Discussion:
EC may force Eurotunnel to reduce charges
(too old to reply)
Arthur Figgis
2013-06-21 18:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Isn't a major part of the issue because Eurotunnel has to attempt to pay
the capital costs of building an expensive tunnel, while most other
infrastructure managers have got "free" infrastructure which was kindly
paid for by C19th investors and/or Hard Working <insert name of country>
Families?
If that's the case, why should E* and intermodal freight users pay more
than ET shuttle users to service this debt?
Because it is Eurotunnel's own tunnel, and so they can charge whatever
they think is the optimal rate to use their own services. The owners of
Eurostar and the freight operators of the day (HMG, the Nth Republic and
possibly the train operator of the Belgians) freely signed up to pay.

Non-BR and non-SNCF freight effectively post-dates the Channel Tunnel
paperwork being signed.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Charles Ellson
2013-06-21 22:35:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:45:20 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Isn't a major part of the issue because Eurotunnel has to attempt to pay
the capital costs of building an expensive tunnel, while most other
infrastructure managers have got "free" infrastructure which was kindly
paid for by C19th investors and/or Hard Working <insert name of country>
Families?
If that's the case, why should E* and intermodal freight users pay more
than ET shuttle users to service this debt?
Because it is Eurotunnel's own tunnel,
It operates the tunnel under a concession from the UK and French
governments so IMU they are effectively the tenant for the time being
(until 2086?). The actual owners (if no disposals have since occurred)
are the UK and French governments :-
[http://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/Essential-texts,24.html?lang=en
Concession Agreement - Chapter 1 - Clause 4: Acquisition of Land and
Ownership of the Fixed Link].
Post by Arthur Figgis
and so they can charge whatever
they think is the optimal rate to use their own services.
They can't, they can only charge in accordance with European Directive
2001/14/EC (so far as that controls their relevant internal
charging/accounting procedures) :-
http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uploadedFiles/assets-uk/The-Group/Profile/Our-Business/2014NetworkStatement.pdf
Post by Arthur Figgis
The owners of
Eurostar and the freight operators of the day (HMG, the Nth Republic and
possibly the train operator of the Belgians) freely signed up to pay.
Non-BR and non-SNCF freight effectively post-dates the Channel Tunnel
paperwork being signed.
Arthur Figgis
2013-06-22 07:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:45:20 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Isn't a major part of the issue because Eurotunnel has to attempt to pay
the capital costs of building an expensive tunnel, while most other
infrastructure managers have got "free" infrastructure which was kindly
paid for by C19th investors and/or Hard Working <insert name of country>
Families?
If that's the case, why should E* and intermodal freight users pay more
than ET shuttle users to service this debt?
Because it is Eurotunnel's own tunnel,
It operates the tunnel under a concession from the UK and French
governments so IMU they are effectively the tenant for the time being
(until 2086?). The actual owners (if no disposals have since occurred)
are the UK and French governments :-
[http://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/Essential-texts,24.html?lang=en
Concession Agreement - Chapter 1 - Clause 4: Acquisition of Land and
Ownership of the Fixed Link].
But doesn't changing the terms of a contract with a private company tend
to work out expensive for the public sector side?
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
and so they can charge whatever
they think is the optimal rate to use their own services.
They can't, they can only charge in accordance with European Directive
2001/14/EC (so far as that controls their relevant internal
charging/accounting procedures) :-
http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uploadedFiles/assets-uk/The-Group/Profile/Our-Business/2014NetworkStatement.pdf
Does that cover Shuttle services?

And can Eurotunnel itself do anything about who BRB and SNCF have
allocated their capacity to, or how the tunnel is regulated?
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
The owners of
Eurostar and the freight operators of the day (HMG, the Nth Republic and
possibly the train operator of the Belgians) freely signed up to pay.
Non-BR and non-SNCF freight effectively post-dates the Channel Tunnel
paperwork being signed.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Charles Ellson
2013-06-23 01:44:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:29:10 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:45:20 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Isn't a major part of the issue because Eurotunnel has to attempt to pay
the capital costs of building an expensive tunnel, while most other
infrastructure managers have got "free" infrastructure which was kindly
paid for by C19th investors and/or Hard Working <insert name of country>
Families?
If that's the case, why should E* and intermodal freight users pay more
than ET shuttle users to service this debt?
