Mrs Redboots wrote:

To be absolutely fair, could that not be because Eurostar, so far, has
been more convenient for those whose journeys so originate, and with the
move to St P that demographic might change?


Yes, indeed it could. But the fact remains that the SWT catchment,
more than any other, includes a very much higher proportion of the
movers and shakers who are likely to pay full fares or premium fares
(first class) on Eurostar.

No doubt St Pancras International will open doors to many who might
currently be dissuaded by the difficulty of getting to Waterloo
International, but they are far more likely to be travelling on
cheaper tickets. I am in that category, and am much more likely to
use Eurostar as a result. However, that doesn't prevent me from
seeing that the decision to abandon Waterloo International will tend
to hurt the customer base that Eurostar needs most, that is, not me!

;-)

In message , at 12:50:19 on
Wed, 24 Nov 2004, TP remarked:
If Waterloo International remained open, St Pancras International
would be little more then a hideously expensive flop.

With half the number of trains to reach critical mass, that might well
be the case. Meanwhile, the journey time from Waterloo will be
unattractive also. What's wrong with promoting the Waterloo East to
Ashford services as a compromise?
--
Roland Perry

wrote:

TP writes:

That is the reason why I suggested a regular Waterloo-Ashford service
using former Eurostar paths and connecting with Eurostar trains at
Ashford International. I think that is the only way Eurostar can hope
to retain this large and affluent customer base.

I still can't see what's wrong with taking the new super-glamorous
Jubilee line extension from Waterloo to the new super-glamorous
Eurostar station at Stratford. It'll only be a few stops, is 4
billion quid's worth of underground line too downmarket for this
affluent customer base or something?


This is a journey leg that would simply not be needed if Waterloo
International remained open. What it cost is irrelevant. The trains
are still cramped and toylike and there is still a need to lug baggage
up and down LUL escalators and on and off the tube train, none of
which is required now.

By comparison, changing from an SWT service to Eurostar at Waterloo
would be sheer pleasure.

Roland Perry wrote:

With half the number of trains to reach critical mass, that might well
be the case. Meanwhile, the journey time from Waterloo will be
unattractive also. What's wrong with promoting the Waterloo East to
Ashford services as a compromise?


Because they will be desperately unattractive to those people who can
now transfer from their SWT service to a Eurostar at Waterloo. Adding
an extra leg to a journey is never attractive, especially when that
extra leg is itself inconvenient. Surely you can understand that?

wrote:

I still can't see what's wrong with taking the new super-glamorous
Jubilee line extension from Waterloo to the new super-glamorous
Eurostar station at Stratford.


The stations on the Jubilee Line extension might be cathedral-like,
and their architecture might even merit the term "super-glamorous",
but the trains are still the same tiny, cramped, hot little scale
models of real trains that the Tube provides.

I am always amazed at the contrast between the architecture for this
line, which is magnificent in its scope, shape, form and detail, and
the tiny little trains that serve such glorious stops.

"TP" wrote in message
...
"Matt Wheeler" wrote:

I can see one problem with this.... You suggest using the former
Eurostar paths to Ashford. Surely these paths will only be
"available"
up to where the current Waterloo - CTRL line meets the CTRL, as the
actual Eurostar to St Pancras will be using the paths on the CTRL.

I would be astonished if there were any shortage of paths along the
CTRL. In fact I am astonished that you even suggested there might
be!


OK, so maybe the paths will be there on the CTRL, but then some
capacity on the CTRL is going to be taken up by the slower domestic
services.

Anyway, from Waterloo, you can cross over to Waterloo East and catch
a
South Eastern service to Ashford, which, for the fast trains, are
just
over an hour..

True. But I am suggesting higher quality trains that make direct
timetabled connections at Ashford rather than using existing trains
that are timetabled with other purposes in mind.


