TL;DR: Scaling up cross-channel rail means more than just fixing border controls — UK infrastructure must be ready too. London is limited by passenger and depot capacity, but can be eased with night trains using facilities during currently unused times, and new/expanded depots near HS1. Beyond London, electrification gaps, short platforms, tight loading gauges, congested London orbital routes, and maintenance needs make expansion harder. But smaller-profile trains, selective platform lengthening, dividing trains, smart routing and interventions like a North London Line bypass could enable compelling and feasible direct regional services to Europe.

Providing better international rail services is crucial to reducing emissions from air travel. In part 1, we tackled the largest obstacle: the critical border control, security, and seat utilisation challenges that stand in the way of shifting cross-channel travellers from planes to trains, and how changing the way we do security and border checks could unlock many more stations and routes. (If you haven’t read it yet, you can find part 1 here, but it’s not essential for following this article.)

Now that we’ve solved the foremost barrier to expanding cross-channel services, we can shift our focus to the infrastructure itself. Even if operational hurdles are addressed, cross-channel rail services cannot scale up without tackling a range of constraints on the UK side:

• For trains starting and terminating in London: passenger handling capacity at St Pancras, and limited maintenance and stabling (parking) facilities connected to the London to Channel Tunnel high speed line, HS1
• For trains beyond London: gaps in overhead electrification, congested connections from HS1 to Britain’s other mainlines, platform and train size limitations, and the need for regional maintenance and stabling facilities

In part 2, we’ll delve into each of these issues so that we can identify how UK rail infrastructure can realise a truly continent-connected Britain.

Trains starting and terminating in London

The key to increasing cross-channel passenger trains to and from London seems to be night trains. It’s well known that passenger handling at the international terminal at St Pancras is currently at capacity. However, the last trains bound for the continent currently depart at around 8–8:30pm, leaving passenger handling facilities unused for the rest of the evening. Using this window would give us ample capacity for security and border checks – easily enough to accommodate many night trains.

Furthermore, passengers from Europe on a night train terminating in London would not add to capacity issues, as the bottleneck sits with departing passengers going through security and border control. As arriving passengers are already cleared to enter the UK by the time they arrive, they can simply walk out of the station.

This means international night trains starting and terminating in London would not need any new station infrastructure other than what is already at St Pancras — a great sign for prospective night train operators. It also removes the need to consider other options such as terminating at Stratford International, whose track layout doesn’t allow long trains to turn around.

For the longer term, a report done for London St Pancras Highspeed, which runs the station, has found space to more than double current capacity to the equivalent of 33 million passengers a year, assuming 18h a day operation.

For comparison, this would enable passenger throughput in excess of London Luton Airport’s current capacity of 18m — although it still pales in comparison to London Heathrow Airport’s 90m, and just 17% of total London airport capacity of 190m. However, this is definitely a step in the right direction to supporting comparable figures to air travel.

Maintenance facilities for London

Eurostar’s Temple Mills depot, by Stratford International (inner city London) is the only depot connected to the high speed line in the London area, where the demand for most services will be. It is also the only one in the UK that can handle continental size trains. This makes access to Temple Mills extremely valuable for any cross-channel operator — Eurostar is currently taking advantage of this, and Virgin is planning to do so too.

(For Southeastern High Speed, the operator of domestic HS1 trains, their depot is in Ashford near the Channel Tunnel. This arrangement works for them as their services terminate in Kent (the county which Ashford is in), but this can’t be said for the cross-channel services we’re exploring.)

An independent study recently commissioned by the UK Office of Road and Rail stated that the maximum sustainable depot capacity is 15 trainsets. Eurostar generally occupies between 6–10 trainsets there, leaving room for around 4–9 sets. This may be enough extra capacity for one new operator, but any more will most likely need another space to maintain their rolling stock. Even if Temple Mills in its current form does have the capacity for maintenance, there may not be enough sidings for stabling night trains.

Eurostar itself is planning to increase its use of Temple Mills by intensifying the use of its current trains, plus buying 50 new ones — both positive developments for cross-channel passengers. It’s therefore likely the depot will be used to full capacity, making it impossible for further maintenance operations to rely solely on Temple Mills.

One option could be to expand Temple Mills itself, though available land seems very limited, leaving any expansion likely having to be double-decker (including over the adjacent Orient Way Carriage Sidings if needed). Eurostar itself is investing in new facilities at Temple Mills, although to what extent remains to be seen.

The other alternative is to build brand-new depots in East London — this is what Eurostar is calling on other prospective cross-channel operators (of which there are currently four) to do in order to handle the vast increase in cross-channel services planned. Although the lack of quick fix could be seen as anti-competitive, as this solidifies Eurostar as the main cross-channel operator in the meantime, building new depots does make sense as the only option that will truly unlock capacity for a paradigm modal shift from air.

After Stratford (where Temple Mills is), the tunnel next resurfaces at Dagenham in outer London — making it the next best place to explore space for a maintenance facility. Again, multi-storey solutions may be our friend here for a higher-capacity maintenance depot, and could even allow the site’s current purpose to be maintained with a mixed-use design.

If a suitable site can’t be found at Dagenham, we’re now looking past the Thames river crossing, at Ebbsfleet (outside London) and beyond — 18 minutes or more from St Pancras. It’ll probably be easier to find space than in London (unless designated as part of the limited green belt in this area), but anything from here on out will be less convenient for operations, as out-of-service trains to and from the depot will be taking up rail line capacity from in-service trains for longer. This may be a problem particularly for trains departing and arriving close to the morning and evening rush hours, when more people want to travel, if the line is at capacity.

One last thing to note is that cross-channel trains may have to be stored in a secure facility by law. If so, any sidings and other maintenance facilities would have to be fenced off. Cross-channel Eurostar maintenance facilities in France (Paris La Chapelle) and Belgium (Brussels Forest) are shared with their national services, but may be because UK-specific security requirements don’t apply there.

Trains beyond London — electrification

Before we go into what UK destinations are served by electrification, it’s important to understand why diesel or bi-mode trains (ie able to run on both diesel propulsion or overhead wires) are not suitable for our purposes:

• Too slow: Maximum speeds of bi-mode high speed trains cap out at 225km/h (140mph) with diesel even lower — far slower than the 300+km/h running speeds of HS1 and other European high speed lines, which the service would run on long stretches for.
• Not sustainable enough: Using diesel trains for sustainable cross-channel services would vastly diminish the carbon savings achieved, emitting around 91gCO2e per passenger-kilometre — not much better than an average flight in economy class at 127g. By comparison, electric trains running on Europe’s average electricity mix emit just 26g, and this will get even better with time as more renewables are installed.
• Potential safety issues: All Channel Tunnel services run on electricity, and the only diesel trains in the tunnel are used for maintenance and breakdown rescue. It stands to reason that the tunnel would deny access to diesel trains — including bi-modes carrying diesel fuel — on safety grounds, such as ventilation or fire risk.

Bearing this in mind, from which destinations in the UK can we run an electrified train?

Looking at OpenRailwayMap for destinations without overhead railway electrification to London, excluded areas include:

• Northern Scotland north of Glasgow/Edinburgh, including all Scottish islands
• Southwest England beyond Bristol, including Exeter, Newquay
• South of London (third-rail areas), including Southampton, Bournemouth
• Hull
• Midland Main Line cities (electrification incomplete), including Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield
• Republic and Northern Ireland except Belfast via ferry from Liverpool
• Channel Islands — no Channel Tunnel relevance

Whilst all these areas are currently excluded, a couple of special cases are worth noting the context:

Midland Main Line electrification is slowly making its way up to East Midlands cities, but construction of the final stages to Leicester station, Nottingham, Derby, and Sheffield has not yet started. However, these cities have an advantage of having St Pancras as their London mainline station, enabling a same-station interchange with cross-channel services starting in London.

The ports to the island of Ireland — including Holyhead, the main port to Dublin — are generally only connected to the unelectrified Welsh main lines. The only exception is Belfast, which connects via ferry to Liverpool and its electrified lines to London. Having said this, it would be interesting to explore a through service from Holyhead to popular European destinations if electrification to Holyhead ever goes ahead and demand is sufficient.

(Border-wise, Ireland and the UK share a passport-free Common Travel Area, which eliminates one challenge. However customs controls still apply as the Republic of Ireland is in the EU customs union, unlike the UK. A through train via Britain would therefore face restrictions on goods taken onboard, reducing the attractiveness of Republic-to-continent services.)

Using the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s 2024 statistics (tables 12.1), I identified all UK airports with European flights, then streamlined this into a list of UK cities with air travel demand (since what we’re interested in are all travellers from that city). After filtering out the excluded areas above, we’re left with a core network of UK cities connected to London by overhead electric rail (and ferry via Liverpool):

The next challenge is examining how to get trains between HS1 and these British main lines — the West Coast, Great Western, East Coast, and Great Eastern, as well as the future High Speed 2.

Trains beyond London — access

West Coast Main Line — ★★★★★★★☆☆☆ (7/10)

There is a lack of uncongested links from HS1 to the West Coast Main Line — a critical route to Birmingham and Manchester, which are the cities with the highest regional demand for cross-channel services. The main bottleneck is the very congested North London Line, with only two tracks in use:

This orbital route currently supports a maximum of 10 trains per direction per hour. Off-peak, 8 of these are used by the suburban London Overground service, and 2 by freight. During peak hours, all 10 slots are taken up by the Overground alone.

For our cross-channel services, the portion of the North London Line we would need to use is fortunately very short — less than 1km — and bypasses the Hampstead Heath Tunnel. Because the tunnel we avoid is the line’s most significant capacity constraint, it may be possible to fit in services to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool even during peak times, although more detailed train path modelling of this stretch would be needed to confirm this feasibility.

In the longer term, one of the most promising small to medium scale investment options would be a North London Line bypass — specifically, I am proposing a twist on the existing Camden Road Platform 3 proposal shown below, which reactivates the disused third track (and Camden Road Overground station’s disused platform 3):

My proposal would do the same, but also reactivate the disused fourth track, and widen the bridge over Kentish Town Road. This widening (not included in the existing proposal) is crucial, as the corridor otherwise remains too narrow to function as a true bypass. (It may require demolishing 1–2 small buildings.)

By shifting the current running lines up a track, this intervention would create a dedicated bypass track linking HS1 directly to the Primrose Hill chord onto the West Coast Main Line without touching the congested North London Line, as well as an extra northernmost track for freight:

This enhanced track and bridge intervention would be a transformative enabler for major UK cities — allowing for many more direct cross-channel links with Birmingham, Manchester and more, whilst avoiding conflicts with both Overground services and freight within inner London. This bypass could also prove useful for railfreight to transit between the West Coast, and Midland and East Coast main lines.

Nevertheless, even without the North London Line bypass, having just one or two 400m cross-channel trains per direction each day would provide valuable direct links between key British regional cities and the continent — a substantial improvement to cross-channel connectivity. Current connection quality: ★★★★★★★☆☆☆ (7/10).

High Speed 2 — ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ (0/10)

High Speed 2 (HS2) will link London with Birmingham at high speed, with connections to Manchester and Scotland via the West Coast Main Line.

However, with the HS1-HS2 link sadly cancelled, there now appears to be no way to access HS2 at all: there doesn’t seem to be a link at London Euston (where both the HS2 and the West Coast Main Line terminate), nor any HS2 spurs at Old Oak Common in West London. This is a huge missed opportunity as all beyond-London services will have to rely on classic lines — even for services to HS2-connected Birmingham. Connection quality: ☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆ (0/10).

Great Western Main Line — ★★★★☆☆☆☆☆☆ (5/10)

To connect HS1 to the Great Western Main Line, the last essential missing piece of infrastructure is a short, unelectrified link in west London between Acton and Acton Wells: the Poplar link. Electrifying this link — scheduled for completion in 2026 — will bridge the gap between the North London Line and the Great Western Main Line, unlocking the ability to run electrified trains from HS1 to Bristol and Cardiff.

However, even once this electrification gap is closed, trains to Bristol and Cardiff would still face routing compromises — either travelling via the North London Line, including the heavily constrained Hampstead Heath Tunnel, or crossing the West Coast Main Line on flat crossings. Neither option is ideal, and both would require careful timetable planning to avoid conflicts with existing services. Connection quality: ★★★★☆☆☆☆☆☆ (4/10).

East Coast Main Line — ★★★★★★★★☆☆ (8/10)

Easily achieved by reversing out of London St Pancras onto the East Coast Main Line using the ECML — CTRL (Channel Tunnel Rail Link) Chord, although this may feel a little strange from a passenger point of view.

After leaving Stratford International, the train would continue into central London — entering St Pancras International — only to reverse back out toward the East Coast Main Line. Although this is technically straightforward, it’s unusual for a train to arrive at a major station like St Pancras without letting passengers on or off.

This is because allowing passengers to alight at St Pancras isn’t really possible: the only platforms long enough for cross-channel trains are located inside the sterile international zone, meaning anyone getting off could potentially cross into departing international services without passing through border checks. Because of this, trains would either enter, or stop just outside, St Pancras purely to reverse without opening the doors. Given that there may not be space for a 400m train to reverse onto the chord, partially entering St Pancras may be preferable — even if it creates an odd experience for passengers compared to a normal station stop. Connection quality: ★★★★★★★★☆☆ (8/10).

Great Eastern Main Line — ★★★★☆☆☆☆☆☆ (4/10)

This is possible via exiting HS1 on the Ripple Lane Chord at Barking in outer London, to continue along the Gospel Oak to Barking Line to the Great Eastern Main Line. However as the chord onto the Great Eastern connects in the ‘wrong’ direction, the train would need to reverse, most likely at Stratford Regional station.

(Other theoretical links via Camden or Temple Mills Depot exist, but would require lots of double-backing or double reversals. For this reason, I don’t consider them viable for regular services.)

Additionally, it could understandably confuse passengers from London if cross-channel services starting at Norwich departed from Stratford Regional instead of Stratford International — especially as they would expect to board at Stratford International for cross-channel services from all other British regional cities, and the station itself has ‘International’ in its name. These passengers would need to be clearly informed that boarding at the regional station for an international service is correct, and not an error. Connection quality: ★★★★☆☆☆☆☆☆ (4/10).

A related issue: freight in inner London constraining low-carbon rail connectivity

Before wrapping up on how well HS1 connects to the rest of Britain, it’s worth acknowledging a deeper structural challenge: that the core London orbital routes are heavily used by freight trains crossing the country — many of which run from the UK’s busiest port in the East of England to the Midlands, only passing through inner London because the more direct out-of-London route (the Peterborough to Nuneaton corridor) is at capacity. These freight movements waste valuable capacity in London that could otherwise support passenger services.

This restricts passenger connectivity, thus limiting suburban London services, potential national through-routes, and opportunities to connect UK regional cities with the continent. Critically, it also constrains railfreight capacity, undermining efforts to decarbonise UK logistics by shifting freight from road to rail. Both passenger and freight goals require access to train paths (ie slots) that are currently at a premium.

The first approach could be to better fit international trains into the existing freight framework, as their ‘through’ nature when traversing London means they would behave similarly to freight trains (albeit with minimal stopping for other traffic where possible).

The UK industry target length for intermodal freight trains is 775m, a standard supported by both the North London Line and Gospel Oak to Barking Line. In theory, 2–4 shorter trains could be combined into a single formation of up to 775m at a staging point (such as a station or siding), before entering the congested corridor.

However, this would add significant operational complexity: platforms would be too short for these coupled services, forcing multiple halts at a single station and increasing dwell time. As a result, this approach would likely prove impractical.

The second way to address this issue would be to invest in rerouting freight via out-of-London routes, such as increasing capacity on the Peterborough to Nuneaton corridor, or arguably more promisingly, the under-construction East West Rail, though it wasn’t primarily built with freight in mind. In the long term, and even though no scheme currently exists in the UK, a new dedicated railfreight route such as the one built in the Netherlands would be transformative for decarbonising UK logistics, and would also help alleviate London orbital rail congestion.

Overall access

On the whole, whilst access to some British main lines is straightforward, others will need careful planning or involve compromises. Still, the key takeaway is clear: I would say that with a bit of smart routing, connecting the UK’s regional cities to Europe is absolutely achievable. And with some smart investments (most notably the North London Line bypass), we can really accelerate a modal shift to cross-channel rail.

Trains beyond London — length, width and height

Length requirement no longer applies

Moving onto the length requirement of cross-channel trains, these were historically required to be at least 375m long so that, in the event of an emergency inside the Channel Tunnel, a tunnel exit (spaced every 375m) would always be accessible from one of the train doors in an emergency.

This length requirement thankfully no longer applies, so we can use shorter trains if necessary. If that requirement were still in place, it would be slightly problematic, as some major non-London stations are less than this length (eg Manchester Piccadilly, whose longest platform is 349m long). However, having longer trains obviously allows us to carry more people (where economically feasible and demand allows), especially as a sleeper carriage carries less people than a daytime carriage, so I will continue proceeding to analyse platform lengths.

Beyond London, all stations analysed can fit 200m trains (many allow for 300m), but only three can currently handle full 400m formations. This means at present, beyond-London services would either need to use 200m units (which can combine into 400m), or run longer trains that can’t combine (eg 300m) as otherwise they would be too long for most platforms.

Lengthening platforms

To rectify this, the first solution would be to lengthen the platforms to 400m where feasible. This may be economically feasible for the stations in heaviest demand, Manchester being the most significant case. Its longest platform (8) would need a 51m extension to reach 400m, achieved by relocating the crossover in its way. Doing so would allow Eurostar-length classic loading gauge compatible trains to serve Manchester, Birmingham as well as London on the way to the continent.

However, using 400m trains for that route would cut Liverpool off from direct service, with Liverpool Lime Street station being impractical to lengthen to at least 400m as the tracks immediately enter a tunnel from the station, which would have to be further excavated to facilitate this.

Dividing trains

The second solution would be to divide the train so that it fits on existing platforms. This is already done on the Caledonian Sleeper, where the train splits its 16 carriage formation (~377m including loco) seen on most of its route from London to Scotland to fit on shorter platforms such as Fort William (212m), in addition to serving destinations on multiple routes.

Similarly, when Deutsche Bahn explored Channel Tunnel services in 2010, they proposed two 200m-long ICE 3 units coupled together to go through the channel, then dividing afterwards — one unit going to Amsterdam, and the other to Frankfurt. This formation successfully gained Channel Tunnel safety approval due to its distributed traction (ie motors spread throughout the train), proving it would be fine from a safety-perspective to use divided trains with distributed traction for cross-channel services.

(Under the old 375m Channel Tunnel rule, dividing trains without connecting gangways between sections and without distributed traction could have been seen as a risk, since half the passengers may not have been able to evacuate easily. But with Deutsche Bahn’s approval of using trains with distributed traction, this is no longer a blocker.)

Loading gauge needs

Because classic lines in the UK have smaller bridges and tunnels than those on the continent, trains beyond London will need to follow a stricter loading gauge — the maximum train height and width allowed by rail infrastructure.

On the continent, the minimum standard is 4.3m high x 3.2m wide — far bigger than the most restrictive UK standard (W6A) of 4.0m x 2.8m. (These dimensions are for freight, and whilst work has been done to enable slightly larger loading gauges on both UK and European mainlines, I’ve used the most restrictive gauges to illustrate the general constraints.)