Because it is Eurotunnel's own tunnel,
It operates the tunnel under a concession from the UK and French
governments so IMU they are effectively the tenant for the time being
(until 2086?). The actual owners (if no disposals have since occurred)
are the UK and French governments :-
[http://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/Essential-texts,24.html?lang=en
Concession Agreement - Chapter 1 - Clause 4: Acquisition of Land and
Ownership of the Fixed Link].
But doesn't changing the terms of a contract with a private company tend
to work out expensive for the public sector side?
?
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
and so they can charge whatever
they think is the optimal rate to use their own services.
They can't, they can only charge in accordance with European Directive
2001/14/EC (so far as that controls their relevant internal
charging/accounting procedures) :-
http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uploadedFiles/assets-uk/The-Group/Profile/Our-Business/2014NetworkStatement.pdf
Does that cover Shuttle services?
Presumably yes if it discriminates against or disadvantages other
users from the POV of EU competition rules. At the least, I would
anticipate any internal accounting which has the effect of subsidising
Le Shuttle would get ET into trouble.
Post by Arthur Figgis
And can Eurotunnel itself do anything about who BRB
Who ? London and Continental Railways maybe ?
Post by Arthur Figgis
and SNCF have
allocated their capacity to,
Without trawling through the documentation, I would expect that to
depend on what limitations there are on "sub-letting".
Post by Arthur Figgis
or how the tunnel is regulated?
That is done by the intergovernmental commission or are you referring
to regulation of trains in the running as efficiently as possible
sense ?
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
The owners of
Eurostar and the freight operators of the day (HMG, the Nth Republic and
possibly the train operator of the Belgians) freely signed up to pay.
Non-BR and non-SNCF freight effectively post-dates the Channel Tunnel
paperwork being signed.
Arthur Figgis
2013-06-23 10:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:29:10 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:45:20 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Isn't a major part of the issue because Eurotunnel has to attempt to pay
the capital costs of building an expensive tunnel, while most other
infrastructure managers have got "free" infrastructure which was kindly
paid for by C19th investors and/or Hard Working <insert name of country>
Families?
If that's the case, why should E* and intermodal freight users pay more
than ET shuttle users to service this debt?
Because it is Eurotunnel's own tunnel,
It operates the tunnel under a concession from the UK and French
governments so IMU they are effectively the tenant for the time being
(until 2086?). The actual owners (if no disposals have since occurred)
are the UK and French governments :-
[http://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/Essential-texts,24.html?lang=en
Concession Agreement - Chapter 1 - Clause 4: Acquisition of Land and
Ownership of the Fixed Link].
But doesn't changing the terms of a contract with a private company tend
to work out expensive for the public sector side?
?
It seems pretty common that when a government (in the west, with
ambitions of democratic legitimacy and hopes to attract further
investment) tries to change the rules, investors might want their money
back.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
and so they can charge whatever
they think is the optimal rate to use their own services.
They can't, they can only charge in accordance with European Directive
2001/14/EC (so far as that controls their relevant internal
charging/accounting procedures) :-
http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uploadedFiles/assets-uk/The-Group/Profile/Our-Business/2014NetworkStatement.pdf
Does that cover Shuttle services?
Presumably yes if it discriminates against or disadvantages other
users from the POV of EU competition rules. At the least, I would
anticipate any internal accounting which has the effect of subsidising
Le Shuttle would get ET into trouble.
Can anyone set up a rival shuttle, or does Eurotunnel have a monopoly
under the terms of the concession? (see also ICWC moderation of
competition, or the general lack of open access on metro networks and
the long-running debate in Australia about open access to mine railways)
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
And can Eurotunnel itself do anything about who BRB
Who ? London and Continental Railways maybe ?
BRB signed the agreement, and remained in existence longer than planned
because it was easier than dealing with all the related paperwork needed
to do away with them. Have TPTB got round to dealing with it all yet?
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
and SNCF have
allocated their capacity to,
Without trawling through the documentation, I would expect that to
depend on what limitations there are on "sub-letting".
This is all about trawling through documentation.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
or how the tunnel is regulated?
That is done by the intergovernmental commission
And I rather doubt that Eurotunnel can unilaterally abolish or reform
the IGC - that would need to be done by the governments (who appoint
members of the IGC as well as ultimately owning Eurostar, which the EC
doesn't approve of).

