"What might be sensible would be if preparatory work for the change was

done now - for instance, stringing catenary to Shepherd's Bush, but not

wiring it up to the mains."

We can but live in hope, Tom!

"Because (a) this allows the CTRL phase 2 to be built"

Yes, I gather that...

"increasing speed"

.... by a few minutes....

"and reducing congestion in the south London network"

Will removing (is it 2 or 3 per hour) a few Eurostar trains from the
South of London will hardly cause such a dramatic change will it? And,
as for the vacated terminal at Waterloo (itself built at vast expense
and admitted reduction of Waterloo domestic handling capacity), I
understand that rather than returning it to railway use, a shopping
centre is being mooted!

"(b) there are a lot more people north of London than south."

Yes, but is that really the reason behind this move to St. Pancras? I
thought it had something to do with the political goal of a high-speed
link for its own sake rather than there actually being a pressing need
for such. That, surely, must be the reason why all of St. Pancras'
domestic passengers have been given the two-finger salute as they
struggle alonng a dirty, narrow, unsafe and overcrowded passage that
was Pancras Road, to a station so badly designed that its escalators
actually face the wrong direction to the main traffic flow, and whose
departure boards are hidden like State secrets well away from view!

"Give up!"

Indeed, so appalling do I find the new St. Pancras interchange that I
will find ANY alternative changing arrangements when travelling North
next time. Surely this travesty of a station should be called Pancras
North or similar, and unsuspecting passengers who are so naive to
believe they can get from Underground to mainline train in less than 15
minutes should be warned of what they can expect.

Marc.