|
Buses from Waterloo to King's Cross (was Eurostar to quit Waterloo)
In message , at 15:26:36 on Wed,
1 Dec 2004, Ian Jelf remarked: I wonder (perhaps I shouldn't for the purposes of this group!) whether or not my earlier remarks about Southend (and apparently Thurrock) being part of Essex for ceremonial purposes is true? See if there's a Lord Lieutenant of Southend! -- Roland Perry |
Buses from Waterloo to King's Cross (was Eurostar to quit Waterloo)
In message , Ian Jelf
writes I wonder (perhaps I shouldn't for the purposes of this group!) whether or not my earlier remarks about Southend (and apparently Thurrock) being part of Essex for ceremonial purposes is true? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremon...ies_of_England "Essex, including Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock" -- Paul Terry |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
In article , Ian Jelf
writes Wow. Then I stand corrected. It surprised me when I first came across the concept (the County of Peterborough). I wonder (perhaps I shouldn't for the purposes of this group!) whether or not my earlier remarks about Southend (and apparently Thurrock) being part of Essex for ceremonial purposes is true? There is no formal definition, that I can find, of "ceremonial purposes". Lord-lieutenancies are defined by the Lieutenancies Act 1997. This has its own definition of "county"; in England this *mostly* follows the 1972 county boundaries (as amended from time to time), but has some special cases listed in Schedule 1. For example, the lieutenancy county (my term) of Bedfordshire contains both the County of Bedfordshire and the County of Luton, while the County of Stockton-on-Tees is split by the river Tees; the northern half being in the lieutenancy county of Durham and the southern half in North Yorkshire. Shrievalities (is that the word?) are defined by section 38 of the Sheriffs Act 1887. Again this follows the 1972 counties except where modified by Schedule 2A (created by S.I. 1995 No. 1748); I have not attempted to determine where the shrievalities don't match the lieutenancies. S.I. 1997 No. 1992 amends both schedules in question to include the entries: Essex Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock (and, for Roland: Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Nottinghamshire Nottinghamshire and Nottingham ). -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
In message , Clive D. W. Feather
writes In article , Ian Jelf writes Wow. Then I stand corrected. It surprised me when I first came across the concept (the County of Peterborough). Where (again) the authority calls itself "The City of Peterborough", doesn't it? It's almost as though these places all have the status of counties without realising it! I wonder (perhaps I shouldn't for the purposes of this group!) whether or not my earlier remarks about Southend (and apparently Thurrock) being part of Essex for ceremonial purposes is true? There is no formal definition, that I can find, of "ceremonial purposes". I first heard the term applied in the 1990s when County Durham was "relieved" of Darlington and Hartlepool and Stockton were placed within it (previously having been in Cleveland) for these "ceremonial" purposes. Apart from the wikipaedia reference I (frustratingly) now can't find any reference to the term anywhere. I really believed that it did have official status but it would seem that it doesn't. Either my memory is faulty or the concept was short lived. I also recall the same being mentioned in Hampshire and Dorset when Bournemouth became a Unitary Authority and there was some debate locally about whether or not it should be in the "Ceremonial Country" of Hampshire or Dorset and the same again in Derbyshire when Derby opted out. -- Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for London & the Heart of England http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Clive D. W. Feather writes [snip] There is no formal definition, that I can find, of "ceremonial purposes". I first heard the term applied in the 1990s when County Durham was "relieved" of Darlington and Hartlepool and Stockton were placed within it (previously having been in Cleveland) for these "ceremonial" purposes. Apart from the wikipaedia reference I (frustratingly) now can't find any reference to the term anywhere. See http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/60229w02.htm and http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...605206-01.hcsp There's nothing new about the concept. When we had County Boroughs, they were still counted as within the old/ceremonial/traditional/geographic counties. For example, the County Borough of Reading was still regarded as being in Berkshire despite being independent of it as far as local government was concerned, even to the extent of having its own police force. The same (apart from the police) is now true once again as there is no county council of Berkshire, but it remains a ceremonial county. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
In message , at
23:11:37 on Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Richard J. remarked: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...605206-01.hcsp The Essex (Boroughs of Colchester, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock, and District of Tendring)(Structural, Boundary and Electoral Changes) Order 1996 - S.I. 1996 No. 1875 This Order was made on 18 July 1996. The Order created two continuing unitary authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock, which are associated with Essex for ceremonial purposes. As catching an E* is clearly some kind of ceremony (involving officials, handing over passports and tickets etc), can we draw a veil over the earlier red herrings and go back to wondering things like "would a resident of Thurrock really get a local train [1] all the way to Stratford, rather than hopping across the river to Ebbsfleet"? [1] Which as far as I can see involves one change and a minimum journey time of 44 minutes. -- Roland Perry |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
In article , Richard J.
writes There is no formal definition, that I can find, of "ceremonial purposes". See http://www.publications.parliament.u.../vo960229/text /60229w02.htm and http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/grou...ents/page/odpm _locgov_605206-01.hcsp Thanks for that. It looks like civil servants are using the term "ceremonial county" as a convenient shorthand, but the legislation itself doesn't. For example, the County Borough of Reading was still regarded as being in Berkshire despite being independent of it as far as local government was concerned, even to the extent of having its own police force. As indeed did Southend-on-Sea. Complete with white helmets. And for some years after amalgamation[*], it was the "Essex and Southend-on-Sea Joint Constabulary". [*] The former Southend area was expanded into Rayleigh and Rochford and then split into two, forming H (Southend East) and J (Southend West) Divisions. The old Southend HQ became H Divisional HQ, while J got a new police station on Rayleigh High Street. Seeing that S-o-S officers kept their shoulder numbers, and Essex officers got renumbered in the event of a clash, it's arguable that Southend was seen as the more important force :-) -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
"David Marsh" wrote in
message al.lan... Dave Arquati's quote in uk.railway about: Eurostar to quit Waterloo Just a general comment in this thread; everyone is assuming that people will transfer from Waterloo to St Pancras, but there will also be a direct transfer between Waterloo and Stratford, which only takes 23 minutes platform to platform, compared to the 16 minutes for Waterloo to St Pancras. There will hopefully be a travelator at Stratford to compensate for it being a longer interchange than St Pancras. That's a good point (and a remarkably quick journey in comparison, considering that it's going much further). Will every eurostar be stopping at Stratford, though? How infeasible (read: costly) would it be to build an underground travelator link between Euston Station (with access from the mainline and the Underground) to St Pancras International (also linking with King's Cross and King's Cross / St Pancras Underground)? It's only about 500 m on the surface, and given the nature of all the existing gubbins underground, probably less than that in practice. The existing gubbins underground is rather the problem. There's so much down there, it would be difficult to find somewhere to put the tunnel Oh, I know :-) Would it be possible for the travelator to go at roughly the same depth, but parallel to the Metropolitan line? (I'm presuming all the other 'deep tube' lines are indeed, somewhere deeper at this point - it must be quite a job for someone just keeping accurate tabs on what, exactly, is all down there, and where exactly they all are!) Rather than a travelator, what about an unmanned shuttle like those used at Gatwick between the rail station and the North Terminal, or between the South Terminal and the satellite? It could go above ground or below ground. -- 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/ |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Roland Perry wrote:
As catching an E* is clearly some kind of ceremony (involving officials, handing over passports and tickets etc), can we draw a veil over the earlier red herrings and go back to wondering things like "would a resident of Thurrock really get a local train [1] all the way to Stratford, rather than hopping across the river to Ebbsfleet"? No. The reason we can't is because it's obvious - it would be madness to take the train if the car is faster. The argument we were having before all this county business blew up was really a failure to agree on what 'Essex' means: you think of it as the bit where you live (i'm guessing), and i think of it as the bit where i grew up - let's call them Inner and Outer Essex. People in Inner Essex, like this resident of Thurrock you mention, will probably drive to Ebbsfleet, or even to Ashford, or, if they need to use public transport, take some sort of coach there. People in Outer Essex are more likely to come to London, and either change at Stratford, or, if their train doesn't stop there, go from Liverpool Street to either King's Cross or Stratford. I'd be interested to know just how many people are in the catchment areas the two options. I suppose Inner Essex (defined here as that part of Essex from which Kent is a better option than London!) is the most densely populated part of the county, given its proximity to London, but it's geographically quite small, i think. Also, i don't know exactly where the boundary of the areas is; you seem to think Kent would be a better option from Chelmsford, but i think the existence of fast trains means London would be competitive. I'm also not sure about the Harlow area; presumably, the good connections to Liverpool Street, and the impending West Anglia services direct to Stratford, would put it in the London basin. The thing to do would be to sit down for every town and work out the times by train and car - doable using the NR journey planner and the AA website, i suppose. Not entirely sure i can be bothered, though. tom -- That's no moon! |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
In message ,
