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

[zwk500]

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

This doesn't demonstrate the risk isn't there, but that the measures are effective.

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

Indeed, I believe a significant problem was the costs of putting in a Border control post. Although fluctuations in the business travel market which would be paying for the train probably didn't help.

 

[Austriantrain]

This doesn't demonstrate the risk isn't there, but that the measures are effective.

Exactly, there are multiple ways to mitigate risks, not only one.

 

[Chester1]

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.

Schengen is only "growing up" if you define that as copying most of Europe. I voted remain but I don't get why some define the normal position of countries by what European countries do rather than the rest of the world. Nearly every country in the world outside the EU and EEA have their own seperate border controls and visa systems.

We have the CTA with our only land neighbour. There are very few non political reasons to have passportless travel with countries that you are need to board a plane or boat or use an undersea tunnel to visit. No UK government will join Schengen to save people a few minutes at airports or enable a handful of additional international trains to run. Labour didn't want to join 1997-2010 so its not just a Tory - brexit thing. It is not clear that the EU would accept Schengen membership for a country that doesn't have FOM with Europe. Negotiations are ongoing with the EU over this for Gibraltar but they can make an exception for a territory with about 35,000 residents.

I go out my way to use Eurostar but its a niche thing for people who don't live in London or Kent. Scrapping border controls wouldn't fundamentally change the situation.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

I don’t know since HS1 opened throughout, but I do know that it has happened Since HS1 opened. Which is more often than passengers have left a plane in an uncontrolled manner on the same city pair in the same time frame.

 

[zwk500]

Schengen is only "growing up" if you define that as copying most of Europe. I voted remain but I don't get why some define the normal position of countries by what European countries do rather than the rest of the world. Nearly every country in the world outside the EU and EEA have their own seperate border controls and visa systems.

We have the CTA with our only land neighbour. There are very few non political reasons to have passportless travel with countries that you are need to board a plane or boat or use an undersea tunnel to visit. No UK government will join Schengen to save people a few minutes at airports or enable a handful of additional international trains to run. Labour didn't want to join 1997-2010 so its not just a Tory - brexit thing. It is not clear that the EU would accept Schengen membership for a country that doesn't have FOM with Europe. Negotiations are ongoing with the EU over this for Gibraltar but they can make an exception for a territory with about 35,000 residents.

I go out my way to use Eurostar but its a niche thing for people who don't live in London or Kent. Scrapping border controls wouldn't fundamentally change the situation.

When we were part of the EU and all EU citizens had freedom of movement and right to work, joining Schengen was very much a matter of 'growing up'. There was no reason to perform checks on people arriving at Ports and Train stations that had come from a country that had all the same rights and controls that we did. Airports would have continued to control arrivals from non-Schengen countries as they do in the EU today.

Obviously, now those structures have been withdrawn the reasons to join the Schengen area are less straightforward, but the costs to the economy of less checks and allowing people to the UK to claim asylum are much, much smaller than the benefits to the economy of allowing smoother movement of legitimate travellers across borders.

 

[Austriantrain]

B

I don’t know since HS1 opened throughout, but I do know that it has happened Since HS1 opened. Which is more often than passengers have left a plane in an uncontrolled manner on the same city pair in the same time frame.

I never thought it hasn’t happened. And it will again. The question is, how often - reducing a risk to absolute nil rarely leads to rational choices.

But again, it’s pure theory, the current UK government will not have the slightest inclination to loosen the rules - if they could, they would rather tighten them even more.

 

[Chester1]

When we were part of the EU and all EU citizens had freedom of movement and right to work, joining Schengen was very much a matter of 'growing up'. There was no reason to perform checks on people arriving at Ports and Train stations that had come from a country that had all the same rights and controls that we did. Airports would have continued to control arrivals from non-Schengen countries as they do in the EU today.

Obviously, now those structures have been withdrawn the reasons to join the Schengen area are less straightforward, but the costs to the economy of less checks and allowing people to the UK to claim asylum are much, much smaller than the benefits to the economy of allowing smoother movement of legitimate travellers across borders.

This is true with countries that share land borders its not true of island countries. The time saved is usually only a matter of a few minutes each leg, on journeys that require security checks and checking in for planes, trains or ships. The economic difference is bordering on nil. Its a different story for goods because checks add a significant barrier to trade through long delays and red tape. There are even light touch border controls for passengers between GB and Republic of Ireland. These long predate brexit and wouldn't be there if adding 10 minutes made a significant economic difference.

