5 ms·

Direct Train to Europe: London to the Mediterranean

86 points by chestnut-tree 11y ago

protomyth 11y ago
"After 9/11 air travel started to become far more time-consuming - for reasons of security which no one would ever criticise. People used to say no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours but I think four would now be more accurate." I'm with you on the 4 hours, but I would be happy to criticize the security theater after 9/11.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  Its become even more of a farce with Global Entry/TSA Precheck. While $100 (per 5 years) isn't unaffordable to those that fly regularly, the entire program contradicts a lot of the security claims made between 2001 and today.
- lordnacho 11y ago
  I agree. And theater is the right word. I just don't believe that all those procedures, such as taking out your laptop, bagging liquids, and removing your shoes, are actually useful in improving safety. It's also incredibly stressful for the staff. I was in line in the US once and one lady had a meltdown. She saw the queue of people going around the corner and basically just threw her hands up and quit. The face on her only colleague was priceless. Add to that the fact that there seem to be some shortcuts taken. I was told if you miss a connection, they take your bag off for obvious reasons. Well, I actually missed a connection once, and the bag went on the plane and I got to pick it up when I caught up.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    They're not. In fact, they're a terrible distraction. They put everyone on edge, so it's much more difficult to spot one person acting oddly in the crowd. Shoes, laptops, and liquids rules are all reactions to a single events. Reactionary mouse traps that never get out ahead of the new mouse. I'm not even sure what benefit it is to the government. I'd be more paranoid about silent security than easily avoidable theatre out in the open.
  - jeff_marshall 11y ago
    Agreed completely. I looked on post-9/11 US airport security with much frustration until I got global entry (which includes pre-check). Now, my experience is almost as good as pre-9/11 security (though I can't fly with a pocket knife or multi-tool...). The whole thing (esp. the database-based pre-check scheme) is just so broken if there were and actual significant persistent threat that I wish we would re-evaluate the whole travel security procedure from a rational (rather than fear-based) perspective.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  "no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours" Why is it so? People easily tolerate 3h on a plane, and trains are much more comfortable than planes (more space, free to roam). And you don't have to get to airport, get from airport, check in, wait for baggage. I would say 5 hours should be non-issue. "As a rail enthusiast I would love to see trains to Berlin or Milan or even Moscow. But realistically that is many years away." Remember there's already a direct train connection between Moscow and Paris. Most people choose to fly these days, of course.
  - seszett 11y ago
    I have also taken a night train from Vienna to Paris (and then a regular TGV to La Rochelle). Night trains are wonderful, they save you a night at the hotel, and they basically make the journey take no effective time from your holidays... but SNCF wants to get rid of them entirely, or so I heard.
    - gpvos 11y ago
      That must have been the official Orient Express, which was reduced from its original Paris-Istanbul route to Paris-Bucharest in 1977, then Paris-Vienna in 2001, Strasbourg-Vienna in 2007, and cancelled in 2009. I thought it was DB who wanted to do away with them. But maybe SNCF too. Due to European railway regulation and thoughtless implementation of the same by the individual countries, international (night) trains have become quite expensive to run. (This in addition to the obvious factors of fast daytime TGVs and irresponsibly cheap airplane flights.)
      - aselzer 11y ago
        They recently built a really large tunnel near Vienna, which is supposed to be a part of the planned high-speed connection from Bratislava/Budapest to Paris. It will be "completed" in 2020, so we will probably see Trains going in this direction soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrale_for_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrale_for_Europe
      - justincormack 11y ago
Scoundreller 11y ago
Heathrow (and perhaps UK airport security as a whole) is also more restrictive in my experience than US/Canada/Schengen airports, so there's another point for the train. (Seized contact lens solution bottle, I'm looking at you!)
- EliRivers 11y ago
  Not if you're just transiting. Sterile transit just plain doesn't exist at US airports (or at least, didn't when I last checked, which was a few years ago - maybe things are different now?), so changing planes takes bloody hours instead of minutes, and requires going through exit procedures and then coming back through security.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Scoundreller 11y ago
    Well, while going Canada->LHR->Schengen airport, I definitely had to go through UK security again, as well as passport control to connect to an "international" flight to France. I didn't even leave the terminal. "Everyone who boards an aircraft at Heathrow has to be security screened to UK government standards. Even if you've already been through security checks at another airport, we're obliged to screen you again before you fly from Heathrow." http://www.heathrowairport.com/heathrow-airport-guide/flight-connections/faqs#security http://www.heathrowairport.com/heathrow-airport-guide/flight... I guess when faced with the choice of taking a risk-based approach toward security, and applying an equal amount of security to all, they chose the latter. At least the UK lets you check through your bags, unlike the US.
