|
Eusless
Shouldn't the high speed line run from St Pancras, as an extension (via reversal) of the Kent domestics? -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Eusless
On Mar 12, 5:49*am, "Basil Jet"
wrote: Shouldn't the high speed line run from St Pancras, as an extension (via reversal) of the Kent domestics? That would most likely cause a punctuality problem, just like on some of the long XC routes. And in any case, Euston, unlike St. P, has spare capacity (especially as the 9tph WCML service is likely to be thinned out) so is an obvious choice. Neil |
Eusless
On Mar 12, 4:49*am, "Basil Jet" wrote: Shouldn't the high speed line run from St Pancras, as an extension (via reversal) of the Kent domestics? The HS2 plan for Euston is big - a £1 billion rebuild leading to 10 high-speed platforms and 14 'classic' platforms. It also commandeers some space beyond the western edge of the current station perimeter. See the PDF leaflet: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...df/leaflet.pdf |
Eusless
In message , at 04:49:03 on Fri,
12 Mar 2010, Basil Jet remarked: Shouldn't the high speed line run from St Pancras, as an extension (via reversal) of the Kent domestics? Not enough platforms, and there's be the mother of all flat junctions just outside the station. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Mar 12, 9:56*am, Mizter T wrote:
The HS2 plan for Euston is big - a £1 billion rebuild leading to 10 high-speed platforms and 14 'classic' platforms. It also commandeers some space beyond the western edge of the current station perimeter. Interesting. Why on earth build three shorter domestic platforms when there appears to be room to make them all the same length? (Or are they 16 and 12 rather than 12 and 8-car?) I wonder what the intention for the Great Hall is? I hope they retain one and don't go for a lower-ceilinged replacement like the temporary dump down the road at Kings Cross. Neil |
Eusless
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:04:59 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 04:49:03 on Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Basil Jet remarked: Shouldn't the high speed line run from St Pancras, as an extension (via reversal) of the Kent domestics? Not enough platforms, and there's be the mother of all flat junctions just outside the station. It won't be very attractive to international travellers if once they arrive at St P. they have to schlep over to euston or paddington with all their luggage by foot or tube. Would a large junction matter? Its not like theres trains leaving every minute clapham junction style. B2003 |
Eusless
On Mar 12, 11:15*am, wrote:
It won't be very attractive to international travellers if once they arrive at St P. they have to schlep over to euston or paddington with all their luggage by foot or tube. Would a large junction matter? Its not like theres trains leaving every minute clapham junction style. Euston currently has 9tph of IC services. I would anticipate that most or all of those would be replicated/replaced on the HSL, maybe more. That's too much for complex junctions. It's no more or less attractive to international travellers than a large airport. Better than swapping terminals at Thiefrow, and probably a shorter walk than between two most distant gates at Gatwick as well. And St. P is full. It was too small to start with for what has been crammed into it, in domestic terms. Yet a move there would leave Euston only needing about 6-7 of its 17 platforms, which would be a bit wasteful. Neil |
Eusless
|
Eusless
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:42:54 +0000
eastender wrote: In article , d wrote: It won't be very attractive to international travellers if once they arrive at St P. they have to schlep over to euston or paddington with all their luggage by foot or tube. Paris is worse - say getting from Gare du Nord to Gare de Lyon. Although Yes , thats true. Though on its rare excursions to the alps eurostar can skirt paris. I wonder if something similar would be possible with HS2. B2003 |
Eusless
|
Eusless
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:00:19 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: International pax wanting to travel onward have been estimated at just two trains-full a day, apparently. But does that take into account potential through running from the midlands when people there find its a lot easier to get to france etc? Would a large junction matter? Its not like theres trains leaving every minute clapham junction style. There would be, once you've combined the HS1 and HS2 traffic. But if HS2 doesn't intersect with HS1 then thats the point of it? All it'll do is knock 30 mins of the trip to birmingham. It won't make getting too or from france any easier for travellers. I don't get it. B2003 |
Eusless
Mizter T wrote:
See the PDF leaflet: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...df/leaflet.pdf It doesn't make it clear whether the work involves rotating the station and surrounding roads by 90 degrees or whether they are moving the north pole to Brazil. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Eusless
|
Eusless
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:28:41 +0000
Paul Terry wrote: I think a key issues will be whether a through service to Paris could compete with the cheap airlines on cost grounds. The report into the failure of Regional Eurostar concluded that trains couldn't complete with low-cost direct plane fares to Paris from regional airports. If HS2 is built, the journey times will be attractive, but my guess is that fares will still not be competitive enough to move many away from flying - unless, of course, air fares rise substantially, which is not impossible. Theres more to it than price though. A lot of people don't like flying and find the whole airport and security experience unpleasent. Plus in the particular case of Paris CDG its right out in the sticks and you need to get a train or taxi into central paris anyway. Regional eurostar was also done when people had to cross london to waterloo. Now they could (in theory) step across the platform , or at least only walk 100 metres from which would make it a lot more attractive. B2003 |
