London to Switzerland direct?

[Sir Felix Pole]

In this respect it may be possible for both sides to have their cake and eat it. Given that the 400m rule is definitely not in force any more, an easy solution could be to run two 200m units and couple/uncouple en route, probably at Marne-la-Vallee unless there’s somewhere closer to the place where the Basel and Geneva routes diverge.

The LGV Est diverges before Marne-la-V however (if you are going to run to Basel via Strasbourg) - so would have to be CdeG or run via Dijon.

 

[stadler]

I really wish that Eurostar would consider stopping the train and doing border control onboard the train at the border. Services like this Switzerland one would be so much easier this way and it would make it more likely to be a successful service. I see no reason why they could not consider this for this new proposed Switzerland service.

This is how 99% of other international rail borders operate. For the Southbound trains you would do UK exit control at Cheriton and do Schengen entry control at Coquelles. For the Northbound trains you would do Schengen exit control at Coquelles and do UK entry control at Cheriton. This would slow down the journey but that would be made up by the fact that you could just arrive at the station five or ten minutes before your train departs. There would no longer be a need to arrive an hour early if they did border control onboard and scrapped security.

I think Eurostar really should consider this. It would make the Switzerland service so much easier and cheaper for Eurostar to operate and so much more attractive to passengers as they would no longer need to worry about spending money opening border posts in Switzerland or making passengers alight at Lille and go through passport control there. Stopping the train and doing it onboard at Cheriton and Coquelles seems like a much simpler option.

 

[Trainbike46]

I really wish that Eurostar would consider stopping the train and doing border control onboard the train at the border. Services like this Switzerland one would be so much easier this way and it would make it more likely to be a successful service. I see no reason why they could not consider this for this new proposed Switzerland service.

This is how 99% of other international rail borders operate. For the Southbound trains you would do UK exit control at Cheriton and do Schengen entry control at Coquelles. For the Northbound trains you would do Schengen exit control at Coquelles and do UK entry control at Cheriton. This would slow down the journey but that would be made up by the fact that you could just arrive at the station five or ten minutes before your train departs. There would no longer be a need to arrive an hour early if they did border control onboard and scrapped security.

I think Eurostar really should consider this. It would make the Switzerland service so much easier and cheaper for Eurostar to operate and so much more attractive to passengers as they would no longer need to worry about spending money opening border posts in Switzerland or making passengers alight at Lille and go through passport control there. Stopping the train and doing it onboard at Cheriton and Coquelles seems like a much simpler option.

So, you're suggesting stopping a train with 900 passengers, having border officials board, checking everyone's passports, having the border officials disembark, not once but twice?

That would either take an absolute army of border officials, or take way longer than the border checks currently do, extending journey times massively.

Regarding the advantages for extra/new destinations, what is the benefit over a Lille or Brussels shuffle?

 

[signed]

So, you're suggesting stopping a train with 900 passengers, having border officials board, checking everyone's passports, having the border officials disembark, not once but twice?

Crayon, but if you start from southern France or Switzerland you would have plenty of time to do onboard checks while the train is running before turfing out denied entry passengers at Lille. Would be very costly as the operator would likely need to cover the denied passenger journey back

 

[NCT]

Not to mention the security requirements of keeping said people detained on the train over those 2-3 hours and the associated cost of having sufficient 'little rooms' and staff required.

Are the border arrangements even in the gift of Eurostar? Or any part of the railway industry? Would the Home Office ever agree to onboard checks?

 

[RT4038]

Crayon, but if you start from southern France or Switzerland you would have plenty of time to do onboard checks while the train is running before turfing out denied entry passengers at Lille. Would be very costly as the operator would likely need to cover the denied passenger journey back

Sending the denied passenger back is often not immediately possible (due to them being a third country national, or disposing of their passport completely) .........

Are the border arrangements even in the gift of Eurostar? Or any part of the railway industry? Would the Home Office ever agree to onboard checks?

which is why the Home Office will not agree to onboard checks (plus the unreliability of on board live internet connection for the Officers' devices)

 

[Austriantrain]

Not to mention the security requirements of keeping said people detained on the train over those 2-3 hours and the associated cost of having sufficient 'little rooms' and staff required.

Are the border arrangements even in the gift of Eurostar? Or any part of the railway industry? Would the Home Office ever agree to onboard checks?

It is either a CBP outstation at the point of origin (Basle or Geneva), or a Lille shuffle.

 

[NCT]

Lille shuffle it'll be then.

 

[rvdborgt]

which is why the Home Office will not agree to onboard checks.

They did so in the 90s, but I guess times have changed.

 

[RT4038]

They did so in the 90s, but I guess times have changed.

Correct. As you say, times have changed.

 

[SHD]

Yeah, according to Jon Worth it'd be single-deck trains, mandatory reservation, and either non-stop or just Lille in France. With or without SNCF. I bet on without, SNCF is basically treating every cooperation awfully except DB.

Good luck to the bladder of the driver doing a nonstop [London] - Channel Tunnel - Switzerland run.

 

[RT4038]

Good luck to the bladder of the driver doing a nonstop [London] - Channel Tunnel - Switzerland run.

I should imagine there will almost certainly be a Lille stop.

 

[Austriantrain]

They did so in the 90s, but I guess times have changed.

Mostly, politics - especially UK politics - have changed.

 

[SHD]

I should imagine there will almost certainly be a Lille stop.

Absolutely, but the fact that Jon Worth reports that the option of a nonstop run through France is considered makes me think he may not be as well informed as some think on the operations of long-distance high-speed rail.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 May 2025 ==

I really wish that Eurostar would consider stopping the train and doing border control onboard the train at the border. Services like this Switzerland one would be so much easier this way and it would make it more likely to be a successful service. I see no reason why they could not consider this for this new proposed Switzerland service.

This is how 99% of other international rail borders operate. For the Southbound trains you would do UK exit control at Cheriton and do Schengen entry control at Coquelles. For the Northbound trains you would do Schengen exit control at Coquelles and do UK entry control at Cheriton. This would slow down the journey but that would be made up by the fact that you could just arrive at the station five or ten minutes before your train departs. There would no longer be a need to arrive an hour early if they did border control onboard and scrapped security.

I think Eurostar really should consider this. It would make the Switzerland service so much easier and cheaper for Eurostar to operate and so much more attractive to passengers as they would no longer need to worry about spending money opening border posts in Switzerland or making passengers alight at Lille and go through passport control there. Stopping the train and doing it onboard at Cheriton and Coquelles seems like a much simpler option.

I think we've already had that discussion and I remember suggesting stopping the train in the middle of the tunnel, where the actual border is, taking advantage of the crossovers. Or repurposing the 319s to be used as border shuttle trains between Calais-Fréthun and Folkestone.

 

[NCT]

Who wants to be the author of a risk assessment for conducting a time and space consuming activity with high chance of disturbance and violence in the middle of the Channel Tunnel?

 

[Austriantrain]

Lille shuffle it'll be then.

I would not be so sure - if SBB do it, they will want to do it right. If the economics stack up, they might well decide that a CBP outstation it is (provided the UK agrees to it of course). Having a Lille shuffle puts them at the mercy of SNCF Réseau and their ability to find 40 minutes of platform space for a service they will not particularly want. Being checked in Basle is much more attractive for passengers too. And while I doubt that the Swiss confederation will give SBB more than start-up support for such a service, all SBB will want is to break even. They do not have to maximize profit since they don't have to satisfy shareholders.

 

[RT4038]

Mostly, politics - especially UK politics - have changed.

Yes, although the flows of immigrants (quantity and nature) have also changed since that era.

Absolutely, but the fact that Jon Worth reports that the option of a nonstop run through France is considered makes me think he may not be as well informed as some think on the operations of long-distance high-speed rail.

To be fair, 'non-stop' may be 'no public stop'? Whatever you think of him, I don't think his reputation is necessarily trashed on this one point!

 

[Trainbike46]

I would not be so sure - if SBB do it, they will want to do it right. If the economics stack up, they might well decide that a CBP outstation it is (provided the UK agrees to it of course). Having a Lille shuffle puts them at the mercy of SNCF Réseau and their ability to find 40 minutes of platform space for a service they will not particularly want. Being checked in Basle is much more attractive for passengers too. And while I doubt that the Swiss confederation will give SBB more than start-up support for such a service, all SBB will want is to break even. They do not have to maximize profit since they don't have to satisfy shareholders.

SBB (or Eustar, or any other operator serving a new destination), would be eligible for the new service support scheme run by Getlink as well.

 

[SHD]

Yes, "non-stop" could indeed mean "no commercial stop, only technical" but that would really be a bizarre operation.

 

[NCT]

Yes, "non-stop" could indeed mean "no commercial stop, only technical" but that would really be a bizarre operation.

Doesn't the Paris - Berlin have a crew stop at Kassel or Gottingen or something?

I would not be so sure - if SBB do it, they will want to do it right. If the economics stack up, they might well decide that a CBP outstation it is (provided the UK agrees to it of course). Having a Lille shuffle puts them at the mercy of SNCF Réseau and their ability to find 40 minutes of platform space for a service they will not particularly want. Being checked in Basle is much more attractive for passengers too. And while I doubt that the Swiss confederation will give SBB more than start-up support for such a service, all SBB will want is to break even. They do not have to maximize profit since they don't have to satisfy shareholders.

What would a Basel outstation do that Lille doesn't? On the assumption that Zurich would be the true origin for most passengers, you are just changing the location of the shuffle. The routing for Geneva that makes more sense is LGV Sud Est.

I still think Switzerland - London is too thin a market to allow a train to wash its face without intra-Schengen passengers. Running the service as a Basel - Brussels and having passengers transferring onto an ordinary blue Eurostar gets around the 'sitting in the platform for 40 minutes' problem.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, "non-stop" could indeed mean "no commercial stop, only technical" but that would really be a bizarre operation.

'Bizarre'? Why so - just like an aeroplane in other words. As @NCT I'm not sure that there is sufficient market for a 500+ seater once per day from Basel or Geneva at those sort of journey and departure times?

 

[SHD]

Bizarre because like you I can’t see a market for a CH-UK direct train without intermediate commercial stops. Plus, the Home office would probably require that the platforms of the technical stop station are cordoned off anyway.

 

[RT4038]

Bizarre because like you I can’t see a market for a CH-UK direct train without intermediate commercial stops. Plus, the Home office would probably require that the platforms of the technical stop station are cordoned off anyway.

The stop doesn't have to be in a platform though, if it is just to change drivers.

 

[Austriantrain]

What would a Basel outstation do that Lille doesn't? On the assumption that Zurich would be the true origin for most passengers, you are just changing the location of the shuffle.

You will have to change trains in Basel anyway. So the checks might be done there as a matter of course. Lille would be an additional "train change".

Running the service as a Basel - Brussels and having passengers transferring onto an ordinary blue Eurostar gets around the 'sitting in the platform for 40 minutes' problem.

I would run it as Basel - Lille - Brussels with good connections at Lille to/from London, but then you have to rely on E* and we all know what they think of connections.

 

[SHD]

The stop doesn't have to be in a platform though, if it is just to change drivers.

Oh come on, you cannot be suggesting a LGV lineside driver change in the middle of nowhere or at one of the emergency platforms of the LGV, which are in the deepest middles of nowhere you can imagine.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Oh come on, you cannot be suggesting a LGV lineside driver change in the middle of nowhere or at one of the emergency platforms of the LGV, which are in the deepest middles of nowhere you can imagine.

Well if you can manage the rostering so that drivers never start or finish there, using emergency platforms would be doable if you put the right facilities in (no doubt with a suitable rental fee to SNCF Resau)

 

[RT4038]

Oh come on, you cannot be suggesting a LGV lineside driver change in the middle of nowhere or at one of the emergency platforms of the LGV, which are in the deepest middles of nowhere you can imagine.

It could be on the running line alongside Lille sidings, or at the Channel Tunnel entrance or some other junction etc. Not necessarily 'in the middle of nowhere' . It could be in Lille Europe secure station platform but without passengers being disturbed by travellers boarding and alighting.

 

[Austriantrain]

In this respect it may be possible for both sides to have their cake and eat it. Given that the 400m rule is definitely not in force any more, an easy solution could be to run two 200m units and couple/uncouple en route, probably at Marne-la-Vallee unless there’s somewhere closer to the place where the Basel and Geneva routes diverge.

Since I agree that the market might be too thin for nonstop Basel - London, what could be done is your proposal in Reverse: Two sets to Lile Europe, with the Front set going to London (Lille could be a technical stop only) and the rear one to Brussels and maybe Amsterdam. SNCB and NS International might even be open to a Cooperation.

 

[SHD]

It could be on the running line alongside Lille sidings, or at the Channel Tunnel entrance or some other junction etc. Not necessarily 'in the middle of nowhere' . It could be in Lille Europe secure station platform but without passengers being disturbed by travellers boarding and alighting.

Accessing Fives from the LGV is not trivial. No junction on a reasonable Switzerland - Lille route via LGV offers suitable facilities, or even the technical possibility for a driver change.

Realistically, a Switzerland - UK service - even from Basel - will require a driver change and this change will happen at a station, whether it's a technical stop or commercial stop.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Since I agree that the market might be too thin for nonstop Basel - London, what could be done is your proposal in Reverse: Two sets to Lile Europe, with the Front set going to London (Lille could be a technical stop only) and the rear one to Brussels and maybe Amsterdam. SNCB and NS International might even be open to a Cooperation.

That certainly would be a sensible option, as long as the Home Office can be satisfied that passengers in the two sets can be kept separate and that the London set can be kept secure if the train stops to pick up set down Schengen passengers at say Lyon or CDG.

Another option could be to have two trains with two units. One train from Basel and one from Geneva, each with a London half and a Brussels/Amsterdam half. Assuming you could find a suitable location you could do a shuffle of halves and send the two London units off together and the two Brussels/Amsterdam units a few minutes later.