"Jack Taylor" wrote in message k...
The majority of services will use St Pancras but there will still be
regular, timetabled services into/out of Waterloo. Not everyone lives north
of the river!

Also, it's useful to keep driver knowledge of a diversionary route.

PhilD

--

The majority of services will use St Pancras but there will still be
regular, timetabled services into/out of Waterloo. Not everyone lives
north
of the river!


So I suppose that Waterloo and St Pancras are goin to be like Heathrow and
Gatwick for international services as such. If I was a visitor to the
country I would muchprefer it if all the international trains ran from the
on station. That way if you need to travel at short notice you can just turn
up at the terminal and book a ticket. With services from Waterloo and St
Pancras you will have to check timetables to see what station you need to be
at.

If they are going to keep the two international stations then I suggest that
maybe Brussels goes from one and Paris from the other. Just a
suggestion.....

"Da Man" wrote in message
...
The majority of services will use St Pancras but there will still be
regular, timetabled services into/out of Waterloo. Not everyone lives
north
of the river!


So I suppose that Waterloo and St Pancras are goin to be like Heathrow and
Gatwick for international services as such. If I was a visitor to the
country I would muchprefer it if all the international trains ran from the
on station. That way if you need to travel at short notice you can just
turn
up at the terminal and book a ticket. With services from Waterloo and St
Pancras you will have to check timetables to see what station you need to
be
at.

If they are going to keep the two international stations then I suggest
that
maybe Brussels goes from one and Paris from the other. Just a
suggestion.....

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.

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?

"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?

No. Ashford is for people who live in Kent, not South Londoners at the
mercy of the Tube.

"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 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 ,
John Rowland wrote:
"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).



Very handy (for me, in London E14:-)

And also for the Olympics??

Gordo

--
This is not my sig nature....
gordo AT loop zilla.org......