On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Stevie D wrote:

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.

I don't see it quite that way. They're opening two new intermediate
stations, after all: they clearly feel they can "afford" the cost of
running those.

Surely the key point is that the Waterloo route has no sensible access
to 25kV overhead power, let alone to the high-speed line? So they'd
be stuck with the existing third-rail infrastructure as far as Fawkham
Junction, which, in spite of past upgrades, still leaves E* trains
under-powered.

Nevertheless, if you search the web you find lots of places where it's
reported that some E* traffic to/from Waterloo will be maintained.
So if it's true that E* is going to totally abandon Waterloo, either
someone has been telling porkies in the past, or the intentions have
changed.

Some improvements in connecting services would be most welcome. But
the past record of joined-up thinking in this land does not exactly
fill me with hope.

all the best

In message . ac.uk,
Alan J. Flavell writes

Nevertheless, if you search the web you find lots of places where it's
reported that some E* traffic to/from Waterloo will be maintained.
So if it's true that E* is going to totally abandon Waterloo, either
someone has been telling porkies in the past, or the intentions have
changed.

The whole reason why this thread started is because Eurostar announced
last week that they have finally decided to totally abandon any facility
at Waterloo!

--
Paul Terry

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Paul Terry wrote:

So if it's true that E* is going to totally abandon Waterloo,
either someone has been telling porkies in the past, or the
intentions have changed.

The whole reason why this thread started is because Eurostar
announced last week that they have finally decided to totally
abandon any facility at Waterloo!

Er, as I read it, they *announced* last week that a decision has
been made. They don't say when that decision had been taken.

hth

In article ,
(Jack Taylor) wrote:

From Olympia the train would have
reversed to Latchmere No. 3 Junction before taking the curve to join the
South Western main line to Waterloo at West London Junction, rejoining
the normal route just after the Stewarts Lane flyover trails in.

Fine except that it's the South Western Windsor Lines. There is no
connection to the Main line on this route.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Colin Rosenstiel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Jack Taylor) wrote:

From Olympia the train would have
reversed to Latchmere No. 3 Junction before taking the curve to join the
South Western main line to Waterloo at West London Junction, rejoining
the normal route just after the Stewarts Lane flyover trails in.

Fine except that it's the South Western Windsor Lines. There is no
connection to the Main line on this route.

Yes, fair point, although with the OP's lack of knowledge of the alternative
routing I wouldn't have expected them to know the difference between the
Wimbledon lines and the Windsor lines.

In message
Martin Rich wrote:

[snip]
Which line is that? For many (most?) Waterloo commuters the natural
way to St Pancras is to get off their national rail train at Vauxhall,
admittedly not the nicest or easiest of interchanges, and get the
Victoria Line which in my experience is usually quick and efficient.


Given my national rail (aka SWT) train to Waterloo doesn't stop at Vauxhall
that is not a great deal of help. I'm in the quadrant that is probably most
affected by the change. I'm too far west to make using Ashford at all
attractive and too far south for an easy journey to St Pancras. Also will
there be CIV tickets available?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message ...
--- Charley_Ashbury said:


As much as I'd like to go on train, as we prefer it, I drive us down
to
Ashford, or we fly from Manchester. I don't want to suffer multiple
changes
and dragging of suitcases on the tube, just to London and the SE can
have
Waterloo for their sole "exclusive" use.


I think you've missed the point. Those of us in London and the SE want
Waterloo *as well as* St. Pancras. Just having one or the other is
always going to be inconvenient for someone.

It's easy: get off at Vauxhall, get on the Victoria Line, get off at
KXSP. That is one of the easiest cross-London transfers ever. If your
particular train doesn't stop at Vauxhall, perhaps you would like to
lobby SWT to stop it there.

(TheOneKEA) wrote in message . com...
Paul Terry wrote in message ...
In message , Alex
Terrell writes

The Daily Telegraph reports that Eurostar will quit Waterloo in 2007.

I think this is a good idea. Even from Waterloo, it would be quicket
to take the tube to St Pancras and then take a fast Eurostar.

There's no direct tube! It ought to be quicker to take the Jubilee
direct from Waterloo to Stratford and pick-up Eurostar there. However,
the interchange at Stratford looks as though it is going to be poor.

Actually, it won't. If the Stratford International DLR link is mooted,
passengers will have level access from the Jubbly terminus to the
former westbound NLL platform, where they can catch the DLR to the
International station.

You are right about the lack of direct tube services; unfortunately,
the obvious choice of changing at Warren Street requires hiking
through the station. Too bad that Crossrail 3 will be opened after the
sun has burnt out...

Why Warren St? If you really want to catch two tubes, use the Bakerloo
and change at Oxford Circus. Alternatively, for two undergrounds
obsessives, there is the District at Wimbledon, which connects to the
Circle/Hammersmith&City at Edgware Rd. There is also a nice easy
direct tube from Vauxhall to KXSP.

For SWT services that stop at Vauxhall, the Victoria line to King's
Cross will be a better bet - but the interchange at Vauxhall, with
luggage, in the rush hour, is an abomination.

Vauxhall's fine. If you want a crappy interchange, try getting from
the Northern Line to the LB&SC side of London Bridge.

"Peter Masson" wrote in message ...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...

My suggestion. Act now, build extended, 400m platforms at a few outer
London station (perhaps Surbiton and Staines), and use these to
consolidate 8 carriage trains into 16 carriage trains for the final
trip through London.

It would not be difficult to use these platforms for Windsor Line trains,
making it much less likely for any trains to have to queue up outside
Waterloo waiting for platforms. But that wonn't make use of the platform
length - it would probably be too expensive to extend any Windsor line
station to take 12x20m trains, let alone 16- or 20-car.

But it would be great for each platform to take two 8x65' trains. That
way, 5 (maybe 6) trains could be stored between rush hours.

There could be a case for running 15x23m trains on the Southampton Main
Line, with platform extensions at, say, Woking, Basingstoke, Winchester,
Southampton Airport Parkway and Southampton Central. But to make use of the
long platforms at Waterloo, the Fast Lines on the SWML would have to cross
the Windsor Lines. I don't think there's room after the Chatham Line bridge
to get up to the Linford Street flyover, so it would mean something like
getting the Windsor Lines to dive under the Main Lines between Clapham
Junction and Culvert Road. The cost would be likely to get so many noughts
on it to destroy any business case.

Or there's that little flyover that used to exist in Putney...

There's also the question of what to do with all the passenger accommodation
at Waterloo International, waiting rooms, immigration offices, etc. Would it
convert into a shopping mall? ;-)

Especially if they forcibly redeploy the customs officers as sales
assistants :-D