
London-Berlin by direct train: minister says ‘yes', expert says ‘no'
She was announcing a plan for a direct train between London and Berlin. 'A new task force will bring our nations closer together and create new opportunities for tourism, business and cultural exchange,' the minister said.
A laudable aim – but how feasible is it? Over to Mark Smith, the international rail guru who founded The Man in Seat 61 website. After years of experience as a front-line railwayman, he has devoted the past 24 years to encouraging and empowering people to switch from planes to trains. He (like me) desperately wants rail to succeed.
You might expect Mr Smith to welcome the government's vision. But, he says bluntly: 'I don't think we'll see a direct London-Berlin train.'
Thousands of people fly between the English and German capitals each day. From the 6.40am departure from Gatwick on easyJet to Ryanair 's 10.10pm arrival at Stansted, there are 17 flights each way, each day. That represents 5,400 passengers – the equivalent of three round-trips by rail.
History shows that when capacity is added to an intercity link, the number of travellers increases. And Mark Smith is convinced 'the demand is there' for a London-Berlin link. He cites the new direct daytime express between Paris and the German capital. 'This eight-hour journey leaves heavily booked,' he says. 'Up to 75 per cent of tickets are for the whole eight-hour journey.'
London to Berlin would take around nine hours, routed via Brussels and Cologne. With a journey only 60 minutes longer than the trip from Paris, and London being a much bigger travel hub than the French capital, it is fair to assume that much the same would apply.
But the problem, says the Seat 61 founder, isn't demand – it's financial viability.
The Paris-Berlin train stops in Strasbourg, Karlsruhe and Frankfurt, and is allowed to convey passengers between all those cities. Under present security and immigration rules, that would not be possible for international trains to and from London. In addition, a EU-UK border would be needed in Berlin – together with a serious, semi-airline security check.
'That French train doesn't need to pay all the UK border and security costs, and can happily carry passengers between intermediate stations as well as end to end,' says Mark Smith.
'With staff costs, track access costs, and rolling stock costs for London-Berlin being effectively double that for London-Cologne-Frankfurt, I can't see it being viable.'
He estimates the proportion of high-spending business travellers on a London-Berlin run as close to zero – compared with perhaps 15 per cent on 'an airline-competitive four- or five-hour trip from London to Cologne or Frankfurt'. Eurostar says it aims to start running Anglo-German trains to Cologne and Frankfurt by 'the early 2030s'.
Even among budget-focused travellers it is difficult to see London-Berlin succeeding – because the airline industry is so effective at offering cheap deals.
Looking ahead to Monday 1 September, the first day back at work for lots of people, Ryanair wants £25 for its 1h45m flight from Stansted to Berlin. The lowest one-way rail fare (involving multiple changes) is £350. That's 14 times as much.
The air fare looks too cheap, the train ticket way too expensive. But even in the course of a decade, I can't see that gap narrowing to the point where those London-Berlin trains become competitive. I hope I am proved wrong.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Times
an hour ago
- Times
Tom Hayes verdict is yet another blow to the Serious Fraud Office
The conviction of Tom Hayes for rate rigging in 2015 came at a crunch moment for the Serious Fraud Office. Reeling from a string of blunders in the years before Hayes's trial, the successful prosecution of the former trader was a much-needed win for the agency at a time when its very existence was in doubt and it was also arguably the most significant result for the agency's then director, Sir David Green KC. By the same token, the quashing of Hayes's conviction on Wednesday by the Supreme Court also comes at a difficult moment for the crime-fighting body. In the decade since Hayes was sent to prison, the SFO's reputation has been marred by another series of setbacks that have once again led to questions about the future of the agency.


Times
an hour ago
- Times
Goldman Sachs boss: City's status is at risk
London's position as a global financial centre is 'fragile', the head of Goldman Sachs has warned. David Solomon, 63, said a combination of Brexit and not retaining increasingly mobile talent and capital put the City's status at risk. 'The financial industry is still driven by talent and capital formation. And those things are much more mobile than they were 25 years ago,' Solomon told The Master Investor Podcast. • Rachel Reeves refuses to rule out wealth tax despite fresh warnings Solomon is one of the world's most powerful investment bankers and has been chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which has about 6,000 employees in the UK, since 2018. He said he was 'encouraged by some of what the current government is talking about in terms of supporting business and trying to support a more growth-oriented agenda. But if you don't set a policy that keeps talent here, that encourages capital formation here, I think over time you risk that.' On July 15, Rachel Reeves unveiled a number of measures aimed at cutting red tape in Britain's financial services sector as part of attempts to kickstart the economy. The chancellor said in her Mansion House speech that Labour placed financial services, one of eight key growth sectors under the industrial strategy, 'at the heart of this government's growth mission'. However, there has been speculation the Treasury could target profits in the banking sector, which have been boosted by higher interest rates, with tax rises to help bolster the government's fiscal position. Reeves with Solomon and his Goldman Sachs co-CEOs Kunal Shah, left, and Anthony Gutman, right, in Wednesday's meeting SIMON WALKER/HM TREASURY Reeves is facing pressure over reforms to the non-dom tax regime, with research by New World Wealth, an intelligence firm, recently suggesting Britain has lost 18 billionaires over the past two years, more than any other country in the world. In the podcast, Solomon said: 'Incentives matter. If you create tax policy or incentives that push people away, you harm your economy.' Reeves also pledged in her speech last week to make 'meaningful reforms' to ringfencing, rules brought in following the 2008 financial crisis which forced lenders to legally separate their high street businesses from riskier investment banking divisions. • Why is the FTSE 100 so high when the UK economy is stuttering? Solomon pressed the chancellor, with whom he met in 11 Downing Street on Wednesday along with his co-CEOs Kunal Shah and Anthony Gutman, to 'follow through', saying: 'It's a place where the UK is an outlier, and by being an outlier, it prevents capital formation and growth. 'What's the justification for being an outlier? Why is this so difficult to change? It's hard to make a substantive policy argument that this is like a great policy for the UK. So why is it so hard to change?' The ringfencing regime has also faced criticism from the bosses of some of Britain's biggest banks, who called on the chancellor in April to abolish the rules, arguing that they were inefficient and had been superseded by other reforms.


Times
2 hours ago
- Times
How Housing First for the homeless could end rough-sleeping
At the Fabian Society's housing conference last week, the homelessness and prison reform campaigner Matthew Torbitt shared his experience with rough sleeping, which began at 15 when his parents kicked him out. His year on the streets ended when a friend's parents took him in and he has been campaigning to reduce rough sleeping for the past 12 years. On a recent visit to a Housing First centre, a shelter with no strings attached, Torbitt discussed its warm, welcoming atmosphere with a resident. 'It's like a family,' the man said. Both men understood the importance of getting a home without preconditions — a right denied to thousands who are sleeping rough. • Read more expert advice on property, interiors and home improvement Since the pandemic, rough-sleeping rates have doubled, and continue to rise. In February Florence Eshalomi, the chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government committee, called the trend a national shame. Yet despite lamenting the 'all-too-common sight' of rough sleeping in its election manifesto, the government has done little, and its promised homelessness strategy is missing in action. The most puzzling aspect of the government's inaction is the notion that we don't know how to solve this. We do. Housing First is a tried-and-tested policy that flips traditional homelessness strategies on their head. Rather than require people to prove they are sober or employed before they are given shelter, Housing First finds them a tenancy with no strings attached. This is no charity. Recipients pay rent through wages or benefits, while support staff with manageable caseloads tailor assistance to individual requests. Their home is permanent, and recipients aren't shuffled through temporary housing bureaucracies. The results are stupendous. In pilot programmes in England the proportion of recipients without long-term accommodation fell from 86 per cent to 8 per cent, and those sleeping rough fell to zero. There were mental and physical health improvements, and contact with the criminal justice system fell — both as victims and offenders. I covered these benefits in detail last year. The success isn't limited to England. Scotland's Housing First programme maintained 80 per cent of tenancies after two years and had similar positive side effects. Finland, an early pioneer in providing shelter with no preconditions, has reduced long-term homelessness by 72 per cent. Similar successes have been recorded in the US, Canada, Norway and Denmark. • My council left me and my child homeless But for the cash-strapped Treasury, the most persuasive argument could be financial. Councils spent £2.3 billion on temporary accommodation last year, double the amount in 2020, with costs expected to double again by 2027. Add in £3.1 billion in homelessness-related costs, including healthcare and crime, and Britain's most visible injustice also becomes a financial quagmire. Analysis from the Social Market Foundation uses real-world data from England's pilot schemes. We estimate that housing 9,300 people — the peak last autumn — through Housing First would cost £72 million. That is probably an overestimate, since not everyone needs such support, but the costs are outweighed by the returns. An estimated £147 million in savings would be generated through improved wellbeing and reduced pressure on services. Housing First would cost no more than £43 million a year and would yield at least £66 million in savings; that means the government wasting less taxpayer money on inefficient services, while providing a home for those at the sharpest end of the housing crisis. However, dedicated funding is scarce. The money earmarked for Housing First is bundled up in a broader pot covering support for accommodation, prison leavers, immigration and training. This dilutes the resources needed to hire staff or secure tenancies — the foundation of a Housing First strategy. Both Matthew Torbitt and the man he spoke to found safety and dignity in a simple premise: housing without preconditions. The question is why others aren't being offered the same. Gideon Salutin is a senior researcher at the Social Market Foundation think tank