Mrs Redboots wrote:

Granted - but I think you'll find that the whole point of the argument
is that there *is* a business case for two terminals. This is what we
are disagreeing with - the necessity of closing Waterloo International.
We reckon that there would be sufficient passenger numbers to make
retaining it worthwhile, AS WELL AS the new terminus at St Pancras.


If Waterloo International remained open, St Pancras International
would be little more then a hideously expensive flop.

In message , at 12:50:19 on
Wed, 24 Nov 2004, TP remarked:
If Waterloo International remained open, St Pancras International
would be little more then a hideously expensive flop.

With half the number of trains to reach critical mass, that might well
be the case. Meanwhile, the journey time from Waterloo will be
unattractive also. What's wrong with promoting the Waterloo East to
Ashford services as a compromise?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

With half the number of trains to reach critical mass, that might well
be the case. Meanwhile, the journey time from Waterloo will be
unattractive also. What's wrong with promoting the Waterloo East to
Ashford services as a compromise?


Because they will be desperately unattractive to those people who can
now transfer from their SWT service to a Eurostar at Waterloo. Adding
an extra leg to a journey is never attractive, especially when that
extra leg is itself inconvenient. Surely you can understand that?

In message , at 13:43:31 on
Wed, 24 Nov 2004, TP remarked:
With half the number of trains to reach critical mass, that might well
be the case. Meanwhile, the journey time from Waterloo will be
unattractive also. What's wrong with promoting the Waterloo East to
Ashford services as a compromise?


Because they will be desperately unattractive to those people who can
now transfer from their SWT service to a Eurostar at Waterloo. Adding
an extra leg to a journey is never attractive, especially when that
extra leg is itself inconvenient. Surely you can understand that?

Yes, but I also understand that funds aren't limitless; and there are
easier ways for SWT passengers to "catch up" with E* than there are for
people currently arriving at KX/StP.
--
Roland Perry

TP writes

Because they will be desperately unattractive to those people who can
now transfer from their SWT service to a Eurostar at Waterloo. Adding
an extra leg to a journey is never attractive, especially when that
extra leg is itself inconvenient. Surely you can understand that?


So all those of us North of Watford Gap that come to London going on
holiday using Eurostar and traipsing over the tube system to get to
Waterloo will in 2007 GIVE A BLOODY big cheer.
I have used Eurostar a number of times and will continue to do so
in the future when going on holiday.

The bottom line re this move is that SOME section of the travelling
public is going to be INCONVENIENCED.
The only other way would be a dedicated line out of Waterloo at a
'high' speed and thats as likely as finding weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq

Roland Perry wrote in message o.uk...
In message , at 12:50:19 on
Wed, 24 Nov 2004, TP remarked:
If Waterloo International remained open, St Pancras International
would be little more then a hideously expensive flop.

With half the number of trains to reach critical mass, that might well
be the case. Meanwhile, the journey time from Waterloo will be
unattractive also. What's wrong with promoting the Waterloo East to
Ashford services as a compromise?

I rather expect fewer Waterloo - Ashord trains in future, as many
Ashford and beyond commuters will choose to take the CTRL commuter
services.

If Waterloo International remained open, St Pancras International
would be little more then a hideously expensive flop.



Isn't that PRECISELY what it is anyway, and a damned and inexcusable
inconvenience to domestic passengers using St. Pancras who have now been shoved
halfway up the line to Hackney?

Marc.