Eurostar "may cap services" EES data congestion?

[Bald Rick]

I wonder why Eurostar was set up like this instead of treating it as a normal train that has a UK immigration stop near the UK tunnel entrance and French immigration at the French tunnel exit. Yes it would mean all trains make two stops but it would allow direct no transfer trains from anywhere in the UK to anywhere in Europe all for a couple of hours of inconvenience at the tunnel. Eg you could take a train from Manchester to Rome and only get off just for the immigration stops.

Because the demand for rail travel between the UK and France is overwhelming centred on Lonodon and the South East (as journeys from further afield are well outside a journey time that can compete with air). Therefore focusing on the main market, and making that as quick as possible attracts far more passengers, to the benefit of the vast majority.

 

[infobleep]

Because the demand for rail travel between the UK and France is overwhelming centred on Lonodon and the South East (as journeys from further afield are well outside a journey time that can compete with air). Therefore focusing on the main market, and making that as quick as possible attracts far more passengers, to the benefit of the vast majority.

Selfishly I would have liked the Eurostar terminal to remain at Waterloo as it avoids the need to use the underground to reach St Pancras, which from Waterloo requires a change on route and the fastest route isn't step free.

However, in reality I accept St Pancras is better for more passengers than people like myself.

 

[Bald Rick]

Selfishly I would have liked the Eurostar terminal to remain at Waterloo as it avoids the need to use the underground to reach St Pancras, which from Waterloo requires a change on route and the fastest route isn't step free.

However, in reality I accept St Pancras is better for more passengers than people like myself.

Indeed. AIUI, When St Pancras opened, use of Eurostar increased from every single region of the country, except Hampshire and Surrey where it remained the same.

 

[Taunton]

Because the demand for rail travel between the UK and France is overwhelming centred on London and the South East (as journeys from further afield are well outside a journey time that can compete with air).

And also, seemingly, is more dominated by inward than outward travel. The service does seem to have a far greater proportion of Europeans, and indeed Americans as well, than one might first think. And their destination is very much focused on London. Are the nationality numbers anywhere?

Even when I went on day 2 of the pioneer service in November 1993, sat next to me was an American. I did wonder how they had learned of the very low-key start of the service.

 

[paul1609]

Because they wanted to make Eurostar a compelling alternative to flying. The end-to-end journey time matters. It is unfortunate that they do not *also* provide a local service through the tunnel with connections at either end though! They could easily have built passenger facilities for that near the le shuttle terminals.

Isn't that what Ashford International and Calais Frethun were for? Both closed by Eurostar without any public consultation whatsoever.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I wonder why Eurostar was set up like this instead of treating it as a normal train that has a UK immigration stop near the UK tunnel entrance and French immigration at the French tunnel exit. Yes it would mean all trains make two stops but it would allow direct no transfer trains from anywhere in the UK to anywhere in Europe all for a couple of hours of inconvenience at the tunnel. Eg you could take a train from Manchester to Rome and only get off just for the immigration stops.

The simple answer is that those controls take a lot of time. It's much, much easier to have the controls on departure, as you also don't have to deal with train security issues.

It's actually not a problem in the UK->mainland Europe direction, as entry controls can be set up almost anywhere. Schengen countries are well set up for mobile border controls, and so you could easily have a border crossing at any station you choose. The issue is in the mainland Europe->UK direction, as the UK barely has any culture of mobile border controls, combined with an inability to return passengers to France if they're denied entry into the UK.

There are emerging solutions in the field of border control that could allow for remote UK border controls to be carried out. For example, in Estonia, there's at least one border crossing with Russia that became fully automated in Setomaa. In future, combined with the UK ETA, it's conceivable that UK entry controls could be placed at stations like Marne-la-Vallee and supervised by French police. These would be fully automated and only accessible to travellers able to use e-gates, with other passengers directed to Gare du Nord at the time of booking.

Isn't that what Ashford International and Calais Frethun were for? Both closed by Eurostar without any public consultation whatsoever.

Yes, very much so. Calais Frethun never made that much sense however, except in the context of local politics. There are a few TGV onwards connections a day to Paris, but that's about it. If there were more connections onwards, perhaps there would be some demand for a regional Eurostar service that would have both French entry/exit controls in Calais as well as UK entry controls there.

 

[RT4038]

In future, combined with the UK ETA, it's conceivable that UK entry controls could be placed at stations like Marne-la-Vallee and supervised by French police. These would be fully automated and only accessible to travellers able to use e-gates, with other passengers directed to Gare du Nord at the time of booking.

I would think it highly unlikely that the UK would be agreeable for the French (or any other country) police to be supervising their border controls.

In my experience, e-gates are pretty unreliable - presumably passengers who cannot get the gate to work in your example would be directed to go to another station and take pot luck on whether capacity is available on another train (at the risk of their travel plans). Can't see it happening anytime soon, no matter what obscure Baltic example you may have come up with.

Isn't that what Ashford International and Calais Frethun were for? Both closed by Eurostar without any public consultation whatsoever.

I don't think Ashford and Calais where ever intended as stations between which a local service would be operated, and if it has been possible to travel on a train stopping at both, i bet the fare was much the same as London-Paris. Both stations are really political expedients.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I would think it highly unlikely that the UK would be agreeable for the French (or any other country) police to be supervising their border controls.

It shouldn't be a major problem, especially as the gates would be supervised remotely anyway. You could even devise a system so that the French exit controls are somehow combined physically with the UK e-gates, meaning that if their identity is verified by the French PAF, then the UK can be assured that the person using the UK e-gates has already been checked. With the ETA in place, they could even be denied at the French controls if they don't have valid permission to enter the UK.

The whole point of creating a digital border is that it opens up a lot of new possibilities for border control beyond the outdated system of people sat at desks.

In my experience, e-gates are pretty unreliable - presumably passengers who cannot get the gate to work in your example would be directed to go to another station and take pot luck on whether capacity is available on another train (at the risk of their travel plans). Can't see it happening anytime soon, no matter what obscure Baltic example you may have come up with.

This is true, but the technology will improve as the years go by. It's also possible to have a system where if someone is rejected by the e-gates, then they can be directed to a side room where they would have a video call with someone from Border Force, similar to how it works in some places on the US/Canada border. If someone arouses concern despite passing through French exit controls, despite having a valid ETA and despite the video call, then it's really not a problem for them to be diverted to a manned border crossing. You could also restrict these remote crossings to people who are 'migration secure', so for instance, you wouldn't be allowed to use them if you need a visa to go to the UK.

 

[SynthD]

The whole point of creating a digital border is that it opens up a lot of new possibilities for border control beyond the outdated system of people sat at desks.

Correct, but the government isn’t interested in giving up the sort of control a technophobe born shortly after WWII can understand.