Getlink aiming to double the number of destinations from London in ten years

[signed]

It amazes me that we're still stubbornly sticking to the idea that there must be UK entry controls everywhere, when in reality, we only need them in St Pancras once the ETA is live and linked to check-in systems.

Maybe because it's the best solution, maybe not for cost, for the passenger, just deal with everything at the beginning. US Preclerance is the showing of that (though its introduction is a bit daft I agree)

 

[Bald Rick]

Agree, sadly, re Schengen.

But on flights, tomorrow there are 23 flights between London and Milan airports. Admittedly spread across all the airports, but certainly enough demand for 2 RT trips, one day.

Assuming an A319 (smaller end but balanced re LCY metal) - and 80% load, let's say 100 per flight - that's 2300 people per day. If we added Turin (3-6 flights a day)and a France call (Disney - might also have inbound Italian demand?) - or Lyon - it gets interesting.

14 to Geneva, which seems low but many more after December.

London - Milan has roughly the same number of passengers as London - Geneva at c 2.3m pax per year; about 3,100 each way a day on average thorugh the year. Geneva is more seasonal than Milan. Both routes would need traffic from intermediate stations, though.

Oh to be in Schengen…

 

[StephenHunter]

London - Milan has roughly the same number of passengers as London - Geneva at c 2.3m pax per year; about 3,100 each way a day on average thorugh the year. Geneva is more seasonal than Milan. Both routes would need traffic from intermediate stations, though.

Oh to be in Schengen…

Why not sell tickets from Lille to Milan or other stations on the route once you're in Schengen?

 

[zwk500]

Why not sell tickets from Lille to Milan or other stations on the route once you're in Schengen?

You could, but on the return option you'd need a Lille shuffle to check nobody's staying beyond their ticket.

 

[StephenHunter]

You could, but on the return option you'd need a Lille shuffle to check nobody's staying beyond their ticket.

Have two 8-car units and use the rear ones for intra-Schengen. Wasn't that what was supposed to happen with Amsterdam to London?

 

[Bald Rick]

Why not sell tickets from Lille to Milan or other stations on the route once you're in Schengen?

You could, but on the return option you'd need a Lille shuffle to check nobody's staying beyond their ticket.

If we were in Schengen, you could have passengers boarding / alighting wherever it stopped. Trains like London - Paris - Lyon - Turin - Milan (and even on to Rome), London - Paris - Barcelona, London - Brussels - Köln - Dortmund - Hannover - Berlin, London - Brussels - Koln - Frankfurt - Stuttgart - Munich would all be in existence, no doubt.

Edit: I interpreted @StephenHunter your comment “once you’re in Schengen ” to mean once the UK was in Schengen. If you mean once the train is in Schengen, then what @zwk500 says!

 

[StephenHunter]

Edit: I interpreted @StephenHunter your comment “once youre in Schengen ” to mean once the UK was in Schengen. If you mean once the train is in Schengen, then what @zwk500 says!

The latter.

 

[DanielB]

Have two 8-car units and use the rear ones for intra-Schengen. Wasn't that what was supposed to happen with Amsterdam to London?

It actually has happened, but as it was the rear half of a 16-car set (so they couldn't simply uncouple it in Brussels) they rather quickly stopped taking intra-Schengen passengers to enable shorter journey times from Amsterdam to London by no longer requiring time for a security sweep in Brussels.

 

[Struner]

[…]
Oh to be in Schengen…

The elephant in the room wasn’t much of a help , remember?

 

[StephenHunter]

The elephant in the room wasn’t much of a help , remember?

Isn't the Elefant in Czechia?

Anyway, some imagination will be needed. What about Monaco as a destination?

 

[Wolfie]

It's not impossible, there's a lot of wasted space on the platform level in front of the buffer stops. By transforming that part of STP into a new arrivals area, you pretty much can get ~800 people through eGates while retaining enough space for the 100 (maximum) to be checked manually. If you use a bit of common sense, you can also allow children to travel through the eGates with their parents if they're under 10, as long as they're on the same booking and with random checks.



It would, but it would remove the need for the UK border controls in every station in Schengen, they'd only need to have exit-Schengen controls, nothing more.



Yup, that's exactly how it should work. The pre-authorisation simply makes sure that no-one gets on the train who isn't authorised to do so.

It amazes me that we're still stubbornly sticking to the idea that there must be UK entry controls everywhere, when in reality, we only need them in St Pancras once the ETA is live and linked to check-in systems.

Very blase about the ease of modifying a Grade 1 listed building lol.....

I think the real issue is that there's actually no need to relax anything. The UK ETA system should make it perfectly possible to refuse entry to anyone who isn't pre-approved for travel, and with a little bit of goodwill, it could easily be extended to include an ETIAS and EES check even at the point of check in. If someone isn't in compliance with all three systems, then it would be an automatic "no". Combine that with a deal with the EU to return any EU citizens denied at the UK Border, and the problem is pretty much solved.

Essentially, the UK would have pre-authorised anyone travelling to the UK on Eurostar or similar, and the train companies would ensure that the check-in took biometric data which would then be used by the border police to verify that the passenger is who they say they are. Someone who turns up at the UK border without documents would already be 'on file', so their real identity could be quickly ascertained.

The juxtaposed controls made sense when there was no other way to prevent people from travelling to the UK, but now that we have biometric everything, their purpose has all but gone. We could retain the juxtaposed control in St Pancras for Schengen-bound travellers, but the controls in Gare du Nord/etc would be relocated to St Pancras.

Lots of "it should be easy" or "goodwill" and pretty much zero political reality.

 

[zwk500]

The juxtaposed controls made sense when there was no other way to prevent people from travelling to the UK, but now that we have biometric everything, their purpose has all but gone. We could retain the juxtaposed control in St Pancras for Schengen-bound travellers, but the controls in Gare du Nord/etc would be relocated to St Pancras.

Their purpose is to prevent people who aren't meant to be in the UK from ever getting onto UK Territory, and allow a seamless exit on arrival. When flying, the benefit from doing juxtaposed checks is massively negated as you still have to queue for baggage claim, but that's not the case for ferries or trains (remember Juxtaposed controls exist at the Dover Straits ports as well). On arrival for ferries or trains you still have a boarding procedure, so extending that to include all the checks to allow people to drive/walk straight off at the other end is a massive benefit to the throughput of the port as well as the passenger. Once arrived on UK territory, it's harder for UK authorities to remove them.

I regularly get the ferry between Newhaven and Dieppe as my family lives in Sussex, where juxtaposed controls do not. The exit checks for that often take an hour or more on both sides. You still have to get to the departure port well ahead for check-in, so if juxtaposed controls existed you'd be saving a massive amount of time (as well as a reasonable amount of space at Newhaven as the quay is tiny). Similarly, if you moved Juxtaposed controls back to St Pancras, you'd still take 30 mins or more to process a train full of passengers (more if you needed to take somebody aside for interview). But you wouldn't reduce the pre-arrival time by the same amount or greater, so you're just spaffing away the train's major selling point of stepping straight off the train at your destination.

Have two 8-car units and use the rear ones for intra-Schengen. Wasn't that what was supposed to happen with Amsterdam to London?

Unless you're leaving behind the rear unit, you'd still need a security check at Lille (or elsewhere). Amsterdam has done that when running from terminals without security, forcing all change at Brussels.

I believe there were some Brussels-London trains that had a Lille carriage for evening commuters back and the Belgian and French authorities insisted that an intra-schengen journey must not have passports checked, so Eurostar were forced to put security guards on the train to stop people moving from the rear carriage into the rest of the train, and to make sure they all disembarked at Lille.

 

[Austriantrain]

It actually has happened, but as it was the rear half of a 16-car set (so they couldn't simply uncouple it in Brussels) they rather quickly stopped taking intra-Schengen passengers to enable shorter journey times from Amsterdam to London by no longer requiring time for a security sweep in Brussels.

With two sets, uncouple the second one at Lille (or Calais-Fréthun). If you can manage to park it somewhere.

 

[zwk500]

With two sets, uncouple the second one at Lille (or Calais-Fréthun). If you can manage to park it somewhere.

And then your access charges are spread over only half the passengers you could be taking, which isn't great from a pricing perspective.

 

[Austriantrain]

And then your access charges are spread over only half the passengers you could be taking, which isn't great from a pricing perspective.

Oh, that depends. If you can sell out a nonstop double set from Geneva to London, you wouldn't need intra-Schengen passengers anyway. If you can realistically only fill 8 coaches, having another sold-out 8 cars intra-Schengen, your bottom line will be better than if you only run 8 coaches in the first place or run 16 throughout, but only 8 of them sold.

The other alternative is clearing the second set at Lille, security-sweep it while on the platform, and then fill it again with Lille to London passengers. Takes more than 30 minutes and blocks a platform at Lille for the entire time, not sure if this is feasible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh to be in Schengen…

Rather not. Imagine the problems we would have with the volume of totally uncontrolled immigration then.

The minor inconvenience to the railway does not outweigh that.

 

[StephenHunter]

Rather not. Imagine the problems we would have with the volume of totally uncontrolled immigration then.

The minor inconvenience to the railway does not outweigh that.

It's not like not being in Schengen is stopping migration either.

Many "illegal immigrants" are visa overstayers, others won't enter via Eurostar anyway.

 

[TheWierdOne]

And then your access charges are spread over only half the passengers you could be taking, which isn't great from a pricing perspective.

Depends how HS1 leverages access charges. If it’s a flat fare per train then yes that creates issues but if it’s based on weight or length it wouldn’t matter.

 

[zwk500]

Depends how HS1 leverages access charges. If it’s a flat fare per train then yes that creates issues but if it’s based on weight or length it wouldn’t matter.

The bulk of the charges are per minute you are occupying HS1's track (For passengers). There is a electricity consumption charge as well, but I suspect the saving from running half the length of train will not offset having 400 less passengers to spread costs over.

Here's Eurostar's charges, for reference:

(Image showing a table of charges for Eurostar trains on HS1, based on the London-Paris service group).

Info is here: https://highspeed1.co.uk/regulatory/access-new-operators

Eurotunnel charge a fee per train, and then a fee per passenger on top, IIRC. Their info is similarly available online as it's legally required to be. Both Infrastructures charge for having paths in the system, used or not, and have variable rates for short-term extras/changes and so forth as you'd expect.

 

[Trainbike46]

Potentially, a similar approach to that used on the Amsterdam train in the past could be used - full length/400m trains, with half the train outside Schengen, half in from Geneva - CDG/Disneyland-Lille. At Lille, security sweep the half of the train that was intraschengen, and then fill the train with passengers from Lille-London.

It would require the train to have a long stop at Lille in the london-bound direction though, which may be a disadvantage, especially when you could fill the train with Geneva-London passengers

The bulk of the charges are per minute you are occupying HS1's track (For passengers). There is a electricity consumption charge as well, but I suspect the saving from running half the length of train will not offset having 400 less passengers to spread costs over.

Here's Eurostar's charges, for reference:
View attachment 170013
(Image showing a table of charges for Eurostar trains on HS1, based on the London-Paris service group).

Info is here: https://highspeed1.co.uk/regulatory/access-new-operators

Eurotunnel charge a fee per train, and then a fee per passenger on top, IIRC. Their info is similarly available online as it's legally required to be. Both Infrastructures charge for having paths in the system, used or not, and have variable rates for short-term extras/changes and so forth as you'd expect.

So, just to check I'm reading this right:
Eurostar is charged £69.57 per minute for 31 minutes for Paris-bound trains
The other sections are the parts that make up the £69.57, or are they on top?

 

[zwk500]

At Lille, security sweep the half of the train that was intraschengen, and then fill the train with passengers from Lille-London.

Filling the train at Lille with UK-bound passengers might be a challenge

So, just to check I'm reading this right:
Eurostar is charged £69.57 per minute for 31 minutes for Paris-bound trains
The other sections are the parts that make up the £69.57, or are they on top?

I'm not 100% sure, but from reading the other documents on the page I linked I believe you add it all up. And that's just for track access on HS1, you've got Eurotunnel, SNCF, and Station access to include on top of that.

 

[TheWierdOne]

Potentially, a similar approach to that used on the Amsterdam train in the past could be used - full length/400m trains, with half the train outside Schengen, half in from Geneva - CDG/Disneyland-Lille. At Lille, security sweep the half of the train that was intraschengen, and then fill the train with passengers from Lille-London.

It would require the train to have a long stop at Lille in the london-bound direction though, which may be a disadvantage, especially when you could fill the train with Geneva-London passengers

Alternatively if you had two 200m units, you could have two trains coming from separate Schengen destinations, each with 2 units. One for UK-bound passengers, locked except for stops at stations with passport control, one that carries intra-Schengen journeys. They could both drop their Schengen portions at a suitable location, and combine the UK portions for transit to London. It would potentially be a minor bit of shuffling but with modern couplings and a disciplined crew you should save a lot of time compared to a full security sweep.

 

[RT4038]

Alternatively if you had two 200m units, you could have two trains coming from separate Schengen destinations, each with 2 units. One for UK-bound passengers, locked except for stops at stations with passport control, one that carries intra-Schengen journeys. They could both drop their Schengen portions at a suitable location, and combine the UK portions for transit to London. It would potentially be a minor bit of shuffling but with modern couplings and a disciplined crew you should save a lot of time compared to a full security sweep.

and a reliance on both portions actually arriving somewhere close to the right time..... yes right.

 

[zwk500]

Alternatively if you had two 200m units, you could have two trains coming from separate Schengen destinations, each with 2 units. One for UK-bound passengers, locked except for stops at stations with passport control, one that carries intra-Schengen journeys. They could both drop their Schengen portions at a suitable location, and combine the UK portions for transit to London. It would potentially be a minor bit of shuffling but with modern couplings and a disciplined crew you should save a lot of time compared to a full security sweep.

Remember that at Lille you'd need to hold the doors locked shut on both trains and platforms until the unit being moved had departed, or to uncouple the train further back. It would need something like Geneva to London Or Paris, splitting at CDG, combining with a Frankfurt to London or Paris, splitting at Brussels. The Paris portions of each train would run independently as 200m sets between CDG/Brussels to Paris, and the London Portions would attach at Lille.

The crewing costs would be horrendous. Not to mention the delay risks being through the roof.

 

[TheWierdOne]

The crewing costs would be horrendous. Not to mention the delay risks being through the roof.

and a reliance on both portions actually arriving somewhere close to the right time..... yes right.

There would be delay risk but separation and attachment is nothing new, ditto having two train crews on one train of two units , and if a train does need to be held it isn’t like HS1 and the Chunnel are short of paths.

I imagined somewhat simpler options of two trains heading to London, and just leaving their Schengen portions at Lille, driving independently to Calais or anywhere convenient on/near the LGV Nord and joining there before entering the UK.

(Sorry for the random update if anyone got pinged, accidentally deleted my own post)

 

[StephenHunter]

Alternatively if you had two 200m units, you could have two trains coming from separate Schengen destinations, each with 2 units. One for UK-bound passengers, locked except for stops at stations with passport control, one that carries intra-Schengen journeys. They could both drop their Schengen portions at a suitable location, and combine the UK portions for transit to London. It would potentially be a minor bit of shuffling but with modern couplings and a disciplined crew you should save a lot of time compared to a full security sweep.

When I went from Milan to Basel via SBB, there were two units with the rear one locked out of use until Domodossola, where Swiss Customs came on briefly.

 

[Bald Rick]

Rather not. Imagine the problems we would have with the volume of totally uncontrolled immigration then.

The minor inconvenience to the railway does not outweigh that.

Well this is for another thread, but 1) Im not sure if we would have a problem with uncontrolled immigration from within Schengen, and 2) its not just a minor inconvenience to the railway. It’s an inconvenience to all cross border travel with Europe; joing Schengen would, in my view, significantly improve our economy. And (to get back on topic) enable direct trains to all sorts of near europe locations.

 

[Wolfie]

Well this is for another thread, but 1) Im not sure if we would have a problem with uncontrolled immigration from within Schengen, and 2) its not just a minor inconvenience to the railway. It’s an inconvenience to all cross border travel with Europe; joing Schengen would, in my view, significantly improve our economy. And (to get back on topic) enable direct trains to all sorts of near europe locations.

There is probably not a single UK political party, even the Lib Dems, who would wish to join Schengen.

 

[Struner]

“UK political party” is a restriction…

 

[zwk500]

There would be delay risk but separation and attachment is nothing new, ditto having two train crews on one train of two units , and if a train does need to be held it isn’t like HS1 and the Chunnel are short of paths.

I imagined somewhat simpler options of two trains heading to London, and just leaving their Schengen portions at Lille, driving independently to Calais or anywhere convenient on/near the LGV Nord and joining there before entering the UK.

the whole point of a high speed service is that it's limited stop. Stopping at Lille and Calais to bugger about with shunting is destroying an extremely time-sensitive operation's main selling point.