Waterloo international and future Eurostar stations

[Citybreak1]

I never used Eurostar back then but I believe it had 5 platforms. Had it been used today could it have taken the e320 train? Did the station have any benefits over St Pancras? I prefer St Pancras I think it’s a better station for it and for trains coming from the north. I assume in Holland they will go through a similar thing a relocation how will this terminal be? The smaller one from what I seen looked much better seating than say Brussels. I’ve also never seen Rotterdams facilities how does it compare to Lille?

 

[StephenHunter]

The e320s were never built with third rail shoes, so no, it couldn't.

 

[Citybreak1]

The e320s were never built with third rail shoes, so no, it couldn't.

Would they have had to refurb all existing trains then or build alternative models? Just curious as I know the DB trains ran to London on a trial I imagine these could also not have worked at Waterloo. I imagine the station move was decided way before these trains had come along so I doubt that would have had much of an impact on why they moved.

 

[StephenHunter]

The Channel Tunnel Rail Link concept that ultimately became HS1 was conceived in the 1990s.

 

[JonasB]

Wouldn't it have been a loading gauge problem as well?

 

[D6130]

Just curious as I know the DB trains ran to London on a trial I imagine these could also not have worked at Waterloo.

Only one DB ICE train ran through to St Pancras for a publicity photo shoot in 2010, when DB were still intending to launch a Frankfurt-London service and it was hauled from somewhere in France to St Pancras by EuroTunnel diesel locos. In the end DB quietly dropped their plan due to seemingly insurmountable technical difficulties.

 

[Citybreak1]

Only one DB ICE train ran through to St Pancras for a publicity photo shoot in 2010, when DB were still intending to launch a Frankfurt-London service and it was hauled from somewhere in France to St Pancras by EuroTunnel diesel locos. In the end DB quietly dropped their plan due to seemingly insurmountable technical difficulties.

I wonder if they regret that now Eurostar said they will run to Germany after the Thalys merger.

 

[Austriantrain]

I wonder if they regret that now Eurostar said they will run to Germany after the Thalys merger.

I am quite convinced that it wasn’t „technical difficulties“, but commercial reasons. The UKs insistence that border controls take place before boarding might well have been the straw that broke the camels‘s back: you need to be able to pay for those outstationed UK border guards, which at the very least would have had to be stationed at Frankfurt and Köln (and other stops, like Aachen and Liège, would not have been served).

 

[zwk500]

Would they have had to refurb all existing trains then or build alternative models?

they would have had to build different trains, able to fit the uk platform profile. There is also a limit on the number of different voltages and signalling systems you can feasibly fit under a single train. Class 373 had Belgian, French and UK spec power, HS1 is signalled to French Specs, so by dropping the lines to Waterloo the UK systems could be dropped to allow Dutch systems and ETCS to be fitted.

Just curious as I know the DB trains ran to London on a trial I imagine these could also not have worked at Waterloo.

correct, ICE trains could not have worked to Waterloo for gauge, signalling and 3rd rail reasons.

I imagine the station move was decided way before these trains had come along so I doubt that would have had much of an impact on why they moved.

Correct, the intention was always to move to St Pancras because the Eurostars sharing track capacity with the Waterloo and Victoria approach lines was a total capacity and performance nightmare. Waterloo was necessary as a temporary terminus whilst St Pancras was rebuilt and HS1 constructed.

I wonder if they regret that now Eurostar said they will run to Germany after the Thalys merger.

DB can always pick the plans back up if the economics have changed.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I am quite convinced that it wasn’t „technical difficulties“, but commercial reasons. The UKs insistence that border controls take place before boarding might well have been the straw that broke the camels‘s back: you need to be able to pay for those outstationed UK border guards, which at the very least would have had to be stationed at Frankfurt and Köln (and other stops, like Aachen and Liège, would not have been served).

