So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

Now that Eurostar has been running the full length of HS1 and has been
serving St. Pancras for a little over five months, who was right?

Did all of the people living in areas reachable from, via or in SW
London who used to go via Waterloo give up and go to Gatwick? Did
swarms of people that once stuffed themselves into the Underground and
Thameslink to get to Waterloo from Euston, KxSTP and Liverpool St now
just walk up to the St. Pancras turnstiles?

I'm curious to know if any hard data exists on how precisely the
ridership on Eurostar has altered as a result of the switch to St.
Pancras.

Also, as an aside - will the minimum UIC B+ structure gauge be taken
advantage of anytime soon by larger HSE-conforming TGVs anytime within
the next 10 years?

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In message
, at
08:26:52 on Sat, 10 May 2008, TheOneKEA remarked:
I'm curious to know if any hard data exists on how precisely the
ridership on Eurostar has altered as a result of the switch to St.
Pancras.

Eurostar claim that overall ridership is up about 30% with numbers of
passengers form the Midlands doubling.
--
Roland Perry

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:26:52 -0700 (PDT), TheOneKEA
wrote:

Now that Eurostar has been running the full length of HS1 and has been
serving St. Pancras for a little over five months, who was right?

Did all of the people living in areas reachable from, via or in SW
London who used to go via Waterloo give up and go to Gatwick? Did
swarms of people that once stuffed themselves into the Underground and
Thameslink to get to Waterloo from Euston, KxSTP and Liverpool St now
just walk up to the St. Pancras turnstiles?

I'm curious to know if any hard data exists on how precisely the
ridership on Eurostar has altered as a result of the switch to St.
Pancras.

I have seen no hard data at all. From my own experience of using the
Victoria Line I have certainly noticed a pronounced increase in people
with luggage heading to Kings Cross - largely from those stations south
of KX. Make what you will of that completely unscientific observation!

Kings Cross tube station also appears to impersonate "hell on earth" on
a fairly regular basis - despite all the improvement works. I just hope
the remaining work does something to take some of the pressure off.

--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In message , at 16:38:27 on
Sat, 10 May 2008, Paul Corfield remarked:
Kings Cross tube station also appears to impersonate "hell on earth" on
a fairly regular basis - despite all the improvement works. I just hope
the remaining work does something to take some of the pressure off.

It's a farce. Has so much disruption ever before produced so little
improvement?
--
Roland Perry

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:38:27
on Sat, 10 May 2008, Paul Corfield remarked:
Kings Cross tube station also appears to impersonate "hell on earth"
on a fairly regular basis - despite all the improvement works. I
just hope the remaining work does something to take some of the
pressure off.

It's a farce. Has so much disruption ever before produced so little
improvement?

Closing a road for a week to install "tables" (low speed bumps at the
entrances) must top that!

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

On May 10, 11:59 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:38:27 on
Sat, 10 May 2008, Paul Corfield remarked:

Kings Cross tube station also appears to impersonate "hell on earth" on
a fairly regular basis - despite all the improvement works. I just hope
the remaining work does something to take some of the pressure off.

It's a farce. Has so much disruption ever before produced so little
improvement?

Probably because the disruption is creating capacity for which demand
already exists. I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if the entire
Underground/NR complex is just as busy after the LU northern ticket
hall, direct links from Midland Road LL and the KX western ticket hall/
piazza works are finished - it would prove that the improvements were
done about 5-10 years too late.

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In message
, at
09:28:54 on Sat, 10 May 2008, TheOneKEA remarked:
Kings Cross tube station also appears to impersonate "hell on earth" on
a fairly regular basis - despite all the improvement works. I just hope
the remaining work does something to take some of the pressure off.

It's a farce. Has so much disruption ever before produced so little
improvement?

Probably because the disruption is creating capacity for which demand
already exists. I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if the entire
Underground/NR complex is just as busy after the LU northern ticket
hall, direct links from Midland Road LL and the KX western ticket hall/
piazza works are finished - it would prove that the improvements were
done about 5-10 years too late.

It also shows that the improvements are not sufficient. For the last ten
years the queues at the ticket offices have been unacceptably long, and
after the rebuilding, they still are. Why didn't they simply build more
ticket office positions?

--
Roland Perry

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

On May 10, 5:36*pm, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
09:28:54 on Sat, 10 May 2008, TheOneKEA remarked:

Kings Cross tube station also appears to impersonate "hell on earth" on
a fairly regular basis - despite all the improvement works. *I just hope
the remaining work does something to take some of the pressure off.

It's a farce. Has so much disruption ever before produced so little
improvement?

Probably because the disruption is creating capacity for which demand
already exists. I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if the entire
Underground/NR complex is just as busy after the LU northern ticket
hall, direct links from Midland Road LL and the KX western ticket hall/
piazza works are finished - it would prove that the improvements were
done about 5-10 years too late.

It also shows that the improvements are not sufficient. For the last ten
years the queues at the ticket offices have been unacceptably long, and
after the rebuilding, they still are. Why didn't they simply build more
ticket office positions?


That reminds me of a Two Ronnies joke about post offices.

"We all know the situation where there are four counters and three of
them are closed. Well, in future there will be twelve counters, and
eleven of them will be closed."

I arrived a Kings Cross from oop north in the evening a few months
back and needed to put some Oyster credit on for one journey home.

The ticket office was closed, so I stood in a long queue for a machine
that refused to take my money. A member of staff had a few attempts
at trying to get it to accept the perfectly good note and then told me
that there was a problem with that machine and I must now go and stand
in another long queue.

I asked why he and the other staff present didn't just open the ticket
office, which could deal with it easily, but they were all far too
busy running from queue to queue, helping punters who were having
problems with crappily-maintained machines, to answer my question.

I can't remember the exact hour, but the station was open and busy,
with lots of staff dealing very inefficiently with punters who were
desperately trying to hand over money.

Why couldn't they open the ticket office? Is it any wonder that some
people end up travelling without paying?

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
...
Now that Eurostar has been running the full length of HS1 and has been
serving St. Pancras for a little over five months, who was right?

Did all of the people living in areas reachable from, via or in SW
London who used to go via Waterloo give up and go to Gatwick? Did
swarms of people that once stuffed themselves into the Underground and
Thameslink to get to Waterloo from Euston, KxSTP and Liverpool St now
just walk up to the St. Pancras turnstiles?

All the bally-hoo about the half hour chopped off the London-Paris time is
somewhat moot for those of us who'd travel into Waterloo. That half hour
saved is spent making the unpleasant trip from Waterloo to St Pancras.

Ho hum!

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:38:27 on
Sat, 10 May 2008, Paul Corfield remarked:
Kings Cross tube station also appears to impersonate "hell on earth" on
a fairly regular basis - despite all the improvement works. I just hope
the remaining work does something to take some of the pressure off.

It's a farce. Has so much disruption ever before produced so little
improvement?

The West Coast Main Line upgrades ?

Nick
--
Serendipity: http://www.leverton.org/blosxom (last update 2nd April 2008)
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

Graculus wrote:
"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
...
Now that Eurostar has been running the full length of HS1 and has
been serving St. Pancras for a little over five months, who was
right? Did all of the people living in areas reachable from, via or in
SW
London who used to go via Waterloo give up and go to Gatwick? Did
swarms of people that once stuffed themselves into the Underground
and Thameslink to get to Waterloo from Euston, KxSTP and Liverpool
St now just walk up to the St. Pancras turnstiles?

All the bally-hoo about the half hour chopped off the London-Paris
time is somewhat moot for those of us who'd travel into Waterloo.
That half hour saved is spent making the unpleasant trip from
Waterloo to St Pancras.

I personally thought they should have kept a Eurostar Waterloo service,
even if only a limited service. But for people going that way it would
certainly save the trek across London. Plus the infrastructure was already
there!

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In message , at 04:56:44 on Sun,
11 May 2008, Stephen O'Connell remarked:
All the bally-hoo about the half hour chopped off the London-Paris
time is somewhat moot for those of us who'd travel into Waterloo.
That half hour saved is spent making the unpleasant trip from
Waterloo to St Pancras.

I personally thought they should have kept a Eurostar Waterloo service,
even if only a limited service. But for people going that way it would
certainly save the trek across London. Plus the infrastructure was
already there!

Apparently much of the [station] infrastructure was moved to Ebbsfleet.
And the station was in a poor state requiring refurbishment. It's just
not economic to keep all that stuff, and the staff to operate it,
hanging around for a few trains a day.
--
Roland Perry

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

"Stephen O'Connell" wrote in message
...
Graculus wrote:
"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
...
Now that Eurostar has been running the full length of HS1 and has
been serving St. Pancras for a little over five months, who was
right? Did all of the people living in areas reachable from, via or in
SW
London who used to go via Waterloo give up and go to Gatwick? Did
swarms of people that once stuffed themselves into the Underground
and Thameslink to get to Waterloo from Euston, KxSTP and Liverpool
St now just walk up to the St. Pancras turnstiles?

All the bally-hoo about the half hour chopped off the London-Paris
time is somewhat moot for those of us who'd travel into Waterloo.
That half hour saved is spent making the unpleasant trip from
Waterloo to St Pancras.

I personally thought they should have kept a Eurostar Waterloo service,
even if only a limited service. But for people going that way it would
certainly save the trek across London. Plus the infrastructure was already
there!

I had asked about this earlier, and apparently they had considered
maintaining some services to northern France or to Brussels. Alas, however,
this did not work out.

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In article , Graculus
writes
All the bally-hoo about the half hour chopped off the London-Paris time
is somewhat moot for those of us who'd travel into Waterloo. That half
hour saved is spent making the unpleasant trip from Waterloo to St
Pancras.

While for the rest of us, who travelled into King's Cross, we not only
gain half an hour on the main journey, but another half hour not making
the unpleasant trip to the unpleasant Waterloo.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org
Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work:
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 04:56:44 on Sun,
11 May 2008, Stephen O'Connell remarked:
All the bally-hoo about the half hour chopped off the London-Paris
time is somewhat moot for those of us who'd travel into Waterloo.
That half hour saved is spent making the unpleasant trip from
Waterloo to St Pancras.

I personally thought they should have kept a Eurostar Waterloo
service, even if only a limited service. But for people going that
way it would certainly save the trek across London. Plus the
infrastructure was already there!

Apparently much of the [station] infrastructure was moved to
Ebbsfleet. And the station was in a poor state requiring
refurbishment. It's just not economic to keep all that stuff, and the
staff to operate it, hanging around for a few trains a day.

They do it at Ashford Int don't they?!

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In message , at 16:52:42 on Sun,
11 May 2008, Stephen O'Connell remarked:
It's just not economic to keep all that stuff, and the
staff to operate it, hanging around for a few trains a day.

They do it at Ashford Int don't they?!

On a much smaller scale. I don't recall them ever having more than a
couple of ticket barriers and one x-ray machine in use, for example.
--
Roland Perry

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

On 10 May, 17:36, Roland Perry wrote:
It also shows that the improvements are not sufficient. For the last ten
years the queues at the ticket offices have been unacceptably long, and
after the rebuilding, they still are. Why didn't they simply build more
ticket office positions?

If the bottleneck is station capacity, which it is, then opening more
ticket office positions would be an expensive way of making things
worse.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

On 10 May, 17:36, Roland Perry wrote:
It also shows that the improvements are not sufficient. For the last ten
years the queues at the ticket offices have been unacceptably long, and
after the rebuilding, they still are. Why didn't they simply build more
ticket office positions?


I seem to recall you saying in a previous post that the lines to the TVMs
are very long. I would imgaine that this situation is exacerbated by people
who are not sure how to use them.

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In message
, at
02:23:56 on Mon, 12 May 2008, John B remarked:
It also shows that the improvements are not sufficient. For the last ten
years the queues at the ticket offices have been unacceptably long, and
after the rebuilding, they still are. Why didn't they simply build more
ticket office positions?

If the bottleneck is station capacity, which it is, then opening more
ticket office positions would be an expensive way of making things
worse.

Only if the queues mean that people decide not to travel [by tube].
Otherwise the rate of people joining and leaving the queue are roughly
the same, and has no effect on the instantaneous throughput.
--
Roland Perry

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In message , at 13:28:12 on Mon, 12
May 2008, remarked:
It also shows that the improvements are not sufficient. For the last ten
years the queues at the ticket offices have been unacceptably long, and
after the rebuilding, they still are. Why didn't they simply build more
ticket office positions?

I seem to recall you saying in a previous post that the lines to the TVMs
are very long. I would imgaine that this situation is exacerbated by people
who are not sure how to use them.

That is also a problem.
--
Roland Perry

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

"TheOneKEA" wrote in message
...
On May 10, 11:59 am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:38:27 on
Sat, 10 May 2008, Paul Corfield remarked:

Kings Cross tube station also appears to impersonate "hell on earth" on
a fairly regular basis - despite all the improvement works. I just hope
the remaining work does something to take some of the pressure off.

It's a farce. Has so much disruption ever before produced so little
improvement?

Probably because the disruption is creating capacity for which demand
already exists. I wouldn't be the least bit shocked if the entire
Underground/NR complex is just as busy after the LU northern ticket
hall, direct links from Midland Road LL and the KX western ticket hall/
piazza works are finished - it would prove that the improvements were
done about 5-10 years too late.

By 'Midland Road LL' do you mean the [currently unused] entrance at the east
end of the St Pancras domestic concourse - which will also add MML and the
Kent Domestic pax into the passageway to the Northern ticket hall?

I am unaware of any 'direct' connection from the low level platforms...

Paul

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

On 12 May, 20:56, "Paul Scott" wrote:
By 'Midland Road LL' do you mean the [currently unused] entrance at the east
end of the St Pancras domestic concourse - which will also add MML and the
Kent Domestic pax into the passageway to the Northern ticket hall?

Peter Hendy recently cited the Thameslink move as a major cause of
overcrowding because passengers who used to have a direct route to the
tube platforms are now using the same barriers and escalators. Giving
them a separate ticket hall ought to fix this, even if it's not a
direct route. It'll also more evenly distribute passengers along the
platforms (which can't come soon enough on the Northern Line).

U

--
http://londonconnections.blogspot.com/
A blog about transport projects in London

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

In message , at 20:56:34 on
Mon, 12 May 2008, Paul Scott remarked:
By 'Midland Road LL' do you mean the [currently unused] entrance at the east
end of the St Pancras domestic concourse - which will also add MML and the
Kent Domestic pax into the passageway to the Northern ticket hall?

It's not intended to be the exit for MML passengers - hence the way the
escalators from the MML platforms dump you too far south to be useful.

Someone posted a diagram with the flows on it a couple of months ago.
--
Roland Perry

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

On Sun, 11 May 2008 17:19:22 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 16:52:42 on Sun,
11 May 2008, Stephen O'Connell remarked:
It's just not economic to keep all that stuff, and the
staff to operate it, hanging around for a few trains a day.

They do it at Ashford Int don't they?!

On a much smaller scale. I don't recall them ever having more than a
couple of ticket barriers and one x-ray machine in use, for example.

Also keeping an intermediate station open for just a few trains a day
must be a much simpler matter than retaining a second terminal, and a
second route into London. Keeping Waterloo open in parallel with St
Pancras was certainly the original intention. Presumably, if nothing
else, removing the Eurostar trains' ability to run on thir rail would
have saved some costs, and was only possible once Waterloo had ceased
to be used as a terminal

Martin

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

On 13 May, 07:39, Martin Rich wrote:


Also keeping an intermediate station open for just a few trains a day
must be a much simpler matter than retaining a second terminal, and a
second route into London. *Keeping Waterloo open in parallel with St
Pancras was certainly the original intention. *Presumably, if nothing
else, removing the Eurostar trains' ability to run on thir rail would
have saved some costs, and was only possible once Waterloo had ceased
to be used as a terminal

Martin

Eurostar did hold off from making any public decision about Waterloo
for a while, but I think you'll find that there was very little chance
indeed of keeping the original international station along with St
Pancras.

Several reasons: (1) Removing third rail capability is not just a
matter of taking off the shoes: you can also dispose with some clunky
onboard transformers, and so on. Eurostars are burdened with several
on-board systems as it is, and losing one of them -- 750V DC -- was
welcome. (2) There is no way that Eurostar wanted to stay on any part
of the restricted loading gauge domestic network: the next generation
Eurostar may be double deck, according to CEO Richard Brown, and it
will certainly be UIC 'B' at least. That rules out Waterloo in the
longer term anyway. (3) The long international platforms at Waterloo
are wanted to increase domestic capacity, although the passenger
routes underneath will have to be reconstructed for commuter rather
than international flows. (4) The business case for keeping Waterloo
as well didn't stand up in any case -- even if (1) and (2) didn't come
into it.

Waterloo was always a compromise, because Britain didn't have a decent
LGV to the Tunnel from the start. Happily, the need for such a
compromise (third rail TGVs, for heaven's sake) is now history.

So, who was right about Eurostar ridership?
 

On Tue, 13 May 2008 00:29:33 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

(1) Removing third rail capability is not just a
matter of taking off the shoes: you can also dispose with some clunky
onboard transformers, and so on. Eurostars are burdened with several
on-board systems as it is, and losing one of them -- 750V DC -- was
welcome.

Given that the third rail supply is DC, I don't think the systems that
you would no longer need would have included transformers, though your
fundametal point is a sound one

Martin