TheKnightWho
Established Member
And why is it more at risk? Being an international boundary isn't particularly notable from the point of view of a terrorist.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Eurostar York to Paris proposals
- Thread starter woolwinder
- Start date
- Status
And why is it more at risk? Being an international boundary isn't particularly notable from the point of view of a terrorist.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Gwenllian2001
Member
It is not a tiny island. The UK is the twelfth largest country in area in Europe.
It was meant to be repeating what was said that I quoted, although I realise that it was small island, not tiny. In any case, I think it's a figure of speech - there are obviously many places that are smaller both in Europe and worldwide.
As used to be possible of course you could buy your international through ticket at your local BR station. It's sad that it's more difficult to book an international through rail journey to/from the UK than it was before the Channel Tunnel was opened. The introduction of services like Eurostar that use airline-style ticketing with everything being pre-book only pretty much killed international through-ticketing on Europe's railways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes, but try telling that to the UK Border Agency.
I would love to see York to Paris, or similar. But as others have expressed, it will only be viable if these trains can also carry UK domestic passengers. They should run from the same platforms as domestic trains, with the only way you know you're boarding an "international" train being the destination on the announcement boards. Sadly this is very unlikely in the current UK political climate: even a move to passport control on the trains will bring the Daily Fail out in hysterics.
How many more members of staff would you need if checks were done on all the trains, as against at stations (I wouldn't expect such services to have that many calling points).
As it stands, couldn't you run a train from wherever, into St Pancras (where it will reverse) and while there, you have an onboard check - most likely by the French authorities, as we don't seem to care about exit checks.
Then once done, out it goes and through the tunnel. An obvious problem is the platform being used up for a longer time, and the fact St Pancras isn't exactly blessed with loads of platforms.
Coming back, you now need to have passport checks at all pickup places on the French/foreign side, but once through the train can now proceed to St Pancras and then on to other destinations where people just get off and leave as if they were on a standard train (assuming no need for customs checks).
If you could do away with the baggage checks, you could then pick up people at domestic platforms.
We wouldn't need to sign up to the Schengen Agreement, nor need to have multiple checks in the UK or on the trains.
What happens if someone arrives at St Pancras and is refused onward travel by the French authorities? Well, I guess they're chucked off the train. Does the TOC now have to pay for them to be returned to their origin, while detaining you? I guess not - as you haven't left the UK.
As it stands, couldn't you run a train from wherever, into St Pancras (where it will reverse) and while there, you have an onboard check - most likely by the French authorities, as we don't seem to care about exit checks.
Then once done, out it goes and through the tunnel. An obvious problem is the platform being used up for a longer time, and the fact St Pancras isn't exactly blessed with loads of platforms.
Coming back, you now need to have passport checks at all pickup places on the French/foreign side, but once through the train can now proceed to St Pancras and then on to other destinations where people just get off and leave as if they were on a standard train (assuming no need for customs checks).
If you could do away with the baggage checks, you could then pick up people at domestic platforms.
We wouldn't need to sign up to the Schengen Agreement, nor need to have multiple checks in the UK or on the trains.
What happens if someone arrives at St Pancras and is refused onward travel by the French authorities? Well, I guess they're chucked off the train. Does the TOC now have to pay for them to be returned to their origin, while detaining you? I guess not - as you haven't left the UK.
Last edited:
asylumxl
Established Member
Not blessed with platforms for domestic trains, no, but always seems to be plenty of empty international platforms.
One of the reasons I dislike St Pancras' design.
Then perhaps it can work, by picking up people 'normally' along the way, then doing the checks at St Pancras. Yes, it's a bit of an inconvenience - but it does mean not changing trains, no long walks, and no chance of missing the connection.
Is the St Pancras - Ashford journey time enough to do the checks?
The staff (and anyone without the necessary documentation) could be dropped off there and pick up a returning working.
If it isn't they could hold the train at Ashford until the checks are complete. Occupying a Eurostar platform at Ashford isn't going to cause any inconvenience.
The staff (and anyone without the necessary documentation) could be dropped off there and pick up a returning working.
If it isn't they could hold the train at Ashford until the checks are complete. Occupying a Eurostar platform at Ashford isn't going to cause any inconvenience.
TheKnightWho
Established Member
I'm only 20, and I'm already sick of society being dictated by its most paranoid members. It's utterly disheartening, and I hardly think the world is all roses and fairies myself.
