Martin Whelton wrote:

A great shame trains are not going to run into Waterloo. For an extra
journey time of 20 mins the benefits are more then made up when you
consider the extra amount of time it will take to get to St Pancras.
When completed St Pancras will be a superb building, but to withdraw
service from Waterloo could potentially lead to lost revenue as people
from South West London decide on Heathrow as an easier option.

Yes, the railways may lose a small amount of revenue by closing
Waterloo International. But the additional cost of maintaining and
serving two international terminal stations in London would be far
higher than the revenue that will be lost from the few passengers who
will defect to air travel or other means.

It is about the best use of limited resources. Most passengers will be
content to use SPI or Stratford or Ebbsfleet or Ashford for their
Eurostar travels, and while it would be more convenient for some
passengers if trains did continue to serve Waterloo, there is no
justifiable case for doing so.

--
Stevie D
\\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the
\\\\\\\__X__/////// common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs"
___\\\\\\\'/ \'///////_____________________________________________

"Stevie D" wrote in message
news
Martin Whelton wrote:

A great shame trains are not going to run into Waterloo. For an extra
journey time of 20 mins the benefits are more then made up when you
consider the extra amount of time it will take to get to St Pancras.
When completed St Pancras will be a superb building, but to withdraw
service from Waterloo could potentially lead to lost revenue as people
from South West London decide on Heathrow as an easier option.

Yes, the railways may lose a small amount of revenue by closing
Waterloo International. But the additional cost of maintaining and
serving two international terminal stations in London would be far
higher than the revenue that will be lost from the few passengers who
will defect to air travel or other means.

It is about the best use of limited resources. Most passengers will be
content to use SPI or Stratford or Ebbsfleet or Ashford for their
Eurostar travels, and while it would be more convenient for some
passengers if trains did continue to serve Waterloo, there is no
justifiable case for doing so.

Your argument defies logic; how can it be demonstrated that there are not
enough resources to maintain services to Waterloo and yet open not one but
three new station to replace it? I don't know where E* passengers originate
from but it is a good bet that a large proportion of them are in direct rail
communication with Waterloo. It is these passengers who, if there is a
regional airport close by, will desert E* simply because their current
relatively seamless journey would be extended by at least half an hour and
involve enduring travel on one of the worst underground lines.
There is another matter which has not been noted in this discussion large
sums have been invested in infrastructure to get E* to Waterloo the most
recent being the relaying of the line on the Gravesend West branch to
Longfield and the burrowing junction at Shortlands. Whilst the latter has a
general use why should the other capital investments be wasted?
MJW

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Stevie D wrote:

Yes, the railways may lose a small amount of revenue by closing
Waterloo International. But the additional cost of maintaining and
serving two international terminal stations in London would be far
higher than the revenue that will be lost from the few passengers who
will defect to air travel or other means.

I don't see it quite that way. They're opening two new intermediate
stations, after all: they clearly feel they can "afford" the cost of
running those.

Surely the key point is that the Waterloo route has no sensible access
to 25kV overhead power, let alone to the high-speed line? So they'd
be stuck with the existing third-rail infrastructure as far as Fawkham
Junction, which, in spite of past upgrades, still leaves E* trains
under-powered.

Nevertheless, if you search the web you find lots of places where it's
reported that some E* traffic to/from Waterloo will be maintained.
So if it's true that E* is going to totally abandon Waterloo, either
someone has been telling porkies in the past, or the intentions have
changed.

Some improvements in connecting services would be most welcome. But
the past record of joined-up thinking in this land does not exactly
fill me with hope.

all the best

In message . ac.uk,
Alan J. Flavell writes

Nevertheless, if you search the web you find lots of places where it's
reported that some E* traffic to/from Waterloo will be maintained.
So if it's true that E* is going to totally abandon Waterloo, either
someone has been telling porkies in the past, or the intentions have
changed.

The whole reason why this thread started is because Eurostar announced
last week that they have finally decided to totally abandon any facility
at Waterloo!

--
Paul Terry

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Paul Terry wrote:

So if it's true that E* is going to totally abandon Waterloo,
either someone has been telling porkies in the past, or the
intentions have changed.

The whole reason why this thread started is because Eurostar
announced last week that they have finally decided to totally
abandon any facility at Waterloo!

Er, as I read it, they *announced* last week that a decision has
been made. They don't say when that decision had been taken.

hth