Eusless
|
Eusless
In message , at 14:28:41 on Fri,
12 Mar 2010, Paul Terry remarked: International pax wanting to travel onward have been estimated at just two trains-full a day, apparently. But does that take into account potential through running from the midlands when people there find its a lot easier to get to france etc? I think a key issues will be whether a through service to Paris could compete with the cheap airlines on cost grounds. The report into the failure of Regional Eurostar concluded that trains couldn't complete with low-cost direct plane fares to Paris from regional airports. If HS2 is built, the journey times will be attractive, but my guess is that fares will still not be competitive enough to move many away from flying - unless, of course, air fares rise substantially, which is not impossible. And there's more to France than Paris, and more to the Continent than France. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:08:38 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: And there's more to France than Paris, and more to the Continent than France. Hopefully Euseless Eurostar will lose their monopoly on international services and we'll get a proper range of through services from St P. B2003 |
Eusless
|
Eusless
|
Eusless
On 12/03/2010 11:42, eastender wrote:
In , d wrote: It won't be very attractive to international travellers if once they arrive at St P. they have to schlep over to euston or paddington with all their luggage by foot or tube. Paris is worse - say getting from Gare du Nord to Gare de Lyon. Although I guess you can go via Charles de Gaulle airport. Paris Nord - Est is not too dissimilar to Euston - St Pancras. London even avoids stairs. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Eusless
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 12/03/2010 20:13, d wrote: On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:08:38 +0000 Roland wrote: And there's more to France than Paris, and more to the Continent than France. Hopefully Euseless Eurostar will lose their monopoly on international services and we'll get a proper range of through services from St P. There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since the start of the year. There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision to allow other rolling stock to be used... Paul S |
Eusless
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Basil Jet wrote:
Shouldn't the high speed line run from St Pancras, as an extension (via reversal) of the Kent domestics? Yes, of course it should. Did you really need to ask? Just as it needs to go via - via, not also to - Heathrow. And (eventually) run London - Brum - Manchester - Newcastle, not have two lines up each side of the country. All completely bloody obvious, and of course also completely beyond the grasp of everyone making the decisions. tom -- I fought the law and the law won. |
Eusless
In message , at 21:39:43 on
Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Paul Scott remarked: There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since the start of the year. There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision to allow other rolling stock to be used... Didn't they do that too? -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Mar 12, 9:40*pm, Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Basil Jet wrote: Shouldn't the high speed line run from St Pancras, as an extension (via reversal) of the Kent domestics? Yes, of course it should. Did you really need to ask? Just as it needs to go via - via, not also to - Heathrow. And (eventually) run London - Brum - Manchester - Newcastle, not have two lines up each side of the country. All completely bloody obvious, and of course also completely beyond the grasp of everyone making the decisions. "All completely bloody obvious..." - ??? And then some more ??? Er, why is it all so "bloody obvious" - how so? There's a huge amount of documentation in the overall HS2 report, with a fair amount about the various route options. Whilst it's not going to happen, it seems to be a slightly more rigorous exercise than merely shooting from the hip. |
Eusless
On Mar 12, 10:30*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 21:39:43 on Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Paul Scott remarked: There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since the start of the year. There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision to allow other rolling stock to be used... Didn't they do that too? I don't think the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission (IGC) has actually made any changes to the requirements yet. I think it was just Eurotunnel saying that they don't see the need for the requirement to have splitable passenger trains - but whilst Eurotunnel might have a strong position in terms of pushing for the change, they don't have the final say. And there are other requirements aside from that one - I think there's a load of fire resistance stuff. How many modifications an ICE set would need I've no idea, though my guess is that it'd need to be custom built from scratch rather than having it retrofitted. Simply because the press keeps on coming out with stuff saying that DB are on the cusp of running Chunnel services don't mean it is so... There's a few entities interested in keeping this idea ticking over in the public consciousness, such as Eurotunnel and HS1 who both want the extra traffic and hence extra income (the masterplan being that the government will flog HS1 soon, so talking up its traffic growth potential makes some sense). |
Eusless
Mizter T wrote:
Er, why is it all so "bloody obvious" - how so? Because having a 120 mile HSL from the northwest and a 50 mile HSL from the southeast both terminating in NW1 less than half a mile from each other is totally retarded. In fact, forget the reversal. There is not much in the Polygon Road/Brill Place area that wouldn't be improved by a wrecking ball. Build the new through station stretching between the north end of Euston and the north end of St Pancras. Extend all Kent Domestics forward to the north, so that the existing Euston would be big enough for the remaining high speed trains to the north without being extended sideways over Cardington Street. I suspect that to get the new through platforms flat you would have to sever Mornington Street, but that's no big deal. The current plan mostly involves the demolition of hotels and a closed tube station entrance, which would not lose votes in what is probably now a marginal constituency, whereas threatening to demolish half of Somerstown would. The current plan is a NIMBE plan (Negligable Impact on Marginal Before Election). It's all about the election, not about transport. -- We are the Strasbourg. Referendum is futile. |
Eusless
On 12/03/2010 21:39, Paul Scott wrote:
Arthur Figgis wrote: On 12/03/2010 20:13, d wrote: On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:08:38 +0000 Roland wrote: And there's more to France than Paris, and more to the Continent than France. Hopefully Euseless Eurostar will lose their monopoly on international services and we'll get a proper range of through services from St P. There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since the start of the year. There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision to allow other rolling stock to be used... How many people have had their application to use s TSI-compliant train rejected? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Eusless
In message . li, at
13:06:48 on Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson remarked: The sixth thing that's obvious is that connections from Heathrow to Europe have to be frequent (two an hour?), because people won't move from plane to train if they have to wait two hours for it. Where is this apparently single point called "Europe"? The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands. You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of other places they might want to be going instead? -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 12/03/2010 21:39, Paul Scott wrote: Arthur Figgis wrote: On 12/03/2010 20:13, d wrote: There hasn't been an monopoly on international rail services since the start of the year. There's something very like a monopoly unless they make a decision to allow other rolling stock to be used... How many people have had their application to use s TSI-compliant train rejected? How many have applied? I think it's all media speculation so far, that was certainly what came out in the discussion after all the 'DB to run to London' stories a few months ago. I'm pretty sure the rules haven't been relaxed yet, even if it is thought likely that they will be at some stage... Paul S |
Eusless
On Mar 13, 2:14*pm, Roland Perry wrote: In message . li, at 13:06:48 on Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson remarked: The sixth thing that's obvious is that connections from Heathrow to Europe have to be frequent (two an hour?), because people won't move from plane to train if they have to wait two hours for it. Where is this apparently single point called "Europe"? The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands. You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of other places they might want to be going instead? Paris, Europe... |
Eusless
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Roland Perry wrote:
In message . li, at 13:06:48 on Sat, 13 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson remarked: The sixth thing that's obvious is that connections from Heathrow to Europe have to be frequent (two an hour?), because people won't move from plane to train if they have to wait two hours for it. Where is this apparently single point called "Europe"? There is no single point called Europe, it's a sort of continent thingy, just to the east of Britain. I'm not sure where you got the idea it was point; certainly not from anything in my post. The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands. You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of other places they might want to be going instead? Doubtless fictional. I am even dubious about this alleged 'Paris'. I was deliberately vague about Europe because the trains could be going to all sorts of places - a small number now, but hopefully more in the future. Perhaps never as many as that airport, in which case perhaps HS2 should serve that too. tom -- That's the problem with google. You can usually find what you're looking for with a fairly simple search. It's knowing *which* fairly simple search out of the millions of possible fairly simple searches you need to use to find it ;-) -- Paul D |
Eusless
Tom Anderson wrote: The second thing that's obvious is that we need a high-speed service from Heathrow to Europe, so we can cut out lots of short-haul connecting flights. No, it's not obvious at all. Well, all right, if you're going to view HS2 as primarily a device for cutting lots of short haul connecting flights, then that could be an obvious way to do it. But it's not obvious why HS2 should be viewed that way in the first place. -- _ ___ ___ | | __ _ _ _ (_-/ _ \| |/ _` || '_| /__/\___/|_|\__,_||_| _ _ __ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ (_) _ _ | '_ \/ -_)| ' \ / _` || || || || ' \ | .__/\___||_||_|\__, | \_,_||_||_||_| |_| |___/ |
Eusless
In message i, at
00:53:45 on Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson remarked: The sixth thing that's obvious is that connections from Heathrow to Europe have to be frequent (two an hour?), because people won't move from plane to train if they have to wait two hours for it. Where is this apparently single point called "Europe"? There is no single point called Europe, it's a sort of continent thingy, just to the east of Britain. I'm not sure where you got the idea it was point; certainly not from anything in my post. It's the part where you say "2tph Heathrow to Europe". Unless people reckon that's been delivered when they pass Calais, 2tph to "somewhere in Europe" is likely to be one train every two hours to Paris plus one or two trains a day to a couple of dozen other places. The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands. You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of other places they might want to be going instead? Doubtless fictional. What's fictional about a list of places (on the mainland, not holiday islands) flown to from an airport? I am even dubious about this alleged 'Paris'. As far as I can see most people seem to assume that a shuttle to Paris, plus a change of train, is equivalent to "a through service to Europe" :( I was deliberately vague about Europe because the trains could be going to all sorts of places - a small number now, but hopefully more in the future. Perhaps never as many as that airport, in which case Of course, the airport I mentioned was a small regional one. Lots more places to try to serve if you are attempting to replace flights from Heathrow. perhaps HS2 should serve that too. Apparently it will - East Midlands Interchange will be a a couple of miles away. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message , at 09:27:25 on
Sun, 14 Mar 2010, solar penguin remarked: The second thing that's obvious is that we need a high-speed service from Heathrow to Europe, so we can cut out lots of short-haul connecting flights. No, it's not obvious at all. He's not very clear what these "connecting flights" are, but if it's short-haul to places like CDG (which isn't served by Eurostar, although it passes the end of the runway), Amsterdam, Frankfurt, to get an onward long haul, then you could have the same effect by regulating prices so it's economic to fly direct from London. Currently the "two leg" flights are cheaper, because the airlines price-gouge people who insist on direct flights - and then fill up the plane with less impatient folks for a more realistic fare. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, solar penguin wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: The second thing that's obvious is that we need a high-speed service from Heathrow to Europe, so we can cut out lots of short-haul connecting flights. No, it's not obvious at all. Well, all right, if you're going to view HS2 as primarily a device for cutting lots of short haul connecting flights, then that could be an obvious way to do it. But it's not obvious why HS2 should be viewed that way in the first place. Is there anything in that paragraph that mentions HS2? No. That paragraph just says that it's obvious that we need such a service. Indeed, my first paragraph stated a view of HS2 as primarily a Brum-Lon service; other paragraphs went on to demonstrate that it's obvious that the short-haul replacer service should be part of it. tom -- For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work, so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important, and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming |
Eusless
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:27:25 on Sun, 14 Mar 2010, solar penguin remarked: The second thing that's obvious is that we need a high-speed service from Heathrow to Europe, so we can cut out lots of short-haul connecting flights. No, it's not obvious at all. He's not very clear what these "connecting flights" are, but if it's short-haul to places like CDG (which isn't served by Eurostar, although it passes the end of the runway), Amsterdam, Frankfurt, to get an onward long haul, then you could have the same effect by regulating prices so it's economic to fly direct from London. Apologies, i should have been clearer. I was thinking of passengers arriving at Heathrow from outside Europe, and then heading on to places in Europe. I understand from this business about Heathrow being a 'hub' that there is quite a lot of these passengers. tom -- For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work, so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important, and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming |
Eusless
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Roland Perry wrote:
In message i, at 00:53:45 on Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson remarked: The sixth thing that's obvious is that connections from Heathrow to Europe have to be frequent (two an hour?), because people won't move from plane to train if they have to wait two hours for it. Where is this apparently single point called "Europe"? There is no single point called Europe, it's a sort of continent thingy, just to the east of Britain. I'm not sure where you got the idea it was point; certainly not from anything in my post. It's the part where you say "2tph Heathrow to Europe". Unless people reckon that's been delivered when they pass Calais, 2tph to "somewhere in Europe" is likely to be one train every two hours to Paris plus one or two trains a day to a couple of dozen other places. Fair enough. All of which reinforces the point about needing high frequencies - if there's, say, 1 tph from Heathrow total, that means 0.25 tph to people's actual destinations. Lots more than that is needed. The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands. You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of other places they might want to be going instead? Doubtless fictional. What's fictional about a list of places (on the mainland, not holiday islands) flown to from an airport? That was a joke. I was being theatrically dismissive of your argument for an attempted comic effect. I am even dubious about this alleged 'Paris'. As far as I can see most people seem to assume that a shuttle to Paris, plus a change of train, is equivalent to "a through service to Europe" :( Yes, sorry. I sort of dream of some sunlit uplands of the future where we have a proper international service from London, rather than just trains to Paris, Brussels, and EuroDismal. I was deliberately vague about Europe because the trains could be going to all sorts of places - a small number now, but hopefully more in the future. Perhaps never as many as that airport, in which case Of course, the airport I mentioned was a small regional one. Lots more places to try to serve if you are attempting to replace flights from Heathrow. Replacing all of them would be impossible - replacing 50% of the actual flights might be possible, if most of the passengers are going to a small number of destinations. I have no numbers to suggest that's the case, but most things are that way, power-law distributions and all that. perhaps HS2 should serve that too. Apparently it will - East Midlands Interchange will be a a couple of miles away. Aha, not in my version of the plan it won't! tom -- For the first few years I ate lunch with he mathematicians. I soon found that they were more interested in fun and games than in serious work, so I shifted to eating with the physics table. There I stayed for a number of years until the Nobel Prize, promotions, and offers from other companies, removed most of the interesting people. So I shifted to the corresponding chemistry table where I had a friend. At first I asked what were the important problems in chemistry, then what important problems they were working on, or problems that might lead to important results. One day I asked, "if what they were working on was not important, and was not likely to lead to important things, they why were they working on them?" After that I had to eat with the engineers! -- R. W. Hamming |
Eusless
In message , at 10:08:51 on Sun, 14 Mar
2010, Roland Perry remarked: What's fictional about a list of places (on the mainland, not holiday islands) flown to from an airport? As an update, I'm at Luton airport at the moment... flights leaving between 18.00 and 19.10 a Glasgow (hmm) Geneva Barcelona Nice Amsterdam Milan Berlin Belfast (Not HS capable) Paris Dortmund There's an electric railway at the bottom of the hill, with frequent (but slow) trains to St Pancras. Unfortunately, from further north than Bedford there's only 1tph (which is why I drove, in addition to an aversion to trying to use railways to do anything predictable on a Sunday). [1] Interestingly, none of these are what I'd call "winter-sun holiday destinations", which tend to dominate at some other regional airports. -- Roland Perry |
Eusless
In message , Roland Perry
writes Of course, the airport I mentioned was a small regional one. Lots more places to try to serve if you are attempting to replace flights from Heathrow. However, Paris is (by a considerable margin) the most popular destination from Heathrow, with 60 flights a day (despite Eurostar). Second most popular are Amsterdam and Dublin (50 flights), after which comes Frankfurt (40 flights), New York (42 flights), Edinburgh (40 flights), Manchester (36 flights), Brussels (30 flights), Glasgow (28 flights) and Aberdeen (also 28 flights). Amsterdam might lend itself to a direct train service, especially now that the high-speed line from Brussels is open, but it's quite a dog-leg of a journey from London, and would take considerably longer than flying even allowing for the long check-in times at airports. Frankfurt is another possible destination, via the new fast line to Cologne. But what is really needed to reduce flights from Heathrow is a direct train service (HS2) to Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow and possibly Aberdeen, since a very large amount of Heathrow's traffic is actually domestic. -- Paul Terry |
Eusless
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message i, at 00:53:45 on Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Tom Anderson remarked: The sixth thing that's obvious is that connections from Heathrow to Europe have to be frequent (two an hour?), because people won't move from plane to train if they have to wait two hours for it. Where is this apparently single point called "Europe"? There is no single point called Europe, it's a sort of continent thingy, just to the east of Britain. I'm not sure where you got the idea it was point; certainly not from anything in my post. It's the part where you say "2tph Heathrow to Europe". Unless people reckon that's been delivered when they pass Calais, 2tph to "somewhere in Europe" is likely to be one train every two hours to Paris plus one or two trains a day to a couple of dozen other places. The other day I posted a list of ten separate destinations served in a couple of hours from the much smaller airport, East Midlands. You might delight everyone with 2tph to Paris, but what of the dozens of other places they might want to be going instead? Doubtless fictional. What's fictional about a list of places (on the mainland, not holiday islands) flown to from an airport? I am even dubious about this alleged 'Paris'. As far as I can see most people seem to assume that a shuttle to Paris, For most destinations Brussels is a better connecting point, even if only because you don't have to change stations tim |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk