Waterloo international and future Eurostar stations

[Cloud Strife]

You are getting rather silly. Who is going to be making sure that the documentation is correct and that nobody is allowed to slip through who is not correctly documented? Will you trust your trained monkey or Pablo? Yeah right!

Silly? You're the one claiming that there's somehow a difference between Dave from Tonbridge, Pablo from Catalonia and a trained monkey when it comes to comparing photographs and checking for a 'yes' on a computer screen.

The truth is that the bulk of the border control will be done before the traveller even approaches the border crossing. That's why the UK Government wants to use eGates as much as possible, because all they need to do is compare photographs, a job that...can be done by a trained monkey.

 

[Wolfie]

You are getting rather silly. Who is going to be making sure that the documentation is correct and that nobody is allowed to slip through who is not correctly documented? Will you trust your trained monkey or Pablo? Yeah right!

You are mainly right. He might trust his trained monkey but frankly that doesn't actually matter. Whether Priti Patel or others in a position to make decisions do, on the other hand, matters a lot. Just look at what Sunak and Truss have to say.....

 

[RT4038]

Silly? You're the one claiming that there's somehow a difference between Dave from Tonbridge, Pablo from Catalonia and a trained monkey when it comes to comparing photographs and checking for a 'yes' on a computer screen.

The truth is that the bulk of the border control will be done before the traveller even approaches the border crossing. That's why the UK Government wants to use eGates as much as possible, because all they need to do is compare photographs, a job that...can be done by a trained monkey.

They will still need fine upstanding UK nationals to ensure that the checks are being done properly, no-one is circumventing the systems at the Border and dealing with the problems and tears - which is not going to be contracted out to a trained monkey, Pablo, a Cypriot or anyone else.

 

[WideRanger]

I think there are a few (unjustified) leaps of logic in the above thread.

Firstly, the published information states there is no strategic plan to increasing the visa waivers to the UK. I think @Cloud Strife may be thinking about the advance passenger information system that is about to be introduced. Critically, and exactly the same as the system in the US, this will not produce a decision on whether a person will be allowed into the UK. It is an extra step that any passenger coming to the UK will need to go through, and the only assurance it will give passengers is that their carrier will let them board (it is likely that carriers won't allow people to board unless the advanced information is registered). The important thing to remember is that there will always also be a later decision as to whether the person will be allowed into the UK. At the moment, those decisions are sometimes made according to an algorithm at an eGate. But even at eGates, it is sometimes required for an immigration officer to make a decision on whether the person will be let in or not - that is not always apparent to the user. In other cases, the fact that a decision is being made is more obvious because you are standing in front of the immigration officer. Those decisions are not automatic - the immigration officer has to use judgement. All Immigration Officers undergo a level of security vetting (which requires you to live in the UK for a certain amount of time, and serious and continuous background and place checks) and, unless I'm very much mistaken, they have to be a UK citizen. Can you imagine the issues that could happen - not least political - if the person who was making a subjective decision about whether a person should be allowed to come to the UK didn't themselves have the full right to come into the UK? Or the person who was deciding had an expensive vice, and 'friends' who would be willing to help them out for 'a bit of help with their visa', and there was no way of reliably knowing?

Other posters have described non-UK nationals doing processing work on visas outside the UK. But importantly, they are not making subjective decisions. Those decisions are made by UK citizens, who are working under the protection of diplomatic immunity, to reduce the risk that outside influence can be brought to bear on those decisions (and there are frequent attempts to subvert the system by people who don't want to play by the rules). Even if decisions on visas were made by locally employed staff, a visa is not a permission to enter. It is quite possible to have a visa issued, which when the person gets to the border, the immigration officer decides that the person should not be let in. It's rare, but it happens.

So, this is why, when there are juxtaposed controls, it is an immigration officer (UK Citizen, security cleared, very closely monitored) that is making a decision as to whether a person should be allowed to enter. That is never going to change. And every country (or single immigration area) does it exactly the same way - for the same reasons.

So going back to why this was raised. Wherever immigration controls are, there will need to be a UK immigration officer. And if you don't want long delays, you'll need a few of them. And they are super expensive - as noted above, while their headline wage might not be high, their total cost will easily be getting into 6 figures for each person, especially in the case of juxtaposed controls.

It is, of course, attractive to imagine a time when the borders wouldn't need such painful and expensive bureaucracy. But the sad reality is that the minority of people who want to abuse the system means that it needs to be run in a labour intensive way.

 

[Wolfie]

I think there are a few (unjustified) leaps of logic in the above thread.

