Discussion:
Eurostar New Service Means 80 Min Stop For Checks At Lille
(too old to reply)
Philip Richards
2012-12-04 19:49:00 UTC
Permalink
<http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/high-speed/eurostar-to-test-new-service-despite-onerous-british-restrictions.html#.UL5SRYWySHm>

Says it all about UK's lack of membership of Schengen and Channel Tunnel
"security" measures.

Discuss.....
--
Phil Richards
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/philstephenrichards>
ian batten
2012-12-05 08:14:02 UTC
Permalink
<http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/high-speed/eurostar-to-test-new-...>
Says it all about UK's lack of membership of Schengen and Channel Tunnel
"security" measures.
Damn that democracy stuff.

Any political party, even otherwise credible, advocating Schengen
would be annihilated at the opinion polls. Any credible political
party advocating an in/out referendum on EU membership would sweep to
power. You, and indeed I, may not like those facts, but they are
facts. There is no political appetite for loosening border controls,
and one of the key foundations of Schengen internal controls (ID
Cards) was of course likewise extremely unpopular.

ian
bob
2012-12-05 09:44:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by ian batten
<http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/high-speed/eurostar-to-test-new-...>
Says it all about UK's lack of membership of Schengen and Channel Tunnel
"security" measures.
Damn that democracy stuff.
Any political party, even otherwise credible, advocating Schengen
would be annihilated at the opinion polls.  Any credible political
party advocating an in/out referendum on EU membership would sweep to
power.  You, and indeed I, may not like those facts, but they are
facts.  There is no political appetite for loosening border controls,
and one of the key foundations of Schengen internal controls (ID
Cards) was of course likewise extremely unpopular.
It may have escaped your attention, but on-board, in-motion
immigration checks were managed in pre-Schengen Europe for 40 years.

I think the pre-Schengen Basel example would work well for Eurostar.
For trains that terminate in Basel, they use either Basel Bad or Basel
SNCF, which were secure areas with border formalities conducted on the
station. For trains passing through Basel on their way beyond
(Zürich, Interlaken, Bern), document and customs checks were conducted
on board, in motion. For example, on the Paris-Zürich TGV, the
checking people boarded the train in Mulhouse and worked through the
train, alighting in Basel SBB.

For London-Paris and London-Brussels services, checks could continue
as at present. For beyond-Paris/Brussels (and, indeed, North of
London), services can be required to call at both Lille and Ashford,
with on board checks conducted in the interval, and those found to be
wanting in the documentation department turned around at Lille/Ashford
and returned to whence they came.

Bear in mind that asylum is not an issue here because asylum seekers
are required to request asylum in the first "safe" country they
enter. As both Britain and France are "safe", current legislation in
both Britain and France allow for such people to be put on the next
train back to the other country to be processed there.

Robin
Anthony Polson
2012-12-05 10:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
It may have escaped your attention, but on-board, in-motion
immigration checks were managed in pre-Schengen Europe for 40 years.
That was before bagging screening became a necessity.

(for some value of "necessity", obviously)
Anthony Polson
2012-12-05 10:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
That was before bagging screening
Should be baggage screening. Apologies.
bob
2012-12-05 10:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by bob
It may have escaped your attention, but on-board, in-motion
immigration checks were managed in pre-Schengen Europe for 40 years.
That was before bagging screening became a necessity.
(for some value of "necessity", obviously)
Indeed. It needs to go the way of the other special safety features
for operation through the tunnel. It has been demonstrated on several
occasions that the largest safety risk in the tunnel is things
catching fire on trucks. There is nothing a single person could
manage to carry in their own baggage on a Eurostar that comes near the
capability for destruction than the contents of a car petrol tank, let
alone the things bad people could fill a car boot with.

Robin
Anthony Polson
2012-12-05 10:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by bob
It may have escaped your attention, but on-board, in-motion
immigration checks were managed in pre-Schengen Europe for 40 years.
That was before bagging screening became a necessity.
(for some value of "necessity", obviously)
Indeed. It needs to go the way of the other special safety features
for operation through the tunnel. It has been demonstrated on several
occasions that the largest safety risk in the tunnel is things
catching fire on trucks. There is nothing a single person could
manage to carry in their own baggage on a Eurostar that comes near the
capability for destruction than the contents of a car petrol tank, let
alone the things bad people could fill a car boot with.
Nice of you to try to agree, Bob, but I don't agree with you at all.
Since the days of on-train immigration checks the world has changed.
In particular, the UK's position in the world has changed.

Rather than seeing the UK as an ally, many Muslim countries now see us
as the arch-enemy jointly with the USA. That is at least partly our
own fault because we joined the USA's illegal war in Iraq. Whatever
the reason, though, it makes the UK a prime terrorist target.

The operation of the Schengen borders may be secure enough for those
countries that are not prime terrorist targets, but it is not secure
enough for the UK.

You make a valid point that the Channel Tunnel may not be as secure as
it should be, but the most valid comparator for Eurostar is air
travel. Compared with air travel, Eurostar's arrangements are fairly
relaxed. I suspect too relaxed.
bob
2012-12-05 11:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by bob
It may have escaped your attention, but on-board, in-motion
immigration checks were managed in pre-Schengen Europe for 40 years.
That was before bagging screening became a necessity.
(for some value of "necessity", obviously)
Indeed.  It needs to go the way of the other special safety features
for operation through the tunnel.  It has been demonstrated on several
occasions that the largest safety risk in the tunnel is things
catching fire on trucks.  There is nothing a single person could
manage to carry in their own baggage on a Eurostar that comes near the
capability for destruction than the contents of a car petrol tank, let
alone the things bad people could fill a car boot with.
Nice of you to try to agree, Bob, but I don't agree with you at all.
Since the days of on-train immigration checks the world has changed.
In particular, the UK's position in the world has changed.
Rather than seeing the UK as an ally, many Muslim countries now see us
as the arch-enemy jointly with the USA.  That is at least partly our
own fault because we joined the USA's illegal war in Iraq.  Whatever
the reason, though, it makes the UK a prime terrorist target.
I'm pretty sure the French were not the favourites with Algerians in
the early 1960s. The Basques did a fairly good line in blowing things
up in Spain over a number of years. Communists in Italy caused
trouble throughout the cold war period. Hell, there were even on-
train checks on some cross-iron-curtain borders, and the Warsaw Pact
countries were not exactly best friends with The West. I also note
that the Belfast-Dublin train has not operated in the way Eurostar
does, and that part of the world is not well known for its peace and
tranquility in the second half of the 20th century.
Post by Anthony Polson
The operation of the Schengen borders may be secure enough for those
countries that are not prime terrorist targets, but it is not secure
enough for the UK.
I'm explicitly *not* talking about joining Schengen, the example I
cited is an example of a *non Schengen* rail border crossing.

Robin
Oliver Schnell
2012-12-05 11:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
Rather than seeing the UK as an ally, many Muslim countries now see us
as the arch-enemy jointly with the USA. That is at least partly our
own fault because we joined the USA's illegal war in Iraq. Whatever
the reason, though, it makes the UK a prime terrorist target.
The operation of the Schengen borders may be secure enough for those
countries that are not prime terrorist targets, but it is not secure
enough for the UK.
So
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
did not take place, due to the UK not signing the Schengen treaty?