at 12:57:38 on Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Tom Anderson remarked: On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Roland Perry wrote: As catching an E* is clearly some kind of ceremony (involving officials, handing over passports and tickets etc), can we draw a veil over the earlier red herrings and go back to wondering things like "would a resident of Thurrock really get a local train [1] all the way to Stratford, rather than hopping across the river to Ebbsfleet"? No. The reason we can't is because it's obvious - it would be madness to take the train if the car is faster. The argument we were having before all this county business blew up was really a failure to agree on what 'Essex' means: you think of it as the bit where you live (i'm guessing), and i think of it as the bit where i grew up - let's call them Inner and Outer Essex. I spent a long time in Essex, but live elsewhere now. I grew up with Romford and Ilford as "genuine" bits of Essex, but these days I think that psychologically most people regard inside the M25 as "London". Meanwhile, there's not much population north of the A12, and past Witham it's more realistic that a train would be faster than a car. Which leaves the area I was talking about originally. you seem to think Kent would be a better option from Chelmsford, but i think the existence of fast trains means London would be competitive. Yes, it's borderline, but there are two other factors: most Chelmsford people live in big estates around the edge of town - getting to the station is a pain, and there's no long term parking at all. And it's a very car-orientated place, so people are likely to head for the A12 as a reflex action. I'm also not sure about the Harlow area; presumably, the good connections to Liverpool Street, and the impending West Anglia services direct to Stratford, would put it in the London basin. But again, the station isn't the most accessible one in the world, and the M25 beckons for getting to Kent. -- Roland Perry |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
David Marsh wrote:
[Outlook Express bug: message invisible. See http://viewport.co.uk/outlook ] begin Dave Arquati's quote in uk.railway about: Eurostar to quit Waterloo Just a general comment in this thread; everyone is assuming that people will transfer from Waterloo to St Pancras, but there will also be a direct transfer between Waterloo and Stratford, which only takes 23 minutes platform to platform, compared to the 16 minutes for Waterloo to St Pancras. There will hopefully be a travelator at Stratford to compensate for it being a longer interchange than St Pancras. That's a good point (and a remarkably quick journey in comparison, considering that it's going much further). Will every eurostar be stopping at Stratford, though? No, not all of them; I suspect stopping patterns will alternate somehow between Stratford or Ebbsfleet. If the Olympic bid is successful, no Eurostars would stop at Stratford for the duration of the Olympics, to create capacity for the "Javelin" St Pancras - Stratford - Ebbsfleet shuttle to run (with cross-platform interchange to Eurostar at Ebbsfleet). How infeasible (read: costly) would it be to build an underground travelator link between Euston Station (with access from the mainline and the Underground) to St Pancras International (also linking with King's Cross and King's Cross / St Pancras Underground)? It's only about 500 m on the surface, and given the nature of all the existing gubbins underground, probably less than that in practice. The existing gubbins underground is rather the problem. There's so much down there, it would be difficult to find somewhere to put the tunnel Oh, I know :-) There's so much gubbins, they even ruled out surface works to run the Cross River Transit along the Euston Road to reach St Pancras. Following opposition from Somers Town residents, now it has to take a ridiculous route via Mornington Crescent! Would it be possible for the travelator to go at roughly the same depth, but parallel to the Metropolitan line? On the northern side of the Met, I think that would foul the new Western ticket office at King's Cross. As for the southern side, I've really no idea. The foundations of the buildings might prevent it being built at the same level as the Metropolitan. Oh, and there are other things like the Thameslink tunnel and the various other old railway tunnels (which aren't very deep) like the Hotel Curve and the Maiden Lane Curve. (I'm presuming all the other 'deep tube' lines are indeed, somewhere deeper at this point - it must be quite a job for someone just keeping accurate tabs on what, exactly, is all down there, and where exactly they all are!) Some of them aren't that deep. Victoria is closest to the surface, Piccadilly is just underneath, and Northern is just underneath that. However, all of them are over to the eastern side of the overground station and the tube ticket hall. (unless you put it very deep, which just defeats the point if you spend ages trekking down into the bowels of the earth and out again at the other end). Obviously you would have escalators rather than trekking (although I agree it might be somewhat bizarre to go all the way down an escalator only to have to pretty much immediately go up another one ;-) For example, taking the tube from Marylebone to Baker Street and changing to a subsurface line (takes longer than just walking to Baker St!). Escalators aren't very quick unless you walk up and down them... Maybe you could have a little funicular or rack-and-pinion railway shuttle (flog it as a tourist attraction between train times ;-), but this would start adding even more expensive to a possibly ridiculous project and loses the continuous flow advantages of the travelators/escalators :-) Actually that sounds quite fun. Alternatively, suspend a travelator above to Euston Road in a transparent enclosed tube, and give it an interesting design. It would be especially fun if it were some sort of