Firstly, the published information states there is no strategic plan to increasing the visa waivers to the UK. I think @Cloud Strife may be thinking about the advance passenger information system that is about to be introduced. Critically, and exactly the same as the system in the US, this will not produce a decision on whether a person will be allowed into the UK. It is an extra step that any passenger coming to the UK will need to go through, and the only assurance it will give passengers is that their carrier will let them board (it is likely that carriers won't allow people to board unless the advanced information is registered). The important thing to remember is that there will always also be a later decision as to whether the person will be allowed into the UK. At the moment, those decisions are sometimes made according to an algorithm at an eGate. But even at eGates, it is sometimes required for an immigration officer to make a decision on whether the person will be let in or not - that is not always apparent to the user. In other cases, the fact that a decision is being made is more obvious because you are standing in front of the immigration officer. Those decisions are not automatic - the immigration officer has to use judgement. All Immigration Officers undergo a level of security vetting (which requires you to live in the UK for a certain amount of time, and serious and continuous background and place checks) and, unless I'm very much mistaken, they have to be a UK citizen. Can you imagine the issues that could happen - not least political - if the person who was making a subjective decision about whether a person should be allowed to come to the UK didn't themselves have the full right to come into the UK? Or the person who was deciding had an expensive vice, and 'friends' who would be willing to help them out for 'a bit of help with their visa', and there was no way of reliably knowing?

Other posters have described non-UK nationals doing processing work on visas outside the UK. But importantly, they are not making subjective decisions. Those decisions are made by UK citizens, who are working under the protection of diplomatic immunity, to reduce the risk that outside influence can be brought to bear on those decisions (and there are frequent attempts to subvert the system by people who don't want to play by the rules). Even if decisions on visas were made by locally employed staff, a visa is not a permission to enter. It is quite possible to have a visa issued, which when the person gets to the border, the immigration officer decides that the person should not be let in. It's rare, but it happens.

So, this is why, when there are juxtaposed controls, it is an immigration officer (UK Citizen, security cleared, very closely monitored) that is making a decision as to whether a person should be allowed to enter. That is never going to change. And every country (or single immigration area) does it exactly the same way - for the same reasons.

So going back to why this was raised. Wherever immigration controls are, there will need to be a UK immigration officer. And if you don't want long delays, you'll need a few of them. And they are super expensive - as noted above, while their headline wage might not be high, their total cost will easily be getting into 6 figures for each person, especially in the case of juxtaposed controls.

It is, of course, attractive to imagine a time when the borders wouldn't need such painful and expensive bureaucracy. But the sad reality is that the minority of people who want to abuse the system means that it needs to be run in a labour intensive way.

That comprehensive response appears very well informed. I was tempted to ask if you either work for BF or know well someone who does but realised that might unfairly put you on the spot.

 

[philg999]

So going back to why this was raised. Wherever immigration controls are, there will need to be a UK immigration officer.

This is also why there is such a hoo-ha over Gibraltar’s border arrangements. There are negotiations ongoing for it to join Schengen, but in order for that to work, the Gibraltar border will need to be policed by Spanish citizens. (As Gibraltar will not be aligning its laws with the EU nor paying into its budget). No immigration zone contracts out its border to third parties (ok apart from Bulgaria whose eastern border was run by gangsters until a few weeks ago - but even then they were government sanctioned gangsters).

 

[tasky]

The current Home Office will never agree to this but the passport checks should clearly be done on the train. If it works on the Helsinki to St Petersburg service it can be made to work between the UK and EU.

The checks can be done between the station a person boards at and Calais, before leaving the Schengen area. The tightest timing would be half an hour for all passengers boarding at Lille, which is plenty. In the event someone needs to be removed from the train, it can always be done at Calais.

In the EU-bound direction removing people from the train is much less of a political issue than in the UK-bound one because nobody is smuggling themselves from the UK to the continent to claim asylum.

As for the security checks, there has never been a coherent case for them on the Eurostar. Further down the line you can get on the Shuttle with a car boot full of heroin or Semtex - there are no routine vehicles searches for everyone coming through, just spot checks.

In terms of the chance someone will do something untoward on the train there's really no difference to them getting on any domestic train, which we don't have security checks on.

There are a few reasons why this is needed. Obviously, the current set up in St Pancras is at capacity, and that is going to continue or worsen if the tunnel and CTRL were ever to be used to anything like their full capacity.

But it will also change the economics of new Eurostar destinations - both on the continent, and north of London. In Europe, the set-up costs and risk of extending a service to another destination will be significantly cut, and the physical constraints of doing so (cordoning off a platform etc) will completely disappear. Competitors may also feel more free to get in on the act given the lower costs and risks involved.

In the UK, north of London services would become financially possible in a way they are not now. There would be no harm to extending a London to Paris service to Birmingham or Manchester because seats could be used as a domestic service within the UK if there was insufficient demand to fill Birmingham to Paris. Passengers intending to go on to France would be on-train passport-checked from London. As it is the demand has to be high enough between two city pairs to justify a service, which is very difficult and different to how international services on the continent operate.