As a result, two train types will be needed: taller, wider sets for services to London; and narrower and reduced-height trains for beyond London. This is akin to what was originally planned for Regional Eurostar, which planned for a separate UK classic-compatible fleet. I would recommend a similar model, with a sizeable European-size fleet, plus a smaller number of classic-compatible trains.

Trains beyond London — maintenance and stabling

It may initially prove difficult to conduct maintenance on classic-compatible trains across such a wide network, with services potentially spanning from Cardiff to Norwich on the UK side, and from Spain to the Baltics on the other.

I would also be worried about using Temple Mills (or any other London continental-size depot) to maintain classic-size trains. Competition for what Virgin Group calls the “only facility in the UK which can accommodate European-style trains” will be intense, and any future London depots for continental-size trains will most likely be best off being used for that purpose. Operationally, it would also be counterproductive to service trains in London as classic-compatible services would terminate much farther afield.

However, if we place a smaller maintenance depot by the largest non-London UK terminal (Manchester, taking a sneak peek at part 3’s analysis), we could relatively easily rotate trains between Manchester services and other cities beyond London when maintenance on that trainset is needed.

Alternatively, a maintenance depot could be shared with HS2 (in Birmingham, currently under construction) or other higher speed operators near regional hubs, such as Manchester or Birmingham (both used by Avanti West Coast), Edinburgh (LNER and TPE) or Bristol (GWR). However, further analysis will be needed to confirm whether it would be possible to maintain what will most likely be a completely different train class in the same facility.

Additionally, if cross-channel trains do require especially secure facilities, this may make maintenance and stabling more difficult for the original domestic operators — particularly where operations can’t be physically separated, such as due to shared space or machinery.

Finding stabling sidings (to park trains when not in use) would be another consideration — again, space could be shared with another train operator where there is capacity for that length of train. Where there is no capacity, new facilities may have to be built by the cross-channel operator within a reasonable vicinity of the beyond-London terminal stations.

Further analysis will be needed on capacity of existing regional maintenance facilities and stabling sidings. If there is spare capacity — great! There may be some modifications that need to be done, such as lengthening sidings and installing new train class-specific maintenance equipment, but this would still avoid the cost of acquiring an entire site and erecting a whole new building. If it turns out a cross-channel operator would need to build one themselves, this obviously pushes costs up, but would help secure the viability of continental services to and from key British regional cities.

Conclusion

We’ve explored the infrastructure challenges limiting cross-channel rail expansion: passenger handling capacity at London St Pancras, maintenance capacity constraints at Temple Mills Depot, gaps in overhead electrification, congested London orbital railways, limited platform lengths, and maintenance challenges beyond London.

Yet solutions are within reach. Using night-time slots at St Pancras would make use of facilities when no passengers are currently handled; double-decking in both Temple Mills and other sites near HS1 access points are worth exploring for further expansion; careful routing could allow direct connections from regional cities like Manchester, Edinburgh and Bristol despite existing line congestion whilst still serving London; and where platforms are too short, solutions like selective platform lengthening or dividing trains can help cross-channel services linking British regional cities become viable whilst using smaller-profile trains, maintained at either shared or purpose-built depots by a high-demand regional city like Manchester.

At the same time, significant efforts are already underway to reduce the barriers to cross-channel passenger travel. St Pancras has proposals to more than double its current passenger capacity even without night-time slots; HS1 access charges have been ordered to fall, reducing operational costs; Temple Mills depot has been confirmed as open to multiple operators; and the Channel Tunnel’s former minimum train length requirement of 375m has been dropped, giving operators more flexibility.

Taken together, these solutions and developments make a greatly expanded, low-carbon international rail network more viable than ever — paving the way for more passengers to switch to comfortable, convenient, sustainable travel to the continent, and vice versa for European travellers to Britain. That’s exactly what we — and the planet — urgently want to see.

Thanks for reading my second article! In part 3, we’ll do a deep dive into passenger air data to prioritise the most promising cross-channel rail routes with today’s demand patterns. By doing so, we’ll be able to see how a proper international train network could take shape.

Do you see potential in these solutions, or do you have alternative ideas to overcome these barriers? Let me know in the comments!

If you’d like to contact me to explore transport planning together, feel free to do so at sean@macrosustainable.com.

Facilitating cross-channel modal shift from short-haul planes to trains was originally published in Macrosustainable on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

TL;DR: Cross-channel passenger trains could replace many short-haul flights, cutting emissions whilst improving travel convenience. However, current security, customs and border control arrangements limit expansion beyond the core Eurostar network of London, Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. Separating these arrangements into security and customs checks at departure stations, and border controls near the Channel Tunnel, could enable more routes and domestic passengers, boosting viability and reducing flights.

Increasing the shift from air travel to international rail is essential for reducing long-distance transport emissions, whilst making sustainable transport more competitive. But have you ever wondered why current international train travel can often be so limited, especially compared to air travel?