Last edited:
Far be it from me to attempt to understand the minds of such people, but I think it is generally accepted that "well known" places such as the Chunnel are of more interest to them than places which most people have never heard of.
I don't remember the 7/7 bombers having to show their passports at Kings Cross that morning.
Neither did the bombers who blew up the trains at Madrid Atocha station..........etc, etc.
The views expressed on some posts here are appallingly naive, and demonstrate why the jobsworths in security manage to frighten the politicians and public so easily.
International Rail HS could be so liberating for our economy without these red herring objections being successfully deployed at every turn.
brianthegiant
Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2010
- Messages
- 588
Great Post!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Spot on!I don't remember the 7/7 bombers having to show their passports at Kings Cross that morning.
Neither did the bombers who blew up the trains at Madrid Atocha station..........etc, etc.
The views expressed on some posts here are appallingly naive, and demonstrate why the jobsworths in security manage to frighten the politicians and public so easily.
International Rail HS could be so liberating for our economy without these red herring objections being successfully deployed at every turn.
Nope, the terrorism risk to the channel tunnel is wildly exagerated, it would be a stupid terrorist target for 2 reasons:
1) High risk of detection
2) Difficulty of media access to tunnel, therefore reduced media impact compared to inner city target.
Think of terrorist organisations as a kind of twisted & perverse media operation. part of the objective is gratification by maximum column inches, photos & videos. set off a bomb in central London & you have hundreds of journalists there in minutes & your attack on every news outlet.
Why is the channel tunnel any more high risk than long tunnels in the alps with a fraction of the security?
I think the scale of channel security has more to do with a notion of Britain as the little island under constant threat which is perpetuated by things like the battle of Britain stuff propagated on our TVs, this notion is totally outdated in modern post cold-war Europe. I also think the current terrorism threat is somewhat exaggerated when you compare it with the havoc created by the IRA in the eighties, yet it is still used to justify an ever widening state security apparatus. for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nottingham_Two
Last edited:
Hasn't it been said on here that the airlines lobbied hard to ensure there were tight security checks on Eurostar?
Clearly there aren't such checks for cars, vans and lorries (the latter being ideal for large bombs). Actually you do drive over something at the terminals but I am not sure what that detects.
FWIW, the security checks when I've traveled are usually pretty relaxed.
Clearly there aren't such checks for cars, vans and lorries (the latter being ideal for large bombs). Actually you do drive over something at the terminals but I am not sure what that detects.
FWIW, the security checks when I've traveled are usually pretty relaxed.
Iceland and Malta are even smaller island nations. Hasn't stopped them being Schengen signatories. The size of this nation is not the reason, it is purely political.
The sense of British superiority, a hangover from Empire, hasn't yet disappeared from the public consciousness and is still strong in the political class. The sooner it disappears the better.
Does it actually 'need' to be screened?
The extent of any potential explosion would be limited to the amount of explosives which could be carried in a suitcase. Maybe 30kg. Yes, it would make a big bang in a train, and would undoubtedly cause significant death and destruction. But it wouldn't collapse the Channel Tunnel, and it is unlikely to derail the train.
So then on that basis, why would a bomb in the channel tunnel be any worse, than say a bomb of the same size in Gasworks Tunnel on a East Coast HST?
So if such a threat exists (and it clearly does following 7/7), why are we not screening all luggage on all services?
Before you say it can't be done, go to India, where all luggage is x-rayed before you can get on the platform. It transports 25 million people daily.
If Tony Blair was still in power, I'm sure we would have screening everywhere - but mostly to keep us in fear and justify more draconian measures.
We did of course get portable metal detectors for weapons, for a short while before disappearing. Heck, Hatfield had armed police patrolling one morning on the platforms, just after 7/7. Bet that scared a few fare evaders!
We did of course get portable metal detectors for weapons, for a short while before disappearing. Heck, Hatfield had armed police patrolling one morning on the platforms, just after 7/7. Bet that scared a few fare evaders!
TheKnightWho
Established Member
What we often fail to remember is that the press have a far larger influence over governments than we actually give them credit for. I mean, it's hardly a conspiracy theory to observe that the recent announcements about an opt-out compulsory filter were a concession to the Daily Mail and other right-wing outlets after the (crude but necessary) bludgeoning through of the Same Sex Marriage Act.
Drumming up xenophobia and reactionism under the guise of patriotism and 'defending the realm' sells papers, and so that's what they'll do. The potential of the Chunnel has just been another casualty in that fight.
Last edited:
- Status