This is not a criticism of Schengen, it makes huge sense scrapping land border controls because then barrier becomes nil. If we scrapped our border controls with the EU by joining Schengen we would still have the rest of the hassle involved in international travel.

Take Eurostar as an example. Passport controls are usually efficient. I might be able to arrive at St Pancras or Gare du Nord 10 minutes later than normal but its a 2 hour 25 minute journey, so thats not much time saved. Its even less relevant for Amsterdam. Joining Schengen wouldn't make much of a difference to viability of potential longer routes vs just allowing on train passport checks.

 

[kevin_roche]

My experience wasn't the extra time taken to check my Passport on the return journey but the fact that before there was Passport control in Amsterdam I had to take an earlier train to Brussels so I could be checked there and change trains. Hopefully they will find a way to check in Amsterdam.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Ok, well then we can look at the Simplon or Brenner base tunnels, or any one of the tens of other shorter Alpine tunnels. Being underneath land makes very little difference in the event of an emergency. Passenger trains go through these tunnels without any sort of security check, and where passport controls are done it is on the train, after departure from the last stop in the previous country.

Or even just look at the countless road tunnels where there are zero controls before entry. Some of these tunnels have tremendous amounts of traffic in summer, yet no-one is stopping cars for security checks before entering.

I agree with keeping random checks (and it can be done by Eurostar sending API at the time of booking, so it can also be intelligence-led), but checking everyone is completely pointless.

 

[DanBlanchflowe]

I spent 3 hours for the first time 10 days ago at Centraal looking around. My first impression was "only 15 platforms at the 'capital' of the most densley population West European Nation. Even my Regional Capital Newcastle has 12!!"
Then I realised that it is wedged on a constrained site by the river. So even the Metro is on the edge of its footprint, the shopping mall is below and the bus station above.
So nearly all the platforms cater for local, regional & national passenger services. The only internationals were 3 Thales ( 2 to Brussels & 1 to Berlin). That's much less than I was expecting for the primary station of a nation within 3 hours travel of Germany, Belgium & France.

 

[AlexNL]

The amount of platforms available at Amsterdam Centraal depends on how you count. If you look at the number of tracks which is directly adjacent to a platform, you're looking at 11 tracks. If you take into account that platform sharing is possible at all platforms in Amsterdam, the number goes up to 21.

In the future, the track layout at Amsterdam Centraal will be altered significantly and platform sharing is effectively abolished. Future Amsterdam CS will have 10 tracks.

The service pattern will be changed significantly, services which currently service Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam Centraal and Almere/Amersfoort will use Amsterdam Zuid instead. International trains will move to Zuid as well. Services won't turn around in Zuid, anything which ends there will be emptied and shunted out of the way.

 

[DanielB]

One should also consider the history: Amsterdam Centraal was built on an artificial island in the IJ river replacing the former termini on the sides of the city center. Originally it was a double terminus from both sides and thus has long platforms which still serve multiple trains on the same platform.

And although it's the main station (second busiest in the country) next to the city center, the railway ring around Amsterdam takes away part of the traffic. Many important commuter destinations are closer to Amstel, Zuid, Bijlmer ArenA and Sloterdijk stations, which are also served by IC services. So a lot of trains are through services only using the platforms for a few minutes or bypass Centraal completely by using the southern part of the ring.

 

[DanBlanchflowe]

One should also consider the history: Amsterdam Centraal was built on an artificial island in the IJ river replacing the former termini on the sides of the city center. Originally it was a double terminus from both sides and thus has long platforms which still serve multiple trains on the same platform.

And although it's the main station (second busiest in the country) next to the city center, the railway ring around Amsterdam takes away part of the traffic. Many important commuter destinations are closer to Amstel, Zuid, Bijlmer ArenA and Sloterdijk stations, which are also served by IC services. So a lot of trains are through services only using the platforms for a few minutes or bypass Centraal completely by using the southern part of the ring.

Thanks for the interesting history of Centraal.
My comment on the little international traffic arises because we saw how the Dutch suitainably travelled about by bike, bus, tram, metro & ferry.
Do their green credentials not extend to international travel? For example by train to Rhur on business or the Rhine Valley and French coast for leisure?