Oliver Schnell
bob
2012-12-05 13:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
Rather than seeing the UK as an ally, many Muslim countries now see us
as the arch-enemy jointly with the USA.  That is at least partly our
own fault because we joined the USA's illegal war in Iraq.  Whatever
the reason, though, it makes the UK a prime terrorist target.
The operation of the Schengen borders may be secure enough for those
countries that are not prime terrorist targets, but it is not secure
enough for the UK.
Sohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
did not take place, due to the UK not signing the Schengen treaty?
It was clearly the presence of x-ray machines and metal detectors on
Eurostar that prevented that one. Everyone knows that.

Robin
Graeme Wall
2012-12-05 17:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Anthony Polson
Rather than seeing the UK as an ally, many Muslim countries now see us
as the arch-enemy jointly with the USA. That is at least partly our
own fault because we joined the USA's illegal war in Iraq. Whatever
the reason, though, it makes the UK a prime terrorist target.
The operation of the Schengen borders may be secure enough for those
countries that are not prime terrorist targets, but it is not secure
enough for the UK.
Sohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
did not take place, due to the UK not signing the Schengen treaty?
It was clearly the presence of x-ray machines and metal detectors on
Eurostar that prevented that one. Everyone knows that.
Certainly stopped the perpetrators getting to London from Leeds by car.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-11 10:54:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
You make a valid point that the Channel Tunnel may not be as secure as
it should be, but the most valid comparator for Eurostar is air
travel. Compared with air travel, Eurostar's arrangements are fairly
relaxed. I suspect too relaxed.
I learn:

The Soviets in the GDR weren't paranoid.



Hans-Joachim
Arthur Figgis
2012-12-11 18:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
You make a valid point that the Channel Tunnel may not be as secure as
it should be, but the most valid comparator for Eurostar is air
travel. Compared with air travel, Eurostar's arrangements are fairly
relaxed. I suspect too relaxed.
The Soviets in the GDR weren't paranoid.
And where are they now...?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-11 19:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The Soviets in the GDR weren't paranoid.
And where are they now...?
Now that's an argument. ;-)

But I suspect that the end of it did not need any infiltration - they were
pretty well capable of ruining themselves without our help.

Anyway: It's still surprising to me, that Britain needs more protection
than the Iron Curtain. THEY must really hate you.



Hans-Joachim
Graeme Wall
2012-12-11 19:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The Soviets in the GDR weren't paranoid.
And where are they now...?
Now that's an argument. ;-)
But I suspect that the end of it did not need any infiltration - they were
pretty well capable of ruining themselves without our help.
Anyway: It's still surprising to me, that Britain needs more protection
than the Iron Curtain. THEY must really hate you.
Wrong way round, we[1] hate them!

[1] for a given value of "we".
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Arthur Figgis
2012-12-11 19:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The Soviets in the GDR weren't paranoid.
And where are they now...?
Now that's an argument. ;-)
But I suspect that the end of it did not need any infiltration - they were
pretty well capable of ruining themselves without our help.
Anyway: It's still surprising to me, that Britain needs more protection
than the Iron Curtain. THEY must really hate you.
No, we hate them :-)
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Anthony Polson
2012-12-12 02:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Anyway: It's still surprising to me, that Britain needs more protection
than the Iron Curtain. THEY must really hate you.
Yes, THEY do. Can't blame them. We starve them with sanctions, we
bomb them, we invade them and we torture them. We use drones to kill
them out of the blue.
tim.....
2012-12-12 10:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The Soviets in the GDR weren't paranoid.
And where are they now...?
Now that's an argument. ;-)
But I suspect that the end of it did not need any infiltration - they were
pretty well capable of ruining themselves without our help.
Anyway: It's still surprising to me, that Britain needs more protection
than the Iron Curtain.
Having been across the Iron Curtain on more than one occasion I have to say
that the security that we operate in the UK doesn't even come close to being
equal to what was operated there.

In fact it isn't even as much as the Polish operated after the wall came
down but before they joined the EU, but I did notice that they waved the
German's through unhindered, perhaps that prejudices your view of what the
East did?

tim
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-12 10:50:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Having been across the Iron Curtain on more than one occasion I have to say
that the security that we operate in the UK doesn't even come close to being
equal to what was operated there.
In fact it isn't even as much as the Polish operated after the wall came
down but before they joined the EU, but I did notice that they waved the
German's through unhindered, perhaps that prejudices your view of what the
East did?
You are talking about road traffic?

As a citizen of West-Berlin, I traveled through the GDR many dozens of
times, and while they were pulling us with steamers sometimes, they were
well able to do checks in the moving train.


In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect. Three
digits. It's not that new a procedure either, but was invented for the
"Étoile du Nord" and the "Oiseau Bleu" quite some time ago.


Hans-Joachim
tim.....
2012-12-12 11:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by tim.....
Having been across the Iron Curtain on more than one occasion I have to say
that the security that we operate in the UK doesn't even come close to being
equal to what was operated there.
In fact it isn't even as much as the Polish operated after the wall came
down but before they joined the EU, but I did notice that they waved the
German's through unhindered, perhaps that prejudices your view of what the
East did?
You are talking about road traffic?
no:

Arrival by plane (from the UK).

Walking over a border.

Taking a train over the border.
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
As a citizen of West-Berlin, I traveled through the GDR many dozens of
times, and while they were pulling us with steamers sometimes, they were
well able to do checks in the moving train.
This was for people who weren't going to physically set foot in the East.

I hadn't even considered this trip when I made my reply.

FWIW, before Schengen, the controls on Austrian "corridor trains" through
Germany/Italy were nearly as strict as those to West Berlin.
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect.
Nor me.

But on most (if not all) of these services the train would stop just before,
and just after, the border meaning that the Passport/Customs people would be
on the train for the minimum time necessary to do the check. ES doesn't
work like that. The Passport/Customs people would be on the train for
perhaps an hour and a half before they could get off and check a return
journey, making their time very unproductive.

tim
Nick Leverton
2012-12-12 11:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect.
Nor me.
But on most (if not all) of these services the train would stop just before,
and just after, the border meaning that the Passport/Customs people would be
on the train for the minimum time necessary to do the check. ES doesn't
work like that. The Passport/Customs people would be on the train for
perhaps an hour and a half before they could get off and check a return
journey, making their time very unproductive.
Instead of which they will, it seems, now have to work on a stationary
Eurostar for the same length of time. <paxman> yerssss </paxman>

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Graeme Wall
2012-12-12 11:46:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by tim.....
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect.
Nor me.
But on most (if not all) of these services the train would stop just before,
and just after, the border meaning that the Passport/Customs people would be
on the train for the minimum time necessary to do the check. ES doesn't
work like that. The Passport/Customs people would be on the train for
perhaps an hour and a half before they could get off and check a return
journey, making their time very unproductive.
Instead of which they will, it seems, now have to work on a stationary
Eurostar for the same length of time.<paxman> yerssss</paxman>
As I read it they wouldn't be on the E*, they expect everybody to get
off and go through the immigration and security checks with their
luggage landside before reboarding the train. I suspect the only train
check will be a sweep through making sure no luggage has been left behind.

As I said earlier it makes running the through train a pointless
exercise as it would be quicker for passengers to take the TGV to Lille
Europe and do a conventional change to E* there.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Charlie Hulme
2012-12-12 18:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
As I said earlier it makes running the through train a pointless
exercise as it would be quicker for passengers to take the TGV to
Lille Europe and do a conventional change to E* there.
Indeed. What on earth do they think they are doing? Making
themselves a laughing stock it seems. Plus the fact that
Aix-en-Provence TGV station is some way from the City Centre.


