After the Ball is over - Waterloo International
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.
|