 

[Wolfie]

The current Home Office will never agree to this but the passport checks should clearly be done on the train. If it works on the Helsinki to St Petersburg service it can be made to work between the UK and EU.

The checks can be done between the station a person boards at and Calais, before leaving the Schengen area. The tightest timing would be half an hour for all passengers boarding at Lille, which is plenty. In the event someone needs to be removed from the train, it can always be done at Calais.

In the EU-bound direction removing people from the train is much less of a political issue than in the UK-bound one because nobody is smuggling themselves from the UK to the continent to claim asylum.

As for the security checks, there has never been a coherent case for them on the Eurostar. Further down the line you can get on the Shuttle with a car boot full of heroin or Semtex - there are no routine vehicles searches for everyone coming through, just spot checks.

In terms of the chance someone will do something untoward on the train there's really no difference to them getting on any domestic train, which we don't have security checks on.

There are a few reasons why this is needed. Obviously, the current set up in St Pancras is at capacity, and that is going to continue or worsen if the tunnel and CTRL were ever to be used to anything like their full capacity.

But it will also change the economics of new Eurostar destinations - both on the continent, and north of London. In Europe, the set-up costs and risk of extending a service to another destination will be significantly cut, and the physical constraints of doing so (cordoning off a platform etc) will completely disappear. Competitors may also feel more free to get in on the act given the lower costs and risks involved.

In the UK, north of London services would become financially possible in a way they are not now. There would be no harm to extending a London to Paris service to Birmingham or Manchester because seats could be used as a domestic service within the UK if there was insufficient demand to fill Birmingham to Paris. Passengers intending to go on to France would be on-train passport-checked from London. As it is the demand has to be high enough between two city pairs to justify a service, which is very difficult and different to how international services on the continent operate.

There are several incredibly naive assumptions in this post, starting with the fact that the only concern at the border is asylum seekers. Your proposal would open a massive loophole which would be exploited by terrorist groups and serious organised crime. For that reason it will never happen. That isn't due to "the current Home Office" but the current UK government, previous UK governments and, l am prepared to bet, any possible potential next UK government.

 

[RT4038]

The current Home Office will never agree to this but the passport checks should clearly be done on the train. If it works on the Helsinki to St Petersburg service it can be made to work between the UK and EU.

Funnily enough, the Helsinki-St Petersburg train, not currently operating anyway, is now the only (or one of very few?) Schengen cross border service [ any of which carries a fraction of the passengers E* does], which checks passports on the move (as opposed to whilst standing in a station). There are very few examples of cross border train services (except 'sweetheart borders') at all throughout the world nowadays, and only a tiny number doing passports on the move. Perhaps this is showing that this form of border control is going completely out of favour? (The Russia-Finland border is a completely different political situation to the France-UK border. You can be sure that if Russia allowed undocumented passengers through to Finland and then refused to take them back Finland would stop this way of checking immediately)

This subject has been raised numerous times on the Forum. Each time it has been explained as to why it is not practical or economical to check passports in this way. To summarise:
1. The UK does not want undocumented passengers arriving on UK soil / platforms (due to the frequent difficulty of repatriation, or they are otherwise undesirable)
2. Because of (1) this would mean checking passports prior to the train leaving Calais. The posse of UKBF officers and security guards required for each check would be lucky to do two trains per shift between (e.g) Paris and Calais and ride back passenger on another. Often only one train. Which means an enormous increase to the UKBF staff requirements, the cost of which would be passed onto E* passengers, which E* would not want to do as this would result in a reduction in competitiveness with other modes.
3. E* do not want to routinely stop trains at Calais due to the increase in journey time and the consequent reduction in competitiveness with other modes.
4. E* do not want to risk delays at Calais with trying to remove recalcitrant undocumented passengers, which it is unlikely that the French Authorities would wish to co-operate much with.
5. Passports/ Visas now need to be checked with an on line database. Connection with this database is not reliable on a moving train.

Aside from any baggage security issues.

Just forget it - not going to happen in the foreseeable future (as @Wolfie points out)

 

[zwk500]

This subject has been raised numerous times on the Forum. Each time it has been explained as to why it is not practical or economical to check passports in this way. To summarise:
1. The UK does not want undocumented passengers arriving on UK soil / platforms (due to the frequent difficulty of repatriation, or they are otherwise undesirable)
2. Because of (1) this would mean checking passports prior to the train leaving Calais. The posse of UKBF officers and security guards required for each check would be lucky to do two trains per shift between (e.g) Paris and Calais and ride back passenger on another. Often only one train. Which means an enormous increase to the UKBF staff requirements, the cost of which would be passed onto E* passengers, which E* would not want to do as this would result in a reduction in competitiveness with other modes.
3. E* do not want to routinely stop trains at Calais due to the increase in journey time and the consequent reduction in competitiveness with other modes.
4. E* do not want to risk delays at Calais with trying to remove recalcitrant undocumented passengers, which it is unlikely that the French Authorities would wish to co-operate much with.
5. Passports/ Visas now need to be checked with an on line database. Connection with this database is not reliable on a moving train.