Interesting idea, would you propose an extension on the order for the
CTRL Domestic services, or a completely new build of stock ? Either
case, since the domestic stock isn't expected until 2009, the stock
for your service won't be ready until then, or even later. What do you
do in the interim, especially given that the NoL eurostars may well
end up on the CTRL kent Domestic services. By the time your stock is
available, most passengers will have got used to either going to St
Pancras, or Ashford (or Ebbsfleet or Stratford), and therefore
wouldn't see the benefit of your proposed service.

Lets say they did keep Waterloo open for Eurostar services. How would
you split them between Waterloo and St Pancras ? Regardless of how you
split them, you will still end up with people in SWT region having to
transfer to St Pancras, as the train they need at the time they need
will run from St Pancras rather then Waterloo.

Looking at the current timetable on Eurostar's website....
1: Apart from the early morning, Brussells services are every 2 hours
(hourly early morning), even if this was moved to hourly all day, that
still means, at best, 1 train every 2 hours from each of Waterloo and
St Pancras. Is there even enough demand for an hourly brussells
service ? The current timetable would suggest not, in which case you
end up with a train every 4 hours from each of the two termini.

2: "other destinations", where do you run these from ? Its going to be
too confusing to have the disneyland train running from one station
one day/week and the other the following day/week. You could suggest a
train from each, but is there the passenger numbers to warrant doing
this ?

3: "Paris". There generally seems to be at least 1 train per hour,
sometimes two. Lets say you increase to two per hour, every hour, you
can then have 1 per hour from each. However, due to the extra time on
the current route over CTRL2, if they left London about 30 mins apart,
by the time they get to Ashford/The Tunnel, they could well be running
within a few minutes of each other, and therefore arrive in Paris
about the same time. To get even spaced arrivals at Paris you'd
probably have to have both trains leave London at the same time,
effectively turning a half hourly service into an hourly one.

In message , at 13:43:31 on
Wed, 24 Nov 2004, TP remarked:
With half the number of trains to reach critical mass, that might well
be the case. Meanwhile, the journey time from Waterloo will be
unattractive also. What's wrong with promoting the Waterloo East to
Ashford services as a compromise?


Because they will be desperately unattractive to those people who can
now transfer from their SWT service to a Eurostar at Waterloo. Adding
an extra leg to a journey is never attractive, especially when that
extra leg is itself inconvenient. Surely you can understand that?

Yes, but I also understand that funds aren't limitless; and there are
easier ways for SWT passengers to "catch up" with E* than there are for
people currently arriving at KX/StP.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:13:21 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:



You can currently do Waterloo East to Ashford in 1hr 4 mins, direct.

That's almost as fast as E* manages.

But considerably slower than the 56 minutes achieved in the 1960s!

--
Bill Hayles
http://www.rossrail.com

"Bill Hayles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:13:21 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

You can currently do Waterloo East to Ashford in 1hr 4 mins, direct.

That's almost as fast as E* manages.

But considerably slower than the 56 minutes achieved in the 1960s!

And quicker than will be possible with the SRA's Train Service Specification
for the IKF (from the consultation document), as the best off-peak train
will have 7 or 8 intermediate stops, and the best peak train will have 4 or
5. Just as there are E* passengers who would prefer to go direct to
Waterloo, there are SET passengers who will prefer to use Charing Cross,
Waterloo East, London Bridge or Cannon Street, and don't want to go to
Stratford or St Pancras.

Peter

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:23:16 +0000, Paul Terry
wrote:

Incidentally, you are only considering travel FROM London. I wonder how
many of the foreign tourists who come TO London for a short break, and
who can currently walk to many attractions from Waterloo, will bother to
come here when they find they are deposited amid the delights of King's
Cross?

That's a good point. Does anyone know if any tourists have ever
visited Paris? ISTR a friend went there a while back, but maybe he was
the only visitor this year. After all, Paris North station is hardly
in the best area, so perhaps Paris gets no visitors.

The area around Brussels South is a little dodgy. Presumably no-one
goes to Belgium for short breaks?

Out of interest, what are the big tourist attractions in Hounslow or
Crawley which the tourists who fly come to see?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK