BBC - Eurotunnel cuts rail freight cost

The Good Doctor schrieb:


> Surely that is because most other tunnels are closely integrated with
> one or more national railway systems, whereas the Channel Tunnel is a
> private venture operating shuttle trains which also happens to have
> poorly utilised connections to SNCF and Network Rail?


Sounds like a good description, but does not change the marketplace.
With the result, that it is underutilized 1:20 or so.


Hans-Joachim



--
Großer FF-Gottesdienst jeden Sonntag 15 Uhr im Gemeindehaus am Roten
Fuchsstieg 2.0. Nächstes Predigtthema: "Ein Affe ist kein Fuchs. Oder:
Wie man gefährliche Sekten erkennt, die uns nicht zum Heil führen."
Thorsten Weisert

On 25 Oct, 12:39, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:
> furnessvale <furnessv...@> wrote:
> >On 25 Oct, 11:26, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:
>
> >> There has to be a compromise, with lower charges (but not nearly as
> >> low as on normal railway routes) and higher utilisation.  opefully,
> >> Eurotunnel's price reductions for freight transits will be a welcome
> >> move towards this situation.
>
> >The best that the railways can hope for is that the price per tonne of
> >cargo charged by Eurotunnel is the same as they charge per tonne on
> >the road shuttles (having allowed for the fact that the railways
> >provide their own wagons, load them themselves etc).
>
> >I do not know if the reduction restores that parity but I think we
> >have some way to go yet.
>
> Why should there be parity?  

Why not? Eurotunnel have priced railfreight out of the market as you
state below.

> Some freight is best sent by rail, some is best sent by road.  Some is
> best sent by sea (shipping).  What is clear is that Eurotunnel has
> almost priced itself out of the market for rail freight, but competing
> on level per tonne terms with road transport - whether using shuttle
> or ferry - is not necessarily the best use of the paths through the
> Channel Tunnel that have been very expensively provided.

Eurotunnel are quite happy charging �x per lorry to use the tunnel
without trying to micro manage what the overall benefit to the
european economy is. I am simply asking that they do the same for
rail.

> Merely comparing the per tonne cost between Dover/Folkestone and
> Calais would be profoundly misleading.  How Eurotunnel will compete is
> by charging a rate that makes the overall rail transit (including
> transit within the UK and on the mainland of Europe) competitive with
> the overall road transit.
>
> Eurotunnel cannot second guess the overall cost.  It merely has to
> reduce prices until flows begin to increase, then adjust them
> periodically to provide a balance between demand and the supply of
> freight train paths.

By doing this you could be asking Eurotunnel to cross subsidise an
inefficient trans europe rail operator. All that they can reasonably
be asked to do is not discriminate against rail by charging more than
the equivalent road movement. If rail then fails to compete, tough,
but I think rail could then hold its own.

George

"furnessvale" <furnessvale@> wrote in message
news:1193335920.581308.119630@e34g2000pro. o...
On 25 Oct, 12:39, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:
> furnessvale <furnessv...@> wrote:
> >On 25 Oct, 11:26, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:
>
> >> There has to be a compromise, with lower charges (but not nearly as
> >> low as on normal railway routes) and higher utilisation. opefully,
> >> Eurotunnel's price reductions for freight transits will be a welcome
> >> move towards this situation.
>
> >The best that the railways can hope for is that the price per tonne of
> >cargo charged by Eurotunnel is the same as they charge per tonne on
> >the road shuttles (having allowed for the fact that the railways
> >provide their own wagons, load them themselves etc).
>
> >I do not know if the reduction restores that parity but I think we
> >have some way to go yet.
>
> Why should there be parity?

Why not? Eurotunnel have priced railfreight out of the market as you
state below.

> Some freight is best sent by rail, some is best sent by road. Some is
> best sent by sea (shipping). What is clear is that Eurotunnel has
> almost priced itself out of the market for rail freight, but competing
> on level per tonne terms with road transport - whether using shuttle
> or ferry - is not necessarily the best use of the paths through the
> Channel Tunnel that have been very expensively provided.

Eurotunnel are quite happy charging ?x per lorry to use the tunnel
without trying to micro manage what the overall benefit to the
european economy is. I am simply asking that they do the same for
rail.

> Merely comparing the per tonne cost between Dover/Folkestone and
> Calais would be profoundly misleading. How Eurotunnel will compete is
> by charging a rate that makes the overall rail transit (including
> transit within the UK and on the mainland of Europe) competitive with
> the overall road transit.
>
> Eurotunnel cannot second guess the overall cost. It merely has to
> reduce prices until flows begin to increase, then adjust them
> periodically to provide a balance between demand and the supply of
> freight train paths.

By doing this you could be asking Eurotunnel to cross subsidise an
inefficient trans europe rail operator. All that they can reasonably
be asked to do is not discriminate against rail by charging more than
the equivalent road movement. If rail then fails to compete, tough,
but I think rail could then hold its own.

George
I'm not privy to the revenue from an individual freight shuttle, carrying 30
HGVs, but I would not be surprised that it were well in excess of the 3000
Euro charge quoted per national freight under the new regime. I would also
add that the catastrophic falling-off in freight traffic long predates
Eurotunnel's price increases at the end of the minimum-usage agreement.
Brian

furnessvale schrieb:


> Which nicely brings us back to the point that tunnel transit should be
> no more expensive for rail than for road. Add to that the fact that
> railfreight operators do all the hard work for Eurotunnel, all that
> they have to provide is a path.