    - EliRivers 11y ago
      Fair enough. Maybe I'm spoiled by modern airports, which Heathrow definitely is not. When I change at modern airports, usually in Europe, I very rarely have to go out and back in again. In Geneva[1], the layout of the airport was essentially reconfigured around me to let me walk from one plane to the next. I was the only person doing it; I walked through empty glass-walled corridors, watching through the glass as other passengers went their various ways, guided by wall displays pointing me towards the next flight (no other flights on it; just mine) and at one point I got to a train platform cut in half by a glass wall. The other side was a hundred or so people, and when the train came, I was in one half, and they were in the other. We were likewise segregated at the destination platform. I walked all the way to the departure lounge before I reached a person, whose job was to let me in and not let anyone in the lounge leave through my private entrance. It was basically how you'd expect a modern airport to work; to know who on each flight needed to leave and who needed to be guided to another flight, and for the displays and corridors to provide it. [1] I think it was Geneva.
justincormack 11y ago
Well not joining Schengen is stupid, and easily fixed.
- dageshi 11y ago
  Doubt it will happen in my lifetime.
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  Saying what you think is stupid isn't a useful contribution. If you're going to spam political opinions, at least give some argument. (edited for tone)
- Chris_Newton 11y ago
  I recently travelled from Cambridge, UK to Amsterdam. Given that I strongly dislike modern air travel for all the usual reasons, I went by train. It was striking just how much more pleasant that journey was than a flight to another European capital that I took not so long ago. I had to be at the international terminal at St Pancras in London a half-hour before the train left, though I think some of the more expensive business-class tickets only require you to be there 10 minutes early. Getting in meant showing ticket, passport, and some routine security scans, the latter being quick and not nearly as intrusive or theatrical as typical modern airport security. (I’m a rather private person, and just the possibility of being put through one of the virtual strip-search machines at an airport is enough to make me not want to fly anywhere any more, even without all the other hassle and time required.) On the train, there probably are some luggage limitations if you read the full terms, but no-one was taking a ruler to my backpack or weighing my suitcase and charging me extra on the return journey just because I had added a 1kg souvenir. My suitcase was within reach/eyesight throughout my journey, and there was ample space for smaller luggage right by my seat throughout as well. Perhaps the most striking thing of all was that once I was clear of the UK, changing trains at Brussels (from the international Eurostar from London to an also-international Thalys to Amsterdam) was as simple as changing local services back home. The second train literally pulled into the station a few minutes before it was due to leave, I just went onto the platform, and the only fuss at all was because the train had reserved seating so someone helpfully checked my ticket and pointed out where my seat was as I boarded. I haven’t travelled between many different places within continental Europe (as distinct from travelling between the UK and a European destination) but if that’s the norm within the Schengen Area then we’re doing it wrong. Transport systems should be primarily about getting the travellers to where they want to go efficiently and pleasantly, and most of Europe appears to be much better at those things than we are.
UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
Seems like unification of signaling systems across European railways might help alleviate some of these problems. It would be interesting to see if they're actually legitimately dissimilar or more just similar but incompatible for historical reasons.
- gpvos 11y ago
  The systems vary wildly, from inductive loops at the side of the track placed near each signal (PZB), electrical contacts between the rails (Crocodile), to signals transmitted through the rails (ATB) or through leaky cables along the whole track (LZB). The installed base is obviously huge. There are often several not-entirely-compatible variants within each country, mostly for cost reasons. Oh yes, also patents. Currently railways are installing the European ERTMS system on many tracks, usually as a second system so both trains using the local traditional system and the new ERTMS can ride there. However, it is quite complicated and it turns out not all trainside implementations talk correctly with all railside ones.
switch007 11y ago
"Passengers ... will need to get off at Lille, go up to the customs hall and in effect start their journey again. ... Even some of those who knew of the Lille stop were surprised to find they had to carry their luggage throughout" Who would want to do that? Not only that, the Marseille train leaves London at 07:19! Great for people in London, not so great if you live outside. Firstly, it might not be possible to get in that early, and secondly, mid-week, peak fares in to London are extortionate. I checked a fare in October (Fri-Fri, before half term): £178. Sat-Sat in October: £129. Flying: £110 return with Easyjet, including baggage. Or from Heathrow with BA: £114. At more reasonable times of day. It's a 2 hour flight.
- seszett 11y ago
  Your flight arrives at Marignane though, taxi to Marseille is around 40€ and half an hour. I don't know how long and expensive is the journey to London's airports.
  - switch007 11y ago
    I understand. It's a point often made - as if the other differences of travelling by train don't exist. For me, it's not any /more/ of a concern than the others, e.g: - Departure: how to arrive, time, expense. - Journey: duration, connections, time of day, day of week, comfort, baggage, expense. - Arrival: distance from destination, time, expense. I think arrival is less of a concern as you're quite likely to be going to the inner city, and in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city.
    - seszett 11y ago
      > in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city Well I don't know... I live in France, and the lack of reliable, fast and cheap connections is exactly why I often take the train even when it's more expensive and slower. The last time I arrived at Marignane, at 1am because the flight had been delayed by two hours or so, I had to wait for 1,5 hour, along with a few fellow passengers, for a shuttle to come even though it had been supposed to show up 20 minutes after we started waiting. The driver then explained us that "you're in Marseille, that's normal!". And he was kinda right. The shuttle was also late for the return flight, actually, just not too late.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
There is rail connection between Arkhangelsk and Sochi (that's around 2500 km), so why not with western europe shorter distances and faster trains. I don't see why they have to leave trains at all for customs. This seems easily fixable.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  Because that's entirely within one country. Thats roughly the distance between London and Moscow.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    There is rail connection between Azerbaijan and Ukraine and it crosses two borders.
ChuckMcM 11y ago
I find it fascinating that much of the hold up is having multiple signalling systems for each country in their train. Is there a web site that talks about the different systems in some more detail? I've been following Caltrain's installation of new signalling (in theory to support more frequent trains and the high speed rail service) and was surprised to find them as complicated as they are.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  You might be interested in this update of CBOSS and Caltrain. http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/05/cboss-headed-for-trouble.html http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/05/cboss-headed-for-tr...
- gpvos 11y ago
  Wikipedia isn't too bad on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Train_protection_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Train_protection_syst... - and see my reply elsewhere on this page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9631443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9631443 I would expect there to be a few real experts on HN, though. (I'm not one.)
- pjmlp 11y ago
  The track sizes and electricity are also problematic. Portuguese and Spanish tracks have a smaller width than the rest of Europe. So Portuguese trains only travel to Spain (the few that exist). And Spanish trains have a system where they can change the width between the wheels when going to France. Similarly, trains travelling between Belgium and Germany, if I am not mistaken, have dual electricity system.
  - gpvos 11y ago
    Border-crossing lines are utterly fascinating. The traditional visual signalling system tends to change exactly at the border, but you may find pre-signals just inside the other country. The in-cabin signalling and automatic train protection may or may not change at the same location. Changeover of the electrical system is more elaborate, and can take place at the border, a few kilometers inside one of the countries, or at one of the larger stations on either side, in which case you will find switchable tracks at that station. There are different allowed widths and heights ("loading gauge") for train cars in different countries. Finally, few people know that the overhead lines veer a little bit to the left and right to spread the wear on the pantographs. The extent to which this happens also differs between countries, and some countries have narrower pantographs than others, which means that trains cannot just ride both in Germany and Switzerland even though they have the same electrical system.
saool 11y ago
All trains from London are direct to Europe, even if they are local. I find the wording and the idea behind it as stupid as the trouble in Lille due to not being part of Schengen. Signed: a Schengen national that hates and avoids lay-overs in Heathrow like the plague.
leonhandreke 11y ago
> It was clear when I travelled back from Marseille that many passengers hadn't realised they would be required to leave the train at the northern city of Lille for passport checks. When I travelled to/from Romania by train two years ago, border control officers got on the stop before the border, walked through the train to check passports and got off at the next stop, probably taking the next train back. This happened both going into Romania and going back into Hungary. So, the UK probably wouldn't even have to join Schengen to make this a less painful process.
- sasvari 11y ago
  It also works travelling from Russia to Finland: Russian boarder guards hop on and check you leaving the country, and then Finnish boarder guards do the same for entering Finland/EU/Schengen. It's not rocket science at all.
- WildUtah 11y ago
  "the UK probably wouldn't even have to join Schengen to make this a less painful process." Joining Schengen and getting UK immigration boffins to board the trains and operate efficiently have exactly the same problem: they would require competent leadership from 10 Downing Street.

86 points by chestnut-tree 11y ago

"After 9/11 air travel started to become far more time-consuming - for reasons of security which no one would ever criticise. People used to say no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours but I think four would now be more accurate." I'm with you on the 4 hours, but I would be happy to criticize the security theater after 9/11.

UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
Its become even more of a farce with Global Entry/TSA Precheck. While $100 (per 5 years) isn't unaffordable to those that fly regularly, the entire program contradicts a lot of the security claims made between 2001 and today.
lordnacho 11y ago
I agree. And theater is the right word. I just don't believe that all those procedures, such as taking out your laptop, bagging liquids, and removing your shoes, are actually useful in improving safety. It's also incredibly stressful for the staff. I was in line in the US once and one lady had a meltdown. She saw the queue of people going around the corner and basically just threw her hands up and quit. The face on her only colleague was priceless. Add to that the fact that there seem to be some shortcuts taken. I was told if you miss a connection, they take your bag off for obvious reasons. Well, I actually missed a connection once, and the bag went on the plane and I got to pick it up when I caught up.
- themartorana 11y ago
  They're not. In fact, they're a terrible distraction. They put everyone on edge, so it's much more difficult to spot one person acting oddly in the crowd. Shoes, laptops, and liquids rules are all reactions to a single events. Reactionary mouse traps that never get out ahead of the new mouse. I'm not even sure what benefit it is to the government. I'd be more paranoid about silent security than easily avoidable theatre out in the open.
- jeff_marshall 11y ago
  Agreed completely. I looked on post-9/11 US airport security with much frustration until I got global entry (which includes pre-check). Now, my experience is almost as good as pre-9/11 security (though I can't fly with a pocket knife or multi-tool...). The whole thing (esp. the database-based pre-check scheme) is just so broken if there were and actual significant persistent threat that I wish we would re-evaluate the whole travel security procedure from a rational (rather than fear-based) perspective.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
"no-one wanted to be on a train for more than three hours" Why is it so? People easily tolerate 3h on a plane, and trains are much more comfortable than planes (more space, free to roam). And you don't have to get to airport, get from airport, check in, wait for baggage. I would say 5 hours should be non-issue. "As a rail enthusiast I would love to see trains to Berlin or Milan or even Moscow. But realistically that is many years away." Remember there's already a direct train connection between Moscow and Paris. Most people choose to fly these days, of course.
- seszett 11y ago
  I have also taken a night train from Vienna to Paris (and then a regular TGV to La Rochelle). Night trains are wonderful, they save you a night at the hotel, and they basically make the journey take no effective time from your holidays... but SNCF wants to get rid of them entirely, or so I heard.
  - gpvos 11y ago
    That must have been the official Orient Express, which was reduced from its original Paris-Istanbul route to Paris-Bucharest in 1977, then Paris-Vienna in 2001, Strasbourg-Vienna in 2007, and cancelled in 2009. I thought it was DB who wanted to do away with them. But maybe SNCF too. Due to European railway regulation and thoughtless implementation of the same by the individual countries, international (night) trains have become quite expensive to run. (This in addition to the obvious factors of fast daytime TGVs and irresponsibly cheap airplane flights.)
    - aselzer 11y ago
      They recently built a really large tunnel near Vienna, which is supposed to be a part of the planned high-speed connection from Bratislava/Budapest to Paris. It will be "completed" in 2020, so we will probably see Trains going in this direction soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrale_for_Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrale_for_Europe
    - justincormack 11y ago

Scoundreller 11y ago

Heathrow (and perhaps UK airport security as a whole) is also more restrictive in my experience than US/Canada/Schengen airports, so there's another point for the train. (Seized contact lens solution bottle, I'm looking at you!)

