Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.

Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.

--
Spud

On 08-Aug-17 2:57 PM, d wrote:
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.

Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.

--
Spud


Who are 'they'?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 16:12:58 +0100
Tony Dragon wrote:
On 08-Aug-17 2:57 PM, d wrote:
Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.

Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.

--
Spud


Who are 'they'?

Santas little elves of course. Who did you think I meant, Network Rail?

--
Spud

On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 9:57:58 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.

True, but being a communist dictatorship with no need to worry about individual or property rights and environmental protection probably helps.
--
Roy

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 08:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 9:57:58 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.

True, but being a communist dictatorship with no need to worry about
individual or property rights and environmental protection probably helps.

Even so, 10 years to do what amount to minor alterations and cosmetic changes
is just farcical. Given the overcrowing problems there have been at waterloo
for years this should have been done the minute the eurostar moved to St P.

--
Spud

On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:57:53 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

Wandered down to the refurbished platforms at waterloo international at
lunchtime which are now opened for suburban trains (for the time being). So
in ten years they've managed to reduce the length of the platforms to provide
a concourse, built a temporary bridge to the main concourse and put some
destination boards up.

Well I'm impressed. To think in the same time period the chinese have only
managed to build half a dozen new cities + infrastructure. Amateurs.

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

And surely the "hole" in the main concourse should have been covered,
rather than build a new remote concourse.

e27002 aurora writes:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:

e27002 aurora writes:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.

IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.

On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:

e27002 aurora writes:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.

IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.

I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.

On 09/08/2017 21:08, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\08\09 17:59, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:50:43 +0100, Graham Murray
wrote:

e27002 aurora writes:

The whole thing is pitiful. The Nine Elms flyover needs to be torn
down and replaced with a flyover to take the Windsor lines over the
fast-main pair. Bournemouth and Portsmouth passengers should be
arriving into the "International" platforms, not Staines and Windsor
passengers.

Why? Before the Waterloo International conversion, the Windsor line
services always used the high numbered platforms.

IMHO it makes more sense for the longer distance, higher fare paying
passengers, to come into the more modern, better appointed facility.
There may also be opportunities for further platform and train
lengthening. Clearly opinions vary.

I think that is the maddest suggestion I've ever seen here. Surely it
would be better value for money to leave the flyover alone and renovate
the low numbered platforms up to the quality of the international
platforms, so that all passengers would have a high quality terminal.

I doubt there's a lot of difference between the actual platforms.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.