In message
, at
08:29:30 on Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Mizter T remarked:

On 25 Mar, 14:24, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
, at
18:08:44 on Tue, 24 Mar 2009, remarked:

T5 has a pair of spare platforms, and it's the home of BA, who own
about 10% of Eurostar, so that's the obvious place to use.

BA own 10% of Eurostar UK. I don't know what proportion of the Eurostar
trains are operated by Eurostar UK (rather than the equivalent Belgian
and French companies), but all the ones I get to/from Brussels seem to
have French speaking crew.

BA emphatically does *not* own 10% of Eurostar UL Ltd (EUKL).

OK.

BA is however a 10% shareholder in Inter-Continental and Regional Rail
- LCR has a contract with ICRR to manage the UK part of the Eurostar
operation, i.e. the British share of the tri-national effort.

Any idea how big the British share is - 33.3% exactly, or some other
figure?

BA is however a silent partner in this.

And if the contact is almost expired, there isn't much residual value
anyway.

Things get even more interesting when one considers that the contract
LCR has with ICRR expires next year - it could be renewed,

Presumably the contract has to be renewed, but not necessarily with
ICRR. LVCR might pick a different partner, a bit like DaFT chooses a
different partner to operate the UK rail franchises from time to time.

but it seems there could *possibly* be some interesting scenarios with
an outside party - say DB - coming in and buying EUKL and then
proceeding to operate a new, separate international service which might
then precipitate the collapse of the tri-national Eurostar collaboration.

Couldn't DB run the equivalent of an open-access operation, alongside a
renewed "franchise" for the UK Eurostar operations?
--
Roland Perry

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:54:52 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry
auf uk.railway :

but it seems there could *possibly* be some interesting scenarios with
an outside party - say DB - coming in and buying EUKL and then
proceeding to operate a new, separate international service which might
then precipitate the collapse of the tri-national Eurostar collaboration.

Couldn't DB run the equivalent of an open-access operation, alongside a
renewed "franchise" for the UK Eurostar operations?

This is no franchise ....

DB could do what you formulate in your question above, or they could
simply dispend of ICRR and manage the Eurostar traffic on Great
Britain themselves, but sit in the respective boards of Eurostar Group
Ltd, or let this fall back to the international cooperation as before
1999 and negotiate a new setup for the tri-national operation. Or they
could withdraw the EUKL owned Class 373 trainsets completely from the
cross-Channel operation and use them for an Open Access operation from
London to Scotland, for example.

Who knows what is on Mr. Mehdorn's mind...

Cheers,
L.W.

-- -----------------------------------------------------

In message
, at
21:21:01 on Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Lüko Willms
remarked:
Couldn't DB run the equivalent of an open-access operation, alongside a
renewed "franchise" for the UK Eurostar operations?

This is no franchise ....

ICRR sounds just like GNER running a franchise on the ECML.

If not, what's the essential difference.
--
Roland Perry

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:02:25 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry
auf uk.railway :

Couldn't DB run the equivalent of an open-access operation, alongside a
renewed "franchise" for the UK Eurostar operations?

This is no franchise ....

ICRR sounds just like GNER running a franchise on the ECML.

not to me.

If not, what's the essential difference.

This is not a government contract with a private company, but a
contract between two private companies, where one charges the other to
do its work.

And ATOC does not list Eurostar as a franchise.


Cheers,
L.W.

-- -----------------------------------------------------

In message
, at
08:31:33 on Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Lüko Willms
remarked:
ICRR sounds just like GNER running a franchise on the ECML.

not to me.

If not, what's the essential difference.

This is not a government contract with a private company, but a
contract between two private companies, where one charges the other to
do its work.

Yes, so the only difference is that in one case it's the Government
letting the contract, and in the other it's a multinational quasi-public
sector company that's letting the contract.
--
Roland Perry

Am Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:46:38 UTC, schrieb Roland Perry
auf uk.railway :

This is not a government contract with a private company, but a
contract between two private companies, where one charges the other to
do its work.

Yes, so the only difference is that in one case it's the Government
letting the contract, and in the other it's a multinational quasi-public
sector company that's letting the contract.

The management contract is between Eurostar (UK) Ltd (EUKL) and
Intercapital and Regional Railways Ltd (ICRR). EUKL is 100% owned by
L&CR. In how far is EUKL a "multinational quasi-public sector
company"?


Cheers,
L.W.

-- -----------------------------------------------------

In message
, at
09:38:24 on Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Lüko Willms
remarked:
The management contract is between Eurostar (UK) Ltd (EUKL) and
Intercapital and Regional Railways Ltd (ICRR). EUKL is 100% owned by
L&CR. In how far is EUKL a "multinational quasi-public sector
company"?

My understanding is that L&CR is nationalised in all but name, and one
of the shareholders is SNCF.

--
Roland Perry

"Lüko Willms" wrote
DB could do what you formulate in your question above, or they could
simply dispend of ICRR and manage the Eurostar traffic on Great
Britain themselves,

Er, we've been here before... it's *in* Great Britain to everyone here
(except for the one or two eccentrics on (or in) these groups who sprang to
your defence last time...)

I can work out what you meant by 'dispend'.

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:00:40 UTC, schrieb "John Salmon"
auf uk.railway :

"Lüko Willms" wrote
DB could do what you formulate in your question above, or they could
simply dispend of ICRR and manage the Eurostar traffic on Great
Britain themselves,

Er, we've been here before... it's *in* Great Britain to everyone here

Great Britain is an island.

In case you go to vacations to the largest of the Balearen islands,
would you spend your time _on_ Mallorca, or _in_ Mallorca?

I can work out what you meant by 'dispend'.

My reminiscences of Latin interferes sometimes with my english
vocabulary... The proper form of the verb I meant to use is "dispense"
like in "dispense with ICRR".

Thanks for helping to improve my English!


Cheers,
L.W.

-- -----------------------------------------------------

In article
,
"Lüko Willms" wrote:

Am Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:00:40 UTC, schrieb "John Salmon"
auf uk.railway :

"Lüko Willms" wrote
DB could do what you formulate in your question above, or they could
simply dispend of ICRR and manage the Eurostar traffic on Great
Britain themselves,

Er, we've been here before... it's *in* Great Britain to everyone here

Great Britain is an island.

In case you go to vacations to the largest of the Balearen islands,
would you spend your time _on_ Mallorca, or _in_ Mallorca?

We'd say "in Mallorca" (actually we'd say "in Majorca" but we'd
pronounce it as if it were a German word!). We'd say "in Ireland" too.
We generally reserve "on" for islands you can see most of at the same
time: on the Isle of Wight, on Arran, on Lindisfarne, on Barra. We
might use "in" for islands that are also states of some kind so you
could use either "in" or "on" for the Isle of Man or Jersey. The phrase
"in the island of Ireland" is common but then so is "on the island of
Ireland".

It's pretty weird.

Sam