Mait001 wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 16 Nov 2004:

Why couldn't for example, a Reading train leaving Waterloo specify that only
the doors of the first 8 carriages will open at certain stations and the rear 8
carriages at the others?

At that, why could two stops at certain stations not be planned, with
the first 8 carriages, then another brief halt for the rear 8 carriages?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 6 November 2004 with new photos

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:55:21 +0000, "Clive D. W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Roland
Perry writes
Also, the routes through the terminal will have to be considered -
while getting on is relatively straight forward assuming they drop the
last-minute-only boarding scheme, getting off currently involves a
considerable walk through the bowels of the building.

Actually, if you work it out that won't be necessary.

snip diagram

Remove the security and C&I mess, and you can send everyone through one
layer and take over the other layer for other purposes.

Even this doesn't seem necessary: just cover over the space between
the current barriers and the Eurostar booking office and remove the
train indicator board.

Since these platforms are at about the same level as the domestic
side, there doesn't seem to be a need to go down below at all.

Regards,

Clive

--
Clive R Robertson -- AS/400 Programmer.

Webmaster of http://www.osterleypark.org.uk/ -- this describes
a beautiful National Trust property in West London.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...

A year ago I had to plan a trip that involved an international flight
into Gatwick early morning, then getting to Brussels by lunchtime. There
was only one flight, which was too early. A train to Ashford was too
slow to make a useful connection with any of the few trains that stop at
Ashford. So I could only make it via Gatwick Express, Victoria and
Waterloo.

But my inbound flight was very late, and the next best plan was to drive
to Ashford and get to Brussels by teatime ahead of the second day of the
meeting (at least then I could drive straight home from Ashford on the
way back, rather than getting a train to Gatwick then driving home).

Integrated transport! Don't make me laugh.

You would have done better to use Thameslink and change at London bridge for
Waterloo East. Anyway, train from Gatwick to Ashford is not one of the
natural routes to follow, especially if you don't live on the airport.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

In message , at 15:21:05 on Tue, 16
Nov 2004, Terry Harper remarked:
A year ago I had to plan a trip that involved an international flight
into Gatwick early morning, then getting to Brussels by lunchtime. There
was only one flight, which was too early. A train to Ashford was too
slow to make a useful connection with any of the few trains that stop at
Ashford. So I could only make it via Gatwick Express, Victoria and
Waterloo.

But my inbound flight was very late, and the next best plan was to drive
to Ashford and get to Brussels by teatime ahead of the second day of the
meeting (at least then I could drive straight home from Ashford on the
way back, rather than getting a train to Gatwick then driving home).

Integrated transport! Don't make me laugh.

You would have done better to use Thameslink and change at London bridge for
Waterloo East.

That would have been a possible route to Waterloo, if the plane hadn't
been late. (Remembering that several rush-hour Thameslinks don't go via
London Bridge). But given the circumstances it was better to drive to
Ashford to pick up the next (several hours later) train to Brussels,
rather than go via London and therefore have a car marooned at Gatwisk -
something which would have been a necessary sacrifice if I was getting
to Brussels in time, but not after having missed the afternoon session.

Anyway, train from Gatwick to Ashford is not one of the
natural routes to follow, especially if you don't live on the airport.

It's a direct line between two transport hubs. Like I said "Integrated
transport! Don't make me laugh."
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...


It's a direct line between two transport hubs. Like I said "Integrated
transport! Don't make me laugh."

It always makes me laugh when people talk about the transport system in this
country. Since when did transport in the UK ever constitute a system?

P C

"Solar Penguin" wrote in message
...
--- Terry Harper said:

Those from South-East of London find it more convenient to go to
Ashford,
rather than go into London, transfer to Waterloo, walk down a very
long
platform, and return whence they came. Gatwick was much more
convenient, but
nature abhors a vacuum.

Some parts of South East London, maybe? But what about those of us in
other parts of South London? To get from here to Ashford, I'd probably
have to go to Victoria or London Bridge and change for a semi-fast train
out to Ashford, taking forever to get there. And again on the way back.
There'd be no time left to enjoy my day trip to Paris at all.

I didn't say South East London, I said South-East of London, which covers
large parts of Surrey, all of Kent and a large part of Sussex. Those who
have the misfortune to live in Chairman Ken's domain have to put up with the
consequences.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

In article ,
(Terry Harper) wrote:

I said South-East of London, which covers
large parts of Surrey,

None of Surrey is south-easy of London.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981

"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Terry Harper) wrote:

I said South-East of London, which covers
large parts of Surrey,

None of Surrey is south-easy of London.

Lingfield is south-east of London and in Surrey.

Dave.

--- Terry Harper said:


I didn't say South East London, I said South-East of London, which
covers large parts of Surrey, all of Kent and a large part of Sussex.
Those who have the misfortune to live in Chairman Ken's domain
have to put up with the consequences.

What has Ken got to do with the decision to close Waterloo
International? I didn't think TfL's authority covered international
services. Or is this just a cheap party political shot that's got
nothing to with the discussion...?

In article ,
(Dave Liney) wrote:

None of Surrey is south-easy of London.

Lingfield is south-east of London and in Surrey.

Lingfield is due south of London City airport, and is one of the most
easterly points in Surrey.

Kent is south-east of London, Surrey is south and Southwest.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981