I still cannot understand why the UK cannot come to an agreement with the different police forces over this. It shouldn't be rocket science to do a deal that they won't permit anyone to travel if they don't have proof of their eligibility to enter the UK, such as a passport from a visa-free country or a UK visa. They could easily permit them to have access to the UK databases in order to check if a visa is valid and that the person isn't banned from the UK, too.

If the UK receives API from the foreign police forces at the time of passing the border, they can also arrange for someone to be removed from the train in Lille and checked further.

 

[zwk500]

I still cannot understand why the UK cannot come to an agreement with the different police forces over this. It shouldn't be rocket science to do a deal that they won't permit anyone to travel if they don't have proof of their eligibility to enter the UK, such as a passport from a visa-free country or a UK visa. They could easily permit them to have access to the UK databases in order to check if a visa is valid and that the person isn't banned from the UK, too.

Political theatre, to a large extent. But also since leaving the EU we don't have quite the same level of co-operation and intelligence sharing we used to have. Also, it could potentially mean legislative changes in some countries to give their police/border forces the powers to deny exit from the origin country on behalf of the destination country

If the UK receives API from the foreign police forces at the time of passing the border, they can also arrange for someone to be removed from the train in Lille and checked further.

This is not practical, not least because of the disruption caused by trying to arrange an SSO on a train that takes only 1hr to travel from Brussels or Paris, but also because of the difficulty attempting to remove somebody from the train at Lille if they decided to resist or flee. Denying boarding is much, much easier than trying to remove somebody once on board.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Political theatre, to a large extent. But also since leaving the EU we don't have quite the same level of co-operation and intelligence sharing we used to have. Also, it could potentially mean legislative changes in some countries to give their police/border forces the powers to deny exit from the origin country on behalf of the destination country

It should be quite possible under the various treaties that regulate the juxtaposed controls. I don't think it needs much, just information to the traveller that they've been denied permission to enter the UK. It could be done by the various police forces, or by a second line Eurostar check where a Eurostar employee would refuse them access to the platforms. It could even be done entirely remotely by UK-based staff, with a second control upon arrival.

This is not practical, not least because of the disruption caused by trying to arrange an SSO on a train that takes only 1hr to travel from Brussels or Paris, but also because of the difficulty attempting to remove somebody from the train at Lille if they decided to resist or flee. Denying boarding is much, much easier than trying to remove somebody once on board.

It shouldn't really be used in day to day operations, but I'm thinking about a situation where someone is flagged despite not coming up on the pre-departure checks. I can't imagine many people would like that, but it would represent another opportunity to prevent someone from entering the UK.

 

[ainsworth74]

I am quite convinced that it wasn’t „technical difficulties“, but commercial reasons. The UKs insistence that border controls take place before boarding might well have been the straw that broke the camels‘s back: you need to be able to pay for those outstationed UK border guards, which at the very least would have had to be stationed at Frankfurt and Köln (and other stops, like Aachen and Liège, would not have been served).

Bit of column A, bit of column B I believe. The border control issue was a big one but there were issues around clearing the ICE3 set for use in the Channel Tunnel. This was still the era when the train length had to be sufficient to leave part of the train next to an emergency exit from the running tunnels to the service tunnel (that's not a thing anymore I believe) and I think there were also question marks around the fire resilience as well of having equipment under the floor rather than in power cars. All surmountable and indeed I think everything was eventually surmounted (after all a member of the ICE3 family is now running with Eurostar)! But from DBs point of view the technical issues + cost of the border issues = end of scheme.

 

[RT4038]

It should be quite possible under the various treaties that regulate the juxtaposed controls. I don't think it needs much, just information to the traveller that they've been denied permission to enter the UK. It could be done by the various police forces, or by a second line Eurostar check where a Eurostar employee would refuse them access to the platforms. It could even be done entirely remotely by UK-based staff, with a second control upon arrival.



It shouldn't really be used in day to day operations, but I'm thinking about a situation where someone is flagged despite not coming up on the pre-departure checks. I can't imagine many people would like that, but it would represent another opportunity to prevent someone from entering the UK.

The UK Government/Border Force is not going to abrogate their powers to a foreign police force. So, either (a) the current system (of outstationed Border Guards) and no checks on arrival at St Pancras [and Ebbsfleet/Ashford currently suspended], or (b) the same system as the airlines - rail staff check eligibility at point of origin and Border Force controls at arrival station(s) in the UK (and hefty operator fines for the operator/airline if their staff allow someone ineligible through)
If the cross channel rail industry want to move from (a) to (b) then they will have to arrange funding for a rebuilding at St Pancras (and other stations if they are to be continued with) to accommodate trains arriving with 800 passengers or so queuing up for processing, including multiple trains within minutes of each other or the timetable constraint of not allowing this).

Even if they moved to (b) I suspect this would still not have placated DB, as they would likely wanted to mix passengers travelling wholly within Europe (such as Frankfurt-Koln or Frankfurt-Brussels) with cross-channel passengers. Whilst this could be got by with having separate portions and guards (or cabs) between them and at the doors when loading, this would not have been very flexible for dealing with different load profiles on different trains and therefore maximising revenue would not have been possible. And who would have funded this major building work at St Pancras, and convinced E* to change from (a) to (b)? Their major competitor? Yeah right!

 

[Watershed]

to accommodate trains arriving with 800 passengers or so queuing up for processing, including multiple trains within minutes of each other or the timetable constraint of not allowing this).

Exactly the same issue already exists with up to 1600 passengers queueing for trains to Paris and Brussels that depart 3 minutes apart.

I really don't think it would be particularly challenging to change the model (b). It's just that there is an inexplicable reluctance to change to the proven airline checking model.

 

[zwk500]

It's just that there is an inexplicable reluctance to change to the proven airline checking model.

The reluctance is easily explained - once they're in the UK, they can claim asylum here. If they're intercepted in Belgium or France, they can only claim asylum there.

 

[Trainbike46]

Exactly the same issue already exists with up to 1600 passengers queueing for trains to Paris and Brussels that depart 3 minutes apart.

I really don't think it would be particularly challenging to change the model (b). It's just that there is an inexplicable reluctance to change to the proven airline checking model.

I'm still not convinced that would actually fix anything, as the main delay is the luggage check, and I don't see how checks by eurostar staff would be any quicker than checks by border staff. At least the current way, all checks are over before boarding, and you can just walk of the train when you get where you're going. Why would replacing a single point with checks with multiple points with checks ever be an advantage? I don't think the airline system is particularly functional in my experience tbh, and wasn't even before the current mess.

 

[RT4038]

Exactly the same issue already exists with up to 1600 passengers queueing for trains to Paris and Brussels that depart 3 minutes apart.

I really don't think it would be particularly challenging to change the model (b). It's just that there is an inexplicable reluctance to change to the proven airline checking model.

It is not quite the same issue. I suggest you go and have a look at the space required to deal with the passport checking of 1600 arriving passengers at Heathrow, and compare that with the space available in arrivals at St Pancras.

1600 people arriving for departures do so over an extended period, and in an area much larger than the current arrival space at St Pancras. There is simply no space to extend this arrival area without major building work that would have to be funded. It is not safe to have people queuing on the travalators. And all this to allow a few passengers a through ride from Frankfurt or wherever, and it still wouldn't be a guarantee that any would run. It is just not worth it.

It is not inexplicable- there are no economic advantages to them.

I'm still not convinced that would actually fix anything, as the main delay is the luggage check, and I don't see how checks by eurostar staff would be any quicker than checks by border staff. At least the current way, all checks are over before boarding, and you can just walk of the train when you get where you're going. Why would replacing a single point with checks with multiple points with checks ever be an advantage? I don't think the airline system is particularly functional in my experience tbh, and wasn't even before the current mess.

Can't see any convincing advantage at all. The cost of altering St Pancras would be enormous and paid for somehow (so presumably higher access charge); sure the cost of Border Force would be cheaper (fewer staff and all in country) but more E* staff to check documents thoroughly and fines for non-compliance. Swings and roundabouts so probably no cheaper fares. Plus arriving passengers being delayed having documents checked a second time.

 

[DelW]

I never used Eurostar back then but I believe it had 5 platforms. Had it been used today could it have taken the e320 train? Did the station have any benefits over St Pancras? I prefer St Pancras I think it’s a better station for it and for trains coming from the north. I assume in Holland they will go through a similar thing a relocation how will this terminal be? The smaller one from what I seen looked much better seating than say Brussels. I’ve also never seen Rotterdams facilities how does it compare to Lille?

Would they have had to refurb all existing trains then or build alternative models? Just curious as I know the DB trains ran to London on a trial I imagine these could also not have worked at Waterloo. I imagine the station move was decided way before these trains had come along so I doubt that would have had much of an impact on why they moved.

When Eurostar ran to Waterloo the trains travelled from Folkestone over the pre-existing Southern third-rail lines, with just a few enhancements. That meant that the trains had to be built to UK loading gauge, and that travelling from London to the tunnel was very slow by comparison with speeds in France - the only way to speed this up was to build a new line (HS1). Had the terminal stayed at Waterloo when HS1 was built, the new line would have had to be tunnelled under south London to emerge somewhere close to Waterloo, which would have involved its own difficulties. Instead, a political decision was made to bring the new line in through east London to contribute to regeneration of that area, which meant that a terminal in north London was more suitable. Whether HS1 did actually contribute to regeneration of east London is debatable, bearing in mind that the international platforms at Stratford have AFAIK never been used.

 

[johncrossley]

My memory is failing me, but I'm sure I got a passport check on the train in the early days of Eurostar. Did that actually happen, or did I dream that?

 

[paul1609]

When Eurostar ran to Waterloo the trains travelled from Folkestone over the pre-existing Southern third-rail lines, with just a few enhancements. That meant that the trains had to be built to UK loading gauge, and that travelling from London to the tunnel was very slow by comparison with speeds in France - the only way to speed this up was to build a new line (HS1). Had the terminal stayed at Waterloo when HS1 was built, the new line would have had to be tunnelled under south London to emerge somewhere close to Waterloo, which would have involved its own difficulties. Instead, a political decision was made to bring the new line in through east London to contribute to regeneration of that area, which meant that a terminal in north London was more suitable. Whether HS1 did actually contribute to regeneration of east London is debatable, bearing in mind that the international platforms at Stratford have AFAIK never been used.

The International Platforms were used by the shuttle Javelin service during the 2012 Olympics. The platforms were temporarily raised with Plywood structures so the 395s could use them.

 

[Watershed]

It is not quite the same issue. I suggest you go and have a look at the space required to deal with the passport checking of 1600 arriving passengers at Heathrow, and compare that with the space available in arrivals at St Pancras.

1600 people arriving for departures do so over an extended period, and in an area much larger than the current arrival space at St Pancras. There is simply no space to extend this arrival area without major building work that would have to be funded. It is not safe to have people queuing on the travalators.

If there really isn't enough space (which I highly doubt) then hold people on trains for queue management where necessary. It's hardly rocket science!

And all this to allow a few passengers a through ride from Frankfurt or wherever, and it still wouldn't be a guarantee that any would run. It is just not worth it.

You might as well have made the same arguments about building the Channel Tunnel or HS1 in general. There is never a guarantee of anything, but presumably DB/Eurostar would have to pay for the facilities to be remodelled. Having paid, it would very much be in their interest to make use of their investment by running the trains.

There is undoubtedly a market - there is a high speed line all the way - it is just the political nonsense that gets in the way. And this is one way of avoiding a lot of the issues.

It is not inexplicable- there are no economic advantages to them.

I'd have thought it was plainly obvious what the economic advantage was?

 

[DelW]

The International Platforms were used by the shuttle Javelin service during the 2012 Olympics. The platforms were temporarily raised with Plywood structures so the 395s could use them.

OK, thanks, I suppose there's an argument that that helped to make the location of the Olympic Park more practicable, and that the Olympic developments did provide a lot of regenerative money. But two week's use seems a poor return for the cost of providing them, let alone by comparison with the benefits suggested by the promoters of the east London route when it was first proposed. I suppose that South Eastern's high speed services will have provided some of those benefits though.
Since no-one knows what the out-turn cost of the originally proposed south London route would have been, we don't know whether there was really enough of a saving to outweigh the cost of moving the terminus to St Pancras or not.

 

[paul1609]

There is undoubtedly a market - there is a high speed line all the way - it is just the political nonsense that gets in the way. And this is one way of avoiding a lot of the issues.


I'd have thought it was plainly obvious what the economic advantage was?

My ITK contact at Eurostar reckons that they've done intensive research in to travel to Germany and the result was that the market was insufficient to support through trains. Apparently the existing Brussel service carry an average of 60 passengers who are changing there for destinations in Germany. The main problem is that the end to end time London to Frankfurt via Brussels would be 5 hours which means the first train arrival would be mid afternoon and as such is uncompetitive with air. He reckons that the Brussels core market is weak anyway and will only support one destination beyond and of those Rotterdam/Amsterdam are the absolute no brainers.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2022 ==

OK, thanks, I suppose there's an argument that that helped to make the location of the Olympic Park more practicable, and that the Olympic developments did provide a lot of regenerative money. But two week's use seems a poor return for the cost of providing them, let alone by comparison with the benefits suggested by the promoters of the east London route when it was first proposed. I suppose that South Eastern's high speed services will have provided some of those benefits though.
Since no-one knows what the out-turn cost of the originally proposed south London route would have been, we don't know whether there was really enough of a saving to outweigh the cost of moving the terminus to St Pancras or not.

I think that there's a feeling that London hosting the 2012 Olympics vice Paris was a bit of a coup anyway. The Olympic committee were driven in Range Rovers through the then under construction HS1 tunnels to show them the new high speed link to Stratford. Its possible that without HS1 London would not have hosted the 2012 games. The HS1 route chosen also gave the options of through trains to destinations north of London via the link to the NLL and WCML. Although a business case has never been made for those subsequently. The plan was that trains from Manchester, Birmingham etc would have called at Stratford rather than reversing in St Pancras which would have provided a link to East Anglian destinations.

 

[Austriantrain]

My ITK contact at Eurostar reckons that they've done intensive research in to travel to Germany and the result was that the market was insufficient to support through trains. Apparently the existing Brussel service carry an average of 60 passengers who are changing there for destinations in Germany. The main problem is that the end to end time London to Frankfurt via Brussels would be 5 hours which means the first train arrival would be mid afternoon and as such is uncompetitive with air. He reckons that the Brussels core market is weak anyway and will only support one destination beyond and of those Rotterdam/Amsterdam are the absolute no brainers.

The rule of thumb is that international services do not work from end-to-end traffic, but rather on various mid-to-mid traffic flows. Paris - Brussels is the exception, not the rule.

However: The market has changed and there are loads of people nowadays happily sitting in a train for 5 hours, just not to Frankfurt Just witness the success of Trenitalia‘s Paris - Lyon (EDIT: Milan) service.

In effect, it is a gradual problem: the plethora of special rules for UK traffic makes more direct trains uneconomic. Every easement would help. And it’s a bigger problem for traffic to polycentric Germany than to other places.

 

[ainsworth74]

In effect, it is a gradual problem: the plethora of special rules for UK traffic makes more direct trains uneconomic. Every easement would help.

Oh absolutely I agree that that's probably the thing that did for it (I should probably have revised my post from the slightly flippant "little of this, little of that"! ) but I wouldn't quite rule out the effect of the technical barriers themselves. But no argument that until/unless the border issues are solved reality is that we'll never see anything other than the odd little extension here or there and unlikely to see anyone else try and break into the market.

 

[Wolfie]

I still cannot understand why the UK cannot come to an agreement with the different police forces over this. It shouldn't be rocket science to do a deal that they won't permit anyone to travel if they don't have proof of their eligibility to enter the UK, such as a passport from a visa-free country or a UK visa. They could easily permit them to have access to the UK databases in order to check if a visa is valid and that the person isn't banned from the UK, too.

If the UK receives API from the foreign police forces at the time of passing the border, they can also arrange for someone to be removed from the train in Lille and checked further.

Re your first para let's just say that based on my experience in other areas of HMG's work not all material in UK databases is necessarily of UK origin and that there are normally strict caveats over passing such material to third parties.

Re your second para what makes you believe that France would have any desire to be involved in such measures and use its resources to do so?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2022 ==

Oh absolutely I agree that that's probably the thing that did for it (I should probably have revised my post from the slightly flippant "little of this, little of that"! ) but I wouldn't quite rule out the effect of the technical barriers themselves. But no argument that until/unless the border issues are solved reality is that we'll never see anything other than the odd little extension here or there and unlikely to see anyone else try and break into the market.

With the current political mood such issues are likely to get worse not better.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2022 ==

The reluctance is easily explained - once they're in the UK, they can claim asylum here. If they're intercepted in Belgium or France, they can only claim asylum there.

Exactly

 

[ainsworth74]

With the current political mood such issues are likely to get worse not better.

Yes hence my "until/unless" because just saying "until" makes it sound far too much like there might be progress on the issue which I'm absolutely certain there will not be!

 

[RT4038]

If there really isn't enough space (which I highly doubt) then hold people on trains for queue management where necessary. It's hardly rocket science!

There isn't enough space, and I think that the idea of holding people in trains is unlikely to work or be popular. Worse than holding passengers on planes for the same reason, because at least a plane is high enough off the ground that people know they can't alight easily.

You might as well have made the same arguments about building the Channel Tunnel or HS1 in general. There is never a guarantee of anything, but presumably DB/Eurostar would have to pay for the facilities to be remodelled. Having paid, it would very much be in their interest to make use of their investment by running the trains.

It is not the same at all. Running long high capacity trains to the nearby capitals, for both travel to those capitals and connections to other, existing, train services is surer and less economically risky than trying to cater for relatively small, diffused, markets further away.

Yes, DB/Eurostar would have to pay for the facilities to be remodelled and it is indicative that they have chosen not to. We can only speculate as to why that may be, and I would guess that E* have extensively modelled the cost of the remodelling and change to their current system of outbasing Border Force staff and have come to the conclusion that the possibility of longer distance business (which would still require sterile areas of platforms, extra guards, more and better trained E* staff etc and no mixing of intra-Europe and Cross Channel passengers) simply does not make economic sense.

I'd have thought it was plainly obvious what the economic advantage was?

Not at all obvious to me. Clearly it is not obvious to the professionals at E* and DB either (otherwise they would have done it already). So perhaps some enlightenment?

However: The market has changed and there are loads of people nowadays happily sitting in a train for 5 hours, just not to Frankfurt Just witness the success of Trenitalia‘s Paris - Lyon service.

Surely Paris-Lyon is shorter than 5 hours on a Trenitalia service? I would want to know how much of their success is new traffic to rail, rather than robbing passengers from SNCF trains first (and that the service is economically successful rather than just passenger numbers from low fares). Still got a bit of a way to go before using it as an example for other new services.

My memory is failing me, but I'm sure I got a passport check on the train in the early days of Eurostar. Did that actually happen, or did I dream that?

It was right at the beginning when far fewer trains ran, but that was in a different era, and too many issues put paid to it. It is too expensive on staff, not compatible with real time checking of databases and runs too much risk of those not correctly documented arriving on UK soil/concrete and disruption on trains. Just not going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Austriantrain]

Surely Paris-Lyon is shorter than 5 hours on a Trenitalia service?

Sorry, I meant Paris - Milan, which apparently is selling very well.