spiral travelator that takes you from ground level up to, say, the third storey and back down again at the other end. This would put Waterloo and Euston (and Victoria, come to that) within easy reach of St Pancras, with only one Underground transfer required. Er, Victoria already has a pretty decent link to St Pancras :-) I know, I was just thinking in terms of decreasing the number of station stops and in trying to reduce passenger number on the stretch of Underground between Euston and St P. However, I suspect there wouldn't be any time savings in getting off a stop earlier and getting the travelator direct into the international station than just continuing on the Victoria line to St P anyway.. Well I don't know; if the travelator took you from the Victoria line platforms at Euston, and it were reasonably fast (like that "high speed" one at some Paris station)... Better yet: build Cross River Transit; surface light rail between Waterloo and King's Cross, every 90 seconds in the peaks. No need to journey to the centre of the earth, and you get a view. That would be good. It would need to have considerable priority over other road traffic (ie, considerable segregation) so that it wouldn't be uncompetitively slow, though. I'm guessing the Kingsway subway features somewhere in such plans? The plan is to have a heavily-segregated bus and tram route along the whole central corridor from Camden to Waterloo. Every junction would have tram priority installed, except for the one at the Euston Road, where the 90-second timing of the traffic lights is vital to keep traffic on the Euston Road moving. That's the limiting factor to tram frequency; in the peaks there would be 40tph, so departures from the tramstops either side of the Euston Road would be managed to get them across with the lights, and prevent bunching. Kingsway subway does not actually feature; it's considered a bit too restrictive for modern trams. Instead, trams would have their own lanes on the surface, running contraflow southbound on the western side of Aldwych. (And while I'm in tunnel-digging mode, why not merge Embankment and Charing Cross Northern/Bakerloo stations into one station (on each line) with travelators to shrink the distance/time from the existing entrances, to save the time of an extra station stop? Or would that require an incredible amount of underground reconstruction work?) Ouch. Charing Cross Northern and Bakerloo platforms are miles away from Charing Cross SET as it is, without merging them. I know, that's why I was suggesting travelators from the existing entrances to a *new* combined station which would be pretty much underneath Charing Cross station itself, so that the station properly serves the mainline station but is *also* still accessible to the street in the original locations. I know there are historical reasons, but it just seems a little odd to have two stations (Embankment and Charing Cross) in a relatively short distance. Some kind of unification, like Bank-Monument, would seem to be more sensible. But it'd be extremely expensive, for relatively little gain, so it wouldn't happen :-) Oh, I see what you mean now. You'd make interchange between the deep tube and subsurface lines worse though. It would make more sense to split them back into what they used to be before the Jubilee Line arrived - Trafalgar Square (Bakerloo) and Strand (Northern). The Bakerloo platforms are certainly more suited to Trafalgar Square than Charing Cross. After all, Embankment used to be called Charing Cross... Yeah, it's quite clear from the plans on John Rowland's site that if it hadn't been for the Jubilee line, then they probably would still have remained as very discrete separate stations.. But am I right in thinking that research has shown that people don't "mind" so much the walking between parts of interchange stations? That people regard themselves as "on the Underground" as soon as they've passed the ticket barriers, and that a couple of minutes spent walking (or travelating!) through the tunnels is better than the same couple of minutes waiting impatiently on the platform for a train (ie, the feeling that you're in control of your actions, or not) - and, in this day and age, a useful bit of exercise, too!? I haven't heard that research. I can understand the "on the Underground" mentality though; that extends to finding your way to unfamiliar places too. I met two Imperial students on the Circle line yesterday who were on their way to High St Kensington... having walked from Imperial to Gloucester Road and boarded there, as they didn't know the way to Kensington High Street. Still, I would do almost anything to avoid a change at Green Park. (Except perhaps having to use the Circle line; then it's a case of balancing the relative evils.) -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
David Marsh wrote:
[Outlook Express bug: message invisible. See http://viewport.co.uk/outlook ] If you want to campaign against Outlook Express, please don't do it here. As far as I am concerned, your post was deliberately configured to appear as off-topic spam to a sizable proportion of the people reading these newsgroups. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
In article , Dave Arquati
writes (I'm presuming all the other 'deep tube' lines are indeed, somewhere deeper at this point - it must be quite a job for someone just keeping accurate tabs on what, exactly, is all down there, and where exactly they all are!) Some of them aren't that deep. Victoria is closest to the surface, Piccadilly is just underneath, and Northern is just underneath that. However, all of them are over to the eastern side of the overground station and the tube ticket hall. At King's Cross, the depths of the platforms below the tube ticket hall a * Northern 22.86m * Piccadilly 17.22m * Victoria 11.67m I would guess that the booking hall is another 5m or so below ground level, but I don't have definitive figures. At Euston, the southbound platform is 23.38m below the booking hall, and the northbound 23.56m. That hall is deeper than the KXSP one, or at least it feels that way. For example, taking the tube from Marylebone to Baker Street and changing to a subsurface line (takes longer than just walking to Baker St!). Escalators aren't very quick unless you walk up and down them... The normal speed is 369mm (vertical) per second. The Marylebone ones are 21.58m, making 58.5 seconds (plus a bit more for the level bits at each end; call it a minute). -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
... If the Olympic bid is successful, no Eurostars would stop at Stratford for the duration of the Olympics, to create capacity for the "Javelin" St Pancras - Stratford Ebbsfleet shuttle to run (with cross-platform interchange to Eurostar at Ebbsfleet). Cross-platform via passport check and sniffing dog. How infeasible (read: costly) would it be to build an underground travelator link between Euston Station (with access from the mainline and the Underground) to St Pancras International (also linking with King's Cross and King's Cross / St Pancras Underground)? Would it be possible for the travelator to go at roughly the same depth, but parallel to the Metropolitan line? On the northern side of the Met, I think that would foul the new Western ticket office at King's Cross. Surely rather than "foul it", it would emerge into one side of it, which is probably pretty much what you want. Anyway, isn't there a never-used twin-track branch of the Thameslink tunnel stretching to Euston along the north side of the Met? Although a bit was destroyed by the widening of the Met in the 1930s and another bit destroyed by the new ticket hall, isn't the rest of it just what is needed? the Maiden Lane Curve. Do you mean the York Road curve? I agree it might be somewhat bizarre to go all the way down an escalator only to have to pretty much immediately go up another one ;-) It beats walking, though. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
Richard J. wrote:
David Marsh wrote: [Outlook Express bug: message invisible. See http://viewport.co.uk/outlook ] If you want to campaign against Outlook Express, please don't do it here. As far as I am concerned, your post was deliberately configured to appear as off-topic spam to a sizable proportion of the people reading these newsgroups. Was it in reference to my post? Because I'm definitely not using Outlook Express. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
John Rowland wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... If the Olympic bid is successful, no Eurostars would stop at Stratford for the duration of the Olympics, to create capacity for the "Javelin" St Pancras - Stratford Ebbsfleet shuttle to run (with cross-platform interchange to Eurostar at Ebbsfleet). Cross-platform via passport check and sniffing dog. Of course. (I was wondering how they would achieve that cross-platform change; it's mentioned in the Olympic bid document.) How infeasible (read: costly) would it be to build an underground travelator link between Euston Station (with access from the mainline and the Underground) to St Pancras International (also linking with King's Cross and King's Cross / St Pancras Underground)? Would it be possible for the travelator to go at roughly the same depth, but parallel to the Metropolitan line? On the northern side of the Met, I think that would foul the new Western ticket office at King's Cross. Surely rather than "foul it", it would emerge into one side of it, which is probably pretty much what you want. Anyway, isn't there a never-used twin-track branch of the Thameslink tunnel stretching to Euston along the north side of the Met? Although a bit was destroyed by the widening of the Met in the 1930s and another bit destroyed by the new ticket hall, isn't the rest of it just what is needed? I had no idea such a tunnel existed. the Maiden Lane Curve. Do you mean the York Road curve? That too. Maiden Lane is the counterpart of the York Road one, but for the other direction (Great Northern to westbound subsurface). Actually none of those curves matter if the travelator link only extends to the Western ticket office. I agree it might be somewhat bizarre to go all the way down an escalator only to have to pretty much immediately go up another one ;-) It beats walking, though. Not if it's slower than walking! (Would you take the bus from Bond St to Oxford Circus?) -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
... On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Roland Perry wrote: As catching an E* is clearly some kind of ceremony (involving officials, handing over passports and tickets etc), can we draw a veil over the earlier red herrings and go back to wondering things like "would a resident of Thurrock really get a local train [1] all the way to Stratford, rather than hopping across the river to Ebbsfleet"? No. The reason we can't is because it's obvious - it would be madness to take the train if the car is faster. The argument we were having before all this county business blew up was really a failure to agree on what 'Essex' means: you think of it as the bit where you live (i'm guessing), and i think of it as the bit where i grew up - let's call them Inner and Outer Essex. People in Inner Essex, like this resident of Thurrock you mention, will probably drive to Ebbsfleet, or even to Ashford, or, if they need to use public transport, take some sort of coach there. People in Outer Essex are more likely to come to London, and either change at Stratford, or, if their train doesn't stop there, go from Liverpool Street to either King's Cross or Stratford. Except that people in the innermost part of inner Essex - the Greater London part - would probably also find Stratford more convenient. I grew up in Romford, and I'm sure that it'd be easier via Stratford (one train, 20 minutes) than Ebbsfleet (at least a 40 minute car journey). What used to be Essex kind of splits into three now I think: the home counties bit in the northern half; the Essex girl joke bit in the South; and the greater East End bit inside the M25, which is like a Londonized version of the southern half of the county. Jonn |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
In message , at
10:26:26 on Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Jonn Elledge remarked: Except that people in the innermost part of inner Essex - the Greater London part - would probably also find Stratford more convenient. I grew up in Romford, and I'm sure that it'd be easier via Stratford (one train, 20 minutes) than Ebbsfleet (at least a 40 minute car journey). Yes, some people are lucky to live near convenient public transport links. A lot of people in Essex don't - hence the proliferation of cars. -- Roland Perry |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
In article , John Rowland
writes Anyway, isn't there a never-used twin-track branch of the Thameslink tunnel stretching to Euston along the north side of the Met? No. There was a single-track tunnel from St.Pancras to meet the (now) Thameslink tunnel. Although a bit was destroyed by the widening of the Met in the 1930s For "a bit" read "just about all". the Maiden Lane Curve. Do you mean the York Road curve? No, he means the tunnel that links *west* to *north*, branching off the York Road curve about half way down. http://www.davros.org/rail/culg/hammersmith.html, as I've already said, has diagrams. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
Roland Perry wrote in message o.uk...
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? I rather expect fewer Waterloo - Ashord trains in future, as many Ashford and beyond commuters will choose to take the CTRL commuter services. |
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
On 3 Dec 2004, Jonn Elledge wrote:
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message ... What used to be Essex kind of splits into three now I think: the home counties bit in the northern half; the Essex girl joke bit in the South; and the greater East End bit inside the M25, which is like a Londonized version of the southern half of the county. It's due to split further, to generate four more partitions. The county plan was drawn up by some chap called Dante, i understand. :) Thanks for describing Outer Essex as 'home counties', by the way; i would have said 'country bumpkin' myself. tom -- I'm angry, but not Milk and Cheese angry. -- Mike Froggatt |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
|
County of Southend-on-Sea etc.
|
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
Dave Arquati wrote:
David Marsh wrote: begin Dave Arquati's quote in uk.railway (snip) How infeasible (read: costly) would it be to build an underground travelator link between Euston Station (with access from the mainline and the Underground) to St Pancras International (also linking with King's Cross and King's Cross / St Pancras Underground)? Whatever happened to the plan to run a shuttle bus between Euston and St.Pancras, via Somers Town in the daytime, and via Euston Road at night (when noise is more of a problem for residents, and the congestion charge boundary road isn't so busy)? It's only about 500 m on the surface, and given the nature of all the existing gubbins underground, probably less than that in practice. The existing gubbins underground is rather the problem. There's so much down there, it would be difficult to find somewhere to put the tunnel Oh, I know :-) There's so much gubbins, they even ruled out surface works to run the Cross River Transit along the Euston Road to reach St Pancras. Following opposition from Somers Town residents, now it has to take a ridiculous route via Mornington Crescent! I hadn't heard about that. Is that the official plan? Why don't they just divert the gubbins on a longer route instead? Would it be possible for the travelator to go at roughly the same depth, but parallel to the Metropolitan line? On the northern side of the Met, I think that would foul the new Western ticket office at King's Cross. As for the southern side, I've really no idea. The foundations of the buildings might prevent it being built at the same level as the Metropolitan. At the Kings Cross end at least they won't, but the alignment is reserved for Crossrail line 2 UIVMM. Oh, and there are other things like the Thameslink tunnel and the various other old railway tunnels (which aren't very deep) like the Hotel Curve and the Maiden Lane Curve. (I'm presuming all the other 'deep tube' lines are indeed, somewhere deeper at this point - it must be quite a job for someone just keeping accurate tabs on what, exactly, is all down there, and where exactly they all are!) Some of them aren't that deep. Victoria is closest to the surface, Piccadilly is just underneath, and Northern is just underneath that. However, all of them are over to the eastern side of the overground station and the tube ticket hall. How far