There are multiple reasons why a cross-border rail service may fail to reach its full potential, or even to come to fruition at all. A great article exists, written by rail consultant Jon Worth, on what infrastructural and rolling stock (ie vehicular) barriers exist in stopping expansion of the cross-channel network (connecting the UK and continental Europe), and exploring solutions. I’d now like to bring my own take on key solutions to these barriers, as well as undertaking analysis to identify key corridors and steps to attract a greater multitude of passenger cohorts. However, I won’t be doing a financial analysis of running such a service.

Each part of the series tackles a critical aspect:

Part 1 (this article): Background, and security, customs, and border controls;

Part 2: UK infrastructure capacity constraints;

Part 3: Route analysis to prioritise key corridors;

Part 4: Enhancing night train trip quality to attract more passengers.

Whilst this series focuses on passenger trains between the UK and Europe, climate change and cross-border mobility are both global problems. We can apply many of these solutions to other countries, particularly in solving problems related to border procedures enhancing trip quality for night trains.

Background

Why is this important? What emissions are we hoping to reduce?

Passenger air travel contributes significantly to emissions, particularly from aviation kerosene and water vapour, which temporarily acts as a greenhouse gas at high altitudes. It’s essential we find expand alternatives so we can reduce the environmental impact of travelling, whilst still providing a great experience for travellers.

Public transport alternatives to air include rail, sea (ferries), and road (coaches). However, I would deem coaches as less viable because of their inferior comfort, safety, and speed (compared to trains). Ferries are a great option where geographically feasible, especially overnight services if the trip can be covered in 8 to 12 hours and if ferry terminals are well connected to the main city centres.

There are a few city pairs in Asia which I’d like to cover in a future post which fulfil all these conditions and aren’t currently connected, but in Western Europe the most viable pairs are already connected by sea or rail.

This leaves rail travel when it comes to moving the needle on reducing flights, where they are connected by rail infrastructure. Rail is comfortable, safe, and sustainable, especially when powered by renewable or nuclear electricity. It can often also be faster and more convenient than road, sea and plane for city-centre-to-city-centre travel.

Why didn’t international trains take off when the Channel Tunnel opened?

Despite the potential for widespread cross-channel rail travel, various challenges have hindered the Channel Tunnel’s success, unforeseen when it was initially planned and built. These include:

• the advent of ultra-low-cost airlines, which have generally made flying the cheaper alternative especially as aviation kerosene is not subject to tax;
• the splitting of train operators and railway infrastructure into two separate entities, meaning each train now has to pay rail access charges; and
• increased security concerns, meaning international passengers must undergo airline-style security checks and border controls for both the UK and Europe in sealed areas before boarding, rather than experiencing on-train customs and immigration as was common in pre-Schengen Europe. (Additionally, Brexit has further complicated procedures as British citizens now go through more rigorous border and customs checks.)

Although the first two factors can only really be solved through political means, the third can be seen as a logistical problem which can therefore be optimised.

The current system of ‘juxtaposed controls’ means that both UK and EU border checks are completed before departure, and is in place to prevent asylum seekers from claiming refuge upon arrival. However, every international departure station now not only needs a platform sealed off from domestic platforms, but also space for security checks and two sets of border controls. As corroborated by Jon Worth, the requirement of in-station juxtaposed controls is the largest barrier in expanding cross-channel passenger services to other cities. The controls also prevent the train from taking domestic passengers before crossing the border, which hinder the load factor (how many seats are filled) of the service.

There are also the issues of infrastructural capacity constraints, which I’ll cover in my next post, and trains needing to be compatible with multiple signalling systems. As Worth has covered signalling in detail, I won’t focus on the issue here. That said, because of the ongoing expansion of the European Train Control System (ETCS) signalling system throughout the continent, and the existence of rolling stock able to handle major signalling types (such as Hitachi’s Frecciarossa 1000), I don’t see this as a major barrier to expansion.

Although these barriers have made the economics of cross-border rail travel more difficult, especially in comparison to budget air travel, the tide is turning. An increasing number of people want to choose surface travel for its sustainability aspect — adding to the other advantages of comfort and the convenience of city centre to city centre journeys. Correspondingly increasing the services that are offered should help fill this demand, and even induce further demand. And separating security and border controls may allow us to do just that.

Separating security and border controls — EU to UK

The proposed system would begin at a continental station without existing border controls, such as Barcelona Sants. Passengers would undergo security screening at the station, including baggage scans and, if necessary, additional airline-style checks. They would then board the train from a temporarily cordoned-off platform, monitored by guards. This setup allows the platform to be used for domestic and Schengen services when not accommodating cross-channel trains, maximising efficiency.

Each station would require its own X-ray machines, but this remains a significantly smaller challenge compared to installing full border control facilities at every departure point. The train would then travel towards the Channel Tunnel, potentially stopping to pick up and drop off passengers along the way.

Upon arrival at either Calais-Fréthun or Lille-Europe — the last stations in the Schengen Area before the border — all passengers would methodically disembark for juxtaposed border controls (whilst their belongings stay onboard), possibly on the platform. Any remaining intra-Schengen passengers would also leave the service at this point. An alternative option would be to reintroduce on-train border checks, as even if the train was stationary at Calais-Fréthun or Lille-Europe this would reduce inconvenience for passengers compared to alighting. However I don’t imagine this would be welcomed by the border forces given the trend towards stricter UK and EU external border checks.

After completing border controls, the train would make its way through the Channel Tunnel to England. This timing works fairly well as the journey from Calais-Fréthun to London takes one hour, or 1.5 hours from Lille-Europe. This time could be effectively utilised by offering passengers a meal service (similar to what is done on long-haul flights).

Upon arrival in London, passengers would disembark, and if the train were continuing further north, UK domestic travellers could board for onward journeys.

Whilst this system may be less convenient for through passengers travelling from mainland Europe to the UK, the separation of security and border controls would greatly improve train occupancy and profitability. Domestic European travellers would be able to use the train without undergoing border checks, as these would only be conducted once the last intra-Schengen passenger had disembarked. Should any Schengen travellers remain onboard beyond this point, they would simply be denied entry to the UK whilst still in France, ensuring compliance with both Schengen and UK immigration regulations.

Examination of this arrangement — border control

From the scant anecdotal information available on the workings of pre-Schengen border train checks, passports would generally be checked on-train as it travelled between the two stations on either side of the border. Border inspectors would board at the last station of one country and exit at the first station of the other after checking all passports.

Anecdotally, two groups of border guards would check passports from each end of the train till they met in the middle. Toilets would be temporarily out of use during this time to prevent stowaways. This process as it stands is unsatisfactorily secure to border forces.

Another more recent process for Eurostar passengers from departing stations without juxtaposed controls (eg Lyon, and Amsterdam prior to 2020) is for them to board the train, then for all passengers to alight with their belongings at an intermediate station with juxtaposed controls (Lille and Brussels, respectively). All passengers would then re-board. However, this system is extremely inefficient as:

• all belongings have to be taken off the train to be dragged to a different level to undergo security and customs checks
• dwell time (time the train is at the station) tends to be as long as an hour, preventing other trains from using that platform during that time.
• all passengers (eg 902 for a whole Eurostar train) queue for border control at once, maximising passengers’ uncomfortable standing time
• passengers have to leave the platform for border control

With separated security/customs and border controls, no belongings have to leave and reboard the train, and any that do (eg phones and wallets) wouldn’t be a security or customs problem. Dwell time could also be shorter without security checks.

To make the process more comfortable for passengers, we can take inspiration from the pre-Schengen process of clearing passengers from each end of the train to meet in the middle, instead following a carriage-by-carriage process:

This staggered system means passengers spend minimal time outside the comfort of their beds or seats. For any passengers denied exit from the EU, entry to the UK or requiring further questioning would stay behind and have their belongings removed from the train.

You may have noticed that the inconvenience of passengers walking to a faraway separate border control area has been solved with on-platform border inspection, as on-train checks aren’t acceptable to the border force. High speed and sleeper carriages can carry up to around 80 passengers each, so a maximum of 160 people (plus personnel) would be on the platform, queueing and being processed, at a time — a safe and manageable number for a platform setting. With a border inspection team for each end of the train, passengers would clear Schengen exit checks, then UK border control, before either reboarding their carriage immediately or the whole carriage reboarding at once. Compared to off-platform border control, this process significantly reduces inconvenience for passengers.

As for whether Calais-Fréthun or Lille-Europe should be the preferred station to host juxtaposed controls, the former appears to work better:

• Timing: Calais is closer to the UK, allowing passengers an extra 30 minutes of sleep or comfort compared to Lille.
• Capacity: Calais-Fréthun has the same number of platforms and passing tracks as Lille-Europe, but is in the middle of nowhere and currently sees no use from either Eurostar platform, as opposed to Lille which is a city-centre stop. This means Calais has more capacity for trains to stop for border control than Lille.
• Logistics: As Calais-Fréthun’s Channel Tunnel platforms have been unused for several years, the platforms can be permanently adapted for on-platform border checks, with cordons, desks if necessary, and platform roofing. Additionally, the side platform layout of Calais-Fréthun’s Channel Tunnel platforms make border inspection areas easier to install and eliminate the risk of passengers falling onto tracks, unlike Lille-Europe’s island platform layout.

This being said, Lille could still be used to handle border checks where Calais-Fréthun is at capacity.

All in all, by implementing a structured, carriage-by-carriage border control process, preferably conducted on-platform at Calais-Fréthun, we can minimise passenger inconvenience whilst increasing operational efficiency and maintaining the same level of border security, adding to the attractiveness of cross-channel rail being an alternative to flying.

Examination of this arrangement — security

Currently, Eurostar passengers are subject to airline-style security screening before boarding, including removing laptops from bags and emptying pockets. (The only major difference from air travel is the absence of a 100ml liquid restriction.)

Under the proposed approach, all passengers would undergo security screening, regardless of whether they were staying in the Schengen Area or leaving it. Whilst some European countries, such as Spain, already require mandatory X-ray luggage scans, some continental passengers would be less accustomed to such measures and could perceive them as an inconvenience for a domestic trip.

From what I have researched, UK legislation does not explicitly define the extent of security checks for through trains. This suggests that, while X-ray bag scans may remain necessary, more intrusive airline-style checks could potentially be avoided if the current legal framework allows flexibility.

Examination of this arrangement — customs

Another consideration is that any goods restricted from entering the UK via passenger trains would also be banned on services travelling through Europe. Although some restrictions would not pose an issue, such as those to do with weapons and excessive levels of spirits, both of which are already restricted on many domestic networks, others such as limited quantities of tobacco and bans on some fresh food products on trains would be a nuisance to some passengers.

Enforcing the same customs rules to both EU and UK parties’ satisfaction would have to simultaneously ensure that cross-channel passengers only bring what is allowed by UK customs laws onboard, and also not subject intra-Schengen passengers to UK customs officers, all on the same train.

One solution for this would be to match the train operator’s byelaws of what is permitted onboard for EU to UK journeys to match UK customs laws. This would be monitored by private security or EU transport police at station security controls, but UK customs officers would also be able to board the train at Calais-Fréthun or Lille-Europe for random checks. Such an arrangement would allow a customs-sterile train hopefully satisfying both EU and UK authorities.

A possible challenge, however, is the risk of passengers smuggling quantity-restricted items. For instance, a UK-bound passenger working in tandem with intra-Schengen passengers could each carry the maximum allowable amount of tobacco through security, then transferring their goods to the UK-bound traveller prior to alighting before border control. To mitigate this, UK customs officers could carry out random inspections at Calais-Fréthun or Lille-Europe, alongside the penalties already in force for those attempting to evade UK customs regulations.

Examination of this arrangement — duty-free shopping

One potential drawback of the separation of security and border controls is the absence of duty-free shopping, which is currently available after border control in permanent Eurostar stations. However, given that Eurostar’s winter through-train services may have operated without duty-free facilities, this may not significantly impact passenger demand.

Separating security and border controls — UK to EU

Provided trains are able to travel beyond London (which I cover in my next post), the same separation may also be achieved for trains travelling beyond London to the continent.

Just like we discussed for Barcelona earlier, by implementing security screenings and temporarily cordoning off platforms in cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, these stations could accommodate international departures. This also allows domestic UK passengers to use the service, until Ashford or Stratford International (15 and 45 minutes from the border respectively), where juxtaposed border controls take place in the same way as what would take place at Calais-Fréthun or Lille-Europe for northbound trains.

Although the timing of this arrangement would at first glance not work as well as going from the EU to the UK, this may not be the case. From Birmingham and Manchester, the 1.5 to 2.5 hour trip to Stratford could again be effectively utilised by serving a meal, before the longer uninterrupted portion to Europe. From Scotland this would be trickier, but an overnight journey could allow passengers to sleep overnight en route to Ashford where they would undergo juxtaposed controls before arriving at Paris or Brussels approximately two hours later.

Regarding customs regulations, the train operator’s byelaws for UK to EU journeys would again have to match EU customs laws. This means private security officers or UK transport police manning station security controls, and EU customs officers having the authority to board the train at Stratford International or Ashford for random checks.

Conclusion

We’ve looked at what the main barriers holding back the reach of cross-channel passenger services are, the largest of which are the requirement of each international departure station to have sealed-off platforms, infrastructure for security and customs checks, and border controls for both the UK and Schengen area.

By separating security and border control procedures into departure station and channel-adjacent facilities, we can not only serve far more stations, but also carry domestic passengers too, further strengthening the economic viability of any cross-channel service. If implemented, you would be able to take a direct train year-round from London (or even north of London), to destinations much farther than Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. For every full sleeper train of 580 people, 3 Boeing 737 Max flights would be removed had they all flew. Extrapolate this to multiple destinations in both directions, and the flights saved could be over 6,000 per year — a big win for convenience, comfort, and importantly, the planet.

(Calculation: Using the spacious new 7-carriage Nightjet train as an example, which can carry 254 passengers, ie 36.3 passengers per carriage. Extrapolated to Eurostar e320’s carriage count of 16, assuming a similar carriage length, this equates to an estimate of 580 passengers. Ryanair B737 Max 200 variant used, with 197 seats. 580/197 = 2.94 flights saved. Extrapolating this to 4 daily trains (with one weekly maintenance day) in each direction = 7,358 flights. With the 84% London-Paris load factor Eurostar had in 2019, this equates to 6,180 flights.)

Thanks for reading my first article! In part 2, we’ll explore what UK infrastructure is constraining further cross-channel passenger rail, and solutions to these to help unlock the full potential of international train services.

Do you see potential in this solution, or do you have alternative ideas to overcome these barriers? Let me know in the comments!

If you’d like to contact me to explore transport planning together, feel free to do so at sean@macrosustainable.com.

Facilitating cross-channel modal shift from short-haul planes to trains was originally published in Macrosustainable on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.