High Speed Rail, the big European picture

[najaB]

An interesting anomaly is that the UK does have a fairly open border with an EU Shengen nation, in Ireland, but of course the ROI has no land border with the rest of the European mainland.

The ROI is not yet part of the Schengen zone. The Common Travel Area was more economically and socially useful to them than becoming a signatory to the Schengen Agreement. The UK and ROI still retain the opt-out.

 

[MarkyT]

The ROI is not yet part of the Schengen zone.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[edwin_m]

Accepting that as I think we must realistically, something really needs to be done to put international rail travel into the UK on the same competitive footing as air travel, hence potentially allowing a wider range of closer northern European destinations to be served directly from London / Ebbsfleet / Ashford without the excruciating Lille shuffle. UK Border Force clearly has no intention of establishing any new rail terminal outposts beyond those existing today at Paris, Brussels and Lille, and the press today reveals murmerings of controversial cutbacks in that agency anyway. At continental airports with flights to UK clearly a different system applies with security and immigration screening checks for UK-bound flights being carried out by local staff, not UK officials, otherwise there would have to be UK staff based at airports all over the world! Discounting the UK joining Shengen, what legally, instititutionally, needs to change to allow our international rail terminals such as St Pancras to be treated exactly as they would be if they were an international airport and so accept incoming international trains from a wider range of destinations without the Lille nonsense?

I think the reason for Eurostar to have passport control on boarding is the risk of somebody boarding without the appropriate documents then pulling the emergency handle once the train has gone through the Tunnel, and using the emergency door release to escape into the countryside. That's something that probably isn't going to happen on an aircraft! So with air travel the Government is prepared to rely on the airlines doing a check before departure and turning away anyone without the correct documents, with a further check on arrival in the UK where people can be identified and sent back before they leave the secure zone at the airport.

It could perhaps be dealt with by stopping all Eurostars from beyond Paris and Brussels somewhere in the vicinity of each of these capitals for UK passport staff to board, checking through the train before alighting at Lille or Calais to return to start point and do the same again. However passport staff working in this way would be considerably less productive than if based at a fixed location, so the cost of doing the checks would be much more.

I agree it's unlikely the UK will join Schengen, and even if all passport checks were removed from Eurostar the baggage security regulations would remain. I think these are a much tougher problem as passport checking could be done on the train but baggage screening can't. Even if everyone and their baggage leaves and re-joins the train it must presumably be searched to make sure nobody has hidden something on board while travelling on the non-screened part of the journey. To my mind baggage security is unnecessary on Eurostar because the risk is no greater than in many other places people can access carrying unchecked bags, but in the current climate I can't see any movement on that one.

 

[MarkyT]

I think the reason for Eurostar to have passport control on boarding is the risk of somebody boarding without the appropriate documents then pulling the emergency handle once the train has gone through the Tunnel, and using the emergency door release to escape into the countryside. That's something that probably isn't going to happen on an aircraft! So with air travel the Government is prepared to rely on the airlines doing a check before departure and turning away anyone without the correct documents, with a further check on arrival in the UK where people can be identified and sent back before they leave the secure zone at the airport.

I have to question whether stopping the train abruptly ASAP is the most appropriate response to a passenger alarm, especially where concerns such as immigration and security are at play. Immediate stop doesn't apply on metro lines today where it's thought any emergency can be much better dealt with at the next station. Similarly, after the 2008 HGV shuttle fire Eurotunnel changed procedures so a train on which a vehicle fire has been detected is run on to one of four specially equipped locations within the tunnel where the incident can be dealt where passengers can be evacuated and the fire put out with a water mist system, without the risk of the major damage to the tunnel and it's equipment that occurred in this and previous incidents. Presumably any passenger alarm operated in that case will also not effect an immediate stop.

. . . However passport staff working in this way would be considerably less productive than if based at a fixed location, so the cost of doing the checks would be much more.

If the authority insists on working this way yet at the same time refuses to set up any additional outposts even if someone offers to pay for them, then this is a complete impasse that will forever prevent any further development of the UK-Europe high speed rail market, which is laughable if not tragic considering governments are supposed to be committed to encouraging a shift away from short haul air traffic with it's appalling carbon footprint.

I agree it's unlikely the UK will join Schengen, and even if all passport checks were removed from Eurostar the baggage security regulations would remain. I think these are a much tougher problem as passport checking could be done on the train but baggage screening can't. Even if everyone and their baggage leaves and re-joins the train it must presumably be searched to make sure nobody has hidden something on board while travelling on the non-screened part of the journey. To my mind baggage security is unnecessary on Eurostar because the risk is no greater than in many other places people can access carrying unchecked bags, but in the current climate I can't see any movement on that one.

Yet since the Thalys train attack last year there have been repeated calls, and indeed some action to introduce security checks on mainland continental high speed services, such as Thalys. If that network was secured with baggage and document checks at all boarding points, perhaps that might then also suffice for channel tunnel baggage regulation for any services going to UK. A continental airport embarkation style check of travel and (where neccessary) immigration documents could be carried out by the train or station operators' civil security staff, with the final UK border force check for actual entry to the UK only carried out at on arrival at the UK terminal. Any slip ups in the prescreening process by the operators resulting in refusal of UK entry would be operator liability, and they would have to transport the passenger back to point of origin and possibly face stiff fines.

 

[edwin_m]

I have to question whether stopping the train abruptly ASAP is the most appropriate response to a passenger alarm, especially where concerns such as immigration and security are at play. Immediate stop doesn't apply on metro lines today where it's thought any emergency can be much better dealt with at the next station. Similarly, after the 2008 HGV shuttle fire Eurotunnel changed procedures so a train on which a vehicle fire has been detected is run on to one of four specially equipped locations within the tunnel where the incident can be dealt where passengers can be evacuated and the fire put out with a water mist system, without the risk of the major damage to the tunnel and it's equipment that occurred in this and previous incidents. Presumably any passenger alarm operated in that case will also not effect an immediate stop.

Interesting thought. Eurostars have several on-train staff so it would be possible to direct them to the source of an alarm - but would they be able to physically restrain a suspect? There would also be ways around this which would cause danger to others, such as starting a fire to trigger a smoke detector if (as is likely) the rules would require an immediate stop if the train was suspected to be alight.

If the authority insists on working this way yet at the same time refuses to set up any additional outposts even if someone offers to pay for them, then this is a complete impasse that will forever prevent any further development of the UK-Europe high speed rail market, which is laughable if not tragic considering governments are supposed to be committed to encouraging a shift away from short haul air traffic with it's appalling carbon footprint.

I imagine the Border Force would be prepared to do that now if somebody paid their costs. However the costs would be high and operators probably couldn't afford them, especially on >3hr flows that are unlikely to huge money spinners against air competition.

Yet since the Thalys train attack last year there have been repeated calls, and indeed some action to introduce security checks on mainland continental high speed services, such as Thalys. If that network was secured with baggage and document checks at all boarding points, perhaps that might then also suffice for channel tunnel baggage regulation for any services going to UK. A continental airport embarkation style check of travel and (where neccessary) immigration documents could be carried out by the train or station operators' civil security staff, with the final UK border force check for actual entry to the UK only carried out at on arrival at the UK terminal. Any slip ups in the prescreening process by the operators resulting in refusal of UK entry would be operator liability, and they would have to transport the passenger back to point of origin and possibly face stiff fines.

That's a possibility, though I am hoping the Thalys checks are only a temporary measure and I'm a bit loath to suggest anything that helped make them permanent or more widespread.

 

[krus_aragon]

Yes I know but what are the Greeks doing about it?

Getting swamped by migrants and refugees, with little administrative support from other Shengen countries because the rules as drafted say it's the full responsibility of the country of entry. Even if that country was teetering near bankrupcy before this all started.

The island of Lesvos, being so close to Turkey, has long had a trickle of people landing on the rocky north shore, seeking a better life. There are no charity shops on Lesvos: such material donations are given to the church to hand out to the needy. While there is an immigration office in the island's capital, Mytilini, it's a very small affair, and not geared to its current workload. Could you imagine trying to process a thousand assylum applications a day through what is likely a two-room office?

 

[NY Yankee]

If a migrant adapts to the culture of the host country (i.e. respecting the beliefs of the indigenous people, celebrating the holidays of the country, learning the language and speaking in the accent of the country), then they should be welcomed with open arms. However, if they try to impose their beliefs on the people in the country then they shouldn't be allowed in the country.

The UK, the greatest country in the world, has immigrants from the West Indies, Nigeria, and the Indian Subcontinent. The vast majority of them are diligent and friendly people. They speak in the Cockney accent, celebrate British holidays, and many of them marry native Brits. However, migrants who want to impose Sharia law on the UK should be turned back, regardless of what the EU says.

 

[najaB]

However, migrants who want to impose Sharia law on the UK should be turned back, regardless of what the EU says.

Migrants who *want* to impose any kind of law/rules/religion should be welcomed with open arms.

That's different to people who use (or encourage others to use) non-peaceful methods to effect that change - they should be turned back.

 

[krus_aragon]

If a migrant adapts to the culture of the host country (i.e. respecting the beliefs of the indigenous people, celebrating the holidays of the country, learning the language and speaking in the accent of the country), then they should be welcomed with open arms.

I wouldn't go that far. Learn and use the local language, yes, but intentionally shedding a natural accent isn't that easy to do. Do you intend to make elocution lessons available to all?

 

[edwin_m]

They speak in the Cockney accent

Only if they settle in certain parts of London I think. Would you expect immigrants in New York (assuming Mr T lets any in) to speak with a Deep South accent?

 

[quantinghome]

I'm just trying to imagine my Polish and Indian colleagues trying to speak in a Yorkshire accent. There's a high risk that such an attempt would be mistaken for taking the mick.

 

[krus_aragon]

Would you expect immigrants in New York (assuming Mr T lets any in) to speak with a Deep South accent?

What, is he running for president this year? :P

 

[LexyBoy]

The vast majority of them are diligent and friendly people. They speak in the Cockney accent, celebrate British holidays, and many of them marry native Brits.

You owe me a new keyboard! And mouthful of tea...

 

[HowardGWR]

I am not shocked by the views expressed here but I am surprised at the spelling errors and ill-informed statements.

Railway enthusiasts are usually a little more worldly.

It's Schengen. The normal spelling of Lesbos is, er, Lesbos. Cockney accents are only spoken by cockneys (not many of them left by the way) and the EU doesn't 'say' anything.

 

[coppercapped]

One point about Schengen which seems to have escaped everybody. The Agreement is that for normal purposes citizens of an EU member state do not need to show their passports when crossing borders between Schengen countries. However they are still required to be able to meet each individual country's requirements for identification when in that country. As all the Schengen countries issue ID cards to their citizens this is quite possible and in many countries it is obligatory to carry ID and in others one has to be able to show it within a specified time at a specified police station. In any event, one's address has to be registered with the authorities, the Einwohnermelderamt in Germany or the local Mairie in Belgium or France.

The corollary of this in the absence of border controls is that, in order to be able to determine the identity of anyone in the UK, UK citizens would also have to carry officially issued ID cards.

This will not happen as in Britain the assumption is that the State is there to serve the citizens, it is not the citizen's responsibility to prove who he or she is to the state. There is a fundamental difference between laws based on a Civil Code and those based on Common Law.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes you don't have to provide proof of identity and address to the Police unless they are booking you, you also don't have to provide ethnicity however they are required to record it and have to guess it if you don't reply.

 

[urbophile]

There is a lot more routine interaction in mainland Europe, including urban areas divided by a border that are starting to function more as one. See for example the French suburbs of Geneva,

which of course isn't even in the EU.

Restricting travel within these areas is a much bigger issue for the people concerned, in the UK context more like having to show a passport for travel between Lancashire and Yorkshire (assuming they haven't imposed that yet...).

Oh we will, we will.

 

[Esmenfif]

which of course isn't even in the EU.

Switzerland is in Schengen, though, which is what is being referred to.