Can we pin this?

 

[tasky]

There are several incredibly naive assumptions in this post, starting with the fact that the only concern at the border is asylum seekers. Your proposal would open a massive loophole which would be exploited by terrorist groups and serious organised crime. For that reason it will never happen. That isn't due to "the current Home Office" but the current UK government, previous UK governments and, l am prepared to bet, any possible potential next UK government.

Could you explain what you think those loopholes are, why they don't apply to rail services between other European countries, and why they don't apply to the Shuttle?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2022 ==

Funnily enough, the Helsinki-St Petersburg train, not currently operating anyway, is now the only (or one of very few?) Schengen cross border service [ any of which carries a fraction of the passengers E* does], which checks passports on the move (as opposed to whilst standing in a station). There are very few examples of cross border train services (except 'sweetheart borders') at all throughout the world nowadays, and only a tiny number doing passports on the move. Perhaps this is showing that this form of border control is going completely out of favour? (The Russia-Finland border is a completely different political situation to the France-UK border. You can be sure that if Russia allowed undocumented passengers through to Finland and then refused to take them back Finland would stop this way of checking immediately)

This is because around the world, the vast majority of cross-border rail takes place in the Schengen area, where there are no passport checks. The Allegro service is one of a few examples where it actually happens.

This subject has been raised numerous times on the Forum. Each time it has been explained as to why it is not practical or economical to check passports in this way. To summarise:
1. The UK does not want undocumented passengers arriving on UK soil / platforms (due to the frequent difficulty of repatriation, or they are otherwise undesirable)
2. Because of (1) this would mean checking passports prior to the train leaving Calais. The posse of UKBF officers and security guards required for each check would be lucky to do two trains per shift between (e.g) Paris and Calais and ride back passenger on another. Often only one train. Which means an enormous increase to the UKBF staff requirements, the cost of which would be passed onto E* passengers, which E* would not want to do as this would result in a reduction in competitiveness with other modes.
3. E* do not want to routinely stop trains at Calais due to the increase in journey time and the consequent reduction in competitiveness with other modes.
4. E* do not want to risk delays at Calais with trying to remove recalcitrant undocumented passengers, which it is unlikely that the French Authorities would wish to co-operate much with.
5. Passports/ Visas now need to be checked with an on line database. Connection with this database is not reliable on a moving train.

Aside from any baggage security issues.

Just forget it - not going to happen in the foreseeable future (as @Wolfie points out)

1) This was addressed in my post. Passengers can be removed from the train in Calais when travelling in the UK direction

2) What do you think the cost of building a complete separate physical terminal building in every destination Eurostar wishes to operate is, and employing staff to run it? The answer is, it's a lot and probably a lot less than having more border staff. It's not even clear the cost of border staff would be passed on to operators, which is not always the case.

3) How much time do you think a stop at Calais would add, which would make Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes? Do you think it would be 60 minutes, the amount of time Eurostar tells passengers to turn up at stations to deal with security and passport checks, which currently makes Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes?

Baggage security issues, as pointed out, do not seem to be a problem for motorists taking cars on the Shuttle, or passengers on any other trains in the UK or any of Eurostar's continental destinations.

My original post points out it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. The point is that it's a good idea.

You attribute a lot of your points to "Eurostar" not wanting to do things, with no evidence. Sometimes it astonishes me the hoops people on this forum jump through to try and explain why absolutely nothing could ever be different to how it is, until it suddenly is.

 

[Wolfie]

Could you explain what you think those loopholes are, why they don't apply to rail services between other European countries, and why they don't apply to the Shuttle?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2022 ==



This is because around the world, the vast majority of cross-border rail takes place in the Schengen area, where there are no passport checks. The Allegro service is one of a few examples where it actually happens.





1) This was addressed in my post. Passengers can be removed from the train in Calais when travelling in the UK direction

2) What do you think the cost of building a complete separate physical terminal building in every destination Eurostar wishes to operate is, and employing staff to run it? The answer is, it's a lot and probably a lot less than having more border staff. It's not even clear the cost of border staff would be passed on to operators, which is not always the case.

3) How much time do you think a stop at Calais would add, which would make Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes? Do you think it would be 60 minutes, the amount of time Eurostar tells passengers to turn up at stations to deal with security and passport checks, which currently makes Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes?

Baggage security issues, as pointed out, do not seem to be a problem for motorists taking cars on the Shuttle.

My original post points out it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. The point is that it's a good idea.

You attribute a lot of your points to "Eurostar" not wanting to do things, with no evidence. Sometimes it astonishes me the hoops people on this forum jump through to try and explain why absolutely nothing could ever be different to how it is, until it suddenly is.

How long are you going to carry on flogging an utterly pathetic flight of fantasy which will never happen? Tell you about likely loopholes? Hell no - OSA 89 Section 2 trumps your curiosity/obsession.

 

[tasky]

How long are you going to carry on flogging an utterly pathetic flight of fantasy which will never happen. Tell you about likely loopholes? Hell no - OSA 89 Section 2 trumps your curiosity/obsession.

We've gone exactly two posts so far and you're already telling me that the evidence for your argument is a state secret

 

[zwk500]

1) This was addressed in my post. Passengers can be removed from the train in Calais when travelling in the UK direction

If somebody refuses to cooperate in leaving the train (a likely outcome) then you need to send a team of security staff to safely remove them without damaging the train. That's going to take a while and require enough staff available to remove anybody from any part of the train within the given stop time.

2) What do you think the cost of building a complete separate physical terminal building in every destination Eurostar wishes to operate is, and employing staff to run it? The answer is, it's a lot and probably a lot less than having more border staff. It's not even clear the cost of border staff would be passed on to operators, which is not always the case.

Not sure this is helping your argument? Answer is, it's a lot but the economics add up to make it worthwhile, otherwise they wouldn't keep doing it.

3) How much time do you think a stop at Calais would add, which would make Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes? Do you think it would be 60 minutes, the amount of time Eurostar tells passengers to turn up at stations to deal with security and passport checks, which currently makes Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes?

It would likely be at least 60 and quite possibly 75 or 90, given the small passenger throughput possible from the platforms at Calais. You'd also have to completely rebuild the station to allow passengers to exit, queue for immigration then reboard the train in an airline environment.
However, thats 60 minutes for everybody (premium passengers can check in down to 20 mins prior to departure) and a disruption in the middle of the journey, rather than an extended waiting time when you'd already be having some wait in any event.

Baggage security issues, as pointed out, do not seem to be a problem for motorists taking cars on the Shuttle, or passengers on any other trains in the UK or any of Eurostar's continental destinations.

I suspect there are more checks at the Shuttle terminals than the person who asks you to pop open your boot.

My original post points out it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. The point is that it's a good idea.

If its such a good idea why have eurostar never proposed doing it? Even the original regional eurostar and nightstar services would have checked passports at origin.

 

[RT4038]

This is because around the world, the vast majority of cross-border rail takes place in the Schengen area, where there are no passport checks. The Allegro service is one of a few examples where it actually happens.

But this has not always been the case. In the last 50 years there has been a massive reduction in cross-border train services throughout the world, and, as you say, the Allegro service is one of the very few remaining examples 'on moving train' passport checks. Most of the few cross-border trains that remain, the passport check is conducted with the train standing in the station. Obviously there are many reasons for this decline, but suggesting that the UK adopt a system that has clearly gone out of favour almost everywhere else is perhaps indicative that there are major issues with it. 'Moving train' checks are from a different era and are unlikely to be coming back soon.

1) This was addressed in my post. Passengers can be removed from the train in Calais when travelling in the UK direction

They could be, but please see no (3) and no (4) in my post which are reasons why this option will not be happening. UKBF officers walking up and down inside a train puts them in a more vulnerable position that sitting behind a desk with screen.

2) What do you think the cost of building a complete separate physical terminal building in every destination Eurostar wishes to operate is, and employing staff to run it? The answer is, it's a lot and probably a lot less than having more border staff. It's not even clear the cost of border staff would be passed on to operators, which is not always the case.

That is why it is only done for major cities. The cost is going to be borne somewhere, and would be with the operators, not the general taxpayer (just to avoid some people having to change trains!)

3) How much time do you think a stop at Calais would add, which would make Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes? Do you think it would be 60 minutes, the amount of time Eurostar tells passengers to turn up at stations to deal with security and passport checks, which currently makes Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes?

To stop and restart, detrain UKBF and security, and undocumented passengers who may be in multiple parts of the train - 20 minutes, with the risk of much longer if they are recalcitrant. Less in the opposite direction, to stop and pick up the UKBF posse traveling passenger back for another check. I don't think the check in time does make Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes - it is the journey time that matters, and the potential for disruption and delay.

Baggage security issues, as pointed out, do not seem to be a problem for motorists taking cars on the Shuttle, or passengers on any other trains in the UK or any of Eurostar's continental destinations.

It will be a brave person to remove the checks - no matter whether other trains have them or not! Perhaps we can have a referendum on it?

You have not addressed the data link issues of no. (5).

Think of the scenario, not unlikely - 10 undocumented passengers, as a group, on the same train, all sitting in different carriages, all refuse to budge from their seats during the journey or at the Calais stop ....... Not an issue that will occur with the present E* system, or at The Shuttle.

My original post points out it isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. The point is that it's a good idea.

You attribute a lot of your points to "Eurostar" not wanting to do things, with no evidence. Sometimes it astonishes me the hoops people on this forum jump through to try and explain why absolutely nothing could ever be different to how it is, until it suddenly is.

It would be great if it could be done, but it not a workable idea in the current circumstances. The use of this system has petered out virtually everywhere in the world which is a little telling.

I am unaware of Eurostar agitating for this type of working, but this could be because they know the issues and what is likely to be acceptable. I do not think anybody has said that 'absolutely nothing could ever be different to how it is' - merely as to why it is like it is now and their opinion on why it is unlikely to change in the near future. After all, the world is a different place in 2022 than 2019, not that I think this helps on board passport checks on E* one little bit.

 

[tasky]

I think the reason Eurostar hasn't agitated is probably because they know it's unlikely to happen. I think we are probably all in agreement on that, but I don't think it's the practicality but the politics of it and everything border-related in the UK at the moment.

As RT4038 says, it would be a brave politician who removed security checks – even though they are total theatre, if something went wrong they would be blamed. Last time I took the Shuttle nobody even asked us to pop open our boot, by the way!

And sorry, I meant to say 'a lot more' than 'a lot less' expensive when talking about the cost of setting up physical bases in every station service compared to hiring more border staff.

I think it's fair to say if we were already checking Eurostar passports on trains Allegro-style and removing people at Calais, and dealing it with the challenges that would present, and someone suggested on this forum that we could avoid those problems by converting large parts of St Pancras, Gare du Nord, Brussels Midi, Amsterdam Central, Lille Europe, and Rotterdam Central to process passports and security before people board the train, they would be laughed out of the thread.

"Do you have any idea how much that would cost? It would make Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes when the cost was passed on! There simply isn't space for a waiting area.

"It's impractical, you would have to cordon off several platforms all day just to run Eurostar! Good luck convincing SNCF and NS to do that!

"There isn't even space for people to wait, each Class 374 carries over 900 people, with the number of services we have you'd have queues snaking down the St Pancras concourse, and people would have to arrive an hour before their train! Do the maths.

"This would restrict destinations to those where Eurostar was comfortable making a multi-million pound investment, and how are you going to fit one of those in Cologne or Frankfurt? They have no spare platforms.

"Are French borders staff just going to live in London permanently? Will they shuttle back? Hotels? How much is that going to cost?

"How would this even work for UK domestic passengers, are you going to run the trains half empty from Manchester and Birmingham to London, taking up a slot on the WCML to cart air around? Put border controls at New Street? It wouldn't be commercially viable! Or will you just not run Eurostar services north of London?

"This would require a whole new treaty to process the UK's border controls deep inside Belgium and the Netherlands! Absolute pie-in-the-sky stuff."

And these would all be legitimate criticisms of why it was a bad idea...

 

[RT4038]

I think the reason Eurostar hasn't agitated is probably because they know it's unlikely to happen. I think we are probably all in agreement on that, but I don't think it's the practicality but the politics of it and everything border-related in the UK at the moment.

As RT4038 says, it would be a brave politician who removed security checks – even though they are total theatre, if something went wrong they would be blamed. Last time I took the Shuttle nobody even asked us to pop open our boot, by the way!

And sorry, I meant to say 'a lot more' than 'a lot less' expensive when talking about the cost of setting up physical bases in every station service compared to hiring more border staff.

I think it's fair to say if we were already checking Eurostar passports on trains Allegro-style and removing people at Calais, and dealing it with the challenges that would present, and someone suggested on this forum that we could avoid those problems by converting large parts of St Pancras, Gare du Nord, Brussels Midi, Amsterdam Central, Lille Europe, and Rotterdam Central to process passports and security before people board the train, they would be laughed out of the thread.

"Do you have any idea how much that would cost? It would make Eurostar uncompetitive with other modes when the cost was passed on! There simply isn't space for a waiting area.

"It's impractical, you would have to cordon off several platforms all day just to run Eurostar! Good luck convincing SNCF and NS to do that!

"There isn't even space for people to wait, each Class 374 carries over 900 people, with the number of services we have you'd have queues snaking down the St Pancras concourse, and people would have to arrive an hour before their train! Do the maths.

"This would restrict destinations to those where Eurostar was comfortable making a multi-million pound investment, and how are you going to fit one of those in Cologne or Frankfurt? They have no spare platforms.

"Are French borders staff just going to live in London permanently? Will they shuttle back? Hotels? How much is that going to cost?

"How would this even work for UK domestic passengers, are you going to run the trains half empty from Manchester and Birmingham to London, taking up a slot on the WCML to cart air around? Put border controls at New Street? It wouldn't be commercially viable! Or will you just not run Eurostar services north of London?

"This would require a whole new treaty to process the UK's border controls deep inside Belgium and the Netherlands! Absolute pie-in-the-sky stuff."

And these would all be legitimate criticisms of why it was a bad idea...

You may well be right, but National Security trumps all of those. You must bear in mind that the change from 'on train' to the current situation was done when E* was in its infancy, with relatively few passengers, and clearly the on train system was an issue that needed to be resolved. Presumably it could have been resolved by the airline system, but this does not really help and has downsides too. (as has been discussed elsewhere)

Of course if everybody tells you that your idea is great and doesn't point out the issues (both practical and political), the Forum just becomes an echo chamber.

It is not just the extra UKBF staff - it is the ejecting of undocumented passengers and the unreliable data connection on fast moving trains. And, yes, I know that East German border guards had no truck with this at Helmstedt or Gerstungen, but we are not now in the same era or cultural circumstances.

 

[Wolfie]

We've gone exactly two posts so far and you're already telling me that the evidence for your argument is a state secret

I'm saying that my knowledge comes from my job.

 

[AdamWW]

It is not just the extra UKBF staff - it is the ejecting of undocumented passengers and the unreliable data connection on fast moving trains. And, yes, I know that East German border guards had no truck with this at Helmstedt or Gerstungen, but we are not now in the same era or cultural circumstances.

I am probably imagining this but I have a vague memory that the original Eurostar stock had (or was going to have, perhaps?) suitable "accommodation" for persons determined inadmissible to the UK so they could be sent back on the train they came on.

 

[RT4038]

I am probably imagining this but I have a vague memory that the original Eurostar stock had (or was going to have, perhaps?) suitable "accommodation" for persons determined inadmissible to the UK so they could be sent back on the train they came on.

The prospective occupants have still got to be persuaded from their seat amongst all the other passengers to the 'suitable accommodation' .......

 

[AdamWW]

The prospective occupants have still got to be persuaded from their seat amongst all the other passengers to the 'suitable accommodation' .......

Oh absoutely. And it doesn't help much if the train isn't turning round straight away either.

 

[RT4038]

Oh absoutely. And it doesn't help much if the train isn't turning round straight away either.

Even if it is, that may not be of much help. The French are only required to accept back un/wrong documented own citizens. If the person is from a third country (or whose citizenship cannot be determined / proved due to documents having been disposed of) they have to be sent directly which may or may not be possible or be inexpensive. Hence the desire to eject from the train before the border or preferably not allow on the train in the first place.

 

[AdamWW]

It is not just the extra UKBF staff - it is the ejecting of undocumented passengers and the unreliable data connection on fast moving trains. And, yes, I know that East German border guards had no truck with this at Helmstedt or Gerstungen, but we are not now in the same era or cultural circumstances.

I remember some years ago now, before Czechia was in the EU (and before we were supposed to call it Czechia, for that matter) seeing graffiti at Bad Schandau station from assorted Australians who had found out the hard way that they needed a visa to get in. (Not sure why they would have thought they didn't need one, mind). The Czechs presumably got the passport checks done in time to get people off the train before the border.

 

[RT4038]

I remember some years ago now, before Czechia was in the EU (and before we were supposed to call it Czechia, for that matter) seeing graffiti at Bad Schandau station from assorted Australians who had found out the hard way that they needed a visa to get in. (Not sure why they would have thought they didn't need one, mind). The Czechs presumably got the passport checks done in time to get people off the train before the border.

Maybe even whilst the train was standing at Bad Schandau station? But even if not, they were dealing with a completely different set of circumstances. Catching out a few tourists is considerably different to dealing with quantities of economic migrants.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Maybe even whilst the train was standing at Bad Schandau station? But even if not, they were dealing with a completely different set of circumstances. Catching out a few tourists is considerably different to dealing with quantities of economic migrants.

The specific different circumstances is that European countries generally have agreements with each other regarding the return of anyone denied entry. For instance, take Poland: entry checks for Germany were carried out between Rzepin and Frankfurt (Oder) while the train was on the move. However, as part of Poland's visa-free access to the Schengen countries in 1991, it was agreed that Poland would take anyone that was denied entry into Germany. The system worked well, Poland accepted their return without any fuss, and so you had a system that worked well. There was a lot of attempted migration from FSU countries to Germany and beyond in the 1990s, but it was made very clear to Poland (and I believe others, like Czechslovakia) that visa-free access to the Schengen countries required them to accept people who were denied entry.

