|
Thameslink
A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near
to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. |
Thameslink
On Aug 10, 2:40*pm, West Yorkshire Bus
wrote: A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. Why was it taken out of the Underground map? It would help if there was a common fare structure in the inner area. |
Thameslink
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus
wrote: A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. The tourist area? Since when did Thameslink serve the London Eye, Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Oxford Street, Bond Street, Knightsbridge, Madame Tussauds and Regents Park? |
Thameslink
On Aug 10, 10:56*pm, 1506 wrote: On Aug 10, 2:40*pm, West Yorkshire Bus wrote: A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. Why was it taken out of the Underground map? *It would help if there was a common fare structure in the inner area. There kind of already is a common fare structure, on Thameslink at least. There's full 'interavailability' of LU tickets on Thameslink, meaning that within zone 1 single LU tickets can be used on Thameslink as if it were an Underground line (actually I think this interavailability applies to & from Kentish Town in zone 2 as well) - and passengers can change from LU to Thameslink or v.v. just as if they were interchanging between LU lines. Of course Travelcards and Oyster PAYG can be used on the line as well. However there are also 'Not Underground' fares available for say a London Bridge to St Pancras journey by Thameslink, these are limited to use on the Thameslink route only. I don't see any big deal about retaining these - I doubt that many are sold at all, but it does enable FCC to offer a cheaper fare than the £4 LU paper ticket single. In essence I don't think there's a ticketing issue here - not in this context at least. It gets more complicated when considering NR fares from further afield - those issued to "London Terminals" from points north are only valid to St Pancras and no further, and from points south are only valid as far as City Thameslink (but because of loose programming seem to operate the gates at St Pancras anyway!) - passengers travelling further need to specify that when they book their ticket and should get the appropriate ticket to a named destination (e.g. St Pancras, Farringdon etc). When was it taken off the Tube map - well, it's vanished off the map a number of years ago, well before the current Thameslink Programme works began. One can make a number of guesses as to why - the less frequent, slower, and at rush hour very busy service was perhaps considered a bit misleading to be included on the Tube map. The 'Great Northern Electrics' / Northern City line twixt Moorgate and Finsbury Park also used to feature, but that too went (at the same time?). AIUI the current thinking seems to be that the Thameslink Programme is going to get cut back somewhat - the signalling will be for 20tph rather than 24tph (for which the planners considered an ATO signalling system to be a requirement), it won't get the planned fleet of new trains, perhaps 'Key Output 2' (with the extensive Bermondsey duck-and- diveunder arrangements) will get put on the backburner - so the 'new generation' Thameslink service may be a little bit less Tube-like than had originally been thought. |
Thameslink
"Mizter T" wrote in message ... AIUI the current thinking seems to be that the Thameslink Programme is going to get cut back somewhat - the signalling will be for 20tph rather than 24tph (for which the planners considered an ATO signalling system to be a requirement), Did you miss the announcement (and ensuing thread started on the 29th July) about the 24 tph signalling contract being let by NR? Paul S |
Thameslink
On Aug 11, 12:11*am, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus wrote: A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. The tourist area? Since when did Thameslink serve the London Eye, Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Oxford Street, Bond Street, Knightsbridge, Madame Tussauds and Regents Park? 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. Robin |
Thameslink
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:52:52 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote: On Aug 11, 12:11*am, Bruce wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus wrote: A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. The tourist area? Since when did Thameslink serve the London Eye, Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Oxford Street, Bond Street, Knightsbridge, Madame Tussauds and Regents Park? 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. The reason that those areas are "the best bet for budget hotels" is that there is comparatively little demand. The majority of tourists stay in areas several miles west of Thameslink, none of which are remotely as seedy as Kings Cross, whose seediness and relative cheapness are directly connected. |
Thameslink
On 11 Aug, 09:34, Bruce wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:52:52 -0700 (PDT), bob wrote: On Aug 11, 12:11*am, Bruce wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus wrote: A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. The tourist area? Since when did Thameslink serve the London Eye, Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Oxford Street, Bond Street, Knightsbridge, Madame Tussauds and Regents Park? 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. The reason that those areas are "the best bet for budget hotels" is that there is comparatively little demand. *The majority of tourists stay in areas several miles west of Thameslink, none of which are remotely as seedy as Kings Cross, whose seediness and relative cheapness are directly connected. If there is comparitively little demand, why are there more hotel rooms within a 5 minute walk of King's Cross than in the whole of Cambridge (not exactly an unpopular city with the tourists)? I counted 4 large travelodges, 2 comfort inns, a premier inn, a novotel and (from a quick google search) 25 non-chain hotels. When I was showing my friends around, from the people swarming around these various hotels, I would guess that the vast majority were tourists (the dress sense, photographic equipment and propensity for european languages were all give aways). I suspect the real reason the hotels there work out cheap for tourists is that they are mostly serving the city-bound buisness market, and are prepared to let their rooms go cheaply at the weekends rather than stand empty. The area isn't nearly as seedy as it used to be, and it's jolly handy for Eurostar. Robin |
Thameslink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:25:19 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote: On 11 Aug, 09:34, Bruce wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:52:52 -0700 (PDT), bob wrote: On Aug 11, 12:11=A0am, Bruce wrote: On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus wrote: A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get nea= r to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. The tourist area? Since when did Thameslink serve the London Eye, Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Oxford Street, Bond Street, Knightsbridge, Madame Tussauds and Regents Park? 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. =A0Also handy for pax flying via Gatwick. =A0By all accounts, plenty of other tourists had come to the same conclusion regarding hotels. The reason that those areas are "the best bet for budget hotels" is that there is comparatively little demand. =A0The majority of tourists stay in areas several miles west of Thameslink, none of which are remotely as seedy as Kings Cross, whose seediness and relative cheapness are directly connected. If there is comparitively little demand, why are there more hotel rooms within a 5 minute walk of King's Cross than in the whole of Cambridge (not exactly an unpopular city with the tourists)? What on earth has Cambridge got to do with anything? Why not include Newquay in your comparison? Or Thurso? I counted 4 large travelodges, 2 comfort inns, a premier inn, a novotel and (from a quick google search) 25 non-chain hotels. That's a very tiny fraction of the number of hotels in the west of the city - the area that traditionally caters for tourists. When I was showing my friends around, from the people swarming around these various hotels, I would guess that the vast majority were tourists (the dress sense, photographic equipment and propensity for european languages were all give aways). I suspect the real reason the hotels there work out cheap for tourists is that they are mostly serving the city-bound buisness market, and are prepared to let their rooms go cheaply at the weekends rather than stand empty. In other words, you are talking about a business area whose hotels offer cheap deals to tourists only at weekends. You are talking about an area that has a tiny fraction of the number of hotel rooms in London's tourist areas, none of which are served by Thameslink. You don't appear to be able to see beyond the end of your nose, and as for your "inclusion" of Cambridge, thanks for the best laugh I've had so far today! ;-) |
Thameslink
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 at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/ |
Thameslink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:25:19 -0700 (PDT), bob
wrote: The reason that those areas are "the best bet for budget hotels" is that there is comparatively little demand. *The majority of tourists stay in areas several miles west of Thameslink, none of which are remotely as seedy as Kings Cross, whose seediness and relative cheapness are directly connected. If there is comparitively little demand, why are there more hotel rooms within a 5 minute walk of King's Cross than in the whole of Cambridge (not exactly an unpopular city with the tourists)? I counted 4 large travelodges, 2 comfort inns, a premier inn, a novotel and (from a quick google search) 25 non-chain hotels. Extend that by another 5 minutes and you get all the small 'b&b' type hotels around Tavistock Place and the Russell Square area. Hardly quiet, especially at this time of year. I've not been inside them but there are some nice looking places around Cartwright Gardens, a generous stone's throw from Euston and St. Pancras. I generally stay in that area when in London so I'm within walking distance of the station. Conclusion: The Poster Currently Known As Bruce doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. |
Thameslink
In message , at 13:14:05 on
Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Ivor The Engine remarked: The Poster Currently Known As Bruce doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. News at 11? -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink
In message , at 13:02:32 on
Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Jeremy Double remarked: 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... The one in Docklands is cheap, if there isn't an event at Excel. -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 15:38:15 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: News at 11? News at 13 I think! |
Thameslink
"Bruce" wrote in message
... On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus wrote: A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. The tourist area? Since when did Thameslink serve the London Eye, Houses of Parliament, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, Oxford Street, Bond Street, Knightsbridge, Madame Tussauds and Regents Park? You cannot ignore the fact that Thameslink runs through the middle of an area that is absolutely heaving with tourists - especially at weekends when it's (usually) not running, which may answer the OP's question. -- DAS |
Thameslink
Jeremy Double wrote on 11 August 2010
13:02:32 ... 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 It's the value that tourists place on proximity to Thameslink, obviously! :-) -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Thameslink
"David A Stocks" wrote in message ... On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:40:23 -0700 (PDT), West Yorkshire Bus wrote: A simple question, in a year or two when the Thameslink works get near to being finished, should the route be added (or be reinstated) onto the tube map? At the moment I feel that visitors to the city are not aware of the route and once Blackfriars is finished, are not aware of the handy link straight through the centre of the tourist area. You cannot ignore the fact that Thameslink runs through the middle of an area that is absolutely heaving with tourists - especially at weekends when it's (usually) not running, which may answer the OP's question. I think the basic answer to the OP's question is that the central part of the Thameslink route was removed from the 'tube map' long before the closures for the upgrade ever started, and therefore it is unlikely that when the closures are completed the route will reappear. Paul S |
Thameslink
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:37:59 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote: Jeremy Double wrote on 11 August 2010 13:02:32 ... 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 It's the value that tourists place on proximity to Thameslink, obviously! :-) Well, Thameslink *is* at the centre of the tourist area. Apparently, the tourist area has moved several miles just to be near Thameslink. ;-) |
Thameslink
In message , at 18:08:30 on
Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Bruce remarked: Well, Thameslink *is* at the centre of the tourist area. The number one attractions that overseas visitors I take to London want to see are Tower Bridge (but usually only the outside) and the Tower of London (on the inside). The third might be the London Dungeon. As all of these are east of Thameslink... it's as good away as any, to get close enough to then wonder how to do the last half mile. -- Roland Perry |
Thameslink
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). |
Thameslink
On 11/08/2010 13:14, Ivor The Engine wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:25:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote: The reason that those areas are "the best bet for budget hotels" is that there is comparatively little demand. The majority of tourists stay in areas several miles west of Thameslink, none of which are remotely as seedy as Kings Cross, whose seediness and relative cheapness are directly connected. If there is comparitively little demand, why are there more hotel rooms within a 5 minute walk of King's Cross than in the whole of Cambridge (not exactly an unpopular city with the tourists)? I counted 4 large travelodges, 2 comfort inns, a premier inn, a novotel and (from a quick google search) 25 non-chain hotels. Extend that by another 5 minutes and you get all the small 'b&b' type hotels around Tavistock Place and the Russell Square area. Hardly quiet, especially at this time of year. I've not been inside them but there are some nice looking places around Cartwright Gardens, a generous stone's throw from Euston and St. Pancras. I generally stay in that area when in London so I'm within walking distance of the station. There are also Youth Hostels at St Pancras and somewhere in the City not far from Thameslink. Conclusion: The Poster Currently Known As Bruce doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. Have you heard the latest news from the zoologists who are studying the tioletry habits of bears? -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Thameslink
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? |
Thameslink
On Aug 11, 6:52*pm, 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? On the A38 between Glocester and Bristol (although I suspect it's pronounced with a short "a" as per the nearby village of Cam). |
Thameslink
On 11/08/2010 18:52, 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? Gloucestershire. -- Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK |
Thameslink
On Aug 11, 7:42*pm, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 11/08/2010 13:14, Ivor The Engine wrote: On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 02:25:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote: The reason that those areas are "the best bet for budget hotels" is that there is comparatively little demand. *The majority of tourists stay in areas several miles west of Thameslink, none of which are remotely as seedy as Kings Cross, whose seediness and relative cheapness are directly connected. If there is comparitively little demand, why are there more hotel rooms within a 5 minute walk of King's Cross than in the whole of Cambridge (not exactly an unpopular city with the tourists)? *I counted 4 large travelodges, 2 comfort inns, a premier inn, a novotel and (from a quick google search) 25 non-chain hotels. Extend that by another 5 minutes and you get all the small 'b&b' type hotels around Tavistock Place and the Russell Square area. *Hardly quiet, especially at this time of year. *I've not been inside them but there are some nice looking places around Cartwright Gardens, a generous stone's throw from Euston and St. Pancras. *I generally stay in that area when in London so I'm within walking distance of the station. There are also Youth Hostels at St Pancras and somewhere in the City not far from Thameslink. Conclusion: *The Poster Currently Known As Bruce doesn't know what he's talking about, as usual. Have you heard the latest news from the zoologists who are studying the tioletry habits of bears? I must have missed that one, I was too busy searching on wikipedia to find out the religious affiliation of Joseph Ratzinger. Robin |
Thameslink
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. Neil -- Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK To reply put my first name before the at. |
Thameslink
In uk.transport.london Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 11/08/2010 18:52, Scott wrote: Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. I don't know. Where is Cambridge anyway? Gloucestershire. Minnesota. (which appears to have a railroad passing loop, but not a station) Theo |
Thameslink
On Aug 11, 12:48*pm, Theo Markettos theom
wrote: In uk.transport.london Arthur Figgis wrote: On 11/08/2010 18:52, Scott wrote: Maybe there are more hotels in Cambridge than Thurso. *I don't know.. Where is Cambridge anyway? Gloucestershire. Minnesota. (which appears to have a railroad passing loop, but not a station) Theo Massachessetts, and the transit authority has recently purchased the mainline thru there to Boston North station. |
Thameslink
|
Thameslink
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. ;-) |
Thameslink
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". ;-) |
Thameslink
|
Thameslink
|
Thameslink
"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 |
Thameslink
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 |
Thameslink
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. |
Thameslink
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. |
Thameslink
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. |
Thameslink
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) |
Thameslink
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:44 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk