Proposed new competitor for Eurostar

[exet1095]

Can you give it a rest please, @phil-b259. 
 

This thread is not about your dislike for Brexit, modern Britain, or even how marvellous everyone is compared to the UK.

 

If you want one of those, stick it in Wheeltappers so that those of us interested in the actual subject do not have to read through your tedious rants.

 

Thank you.

 

Paul

Edited October 15, 2023 by exet1095

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Growth is not the same thing as productivity. I agree that the most recent figures do show the UK to be ahead of Europe in growth terms BUT....

 

If your productivity is low than all having the best growth stats means is you are trying to catch up with the best in the business as it were so is not as positive as highest growth and highest productivity. Granted, it can be a useful indicator that things are getting better and if sustained it should lead to an improvement in productivity figures but thats not a given.

 

Plus it needs to be remembered that year on year (or month on month or day on day) figures are not particularly useful in determining performance over the longer term - what you need, particularly with things like a countrys performance on the worlds stage is several years if not a decades worth so as to ensure short term fluctuations don't distort the true picture.

 

In other words its easy to cherry pick certain stats to make yourself look good but as many politicians and businesses have found out that counts for nothing if there are bigger negative stats lurking away behind the scenes.

 

Now don't get me wrong - as a Brit I naturally want the UK to be a beacon of best practice and have the 'best' figures for any given metric in the developed world - but you don't get there by pretending everything is wonderful, saying that alternative approaches are 'Not applicable', that a 'one size fits all' is required or chucking irrelevant factors into the mix. Where other places have better figures we should not only be be asking 'Why' - we should also be open to adopting their methods even if it means ripping up long cherished norms and radically changing the way things are done. Yet far too often what Brits do is come up with an endless list of excuses as to why things cannot be done - frequently with hints that making changes will somehow diminish us as a nation or we don't need to look beyond our shores with an over emphasis on our history - which although impressive on many counts is just that, our history and not our future!

 

 

Spare paths on HS1 Yes, lots

 

Spare Paths on the LGV Nord - Very few

 

Spare Platform capacity at Paris to turn around trains from the UK:- Not much 

 

Paths through the channel tunnel - some, but may require a lower speed to be applied to international passenger trains so as to not unduly impact the shuttle operation

 

Spare Platform capacity at St Pancras to turn around international trains: - NONE!

 

Hence the point which the stationmaster and several others have been trying to get through to people - that St Pancas IS the problem here!

 

Stop going on about paths in general and focus on the real bottleneck here - just because you have never personally experienced a problem passing through St Pancras doesn't mean they don't exist or the issues affecting capacity are easily solvable!

 

 

Its quite true that in time circumstances may change and / or significant infrastructure investment is made to improve turnaround times, but I contend that if Eurostar (and international train travel to / from the UK in general) is to thrive in future years but St Pancras* remains the sole London terminal then some out of the box thinking as regards passenger processing will be essential to unlock that potential,  changes which far too many people on this thread seem to want to automatically rubbish and claim is not possible.

 

Ultimately I do want Eurostar and international train travel to be a success - even if the Channel tunnel rules and the UKs status outside the EU / outside the Schengen area mean its never going to be possible to replicate the potential it has within mainland Europe.

 

* Had Waterloo remained open as planned then its fair to say that St Pancras wouldn't be the issue it is - and its far more likely that the real blocker would be a lack of paths in fance on the LGV Nord....

 

 

I am sorry but here again not reading others posts, there is according spare capacity for passenger (Eurostar) through the tunnel

 

But no one other than you is looking for additional services to Garde du Nord other than Eurostar who want a monopoly/strangle hold on international traffic

 

It would be nice to see through trains to Zurich and Milan, though from Zurich to Milan from memory is not High speed. In a couple of years or so there will be the new hide speed line to Turin. I guess there are those wishing to go North and North East 

 

St Pancras has 6 platforms and on average 1.5 trains depart every hour, this is where your precious productivity could help, but I expect the normal actors would be against it

 

The bucket is half full and can easily topped up if the will is there

[jjb1970]

I propose remodelling St Pancras along the lines of Antwerp, that should do it💪

[hayfield]

35 minutes ago, jjb1970 said:

I propose remodelling St Pancras along the lines of Antwerp, that should do it💪

 

 

JJB1970

 

Like all things if we were starting again it would be different, but a lot has changed since they were built

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

 

I am sorry but here again not reading others posts, there is according spare capacity for passenger (Eurostar) through the tunnel

 

 

 

As I keep trying to point out 'paths through the tunnel is but ONE element of g a whole string of things which need to work together if you want to create a reliable train service

 

However if we take Paris out of the equation then I agree that removes one thing off the list.

