On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:42:40 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:26:19 -0700 (PDT), Neal
wrote:

I personally think it should be branded as part of and integrated into
the Crossrail system rather than 'Thameslink' so that we move to a
more Paris style - Metro / RER (Tube / Crossrail).

I suppose that fits with the branding, as Crossrail would then have a
network in the shape of a cross.


Or, you could call Thameslink "First Capital Connect" and Crossrail
"Second Capital Connect".

The Chelsea-Hackney route would be "Third Capital Connect".

;-)

In message , at 15:36:21
on Wed, 11 Aug 2010, remarked:
Actually, I don't know how the Kings Cross Premier Inn attracts so
much business at that price, because the Euston Ibis (in no way
inferior to the Premier Inn, IMO) is only £109 and the St Pancras
Novotel is close by, and with a considerably higher level of
service and comfort is only £175.

There seems to be some premium for being anywhere near the centre of
London. A work colleague who sometimes arranges overnight accommodation
uses the Putney Bridge Premier Inn because it doesn't charge inner London
rates. I guess "Kew" is similar.

Last few times I stayed at a near-KX Travelodge it was £75, £81, £86 and
£79 a night. All midweek.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:52:23 +0100, Scott
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:19:39 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
[snip]

What on earth has Cambridge got to do with anything? Why not include
Newquay in your comparison? Or Thurso?

Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?


It must be very near Kings Cross. ;-)

As little as 45 minutes, in fact.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:42:40 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:26:19 -0700 (PDT), Neal
wrote:

I personally think it should be branded as part of and integrated into
the Crossrail system rather than 'Thameslink' so that we move to a
more Paris style - Metro / RER (Tube / Crossrail).

I suppose that fits with the branding, as Crossrail would then have a
network in the shape of a cross.

Or, you could call Thameslink "First Capital Connect" and Crossrail
"Second Capital Connect".

The Chelsea-Hackney route would be "Third Capital Connect".

Or how about Thameslink as it is, the ELL as Thameslink East, and the WLL
as Thameslink West.

Thameslink for up/down, and Crossrail for left/right. (Er that might be
left/right ish - in the case of Chelney)...

Paul S

On 11/08/2010 22:00, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:52:23 +0100, Scott
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:19:39 +0100,
wrote:
[snip]

What on earth has Cambridge got to do with anything? Why not include
Newquay in your comparison? Or Thurso?

Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. I don't know.
Where is Cambridge anyway?


It must be very near Kings Cross. ;-)

If you are at King's Cross, the [well known UK city of] Cambridge might
be quicker to get to by train than parts of Greater London. I suspect
no-one would be too shocked at someone travelling from Heathrow to
central London by Piccadilly Line, which takes about three weeks or
something. St Pancras Thameslink to the hotels of Sutton isn't exactly fast.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 11 Aug, 13:02, Jeremy Double wrote:
On 11/08/2010 06:52, bob wrote:

When I was helping some German friends plan a weekend away in London,
a bit of research found that the best bet for budget hotels in a
reasonably central location was in the area around Kings Cross (and I
don't mean by-the-hour hotels either), and for getting to either the
area around the tower, or to St Pauls and across to the Tate Modern,
Thameslink proved to be quite a useful route. *Also handy for pax
flying via Gatwick. *By all accounts, plenty of other tourists had
come to the same conclusion regarding hotels.

Although I have stayed in the Kings Cross/St Pancras area a few times,
because the area is convenient for travel to/from London (both Yorkshire
and the continent via Eurostar), I don't see it as being particularly
cheap. *Indeed, the Kings Cross Premier Inn is the most expensive
Premier Inn I have stayed at...

Given the availability of Travelcards etc, if I wanted to stay more
cheaply in the London area, I would look at somewhere a little out of
the centre... e.g. for a random date in September, the Premier Inn
called "London Kew" (actually it's in Brentford) is £87 per room,
compared with £150 for "London Kings Cross St Pancras". *For my random
date in August, there was no availability at the Kings Cross Premier Inn.

Actually, I don't know how the Kings Cross Premier Inn attracts so much
business at that price, because the Euston Ibis (in no way inferior to
the Premier Inn, IMO) is only £109 and the St Pancras Novotel is close
by, and with a considerably higher level of service and comfort is only
£175.

(All prices taken from the relevant hotel chain's website, to give a
fair comparison).
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos athttp://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/

The discussions here are exactly the reason why I started this thread
(I'm on a different account now)

I always stay in the Kings Cross/Euston area due to the proximity with
the mainline stations from the North, no need to carry luggage on the
tube, plus there is access to many tube lines from KX/SP tube station
and many bus services to Oxford Street/Trafalgar Square etc.

Now that Oyster Pay as you Go is valid on National Rail (although it
may already have been valid on Thameslink? but was all a bit vague and
confusing), I used the Thameslink route for the first time this year,
and realised that once Blackfriars south bank entrance is open, it
will be a handy link straight to the south bank and the popular thames
walkway/London Eye/Tate Modern/Millennium Bridge etc. At off peak
times a more comfortable journey than using the Northern line from
Euston.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:45:20 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

If you are at King's Cross, the [well known UK city of] Cambridge might
be quicker to get to by train than parts of Greater London.

I've often made the point that, depending on where you're going to
exactly, a commute to London from Milton Keynes or even Rugby may be
quicker than one from somewhere within the Travelcard zones.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Aug 11, 11:06*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:45:20 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
If you are at King's Cross, the [well known UK city of] Cambridge might
be quicker to get to by train than parts of Greater London.

I've often made the point that, depending on where you're going to
exactly, a commute to London from Milton Keynes or even Rugby may be
quicker than one from somewhere within the Travelcard zones.

Just don't tell Michael Bell that - he seems to think you can get from
anywhere to anywhere in (Greater) London in less than an hour.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 16:33:21 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:06*pm, Neil Williams
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:45:20 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:
If you are at King's Cross, the [well known UK city of] Cambridge might
be quicker to get to by train than parts of Greater London.

I've often made the point that, depending on where you're going to
exactly, a commute to London from Milton Keynes or even Rugby may be
quicker than one from somewhere within the Travelcard zones.

Just don't tell Michael Bell that - he seems to think you can get from
anywhere to anywhere in (Greater) London in less than an hour.


In Ringby, it will only take twenty/ten/five/two minutes.

(please delete unwanted options)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:24:23 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 20:42:40 +0100, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:26:19 -0700 (PDT), Neal
wrote:

I personally think it should be branded as part of and integrated into
the Crossrail system rather than 'Thameslink' so that we move to a
more Paris style - Metro / RER (Tube / Crossrail).

I suppose that fits with the branding, as Crossrail would then have a
network in the shape of a cross.

Or, you could call Thameslink "First Capital Connect" and Crossrail
"Second Capital Connect".

The Chelsea-Hackney route would be "Third Capital Connect".

Or how about Thameslink as it is, the ELL as Thameslink East, and the WLL
as Thameslink West.


"Fourth Capital Connect" and "Fifth Capital Connect", please!


Thameslink for up/down, and Crossrail for left/right. (Er that might be
left/right ish - in the case of Chelney)...


That would be too logical. It might actually help people. ;-)

Seriously, though, what about Line 1, Line 2, Line 3 etc..? The
numbers would differentiate our "RER" from our "Metro".

Crossrail and Thameslink are non-intuitive. We already have lots of
"cross London railways", for example the Central, Piccadilly, Northern
and Victoria lines. We already have several "cross Thames links"
including the ELL, WLL, DLR and Northern Line. We have Underground
lines with names and colours, so how about giving the overground/heavy
rail lines numbers?

Just a thought.