Examples of trains that pass through other countries without stopping and without formalities

[The exile]

If google maps is to be believed (If!) then it looks as if the border/boundary ran along a river that has subsequently changed its course, either by nature or by art. There are countless examples of parish boundaries in this country that have wiggled through fields for centuries for the same reason. Only when that “parish boundary” is suddenly promoted to the status of an international frontier does it matter (and is the probably put in the “too difficult” drawer to sort out later unless there’s a very pressing reason to do something).

 

[zwk500]

If google maps is to be believed (If!) then it looks as if the border/boundary ran along a river that has subsequently changed its course, either by nature or by art.

There are many cases of this happening. The river moving (or, less often, being moved) away rom the border has been a key part of quite a few of the exclave/enclave territorial disputes over the years.

Remember that without human interventions, rivers will generally not stay in one location for that long. They are constantly eroding and depositing material all along their course. A border fixed along the thalweg of 100 years ago will have significant areas of variance today.

 

[zero]

Though many of those crossings are incidental, for only a few meters at a time. You have to wonder why they didn't make the border follow the railway slightly more cohesively...

The border follows the old course of the river Sotla/Sutla, while the river has changed course. The railway only crosses the river once.

The former railway from Harmica (HR) to Imeno (SI) also follows this river, and crossed the border 27 times, however it did cross the actual river a number of times too. There may be a long term plan to re-lay the tracks and resume service on this route.

Other parts of the Slovenia/Croatia border have the same problem. It would probably make sense to move the border to the current course of each river involved, given that over time rivers tend to straighten out and modern engineering can reduce the natural processes that cause the changes. But it appears that agreement cannot be reached, perhaps because of land ownership etc.

 

[The exile]

There are many cases of this happening. The river moving (or, less often, being moved) away rom the border has been a key part of quite a few of the exclave/enclave territorial disputes over the years.

Remember that without human interventions, rivers will generally not stay in one location for that long. They are constantly eroding and depositing material all along their course. A border fixed along the thalweg of 100 years ago will have significant areas of variance today.

Ironically, it’s an issue exacerbated by mapping. “The border runs down the middle of the river” as a statement is flexible - a line on a map isn’t.

 

[zwk500]

Ironically, it’s an issue exacerbated by mapping. “The border runs down the middle of the river” as a statement is flexible - a line on a map isn’t.

Indeed!

 

[A S Leib]

Taking an example where the lines aren't drawn, who's responsible for crimes committed on ferries on the Bodensee, given that I don't think Germany, Austria or Switzerland claim the entirety of it?

 

[The exile]

Taking an example where the lines aren't drawn, who's responsible for crimes committed on ferries on the Bodensee, given that I don't think Germany, Austria or Switzerland claim the entirety of it?

Presumably the same rules apply as with any vessel in international waters - whatever they are.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

From Wikipedia:

The lake lies where the countries of Austria, Germany, and Switzerland meet.[36] Beyond areas less than 25 m (82 ft) deep, considered to be under the jurisdiction of the nearest country, there is no legally binding agreement as to where the borders lie between the three countries.[36][37] However, Switzerland holds the view that the border runs through the middle of the lake, Austria is of the opinion that the contentious area belongs to all the states on its banks, which is known as a "condominium", and Germany holds an ambiguous opinion.[36][38] Legal questions pertaining to ship transport and fishing are regulated in separate treaties.

Disputes occasionally arise. One concerns a houseboat which was moored in two states (ECJ c. 224/97 Erich Ciola); another concerns the rights to fish in the Bay of Bregenz. In relation to the latter, an Austrian family was of the opinion that it alone had the right to fish in broad portions of the bay. However, this was accepted neither by the Austrian courts nor by the organs and courts of the other states.[39]

Lake Constance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cloud Strife]

Two Austrian police officers on duty are travelling by train from Kufstein to Salzburg. As the train crosses the border an incident occurs which would warrant the drawing of firearms - are they permitted to or not. I don’t know the answer - but the mere fact that the question arises means it would require an agreement / treaty to cover it.

Schengen has a rule about "hot pursuit", specifically that police officers from a neighbouring country are permitted to travel inside a neighbouring country in order to detain a suspect. I forget the specifics, but it's along the lines that they're allowed to operate as if they were in their own country, as long as they immediately inform the police force in the 'host' country. I think each country implements their own version of it, so for instance, Latvia allows neighbouring countries to carry out the pursuit for up to an hour.

Having said that, it's unlikely that they would be allowed to travel with firearms on duty on the train. If it was needed, it's more likely that there would be a joint German-Austrian patrol to avoid any sort of legal doubts.

The reason for this was that the short strip of railway land was in "Republika Srpska", a lawless enclave run mainly by militias, where simply not being a Serb was reason enough to kill you.

One thing I'd correct here: the Republika Srpska wasn't lawless, as they had a functioning (paramilitary) police service that still carried out normal civilian policing duties. It was largely based on the structure of the old Yugoslav Militsiya, and they did function normally alongside their role in enabling terror and ethnic cleansing. It was lawless in the sense of the police and the VRS (Army of the Republika Srpska) being subject to military and not civilian oversight, and that many crimes were simply not investigated properly, but they still regularly carried out normal policing duties among the population of the RS.

Although Schengen may have rendered many of the formal legalities moot, there must still be regulations to cover events such as a death in the train occurring or a crime being committed while in transit. Being by nature in border areas there is likely these days to be a great deal of cooperation between police forces but it does somewhere have to be laid down which jurisdiction applies (and in what circumstances).

Generally speaking, the trains are considered having entered the other jurisdiction. So for instance, if a crime occurs on the line between Hradek nad Nisou and Zittau while in Polish territory, it's Poland's job to sort it out.

This also seems apply to the direct RE and IC not only the S9. Which in case of the direct train is kinda ridiculous and no one in their right mind would get proper Schengen documentation when traveling to Schaffhausen. Chances of being checked are zero too.

From what I understand, there is a treaty between Switzerland and Germany that treats the direct trains as never leaving the Swiss customs territory and allows for travellers to move between Schaffhausen and the rest of Switzerland without requiring documentation for entering Germany.

 

[AdamWW]

Although Schengen may have rendered many of the formal legalities moot, there must still be regulations to cover events such as a death in the train occurring or a crime being committed while in transit. Being by nature in border areas there is likely these days to be a great deal of cooperation between police forces but it does somewhere have to be laid down which jurisdiction applies (and in what circumstances).

I don't see why there has to be any special legislation.

Just because a train exits a country and re-enters with the same set of passengers doesn't mean it can't be treated like any other international train.

If someone dies on the train, it can be dealt with by whichever country the train is at the time as with any international train.

(And indeed if they're removed from the train having died in the "transit" country, they never do re-enter the original one so it's exactly as if they were just on a regular international train).

 

[Golghar]

Switzerland has been part of the Schengen area for some time but it remains outside the EU so some customs rules still apply. This includes the amount of undeclared currency one can carry across the border. This was what kicked off the Gurlitt affair some years ago.

 

[AdamWW]

Switzerland has been part of the Schengen area for some time but it remains outside the EU so some customs rules still apply. This includes the amount of undeclared currency one can carry across the border. This was what kicked off the Gurlitt affair some years ago.

There are of course still customs restrictions which apply when crossing borders within the EU, such as on goods subject to excise duty.

 

[The exile]

I don't see why there has to be any special legislation.

Just because a train exits a country and re-enters with the same set of passengers doesn't mean it can't be treated like any other international train.

If someone dies on the train, it can be dealt with by whichever country the train is at the time as with any international train.

(And indeed if they're removed from the train having died in the "transit" country, they never do re-enter the original one so it's exactly as if they were just on a regular international train).

The whole point of corridor trains was that there were special arrangements made by treaty. Modern rapprochement has rendered a lot of these arrangements superfluous (at least as far as the normal passenger is concerned) but they still exist - if they do not, then these trains are normal international passenger trains, not “corridor trains”.

 

[AdamWW]

The whole point of corridor trains was that there were special arrangements made by treaty. Modern rapprochement has rendered a lot of these arrangements superfluous (at least as far as the normal passenger is concerned) but they still exist - if they do not, then these trains are normal international passenger trains, not “corridor trains”.

Yes Exactly.

I had assumed that post-Schengen these trains had indeed become treated as regular international trains.

I may well be wrong and they still operate under a special treaty (so that, for example, you don't get edge cases such as people being technically unable to legally transport products that would be liable to excise duty).

However, post Schengen they clearly no longer need special consideration in order to operate without having to show a passport at both borders.

Is there anything in timetables or other customer-facing literature informing them that these trains have a special status?

 

[The exile]

Yes Exactly.

I had assumed that post-Schengen these trains had indeed become treated as regular international trains.

I may well be wrong and they still operate under a special treaty (so that, for example, you don't get edge cases such as people being technically unable to legally transport products that would be liable to excise duty).

However, post Schengen they clearly no longer need special consideration in order to operate without having to show a passport at both borders.

Is there anything in timetables or other customer-facing literature informing them that these trains have a special status?

I still suspect that agreements must exist regarding things like police powers. Leaving aside the question of firearms - can an Austrian police officer who spots a pickpocket up to their tricks between Kufstein & Salzburg perform an arrest? No “hot pursuit” here (as the train was already in Germany when the offence was committed). Next stop Austria, by which time s/he can’t arrest as the crime wasn’t committed on Austrian soil. Can’t stop the train (no authority to do so in a foreign country). Note - we’re not talking about intentional patrol (which could be dual national) just police who happen to be on the train for other reasons. If there are agreements in place to cover this kind of thing which don’t apply to (for example) trains stopping at Salzburg and Freilassing - (and I think there will be - if for no other reason than that there were and there will have been no reason to abolish them) then it’s a corridor train.

 

[AdamWW]

I still suspect that agreements must exist regarding things like police powers. Leaving aside the question of firearms - can an Austrian police officer who spots a pickpocket up to their tricks between Kufstein & Salzburg perform an arrest? No “hot pursuit” here (as the train was already in Germany when the offence was committed). Next stop Austria, by which time s/he can’t arrest as the crime wasn’t committed on Austrian soil. Can’t stop the train (no authority to do so in a foreign country). Note - we’re not talking about intentional patrol (which could be dual national) just police who happen to be on the train for other reasons. If there are agreements in place to cover this kind of thing which don’t apply to (for example) trains stopping at Salzburg and Freilassing - (and I think there will be - if for no other reason than that there were and there will have been no reason to abolish them) then it’s a corridor train.

All good points. (Though I'd stick to my argument that while there may be good reasons for them to be treated differently, none of them make it essential).

But instead of us speculating can anyone actually answer the question of what the legal status of the trains is these days?

 

[zero]

Switzerland has been part of the Schengen area for some time but it remains outside the EU so some customs rules still apply. This includes the amount of undeclared currency one can carry across the border. This was what kicked off the Gurlitt affair some years ago.

Not really. While there are no proactive cash declaration requirements for Switzerland, and the EU requires a proactive declaration if you are carrying more than €10000, it was reported that Herr Gurlitt was only transporting €9000 in cash.

So he was not obliged to declare it on entering the EU, but encountered a spot check where he was asked how much cash he had. He answered truthfully, but apparently in an evasive manner, so the customs officers decided to investigate further. If he had been carrying only €2000 and been evasive, the officials may have made the same decision.

Furthermore, it was reported that Herr Gurlitt took a train from Zurich to Munich, and was checked upon entering Germany. The likely route of that train would have been through Liechtenstein without stopping (it's unclear whether that country counts as part of Switzerland for the purposes of declaring cash, but immaterial to this case) and then into Austria, where he would have already entered the EU. It was not Switzerland being outside the EU that prompted the customs check.

The GB cash declaration limit is £10000. I was carrying £3000 so was not required to make a proactive declaration, but I was stopped for a spot check and had to answer truthfully. I was then held up and interrogated further. In retrospect, I believe this was a training exercise for new officers.

 

[izvor]

One thing I'd correct here: the Republika Srpska wasn't lawless...

Just to point out that the Republika Srpska still exists, as one of the constituents of Bosnia & Herzegovina.

 

[rf_ioliver]

After WW2 the Soviet Union took over the Finland navy base of Porkkola west of Helsinki, whose land included the main line from Helsinki to Turku. Although there were no formalities for the passengers, screens were put up over all the windows at the border line, and Soviet troops manned every carriage door. Locos were changed to Soviet ones sent specially for this; as there were no turntables they had to work tender-first half the time. The transit only took about 20 minutes, no stopping, at the exit border screens were removed and locos changed again.

Here are the Soviet troops placing the covers over the train windows:

Porkkala Naval Base - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 1956 the Soviets left and the area reverted to Finland, no more controls. It was then apparent that nothing had been built visible from the line, which as always ran entirely through forest closely on both sides.

3 trains in each direction per day. The border points were Kauklahti station - now part of the Helsinki commuter lines - and Tähtelä, a small station which closed to passengers in 1993. My father-in-law travelled through the "tunnel" quite a few times. I also have relatives whose homes were returned to them after the Soviets left - a lot of repairs were required. There was a turntable at Kirkkonummi IIRC, would have to check - and certainly at Karjaa, though it seems the Soviet locomotives never strayed outside of their area.

The line actually goes through and area of quite extensive crop growing area rather than thick forest - probably some of the most extensive view of Finland from a train.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The likely route of that train would have been through Liechtenstein without stopping (it's unclear whether that country counts as part of Switzerland for the purposes of declaring cash

Liechtenstein is in a customs union with Switzerland, and Switzerland handles customs affairs for them.

Leaving aside the question of firearms - can an Austrian police officer who spots a pickpocket up to their tricks between Kufstein & Salzburg perform an arrest? No “hot pursuit” here (as the train was already in Germany when the offence was committed). Next stop Austria, by which time s/he can’t arrest as the crime wasn’t committed on Austrian soil.

So, in practice, what would happen:

- Austrian police would arrest the offender, which is permitted under German law (they have the concept of citizen arrest).
- They would be removed from the train at the first stop in Austria, where they would immediately contact their German peers.
- The offender would be taken to the German border to formally complete the arrest by the German police, based on the evidence provided by their Austrian counterparts.