Some people might suggest that French governments haven't always been
keen to see open-access freight succeed.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Charles Ellson
2013-06-23 22:32:11 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 11:23:42 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:29:10 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:45:20 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Isn't a major part of the issue because Eurotunnel has to attempt to pay
the capital costs of building an expensive tunnel, while most other
infrastructure managers have got "free" infrastructure which was kindly
paid for by C19th investors and/or Hard Working <insert name of country>
Families?
If that's the case, why should E* and intermodal freight users pay more
than ET shuttle users to service this debt?
Because it is Eurotunnel's own tunnel,
It operates the tunnel under a concession from the UK and French
governments so IMU they are effectively the tenant for the time being
(until 2086?). The actual owners (if no disposals have since occurred)
are the UK and French governments :-
[http://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/Essential-texts,24.html?lang=en
Concession Agreement - Chapter 1 - Clause 4: Acquisition of Land and
Ownership of the Fixed Link].
But doesn't changing the terms of a contract with a private company tend
to work out expensive for the public sector side?
?
It seems pretty common that when a government (in the west, with
ambitions of democratic legitimacy and hopes to attract further
investment) tries to change the rules, investors might want their money
back.
ITYF even governments can't unilaterally change a contractual
relationship especially if multiple jurisdictions are involved.
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
and so they can charge whatever
they think is the optimal rate to use their own services.
They can't, they can only charge in accordance with European Directive
2001/14/EC (so far as that controls their relevant internal
charging/accounting procedures) :-
http://www.eurotunnelgroup.com/uploadedFiles/assets-uk/The-Group/Profile/Our-Business/2014NetworkStatement.pdf
Does that cover Shuttle services?
Presumably yes if it discriminates against or disadvantages other
users from the POV of EU competition rules. At the least, I would
anticipate any internal accounting which has the effect of subsidising
Le Shuttle would get ET into trouble.
Can anyone set up a rival shuttle, or does Eurotunnel have a monopoly
under the terms of the concession? (see also ICWC moderation of
competition, or the general lack of open access on metro networks and
the long-running debate in Australia about open access to mine railways)
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
And can Eurotunnel itself do anything about who BRB
Who ? London and Continental Railways maybe ?
BRB signed the agreement, and remained in existence longer than planned
because it was easier than dealing with all the related paperwork needed
to do away with them. Have TPTB got round to dealing with it all yet?
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
and SNCF have
allocated their capacity to,
Without trawling through the documentation, I would expect that to
depend on what limitations there are on "sub-letting".
This is all about trawling through documentation.
Post by Charles Ellson
Post by Arthur Figgis
or how the tunnel is regulated?
That is done by the intergovernmental commission
And I rather doubt that Eurotunnel can unilaterally abolish or reform
the IGC - that would need to be done by the governments (who appoint
members of the IGC as well as ultimately owning Eurostar, which the EC
doesn't approve of).
Some people might suggest that French governments haven't always been
keen to see open-access freight succeed.
Arthur Figgis
2013-06-24 18:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sun, 23 Jun 2013 11:23:42 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 08:29:10 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Charles Ellson
On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:45:20 +0100, Arthur Figgis
Post by Arthur Figgis
Isn't a major part of the issue because Eurotunnel has to attempt to pay
the capital costs of building an expensive tunnel, while most other
infrastructure managers have got "free" infrastructure which was kindly
paid for by C19th investors and/or Hard Working <insert name of country>
Families?
If that's the case, why should E* and intermodal freight users pay more
than ET shuttle users to service this debt?
Because it is Eurotunnel's own tunnel,
It operates the tunnel under a concession from the UK and French
governments so IMU they are effectively the tenant for the time being
(until 2086?). The actual owners (if no disposals have since occurred)
are the UK and French governments :-
[http://www.channeltunneligc.co.uk/Essential-texts,24.html?lang=en
Concession Agreement - Chapter 1 - Clause 4: Acquisition of Land and
Ownership of the Fixed Link].
But doesn't changing the terms of a contract with a private company tend
to work out expensive for the public sector side?
?
It seems pretty common that when a government (in the west, with
ambitions of democratic legitimacy and hopes to attract further
investment) tries to change the rules, investors might want their money
back.
ITYF even governments can't unilaterally change a contractual
relationship especially if multiple jurisdictions are involved.
Exactly (well, they can try, but the consequences might be bad).
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Loading...