 

It does however introduce several other constraints....

 

(1) The ability / willingness to install secure departure facilities at the destinations you mention ( both with respect to the UKs HM Border forces being willing to employ extra personal to staff them and the host nations being willing to provide the necessary infrastructure)  OR an expansion of UK border facilities in Lille so that everyone can be marched off the train and processed there (which of course introduces a significant time penalty)

 

NB Its worth remembering that Eurostars initial ski train offerings required passenger to be disembarked at Lille for processing on the return - it was only several years after they were introduced that facilities were provided at the Alpine terminal for such checks to be undertaken before departure.

 

(2) Finding paths on the other LGV lines involved which sync up with those on the LGV Nord and the Channel Tunnel. As a general rule the further away these extra points are and the more infrastructure which has to be utilised to get there the harder its going to be.

 

Now there isn't a lot that can be done to mitigate against the second issue (which is fundamentally no different to a frequent a Cross country service from Bournemouth to Manchester is hostage to finding suitable paths on several busy UK main lines for example), but you cannot ignore that fact the UKs position outside the Schengen zone AND the security rules applying to the channel tunnel are directly responsible for the first.

 

Moreover unlike infrastructure constraints that ultimately has its basis in physics (only one train can occupy one piece of track at a time), the first point is directly related to policy decisions made by people rather than the characteristics of particular piece of infrastructure, and policy decisions are changeable in the way physical things are not!

 

Hence to truly unlock the potential of international rail travel to / from the UK (regardless of who operates it) requires a complete change of mindset within the British public - and participation in things like the Schengen area rather than the 'we will have none of that' attitude (which is what I consider a 'fortress Britian mentality).

 

In effect the choice you have is between lots of international train services from the UK to lots of different destinations across Europe but the Uk being an integral part of the EUs Schengen area (plus the dropping of certain channel tunnel regs) - or the current situation with the UK not part of the EU and with full control over its border policy but international rail travel restricted to a handfull of destinations so as to make the whole processing of travellers manageable (both in logistics and cost terms, not just from a passenger perspective).

 

Trying to maintain we can somehow do both is ridiculous, particularly if you do not believe in subsiding international rail travel because the only way both can be achieved is with a huge amount of financial outlay in expanding terminal capacity in the UK plus a massive and sustained investment in loads of border posts scattered throughout Europe.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

1 hour ago, hayfield said:

 

St Pancras has 6 platforms and on average 1.5 trains depart every hour, this is where your precious productivity could help, but I expect the normal actors would be against it

 

The bucket is half full and can easily topped up if the will is there

 

Its worth remembering that:-

 

UK border rules require complete segregation of arriving and departing passengers - this MASSIVELY decimates platform capacity! In practical terms that means that if a train is loading passengers for departure on one side of the island platform the other side must remain unused until after that train has left.

 

You go round applying that restriction to any other large UK rail station and it would decimate the service levels that can be operated!

 

You would do well to take the following on board from The Stationmaster* - the salient bits of which I have highlighted in bold.

 

This in turn tales you back to a lot of basic inputs - starting with the length of the train which not only decides the length of theh platforms but in turn decides - if done correctly - the speed with which a train can unload its passengers and subsequently load the outbound passengers.  But that isn't everything because between the two loads of passengers various things need to be done and they are most efficiently done when there are no passengers on the train or the platform - cleaning, watering, and restocking catering vehicles/trolleys and all of that needs to kept separate from passenger flows.

 

Because St Pancras International didn't follow those basic criteria it can't turnround a Eurostar as quickly as Waterloo could and it never will be able to.  And the quicker you can turn round a train the sooner a platform is ready to be occupied by another train.  And that latter point might help in keeping down the number of platforms needed to match the tph capacity of the line the terminal serves.  (Which St Pancras can't manage as it happens and from its design clearly never would have been able to manage.   Working it out isn't rocket science although experience plays a big part in getting to all the numbers (i.e. minutes each task will take).

 

Ideally - takinga lesson from Waterloo International - a high capacity station needs 3 separate levels.  Basement level for the train servicing and staff access, platform level for the trains, and a first floor/mezzanine level via which passengers exit from the platform and from which they descend to entrain.  It also means that passengers spend only short periods on the platforms so, in turn,  the platforms need nothing in the way of any sort of facility, not even seating ,for the passengers - simply stairs/escalators and lifts - plus cover from the weather.  But it also means that you need plenty of circulating space ett c at that first floor level and you don't fill it with shops and burger bars that obstruct passenger flows - ;likr e teh current Euston was when it first opened.

 

It might have 6 platforms but turnaround times at St Pancras are SLOWER than Waterloo even though that station had only 5 platforms - precisely because because things like entry and exits form the platforms are not as optimally sited at SP than they were at Waterloo. Of course Waterloo was a dedicated new build terminal which had space for two passenger levels below the tracks - trying to shoehorn all that into a single level inside a listed structure was obviously going to be difficult, but the net result in terms of turnaround times speaks for itself.....

 

As such your continued insistence that additional capacity can magically be created without some serious infrastructure work and / or a step change in how the UK border operates at St Pancras is laughable.

 

* https://www.rmweb.co.uk/topic/151162-hs2/page/335/#comment-5309577

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

On 14/10/2023 at 18:41, phil-b259 said:

 

You are still missing the point here!

 

FACT: France and Belgium DON’T HAVE ANY FACILITIES FOR CUSTOMS CHECKS on incoming persons arriving off Eurostar (or at least not checks as we know them at St Pancras)

 

FACT: Since Brexit, the UK is a '3rd Country' - yet even so they haven't seen fit to start putting in place said Customs facilities.

 

FACT:  Despite the above  Belgium and France are NOT awash with smuggled and illegal goods from the UK via Eurostar to any great extent (though obviously there must be some ‘leakage’)

 

DEDUCTION:- Its perfectly possible to manage the UK / Europe border without the need for a customs hall. I admit Idon't know exactly how they do it, but unlike you and your closed mind I can see that there are certainly possibilities and much to learn from their approach to the cross channel border arrangements.

 

DEDUCTION 2: If the arrivals hall at St Pancras can be eliminated then it frees up valuable space to expand the departure area and in turn either allow either Eurostar to expand their service offerings again or space to allow a competitor to emerge.

 

DEDUCTION 3:-  Anyone who simply says it cannot be done, or assumes that it means no customs checks whatsoever is displaying a 'Fotress Britain' mentality! As has been shown with the NI protocol and the Windsor framework, its entirely possible to create systems which do not require things to be paraded before bored looking customs officers upon entry to the UK  yet which still enable customs regulations to be enforced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

phil just v because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they aren't there (although if you know where to look at Bruxelles Midi you will know that  they are there.  Don;t frget because of all sorts of fdifferences when it comes to dutiable goods the need for the type of Custims checks varies and is done in different ways.

 

Because my team and I had very close working contact with the Customs people at Waterloo we knew how they worked and I can assure you that what you see at UK borders is not really any ogication of the way they carry put their tasks. No doubt something very much the same applies in France and Brlgium the same applies in France 

 

As far as border controls are concerned unless they have calmed down massively. the behaviour of the border control staff in Bruxelles is nit only very obvious but at times dstinctly rude.  InParis you only see them when they want to see 'you' - then they tend to be mob handed and not the gentlest of souls.   What you see of Uk border conytro people is nothng compared to what happemns when they detain you - worryingly polite is pobably the best description even when they take away your passport (yes - I've had that but a very long time ago.  And they aren't allowe to tell you anything although I told the chap who detained me at Parkeston Quay why he had done it - which he then confirmed)..

[The Stationmaster]

On 15/10/2023 at 13:45, phil-b259 said:

 

 

UK border rules require complete segregation of arriving and departing passengers - this MASSIVELY decimates platform capacity! In practical terms that means that if a train is loading passengers for departure on one side of the island platform the other side must remain unused until after that train has left.

 

 

That is a requiremwnt of the Channel Tunnel security procedures as well.  And that is what counts the most on Eurostar.  That also influences the way in which platforms are worked as it s not permissible to have arriving and departing trains using opposite sides of the same island platform

[Michael Hodgson]

On 14/10/2023 at 13:21, phil-b259 said:

Indeed the U.K. got rapped over the knuckles several times for continuing to put in place (and enforce) limits on how much booze and Tabasco could be bought in by ferry passengers and were sizing vehicles / goods when that was illegal under EU law.

 

Probably for protectionism - none of your foreign sauce please, we like our Worcester sauce over here.

[phil-b259]

21 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

That is a requiremwnt of the Channel Tunnel security procedures as well.  And that is what counts the most on Eurostar.  That also influences the way in which platforms are worked as it s not permissible to have arriving and departing trains using opposite sides of the same island platform

Indeed - all of which goes to show that making sure people can quickly enter and leave the platforms is vital to reducing turnaround times.

 

Unfortunately with St Pancras having only a single level below it (and even then only the half of the platforms closest to the buffer stops) it’s fairly clear that their isn’t much scope for improving things and reducing turnaround times. That in turn means that regardless of how many train paths there may be on the various lines used by international trains, scope for competition or a significant uplift is nill.

 

Hence is rather ridiculous many folk on here still seem to think any uplift in service provision can ever happen for as long as the current rules (be they channel tunnel specific ones or border / custom related) remain as they are.

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

33 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Indeed - all of which goes to show that making sure people can quickly enter and leave the platforms is vital to reducing turnaround times.

 

Unfortunately with St Pancras having only a single level below it (and even then only the half of the platforms closest to the buffer stops) it’s fairly clear that their isn’t much scope for improving things and reducing turnaround times. That in turn means that regardless of how many train paths there may be on the various lines used by international trains, scope for competition or a significant uplift is nill.

 

Hence is rather ridiculous many folk on here still seem to think any uplift in service provision can ever happen for as long as the current rules (be they channel tunnel specific ones or border / custom related) remain as they are.

 

 

Changing the Tunnel security rules, or anything else, at Sr Pancras wouldn't make hardly any difference to train turnround times.  

 

At St Pancras the big problem is getting people off or onto the platform more rapidly = additional separated egress and access points.  Plus more. fully separated, access points for the various train sevicing staff to enable them to get to&fro and do their work simultaneously and clear of the passenger flows.  Don't forget that it isn't just passengers that have to be accommodated underneath the platform but the people who service the trains plus their stores nd their tugs/trolleys etc as well as traincrew and other staff who are needed to keep the trains running

 

Right from the day the station opened it was found that 35 minute turnrounds could not be achieved at St Pancras.  Tha layout of the station made it impossible and 40+ minute turnrounds didn't work either. The only way the place can be worked at busier times is by clearing inbound trains from the platform as quickly as possible after passengers have detrained and getting them out of the way.  The only option to do that is to send them to the depot.  And then empty trains come in from the depot to form departures at the busier times.  At Waterloo on the biusiest days of the week we did have to get rid of one train from the station early in the afternoon/evening peak build up.   It went to Kensnkton, reversed there and by the time it was back there was a platform available for it.  Even on our platform with the worst access we could turn round a train is 35 minutes with no trouble.

[phil-b259]

19 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Changing the Tunnel security rules, or anything else, at Sr Pancras wouldn't make hardly any difference to train turnround times.  

 

Well yes it would because if people could simply walk off the platforms for example then you could have lots more exits for them to use.

 

For starters you could put an exit in which leads to the northern concourse (by the Thameslink platforms), a second feeding directly to the middle concourse by the Eurostar check in with a third being from the buffer stops onto the upper concourse.

 

Similarly being able to enter the platforms at three different point for departure rather than two might help speed up boarding times though this would be harder to achieve than exiting the platforms assuming departure checks are still in force.

 

Now (and certain people please take note of this paragraph) none of the above is to say that’s what must happen (because it involves a fundamental change in public attitudes and political views) - but it’s an indication of what is physically possible in engineering terms were procedures regarding channel tunnel regs / borders / customs different and would be a way of speeding up certain elements that you have highlighted as being critical when it comes to train turnarounds regardless of whether we are talking about domestic or international services.

Edited October 18, 2023 by phil-b259

[The Stationmaster]

4 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

Well yes it would because if people could simply walk off the platforms for example then you could have lots more exits for them to use.