down is the Fleet where they cross it? (snip) (And while I'm in tunnel-digging mode, why not merge Embankment and Charing Cross Northern/Bakerloo stations into one station (on each line) with travelators to shrink the distance/time from the existing entrances, to save the time of an extra station stop? Or would that require an incredible amount of underground reconstruction work?) Ouch. Charing Cross Northern and Bakerloo platforms are miles away from Charing Cross SET as it is, without merging them. I know, that's why I was suggesting travelators from the existing entrances to a *new* combined station which would be pretty much underneath Charing Cross station itself, so that the station properly serves the mainline station but is *also* still accessible to the street in the original locations. I don't think it would even be possible without making the exit at Trafalgur Square a longer walk from the platforms than the walk between lines currently is. I know there are historical reasons, but it just seems a little odd to have two stations (Embankment and Charing Cross) in a relatively short distance. Considering it's not much shorter than Charing Cross - Leicester Square and longer than Leicester Square - Covent Garden, I don't think it's odd at all. Some kind of unification, like Bank-Monument, would seem to be more sensible. But it'd be extremely expensive, for relatively little gain, so it wouldn't happen :-) Oh, I see what you mean now. You'd make interchange between the deep tube and subsurface lines worse though. I think it would be far better to build a proper second entrance at Charing Cross mainline station, to give it interchange not just with Embankment station, but also with the boat services. It would make more sense to split them back into what they used to be before the Jubilee Line arrived - Trafalgar Square (Bakerloo) and Strand (Northern). The Bakerloo platforms are certainly more suited to Trafalgar Square than Charing Cross. After all, Embankment used to be called Charing Cross... Yeah, it's quite clear from the plans on John Rowland's site that if it hadn't been for the Jubilee line, then they probably would still have remained as very discrete separate stations.. But am I right in thinking that research has shown that people don't "mind" so much the walking between parts of interchange stations? That people regard themselves as "on the Underground" as soon as they've passed the ticket barriers, and that a couple of minutes spent walking (or travelating!) through the tunnels is better than the same couple of minutes waiting impatiently on the platform for a train (ie, the feeling that you're in control of your actions, or not) - and, in this day and age, a useful bit of exercise, too!? I haven't heard that research. I can understand the "on the Underground" mentality though; that extends to finding your way to unfamiliar places too. I met two Imperial students on the Circle line yesterday who were on their way to High St Kensington... having walked from Imperial to Gloucester Road and boarded there, as they didn't know the way to Kensington High Street. I'm surprised they didn't use South Kensington, as it has quite a long tunnel linking it with remote entrances (albeit entirely outside the ticket barriers). What (if anything) does the study have to say about that kind of tunnel? I remember thinking the one at Charing Cross would be better if it went all the way to Covent Garden. Still, I would do almost anything to avoid a change at Green Park. (Except perhaps having to use the Circle line; then it's a case of balancing the relative evils.) It would be worth using the Circle Line if only the lifts at Westminster were available for general passenger use... As it is, once at Green Park I was in a hurry, I took a wrong turn and went via the ticket hall - and still reached the Piccadilly Line faster than I would've done going via the normal passageway! |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
Huge wrote:
(Aidan Stanger) writes: [13 lines snipped] Whatever happened to the plan to run a shuttle bus between Euston and St.Pancras, via Somers Town in the daytime, and via Euston Road at night (when noise is more of a problem for residents, and the congestion charge boundary road isn't so busy)? What on Earth would be the point? Shifting passengers from one to the other, of course. There's expected to be many passengers arriving in Euston who want to get a Eurostar from St.Pancras, but the tube journey is rather inconvenient (especially since the tube station's under Kings Cross rather than St.Pancras). It's also rather inconvenient to walk between them (though many people have, myself included) but a travelator link between them would be too expensive, and the tram is unlikely to be built any time soon. Therefore, if they're going to do anything, they'll have to use buses. I expect they'll do nothing, but I wondered whether the bus link plan had got anywhere. |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 16:37:10 +1030, (Aidan Stanger)
wrote: Therefore, if they're going to do anything, they'll have to use buses. What's wrong with the normal service bus? Neil |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
|
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote: On 11 Dec 2004 11:20:37 GMT, (Huge) wrote: Inconvenient, maybe, but it's far quicker than a bus could ever be. Not by the time you've walked to the Tube and back up from it. My choice of transport between the two would probably be to walk, unless I was carrying an impossible amount of luggage, in which case a taxi or bus (depending which arrived first) may be in order. I agree. Walking is almost always quickest. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
Aidan Stanger wrote:
Dave Arquati wrote: Oh, and there are other things like the Thameslink tunnel and the various other old railway tunnels (which aren't very deep) like the Hotel Curve and the Maiden Lane Curve. (I'm presuming all the other 'deep tube' lines are indeed, somewhere deeper at this point - it must be quite a job for someone just keeping accurate tabs on what, exactly, is all down there, and where exactly they all are!) Some of them aren't that deep. Victoria is closest to the surface, Piccadilly is just underneath, and Northern is just underneath that. However, all of them are over to the eastern side of the overground station and the tube ticket hall. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro.../stations.html Has a basic map of the area. Does anyone know of any other maps like these on the web? They're quite useful for getting you head round these things. Chris |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
In article , Aidan Stanger
writes Some of them aren't that deep. Victoria is closest to the surface, Piccadilly is just underneath, and Northern is just underneath that. However, all of them are over to the eastern side of the overground station and the tube ticket hall. How far down is the Fleet where they cross it? My understanding is that it is level with the tube ticket hall. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
There'd be no time left to enjoy my day trip to Paris at all.
"enjoy" and "Paris" aren't normally words I'd expect to see in the same sentence :-P -- To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline For railway information, news and photos see http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
In message , at 15:40:25 on Fri, 17 Dec
2004, Joe remarked: There'd be no time left to enjoy my day trip to Paris at all. "enjoy" and "Paris" aren't normally words I'd expect to see in the same sentence :-P So you'd never say you enjoyed leaving Paris? -- Roland Perry |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo
Joe wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 17 Dec 2004:
There'd be no time left to enjoy my day trip to Paris at all. "enjoy" and "Paris" aren't normally words I'd expect to see in the same sentence :-P Good heavens, whyever not? I lived there for four years, many years ago now, and adored it. Still love going back - we are thinking of a short break there next month, just because. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 12 December 2004 |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo (OT)
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Good heavens, whyever not? I lived there for four years, many years ago now, and adored it. Still love going back - we are thinking of a short break there next month, just because. Well I suppose my main reason was that I went there with someone in a wheelchair, and Paris seems to be the most wheelchair-unfriendly city that I have ever taken my mum to, it's rare to find a bus that has an operational wheelchair ramp, there is no map avaliable for the metro for those who want to take wheelchairs on it, and the lowered kerbs aren't very lowered, plus almost every resturaunt had steps to get in. Food & Drinks were very expensive (I spent about £5 on a cup of tea), and there didn't seem to be much around to do, I spent every night in my room watching BBC World. -- To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline For railway information, news and photos see http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo (OT)
Joe wrote:
there didn't seem to be much around to do, I spent every night in my room watching BBC World. In Paris?? You couldn't have looked very hard; it's a great city for nightlife - music, theatre, food, great bars |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo (OT)
Stimpy wrote:
In Paris?? You couldn't have looked very hard; it's a great city for nightlife - music, theatre, food, great bars I was looking more for family things, still - I've visited Madrid, New York, Paris, Boston & London - London wins by a mile. -- To reply direct, remove NOSPAM and replace with railwaysonline For railway information, news and photos see http://www.railwaysonline.co.uk |
Eurostar to quit Waterloo (OT)
Joe wrote to uk.transport.london on Fri, 17 Dec 2004:
Well I suppose my main reason was that I went there with someone in a wheelchair, and Paris seems to be the most wheelchair-unfriendly city that I have ever taken my mum to, it's rare to find a bus that has an operational wheelchair ramp, there is no map avaliable for the metro for those who want to take wheelchairs on it, and the lowered kerbs aren't very lowered, plus almost every resturaunt had steps to get in. Food & Drinks were very expensive (I spent about £5 on a cup of tea), and there didn't seem to be much around to do, I spent every night in my room watching BBC World. I agree about the wheelchair access (of course, when I lived there, this was not considered an issue either there or here), but there's masses to do in Paris! Loads and loads of films (very often in "Version Originale", meaning the original language with subtitles, very often English), shows, theatres, etc. And quite apart from anything else, an evening meal in a French restaurant will very often last until bedtime! And if the weather is fine, you can just walk and walk and walk, stopping every so often for a cup of coffee or beer.... -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 18 December 2004 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk