On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Dave Arquati wrote:

Dave Liney wrote:

If you want flat interchanges then go to Waterloo as normal and get a
bus to Euston (at least three routes IIRC) and walk from there. Or you
could walk to Aldwych and get a direct bus from there. It'll take
around 30 minutes either way.

Why on earth isn't there a direct bus between Waterloo and King's
Cross?! I never even noticed that before. These are arguably the two
most important railway termini.

No, since one of those is Liverpool Street. Just because it mostly serves
Essex and Hackney doesn't mean you can ignore it! Gaaah!

Unless you have some definition of 'important' that is not related to
passenger numbers, in which case you will be the first up against the wall
when the revolution comes.

This is especially bad when there isn't even a direct Tube route between
the two.

You are of course quite right that there should be a direct bus. There
should probably be direct, and perhaps somewhat expressed, bus services
linking every pair of mainline termini that do not have a direct rail
link.

tom

--
Optical illusions are terrorism of the mind.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
news

You can currently do Waterloo East to Ashford in 1hr 4 mins, direct.

That's almost as fast as E* manages.

Thanks, that ends the argument!

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave Liney
writes

I suggest that more people have reduced journey time and inconvenience
getting to StP than have increased journey time.

Taken the population at large, that is probable. The question running
throughout this thread is ... are those cohorts of people in other parts
of the capital likely to require business trips or desire leisure breaks
in Eurostar destinations?

There is a world outside of London where people live and commute. You seem
to be suggesting that business people only live south west of London whereas
looking at arrivals in the northern termini on a weekday morning would
suggest otherwise.

Of course it is then there is a good, cheap public transport solution to
getting to Paris in your area of London which means that if by moving
Eurostar's London terminus those that don't have one at present gain one.

No. They have one already - it is called Waterloo. They don't use it
because they find having to travel across London too inconvenient.

So Waterloo is a good and cheap solution for those north of London but St
Pancras is not a good, cheap solution for those south of London, who
apparently already have a good link to the continent in Heathrow.

Does that ring a bell?

Only an IMBY alert.

Anyone with business sense (and that has seldom included Eurostar) would
realise that the way to increase trade is to increase your outlets, not
close them.

Someone should let Tesco know that they haven't any business sense then when
they opened a larger store near Huntingdon and closed their town centre
store. You could argue the ethics of so doing but it obviously made business
sense because they'd already done the same thing in Hatfield (Hertfordshire)
and many other places.

Dave

In message , Dave Liney
writes

There is a world outside of London where people live and commute. You seem
to be suggesting that business people only live south west of London whereas
looking at arrivals in the northern termini on a weekday morning would
suggest otherwise.

Why do you keep making incorrect assumptions? I said nothing about
business people living *only* in South West London. This is the second
time you have tried to make an argument out of a false assumption.

I have merely observed that when travelling by Eurostar I see very many
people continuing their journey by SWT. Obviously, not everyone does.

So Waterloo is a good and cheap solution for those north of London

No. Now you are making your third false assumption.

The interchange between St Pancras and Waterloo is poor, especially when
carrying luggage. Eurostar had the opportunity of enabling all of their
customers to avoid making that cross London journey. They have chosen
not to.

Only an IMBY alert.

Yes - IMBY is good.

What actually do you feel is wrong in suggesting that there should be
Eurostar terminals both north AND south of the city for the maximum
convenience of passengers?

--
Paul Terry

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave Liney
writes

There is a world outside of London where people live and commute. You seem
to be suggesting that business people only live south west of London
whereas
looking at arrivals in the northern termini on a weekday morning would
suggest otherwise.

Why do you keep making incorrect assumptions? I said nothing about
business people living *only* in South West London. This is the second
time you have tried to make an argument out of a false assumption.

"are those cohorts of people in other parts of the capital likely to require
business trips or desire leisure breaks in Eurostar destinations?"

I don't think it is an assumption to read what you wrote as meaning that you
don't believe that there are a significant number or people who use Eurostar
for business (who I assume are the ones on business trips) outside of south
west London.

I have merely observed that when travelling by Eurostar I see very many
people continuing their journey by SWT. Obviously, not everyone does.

So Waterloo is a good and cheap solution for those north of London

No. Now you are making your third false assumption.

"They have one [a good, cheap public transport solution to getting to Paris]
already - it is called Waterloo".

You said it. Hardly an assumption.

"They don't use it because they find having to travel across London too
inconvenient"

Let's say you are right in this (and I'm not sure you are). South west
London has Heathrow conviniently situated for journeys to Paris whereas
north London doesn't. So let's spread the benefit of quick and easy journeys
to Paris by having south west London go to Heathrow, south east London to
Ashford and north London to StP.

What actually do you feel is wrong in suggesting that there should be
Eurostar terminals both north AND south of the city for the maximum
convenience of passengers?

There is nothing wrong with that suggestion. But when there isn't a business
case for two terminals then one will have to close. Closing StP isn't an
option (it would make the CTRL phase 2 rather pointless) so Waterloo has to.

I could suggest that it would be convinient for the ECML to have a terminal
at Waterloo as well but it's unlikely to stand up as a business case.

Dave

"Dave Liney" wrote:

There is a world outside of London where people live and commute. You seem
to be suggesting that business people only live south west of London whereas
looking at arrivals in the northern termini on a weekday morning would
suggest otherwise.


You have missed the point. That is, the customer profile of Eurostar
passengers from the UK would indicate that there is an exceptionally
high proportion whose journeys originate in the SWT corridor.

That's because the SWT corridor is where so many 'movers and shakers'
choose to locate. It ain't called 'the stockbroker belt' for nowt.

St Pancras is not really a viable option for those people. Instead,
they will head around the M25 for Heathrow or Gatwick.

That is the reason why I suggested a regular Waterloo-Ashford service
using former Eurostar paths and connecting with Eurostar trains at
Ashford International. I think that is the only way Eurostar can hope
to retain this large and affluent customer base.

--- Dave Liney said...

There ... isn't a business case for two terminals then one will
have to close. Closing StP isn't an option (it would make the
CTRL phase 2 rather pointless) so Waterloo has to.

Yes, but why should our railways only do what is demanded *only* by the
business case? There's this little thing called subsidy, which can be
used to persuade them to go against the business case when it makes
sense in terms of the wider picture. Why not use that to keep Waterloo
Int'l open?

In message , Dave Liney
writes

"are those cohorts of people in other parts of the capital likely to require
business trips or desire leisure breaks in Eurostar destinations?"

Yes, that is the question I asked. You didn't answer it, though.

I don't think it is an assumption to read what you wrote as meaning

Sheesh! There you go again! PLEASE stop assuming what I think.

"They have one [a good, cheap public transport solution to getting to Paris]
already - it is called Waterloo".

You said it. Hardly an assumption.

Oh gawd, and you can't spot irony either. I am pointing out the fallacy
in your argument that the St Pancras - Waterloo change is so quick and
easy.

Let's say you are right in this (and I'm not sure you are). South west
London has Heathrow conviniently situated for journeys to Paris whereas
north London doesn't. So let's spread the benefit of quick and easy journeys
to Paris by having south west London go to Heathrow, south east London to
Ashford and north London to StP.

Why encourage the pollution that air travel causes when there is ALREADY
and international rail terminal at Waterloo.

when there isn't a business
case for two terminals then one will have to close. Closing StP isn't an
option (it would make the CTRL phase 2 rather pointless) so Waterloo has to.

Only if you believe that Eurostar have done their sums properly ... or,
if cynical, that Eurostar will use the threat of closure of Waterloo to
get money out of the government. Personally, I find it very difficult to
believe there is a good business case.

Incidentally, you are only considering travel FROM London. I wonder how
many of the foreign tourists who come TO London for a short break, and
who can currently walk to many attractions from Waterloo, will bother to
come here when they find they are deposited amid the delights of King's
Cross?

I could suggest that it would be convinient for the ECML to have a terminal
at Waterloo as well but it's unlikely to stand up as a business case.

If there was already an ECML terminal at Waterloo handling millions of
passengers a year, you would close it?

--
Paul Terry

In message , at 10:31:58 on
Wed, 24 Nov 2004, TP remarked:
You have missed the point. That is, the customer profile of Eurostar
passengers from the UK would indicate that there is an exceptionally
high proportion whose journeys originate in the SWT corridor.

That's because the SWT corridor is where so many 'movers and shakers'
choose to locate. It ain't called 'the stockbroker belt' for nowt.

St Pancras is not really a viable option for those people. Instead,
they will head around the M25 for Heathrow or Gatwick.

Isn't that why they are building a new E* station on the M25?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:23:16 on Wed, 24 Nov
2004, Paul Terry remarked:
I wonder how many of the foreign tourists who come TO London for a
short break, and who can currently walk to many attractions from
Waterloo, will bother to come here when they find they are deposited
amid the delights of King's Cross?

The Kings Cross area is pretty grim, but so is the immediate area round
Gare du Nord and Brussels Midi. So these "foreigners" should feel
immediately at home!
--
Roland Perry