With true market pricing, reflecting costs of providing transport, not
prices set artificially by a monopoly, a train transporting trucks
through the tunnel should at least be double as expensive as only
providing the path itself.

The problem would be best solved, if Eurotunnel has to do the same as
any other infrastructure owner in the EU: Separate bookkeeping for
operation and infrastructure. If LeShuttle has to pay the same amount
of money for a train path, as any other operator, things will clear up
with the helpful hand of the market.



Hans-Joachim




--
Großer FF-Gottesdienst jeden Sonntag 15 Uhr im Gemeindehaus am Roten
Fuchsstieg 2.0. Nächstes Predigtthema: "Ein Affe ist kein Fuchs. Oder:
Wie man gefährliche Sekten erkennt, die uns nicht zum Heil führen."
Thorsten Weisert

On 27 Oct, 22:33, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:
> Except that the tunnel transit is expensive, as already discussed, and
> only the most obtuse of people would consider the ~ 50 km of the
> Channel Tunnel as no different to ~ 50 km of surface railway.

It will be interesting to see what rates are charged for the new
alpine base tunnels when they come on stream. If the UK was involved
they would be white elephants with all the traffic still going over
the hill.

George

On 29 Oct, 11:28, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:
> furnessvale <furnessv...@> wrote:
> >On 27 Oct, 22:33, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:
> >> Except that the tunnel transit is expensive, as already discussed, and
> >> only the most obtuse of people would consider the ~ 50 km of the
> >> Channel Tunnel as no different to ~ 50 km of surface railway.
>
> >It will be interesting to see what rates are charged for the new
> >alpine base tunnels when they come on stream. If the UK was involved
> >they would be white elephants with all the traffic still going over
> >the hill.
>
> If the charges for using the new Alpine base tunnels are set any lower
> than the figure that reflects the full economic costs of tunnel
> transit, including the costs of design, construction, financing and
> operation, then the projects will of course define themselves as white
> elephants.

Very true but no doubt road and rail transit costs through these
tunnels will be on an equitable basis as opposed to the (failed)
Eurotunnel "lets milk rail" strategy.

George

On 29 Oct, 20:20, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:
> furnessvale <furnessv...@> wrote:
>
> >I simply argue that Eurotunnel should not
> >discriminate between road and rail in their pricing structure, as they
> >so patently have done up to now.
>
> I disagree. It simply isn't that important. If Eurotunnel chooses to
> overprice one or more of their services, they will find a lack of
> demand in response. If Eurotunnel lowers the price, demand will tend
> to increase. The art is to balance price and demand to obtain the
> maximum financial return consistent with making best use of the
> available capacity.
>
> There is no need to make the price of the two modes equal on a per
> tonne (or any other) basis. The amount of demand will tell Eurotunnel
> whether they got the relative pricing of the two modes right or wrong.

Given the monopoly situation enjoyed by Eurotunnel in relation to rail
movements the courts may take a different view, especially as
Eurotunnel intend running their own through rail freight trains in
direct competition with existing users.

> Perhaps you are forgetting that a rail freight path takes up two road
> shuttle paths in any case. This would seem to indicate that each rail
> freight path should be charged about double that of one shuttle path.

If Eurotunnel attempted to charge on that basis I am sure that the
vast majority of through rail transits would be accomodated in higher
speed intermodal trains to match the road shuttle speeds. In any
case, I think the fact that Eurotunnel have only to provide the path,
no loading ramps no wagons etc, more than compensates for that.

George

rail schrieb:


> I doubt the Swiss are worried about sea competition :-)


Sure? The main corridor, which is supposed to be improved to ETCS, is called
Rotterdam - Genova.

The Swiss do of course compete with sea transport! For British goods to Italy,
you can either ship to Rotterdam or Antwerpen, or to Genova. Across Switzerland
is faster, of course, but if it's too expensive, they would loose a major
amount of the traffic.

Please don't forget, that within the EU, > 40% of the freight goes by sea,
some 10% by rail.


Hans-Joachim



--
Großer FF-Gottesdienst jeden Sonntag 15 Uhr im Gemeindehaus am Roten
Fuchsstieg 2.0. Nächstes Predigtthema: "Ein Affe ist kein Fuchs. Oder:
Wie man gefährliche Sekten erkennt, die uns nicht zum Heil führen."
Thorsten Weisert

On 29 Oct, 20:47, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:
> furnessvale <furnessv...@> wrote:
> >Given the monopoly situation enjoyed by Eurotunnel in relation to rail
> >movements the courts may take a different view, especially as
> >Eurotunnel intend running their own through rail freight trains in
> >direct competition with existing users.
>
> It is precisely that situation that lies behind Eurotunnel's proposals
> to cut prices for rail freight transits.

I think we have reached agreement!

George

On 30 Oct, 14:21, The Good Doctor <nos...@> wrote:

> Monopoly? As far as I am aware, Eurotunnel does not have a monopoly.
> Almost all road traffic that could go through the Tunnel can also go
> on a ferry, and vice versa, with the exception of some hazardous
> cargoes that are banned from one mode or the other. Similarly, almost
> all traffic that goes through the Tunnel by rail could also go by
> road.
>
> So where on earth is this monopoly that you are talking about?

I think EWS would have a different take on your definition of
monopoly. I think we must agree to differ. I have no intention of
changing my mind, neither have you.

George