seat 61. 'The extra capacity this will bring has been shown to lower prices. It's definitely good news for travellers.'
While
prices for Eurotunnel service may fall
as competition hots up, having more choice is crucial to the attractiveness of rail options. Being able to travel directly to London from cities in Germany, Switzerland and beyond is a good first step in making rail a workable alternative to air travel and encouraging passengers to switcht to this lower carbon form of transportation.
Smith further notes that there could be more connections in the UK too, as Gemini Trains has touted services from Ebbsfleet in Kent. 'Eurostar doesn't want to do that,' he says. 'Let's also hope competitors will consider easier bike access and allowing dogs.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
6 hours ago
- Euronews
Seaweed packaging is shifting single-use plastic out of stadiums
If you're lucky enough to be seeing Beyoncé at Tottenham Hotspur stadium in London this month, chances are your concert snacks will come in a container made out of seaweed. Notpla, the company which makes seaweed-based packaging to replace single-use plastics, has gone from strength to strength since winning the Earthshot Prize in 2022, bagging a prize of €1 million in the global environmental award created by the UK's Prince William. The venture started with its two French and Spanish founders, Pierre Paslier and Rodrigo Garcia Gonzalez, experimenting in their student kitchen while at Imperial College London. Now, Notpla has replaced more than 21 million items of single-use plastic across Europe, and is aiming to displace 1 billion units by 2030. In order to make a real dent in the insidious issue of plastic pollution, the 'disappearing packaging' solution is being rolled out in new venues and fashioned into new shapes and sizes. We caught up with chief revenue officer Lise Honsinger, Notpla's first employee in 2017, to find out more. Notpla's prototype was an edible water capsule called Ooho. It garnered viral interest in 2017, which Honsinger partly attributes to a 'zeitgeist' of plastic pollution awareness. The start-up partnered with Lucozade to replace 36,000 plastic bottles at the London Marathon in 2019. Then COVID hit, events stopped, and the company pivoted to focus on seaweed coatings for food packaging which make takeaway boxes compostable like fruit peel. In partnership with Just Eat, Notpla's packaging was used at the UEFA Women's Final at Wembley Stadium, London in 2022. From seven types of folded carton board boxes that year, it has grown into a catalogue of over 50 different designs. Imagine pretty much any food packaging you'd pick up from a street food van - burger clam shells, chip trays and forks, churros scoops - and there's a seaweed-coated alternative. There is a purity to Notpla's vision - which clearly impressed the Earthshot Prize judges. Winning in the 'Build a Waste-free World' category further 'unlocked credibility', as Hosinger puts it. 'We're not going for the easiest win,' she says. 'We're not going to mix our product with a bit of plastic to make a semi-natural product because that's a bit easier. We're going to go for it even if it's the hardest thing, to make sure it's truly natural.' Notpla products are now used at major stadiums and venues in the UK, including the Kia Oval, The Principality, Tottenham Hotspurs, Aston Villa, The Aviva, Twickenham and the ExCel Centre. The Johan Cruijff Arena in the Netherlands is on board too, and Levy - part of the Compass Group catering company which Notpla works with - has just won a contract with stadiums in Germany. That's all part of a 'step change' to spread across Europe and the US, Honsinger says. A post shared by Notpla (@notpla) The aim is to make the switch as friction-free as possible, and Notpla products can fit into whatever waste stream the stadium already uses, from composting to recycling or general waste. Meanwhile, IKEA has just rolled out Notpla's seaweed-based packaging in its new Oxford Street London restaurant. And the company is launching a new deli range, featuring plastic-free windows so people can see their sandwiches before buying. Honsinger hopes this will help Notpla branch out into office catering and museums, where that sneak peek is important. 'We absolutely want this solution to be everywhere. We don't want to be a niche packaging brand,' she says. The plan is to go upstream over the next few years - providing coatings to board manufacturers, for example, rather than selling boxes to box buyers. Ultimately, Honsinger wants Notpla to become a household name, in the realm of Tetra Pak or Gore-Tex. 'Everyone will know, if I've got a packaging that's Notpla, it's not got plastic in it, it's not got forever chemicals, it's not going to give me cancer - because I think the world's woken up to the health consequences of plastics as well.' With seaweed extracts from France, Spain (ROKO) and South America, Notpla is fashioning its wonder ingredient into various new shapes and sizes. The scientists are working on creating cold and hot cups, for example, while Notpla continues to develop its existing solutions - like speeding up the manufacture of Oohos. But there are limits to this R&D. 