It would be a legal fiction of sorts: the offender would never have entered Austria legally, as they would have been detained in Germany.

But instead of us speculating can anyone actually answer the question of what the legal status of the trains is these days?

Legally, they still operate under the relevant laws/treaties that regulate corridor trains if they operate as one.

The GB cash declaration limit is £10000. I was carrying £3000 so was not required to make a proactive declaration, but I was stopped for a spot check and had to answer truthfully. I was then held up and interrogated further. In retrospect, I believe this was a training exercise for new officers.

The UK is quite draconian in this sense: if you don't tell the truth when asked, they tend to confiscate everything, and you can go to court to get it back if you can prove that it was legitimately acquired. It's often used in airport departure lounges against solo travellers, because someone travelling with several thousand in cash is likely to have avoided paying tax on it at some point.

 

[Austriantrain]

The situation that occurred to me is the following (we’ll assume the Austrian transit route via Germany as its long enough for incidents to arise):
Are Austrian police officers authorised to carry and if necessary deploy firearms on Austrian territory? Yes.
On German territory without special agreement - AFAIK no.
Two Austrian police officers on duty are travelling by train from Kufstein to Salzburg. As the train crosses the border an incident occurs which would warrant the drawing of firearms - are they permitted to or not. I don’t know the answer - but the mere fact that the question arises means it would require an agreement / treaty to cover it.

I don‘t see a situation where Austrian police can formally be on duty between Salzburg and Kufstein. AFAIK carrying arms by police and Army requires prior permission from Germany, and they will be off-duty. If something happens on German territory, German laws apply and German authorities are in charge.

 

[XAM2175]

There has been an awful lot of detail given in responses to your question but, put simply, in the majority of cases Corridor trains (the simple English term) exist(ed) where country borders changed for political reasons after the railways were built. The classic European examples have been listed above, ie lines which when built were wholly within one country but aftermath of geopolitical change altered the boundaries.

Only when that “parish boundary” is suddenly promoted to the status of an international frontier does it matter (and is the probably put in the “too difficult” drawer to sort out later unless there’s a very pressing reason to do something).

Such as when one of the minor historical boundaries crossed by the Bebra–Göttingen line became the Inner German Border in 1945 - though in that case the Americans were, rather surprisingly, able to talk the Russians into moving the border.

 

[The exile]

Such as when one of the minor historical boundaries crossed by the Bebra–Göttingen line became the Inner German Border in 1945 - though in that case the Americans were, rather surprisingly, able to talk the Russians into moving the border.

The East Germans were faced with a similar problem not that far away on the line between Bebra and Gerstungen but came up with a different solution - namely to build a new stretch of line. The single, steeply graded line over the Dietrichsberg unsurprisingly didn’t survive reunification by more than a couple of years.

 

[Beebman]

The East Germans were faced with a similar problem not that far away on the line between Bebra and Gerstungen but came up with a different solution - namely to build a new stretch of line. The single, steeply graded line over the Dietrichsberg unsurprisingly didn’t survive reunification by more than a couple of years.

I've attached part of a 1967 area map from Wikipedia which shows the situation quite clearly - it depicts the original route via Wommen and Herleshausen (which for a time were DR-owned stations on West German territory) and the new line via Dietrichsberg (which I rode on during a Plandampf in 1992). Note that the section of line from Gerstungen westwards to Bebra briefly passed through a neck of GDR territory after having crossed the main border.

Of interest further south from there on the map is the area around Phillippsthal where there was a potash mine on West German territory and the only suitable route out of there for heavy trains was via Gerstungen. Also in 1952 on the eastern side of the border the DR built a new line from Vacha to Unterbreizbach - this was also steeply graded and apparently steam locos working hard could be viewed from the western side.

EDIT: I've just remembered that at one time Wildeck-Obersuhl station on the Gerstungen-Bebra line (which used to be on West German territory just to the west of the main border) was only served by a local service to and from Bebra which terminated there and which passed through that neck of GDR territory - therefore it was impossible to get from there by train to any other West German station without passing through the East.

 

[FormerBritInMe]

US to the west of El Paso goes through Mexico I believe. But we’re talking short distance.

The only train in that area is the tri-weekly Sunset and it does not go through Mexico, although it does go very close to the border.

At one time the CP later VIA Atlantic train from Montreal to Halifax in Canada went through the state of Maine. Through passengers did not need to be checked by immigration/customs as the train was sealed except for one car that was used for local passengers handled at stops in Maine. US immigration officers rode the train to handle this. I rode this train in both directions in 1981. Unfortunately it was discontinued in one of the VIA passenger train cutbacks that have reduced VIA to a skeletal system.