Proposed new Channel Tunnel services discussion

[renegademaster]

It is not allowed to the Airlines, and isn't / wouldn't be allowed to E* either. That is unlikely to change in the current migration (in its widest sense) environment either.

UKBF allow airlines to let their own staff do the initial screening rather than insisting everywhere has an outpost of British Immigration officers

 

[stadler]

What really needs to happen is for Eurostar (and any new Channel Tunnel operators) to operate like 99% of other railway borders around the world and just stop the train twice (once on each side of the border) for border control. 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 (you would probably need to stop for at least thirty minutes on each side so about an hour total) 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 60 minutes to 90 minutes early if they did border control onboard and scrapped security.

Also the rules about security are nonsense. They should completely scrap security. It is nothing more than a theatre. It is even more bonkers when you realise that Eurotunnel car passengers (who go on trains through the same tunnel) do not have to go through security. Similarly car passengers on all the cross channel ferry routes do not have to go through security either. There is absolutely no need for security.

Doing this would solve so many of the issues that are preventing Eurostar from expanding and preventing other operators from starting new services. You would no longer have the issues of new Mainland Europe destinations needing border control and security set up. You would also no longer have all the London Saint Pancras capacity issues that they keep talking about. You no longer need all that extra space without border control and security. It seems like a no brainer but yet it never seems to be considered.

 

[zwk500]

What really needs to happen is for Eurostar (and any new Channel Tunnel operators) to operate like 99% of other railway borders around the world and just stop the train twice (once on each side of the border) for border control. 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 (you would probably need to stop for at least thirty minutes on each side so about an hour total) 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 60 minutes to 90 minutes early if they did border control onboard and scrapped security.

This would defeat the point of the high speed train though.

Also the rules about security are nonsense. They should completely scrap security. It is nothing more than a theatre. It is even more bonkers when you realise that Eurotunnel car passengers (who go on trains through the same tunnel) do not have to go through security. Similarly car passengers on all the cross channel ferry routes do not have to go through security either. There is absolutely no need for security.

Just because people don't have to unload their cars doesn't mean you don't go through some kind of security.

Doing this would solve so many of the issues that are preventing Eurostar from expanding and preventing other operators from starting new services. You would no longer have the issues of new Mainland Europe destinations needing border control and security set up. You would also no longer have all the London Saint Pancras capacity issues that they keep talking about. You no longer need all that extra space without border control and security. It seems like a no brainer but yet it never seems to be considered.

What you are proposing is essentially two Lille shuffles half an hour apart. Completely ruining any attraction for the train over flying.

 

[RT4038]

UKBF allow airlines to let their own staff do the initial screening rather than insisting everywhere has an outpost of British Immigration officers

Quite so. E* could do adopt this procedure if they so wished. But they don't because that initial screening still requires check in, luggage screening, sterile areas etc and immigration control on arrival in London, with the space requirement and delays to passenger journeys that would entail. Having British immigration officers at Paris, Brussels, Lille, Amsterdam etc adds little to the Check In procedure but is much quicker on alighting. Plus no need for a huge immigration hall at St Pancras (where would that go?)

What really needs to happen is for Eurostar (and any new Channel Tunnel operators) to operate like 99% of other railway borders around the world and just stop the train twice (once on each side of the border) for border control. 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 (you would probably need to stop for at least thirty minutes on each side so about an hour total) 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 60 minutes to 90 minutes early if they did border control onboard and scrapped security.

UK Border Agency would not agree to such an arrangement. E* would still have to check in and screen passengers before departure (there can be no possibility of an undocumented or incorrectly documented passenger arriving at Cheriton), so you would still have the check in and a minimum check in time. I doubt UKBA would agree to check passenger's passports in the carriages - they want passengers to present themselves standing at a counter / machine like the airlines, and they would want to check that no-one is hiding under seats etc, so it would have be empty carriages for that to happen. Quite aside from some passengers wanting to go to the toilet, the buffet car etc during the enforced stop. Nor will they want the inevitable confrontations with sometimes desperate people in amongst a load of seated passengers.
Why would E* want their trains to be delayed 60 minutes in each direction, costing more trains and staff and damaging their competive advantage over flying? Yes, some people turn up only 10 minutes before train departure, but most won't and will not appreciate the intermediate delay.

n each side so about an hour total) 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 60 minutes to 90 minutes early if they did border control onboard and scrapped security.