Charlie
--
North Wales Coast Railway Website:
www.nwrail.org.uk
Graeme Wall
2012-12-12 19:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
As I said earlier it makes running the through train a pointless
exercise as it would be quicker for passengers to take the TGV to
Lille Europe and do a conventional change to E* there.
Indeed. What on earth do they think they are doing? Making themselves a
laughing stock it seems. Plus the fact that Aix-en-Provence TGV station
is some way from the City Centre.
As discussed earlier, it looks like a deliberate provocation to
highlight the stupidity of the current system.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Charlie Hulme
2012-12-12 21:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
As discussed earlier, it looks like a deliberate provocation to
highlight the stupidity of the current system.
So they don't really care whether anyone uses it? The outbound
departure time from London seems to be well before the crack of dawn.

Charlie
tim.....
2012-12-12 12:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by tim.....
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect.
Nor me.
But on most (if not all) of these services the train would stop just before,
and just after, the border meaning that the Passport/Customs people would be
on the train for the minimum time necessary to do the check. ES doesn't
work like that. The Passport/Customs people would be on the train for
perhaps an hour and a half before they could get off and check a return
journey, making their time very unproductive.
Instead of which they will, it seems, now have to work on a stationary
Eurostar for the same length of time.
They wont be spending that long to checking just these passengers. The
station stop includes the time that it takes everyone to get off, walk to
the customs area, and then back again onto the train after having been
checked - timed for the slowest old granny with 15 bags.

tim
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-12 13:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
But on most (if not all) of these services the train would stop just before,
and just after, the border meaning that the Passport/Customs people would be
on the train for the minimum time necessary to do the check. ES doesn't
work like that.
The "Étoile du Nord" and "Oiseau Bleu" did not stop between Paris Gare du
Nord and Brüssel Midi, that's how the fast timing of 3 hours was achieved
in the 1930s.

Performing the passport checks in the train was developed exactly for this
kind of service: Because the train should no longer have to stop close to
the border.

You are right, that after WWII, non-express D-trains usually stopped close
to borders, good example was the Hoek-van-Holland-Express to Britain,
which stopped in both Bad Bentheim and Oldenzaal. Trains from Germany to
Belgium would stop in Aachen and Herbesthal (the first border station in
Europe, 1843, which no longer exists today), but the TEE would pull
through and have its first stop in Verviers.
Post by tim.....
The Passport/Customs people would be on the train for
perhaps an hour and a half before they could get off and check a return
journey, making their time very unproductive.
90 minutes, we'll give them 15 minutes of rest, making that 75 minutes,
600 passengers, team of two, would be 15 seconds for one passenger. Does
not look unreasonable to me. Of course you can do it faster for lots of
passengers, but as an average?


Hans-Joachim
Paul Rigg
2012-12-12 15:51:36 UTC
Permalink
90 minutes, we'll give them 15 minutes of rest, making that 75 minutes,
600 passengers, team of two, would be 15 seconds for one passenger. Does
not look unreasonable to me. Of course you can do it faster for lots of
passengers, but as an average?



I can remember experiencing that on D345 between Hook of Holland and Berlin
in 1989 at the German/Dutch border. I think it took around 10 minutes at
one station and around 20 at the other (because the loco was changed there).

We were in fact detained longer at Marienborn and Griebnitzee, (I think they
were checking the checkers!) but the DDR officials sorted everyone out on
the train. The DB TT that I had at the time suggested that a train entering
the DDR (ie not a transit train to West Berlin) was detained for around 40
minutes at Marienborn (or Obisfelde or wherever).

When I went on the Krakow to Budapest sleeper pre schengen (around 8 yrs
ago) we were checked on the train entering Slovakia, leaving Slovakia and
entering Hungary. A bit of a bind but not too bad. I understand that
within WESTERN Europe (Paris-Rome etc) Sleeping Car attendants collected
passenger's passports and dealt with the formalities.

On train examination has taken place on the Dublin Belfast Enterprise trains
for years, though I do recall a post at Belfast Central being there to
examine passengers who arrived on trains that did not stop at Dundalk and
Newry (or Portadown before Newry was opened)
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-12 17:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Rigg
I can remember experiencing that on D345 between Hook of Holland and Berlin
in 1989 at the German/Dutch border. I think it took around 10 minutes at
one station and around 20 at the other (because the loco was changed there).
The loco is still changed at Bad Bentheim today.

In the last years before Schengen, they speeded things up by having teams
of Dutch and Germans combined.
Post by Paul Rigg
When I went on the Krakow to Budapest sleeper pre schengen (around 8 yrs
ago) we were checked on the train entering Slovakia, leaving Slovakia and
entering Hungary. A bit of a bind but not too bad. I understand that
within WESTERN Europe (Paris-Rome etc) Sleeping Car attendants collected
passenger's passports and dealt with the formalities.
Yes, this was the routine.
It also worked on sleepers D - Chechoslovakia very few years after free
travel. (There was still a Chechoslovakia at the time.)



Hans-Joachim
tim.....
2012-12-12 21:37:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
90 minutes, we'll give them 15 minutes of rest, making that 75 minutes,
600 passengers, team of two, would be 15 seconds for one passenger. Does
not look unreasonable to me. Of course you can do it faster for lots of
passengers, but as an average?
I can remember experiencing that on D345 between Hook of Holland and
Berlin in 1989 at the German/Dutch border. I think it took around 10
minutes at one station and around 20 at the other (because the loco was
changed there).
We were in fact detained longer at Marienborn and Griebnitzee, (I think
they were checking the checkers!) but the DDR officials sorted everyone
out on the train. The DB TT that I had at the time suggested that a train
entering the DDR (ie not a transit train to West Berlin) was detained for
around 40 minutes at Marienborn (or Obisfelde or wherever).
When I went on the Krakow to Budapest sleeper pre schengen (around 8 yrs
ago) we were checked on the train entering Slovakia, leaving Slovakia and
entering Hungary. A bit of a bind but not too bad. I understand that
within WESTERN Europe (Paris-Rome etc) Sleeping Car attendants collected
passenger's passports and dealt with the formalities.
They did, but not IME on trains into the East

tim
Anthony Polson
2012-12-12 15:36:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect. Three
digits.
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?

For that matter, how do you scan the passengers themselves?
John Levine
2012-12-12 16:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect. Three
digits.
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
This is within the EU. I don't recall the Eurostar immigration people
ever expressing any interest whatsoever in my baggage. It's not the
bomb scanners, which all the luggage will already have been subjected
to.
Post by Anthony Polson
For that matter, how do you scan the passengers themselves?
Uh, the same way they've been doing it for the past century? Walk
from one end of the train to the other, check everyone's passport.
--
Regards,
John Levine, ***@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
Bevan Price
2012-12-12 18:21:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Levine
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect.
Three digits.
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
This is within the EU. I don't recall the Eurostar immigration
people ever expressing any interest whatsoever in my baggage. It's
not the bomb scanners, which all the luggage will already have been
subjected to.
Post by Anthony Polson
For that matter, how do you scan the passengers themselves?
Uh, the same way they've been doing it for the past century? Walk
from one end of the train to the other, check everyone's passport.
And on many of my trips (1970's to 1990's), the passport officer walked
through the train (sometimes) and often didn't even bother checking the
passports. Even if you had to change trains at Basle or Salzburg, it was
usually a quick walk through passport control, with the authorities
barely glancing at the passports.

Only the East Germans & other communist regimes made careful checks of
passports, but rarely looked in detail at luggage. Sitting passengers
remained on the train, but standing passengers had to alight and pass
through the passport control building.

Best of all was a LCGB tour to Holland & Germany in the 1970's. "Avalon"
(ship) arrived late in Hoek van Holland. Straight down gangplank, hurry,
your tour train is over there - no passport check, no customs check -
straight onto the waiting train.

Bevan
tim.....
2012-12-12 21:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bevan Price
Post by John Levine
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect.
Three digits.
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
This is within the EU. I don't recall the Eurostar immigration
people ever expressing any interest whatsoever in my baggage. It's
not the bomb scanners, which all the luggage will already have been
subjected to.
Post by Anthony Polson
For that matter, how do you scan the passengers themselves?
Uh, the same way they've been doing it for the past century? Walk
from one end of the train to the other, check everyone's passport.
And on many of my trips (1970's to 1990's), the passport officer walked
through the train (sometimes) and often didn't even bother checking the
passports. Even if you had to change trains at Basle or Salzburg, it was
usually a quick walk through passport control, with the authorities barely
glancing at the passports.
Only the East Germans & other communist regimes made careful checks of
passports, but rarely looked in detail at luggage.
You're joking!

When on a train to Budapest the customs guy took the carriage apart to check
that I hadn't hidden something behind one of the panels.

At lease I assume that it was the customs guy, however hard you tried I
don't think that you could hide something there that the immigration people
were worried about :-)

tim
Bevan Price
2012-12-13 20:59:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Post by Bevan Price
Post by John Levine
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect.
Three digits.
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
This is within the EU. I don't recall the Eurostar immigration
people ever expressing any interest whatsoever in my baggage. It's
not the bomb scanners, which all the luggage will already have been
subjected to.
Post by Anthony Polson
For that matter, how do you scan the passengers themselves?
Uh, the same way they've been doing it for the past century? Walk
from one end of the train to the other, check everyone's passport.
And on many of my trips (1970's to 1990's), the passport officer
walked through the train (sometimes) and often didn't even bother
checking the passports. Even if you had to change trains at Basle or
Salzburg, it was usually a quick walk through passport control, with
the authorities barely glancing at the passports.
Only the East Germans & other communist regimes made careful checks of
passports, but rarely looked in detail at luggage.
You're joking!
When on a train to Budapest the customs guy took the carriage apart to
check that I hadn't hidden something behind one of the panels.
At lease I assume that it was the customs guy, however hard you tried I
don't think that you could hide something there that the immigration
people were worried about :-)
tim
It was true, not a joke. The only thing the East German immigration
people seemed bothered about was their own citizens trying to escape to
the west. They opened every compartment, and searched under the trains,
but they didn't seem bothered about suitcases, etc.

Bevan
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-14 12:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bevan Price
Best of all was a LCGB tour to Holland & Germany in the 1970's. "Avalon"
(ship) arrived late in Hoek van Holland. Straight down gangplank, hurry,
your tour train is over there - no passport check, no customs check -
straight onto the waiting train.
Customer friendlyness and common sense?

This has to get stopped!


Hans-Joachim



--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.

Glen Labah in mtra
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-12 18:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.


Hans-Joachim
Anthony Polson
2012-12-12 18:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
bob
2012-12-13 09:38:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way. When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels. The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.

Robin
Graeme Wall
2012-12-13 10:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way. When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels. The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.
IIRC there's been one attempt to bomb a TGV which derailed the train but
caused no casualties.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Graeme Wall
2012-12-13 10:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way. When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels. The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.
IIRC there's been one attempt to bomb a TGV which derailed the train but
caused no casualties.
I didn't remember correctly, there were two dead but the train wasn't
derailed. Incident was attributed to Carlos the Jackal.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
bob
2012-12-13 10:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way. When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels. The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.
IIRC there's been one attempt to bomb a TGV which derailed the train but
caused no casualties.
I didn't remember correctly, there were two dead but the train wasn't
derailed.  Incident was attributed to Carlos the Jackal.
28 years ago. Interesting that, in all the global terrorist activity
in the last 28 years, nobody has repeated that idea. Probably because
the results from other types of target, eg commuter and metro trains,
are far more substantial.

Robin
Graeme Wall
2012-12-13 11:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way. When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels. The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.
IIRC there's been one attempt to bomb a TGV which derailed the train but
caused no casualties.
I didn't remember correctly, there were two dead but the train wasn't
derailed. Incident was attributed to Carlos the Jackal.
28 years ago. Interesting that, in all the global terrorist activity
in the last 28 years, nobody has repeated that idea. Probably because
the results from other types of target, eg commuter and metro trains,
are far more substantial.
There has been a change of target; IRA and similar attacks were usually
about disruption more than casualties. The Islamic militant terrorists'
aim is to kill as many infidels as possible. The E* security theatre is
still predicated on foiling IRA attacks.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Recliner
2012-12-13 11:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by bob
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way. When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels. The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.
IIRC there's been one attempt to bomb a TGV which derailed the train but
caused no casualties.
I didn't remember correctly, there were two dead but the train wasn't
derailed. Incident was attributed to Carlos the Jackal.
28 years ago. Interesting that, in all the global terrorist activity
in the last 28 years, nobody has repeated that idea. Probably because
the results from other types of target, eg commuter and metro trains,
are far more substantial.
There has been a change of target; IRA and similar attacks were usually
about disruption more than casualties. The Islamic militant terrorists'
aim is to kill as many infidels as possible. The E* security theatre is
still predicated on foiling IRA attacks.
I thought Islamic terrorists mainly targeted other sorts of Muslims? They
certainly kill far more Muslims than infidels.
Graeme Wall
2012-12-13 11:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Recliner
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by bob
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way. When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels. The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.
IIRC there's been one attempt to bomb a TGV which derailed the train but
caused no casualties.
I didn't remember correctly, there were two dead but the train wasn't
derailed. Incident was attributed to Carlos the Jackal.
28 years ago. Interesting that, in all the global terrorist activity
in the last 28 years, nobody has repeated that idea. Probably because
the results from other types of target, eg commuter and metro trains,
are far more substantial.
There has been a change of target; IRA and similar attacks were usually
about disruption more than casualties. The Islamic militant terrorists'
aim is to kill as many infidels as possible. The E* security theatre is
still predicated on foiling IRA attacks.
I thought Islamic terrorists mainly targeted other sorts of Muslims? They
certainly kill far more Muslims than infidels.
In their world anybody, including other Muslims, who doesn't agree with
their warped concept of Islam is an infidel, see Shia/Sunni. Infidel
means unbeliever, not European. Though the latter are assumed to be
infidels by default, especially if they are American.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Arthur Figgis
2012-12-13 19:14:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Post by Recliner
I thought Islamic terrorists mainly targeted other sorts of Muslims?
They
certainly kill far more Muslims than infidels.
In their world anybody, including other Muslims, who doesn't agree with
their warped concept of Islam is an infidel, see Shia/Sunni.
Isn't it also the case that if a believer gets killed for the cause then
they get some kind of spiritual brownie points, so there is no need to
assess the specific beliefs of a particular woman or child before
blowing them to bits? If they are the Wrong Kind of Believer then they
are expendable, and if they aren't then they benefit from it anyway?

Sort of like the Abrahamic Religion v2.0 approach of
Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet

(IANAtheologian)
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-13 20:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Figgis
Isn't it also the case that if a believer gets killed for the cause then
they get some kind of spiritual brownie points, so there is no need to
assess the specific beliefs of a particular woman or child before
blowing them to bits? If they are the Wrong Kind of Believer then they
are expendable, and if they aren't then they benefit from it anyway?
If you look at the "Inspire" magazine, you'll notice quite quickly that
Al Qaedas worst problem is the Prophet Mohammed. The guy unfortunately has
explicitly forbidden lots of those things, which they want their believers
to perform, and thus their magazine is full of mental gymnastics, trying
to explain that deeds forbidden by the prophet are somehow allowed.

Admittedly, reading "Inspire" is quite a task even for the patient. It's
about as logically coherent as some Breivik manifest or some Neonazi
websites.

But judging from the attempts of arguing, I really think that Al Qaedas
worst enemy isn't any American or European, but the Great Prophet instead.



Hans-Joachim



--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.

Glen Labah in mtra
Arthur Figgis
2012-12-13 21:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Arthur Figgis
Isn't it also the case that if a believer gets killed for the cause then
they get some kind of spiritual brownie points, so there is no need to
assess the specific beliefs of a particular woman or child before
blowing them to bits? If they are the Wrong Kind of Believer then they
are expendable, and if they aren't then they benefit from it anyway?
If you look at the "Inspire" magazine, you'll notice quite quickly that
Al Qaedas worst problem is the Prophet Mohammed. The guy unfortunately has
explicitly forbidden lots of those things, which they want their believers
to perform, and thus their magazine is full of mental gymnastics, trying
to explain that deeds forbidden by the prophet are somehow allowed.
Admittedly, reading "Inspire" is quite a task even for the patient. It's
about as logically coherent as some Breivik manifest or some Neonazi
websites.
But judging from the attempts of arguing, I really think that Al Qaedas
worst enemy isn't any American or European, but the Great Prophet instead.
Hold on, are you really suggesting that some religious types might come
with elaborate reasons why parts of their religion's apparent policies
don't really mean what they seem to say? I'm shocked!!
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
e***@rail.eu.org
2012-12-13 10:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way. When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels. The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.
The capitole was targetted in 1982
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentat_du_Capitole, in french).

That's the only attack with a bomb inside the train that I can remember.
--
Les simplifications c'est trop compliqué
bob
2012-12-13 10:38:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rail.eu.org
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that?  The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre.  All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks.  Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way.  When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels.  The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.
The capitole was targetted in 1982
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentat_du_Capitole, in french).
That's the only attack with a bomb inside the train that I can remember.
Which was (just) more than 30 years ago.

Robin
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-13 17:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks.
There have been attacks on long distance trains in Italy, by the Mafia and
by right-wing terrorists associated with NATO stay-behind cells (a
convenient source of explosives).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italicus_Express_bombing_1974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_904_bombing

The interesting part is, that nobody in Italy suggested such silly scheme
as UKs Eurostar checks after these attacks.


When trade unions of the Italian left traveled south, a record number of
bombs was planted on the railway by right-wing terrorists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1972_bombings_in_Italy
Interesting is, that after getting bombed, they brought the injured to
hospital, boarded another train, and went on. Probably the best way to
deal with terrorists! (Because terror does not work by killing the few,
but by threatening the many, and stops working when the many refuse to
obey.)

Another observation: Trains are extremely sturdy objects in bomb attacks.
Even major bombs blasting away a whole carriage did not derail the running
gear, limiting the casualties by a huge margin. This was also shown by
Carlos' attack on a TGV.



The most deadly attack on a train happened in Angola, because the
attackers did not bother to put anybody or anything into the train, but
instead, stopped the train, walked out the passengers, and machine-gunned
them. That's the way to maximize the number of casualties!

This attack wasn't performed by terrorists, but by freedom fighters. If
trained and armed by the USA, it's freedom fighters, right?



Hans-Joachim



--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.

Glen Labah in mtra
Arthur Figgis
2012-12-13 18:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way.
Carlos the Jackal was responsible for a bomb on a TGV (running on a
classic line at the time) in 1983 which killed 3 people.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
iMark
2012-12-13 21:23:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Which point is that? The only function served by scanning baggage and
people on Eurostar trains is security theatre. All of the incidents
of terrorist attacks on railways in the last 30 years that I can think
of have been on crowded urban and commuter networks. Bombay, Madrid,
Tokyo and London have all been attacked in this way. When the IRA was
active in the 80s and early 90s they targetted stations, not trains
and tunnels. The security theatre associated with Eurostar has no
ability to address these risks.
Exactly. That's why RENFE are a laughing stock. They check everyone's
luggage before boarding an AVE or other long distance train but don't
bother about the Cercanias. And it was on Cercanias where the bombings
took place in Madrid.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-14 12:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
Your problem is, that I'm square on the point:

E* and its tunnel aren't good targets for terrorists, the London
underground is a fine target, and the Severn Tunnel is a fine target, too.

For whatever political reason, you want to restrict E* traffic, and have
problems to explain, why terrorists should use a secondary target.



Hans-Joachim




--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.

Glen Labah in mtra
Graeme Wall
2012-12-14 13:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
Just in the same way, as you do it before passing the Severn Tunnel, and
for the London Underground.
You seem extremely determined to miss the point, so it would be rude
of me to even try to change your mind.
E* and its tunnel aren't good targets for terrorists, the London
underground is a fine target, and the Severn Tunnel is a fine target, too.
What makes the Severn tunnel a better target than the Channel tunnel?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-14 16:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
What makes the Severn tunnel a better target than the Channel tunnel?
Much better chance to kill people.

As the attacks of the past have shown, a bomb in a train has an extremely
low chance to derail it, but it can kill all the people within one
carriage. The more people you have in one carriage, the more victims in
the explosion itself. That's why Cercanias or underground are better
targets, but a Severn Tunnel train in rush hour isn't bad either, the same
bomb should kill about twice the people, or 1.5 at least.

Then you have a stopped train and, in the view of a terrorist, hopefully a
fire.

The channel tunnel is built better, has far more technical support for
rushing in help and evacuating people. In the Severn Tunnel, terrorists
have quite good a chance to suffocate a lot of people in addition to the
victims of the explosion itself.

Look at the Rapido 904 bombing: The first emergency response vehicles
reached the train 1.5 hours after the bombing. Moving out undamaged cars
with passengers had to be done with a diesel locomotive, and the diesel
exhaust threatened to suffocate the passengers. All in all, it was quite
lucky that the train withstood completely catching fire. It was even
possible, to pull it out on its wheels.
Loading Image...

In an overcrowded train, just the bodies of the passengers provide enough
fuel.


So as a terrorist, I would choose the Severn Tunnel.



Hans-Joachim




--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.

Glen Labah in mtra
Graeme Wall
2012-12-14 17:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Graeme Wall
What makes the Severn tunnel a better target than the Channel tunnel?
Much better chance to kill people.
As the attacks of the past have shown, a bomb in a train has an extremely
low chance to derail it, but it can kill all the people within one
carriage. The more people you have in one carriage, the more victims in
the explosion itself. That's why Cercanias or underground are better
targets, but a Severn Tunnel train in rush hour isn't bad either, the same
bomb should kill about twice the people, or 1.5 at least.
Then you have a stopped train and, in the view of a terrorist, hopefully a
fire.
The channel tunnel is built better, has far more technical support for
rushing in help and evacuating people. In the Severn Tunnel, terrorists
have quite good a chance to suffocate a lot of people in addition to the
victims of the explosion itself.
Look at the Rapido 904 bombing: The first emergency response vehicles
reached the train 1.5 hours after the bombing. Moving out undamaged cars
with passengers had to be done with a diesel locomotive, and the diesel
exhaust threatened to suffocate the passengers. All in all, it was quite
lucky that the train withstood completely catching fire. It was even
possible, to pull it out on its wheels.
http://lanostrastoria.regione.emilia-romagna.it/flex/images/GalleryPlus/D.cc67617a91db56ef196f/dicembre_D.jpg
In an overcrowded train, just the bodies of the passengers provide enough
fuel.
So as a terrorist, I would choose the Severn Tunnel.
Hans-Joachim
--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.
Glen Labah in mtra
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Graeme Wall
2012-12-14 17:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Graeme Wall
What makes the Severn tunnel a better target than the Channel tunnel?
Much better chance to kill people.
As the attacks of the past have shown, a bomb in a train has an extremely
low chance to derail it, but it can kill all the people within one
carriage.
I don't think that happened even in Madrid.
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The more people you have in one carriage, the more victims in
the explosion itself. That's why Cercanias or underground are better
targets, but a Severn Tunnel train in rush hour isn't bad either, the same
bomb should kill about twice the people, or 1.5 at least.
Up to a point. The more crowded it is, the less likely that people
further away from the bomb will be injured as the blast is absorbed by
the bodies of those nearest.
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Then you have a stopped train and, in the view of a terrorist, hopefully a
fire.
Not that likely with a blast bomb.
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
The channel tunnel is built better, has far more technical support for
rushing in help and evacuating people. In the Severn Tunnel, terrorists
have quite good a chance to suffocate a lot of people in addition to the
victims of the explosion itself.
Not that likely either.
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Look at the Rapido 904 bombing: The first emergency response vehicles
reached the train 1.5 hours after the bombing. Moving out undamaged cars
with passengers had to be done with a diesel locomotive, and the diesel
exhaust threatened to suffocate the passengers.
Diesel trains work through the Severn Tunnel all the time without
suffocating people.

All in all, it was quite
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
lucky that the train withstood completely catching fire. It was even
possible, to pull it out on its wheels.
http://lanostrastoria.regione.emilia-romagna.it/flex/images/GalleryPlus/D.cc67617a91db56ef196f/dicembre_D.jpg
In an overcrowded train, just the bodies of the passengers provide enough
fuel.
Bodies don't actually burn that easily as many a murderer has discovered
when trying to dispose of the evidence. Even their clothes are a lot
less likely to catch fire these days.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-14 17:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graeme Wall
Bodies don't actually burn that easily as many a murderer has discovered
when trying to dispose of the evidence. Even their clothes are a lot
less likely to catch fire these days.
As was shown in Kaprun, bodies burn nicely if packed tight enough.


Hans-Joachim



--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.

Glen Labah in mtra
Graeme Wall
2012-12-14 18:02:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Graeme Wall
Bodies don't actually burn that easily as many a murderer has discovered
when trying to dispose of the evidence. Even their clothes are a lot
less likely to catch fire these days.
As was shown in Kaprun, bodies burn nicely if packed tight enough.
ITYM despite being packed tightly. The peculiarity of Kaprun was that
the steeply inclined tunnel made a good funnel to feed oxygen to the
fire. Conventional tunnels would have much lesser effects.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Arthur Figgis
2012-12-14 17:50:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Graeme Wall
What makes the Severn tunnel a better target than the Channel tunnel?
Much better chance to kill people.
What if that is not the aim? I suspect a bomb in the Channel Tunnel
would get more publicity than one elsewhere, even if elsewhere had a few
more fatalities. The Channel Tunnel would also attract "someone should
have seen it coming" complaints directed against the powers that be,
which some random railway wouldn't.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
tim.....
2012-12-12 21:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect. Three
digits.
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
For that matter, how do you scan the passengers themselves?
If you are interested in scanning for Bombs then you do it before passengers
get on the train as they do in Spain

tim
Graeme Wall
2012-12-13 07:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
In general, I don't remember how many passport checks I have
encountered in moving trains, before Schengen came into effect. Three
digits.
How do you scan baggage in a moving train?
For that matter, how do you scan the passengers themselves?
If you are interested in scanning for Bombs then you do it before
passengers get on the train as they do in Spain
The trouble is Spain, like Britain, scans the wrong trains.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-14 12:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
If you are interested in scanning for Bombs then you do it before passengers
get on the train as they do in Spain
They don't do this in Spain.

Or at least, they don't do it for those trains, which are endangered by
terrorists.



Hans-Joachim




--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.

Glen Labah in mtra
Arthur Figgis
2012-12-14 17:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by tim.....
If you are interested in scanning for Bombs then you do it before passengers
get on the train as they do in Spain
They don't do this in Spain.
Or at least, they don't do it for those trains, which are endangered by
terrorists.
How can that ever be proven - maybe they attack other things _because_
the high speed trains have security?

In Moscow they have security at the entrance to station buildings, but
not trains. ISTR Istanbul had security checks before entering the
airport building.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
bob
2012-12-12 10:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arthur Figgis
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Anthony Polson
You make a valid point that the Channel Tunnel may not be as secure as
it should be, but the most valid comparator for Eurostar is air
travel.  Compared with air travel, Eurostar's arrangements are fairly
relaxed.  I suspect too relaxed.
The Soviets in the GDR weren't paranoid.
And where are they now...?
I haven't seen Luko aroun for a while...

Robin
Graeme Wall
2012-12-05 10:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by bob
It may have escaped your attention, but on-board, in-motion
immigration checks were managed in pre-Schengen Europe for 40 years.
That was before bagging screening became a necessity.
(for some value of "necessity", obviously)
Indeed. It needs to go the way of the other special safety features
for operation through the tunnel. It has been demonstrated on several
occasions that the largest safety risk in the tunnel is things
catching fire on trucks. There is nothing a single person could
manage to carry in their own baggage on a Eurostar that comes near the
capability for destruction than the contents of a car petrol tank, let
alone the things bad people could fill a car boot with.
An AK47 perhaps?
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Oliver Schnell
2012-12-05 11:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by bob
It may have escaped your attention, but on-board, in-motion
immigration checks were managed in pre-Schengen Europe for 40 years.
That was before bagging screening became a necessity.
(for some value of "necessity", obviously)
Indeed. It needs to go the way of the other special safety features
for operation through the tunnel. It has been demonstrated on several
occasions that the largest safety risk in the tunnel is things
catching fire on trucks. There is nothing a single person could
manage to carry in their own baggage on a Eurostar that comes near the
capability for destruction than the contents of a car petrol tank, let
alone the things bad people could fill a car boot with.
Beside that: How come that travelling through the Severn Tunnel is
still possible without baggage screening?


Oliver Schnell
Graeme Wall
2012-12-05 12:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Schnell
Post by bob
Post by Anthony Polson
Post by bob
It may have escaped your attention, but on-board, in-motion
immigration checks were managed in pre-Schengen Europe for 40 years.
That was before bagging screening became a necessity.
(for some value of "necessity", obviously)
Indeed. It needs to go the way of the other special safety features
for operation through the tunnel. It has been demonstrated on several
occasions that the largest safety risk in the tunnel is things
catching fire on trucks. There is nothing a single person could
manage to carry in their own baggage on a Eurostar that comes near the
capability for destruction than the contents of a car petrol tank, let
alone the things bad people could fill a car boot with.
Beside that: How come that travelling through the Severn Tunnel is
still possible without baggage screening?
The Welsh Nationalists are no longer thought to be a threat perhaps.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
ian batten
2012-12-05 12:05:43 UTC
Permalink
 There is nothing a single person could
manage to carry in their own baggage on a Eurostar that comes near the
capability for destruction than the contents of a car petrol tank
Getting petrol to explode, rather than burn, is extremely difficult.
Various of the bad guys have tried to build crude thermobaric weapons
(hence their enthusiasm for filling cars with cans of petrol and gas
canisters) but, pace the closing reel of "Skyfall", they tend to burn,
not explode. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/02/terror_idiocy_outbreak/
The burning of a fuel tank is explicitly part of the car shuttle
safety case. Even if the contents of a fuel tank were deliberately
ignited the effects would be limited to one shuttle vehicle, and it's
unlikely that many, if any, would die.

ian
bob
2012-12-05 13:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ian batten
 There is nothing a single person could
manage to carry in their own baggage on a Eurostar that comes near the
capability for destruction than the contents of a car petrol tank
Getting petrol to explode, rather than burn, is extremely difficult.
Liquid petrol will burn relatively slowly because it has to evaporate
and mix with air to the right proportion in order to burn. It will
explode[1] if it is evaporated and mixed with air first (as happens in
a car engine), and a suitable container to create such conditions can
easily be transported in a car boot. The situation can be made much
more explosive if an oxidant such as fertilizer, also unlikely to be
noticed if stowed in a car boot, is mixed with petrol. While the
shuttles are designed to cope with accidental fires, a great deal more
can be done with ill intent, and a great deal more can be done with a
car + contents + ill intent than can be done with a rucksack +
contents + ill intent.

[1] in a car engine the process is really a rapid flame front moving
through the cylinder, explosions are best avoided. What happens in a
drum of petrol vapour will depend on the details of the mixture and
container.

Robin
Giovanni Drogo
2012-12-05 13:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
It may have escaped your attention, but on-board, in-motion
immigration checks were managed in pre-Schengen Europe for 40 years.
Even on the trains through the DDR connecting West Germany to Berlin in
the '80s !
The Real Doctor
2012-12-13 10:44:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by ian batten
Any political party, even otherwise credible, advocating Schengen
would be annihilated at the opinion polls. Any credible political
party advocating an in/out referendum on EU membership would sweep to
power. You, and indeed I, may not like those facts, but they are
facts. There is no political appetite for loosening border controls,
and one of the key foundations of Schengen internal controls (ID
Cards) was of course likewise extremely unpopular.
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train? I can
remember German (southbound) and Dutch (northbound) passport officers on
the Rhein-Expreß between Venlo and Mönchengladbach forty years ago.

Ian
Graeme Wall
2012-12-13 11:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Real Doctor
Post by ian batten
Any political party, even otherwise credible, advocating Schengen
would be annihilated at the opinion polls. Any credible political
party advocating an in/out referendum on EU membership would sweep to
power. You, and indeed I, may not like those facts, but they are
facts. There is no political appetite for loosening border controls,
and one of the key foundations of Schengen internal controls (ID
Cards) was of course likewise extremely unpopular.
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train? I can
remember German (southbound) and Dutch (northbound) passport officers on
the Rhein-Expreß between Venlo and Mönchengladbach forty years ago.
Budgets dear boy. During the cold war, border controls were, de facto,
part of the defence budget, nowadays they are costed separately[1] and
the pressure was on to reduce costs even before the current government
declared war on the civil service.


[1] Nowadays they are costed!
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Roland Perry
2012-12-13 11:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
--
Roland Perry
e***@rail.eu.org
2012-12-13 12:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
Non, in UK. Why would UK officers have special rights outside UK ?
--
Les simplifications c'est trop compliqué
Roland Perry
2012-12-13 12:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rail.eu.org
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
Non, in UK. Why would UK officers have special rights outside UK ?
There are UK officers in Brussels, Lille and Paris - it's not a
jurisdictional issue. The problem is cost and staff boredom for
90% of the return trip.
--
Roland Perry
Johannes Picht
2012-12-13 19:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by e***@rail.eu.org
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
Non, in UK. Why would UK officers have special rights outside UK ?
There are UK officers in Brussels, Lille and Paris - it's not a
jurisdictional issue. The problem is cost and staff boredom for
90% of the return trip.
Then let them do their job first and give them a bottle of
Châteuneuf-du-Pape (or two, on request) for the remainder ;-)

(see also recent thread about personnel on the non-stop ECML trains
being given a free meal in the restaurant car)

Cheers,

Johannes.
Roland Perry
2012-12-13 21:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johannes Picht
Post by Roland Perry
There are UK officers in Brussels, Lille and Paris - it's not a
jurisdictional issue. The problem is cost and staff boredom for
90% of the return trip.
Then let them do their job first and give them a bottle of
Châteuneuf-du-Pape (or two, on request) for the remainder ;-)
The session they have to be on duty is between approximately 80% and 90%
of the way through the shift. It's the first 80% that's boring.
--
Roland Perry
Johannes Picht
2012-12-13 21:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Johannes Picht
Post by Roland Perry
There are UK officers in Brussels, Lille and Paris - it's not a
jurisdictional issue. The problem is cost and staff boredom for
90% of the return trip.
Then let them do their job first and give them a bottle of
Châteuneuf-du-Pape (or two, on request) for the remainder ;-)
The session they have to be on duty is between approximately 80% and 90%
of the way through the shift. It's the first 80% that's boring.
Why shouldn't they start the check right after departure?

Johannes, lost.
Roland Perry
2012-12-14 08:22:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Johannes Picht
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Johannes Picht
Post by Roland Perry
There are UK officers in Brussels, Lille and Paris - it's not a
jurisdictional issue. The problem is cost and staff boredom for
90% of the return trip.
Then let them do their job first and give them a bottle of
Châteuneuf-du-Pape (or two, on request) for the remainder ;-)
The session they have to be on duty is between approximately 80% and 90%
of the way through the shift. It's the first 80% that's boring.
Why shouldn't they start the check right after departure?
Because immediately after departure on the round trip they are heading
away from London.

On the way back from Brussels there might be a stop at Lille (where
passengers get on an off. But they could start the check from Paris as
soon as it departs, so that'll be about 70% of the way through the
shift.
--
Roland Perry
bob
2012-12-14 09:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Johannes Picht
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Johannes Picht
Post by Roland Perry
There are UK officers in Brussels, Lille and Paris - it's not a
jurisdictional issue. The problem is cost and staff boredom for
90% of the return trip.
Then let them do their job first and give them a bottle of
Châteuneuf-du-Pape (or two, on request) for the remainder ;-)
The session they have to be on duty is between approximately 80% and 90%
of the way through the shift. It's the first 80% that's boring.
Why shouldn't they start the check right after departure?
Because immediately after departure on the round trip they are heading
away from London.
On the way back from Brussels there might be a stop at Lille (where
passengers get on an off. But they could start the check from Paris as
soon as it departs, so that'll be about 70% of the way through the
shift.
When was the last time you encountered an on-board passport check on a
moving train? Every one I have seen has involved teams consisting of
border police from both countries working together.

Robin
Roland Perry
2012-12-14 09:37:35 UTC
Permalink
In message
Post by bob
Post by Roland Perry
On the way back from Brussels there might be a stop at Lille (where
passengers get on an off. But they could start the check from Paris as
soon as it departs, so that'll be about 70% of the way through the
shift.
When was the last time you encountered an on-board passport check on a
moving train?
On Eurostar in the early days (on return to UK).
Post by bob
Every one I have seen has involved teams consisting of
border police from both countries working together.
French and Belgian checks were done on arrival, in those days.
--
Roland Perry
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-14 10:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by bob
When was the last time you encountered an on-board passport check on a
moving train?
On Eurostar in the early days (on return to UK).
Post by bob
Every one I have seen has involved teams consisting of
border police from both countries working together.
French and Belgian checks were done on arrival, in those days.
Years before Schengen, European countries already saved money by putting
mixed teams on the trains. Between Bad Bentheim and Oldenzaal, a team of
one German and one Dutch would look at your ID.

