On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, MIG wrote:

On 18 Oct, 12:41, "Paul Scott" wrote:
"lonelytraveller" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

On 17 Oct, 18:36, "Paul Scott" wrote:

Its not easy to summarise, this RUS being 200 odd pages, but it looks
like they want the capacity at the terminii to allow increased
frequency on existing longer distnce routes into LB and/or VIC, even
before bringing Thameslink into teh equation. As you say, Ken also
wants this route for Orbirail, so the objectors are going to have a
lot of work on...

Is there any particular reason that the objecting people don't want to
travel via extended East London Line, and change at Canada water onto
the Jubilee line?

Presume its just that the pax who currently use the service use it to get
directly to London Bridge or Victoria. Everyone is happy with improvements
for the greater good, except when directly affected themselves.

I'm sure very similar objections will be raised when the DC lines are
diverted away from Euston, or the Greenford shuttle stops going to
Paddington...

Of course objections will be raised, and quite rightly.

I really can't see what "improvements for the greater good" are going to
be achieved by diverting trains from already overcrowded routes into
central London into a stopping service to Hackney.

The dream of an orbital railway is being pursued in a very blinkered
way. There may be a need for one, but when people agree to the need for
a new service, it's wrong to infer that they mean "and existing services
should be taken away".

Hear hear!

Even if that's not quite what's happening in this case.

tom
aka Radial Man

--
3118110161 Pies