Also the rules about security are nonsense. They should completely scrap security. It is nothing more than a theatre. It is even more bonkers when you realise that Eurotunnel car passengers (who go on trains through the same tunnel) do not have to go through security. Similarly car passengers on all the cross channel ferry routes do not have to go through security either. There is absolutely no need for security.

Doing this would solve so many of the issues that are preventing Eurostar from expanding and preventing other operators from starting new services. You would no longer have the issues of new Mainland Europe destinations needing border control and security set up. You would also no longer have all the London Saint Pancras capacity issues that they keep talking about. You no longer need all that extra space without border control and security. It seems like a no brainer but yet it never seems to be considered.

You might think the security is all 'theatre' (a word commonly used to denigrate security checks everywhere) but so far it has prevented a bomb going off in a E* train in the tunnel or elsewhere. It will be a brave politician to take that decision to scrap it, and wobetide their conscience if an incident subsequently occurs.

What you suggest seems like a 'no-brainer' but of course it has been considered and ruled out by the people with the brains.

 

[Krokodil]

but so far it has prevented a bomb going off in a E* train in the tunnel or elsewhere

That no bomb has gone off in the tunnel doesn't automatically prove that the screening was responsible for preventing it. No high speed domestic trains have security screening, and none of them have been blown up either.

 

[stadler]

This would defeat the point of the high speed train though.

Just because people don't have to unload their cars doesn't mean you don't go through some kind of security.

What you are proposing is essentially two Lille shuffles half an hour apart. Completely ruining any attraction for the train over flying.

The train would still be high speed from London to Cheriton and from Cheriton to Coquelles and from Coquelles to Paris or Brussels or wherever. It does not really defeat the purpose of high speed. It is still a high speed train.

All the passengers would stay onboard the train and the border officers would walk the train and check passports. This is how 99% of railway borders operate around the world. So it would be nothing like the Lille shuffle. If enough border officers were employed then you could simply make it thirty minutes each side so one hour total. Anyone with invalid documents or without passports is simply made to alight at Cheriton or Coquelles and is refused entry.

For the Southbound trains you stop at Cheriton and border officers walk through the train and check passports and then you stop at Coquelles and border officers walk through the train and check passports. For the Northbound trains you stop at Coquelles and border officers walk through the train and check passports and then you stop at Cheriton and border officers walk through the train and check passports.

Quite so. E* could do adopt this procedure if they so wished. But they don't because that initial screening still requires check in, luggage screening, sterile areas etc and immigration control on arrival in London, with the space requirement and delays to passenger journeys that would entail. Having British immigration officers at Paris, Brussels, Lille, Amsterdam etc adds little to the Check In procedure but is much quicker on alighting. Plus no need for a huge immigration hall at St Pancras (where would that go?)


UK Border Agency would not agree to such an arrangement. E* would still have to check in and screen passengers before departure (there can be no possibility of an undocumented or incorrectly documented passenger arriving at Cheriton), so you would still have the check in and a minimum check in time. I doubt UKBA would agree to check passenger's passports in the carriages - they want passengers to present themselves standing at a counter / machine like the airlines, and they would want to check that no-one is hiding under seats etc, so it would have be empty carriages for that to happen. Quite aside from some passengers wanting to go to the toilet, the buffet car etc during the enforced stop. Nor will they want the inevitable confrontations with sometimes desperate people in amongst a load of seated passengers.
Why would E* want their trains to be delayed 60 minutes in each direction, costing more trains and staff and damaging their competive advantage over flying? Yes, some people turn up only 10 minutes before train departure, but most won't and will not appreciate the intermediate delay.


You might think the security is all 'theatre' (a word commonly used to denigrate security checks everywhere) but so far it has prevented a bomb going off in a E* train in the tunnel or elsewhere. It will be a brave politician to take that decision to scrap it, and wobetide their conscience if an incident subsequently occurs.

What you suggest seems like a 'no-brainer' but of course it has been considered and ruled out by the people with the brains.

What would be wrong with people without pasports or correct documents arriving at the border. All it would mean is that they would be kicked off at Cheriton or Coquelles before the train entered the tunnel. I can not see any issue with this.

I see no issue with checking passports onboard trains. It is very easy to check under seats for people hiding. It is not like the 373s and 374s have lots of hiding spaces. Hundreds of other railway border crossings around the world manage to do it.

Lots of places in the UK without security have never had a bomb go off in them. There is no evidence that the security has prevented a bomb in the tunnel. What about some of our major road tunnels and domestic railway tunnels that have never had a bomb go off in them and yet they have no security.

 

[Trainbike46]

I find it impressive how many people propose "solutions" that would just make the whole situation worse.

Stopping the train TWICE, to do full passport checks, instead of doing both in sequence at the departure point? Why would that be better in any way? It would massively extend journey times, and be very inconvenient for passengers. I also seriously doubt it would be cheaper.

While less extreme, having passengers go through checks (with eurostar staff) on departure, and then again (with UK border force personell) on arrival is just objectively worse for passengers than doing the checks once (with UKBF) on departure.

 

[RT4038]

All the passengers would stay onboard the train and the border officers would walk the train and check passports. This is how 99% of railway borders operate around the world.

Which Railway borders, with the level of paassenger traffic and the migration issues that the UK has, would they be then? Considering that E* operates roughly half of the daily long distance trains across 'hard' borders across the world, these other borders cannot be very significant?

TheIf enough border officers were employed then you could simply make it thirty minutes each side so one hour total. Anyone with invalid documents or without passports is simply made to alight at Cheriton or Coquelles and is refused entry.

For the Southbound trains you stop at Cheriton and border officers walk through the train and check passports and then you stop at Coquelles and border officers walk through the train and check passports. For the Northbound trains you stop at Coquelles and border officers walk through the train and check passports and then you stop at Cheriton and border officers walk through the train and check passports.


What would be wrong with people without pasports or correct documents arriving at the border. All it would mean is that they would be kicked off at Cheriton or Coquelles before the train entered the tunnel. I can not see any issue with this.

I don't think you quite understand the issue of undocumented passengers arriving at Cheriton and then immediately claiming asylum; or even if they don't 'losing' their passports and the French refusing to take them back. And because they have no passport, their home country refusing to take them back. All sadly a not uncommon occurrence.

I see no issue with checking passports onboard trains. It is very easy to check under seats for people hiding. It is not like the 373s and 374s have lots of hiding spaces. Hundreds of other railway border crossings around the world manage to do it.

Lots of places in the UK without security have never had a bomb go off in them. There is no evidence that the security has prevented a bomb in the tunnel. What about some of our major road tunnels and domestic railway tunnels that have never had a bomb go off in them and yet they have no security.

Where are these 'hundreds of other railway border crossings' ? There are very few railway border crossings of 'hard' borders (i.e. not Schengen internal borders) nowadays in the world. Just about all gone. I wonder why? Do you have any experience of border crossings currently operating elsewhere, with the level of use and migration issues of the Channel Tunnel railway?

There is no evidence to show that the security has failed to prevent a bomb in the tunnel either..... A lot of people would prefer safety rather than chance......

 

[NCT]

That no bomb has gone off in the tunnel doesn't automatically prove that the screening was responsible for preventing it. No high speed domestic trains have security screening, and none of them have been blown up either.

Besides, politicians took the 'brave' decision not to introduce security screening for the London Underground post 7/7.

 

[RT4038]

That no bomb has gone off in the tunnel doesn't automatically prove that the screening was responsible for preventing it.

Never said it did. But neither can it be proved that that the screening hasn't !

 

[zwk500]

Never said it did. But neither can it be proved that that the screening hasn't !

Don't the security services provide some high-level statistics on the screening at various points, usually when up before parliamentary scrutiny?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2025 ==

The train would still be high speed from London to Cheriton and from Cheriton to Coquelles and from Coquelles to Paris or Brussels or wherever. It does not really defeat the purpose of high speed. It is still a high speed train.

I don't quite think you've grasped the concept of '0mph' being very much not a high speed.

 

[signed]

The train would still be high speed from London to Cheriton and from Cheriton to Coquelles and from Coquelles to Paris or Brussels or wherever. It does not really defeat the purpose of high speed. It is still a high speed train.

Yes it does, you would be making any advantage the train has go to the dumpster. And we are talking about 1000+ seat trains, it's not a 300 people sleeper like in most comparable countries.

In the current political climate, there are simply no good answer

 

[popeter45]

In the current political climate, there are simply no good answer

end of the day once you weigh up the pros/cons and think on a political scale not personal one, juxaposed control ends up as the best option despite what people say

yes its open to tweeks, but wholescale replacement just throws up too many issues to resolve for the lack of actual improvement

 

[signed]

end of the day once you weigh up the pros/cons and think on a political scale not personal one, juxaposed control ends up as the best option despite what people say

Fully agree

 

[Trainbike46]

end of the day once you weigh up the pros/cons and think on a political scale not personal one, juxaposed control ends up as the best option despite what people say

yes its open to tweeks, but wholescale replacement just throws up too many issues to resolve for the lack of actual improvement

Agreed; Juxtaposed is the best option if it is deemed essential to have border controls

 

[renegademaster]

What the government needs to be approaching the EU for is the price it will cost for asylum seekers that present themselves at STP to be accepted back by the EU. I don't believe they'd be so dogmatic to never allow it, it's a different situation to the channel, since currently zero are taking this route and it won't dispalce any extra load upon them.

The awkward part is trying to trace the country of origin of the returnees, but you could do that with facial/gait recognition as part of the CCTV to get on the trains

 

[JamesT]

What the government needs to be approaching the EU for is the price it will cost for asylum seekers that present themselves at STP to be accepted back by the EU. I don't believe they'd be so dogmatic to never allow it, it's a different situation to the channel, since currently zero are taking this route and it won't dispalce any extra load upon them.

The awkward part is trying to trace the country of origin of the returnees, but you could do that with facial/gait recognition as part of the CCTV to get on the trains

Relatively few people try through the tunnel because of the security measures that are in place.
As we've seen from the recent "deal" signed with the French, the expectation will be that we take an equal number of migrants for any that we send back. Why would we want to sign up for that when we can stop them at source with the juxtaposed border control?

 

[renegademaster]

Relatively few people try through the tunnel because of the security measures that are in place.
As we've seen from the recent "deal" signed with the French, the expectation will be that we take an equal number of migrants for any that we send back. Why would we want to sign up for that when we can stop them at source with the juxtaposed border control?

If anyone who presented themselves at St Pancras got returned on the next train nobody would try either. I know that isn't presently the case but it's something that could be negotiated with the EU.

 

[zwk500]

If anyone who presented themselves at St Pancras got returned on the next train nobody would try either. I know that isn't presently the case but it's something that could be negotiated with the EU.

Can somebody who presented themselves at St Pancras and immediately applied to claim Asylum legally be returned on the next train?

 

[renegademaster]

Can somebody who presented themselves at St Pancras and immediately applied to claim Asylum legally be returned on the next train?

Not presently as the EU wouldn't take them, but if a narrow agreement could be worked out it would be no different morally than the Dublin returns

 

[NCT]

If anyone who presented themselves at St Pancras got returned on the next train nobody would try either. I know that isn't presently the case but it's something that could be negotiated with the EU.

You still need an arrival hall for that, and there's no space at St Pancras.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jul 2025 ==

Not presently as the EU wouldn't take them, but if a narrow agreement could be worked out it would be no different morally than the Dublin returns

I think the question isn't whether EU would or wouldn't take them, but whether under international law the UK would have to process that asylum claim.

 

[renegademaster]

I think the question isn't whether EU would or wouldn't take them, but whether under international law the UK would have to process that asylum claim.

The Dublin agreement allowed us to not process some asylum claims made on our soil but passed our courts

 

[Chester1]

To be able to do that you need the British government to change a very long-standing policy in favour of less secure borders, and that's not going to happen in the current political climate.

In summary, 'get them to London and ask questions later' won't work under the current political climate.

It is not allowed to the Airlines, and isn't / wouldn't be allowed to E* either. That is unlikely to change in the current migration (in its widest sense) environment either.

Its not just about the current political environment. The mid 90s was a pretty good environment for border controls to be created and the UK and France the chose the current setup. The political environment and migration patterns would need to not just improve, they would need to become better than they were 30 years ago.

end of the day once you weigh up the pros/cons and think on a political scale not personal one, juxaposed control ends up as the best option despite what people say.

yes its open to tweeks, but wholescale replacement just throws up too many issues to resolve for the lack of actual improvement

Fully agree.

What the government needs to be approaching the EU for is the price it will cost for asylum seekers that present themselves at STP to be accepted back by the EU. I don't believe they'd be so dogmatic to never allow it, it's a different situation to the channel, since currently zero are taking this route and it won't dispalce any extra load upon them.

The awkward part is trying to trace the country of origin of the returnees, but you could do that with facial/gait recognition as part of the CCTV to get on the trains

This won't happen. EU member states have a nightmare transferring an illegal migrant or asylum seeker to another member. When the UK was a member the number of returns were truely pathetic (around 1% of irregular migration). I knew someone who was fingerprinted in Hungary and they just point blank refused to take him. Nice chap and worked out well for him but a good example of why the Dublin protocols were a joke. The new distribution system isn't shaping up much better. If the EU can't do it internally, they won't be able or willing to do it with an external country.

The Dublin agreement allowed us to not process some asylum claims made on our soil but passed our courts

In theory yes, in reality it was marginally better than useless. Its better than no agreement but sending 1000 people to the EU each year won't move the dial on border controls. Everything will still be based around controlling numbers to a tolerable level through doing everything possible to prevent people entering the UK to claim.

 

[Krokodil]

Never said it did.

Your words were:

but so far it has prevented a bomb going off in a E* train in the tunnel or elsewhere.

 

[Snow1964]

Now been revealed the border control (biometric photo and 4 fingerprints) at European borders will start 12th October at limited number of border points, more coming on stream over next 180 days, all in use by 9th April 2026. In meantime during transition passport stamps required.

The ETIAS European visa will now start Autumn 2026, but will be optional for initial 6 months through to spring 2027. Expected to be €20 (about £17). Maybe extra cost of going on holiday will change some minds about if UK outside Schengen is good idea

I suspect both will be in full use before any services to additional destinations actually start

 

[RT4038]

Your words were:

Yes, it would have been better if I had said 'Never implied that', which is what I meant. Sorry.

I do believe that the security arrangements are a major factor in preventing a bomb going off (or a hostage situation or similar) on E*- the evidence being that it hasn't happened yet. Yes, there is the slight possibility that it has never occurred to anyone to commit such a deed; however bombs have been detonated on other trains in tunnels in the UK where there is no security screening. And yes, I am sure someone very very determined could do so in spite of the security screening. However the screening may well act as a major deterrent.

People are well used to the screening - it is in use at all Airports of any size and I don't think it is of any real inconvenience on E* (which is really arranged as a large aeroplane running on a track) Talking to a teenager on a domestic long distance train the other day - making a train journey for the first time but had made many, many aeroplane journeys already, complaining about the unpleasant scrum and melee of train travel, and lack of security, in comparison.

I realise that bombs have not yet been detonated in an Alpine tunnel, and I sincerely hope it never happens; but having got used to E* security I'm quite happy for it to continue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Jul 2025 ==

The ETIAS European visa will now start Autumn 2026, but will be optional for initial 6 months through to spring 2027. Expected to be €20 (about £17). Maybe extra cost of going on holiday will change some minds about if UK outside Schengen is good idea

A vanishing small number of minds will be changed by this - £17 over several years is hardly a deterrent figure. Maybe some of those who are put through additional hoops because of past records? Does anyone not go on holiday to Australia or the US purely because of the Electronic Visa charge as the straw that breaks the camels back? I really doubt it.

 

[D6130]

realise that bombs have not yet been detonated in an Alpine tunnel, and I sincerely hope it never happens; but having got used to E* security I'm quite happy for it to continue.

Bombs have however been detonated in long tunnels in Italy during the 1980s, resulting in multiple fatalities and serious injuries. They were on routes which didn't have - and still don't have - baggage security checks. However the Spanish are more circumspect with their high speed trains.

 

[Krokodil]

however bombs have been detonated on other trains in tunnels in the UK where there is no security screening.

On just one date way back in 2005. In the 20 years since neither London Underground nor any other domestic operator has seen fit to introduce bag checks (save for confiscating alcohol from Geordie oil rig workers on certain departures from Aberdeen). Other than Spain (who are thinking of removing them) no other trains in Europe are subject to such checks, even those passing through longer tunnels.

 

[RT4038]

On just one date way back in 2005. In the 20 years since neither London Underground nor any other domestic operator has seen fit to introduce bag checks (save for confiscating alcohol from Geordie oil rig workers on certain departures from Aberdeen). Other than Spain (who are thinking of removing them) no other trains in Europe are subject to such checks, even those passing through longer tunnels.

I understand your point, but I am quite happy for the E* security screening to remain, and I think there is little impetus for its removal.

 

[Chester1]

A vanishing small number of minds will be changed by this - £17 over several years is hardly a deterrent figure. Maybe some of those who are put through additional hoops because of past records? Does anyone not go on holiday to Australia or the US purely because of the Electronic Visa charge as the straw that breaks the camels back? I really doubt it.

You don't understand. Schengen is as much of an ideological project as a practical. Any inconvenience, no matter how small is a justification for membership. Some people will never be happy with the UK when its just the UK. I agree €17 for 3 years access is less than most people will pay for in-flight snacks during that period. Its only paid by 18 to 69 year olds. Children and age 70+ require authorisation but its free.

There is a possibility that UK and EU could waive fees for each other's citizens aged 18-69, putting the cost of running the systems onto fee paid by long haul passengers.