In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille
or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock capable of
using third rail cleared for CT use.


On another note, what is the deal for a prospective tunnel connection to
Ireland? I seem to recall talk about this in times past but, because the
earth between the two islands is largely sand, it is quite difficult to
build any sort of subterranean structure there.



Isn't going to happen any time soon.

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

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international service
from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the Channel to Lille
or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock capable of
using third rail cleared for CT use.


This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !

Rob.

In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock
capable of using third rail cleared for CT use.


This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !


That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it.

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

On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:





On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock
capable of using third rail cleared for CT use.

This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !

That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it.

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

- Show quoted text -

Er, I did read it. And I've read it again, several times.

The question asked if it would be possible to retain (not reintroduce)
at least some services from Waterloo International to international
destinations.

You answered that no, there won't be any third rail-capable stock
cleared for the Channel Tunnel available.

My point is that there won't be any third-rail capable stock available
*because* the decision has been taken to abandon Waterloo. If Eurostar
had decided to retain a presence at Waterloo, then the Eurostar trains
wouldn't be losing their third-rail capability. Your answer says that
the decision not to run Waterloo/Lille (for example) is driven by the
rolling stock capability, whereas the rolling stock capability is
actually being driven by the decision not to use Waterloo anymore.

Rob.

In message .com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:





On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock
capable of using third rail cleared for CT use.

This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !

That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it.

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

- Show quoted text -

Er, I did read it. And I've read it again, several times.

Try understanding it next time.


The question asked if it would be possible to retain (not reintroduce)
at least some services from Waterloo International to international
destinations.

You answered that no, there won't be any third rail-capable stock
cleared for the Channel Tunnel available.

My point is that there won't be any third-rail capable stock available
*because* the decision has been taken to abandon Waterloo. If Eurostar
had decided to retain a presence at Waterloo, then the Eurostar trains
wouldn't be losing their third-rail capability. Your answer says that
the decision not to run Waterloo/Lille (for example) is driven by the
rolling stock capability, whereas the rolling stock capability is
actually being driven by the decision not to use Waterloo anymore.


Come back when you understand both question and answer.

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

On 11 Nov, 15:06, rail wrote:
In message .com
wrote:





On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

No, once the service starts from St Pancras there will be no stock
capable of using third rail cleared for CT use.

This is putting the cart before the horse.

The only reason why it's becoming possible to remove the shoegear from
the Eurostars is because a decision has been taken to run all
international services from St Pancras. If the decision had been to
run two terminals, with Waterloo keeping some of the traffic, then the
trains would have kept the shoegear.

It wasn't the decision to remove the shoegear that led to the closure
of Waterloo International !

That wasn't the question if you bothered to read it.

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

- Show quoted text -

Er, I did read it. And I've read it again, several times.

Try understanding it next time.







The question asked if it would be possible to retain (not reintroduce)
at least some services from Waterloo International to international
destinations.

You answered that no, there won't be any third rail-capable stock
cleared for the Channel Tunnel available.

My point is that there won't be any third-rail capable stock available
*because* the decision has been taken to abandon Waterloo. If Eurostar
had decided to retain a presence at Waterloo, then the Eurostar trains
wouldn't be losing their third-rail capability. Your answer says that
the decision not to run Waterloo/Lille (for example) is driven by the
rolling stock capability, whereas the rolling stock capability is
actually being driven by the decision not to use Waterloo anymore.

Come back when you understand both question and answer.

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

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I've had the decency to justify my understanding of both question and
answer. Are you gentleman enough to explain your understanding of the
question and answer?

Rob

In message . com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 15:06, rail wrote:
In message .com
wrote:





On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?


I've had the decency to justify my understanding of both question and
answer. Are you gentleman enough to explain your understanding of the
question and answer?


The question was would it be feasible to run international services from
Waterloo after E* moved to St Pancras. The answer is no because the only
stock that could operate such a service is having its third rail capabilty
removed and no one else inrends to build stock with that capacity. Further
the facilities that enable such services to operate from Waterloo have been
or are being removed and the track layout is going to be remodelled.

And no, I have never claimed to be a gentleman.

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