Airline Security Vs Chunnel Security

[A2QFI]

These are as different as chalk and cheese. No need to discuss what goes on at security at airports - we all know the nonsense! I have just completed a trip to Ghent via the Tunnel - painless doesn't come close to describing it! In both directions the underside of my car was checked by a TV camera and on the way back parts of the car were 'swabbed' for the presence of explosives and that was it. I could have had enormous quantities of lethal body lotions, shaving gels and deodorants, well know for their potential to create explosive devices.
Is it that BAA are a bit OTT on security or the that the Tunnel is lax? It was quite the most painless transit I have had to the Continent in years.

[cavortingcheetah]

:hmm:

Quite right, very low key, very efficient and perhaps rather more detailed than is obviously apparent.
However perhaps there is no need to discuss what goes on at security at sea ports ?:)

[Avman]

The lack of any real security is the reason I don't ever use the Chunnel. It's only a matter of time before terrorists focus more on the next best thing after aviation, the railways (the Madrid bombing being a good example). And what a sensational headline target the chunnel makes. Airport security is indeed OTT, but at the other end of the scale are the railways and the chunnel.

[SXB]

I also transited the tunnel a week ago on my way back to France. I was pulled for a security check and swabbed, my number plate was also checked. Whole process took about 2 minutes. Checkin took about 90 seconds after I'd joined the one car queue. Passport control 20 seconds with no queue. The reason the tunnel can process it's passengers so quickly is because it has sufficient infrastructure to do so. The BAA London airports do not.

CC, the reason a seaport (or a railport) is relevant is because it offers a viable alternative. I thought about taking the plane for this trip but couldn't be bothered with the hassle of LHR or LGW. As a direct result of BAA mismanagement (of it's airports) my money went to Eurotunnel instead of Air France to LGW. I hope Air France realise how often this is happening.

[SXB]

The lack of any real security is the reason I don't ever use the Chunnel

Avman
On what basis do you make that comment ?

[pacer142]

You're forgetting (perhaps conditioned by aircraft security) how little[1] death and destruction bombing the Chunnel or any other non-crowded long-distance train would cause. That's why there is no need for an increase in security.

In addition, as terrorism is largely about causing terror, people don't generally fear train travel, so it's a bit of a pointless target.

The Tube is perhaps different, as are packed commuter trains, which will probably be why these are the only kinds of trains that have been bombed. However, high security on such trains is utterly impractical due to the number of passengers involved, so it won't be introduced.

[1] Virgin Pendolino off the tracks at 95mph due to a points problem a few months ago. Quite a spectacular scene, but only one death and not a massive number of injuries, and the train damaged to such a low extent that there has even been talk of it going back into service.

[PAXboy]

An incendiary device in the tunnel would make VERY good headlines. A severe fire would close both bores for some weeks and the affected one for months. Think about the fires in the Alpine road tunnels.

The photographs would not be as 'nice' for the perpetrators as an a/c over London but would certainly do.

[Avman]

SXB
From the answers to leading questions I have asked colleagues, friends and relatives who do use it regularly and tell me how safe it all is. All their answers failed to convince me. But, hey, everyone to their own. Me, I'll stick to flying and, if I have to take my car, the ferry.

N.B. I don't have to use LHR or LGW which helps!

[PAXboy]

With an uninformed and wild guess ... the Chunnel is not such a tempting target as many folks in the countries that the like of OBL wish to impress - do not know that the Chunnel exists.

You want to be able to show newspaper and TV pictures of an internationally known symbol - blown up or brought down. In the UK, there are a number of buildings and locations that are known all around the world from movies and educational text books. In Paris, they would rather do mild damage to the Eiffel Tower than utterly destroy a mainline railway station. Destroying the station would upset the country more from an economical point of view but the tower is their iconic emblem.

Of course, as was shown in Madrid, the folks will take what they can get - so we must assume that everything is a target. That, of itself, means that they have achieved a major objective. The IRA famously put the terrorist's point of view when they failed to kill Thatcher.

[daedalus]

See my post number 49 on thread "Airport security Fiasco" 2nd page concerning lack of security measures on fast ferry Boulogne-Dover.

:ugh:

[pacer142]

An incendiary device in the tunnel would make VERY good headlines. A severe fire would close both bores for some weeks and the affected one for months. Think about the fires in the Alpine road tunnels.

There was such a fire in the tunnel not long after it opened. It occurred on a lorry shuttle. It did indeed close one bore for some time, but it didn't cause massive service disruption and it killed precisely no (0) passengers, and didn't cause any injuries bar slight smoke inhalation, as I recall.

It *is* a relatively high-profile target, but there are far "better" choices. That, most likely, will be why no terrorist has yet attacked it.

[hellsbrink]

Just noticed this thread, so I'll add my bit regarding Chunnel security.

Eurostar, London Waterloo to Brussels in 2005. I was moving here permanently, so had 2 large suitcases (that was fun to lift up stairs, etc). Because my PC has my "life" on it, it had to come then too (with other stuff shipped at a later date). Obviously, you cannot carry a midi tower, tft, etc, AND two cases so the PC was dismantled to it's component parts with the intention of buying a new case/PSU here. So one case had clothes and a 19" TFT and some parts like mouse/keyboard/cables for HD's/2 DVD drives and other case had clothes with the mobo, graphics card, 4 HD's, assorted cables and other PC internals.

Cases go through x-ray, obviously you would see circuit boards, cables, etc, in cases. I was expecting someone to say something, pull me aside and examine things but not one word was said. Now either that x-ray machine wasn't working or they didn't give a monkeys about the contents. Dunno about you guys, but I would have thought that the sight of circuit boards, assorted solid lumps and cables in someone's case would have raised alarm bells and I sure don't think I would get through airport security so easily with something similar.

Makes ya wonder, don't it......

[ZFT]

Dunno about you guys, but I would have thought that the sight of circuit boards, assorted solid lumps and cables in someone's case would have raised alarm bells and I sure don't think I would get through airport security so easily with something similar.



I regularly carry Inst and Avionics in both hand and checked baggage.
No specific issues at security.

[hellsbrink]

dismantled, ZFT?

We talking about a load of ribbon cables and circuit boards, etc, not a few complete units...

[africa man]

well 2 1/2 hours from gatwick to ostende, is a much better option and certainly a more relaxed way to travel when you are transporting positioning crew and all their baggage it saves them getting lost at airports and missing their flights and its a lot cheaper plus the wine and beer are good on the way back ( every little helps)

[Cyberfriend]

YOu can be rest assured that the guy behind the x-ray machine knows what he is looking for. Not such a bunch of wires. Otherwise with many people carrying consumer electronic gadgets , their bags will hv to be opened all the times. Cheers!!