 

For starters you could put an exit in which leads to the northern concourse (by the Thameslink platforms), a second feeding directly to the middle concourse by the Eurostar check in with a third being from the buffer stops onto the upper concourse.

 

Similarly being able to enter the platforms at three different point for departure rather than two might help speed up boarding times though this would be harder to achieve than exiting the platforms assuming departure checks are still in force.

 

Now (and certain people please take note of this paragraph) none of the above is to say that’s what must happen (because it involves a fundamental change in public attitudes and political views) - but it’s an indication of what is physically possible in engineering terms were procedures regarding channel tunnel regs / borders / customs different and would be a way of speeding up certain elements that you have highlighted as being critical when it comes to train turnarounds regardless of whether we are talking about domestic or international services.

And create a drug runner's paradise. (yes, they have used Eurostar in the past although almost invariably detained at the UK end which soon put a stop to that route for drug smuggling).  I don't know anything about the current level of attempted smuggling into Britain via Eurostar but as soon as the baddies learn there are uncontrolled routes into London they will use them - that, regrettably, is a long established fact of life.  So I'm pretty certain that HMRC would never countenance uncontrolled exits at St Pancras International.

 

And in any case gettng passengers off more quickly does't sollve the problem of loading them or indeed the situation with access for train cleaning and tservicing.

[phil-b259]

8 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

And create a drug runner's paradise. (yes, they have used Eurostar in the past although almost invariably detained at the UK end which soon put a stop to that route for drug smuggling).  I don't know anything about the current level of attempted smuggling into Britain via Eurostar but as soon as the baddies learn there are uncontrolled routes into London they will use them - that, regrettably, is a long established fact of life.  So I'm pretty certain that HMRC would never countenance uncontrolled exits at St Pancras International.

 

Again please note Mike I was referring what could be done from an engineering perspective if various ‘controls’ were changed.

 

However unless they are then I see zero scope for either clearing the platforms more quickly nor for speeding up boarding and thus improving turnarounds.

 

Life is full of compromises - and St Pancras is no different. The more controls / obstacles you put int the way of passenger flow (however we’ll intentioned / essential they are deemed to be by the populace at large) then the slower the throughput of passengers will be.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by phil-b259

[ess1uk]

Virgin Tunnel: Richard Branson could challenge Eurostar monopoly | RailTech.com

https://www.railtech.com/all/2023/11/13/virgin-tunnel-richard-branson-could-challenge-eurostar-monopoly/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter week 2023-46

[adb968008]

On 15/10/2023 at 12:51, jjb1970 said:

I propose remodelling St Pancras along the lines of Antwerp, that should do it💪
 

 

 

and build a connection to EL south, north, east and west at Farringdon, then spin it out at Waterloo….

then you have a proper Cross London line via the centre, thru running in all directions.

 

i’ll await to be chased out of the country by a bunch of handbaggers, impossibilitors, cannebedoners, overmydeadbodyologists and bean counters for such fanciful thinking.

Edited November 13, 2023 by adb968008

[adb968008]

2 hours ago, ess1uk said:

Virgin Tunnel: Richard Branson could challenge Eurostar monopoly | RailTech.com

https://www.railtech.com/all/2023/11/13/virgin-tunnel-richard-branson-could-challenge-eurostar-monopoly/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter week 2023-46

He could be he wont…

 

He might licence the brand name for someone else to do it.

 

Though the name is a fading dream, the further from the 1980’s we go.

Edited November 13, 2023 by adb968008

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, ess1uk said:

Virgin Tunnel: Richard Branson could challenge Eurostar monopoly | RailTech.com

https://www.railtech.com/all/2023/11/13/virgin-tunnel-richard-branson-could-challenge-eurostar-monopoly/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter week 2023-46

It was in yesterday's 'Telegraph' as well - gave me a good laugh actually because his involvement in Eurostar previously was hardly a wonderful piece of work and seemed to consist mainly of two staff parties (which I had the good fortune to miss) plus the resignation of his most senior placeman who got out before he was done for fraudulent use of his company Amex Card.

 

Based on what I saw then Virgin represents little more than  the power of a name & verbal diarrhoea over the reality of understanding how to run a railway.  But of course the punters love him and think the name confers some sort of wonder ability to whatever it lands on,.  The same might stillt happen if it actually manages to run trains through the Tunnel.