EliRivers 11y ago
Not if you're just transiting. Sterile transit just plain doesn't exist at US airports (or at least, didn't when I last checked, which was a few years ago - maybe things are different now?), so changing planes takes bloody hours instead of minutes, and requires going through exit procedures and then coming back through security.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Scoundreller 11y ago
  Well, while going Canada->LHR->Schengen airport, I definitely had to go through UK security again, as well as passport control to connect to an "international" flight to France. I didn't even leave the terminal. "Everyone who boards an aircraft at Heathrow has to be security screened to UK government standards. Even if you've already been through security checks at another airport, we're obliged to screen you again before you fly from Heathrow." http://www.heathrowairport.com/heathrow-airport-guide/flight-connections/faqs#security http://www.heathrowairport.com/heathrow-airport-guide/flight... I guess when faced with the choice of taking a risk-based approach toward security, and applying an equal amount of security to all, they chose the latter. At least the UK lets you check through your bags, unlike the US.
  - EliRivers 11y ago
    Fair enough. Maybe I'm spoiled by modern airports, which Heathrow definitely is not. When I change at modern airports, usually in Europe, I very rarely have to go out and back in again. In Geneva[1], the layout of the airport was essentially reconfigured around me to let me walk from one plane to the next. I was the only person doing it; I walked through empty glass-walled corridors, watching through the glass as other passengers went their various ways, guided by wall displays pointing me towards the next flight (no other flights on it; just mine) and at one point I got to a train platform cut in half by a glass wall. The other side was a hundred or so people, and when the train came, I was in one half, and they were in the other. We were likewise segregated at the destination platform. I walked all the way to the departure lounge before I reached a person, whose job was to let me in and not let anyone in the lounge leave through my private entrance. It was basically how you'd expect a modern airport to work; to know who on each flight needed to leave and who needed to be guided to another flight, and for the displays and corridors to provide it. [1] I think it was Geneva.

justincormack 11y ago

Well not joining Schengen is stupid, and easily fixed.

dageshi 11y ago
Doubt it will happen in my lifetime.
JesperRavn 11y ago
Saying what you think is stupid isn't a useful contribution. If you're going to spam political opinions, at least give some argument. (edited for tone)
Chris_Newton 11y ago
I recently travelled from Cambridge, UK to Amsterdam. Given that I strongly dislike modern air travel for all the usual reasons, I went by train. It was striking just how much more pleasant that journey was than a flight to another European capital that I took not so long ago. I had to be at the international terminal at St Pancras in London a half-hour before the train left, though I think some of the more expensive business-class tickets only require you to be there 10 minutes early. Getting in meant showing ticket, passport, and some routine security scans, the latter being quick and not nearly as intrusive or theatrical as typical modern airport security. (I’m a rather private person, and just the possibility of being put through one of the virtual strip-search machines at an airport is enough to make me not want to fly anywhere any more, even without all the other hassle and time required.) On the train, there probably are some luggage limitations if you read the full terms, but no-one was taking a ruler to my backpack or weighing my suitcase and charging me extra on the return journey just because I had added a 1kg souvenir. My suitcase was within reach/eyesight throughout my journey, and there was ample space for smaller luggage right by my seat throughout as well. Perhaps the most striking thing of all was that once I was clear of the UK, changing trains at Brussels (from the international Eurostar from London to an also-international Thalys to Amsterdam) was as simple as changing local services back home. The second train literally pulled into the station a few minutes before it was due to leave, I just went onto the platform, and the only fuss at all was because the train had reserved seating so someone helpfully checked my ticket and pointed out where my seat was as I boarded. I haven’t travelled between many different places within continental Europe (as distinct from travelling between the UK and a European destination) but if that’s the norm within the Schengen Area then we’re doing it wrong. Transport systems should be primarily about getting the travellers to where they want to go efficiently and pleasantly, and most of Europe appears to be much better at those things than we are.

UnoriginalGuy 11y ago

Seems like unification of signaling systems across European railways might help alleviate some of these problems. It would be interesting to see if they're actually legitimately dissimilar or more just similar but incompatible for historical reasons.

gpvos 11y ago
The systems vary wildly, from inductive loops at the side of the track placed near each signal (PZB), electrical contacts between the rails (Crocodile), to signals transmitted through the rails (ATB) or through leaky cables along the whole track (LZB). The installed base is obviously huge. There are often several not-entirely-compatible variants within each country, mostly for cost reasons. Oh yes, also patents. Currently railways are installing the European ERTMS system on many tracks, usually as a second system so both trains using the local traditional system and the new ERTMS can ride there. However, it is quite complicated and it turns out not all trainside implementations talk correctly with all railside ones.

switch007 11y ago

"Passengers ... will need to get off at Lille, go up to the customs hall and in effect start their journey again. ... Even some of those who knew of the Lille stop were surprised to find they had to carry their luggage throughout" Who would want to do that? Not only that, the Marseille train leaves London at 07:19! Great for people in London, not so great if you live outside. Firstly, it might not be possible to get in that early, and secondly, mid-week, peak fares in to London are extortionate. I checked a fare in October (Fri-Fri, before half term): £178. Sat-Sat in October: £129. Flying: £110 return with Easyjet, including baggage. Or from Heathrow with BA: £114. At more reasonable times of day. It's a 2 hour flight.

