On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:52:52 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:

On Aug 11, 12:11*am, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus

wrote:
A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near
to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto
the tube map?

At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the
route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy
link straight through the centre of the tourist area.

The tourist area?

Since when did Thameslink serve the London Eye, Houses of Parliament,
Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Oxford Street, Bond Street,
Knightsbridge, Madame Tussauds and Regents Park?

When I was helping some German friends plan a weekend away in London,
a bit of research found that the best bet for budget hotels in a
reasonably central location was in the area around Kings Cross (and I
don't mean by-the-hour hotels either), and for getting to either the
area around the tower, or to St Pauls and across to the Tate Modern,
Thameslink proved to be quite a useful route. Also handy for pax
flying via Gatwick. By all accounts, plenty of other tourists had
come to the same conclusion regarding hotels.


The reason that those areas are "the best bet for budget hotels" is
that there is comparatively little demand. The majority of tourists
stay in areas several miles west of Thameslink, none of which are
remotely as seedy as Kings Cross, whose seediness and relative
cheapness are directly connected.

On 11 Aug, 09:34, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:52:52 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:





On Aug 11, 12:11*am, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus

wrote:
A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near
to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto
the tube map?

At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the
route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy
link straight through the centre of the tourist area.

The tourist area?

Since when did Thameslink serve the London Eye, Houses of Parliament,
Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Oxford Street, Bond Street,
Knightsbridge, Madame Tussauds and Regents Park?

When I was helping some German friends plan a weekend away in London,
a bit of research found that the best bet for budget hotels in a
reasonably central location was in the area around Kings Cross (and I
don't mean by-the-hour hotels either), and for getting to either the
area around the tower, or to St Pauls and across to the Tate Modern,
Thameslink proved to be quite a useful route. *Also handy for pax
flying via Gatwick. *By all accounts, plenty of other tourists had
come to the same conclusion regarding hotels.

The reason that those areas are "the best bet for budget hotels" is
that there is comparatively little demand. *The majority of tourists
stay in areas several miles west of Thameslink, none of which are
remotely as seedy as Kings Cross, whose seediness and relative
cheapness are directly connected.

If there is comparitively little demand, why are there more hotel
rooms within a 5 minute walk of King's Cross than in the whole of
Cambridge (not exactly an unpopular city with the tourists)? I
counted 4 large travelodges, 2 comfort inns, a premier inn, a novotel
and (from a quick google search) 25 non-chain hotels. When I was
showing my friends around, from the people swarming around these
various hotels, I would guess that the vast majority were tourists
(the dress sense, photographic equipment and propensity for european
languages were all give aways).

I suspect the real reason the hotels there work out cheap for tourists
is that they are mostly serving the city-bound buisness market, and
are prepared to let their rooms go cheaply at the weekends rather than
stand empty. The area isn't nearly as seedy as it used to be, and
it's jolly handy for Eurostar.

Robin

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:25:19 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:
On 11 Aug, 09:34, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:52:52 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote:
On Aug 11, 12:11=A0am, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus

wrote:
A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get nea=
r
to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto
the tube map?

At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the
route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy
link straight through the centre of the tourist area.

The tourist area?

Since when did Thameslink serve the London Eye, Houses of Parliament,
Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Oxford Street, Bond Street,
Knightsbridge, Madame Tussauds and Regents Park?

When I was helping some German friends plan a weekend away in London,
a bit of research found that the best bet for budget hotels in a
reasonably central location was in the area around Kings Cross (and I
don't mean by-the-hour hotels either), and for getting to either the
area around the tower, or to St Pauls and across to the Tate Modern,
Thameslink proved to be quite a useful route. =A0Also handy for pax
flying via Gatwick. =A0By all accounts, plenty of other tourists had
come to the same conclusion regarding hotels.

The reason that those areas are "the best bet for budget hotels" is
that there is comparatively little demand. =A0The majority of tourists
stay in areas several miles west of Thameslink, none of which are
remotely as seedy as Kings Cross, whose seediness and relative
cheapness are directly connected.

If there is comparitively little demand, why are there more hotel
rooms within a 5 minute walk of King's Cross than in the whole of
Cambridge (not exactly an unpopular city with the tourists)?


What on earth has Cambridge got to do with anything? Why not include
Newquay in your comparison? Or Thurso?


I counted 4 large travelodges, 2 comfort inns, a premier inn, a novotel
and (from a quick google search) 25 non-chain hotels.


That's a very tiny fraction of the number of hotels in the west of the
city - the area that traditionally caters for tourists.


When I was
showing my friends around, from the people swarming around these
various hotels, I would guess that the vast majority were tourists
(the dress sense, photographic equipment and propensity for european
languages were all give aways).

I suspect the real reason the hotels there work out cheap for tourists
is that they are mostly serving the city-bound buisness market, and
are prepared to let their rooms go cheaply at the weekends rather than
stand empty.


In other words, you are talking about a business area whose hotels
offer cheap deals to tourists only at weekends. You are talking about
an area that has a tiny fraction of the number of hotel rooms in
London's tourist areas, none of which are served by Thameslink.

You don't appear to be able to see beyond the end of your nose, and as
for your "inclusion" of Cambridge, thanks for the best laugh I've had
so far today! ;-)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:19:39 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
[snip]

What on earth has Cambridge got to do with anything? Why not include
Newquay in your comparison? Or Thurso?

Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?

On Aug 11, 6:52*pm, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:19:39 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
[snip]

What on earth has Cambridge got to do with anything? *Why not include
Newquay in your comparison? *Or Thurso?

Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. *I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?

On the A38 between Glocester and Bristol (although I suspect it's
pronounced with a short "a" as per the nearby village of Cam).

On 11/08/2010 18:52, Scott wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:19:39 +0100,
wrote:
[snip]

What on earth has Cambridge got to do with anything? Why not include
Newquay in your comparison? Or Thurso?

Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?

Gloucestershire.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In uk.transport.london Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 11/08/2010 18:52, Scott wrote:
Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?

Gloucestershire.

Minnesota.

(which appears to have a railroad passing loop, but not a station)

Theo

On Aug 11, 12:48*pm, Theo Markettos theom
wrote:
In uk.transport.london Arthur Figgis wrote:

On 11/08/2010 18:52, Scott wrote:
Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. *I don't know..
Where is Cambridge anyway?

Gloucestershire.

Minnesota.

(which appears to have a railroad passing loop, but not a station)

Theo

Massachessetts, and the transit authority has recently purchased the
mainline thru there to Boston North station.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:52:23 +0100, Scott
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:19:39 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
[snip]

What on earth has Cambridge got to do with anything? Why not include
Newquay in your comparison? Or Thurso?

Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?


It must be very near Kings Cross. ;-)

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:52:23 +0100, Scott
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:19:39 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
[snip]

What on earth has Cambridge got to do with anything? Why not include
Newquay in your comparison? Or Thurso?

Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?


It must be very near Kings Cross. ;-)

As little as 45 minutes, in fact.

--
Colin Rosenstiel