Constraints on future Channel Tunnel operators

Sometime this autumn the UK’s Office of Rail and Road (ORR) will adjudicate on capacity allocation at Temple Mills depot in east London. Responses to ORR from Eurostar and the four other companies that seek to also enter the market for long distance trains through the Channel Tunnel can be found here.

But what is going to mean, practically?

This post is in my “Quick Takes” category, as I am going to pose more additional questions here than answer them.

Given that – at the time of writing – the rolling stock strategy of incumbent Eurostar is not clear, I cannot see ORR concluding there is no space for a competitor to Eurostar at the depot. Had Eurostar already signed an order for the 50 new trains that is heavily rumoured, but they have not, so the case for saying “the incumbent is expanding so massively, the depot is full” looks weak.

So assuming someone else gets the capacity, what happens?

In the case it’s Virgin Trains, the next step is the clearest – they have a “binding agreement” with Alstom (for Alstom Italy single deck post-Pendolino Avelia Stream trains) that one assumes would then turn into a contract.

For Gemini and Evolyn it is similar, but not quite as clear – Gemini would proceed to order from Siemens (Velaro) and Evolyn from Alstom (Alstom France Avelia Horizon double deck trains), but neither is as far advanced as Virgin in dealing with manufacturers, at least when it comes to what we know in public.

The situation for Trenitalia is the least clear – they would use Hitachi trains, but how many they would order or if these would be from an existing order from the Trenitalia-Hitachi framework contract or a new order is not obvious.

How Trenitalia and Evolyn would work together (or not) is also not altogether clear – despite a MoU between the two in April 2025, they made separate submissions to ORR.

And while what happens in the case of a successful outcome for a company from ORR is the focus of most attention, what happens to those that fail to access Temple Mills is an interesting conundrum.

When reading the submissions from Virgin, Gemini and Evolyn they all read as if they are setting their entire company strategies so as to operate within the constraints to Temple Mills. That is also reflected in the decision to only each order between 10 and 12 200m long trains – so equivalent to 5 or 6 full Eurostar trains. Design your rolling stock strategy to fit the depot.

But if you do not get the depot, what then?

That would, I think, be the end of Virgin’s bid, and the end of Evolyn’s bid as a company somehow separate from Trenitalia, as the documents from both present themselves as largely private copies of Eurostar in terms of their approach in terms of routes and operations, however radical Richard Branson’s words sound.

But for Gemini and Trenitalia I am not so sure no Temple Mills is necessarily so fatal. Gemini – with its idea to not use St Pancras at all, and start and end in Stratford – has a radically different approach to their entire operations than the other bidders. They might attempt the same with regard to depots. And Trenitalia already has the experience of maintaining its France-Italy fleet in Milano, and could repeat the trick for Channel Tunnel services by running a once daily London-Milano service as essentially a rolling stock move, albeit it with passengers on board.

Any of the Eurostar rivals could investigate re-purposing part of the Hitachi works at Ashford, consider partnering with a French private rival to Eurostar (Velvet, Illisto) to build something in France, or check using Forest depot in Brussels where SNCB would be able to maintain its trains (and would not stand in a company’s way).

As if that were enough, there is another constraint lurking in the background: St Pancras.

London St Pancras Highspeed (the company formally known as HS1) has the official aim of increasing passenger throughput to 5000 passengers per hour (so 5 full 400m trains per hour), up from the current 1800 per hour (2 trains). But in the short term only 2700/hour (3 trains) as throughput is achievable.

So were, let’s say, Virgin successful with its bid for capacity at Temple Mills, that also ultimately means – short term – that St Pancras would be full. Here Gemini’s response would be “that doesn’t matter to us, we don’t want to use St Pancras anyway”, but Evolyn or Trenitalia wanting to use St Pancras would have an additional headache.

Putting all this another way, while you could perhaps imagine there being two operators using Temple Mills and a third maintaining its trains elsewhere, I cannot see three operators fitting into St Pancras. And on this point Gemini’s approach – very different from everyone else – might be a narrow opportunity for them to sustain their prospects.

So that’s what’s currently on my mind with regard to the state of play for the future of the Channel Tunnel long distance operators this autumn. I am aware this is all a bit sketchy – happily tell me below or on social media why this is wrong!

The post Constraints on future Channel Tunnel operators appeared first on Jon Worth.

Source: https://jonworth.eu/constraints-on-future-channel-tunnel-operators/