"Da Man" wrote in message
...
I personally think that your suggestion would be more confusing and
inconvenient. I live south of the river and it already takes me 30
minutes
to get to Waterloo. I'd rather not spend another 30 minutes getting to
St.
Pancras.

Is that not what Ashford is for?


Not much use if you live in South West London, Surrey, Hampshire or
Berkshire. Why would you want to take a slow domestic service to Ashford to
join E*?

Ed Crowley wrote:

I personally think that your suggestion would be more confusing and
inconvenient. I live south of the river and it already takes me 30 minutes
to get to Waterloo. I'd rather not spend another 30 minutes getting to St.
Pancras.



Well everyone north of the river have had to put up with the cross
london journey to get to Waterloo for the last 10 years.

And the St Pancras route will be 20 mins quicker to Ashford than from
Waterloo.

Actually, I suspect the decision to keep both Waterloo and St Pancras
open was made just so that the SRA, or whoever runs the railways these
days, can make a big point of London having *two* International Train
stations...

Stevie wrote:
It seems a bit strange that after they spend the billions of pounds on
the nice shiny new route and enlarging St Pancras they then carry on
using Waterloo.

Mind you, it would seem strange after the millions of pounds building a
lovely international terminal at Waterloo not to use it

Stuart wrote:
Stevie wrote:
It seems a bit strange that after they spend the billions of pounds on
the nice shiny new route and enlarging St Pancras they then carry on
using Waterloo.

Mind you, it would seem strange after the millions of pounds building a
lovely international terminal at Waterloo not to use it

Yeah and think of the fun we've all had at having French visitors to the UK
arriving in London at a station called Waterloo! St.Pancras just doesn't
have the same er....ring to it, does it? :-)

"Stephen O'Connell" wrote the
following in:

Stuart wrote:
Stevie wrote:
It seems a bit strange that after they spend the billions of
pounds on
the nice shiny new route and enlarging St Pancras they then
carry on using Waterloo.

Mind you, it would seem strange after the millions of pounds
building a lovely international terminal at Waterloo not to use
it

Yeah and think of the fun we've all had at having French visitors
to the UK arriving in London at a station called Waterloo!
St.Pancras just doesn't have the same er....ring to it, does it?
:-)

It's always reminded me of the organ which is defective in diabetics.

--
message by Robin May, consumer of liquids
If bathroom means toilet in America, I'll have a shower please.

Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort.

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:42:56 +0100 Stuart wrote:
} Stevie wrote:
} It seems a bit strange that after they spend the billions of pounds on
} the nice shiny new route and enlarging St Pancras they then carry on
} using Waterloo.
}
} Mind you, it would seem strange after the millions of pounds building a
} lovely international terminal at Waterloo not to use it

When Waterloo International was built it was planned to be temporary.
ISTR that after the completion of the "real" international station the
platforms at Waterloo would be used for domestic services - they are at
the same level as the older platforms.

If international services persisted from Waterloo then presumably they
would have to retain the segregation for immigration control. That
seems an expensive option given both how much space could be put to
other purposes and the duplication with St Pancras.

Matthew
--
Záhid sharáb píné dé, masjid mein baith kar
ya woh jagah batá dé jahán Khudá na ho.
http://www.calmeilles.co.uk/

"Stevie" wrote in message
.. .
Ed Crowley wrote:

I personally think that your suggestion would be more confusing and
inconvenient. I live south of the river and it already takes me 30
minutes
to get to Waterloo. I'd rather not spend another 30 minutes getting to
St.
Pancras.



Well everyone north of the river have had to put up with the cross
london journey to get to Waterloo for the last 10 years.

So your logic is to inconvenience South Londoners because North Londoners
have been in the past? Surely it's better to provide a convenient terminal
both sides of the river, given that cross-London interchanges are such a
pain in the arse (especially with luggage).

And the St Pancras route will be 20 mins quicker to Ashford than from
Waterloo.

Not if you live in South London with a 30 minute Tube journey added on!

Actually, I suspect the decision to keep both Waterloo and St Pancras
open was made just so that the SRA, or whoever runs the railways these
days, can make a big point of London having *two* International Train
stations...

I think it's to get value out of the existing Waterloo terminal, provide
another convenient interchange and to provide a backup in case of a problem
at St. Pancras.

"Stevie" wrote in message
.. .

Actually, I suspect the decision to keep both Waterloo
and St Pancras open was made just so that the SRA,
or whoever runs the railways these days, can make
a big point of London having *two* International Train
stations...

Three (Stratford).

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

In article ,
Stevie wrote:
days, can make a big point of London having *two* International Train
stations...

Three. Or is Newham not London?


--
Good night little fishey-wishes.... I've counted you, so no
sneaky eating each other.
-- FW (should I worry?)

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 06:22:06 +0000 (UTC), Mike Bristow
wrote:

In article ,
Stevie wrote:
days, can make a big point of London having *two* International Train
stations...

Three. Or is Newham not London?

Are you asking if the London Borough of Newham is in London?


Cheers,

Jason.