'The reason plastic is everywhere is because it's not natural,' Honsinger explains; it forms a complete barrier to oxygen, water, and grease. Seaweed is never going to be the same as plastics, she says, and that's a good thing. 'You've got to remember the reason why it hasn't got as extreme properties as plastic is the reason it will break down in nature.' Notpla created the Natural Polymers Groups with some of its competitors last year. It bears the distinction of being the only plastic-free alternative to meet the EU Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD), according to the Dutch government, which carried out extensive testing in 2023. With regulations on single-use plastics and forever chemicals (PFAS) tightening up, the future is bright for alternatives like Notpla. Are plastics companies aware of their seaweed competitor yet? 'I think mostly at the moment we're not big enough to scare them,' says Hosinger. 'But I think they know it's coming.' Cutting off the horns of sedated rhinos with a chainsaw has been viewed by wildlife conservationists in Africa for more than 30 years as a necessary evil to save the iconic endangered species from poaching. They hoped the drastic action was working, but evidence was scarce. Now, a study published Thursday in the academic journal Science has found that dehorning rhinos has led to a large reduction in poaching in game reserves in and around the Kruger National Park in northern South Africa. The area is home to 25 per cent of the world's rhinos and is especially vulnerable to poaching. The results of the seven-year study that ended in 2023 are seen as long-awaited evidence that removing rhinos' horns - which needs to be done every one to two years because they grow back - helps them survive, even if the animals lose part of their makeup. The conclusions seem obvious. Lucrative illegal markets in parts of southeast Asia and China crave rhino horns for use in traditional medicines, and removing the rhinos' horns takes away what poachers are after. But Tim Kuiper, a biodiversity scientist at South Africa's Nelson Mandela University and the lead author of the study, said it was new to have long-term data from multiple sites on dehorning rhinos. He said the study, conducted between January 2017 and December 2023, focused on 11 reserves in the Kruger area and compared data from eight that dehorned their rhinos against the three that didn't. It also analysed data from the reserves before and after they dehorned their rhinos. The study showed that dehorning consistently reduced poaching, Kuiper said. It found that the dehorning of more than 2,000 rhinos resulted in a 78 per cent reduction in poaching in those eight reserves, providing some confirmation that such an invasive intervention was worth it. 'It is a big part of what a rhino is, having a horn,' Kuiper said. 'So having to remove it is kind of a necessary evil, if I can put it that way. But it's very effective. There's no doubt it saved hundreds of rhinos' lives.' South Africa has the largest numbers of black and white rhinos. Namibia, Zimbabwe and Kenya also have significant populations. There are around 17,500 white rhinos and 6,500 black rhinos left in the world, with black rhino numbers reduced from 70,000 in 1970 to less than 2,500 by the time poaching reached a crisis point in the mid-1990s, according to the Save the Rhino organisation. Dehorning rhinos started in southern Africa as early as 1989. It has not been accepted without question. There has been opposition from animal rights activists but also questions from conservationists over what impact it has on a rhino's wellbeing, and what a future might look like with more hornless rhinos. Vanessa Duthe, a rhino researcher in South Africa not involved in the study, said rhinos use their horns to defend themselves against predators, to compete for territory and, in the case of black rhinos, to look for food. There is also evidence that dehorned rhinos adjust their movements to live in smaller ranges, she said. She said conservationists don't know the full impacts of dehorning, but research had found it had no adverse effect on rhinos' breeding rates or mortality rates. 'What we do know is that the benefits of dehorning by far outweigh any ecological cost that we're aware of today,' Duthe said. She said dehorning a rhino now takes around 10 minutes and the process causes minimum distress. Blindfolds and earmuffs are put on sedated rhinos during dehorning, which also provides an opportunity to microchip rhinos and collect samples that aid research. Conservationists agree that dehorning alone will not end rhino poaching and Kuiper said he saw it as a short-to-mid-term solution. Other efforts like more effective law enforcement and better support for game rangers on the frontline are key. While South Africa has helped pull rhinos back from the threat of extinction, more than 400 rhinos a year are still killed by poachers in the country. The dehorning study was a collaboration between scientists from three South African universities, Oxford University in England and game reserve managers and rangers. It also involved the South African National Parks department, the World Wildlife Fund and the Rhino Recovery Fund.
Euronews
8 hours ago
- Euronews
Can the EU lower the cap on Russian oil without the US?
The European Union is readying a new round of sanctions against Russia to pile extra pressure on the Kremlin and pressure it to agree to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine, a step that Western allies consider indispensable for serious peace negotiations. Ursula von der Leyen has already provided an outline of what that package, the 18th since February 2022, is supposed to target: Russia's financial sector, the "shadow fleet" and the Nord Stream pipelines, which are currently non-operational. On top of that, the president of the European Commission has pitched a downward revision of the price cap on Russian oil to further squeeze profits from worldwide sales, a crucial cash flow to sustain the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. "We need a real ceasefire, we need Russia at the negotiating table, and we need to end this war. Pressure works, as the Kremlin understands nothing else," von der Leyen said earlier this week after meeting with US Senator Lindsey Graham. But there's a catch: unlike other sanctions the bloc has imposed on Russia, such as the multiple export and import bans, the price cap has a political and practical dimension that exceeds the institutional sphere of Brussels and stretches across the ocean. More specifically, to Washington, DC. The price cap on Russian oil was introduced in December 2022 by the Group of Seven (G7) under the initiative of the Joe Biden administration. It was hailed as an ingenious, ground-breaking mechanism to mobilise the collective power of Western allies and cripple Russia's high-intensity war machine. As part of the plan, the G7, together with Australia, passed laws prohibiting their domestic companies from providing services, such as insurance, financing and flagging, to Russian tankers that sold seaborne crude oil above a predetermined price. The secret lay in market power: for decades, Western firms, particularly British ones, have dominated the sector of Protection and Indemnity (P&I), a type of insurance that gives shipowners broad protection and allows them to cover potentially huge costs from any accidental harm caused to the crew, their property or the environment. Due to the inherent risks of moving oil in high waters, P&I is today considered the norm in maritime trade and a must-have to be accepted in a foreign port. By leveraging their leading firms, the G7 intended to create an extraterritorial effect that would cap the price of Russian oil not only within their jurisdictions but all around the world. Following intense behind-the-scenes talks, the cap was set at $60 per barrel, a compromise between hard-line and cautious member states. The strategy only worked up to a point however. Although the price of Russian Urals oil gradually decreased, it consistently remained above the $60 mark, often exceeding the $70 threshold. The blatant circumvention was attributed to the "shadow fleet" that Russia deployed at high sea. These tankers are so old and poorly kept that they fall outside P&I standards and rely on alternative, obscure insurance systems that escape G7 surveillance. By the time the cap entered into force, Moscow "had spent months building a 'shadow fleet' of tankers, finding new buyers like India and China, and creating new payment systems, to the point that its oil does not need to be greatly discounted to sell," Luis Caricano, a professor at the London School of Economics, wrote in a recent analysis. "What should have been a blow became a manageable problem," Caricano said. With few sectors in the Russian economy left to sanction, Brussels has turned its sight to the cap as a means to tighten the screws on the Kremlin and secure a ceasefire in Ukraine. The Commission has reportedly pitched a revision between $50 and $45 per barrel, which the UK and Canada are believed to support. However, the US has so far refrained from endorsing a lower price cap, raising the stakes ahead of crunch talks at the G7 summit in Alberta, scheduled for mid-June. Now, a tough question emerges: Can the EU dare, and afford, to go it alone? In the strictest legalistic sense, the EU could, indeed, establish a lower price cap on its own. After all, the G7, as an organisation, lacks regulatory powers: each ally amends its laws individually to fulfil a collective mission. In this case, the EU introduced new legislation to prohibit EU companies – rather than, say, American or British companies – from servicing Russian tankers that bypassed the $60-per-barrel cap. Similarly, the bloc could now change the text to adjust that prohibition to a tighter price without waiting for other allies to reciprocate. Here appears the first roadblock: any change to sanctions must be approved by a unanimous vote among member states. It is highly unlikely that all 27 countries would choose to move forward with a lower cap without having an explicit guarantee that Washington will follow suit. Hungary, in particular, has fully aligned itself with the Trump administration and could veto any proposal opposed by the White House. Even if the bloc managed to overcome internal differences and agreed to a lower cap on its own, more formidable obstacles could impede its success. The bloc's revised cap would have to co-exist with America's existing cap. This means that one side of the Atlantic Ocean would apply a $50-per-barrel limit while the other side would apply a $60-per-barrel limit, creating a cacophony for all actors involved. "Different price caps across G7 countries could confuse maritime service providers and weaken overall enforcement," Petras Katinas, an energy analyst at the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), told Euronews. "A solo move by the EU could cause friction within the Price Cap Coalition, damaging trust and coordination, both of which are crucial for keeping pressure on Russian oil revenues," Katinas added, warning the project could be rendered "largely symbolic". The legislative chaos would immediately benefit the Kremlin, which has long sought to exploit loopholes to evade and undermine international sanctions. Moscow, though, would also face hurdles: the continued crackdown on "shadow fleet" vessels has forced the country to increase its reliance on G7 insurance, which, in theory, could make it easier for the EU to apply the revised measure. "If the EU alone decides to tighten the screws on the cap, it's an additional constraint on Russia's oil exports but not as tight as with a whole of G7 approach," said Elisabetta Cornago, a senior researcher at the Centre for European Reform (CER). Besides practical snags and legal matters, there is geopolitics to consider. One of the reasons why the G7 initiative has fallen short of expectations is that, as the name suggests, it has remained a G7-exclusive plan. Countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa have refused to play along and join the coalition. China and India openly buy Russian crude oil, sometimes to refine it and resell it under a different label. Having the EU and the US go separate ways would further destabilise the Western alliance and create the impression of a transatlantic break-up. But for many, that is already a reality: the "Coalition of the Willing", born after Donald Trump unilaterally launched negotiations with Vladimir Putin, bears testament to the political divide. "The price cap was a G7 + EU initiative, and so in its current form, I do not see any pathway in which the EU could adjust the cap without the support of the broader coalition, including the US," said Ben McWilliams, an affiliate fellow with Bruegel. "That said, the EU is free to implement whatever measures it wants on its own domestic ships and insurance companies, which it could likely encourage the UK to join," McWilliams added. "So the EU can still move ahead – it would just need to be under a different institutional format than currently exists." This week we are joined by Mika Aaltola, a Finnish MEP representing the centre-right European People's Party, Dorota Bawolek, a seasoned EU correspondent for Polish broadcaster TVP and Ian Lesser, Vice President of the German Marshall Fund, the transatlantic think tank. US President Donald Trump's renewed trade offensive has left Brussels rather stressed with sweeping tariffs hitting European steel, aluminium, and car exports — and threats of more to come. European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič is trying to defuse the crisis, warning that retaliatory EU measures could kick in as early as July 14. MEP Mika Aaltola blasted the US approach as 'unfair treatment'. The OECD also warned this week that Trump's tariffs are dragging global growth to its weakest levels since the COVID-19 pandemic. In a very tight presidential race, Poland elected conservative Karol Nawrocki, a nationalist and eurosceptic, narrowly defeating pro-EU candidate and Warsaw mayor Rafał Trzaskowski. The result marks a blow for Prime Minister Donald Tusk who has called for a vote of confidence in his government early next week. Nawrocki's rhetoric — emphasizing national sovereignty, anti-migrant policies, and a rejection of 'Brussels diktats' — has alarmed Europhiles. However, his nationalist platform resonated with a rather divided electorate. "He's not very presidential", Dorota Bawolek told the panel adding that history shows Poles prefer an 'ordinary guy'. Finally, the panel discuss the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez' diplomatic setback after the EU Council rejected his proposal to make Catalan, Basque, and Galician official EU languages. The move, promised to Catalan separatists in exchange for political support, was rejected by member states over fears of a domino effect involving other regional languages. Watch the full episode in the player above.
LeMonde
13 hours ago
- LeMonde
LVMH hit by cognac crisis and champagne slump
The luxury group LVMH has long prided itself on owning some of the world's most prestigious wine and spirits brands. The cognac Hennessy, champagnes Moët & Chandon, Veuve Clicquot, Krug, and Dom Pérignon, as well as, more recently, the rosé from Provence Minuty, are the jewels of its Moët Hennessy division. These brands have cemented its position as the global leader in both cognac and champagne. While this was once a source of pride as bottles flew off the shelves, the division has become a source of tension as the cognac crisis and champagne slowdown have upended forecasts. After an initial slowdown in 2023, Moët Hennessy – 34% owned by British group Diageo, the world's leading spirits company – reported 2024 revenue of €5.9 billion, down 11%. The trend continued into the first quarter of 2025, with another 9% decline in sales to €1.3 billion. At first glance, the wines and spirits division might seem like a small contributor to the group led by Bernard Arnault. It accounts for just about 7% of total sales, far behind the fashion and leather goods powerhouse, and trailing distribution, watches and jewelry, and perfumes and cosmetics. But its share of operating profit is significant. Thanks to their high margins, cognac and champagne fit seamlessly into the world of luxury.