As far as I know, the major sticking point between the UK and France/Belgium/The Netherlands is exactly this: the lack of a comprehensive agreement on the return of anyone denied entry. Without such an agreement, on-board controls are an impossibility.

I am probably imagining this but I have a vague memory that the original Eurostar stock had (or was going to have, perhaps?) suitable "accommodation" for persons determined inadmissible to the UK so they could be sent back on the train they came on.

I believe they did, but I'm open to correction on this.

 

[Robert Ambler]

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?

No it did happen early on and the trains had facilities for customs and border control staff on board. That would also have been the arrangement for the regional Eurostar routes. However the UK Government view on all border formalities being completed before passengers boarded ended all that (along with any chance of additional destinations in the UK and Europe for cross channel trains).

 

[Cloud Strife]

However the UK Government view on all border formalities being completed before passengers boarded ended all that

Was it not the success of the Belgian juxtaposed controls that convinced the UK Government to extend it further?

 

[AdamWW]

Maybe even whilst the train was standing at Bad Schandau station? But even if not, they were dealing with a completely different set of circumstances. Catching out a few tourists is considerably different to dealing with quantities of economic migrants.

I'm pretty sure the checks were done on the move, but absolutely - a different border and at a different time.

Around that time I also crossed the same border on foot nearby, and just walked through in both directions - nobody stopped me to look at my passport.

However the UK Government view on all border formalities being completed before passengers boarded ended all that (along with any chance of additional destinations in the UK and Europe for cross channel trains).

I'd say not quite, since the main network now extends to Amsterdam and Rotterdam unlike in the days when checks were done on the trains.

 

[SynthD]

Well, the fact that not all Eurostar services go through Lille might be an issue.

The fact that it would cause the journey times of currently direct Eurostar services to be slower might be another.

LGV Picardie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All services will go through Lille for at least another ten years while this is built.

There is a well established principle in travel that people do not like to change trains. The Lille changeover is enough of a nuisance that people will prefer to fly, which is why it was so important to get border controls in Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

But Lille is the point of most demand, as the French and nonFrench services combine.

It'd be like flying from the UK to Canada and the US getting approval of the passenger list because you can cross from Canada to the US.

I’ve heard that is the case.

Further down the line you can get on the Shuttle with a car boot full of heroin or Semtex - there are no routine vehicles searches for everyone coming through, just spot checks.

They search by other means, scans that you aren’t aware of. I doubt they’d catch heroin, but something radioactive.

I think it may need to be a short Y shaped network, with good connections at either end. Promote the CIV safety of through ticketing at this end and whatever the same is on the other end. Thalys can make good airport style airside lounges while multiple trains worth of passengers collect at Amsterdam and Paris for the train starting there. Lille is set up to (only) add to these trains with existing passengers staying in place, I think.

 

[Wolfie]

LGV Picardie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All services will go through Lille for at least another ten years while this is built.

But Lille is the point of most demand, as the French and nonFrench services combine.

I’ve heard that is the case.

They search by other means, scans that you aren’t aware of. I doubt they’d catch heroin, but something radioactive.

I think it may need to be a short Y shaped network, with good connections at either end. Promote the CIV safety of through ticketing at this end and whatever the same is on the other end. Thalys can make good airport style airside lounges while multiple trains worth of passengers collect at Amsterdam and Paris for the train starting there. Lille is set up to (only) add to these trains with existing passengers staying in place, I think.

Since when did Eurostar services to Paris go through Lille? That is one heck of a diversion.

I don't think you have a clue either, given that you don't seem to understand how the UK border works with the juxtaposed controls. From an operational point of view, Eurostar processing visa waivers via a secure link is no different to the Home Office operating a website doing exactly the same thing.



There was zero precedent for UK staff working abroad before the introduction of the juxtaposed controls. It's now a successful model that the UK wants to extend to the Western Channel ports, and I think we can all agree that the juxtaposed controls system works very well.

Locally engaged staff can do the job in exactly the same way. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that with some political will, you can establish a system where locally employed staff can conduct first line checks where their job is merely to make sure that the person in front of them is the person that they claim to be, along with doing basic checks relating to their plans and ability to support themselves in the UK. If there's any doubt that requires access to sensitive information, they can be referred to a secondary check staffed by a UKBF officer who is delegated there for a period of time.

All this can be very easily done while securing the border further. The fact that we already have overseas people handling visa applications means that it's a very simple and logical extension to having overseas people handling basic immigration checks which do not require access to sensitive information. With the visa waiver system, they will already know that the person has been pre-cleared into the UK, meaning that their need to access sensitive information is nil. Officers on the first line do not need access to sensitive information, they just need to know that the person has been authorised to receive the visa waiver.

Some of your statements/assumptions in your last para are utter poppycock. I suggest that you look at some of the reports published by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration.