Runways to railways: why the UK needs an international rail strategy

23 April 2025  |  Stephen Goss  |  Rail

Despite public support for sustainable travel, flying still accounts for nearly three-quarters of all trips between the UK and the Continent. Whilst Eurostar’s launch sparked excitement and passenger numbers rose steadily, peaking at nearly eleven million per year before the pandemic, fewer than half of the available passenger train paths through the Channel Tunnel are being used. Freight is even worse, with just ten per cent of capacity currently taken up.

The potential for growth is enormous. Our latest research shows that if the barriers to international rail were addressed, and the network allowed to grow, demand could rise to 29 million passengers annually by 2040. This is more than double current numbers. That shift could eliminate millions of short-haul flights, removing the need for airport expansion, as well as saving significant carbon emissions and delivering up to £1 billion a year in tourism spend for the British economy.

The environmental case is clear: short-haul flights emit up to 17 times more CO₂ per passenger than high-speed rail. But this isn’t just about carbon. It’s also about comfort, convenience, and connections.

At the moment, Eurostar is the only passenger operator running services through the Channel Tunnel. While providing an excellent service, with no competition, fares remain high, and expansion has stalled. However, this isn’t because of lack of interest. It has been due to structural barriers that discouraged new entrants, including high access charges, limited depot and stabling availability, and overly restrictive tunnel safety rules that have required bespoke (and therefore expensive) rolling stock. These barriers have created a closed market, with little incentive to expand services or reduce fares. Worse, since the Pandemic, routes to the south of France and Disneyland Paris have disappeared, and Ashford and Ebbsfleet International stations remain closed. Meanwhile, Stratford International – built to accommodate international trains – has never been used for that purpose.

We need a clear strategy from the Government, one that takes international rail seriously as part of the wider transport picture. The UK is currently undergoing once-in-a-generation rail reform, bringing domestic services back under public control and creating a new body, Great British Railways, to oversee infrastructure and operations. This is a major opportunity to reset the way our railways work, yet international rail has been left entirely outside this process. That oversight must be corrected. We need international rail to be integrated into the country’s long-term rail reform plans. There is untapped potential, and the steps to unlock it are clear.

Reopening Ashford and Ebbsfleet would give communities outside London direct access to the Continent, supporting tourism, local economies and modal shift. Stratford could help relieve pressure on St Pancras and expand the catchment area for international rail to Essex, East Anglia, and beyond. Infrastructure managers, with government support, must take the lead in making this a reality.

The cost of track access, among the highest in Europe – though recently reduced to encourage new operators – must be kept down. The Government and the Office of Rail and Road must work together to ensure fair access to infrastructure such as the Temple Mills depot, and offer credit guarantees to new entrants to reduce the financial risk of investing in rolling stock. In Spain, opening up high-speed routes to competition has seen fares fall by 40 per cent and passenger numbers rise by nearly 30 per cent. These steps would encourage open access operators, just as we’ve seen in the domestic market with Lumo and Hull Trains. This competition on the East Coast Main Line means that the majority of journeys between London and Edinburgh are now by train.

One of the key advantages of international rail (ease of travel) is currently undermined by cumbersome departure procedures. At St Pancras, passengers face airport-style security and double passport checks, eroding rail’s edge over flying. These procedures are not inevitable. In 2008, I travelled from Helsinki to Hong Kong entirely by train – across four borders, without once having to go through airport-style security. No scanners, no queues, and no doubled passport stamps. Visas were checked onboard trains. The contrast with today’s experience at St Pancras couldn’t be starker. This is the result of outdated legislation and rigid operating models. Smarter, more automated checks, and the use of pre-clearance and digital information sharing could speed up boarding. If rail is to compete with air, it must be simpler to use.

A common complaint among those who want to travel abroad by train is the limited number of destinations. This is a solvable problem. Across the Continent, new direct services are launching at a steady pace. Passengers can travel from Paris to Berlin, Zurich to Rome, Vienna to Amsterdam – often on comfortable overnight trains. Sweden is backing night trains to Brussels. New operators are thriving, showing that when rail is affordable, reliable, and well-integrated, people will choose it. While international rail in the UK stagnates, elsewhere it is expanding and innovating. The UK should be working closely with EU partners and operators for more direct services between London and Frankfurt, Geneva, Zurich and Cologne. There is demand – what’s needed is political will and international collaboration.

Rail travel from Britain to the Continent often requires separate tickets, awkward transfers, and long waits. This lack of integration is a major deterrent; a single ticket from Birmingham to Berlin shouldn’t be an impossible ask. UK and European operators should collaborate to improve scheduling and simplify ticketing. Other countries have already achieved this: Sweden is leading the way – it is time we caught up.

Finally, we need to make international rail more attractive, which means addressing the unfair pricing imbalance between rail and air. Aviation benefits from tax exemptions on fuel and VAT, while rail operators face high electricity costs and track access charges. The result? Passengers are often forced to choose the cheaper but less pleasant, and more polluting option. The Government should consider a fairer taxation system that reflects the environmental costs of flying, alongside targeted support to reduce the cost of international rail. Promoting rail’s benefits through public campaigns, encouraging businesses to adopt ‘train-first’ travel policies for journeys under five hours, and improving domestic connections to international hubs will all help drive demand and support modal shift.

With the UK’s railways undergoing reform, international rail must be part of that future. A thriving international rail market would offer people a real alternative to flying – one that’s better for the planet, better for passengers, and better for the economy. We’ve got the tracks. We’ve got the tunnel. We’ve got the public appetite. Now all we need is the plan. Let’s not leave international rail stuck in the sidings for another thirty years.

Read our latest report Runways to railways: unlocking the potential of the Channel Tunnel

Title image: Frederic Köberl via Unsplash