seszett 11y ago
Your flight arrives at Marignane though, taxi to Marseille is around 40€ and half an hour. I don't know how long and expensive is the journey to London's airports.
- switch007 11y ago
  I understand. It's a point often made - as if the other differences of travelling by train don't exist. For me, it's not any /more/ of a concern than the others, e.g: - Departure: how to arrive, time, expense. - Journey: duration, connections, time of day, day of week, comfort, baggage, expense. - Arrival: distance from destination, time, expense. I think arrival is less of a concern as you're quite likely to be going to the inner city, and in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city.
  - seszett 11y ago
    > in Europe it's almost a given that there are reliable and frequent connections to the city Well I don't know... I live in France, and the lack of reliable, fast and cheap connections is exactly why I often take the train even when it's more expensive and slower. The last time I arrived at Marignane, at 1am because the flight had been delayed by two hours or so, I had to wait for 1,5 hour, along with a few fellow passengers, for a shuttle to come even though it had been supposed to show up 20 minutes after we started waiting. The driver then explained us that "you're in Marseille, that's normal!". And he was kinda right. The shuttle was also late for the return flight, actually, just not too late.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

There is rail connection between Arkhangelsk and Sochi (that's around 2500 km), so why not with western europe shorter distances and faster trains. I don't see why they have to leave trains at all for customs. This seems easily fixable.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
Because that's entirely within one country. Thats roughly the distance between London and Moscow.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  There is rail connection between Azerbaijan and Ukraine and it crosses two borders.

ChuckMcM 11y ago

I find it fascinating that much of the hold up is having multiple signalling systems for each country in their train. Is there a web site that talks about the different systems in some more detail? I've been following Caltrain's installation of new signalling (in theory to support more frequent trains and the high speed rail service) and was surprised to find them as complicated as they are.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
You might be interested in this update of CBOSS and Caltrain. http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/05/cboss-headed-for-trouble.html http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/05/cboss-headed-for-tr...
gpvos 11y ago
Wikipedia isn't too bad on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Train_protection_systems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Train_protection_syst... - and see my reply elsewhere on this page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9631443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9631443 I would expect there to be a few real experts on HN, though. (I'm not one.)
pjmlp 11y ago
The track sizes and electricity are also problematic. Portuguese and Spanish tracks have a smaller width than the rest of Europe. So Portuguese trains only travel to Spain (the few that exist). And Spanish trains have a system where they can change the width between the wheels when going to France. Similarly, trains travelling between Belgium and Germany, if I am not mistaken, have dual electricity system.
- gpvos 11y ago
  Border-crossing lines are utterly fascinating. The traditional visual signalling system tends to change exactly at the border, but you may find pre-signals just inside the other country. The in-cabin signalling and automatic train protection may or may not change at the same location. Changeover of the electrical system is more elaborate, and can take place at the border, a few kilometers inside one of the countries, or at one of the larger stations on either side, in which case you will find switchable tracks at that station. There are different allowed widths and heights ("loading gauge") for train cars in different countries. Finally, few people know that the overhead lines veer a little bit to the left and right to spread the wear on the pantographs. The extent to which this happens also differs between countries, and some countries have narrower pantographs than others, which means that trains cannot just ride both in Germany and Switzerland even though they have the same electrical system.

saool 11y ago

All trains from London are direct to Europe, even if they are local. I find the wording and the idea behind it as stupid as the trouble in Lille due to not being part of Schengen. Signed: a Schengen national that hates and avoids lay-overs in Heathrow like the plague.

leonhandreke 11y ago

> It was clear when I travelled back from Marseille that many passengers hadn't realised they would be required to leave the train at the northern city of Lille for passport checks. When I travelled to/from Romania by train two years ago, border control officers got on the stop before the border, walked through the train to check passports and got off at the next stop, probably taking the next train back. This happened both going into Romania and going back into Hungary. So, the UK probably wouldn't even have to join Schengen to make this a less painful process.

sasvari 11y ago
It also works travelling from Russia to Finland: Russian boarder guards hop on and check you leaving the country, and then Finnish boarder guards do the same for entering Finland/EU/Schengen. It's not rocket science at all.
WildUtah 11y ago
"the UK probably wouldn't even have to join Schengen to make this a less painful process." Joining Schengen and getting UK immigration boffins to board the trains and operate efficiently have exactly the same problem: they would require competent leadership from 10 Downing Street.