Eurostar London - Amsterdam suspended until 2028? Is this just clickbait?

[Citybreak1]

Next year is 2023 so I wonder when they will find a solution to this?

 

[Watershed]

There are trains running through the same tunnel where you probably won't get checked. You can even take a gun if you have the right paperwork: https://www.eurotunnelfreight.com/uk/safety-and-security/firearms-ammunition/

Indeed - when you use the Eurotunnel there are generally no checks at all of what you have in your vehicle. For all they know you could be carrying a bomb in the boot!

 

[Rhinojerry]

Found it.https://youtube.com/watch?v=wCP2SFfBvTo&feature=share

Sorry,ignore last post,could not get the copy to load,not Tech savvy.
Fingers crossed.

 

[DanielB]

Ah Amsterdam Zuid. That's not one station before Centraal but actually elsewhere on the railway ring around Amsterdam (South of the city center).

This station will indeed house international trains in future, but not in 2023 as the Zuidasdok is delayed and space not available as mentioned earlier in this topic.

 

[embers25]

Diverting the Severn Tunnel trains through Trowbridge for the security check would be a right pain

Security checks for everyone from Trowbridge isn't a bad idea for all trains lol.

 

[duesselmartin]

Frejus rail tunnel is an international one without security checks.
As to the Channel tunnel. I think there is enough clay over it to "allow" a terrorist attach without flooding.
The reason for security may be that Eurostar is a high profile target making more headlines than a bland EuroCity.

 

[AlexNL]

The way in which the Channel Tunnel is funded (through private financing) might be a major factor behind its security theatre. Insurance companies will want to see risks mitigated before they agree to cover insurance of an object, especially a high value object such as an international tunnel.

In comparison, the Gotthard base tunnel was paid for by Swiss tax payers and through a levy on lorries. Should something serious happen in that tunnel it's probably more efficient for the Swiss government to cough up the funds necessary for repairs to be performed.

 

[Watershed]

The way in which the Channel Tunnel is funded (through private financing) might be a major factor behind its security theatre. Insurance companies will want to see risks mitigated before they agree to cover insurance of an object, especially a high value object such as an international tunnel.

In comparison, the Gotthard base tunnel was paid for by Swiss tax payers and through a levy on lorries. Should something serious happen in that tunnel it's probably more efficient for the Swiss government to cough up the funds necessary for repairs to be performed.

That doesn't make an awful lot of sense though - the higher cost of insurance would almost certainly cost less than the lost potential business/traffic through having unnecessary security checks.

It's also particularly undermined by the lack of checks on motor vehicles that go through the tunnel. You could fit a rather larger bomb in a private car than in a piece of hand luggage...

 

[eastwestdivide]

this video by ProRail

I like the Class 66s on freight trains in that video. They get everywhere!

 

[StephenHunter]

I like the Class 66s on freight trains in that video. They get everywhere!

They're actually branded as that by EMD for European sale. The 66s in Europe are slightly different, with air con units on their roofs.

 

[MarcVD]

There is a potential solution though, but would require govt sign off - run all Eurostar services travelling to the UK to run non-stop from the tunnel to London (which they're doing now anyway), and do the security dance upon arrival at St. Pancras.

And then someone will say that with this solution, candidate refugees would just have to board a train unchecked, cross the channel tunnel, and once out of it, pull the alarm signal or otherwise stop the train, open the door, and disappear in the countryside.

 

[AlexNL]

That doesn't make an awful lot of sense though - the higher cost of insurance would almost certainly cost less than the lost potential business/traffic through having unnecessary security checks.

Disagree. Whether you have to queue for a ferry or for a channel tunnel train, you'll still be spending time waiting. The channel tunnel gets you to the other side much quicker though and that's what matters to logistics companies.

Then there's the direct cross-channel freight trains, which would otherwise have required train>ship>train transshipment which is time consuming in its own.

It's also particularly undermined by the lack of checks on motor vehicles that go through the tunnel. You could fit a rather larger bomb in a private car than in a piece of hand luggage...

That's not true. There are a ton of motor vehicle security precautions which take place prior to tunnel entry, which are designed to be invisible. There are automated scanners for explosives, radiation and even nuclear materials.

 

[Bald Rick]

As to the Channel tunnel. I think there is enough clay over it to "allow" a terrorist attach without flooding.

theres no clay above the tunnel at all!

(it‘s chalk)

 

[Austriantrain]

Indeed - when you use the Eurotunnel there are generally no checks at all of what you have in your vehicle. For all they know you could be carrying a bomb in the boot!

Thanks for pointing this out. The security arrangements for E* verge on the absurd (considering longer rail tunnels are being operated without security checks), as do the UK border requirements (on the paranoid).

 

[Watershed]

Thanks for pointing this out. The security arrangements for E* verge on the absurd (considering longer rail tunnels are being operated without security checks), as do the UK border requirements (on the paranoid).

Especially when you put it all together...

You can use HS1 without security checks if you're making a domestic journey (Southeastern High Speed).

You can use the Tunnel without security checks if you're in your own car (Eurotunnel).

And you can use the LGV Nord/HSL-1/Zuid without security checks for both domestic and international journeys (Thalys/IZY).

But if you want to do all three at once on Eurostar, you have to go through airport-style security. Now that airports have more advanced scanners, there isn't even a difference in terms of the liquid restrictions.

