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

On 11 Nov, 21:56, rail wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's what I thought you meant.

And it would be possible to run Eurostars from Waterloo, if Eurostar
decided it was commercially worthwhile. They don't have to
decommission the third rail kit if they don't want to. The "no turning
back" point for the future of international trains from Waterloo was
signing agreements to hand the station back to the UK authorities. The
decision to remove the third rail kit followed from this - it wasn't
the cause.

Rob.

In message . com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 21:56, rail wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's what I thought you meant.

And it would be possible to run Eurostars from Waterloo, if Eurostar
decided it was commercially worthwhile.

No they won't they don't have the stock or the facilities any longer. It is
very simple and all wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change it.
The question wasn't is it possible but is it feasible, it isn't.

They don't have to
decommission the third rail kit if they don't want to. The "no turning
back" point for the future of international trains from Waterloo was
signing agreements to hand the station back to the UK authorities. The
decision to remove the third rail kit followed from this - it wasn't
the cause.


I never said it was, that was your fantasy.

The no turning back point was the economic decision that there was no
business case for running two international termini a couple of miles apart.
Especially when one has a dedicated high speed line for access and the other
has to run through some of the most congested lines in the world.

Whatever fantasies you come up with does not alter the fact that it is no
longer feasible to operate International services from Waterloo.

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