"Stevie D" wrote in message
news
Martin Whelton wrote:

A great shame trains are not going to run into Waterloo. For an extra
journey time of 20 mins the benefits are more then made up when you
consider the extra amount of time it will take to get to St Pancras.
When completed St Pancras will be a superb building, but to withdraw
service from Waterloo could potentially lead to lost revenue as people
from South West London decide on Heathrow as an easier option.

Yes, the railways may lose a small amount of revenue by closing
Waterloo International. But the additional cost of maintaining and
serving two international terminal stations in London would be far
higher than the revenue that will be lost from the few passengers who
will defect to air travel or other means.

It is about the best use of limited resources. Most passengers will be
content to use SPI or Stratford or Ebbsfleet or Ashford for their
Eurostar travels, and while it would be more convenient for some
passengers if trains did continue to serve Waterloo, there is no
justifiable case for doing so.

Your argument defies logic; how can it be demonstrated that there are not
enough resources to maintain services to Waterloo and yet open not one but
three new station to replace it? I don't know where E* passengers originate
from but it is a good bet that a large proportion of them are in direct rail
communication with Waterloo. It is these passengers who, if there is a
regional airport close by, will desert E* simply because their current
relatively seamless journey would be extended by at least half an hour and
involve enduring travel on one of the worst underground lines.
There is another matter which has not been noted in this discussion large
sums have been invested in infrastructure to get E* to Waterloo the most
recent being the relaying of the line on the Gravesend West branch to
Longfield and the burrowing junction at Shortlands. Whilst the latter has a
general use why should the other capital investments be wasted?
MJW