[Anonymous]

[BigDog.]

The EU appears to be enforcing a low-sulphur emissions for ferries from 1st January resulting in a 15% fare hike. Routes where there isn’t a suitable alternative will muddle through however as the channel tunnel provides a good, and now cheaper? alternative, is it the end of the channel Dover/Folkestone-Calais ferry?

Frankly I haven’t used it in years. Do we care?

Only problem may be for cars with LPG or Hydrogen fuel.

Harwich-Esbjerg apparently has already closed citing LOCOs and the low Sulphur EU directive.

http://www.discoverferries.com/sites/default/files/140429%20-%20New%20sulphur%20rules%20cause%20closure%20of%20the%20Harwich%20-%20Esbjerg%20ferry%20route.pdf

[LuganoPirate]

This diktat from the EU seems only to apply to ferries in the N. Sea, Baltic and English Channel. Why not to the Med? Or did France, Italy and Spain have something to say about that?

[Charles-P]

The ferries have been losing business for many years with the Tunnel a much more attractive prospect for many although I understand this is not the case with heavy freight as the drivers prefer the longer break the ferry gives them.

I only this week booked a crossing on the Eurotunnel for our annual trip to London for the Christmas shopping (Borough Market – turkey and pheasant) and I didn’t even bother looking at the P&O site which I guess says a lot.
In my view this latest price increase will only put a further nail in the coffin

[TominScotland]

Shoddy journalism, Daily Mail – why no quote from Mr Farage on this? Shocking diktat from the EU, interfering in our rights to enjoy poor air quality and health…….

[Charles-P]

Tom – you make a good point.

The EU is not introducing this change to somehow make our lives worse but to improve them. High Sulphate fuel oil may well be cheap but it is I understand highly carcinogenic. Of course this is not such a good story as, “Barmy Brussels is sinking our booze cruise ships”

[AMcWhirter]

It’s interesting that one of the Cross-Channel ferry operators is actually owned by Eurotunnel, despite objections.

We need existing ferry operators because not only do they provide competition but they also offer an alternative for when Eurotunnel has operational problems or vice versa.

Without the ferry capacity we would need a second Channel Tunnel to meet demand.

Finally if the ferry operators were to disappear, the Tunnel operating rules and regulations would have to change.

For example, Eurotunnel does not accept foot passengers or livestock. So if I, as a foot passenger, require a one-way ticket from Folkestone to Calais I would have to opt for Eurostar.

And how much does Eurostar charge ? Ashford-Calais costs a whopping £129 one-way (for travel tomorrow) and there’s only one train a day.

[Charles-P]

Perhaps the ferry service will evolve into a freight only and foot passenger service in the future ?

[AnthonyDunn]

TominScotland – 02/12/2014 09:40 GMT

+1

[AMcWhirter]

Yes it’s possible. But the ferries are needed for future growth and for offering an alternative when Eurotunnel is swamped with traffic (as happens at certain times of the year) or when there’s a failure for whatever reason.

Would any government wish to put all its eggs in one basket ?

And as for foot passengers … logically there would be commuter-style trains running through the Tunnel (in addition to Eurostar) which would shuttle passengers between Kent and stations in N France.

But the Channel Tunnel Act specifies that only certain trains (which are highly specified and therefore costly to build) can use the tunnel.

Way back in December 1993, a Thamesline train did run through the Tunnel but that was special event before the Tunnel had officially opened.

[Charles-P]

So we are back to the old hobby horse of do we subsidise the ferry service as some sort of national asset because it can’t compete with the Tunnel on economic grounds ?

[SimonS1]

I am sure the cross-channel ferries are quite capable of managing. Numbers went up by 7% last year and Dover handled 12.7 million passengers last year. I see a couple of the operators have started adding a ‘EU Low Sulphur charge’ so it looks like they are going down the airline path there.

I would therefore say the ‘end of the ferry’ is a tad premature.

@alex – whilst it is true Eurotunnel owns one of the ferry groups they are under notice from the Competition Authorities to stop. This was due to be effective mid December but they have a stay of execution whilst they appeal.

[AMcWhirter]

Thanks, Simon.

I knew that objections had been raised about Eurotunnel’s ownership of Myferrylink but I wasn’t sure how matters were proceeding.

The ferries operated by Myferrylink used to be operated by SeaFrance which used to be owned by France’s SNCF.

[LuganoPirate]

Aside from the Sulphur emmissions, Dover Ferries that I can think of also travel to Boulogne, Dunkirk, Ostend and Zeebrugge, and freight only ferries also go to Rotterdam and I think Hamburg. Many truckers use these routes depending on their destination and on the Zeebrugge route they can have dinner and get 4 hours sleep counting towards their obligatory rest time. This is also one of the attractions for them to take the freight trains across Switzerland from Basel to Italy.

As for passengers, there were, and maybe still are, bus services to Calais (and onwards) from Victoria and Ashford, using either the ferries or the tunnel. I think it depended on who gave the cheapest deal for the particular crossing. So I think the ferries will continue and they’ll make money. Maybe not from passengers but definitely from freight.

Personally, I prefer the P&O Ferry over the tunnel, though I’ve not used either for several years. However, on a cold, windy November night, the tunnel does have it’s attractions…

[LuganoPirate]

As an afterthought, there are many dangerous and / or hazardous goods which may not be transported through the tunnel so for these a ferry service is essential.

[Author]

Posts