 

[Bald Rick]

You can use the Tunnel without security checks if you're in your own car (Eurotunnel).

there are security checks, just not airport style

 

[bspahh]

there are security checks, just not airport style

I once had a flight cancelled at Stansted. I hired a car, took the Eurotunnel and was half an hour away down the Autoroute to Paris when I was flagged down by French police/customs officers on motorbikes, who wanted to check what I was doing.

 

[MattRat]

Unless I missed something in the thread, the only 'solution' appears to be to stop the trains at Rotterdam, and maybe have a shuttle to take people onwards to Amsterdam.

 

[Bald Rick]

I once had a flight cancelled at Stansted. I hired a car, took the Eurotunnel and was half an hour away down the Autoroute to Paris when I was flagged down by French police/customs officers on motorbikes, who wanted to check what I was doing.

hopefully the answer was “150 km/h, Monsieur”

 

[zwk500]

I once had a flight cancelled at Stansted. I hired a car, took the Eurotunnel and was half an hour away down the Autoroute to Paris when I was flagged down by French police/customs officers on motorbikes, who wanted to check what I was doing.

There are random checks inside the countries on a routine basis, regardless of any security checks at ports. I was once on a coach that got pulled over in the middle of Germany for a brief Passport Check (pre-brexit).

 

[AlexNL]

Unless I missed something in the thread, the only 'solution' appears to be to stop the trains at Rotterdam, and maybe have a shuttle to take people onwards to Amsterdam.

After the media picked up on the "Eurostar to no longer call at Amsterdam" story, the secretary of state for transport let it known how displeased she is with this. ProRail then announced that they will look for a new place for the temporary Amsterdam Centraal Eurostar terminal and will announce this 'after the summer'.

 

[kevin_roche]

After the media picked up on the "Eurostar to no longer call at Amsterdam" story, the secretary of state for transport let it known how displeased she is with this. ProRail then announced that they will look for a new place for the temporary Amsterdam Centraal Eurostar terminal and will announce this 'after the summer'.

After the summer! There goes my plan for a trip.

 

[Trainbike46]

After the summer! There goes my plan for a trip.

They still run to amsterdam right now, and would for a quite a while. After the summer is just when the new plan will be published, so you can still go on your trip to amsterdam if you want to!

 

[Citybreak1]

A 4th train is due so they must be planning on keeping it.

 

[RT4038]

And then someone will say that with this solution, candidate refugees would just have to board a train unchecked, cross the channel tunnel, and once out of it, pull the alarm signal or otherwise stop the train, open the door, and disappear in the countryside.

Doesn't need to be so dramatic - dispose of passport en-route and claim asylum on arrival.

 

[Austriantrain]

Doesn't need to be so dramatic - dispose of passport en-route and claim asylum

The alternative to the current rules would not be no checks, but boarding checks by the train operator, which would be vastly cheaper than outbasing border patrol personnel. Hundreds of flights arrive in the UK daily with this system. It has been decided to discriminate against rail, and so be it, but that way, there will never be a decent rail service via the Tunnel and it will also not make the slightest difference to illegal migration, which finds other ways.

 

[RT4038]

The alternative to the current rules would not be no checks, but boarding checks by the train operator, which would be vastly cheaper than outbasing border patrol personnel. Hundreds of flights arrive in the UK daily with this system. It has been decided to discriminate against rail, and so be it, but that way, there will never be a decent rail service via the Tunnel and it will also not make the slightest difference to illegal migration, which finds other ways.

They could, but then the checks will take place in boarding, and again at St. Pancras. The current system means no delay on arrival, the airline system gives delay on checking in and delay on arrival. Plus St. Pancras would have to be rebuilt to accommodate. So I'm not sure what has been achieved by this change?

There is decent rail service via the Tunnel now, and I don't see how changing to the airline system would make any difference to how decent it may be?

 

[Austriantrain]

They could, but then the checks will take place in boarding, and again at St. Pancras. The current system means no delay on arrival, the airline system gives delay on checking in and delay on arrival. Plus St. Pancras would have to be rebuilt to accommodate. So I'm not sure what has been achieved by this change?

There is decent rail service via the Tunnel now, and I don't see how changing to the airline system would make any difference to how decent it may be?

It would be vastly cheaper to operate than having to pay for scarce UK border personnel to be be outstationed on the continent at each and every station served.

And I don‘t consider E* fares and lack of connections decent… of course, that might be different if it weren‘t owned by SNCF…

 

[Bald Rick]

The alternative to the current rules would not be no checks, but boarding checks by the train operator, which would be vastly cheaper than outbasing border patrol personnel. Hundreds of flights arrive in the UK daily with this system. It has been decided to discriminate against rail, and so be it, but that way, there will never be a decent rail service via the Tunnel and it will also not make the slightest difference to illegal migration, which finds other ways.

Airline style pre boarding checks work on the airlines because there is a very low chance that a passenger who boards the aircraft will leave it prior to arrival within the secure compound of the ’arrival’ airport, or if diverted, another airport. This is not the case with Eurostar.

the alternative is for the U.K. to grow up and join Schengen.

 

[Austriantrain]

Airline style pre boarding checks work on the airlines because there is a very low chance that a passenger who boards the aircraft will leave it prior to arrival within the secure compound of the ’arrival’ airport, or if diverted, another airport. This is not the case with Eurostar.

How often, since HS1 opened throughout, has there been a case where passengers have left a train in an uncontrolled manner?

Well, anyway… I could well imagine that it was the border control issue that stopped DBs plans to go to London…