In a rationally designed setup, all that would be needed for the E* is one
team, made up from one UK and one F border guard. Because the time
interval would be so long, a single team would be sufficient.



Hans-Joachim



--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.

Glen Labah in mtra
bob
2012-12-14 10:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Hans-Joachim Zierke
Post by Roland Perry
Post by bob
When was the last time you encountered an on-board passport check on a
moving train?
On Eurostar in the early days (on return to UK).
Post by bob
Every one I have seen has involved teams consisting of
border police from both countries working together.
French and Belgian checks were done on arrival, in those days.
Years before Schengen, European countries already saved money by putting
mixed teams on the trains. Between Bad Bentheim and Oldenzaal, a team of
one German and one Dutch would look at your ID.
In a rationally designed setup, all that would be needed for the E* is one
team, made up from one UK and one F border guard. Because the time
interval would be so long, a single team would be sufficient.
For a non-stop London-Paris trip, yes, but if you wanted to cover a
whole E* set between Lille and Ashford, you would probably want two or
three teams starting from different parts of the train.

Robin
Paul Corfield
2012-12-14 10:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
When was the last time you encountered an on-board passport check on a
moving train? Every one I have seen has involved teams consisting of
border police from both countries working together.
Last one I experienced was going from france into switzerland (Paris
to Lausanne TGV). It was only the Swiss immigration and customs people
who came through the train and very "efficient" they were too. I
can't recall any check in the reverse direction.
--
Paul C
Hans-Joachim Zierke
2012-12-14 10:12:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Corfield
Last one I experienced was going from france into switzerland (Paris
to Lausanne TGV). It was only the Swiss immigration and customs people
who came through the train and very "efficient" they were too. I
can't recall any check in the reverse direction.
If this was recent travel, it wasn't Swiss immigration, but customs only.


Hans-Joachim


--
Though, there are those that do think that burying Microsoft, Boeing and Amazon
under 200 feet of molten lava might be a good opportunity to start over.

Glen Labah in mtra
Recliner
2012-12-14 17:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Corfield
Post by bob
When was the last time you encountered an on-board passport check on a
moving train? Every one I have seen has involved teams consisting of
border police from both countries working together.
Last one I experienced was going from france into switzerland (Paris
to Lausanne TGV). It was only the Swiss immigration and customs people
who came through the train and very "efficient" they were too. I
can't recall any check in the reverse direction.
Strangely enough, my last check was on exactly that route, too, and it was
as you describe.
Graeme Wall
2012-12-14 10:11:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Johannes Picht
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Johannes Picht
Post by Roland Perry
There are UK officers in Brussels, Lille and Paris - it's not a
jurisdictional issue. The problem is cost and staff boredom for
90% of the return trip.
Then let them do their job first and give them a bottle of
Châteuneuf-du-Pape (or two, on request) for the remainder ;-)
The session they have to be on duty is between approximately 80% and 90%
of the way through the shift. It's the first 80% that's boring.
Why shouldn't they start the check right after departure?
Because immediately after departure on the round trip they are heading
away from London.
On the way back from Brussels there might be a stop at Lille (where
passengers get on an off. But they could start the check from Paris as
soon as it departs, so that'll be about 70% of the way through the
shift.
When was the last time you encountered an on-board passport check on a
moving train? Every one I have seen has involved teams consisting of
border police from both countries working together.
Last time I encountered one was on an E* from Brussels to Waterloo and
it was just UKBA. This was in addition to the standard check at Midi.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Arthur Figgis
2012-12-14 17:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by bob
When was the last time you encountered an on-board passport check on a
moving train?
Last year; St Petersburg - Helsinki "Allegro" service. AIUI you can't go
to the buffet until you've been done.

The Russian border officials got a bit confused by me having a
Poland-Belarus entry stamp, rather than a Helsinki - St Petersburg one,
but they let me out in the end (there are no border checks entering
Russia from Belarus, but it is easier to enter Russia directly than deal
with Belarus anyway).
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Graeme Wall
2012-12-13 12:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rail.eu.org
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
Non, in UK. Why would UK officers have special rights outside UK ?
For the same reason French passport officers have special rights outside
of France.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
e***@rail.eu.org
2012-12-13 12:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
Either when it is moving, or in UK. I do not see why UK officer should
have special police rights in Lille (or Paris).
--
Les simplifications c'est trop compliqué
Graeme Wall
2012-12-13 12:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@rail.eu.org
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
Either when it is moving, or in UK. I do not see why UK officer should
have special police rights in Lille (or Paris).
They already do.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
The Real Doctor
2012-12-13 15:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
While it's moving. Customs officers get on at Lille, go through the
train, get off at Ashford, travel back to Lille. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Ian
tim.....
2012-12-13 15:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
While it's moving. Customs officers get on at Lille, go through the train,
get off at Ashford, travel back to Lille. Rinse, lather, repeat.
(Mostly) only the Brussels trains stop at Lille.

Only one train a day stops at both Ashford and Lille

Half the Paris trains don't make any intermediate stops at all

They would be shuttling between London/Ebbsfleet - Paris/Lille almost all
day.

So, with a 5 hour round trip they would do one return journey per shift -
hence the reason why it is too expensive this way.

tim
The Real Doctor
2012-12-13 17:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by tim.....
Only one train a day stops at both Ashford and Lille
Half the Paris trains don't make any intermediate stops at all
They would be shuttling between London/Ebbsfleet - Paris/Lille almost
all day.
So, with a 5 hour round trip they would do one return journey per shift
- hence the reason why it is too expensive this way.
Well stop the bloody trains at Lille and Ebbsfleet (or Calias and
Ashford, or wherever is needed) to allow them on and off. The idea that
it is more sensible to delay an entire train for 80 minutes than to stop
it for one is ludicrous.

That, after all, is why the Rhein-Expreß called at a one-horse town like
Venlo.

Ian
Roland Perry
2012-12-13 16:03:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Real Doctor
Post by Roland Perry
Post by The Real Doctor
So why the flaming fuck can't these checks be done on the train?
While it's moving, or while parked at Lille?
While it's moving. Customs officers get on at Lille, go through the
train, get off at Ashford, travel back to Lille. Rinse, lather, repeat.
But very few trains stop at Ashford (3 a day each to Paris and
Brussels), and none of the Paris ones at Lille.
--
Roland Perry
The Real Doctor
2012-12-13 17:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roland Perry
But very few trains stop at Ashford (3 a day each to Paris and
Brussels), and none of the Paris ones at Lille.
Stop 'em there, then. Job done.

Ian
Alex Potter
2012-12-13 20:51:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Real Doctor
Post by Roland Perry
But very few trains stop at Ashford (3 a day each to Paris and
Brussels), and none of the Paris ones at Lille.
Stop 'em there, then. Job done.
Ian
But it seems to be the thing in ukr that if a thing doesn't happen now
then it can't...
--
Alex
tim.....
2012-12-14 12:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alex Potter
Post by The Real Doctor
Post by Roland Perry
But very few trains stop at Ashford (3 a day each to Paris and
Brussels), and none of the Paris ones at Lille.
Stop 'em there, then. Job done.
Ian
But it seems to be the thing in ukr that if a thing doesn't happen now
then it can't...
Though E* don't want to stop there.

There was a rather vociferous campaign not to lose the Ashford stops when
Ebbsfleet was opened.

E* ignored it completely and cut the service back to almost nothing.

If they aren't going to stop somewhere for their own commercial reasons they
certainly aren't going to stop there to save someone else some money

tim
Loading...