 

[eastwestdivide]

For example by train to Rhur

I think the international connections from Amsterdam are as follows:
ICEs broadly every couple of hours from Amsterdam to Duisburg/Düsseldorf/Köln (and beyond) for the Ruhr area
ICs every couple of hours Amsterdam-Berlin
Thalys at least every couple of hours, hourly at times, to Brussels and Paris
3 (soon to be 4) Eurostar a day to Brussels and London

 

[duesselmartin]

The Ruhr can also be accessed via Arnhem. There is an additional Benelux IC to Brussels and Night Trains to Zürich, Innsbruck and Vienna.

 

[Watershed]

The amount of platforms available at Amsterdam Centraal depends on how you count. If you look at the number of tracks which is directly adjacent to a platform, you're looking at 11 tracks. If you take into account that platform sharing is possible at all platforms in Amsterdam, the number goes up to 21.

In the future, the track layout at Amsterdam Centraal will be altered significantly and platform sharing is effectively abolished. Future Amsterdam CS will have 10 tracks.

The service pattern will be changed significantly, services which currently service Schiphol Airport, Amsterdam Centraal and Almere/Amersfoort will use Amsterdam Zuid instead. International trains will move to Zuid as well. Services won't turn around in Zuid, anything which ends there will be emptied and shunted out of the way.

This seems a significant worsening in the service pattern and connectivity - why are these changes being made?

 

[Trainbike46]

This seems a significant worsening in the service pattern and connectivity - why are these changes being made?

The main reason is that the platforms are too narrow to safely handle the passenger numbers, so it has been decided that they must be widened, and the only way to widen them is to reduce the number of platforms, and in order to make that fit a lot of services are supposed to be rerouted to the Amsterdam Zuid

 

[DanielB]

I think the international connections from Amsterdam are as follows:
ICEs broadly every couple of hours from Amsterdam to Duisburg/Düsseldorf/Köln (and beyond) for the Ruhr area
ICs every couple of hours Amsterdam-Berlin
Thalys at least every couple of hours, hourly at times, to Brussels and Paris
3 (soon to be 4) Eurostar a day to Brussels and London

* The ICE services run 7-8 times a day to Frankfurt, with one train a day to Basel
* IC to Berlin runs every 2 hours, with some late/early trains only to/from Bad Bentheim or Hannover
* Thalys services are to be increased to an hourly service soon
* Eurostar 3-4 a day to London
* Nightjet services once a day to Zürich and Innsbruck/Vienna
* IC to Brussels runs hourly

In addition there are also several indirect international connections
* IC to Vlissingen (half-hourly) connects onto the hourly local service to Antwerp at Roosendaal
* IC to Maastricht (half-hourly) connects onto the hourly local service to Liège at Maastricht
* IC to Heerlen (half-hourly) connects to the hourly local service to Aachen at Heerlen
* IC to Nijmegen (half-hourly) connects to the hourly local service to Düsseldorf at Arnhem Centraal
* IC to Hengelo (once a day) connects to the hourly local service to Bielefeld at Hengelo

This seems a significant worsening in the service pattern and connectivity - why are these changes being made?

Additionally to what Trainbike46 mentions those changes are also part of so called "Programma Hoogfrequent Spoorvervoer" (Highly frequent rail transport programme). Those involve decomplicating infrastructure at stations enabling faster approach and departure and less conflicts between corridors. An example of such a decomplicated station is Utrecht Centraal where trains are now able to enter the station at 80 km/h instead of 40 km/h, shortening journey times.
At Amsterdam Central the corridor Zaandam - Utrecht - Eindhoven will become conflict-free through the middle of the station, with to the south platforms where trains from Schiphol and Haarlem will terminate and to the north platforms where trains from Almere/Amersfoort will terminate. The international services (Thalys and Eurostar) would however conflict with that setup, as the yard where they are cleaned and maintained is beside the lines from Amersfoort and they have to continue to Schiphol. Therefore, those services will use the back-entrance of the Watergraafsmeer yard in the future to get to Amsterdam Zuid.

The changes to the services from Almere/Amersfoort are a result of the SAAL (Schiphol - Amsterdam - Almere - Lelystad) program, introducing a more frequent service there. In order to fit those services onto the existing infrastructure all IC-trains from Almere and Amersfoort will go to Amsterdam Zuid and Schiphol, eventually continuing via the HSL to Rotterdam (that's where the new ICNG trains will be used in later stages of introduction).
For Amersfoort that means for example 4 tph to Amsterdam Zuid instead of 2 to Zuid and 2 to Centraal (from practical experience: when taking the subway from the city center I'm always taking it to the wrong station to have a quick connection currently ). To Centraal more Sprinter services would run in future, also reducing the need for services to be passed by IC trains at Weesp.
Schiphol will get a highly frequent Airport Sprinter service instead of the current mix of Sprinter services and high speed services. The latter will continue towards Amersfoort/Almere as mentioned above, except for the international once which will terminate at Amsterdam Zuid.

 

[AlexNL]

Do their green credentials not extend to international travel?

Not all the way to Amsterdam, no.

These days there's quite a number of shorter distance regional services which cross the border into the Netherlands.

With Germany:
- Groningen - Weener - Leer (albeit bustituted due to a freight ship ramming the Friesenbrücke railway bridge, rebuild is underway)
- Hengelo - Bad Bentheim - Rheine - Osnabrück - Bielefeld
- Enschede - Gronau - Münster / Dortmund
- Arnhem - Emmerich - Düsseldorf
- Venlo - Mönchengladbach - Düsseldorf - Hamm
- Maastricht - Heerlen - Aachen (continues to Liège in the future)

With Belgium:
- Puurs - Antwerp - Roosendaal
- Hasselt - Liège - Maastricht (continues to Aachen in the future)

All these services run hourly and provide decent connections with onward travel within NL.

 

[rvdborgt]

The main reason is that the platforms are too narrow to safely handle the passenger numbers, so it has been decided that they must be widened, and the only way to widen them is to reduce the number of platforms, and in order to make that fit a lot of services are supposed to be rerouted to the Amsterdam Zuid

International services could be kept at Centraal, but the government did not want to spend any money on the extra platform that would be needed.

 

[Skimble19]

International services could be kept at Centraal, but the government did not want to spend any money on the extra platform that would be needed.

That’s a real shame. I can’t help but think the experience of arriving at Zuid won’t quite be the same as Centraal… It almost seems a bit like being dumped at Finsbury Park instead of Kings Cross!

 

[johncrossley]

My comment on the little international traffic arises because we saw how the Dutch suitainably travelled about by bike, bus, tram, metro & ferry.

From what I've heard, the Dutch mode share for local public transport is very low, because Dutch generally go by bike for short trips that people use bus/tram/metro for in other countries. However, Dutch bike usage for short trips is higher than public transport usage for short trips in other countries, meaning that car usage for short trips is lower than other countries. Nevertheless, longer, out of town trips are overwhelmingly carried out by car just like in other countries.

That’s a real shame. I can’t help but think the experience of arriving at Zuid won’t quite be the same as Centraal… It almost seems a bit like being dumped at Finsbury Park instead of Kings Cross!

It is more like being at Canary Wharf, given the large number of gleaming towers in the vicinity of Zuid. Personally, I don't see much of a problem with Zuid. Centraal is still a fair distance from a lot of the main tourist hotspots and Zuid has good connections and is better for business.

 

[paul1609]

That’s a real shame. I can’t help but think the experience of arriving at Zuid won’t quite be the same as Centraal… It almost seems a bit like being dumped at Finsbury Park instead of Kings Cross!

Its like arriving at St Pancras rather than Charing Cross!

 

[Austriantrain]

It is more like being at Canary Wharf, given the large number of gleaming towers in the vicinity of Zuid. Personally, I don't see much of a problem with Zuid. Centraal is still a fair distance from a lot of the main tourist hotspots and Zuid has good connections and is better for business.

And international passengers arriving from Belgium/France or Germany will have ample opportunity to change to Dutch domestic trains before arriving at Amsterdam, so connectivity will presumably not suffer.

 

[coppercapped]

Schengen is only "growing up" if you define that as copying most of Europe. I voted remain but I don't get why some define the normal position of countries by what European countries do rather than the rest of the world. Nearly every country in the world outside the EU and EEA have their own seperate border controls and visa systems.

We have the CTA with our only land neighbour. There are very few non political reasons to have passportless travel with countries that you are need to board a plane or boat or use an undersea tunnel to visit. No UK government will join Schengen to save people a few minutes at airports or enable a handful of additional international trains to run. Labour didn't want to join 1997-2010 so its not just a Tory - brexit thing. It is not clear that the EU would accept Schengen membership for a country that doesn't have FOM with Europe. Negotiations are ongoing with the EU over this for Gibraltar but they can make an exception for a territory with about 35,000 residents.

I go out my way to use Eurostar but its a niche thing for people who don't live in London or Kent. Scrapping border controls wouldn't fundamentally change the situation.

When we were part of the EU and all EU citizens had freedom of movement and right to work, joining Schengen was very much a matter of 'growing up'. There was no reason to perform checks on people arriving at Ports and Train stations that had come from a country that had all the same rights and controls that we did. Airports would have continued to control arrivals from non-Schengen countries as they do in the EU today.

Obviously, now those structures have been withdrawn the reasons to join the Schengen area are less straightforward, but the costs to the economy of less checks and allowing people to the UK to claim asylum are much, much smaller than the benefits to the economy of allowing smoother movement of legitimate travellers across borders.

This is true with countries that share land borders its not true of island countries. The time saved is usually only a matter of a few minutes each leg, on journeys that require security checks and checking in for planes, trains or ships. The economic difference is bordering on nil. Its a different story for goods because checks add a significant barrier to trade through long delays and red tape. There are even light touch border controls for passengers between GB and Republic of Ireland. These long predate brexit and wouldn't be there if adding 10 minutes made a significant economic difference.

This is not a criticism of Schengen, it makes huge sense scrapping land border controls because then barrier becomes nil. If we scrapped our border controls with the EU by joining Schengen we would still have the rest of the hassle involved in international travel.

Take Eurostar as an example. Passport controls are usually efficient. I might be able to arrive at St Pancras or Gare du Nord 10 minutes later than normal but its a 2 hour 25 minute journey, so thats not much time saved. Its even less relevant for Amsterdam. Joining Schengen wouldn't make much of a difference to viability of potential longer routes vs just allowing on train passport checks.

Dear posters...

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding of what Schengen means.

The Schengen treaty stops countries having controls on passports and other forms of ID of citizens of other Schengen countries at border crossings. However citizens of a member country have to abide by the laws and regulations for proving identity of the country they are in.

It is a legal requirement in Germany, Belgium, France and Denmark[1] (of the countries I am familiar with) to register your address and to carry the national ID card - in some cases every time you leave your front door. So if you are a citizen of country A you can travel with your ID card to country B with no border control, but if staying in Country B you have to register your address with the authorities if your are going to live there or just visit - which is why hotels ask you to fill out a registration form in your own hand. If Country B requires you to always have your ID card with you then this is what you must do. If you need to show your ID to the authorities for some reason, a traffic accident for example, then you can be in hot water if you don't have it.

As the UK doesn't have national ID cards, then if travelling to a Schengen country you have to use your passport - and the border checks when entering, say, France are partially intended to ensure that you have your passport with you.

As the UK does not have a requirement for registering your address with the relevant authorities or carrying ID at all times then without border controls it is not possible to know who has entered the UK as there is no subsequent requirement to register your address. If any Schengen citizen wants to just 'disappear' then travelling to the UK would be the way to do it if there were no inbound border controls.

The philosophy and legal structures of the two areas are very different - which is why border controls cause such a debate. But until the UK introduces the requirement to register one's address with the police or the town council, whether on a holiday or for work, and carry an ID card then it will remain outside the Schengen travel area.

[1] Danish requirements are given in https://www.norden.org/en/info-norden/civil-registration-denmark where it states:

Here you can read about when you have the right and the obligation to be registered with the Danish Civil Register when you move to Denmark from abroad.
You can be registered in the Danish Civil Register (CPR) when you move to Denmark. Your rights and duties in this connection will vary, depending on the country of which you are a citizen and the country from which you are moving.
People moving between the Nordic countries, including the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland, are covered by what is known as the inter-Nordic civil registration agreement, under which you can only be registered at one address in the Nordic Region.
You must register your change of address to your municipality of residence within five days of moving to Denmark, and you must meet the conditions for registration. You cannot be registered as a resident unless you have a permanent place of residence, are legally resident in Denmark and will be staying in the country for more than three months.
If you are not a Danish citizen and are moving from another country to the City of Copenhagen or one of a number of other municipalities in the Copenhagen metropolitan area and Zealand, you must register the move and apply for a civil registration number online. See “If you are moving to the Copenhagen metropolitan area” further down this page.
If you are moving to any other municipality in Denmark, you must register the move by personally contacting the Citizen Service Centre in the municipality to which you have moved. You must always bring ID and proof of your address in Denmark. You may also be required to bring other documentation, depending on the country of which you are a citizen and the country from which you are moving.
Once you are on the Civil Register, you will be issued with a Civil Registration (CPR) number.

 

[RT4038]

Joining Schengen wouldn't make much of a difference to viability of potential longer routes vs just allowing on train passport checks.

But on train passport checks are just not going to happen nowadays, so there is no point comparing any system with that. It is either Schengen (no/random checks) or what we have now on E* and in airports/ports.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Dear posters...

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding of what Schengen means.

The Schengen treaty stops countries having controls on passports and other forms of ID of citizens of other Schengen countries at border crossings. However citizens of a member country have to abide by the laws and regulations for proving identity of the country they are in.

It is a legal requirement in Germany, Belgium, France and Denmark[1] (of the countries I am familiar with) to register your address and to carry the national ID card - in some cases every time you leave your front door. So if you are a citizen of country A you can travel with your ID card to country B with no border control, but if staying in Country B you have to register your address with the authorities if your are going to live there or just visit - which is why hotels ask you to fill out a registration form in your own hand. If Country B requires you to always have your ID card with you then this is what you must do. If you need to show your ID to the authorities for some reason, a traffic accident for example, then you can be in hot water if you don't have it.

As the UK doesn't have national ID cards, then if travelling to a Schengen country you have to use your passport - and the border checks when entering, say, France are partially intended to ensure that you have your passport with you.

As the UK does not have a requirement for registering your address with the relevant authorities or carrying ID at all times then without border controls it is not possible to know who has entered the UK as there is no subsequent requirement to register your address. If any Schengen citizen wants to just 'disappear' then travelling to the UK would be the way to do it if there were no inbound border controls.

The philosophy and legal structures of the two areas are very different - which is why border controls cause such a debate. But until the UK introduces the requirement to register one's address with the police or the town council, whether on a holiday or for work, and carry an ID card then it will remain outside the Schengen travel area.

[1] Danish requirements are given in https://www.norden.org/en/info-norden/civil-registration-denmark where it states:

I don't think the bit in bold logically follows. Surely there are already countries inside the Schengen zone which don't require carrying ID or registering your whereabouts with the authorities? So from the Schengen point of view having the UK inside wouldn't present any new problem. The problem would be for Brits who could then travel into the rest of the zone without ID (given the lack or legal requirement for it here and the lack of internal Schengen automatic border checks) who'd then be caught out if in a country that could demand ID.

 

[coppercapped]

I don't think the bit in bold logically follows. Surely there are already countries inside the Schengen zone which don't require carrying ID or registering your whereabouts with the authorities?

Name me one or two.

So from the Schengen point of view having the UK inside wouldn't present any new problem. The problem would be for Brits who could then travel into the rest of the zone without ID (given the lack or legal requirement for it here and the lack of internal Schengen automatic border checks) who'd then be caught out if in a country that could demand ID.

Automatic border checks for the Schengen zone are coming. The ESS, the Entry/Exit System which is described on this EU web page https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/p...s-and-visa/smart-borders/entry-exit-system_en :

The Entry/Exit System (EES) will be an automated IT system for registering travellers from third-countries, both short-stay visa holders and visa exempt travellers, each time they cross an EU external border. The system will register the person's name, type of the travel document, biometric data (fingerprints and captured facial images) and the date and place of entry and exit, in full respect of fundamental rights and data protection.

It will also record refusals of entry. EES will replace the current system of manual stamping of passports, which is time consuming, does not provide reliable data on border crossings and does not allow a systematic detection of over-stayers (travellers who have exceeded the maximum duration of their authorised stay).

EES will contribute to prevent irregular migration and help protect the security of European citizens. The new system will also help bona fide third-country nationals to travel more easily while also identifying more efficiently over-stayers as well as cases of document and identity fraud. In addition to this, the system will enable to make a wider use of automated border control checks and self-service systems, which are quicker and more comfortable for the traveller.

 

[SHD]

French citizens are not *required* to carry along identification documents and possessing a national identity card is not mandatory.

But in practice, it is difficult or even impossible to carry out many acts of life without a national identity card or a passport (such as taking an official exam or opening a bank account).

 

[Austriantrain]

French citizens are not *required* to carry along identification documents and possessing a national identity card is not mandatory.

But in practice, it is difficult or even impossible to carry out many acts of life without a national identity card or a passport (such as taking an official exam or opening a bank account).

Hmm… in Austria, it‘s more or less the same, but for domestic identification, a driving licence is sufficient. Few people have a National Identity Card; almost everyone has a passport though, but will not carry it around (and is not required to either).

We do have to register a residence though (and from where I work in, it is a blessing…).