NY Times on the Channel Tunnel

New York Times

A Tunnel Too Far

By CHRISTIAN WOLMAR

Published: May 10, 2004

LONDON — When the Channel Tunnel opened 10 years ago Friday, it was
hailed as an engineering marvel, a new paradigm for the private
financing of public-works projects and a way to integrate Britain into
a continent it had always held at arm's length. But it has not worked
out that way: while the 31-mile-tunnel linking Folkestone and Calais
was a technological success, it's been a miserable failure both
financially and politically.

These two failures are linked. Had the tunnel inspired the two
countries to forge closer links and made the border crossing an
irrelevance — as is the case with most of the other borders within the
old European Union — then traffic would have been much greater.

But that has not happened. Consequently, revenues from the tunnel have
been well below expectations and the company in charge, Eurotunnel, is
effectively bust — which helps explain why the 10-year anniversary
passed with scant celebration. Eurotunnel has debts of $11 billion and
its income from passengers and freight is not enough to pay even the
interest.

In a desperate attempt to save the company and the value of its stock,
a group of small French shareholders ousted Eurotunnel's board in
April. The shareholders want the British and French governments to
bail out the company, but their action is more likely to ensure that
the banks move in to take over the tunnel — which will make their
shares worthless.

While the tunnel is in many ways a technological success, it has a
significant flaw: you can't drive through it. In 1984, when Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher announced an effort to connect Britain and
the continent — a surprising project for a politician dedicated to
distancing herself from Europe — she hoped that the result would be a
quick and convenient road connection with France. But that proved
impossible. A channel bridge or a ventilated car tunnel (which would
have required air chimneys reaching to the surface) would have been
too dangerous in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Instead,
we ended up with a rather uninspiring and cumbersome rail link that
cost $15 billion, more than twice the estimated pricetag.

The tunnel now offers shuttles carrying trucks and cars between the
British and continental coasts, and through trains for freight and
passengers, but none of these services have been successful. In
particular, the number of passengers using Eurostar, the train service
linking London with both Brussels and Paris, has been well below
expectations, with a mere seven million passengers per year compared
with original predictions of 17 million.

The builders had predicted that the tunnel would force its chief
rivals — the cross-Channel car and passenger ferries — out of
business. The ferries, however, still command 50 percent of the
market. Many passengers prefer a one-and-a-half hour cruise with a
view of the White Cliffs of Dover over a half-hour trip in a gloomy
rail carriage with tiny windows. Those traveling through the tunnel do
not even get a glimpse of the sea, a key mistake by the tunnel's
architects.

And then there are rivals that barely existed in 1994: budget
airlines. There are 50 daily round-trip flights between London and
Paris, most of them much cheaper than a Eurostar ticket; many
travelers think planes are quicker even though the train is much
faster city center to city center. The rail journey between central
London and central Paris is two and a half hours; while the flight
itself is only an hour, once airport travel is taken into account, the
journey is much longer.

In truth, those high predictions of passenger volume were a bit of a
con, intended to attract investors to what was supposed to be a wholly
private project. The numbers were never really achievable, but were
used to get guaranteed regular payments from the state-run railways
for millions of phantom passengers. But those payments dry up in 2006,
a deadline that has helped precipitate the current crisis.

The hard truth is that the private sector alone can never build these
massive infrastructure projects because the risks are too great and
the return is too small. Similar links, like the Oresund bridge
between Denmark and Sweden, have been joint public-private ventures or
financed entirely by the state.

The tunnel will survive. It will be worth keeping open because its
revenue is greater than its operating costs — and, in any case, it
would be far too embarrassing for the respective governments to
mothball such a huge project. It will limp on, unloved and underused.

But the real cause of its failure is that Britain and France are no
closer together today than a decade ago. The British have remained
aloof from their European neighbors and the French show little
inclination to tour the land of les Rosbifs, still preferring to head
toward the Mediterranean at holiday time. Indeed, recent events
confirm that Britain — or at least its government — is closer to its
American ally than to France, Germany and Italy.

The last land link between Britain and France was worn away by storms
after the last Ice Age. It seems we will have to wait until the next
one for Britain to become truly part of Europe again.

Christian Wolmar is the author of the forthcoming "Subterranean
Railway," a social history of London's Underground, and a columnist
for Rail magazine.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10WOLM.html

May be from the NYT but Christian Wolmar is a UK based journalist. The
magazine he writes for "Rail" does not seem to be well respected by some
members of the UK rail industry judged by some comments in other news
groups. He runs two web sites:

http://www.transportblog.com/
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/

--
*****
*****The "return to" address embedded in this mail is wrong as an antispam
measure. Please address new mails or replies to
edwarddotharrison1atbtinternetdotcom replacing dot with a . and at
with an @*****
*****

Sufaud wrote:


I imagine one of the reasons that Eurostar has not produced on this
chunnel route is their hostile pricing. We would have happily used the
rail link for our return to London last summer -- but one way tickets
were incredibly expensive [while they were simultaneously marketing
ridiculously cheap round trips with significant advance purchast] We
flew instead -- the cost was about 4 times greater to take the train.

I think most people expect to pay a bit more for one way than half round
trip and a bit more with ticket purchase nearer the time of departure --
but whereas airlines really dont have any competition and can get away
with their ridiculous pricing -- a train system can't -- there are other
options

New York Times

A Tunnel Too Far

By CHRISTIAN WOLMAR

Published: May 10, 2004

LONDON — When the Channel Tunnel opened 10 years ago Friday, it was
hailed as an engineering marvel, a new paradigm for the private
financing of public-works projects and a way to integrate Britain into
a continent it had always held at arm's length. But it has not worked
out that way: while the 31-mile-tunnel linking Folkestone and Calais
was a technological success, it's been a miserable failure both
financially and politically.

These two failures are linked. Had the tunnel inspired the two
countries to forge closer links and made the border crossing an
irrelevance — as is the case with most of the other borders within the
old European Union — then traffic would have been much greater.

But that has not happened. Consequently, revenues from the tunnel have
been well below expectations and the company in charge, Eurotunnel, is
effectively bust — which helps explain why the 10-year anniversary
passed with scant celebration. Eurotunnel has debts of $11 billion and
its income from passengers and freight is not enough to pay even the
interest.

In a desperate attempt to save the company and the value of its stock,
a group of small French shareholders ousted Eurotunnel's board in
April. The shareholders want the British and French governments to
bail out the company, but their action is more likely to ensure that
the banks move in to take over the tunnel — which will make their
shares worthless.

While the tunnel is in many ways a technological success, it has a
significant flaw: you can't drive through it. In 1984, when Prime
Minister Margaret Thatcher announced an effort to connect Britain and
the continent — a surprising project for a politician dedicated to
distancing herself from Europe — she hoped that the result would be a
quick and convenient road connection with France. But that proved
impossible. A channel bridge or a ventilated car tunnel (which would
have required air chimneys reaching to the surface) would have been
too dangerous in one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. Instead,
we ended up with a rather uninspiring and cumbersome rail link that
cost $15 billion, more than twice the estimated pricetag.

The tunnel now offers shuttles carrying trucks and cars between the
British and continental coasts, and through trains for freight and
passengers, but none of these services have been successful. In
particular, the number of passengers using Eurostar, the train service
linking London with both Brussels and Paris, has been well below
expectations, with a mere seven million passengers per year compared
with original predictions of 17 million.

The builders had predicted that the tunnel would force its chief
rivals — the cross-Channel car and passenger ferries — out of
business. The ferries, however, still command 50 percent of the
market. Many passengers prefer a one-and-a-half hour cruise with a
view of the White Cliffs of Dover over a half-hour trip in a gloomy
rail carriage with tiny windows. Those traveling through the tunnel do
not even get a glimpse of the sea, a key mistake by the tunnel's
architects.

And then there are rivals that barely existed in 1994: budget
airlines. There are 50 daily round-trip flights between London and
Paris, most of them much cheaper than a Eurostar ticket; many
travelers think planes are quicker even though the train is much
faster city center to city center. The rail journey between central
London and central Paris is two and a half hours; while the flight
itself is only an hour, once airport travel is taken into account, the
journey is much longer.

In truth, those high predictions of passenger volume were a bit of a
con, intended to attract investors to what was supposed to be a wholly
private project. The numbers were never really achievable, but were
used to get guaranteed regular payments from the state-run railways
for millions of phantom passengers. But those payments dry up in 2006,
a deadline that has helped precipitate the current crisis.

The hard truth is that the private sector alone can never build these
massive infrastructure projects because the risks are too great and
the return is too small. Similar links, like the Oresund bridge
between Denmark and Sweden, have been joint public-private ventures or
financed entirely by the state.

The tunnel will survive. It will be worth keeping open because its
revenue is greater than its operating costs — and, in any case, it
would be far too embarrassing for the respective governments to
mothball such a huge project. It will limp on, unloved and underused.

But the real cause of its failure is that Britain and France are no
closer together today than a decade ago. The British have remained
aloof from their European neighbors and the French show little
inclination to tour the land of les Rosbifs, still preferring to head
toward the Mediterranean at holiday time. Indeed, recent events
confirm that Britain — or at least its government — is closer to its
American ally than to France, Germany and Italy.

The last land link between Britain and France was worn away by storms
after the last Ice Age. It seems we will have to wait until the next
one for Britain to become truly part of Europe again.

Christian Wolmar is the author of the forthcoming "Subterranean
Railway," a social history of London's Underground, and a columnist
for Rail magazine.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/10WOLM.html

In article ,
(Graham Harrison) wrote:

May be from the NYT but Christian Wolmar is a UK based journalist. The
magazine he writes for "Rail" does not seem to be well respected by some
members of the UK rail industry judged by some comments in other news
groups.

He was transport correspondent of The Independent IIRC.

He may not be well liked by the industry but his story appears to be
spot on. And no different from the writing of others commenting on the
history and politics of the tunnel.

Listening to the cries of investors who have been conned by the
developers is interesting. Reminds me of a time share owners meeting.

Graham Harrison wrote:

May be from the NYT but Christian Wolmar is a UK based journalist. The
magazine he writes for "Rail" does not seem to be well respected by some
members of the UK rail industry judged by some comments in other news
groups. He runs two web sites:

http://www.transportblog.com/
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/

--
*****
*****The "return to" address embedded in this mail is wrong as an antispam
measure. Please address new mails or replies to
edwarddotharrison1atbtinternetdotcom replacing dot with a . and at
with an @*****
*****

"jenn" wrote in message
...
Sufaud wrote:


I imagine one of the reasons that Eurostar has not produced on this
chunnel route is their hostile pricing. We would have happily used the
rail link for our return to London last summer -- but one way tickets
were incredibly expensive [while they were simultaneously marketing
ridiculously cheap round trips with significant advance purchast] We
flew instead -- the cost was about 4 times greater to take the train.


Eurostar are in fact profitable , its Eurotunnel that are making a loss.

They are NOT the same company

Keith

"jenn" wrote in message
...
Sufaud wrote:


I imagine one of the reasons that Eurostar has not produced on this
chunnel route is their hostile pricing.

Their hostile pricing is one that is designed to make the most
income. ISTM that they have got reasonably close to this
point. The problem is not their market share or the average
fare per customer (which most believe is too high) but the
fact that the market for travel over the short crossing is just
not growing. Attempts to grow the market with cheaper
fares has failed.


We would have happily used the
rail link for our return to London last summer -- but one way tickets
were incredibly expensive

Why would you want to buy a one way ticket. Why would the
rail operator encourage it?

[while they were simultaneously marketing
ridiculously cheap round trips with significant advance purchast]

These offers are there to encourage people to make marginal
journeys that they would otherwise not make. One could claim
that the existance of this offer is the problem (but as every transport
operator uses this method this is unlikely) but it isn'rt an arguement
for reducing the normal single fare


We
flew instead -- the cost was about 4 times greater to take the train.

And this is the problem, Not just the fact that you flew, but that
it is possible to fly much lomger distances for the same money.
There is no chance that the London to Paris market is going
to get bigger, when people have the option of Rome, Prague
...... etc at 20 quid each way.


tim

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...
He may not be well liked by the industry but his story appears to be
spot on.

I think you you'll find that his theory about a car only tunnel
has been well and truly shown to be un-workable elsewhere.

As to the bit about the lack of 'closeness' of the countries, how
was this the fault of the tunnel operators exactly?

And no different from the writing of others commenting on the
history and politics of the tunnel.

Listening to the cries of investors who have been conned by the
developers is interesting.

your point is?

Reminds me of a time share owners meeting.

and it has been agreed that this was marketed wrongly
and had to be controlled.

tim

tim wrote:

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...

He may not be well liked by the industry but his story appears to be
spot on.

I think you you'll find that his theory about a car only tunnel
has been well and truly shown to be un-workable elsewhere.

It's not his theory it was initially proposed by those promoting the tunnel

As to the bit about the lack of 'closeness' of the countries, how
was this the fault of the tunnel operators exactly?

Again this was a justification initially.

And no different from the writing of others commenting on the
history and politics of the tunnel.

Listening to the cries of investors who have been conned by the
developers is interesting.

your point is?

A lack of sympathy. Folks get ripped off all the time. Take your
losses and try to learn. Unfortunately, for me, that has taken most of
a lifetime.

Reminds me of a time share owners meeting.

and it has been agreed that this was marketed wrongly
and had to be controlled.

tim

Graham Harrison wrote:

May be from the NYT but Christian Wolmar is a UK based journalist. The
magazine he writes for "Rail"


Uh, "rail" has nothing to do with it. "Car" does .... you
can't drive your car through the tunnel. If you could
(at a reasonable price ... which is of course less than
a ferry ride). I'm sure it would be a great success.

Doug McDonald