 

But, allegedly with a  couple more contenders also in the hunt I truly wonder where on earth they are going to run their trains from in England and where they are going to take them at the far end of the Tunnel.  Maybe it would make a lot more sense to try to get Waterloo International back into operation and add 3rd rail dc capability to whatever trains they intend to run?   St Pancras simply does not have the passenger and train handling capacity at what will inevitably be commercially attractive departure and arrival times.  And i seriously doubt that it has the proper facilities to accommodate more than one international train operator.   Stratford might not be a bad alternative within London but could they run to/from somewhere out of London?  ( However a previous Virgin person's suggestion of running international passenger trains to/from Bristol is probably no more realistic nonw that it was  when he came up with the idea  back in the mid-late 1990s.)

 

27 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

He could be he wont…

 

He might licence the brand name for someone else to do it.

 

Though the name is a fading dream, the further from the 1980’s we go.

That is the way he makes a lot of his money and long has been  (the fees avoid UK taxation by being paid to Virgin companies based outside Britain).  But whichever it is it still won't solve the practical problems.

[Ron Ron Ron]

4 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

..........Maybe it would make a lot more sense to try to get Waterloo International back into operation and add 3rd rail dc capability to whatever trains they intend to run?  ......

 

I assume this was meant to be sarcastic or a joke?

 

 

.

[adb968008]

9 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

I assume this was meant to be sarcastic or a joke?

 

 

.

I like the idea of an only fools and horses script where Delboy responds to a tender, to propose creating a new station called Barking International supporting a new SlowersStar service from Calais. The service could connect to Barking Riverside and offer carbon free connections along the Thames. The business could be justified by the high number of one way demand there is from less affluent foreign passengers arriving in the French locality but finding services are very limited. Also the willingness of the French local government to subsidize the tickets.

Edited November 14, 2023 by adb968008

[hayfield]

As the old adage states "there is no smoke without a fire" , It seem now with Virgin Trains making noises several companies exploring providing services

 

The tunnel owned states with signaling upgrades more trains can use the tunnel both in frequency and type of train

 

Why not use Ebbsfleet and or Ashford. plus more use if the likes of Lille station or other Termini ?

 

There are always the half full brigade who seem to delight in explaining what cannot be done, but where there is a will a way usually is found. There are many good reasons to increase traffic flow through the tunnel, the environment is one of the biggest. As for Eurostar of course they want a monopoly but no doubt the tunnel owners also want to maximize revenue

 

It seems we are moving away from "if" and getting closer to "when"  

 

Just today its being reported that the French look likely to amend the 90 day visa rules for UK nationals, saying time to stop punishing the UK for Brexit as we are now "special" friends. Money talks !! as does votes when chalets and gites remain empty 

[Neil]

15 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

....   Stratford might not be a bad alternative within London but could they run to/from somewhere out of London?  ....

 

Regional Eurostars back in favour? Leeds, Manchester and/or Birmingham?

[hayfield]

Do they need to be ?

 

Having used Eurostar inconjuction with TGC, in my opinion better links to the Eurostar is what is needed.

 

Lets face it Getting off at Garde du Nord then having to find another termini to go to other parts of France/Italy/Spain etc. is hardly interconnecting travel.

 

Eurostar is a capital to capital service, not saying it should be. But it is what it is, if competition makes it more regional at both ends then that's an added bonus

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, Neil said:

 

Regional Eurostars back in favour? Leeds, Manchester and/or Birmingham?

Glasgow/Edinburgh!

 

The SNP want to leave the UK but although the Scots voted "Better together" they also voted against Brexit, so Scotland wants to join the EU if they evenually win a referendum.  Obviously they'd want to join Schengen too, which presumably means traffic jams on the A74 from Gretna all the way back to Motherwell, so through trains not stopping in England would be the environmentally friendly way to visit the continent.  😄

Edited November 14, 2023 by Michael Hodgson

[Neil]

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Glasgow/Edinburgh! ....

 

Quite, if structured properly they could pick up in the North and the Midlands on their way to the continent. Obviously it would all be far easier if we were still in the EU and Schengen, or like Switzerland just in Schengen. Save lots of faffing around, red tape, queues and the loss to the economy. Ah well, a chap can dream .....