"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave Liney
writes

There is a world outside of London where people live and commute. You seem
to be suggesting that business people only live south west of London
whereas
looking at arrivals in the northern termini on a weekday morning would
suggest otherwise.

Why do you keep making incorrect assumptions? I said nothing about
business people living *only* in South West London. This is the second
time you have tried to make an argument out of a false assumption.

"are those cohorts of people in other parts of the capital likely to require
business trips or desire leisure breaks in Eurostar destinations?"

I don't think it is an assumption to read what you wrote as meaning that you
don't believe that there are a significant number or people who use Eurostar
for business (who I assume are the ones on business trips) outside of south
west London.

I have merely observed that when travelling by Eurostar I see very many
people continuing their journey by SWT. Obviously, not everyone does.

So Waterloo is a good and cheap solution for those north of London

No. Now you are making your third false assumption.

"They have one [a good, cheap public transport solution to getting to Paris]
already - it is called Waterloo".

You said it. Hardly an assumption.

"They don't use it because they find having to travel across London too
inconvenient"

Let's say you are right in this (and I'm not sure you are). South west
London has Heathrow conviniently situated for journeys to Paris whereas
north London doesn't. So let's spread the benefit of quick and easy journeys
to Paris by having south west London go to Heathrow, south east London to
Ashford and north London to StP.

What actually do you feel is wrong in suggesting that there should be
Eurostar terminals both north AND south of the city for the maximum
convenience of passengers?

There is nothing wrong with that suggestion. But when there isn't a business
case for two terminals then one will have to close. Closing StP isn't an
option (it would make the CTRL phase 2 rather pointless) so Waterloo has to.

I could suggest that it would be convinient for the ECML to have a terminal
at Waterloo as well but it's unlikely to stand up as a business case.

Dave

--- Dave Liney said...

There ... isn't a business case for two terminals then one will
have to close. Closing StP isn't an option (it would make the
CTRL phase 2 rather pointless) so Waterloo has to.

Yes, but why should our railways only do what is demanded *only* by the
business case? There's this little thing called subsidy, which can be
used to persuade them to go against the business case when it makes
sense in terms of the wider picture. Why not use that to keep Waterloo
Int'l open?

In message , Dave Liney
writes

"are those cohorts of people in other parts of the capital likely to require
business trips or desire leisure breaks in Eurostar destinations?"

Yes, that is the question I asked. You didn't answer it, though.

I don't think it is an assumption to read what you wrote as meaning

Sheesh! There you go again! PLEASE stop assuming what I think.

"They have one [a good, cheap public transport solution to getting to Paris]
already - it is called Waterloo".

You said it. Hardly an assumption.

Oh gawd, and you can't spot irony either. I am pointing out the fallacy
in your argument that the St Pancras - Waterloo change is so quick and
easy.

Let's say you are right in this (and I'm not sure you are). South west
London has Heathrow conviniently situated for journeys to Paris whereas
north London doesn't. So let's spread the benefit of quick and easy journeys
to Paris by having south west London go to Heathrow, south east London to
Ashford and north London to StP.

Why encourage the pollution that air travel causes when there is ALREADY
and international rail terminal at Waterloo.

when there isn't a business
case for two terminals then one will have to close. Closing StP isn't an
option (it would make the CTRL phase 2 rather pointless) so Waterloo has to.

Only if you believe that Eurostar have done their sums properly ... or,
if cynical, that Eurostar will use the threat of closure of Waterloo to
get money out of the government. Personally, I find it very difficult to
believe there is a good business case.

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?

I could suggest that it would be convinient for the ECML to have a terminal
at Waterloo as well but it's unlikely to stand up as a business case.

If there was already an ECML terminal at Waterloo handling millions of
passengers a year, you would close it?

--
Paul Terry

In message , at 11:23:16 on Wed, 24 Nov
2004, Paul Terry remarked:
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?

The Kings Cross area is pretty grim, but so is the immediate area round
Gare du Nord and Brussels Midi. So these "foreigners" should feel
immediately at home!
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
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?

If only King's Cross had some kind of transport links to allow people to
travel to other parts of London and beyond...

Dave
--
Email: MSN Messenger:

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , Dave Liney
writes

"are those cohorts of people in other parts of the capital likely to
require
business trips or desire leisure breaks in Eurostar destinations?"

Yes, that is the question I asked. You didn't answer it, though.

To put it more clearly for you: There are business people who work and live
north of the Thames. I expect they also have to go to Paris on business and
no doubt they would also like to go for leisure breaks there as well.

I don't think it is an assumption to read what you wrote as meaning

Sheesh! There you go again! PLEASE stop assuming what I think.

I'm not. I'm interpreting what you've written -- in the same way that
everyone has to interpret what anyone has written. You posed the question
about people outside the SWT corridor requiring Eurostar in such a way as to
make it obvious that you don't think there are significant numbers of them.
Perhaps you could clarify your statements if you don't mean this.

"They have one [a good, cheap public transport solution to getting to
Paris]
already - it is called Waterloo".

You said it. Hardly an assumption.

Oh gawd, and you can't spot irony either. I am pointing out the fallacy in
your argument that the St Pancras - Waterloo change is so quick and easy.

Only if you take as truth that most of the people getting on Eurostar trains
are from SWT destinations and that is because people can't cope with the
"struggle" of 1.9 miles/20-30 minutes from St Pancras. I don't.

when there isn't a business
case for two terminals then one will have to close. Closing StP isn't an
option (it would make the CTRL phase 2 rather pointless) so Waterloo has
to.

Only if you believe that Eurostar have done their sums properly ... or, if
cynical, that Eurostar will use the threat of closure of Waterloo to get
money out of the government. Personally, I find it very difficult to
believe there is a good business case.

Considering that they won't survive if they haven't done their sums properly
I'd expect them to have taken the job seriously. Perhaps you don't know all
the facts?

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?

I'd expect them to do the same as they do at Heathrow which is head for the
tube/train to where they want to go. It's not as if they go out and about in
the delights of Hounslow.

Dave

In message , at 11:59:32 on
Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Dave Liney remarked:
To put it more clearly for you: There are business people who work and live
north of the Thames. I expect they also have to go to Paris on business and
no doubt they would also like to go for leisure breaks there as well.

Yes, and the current best way to do that is to drive to Ashford (via
Dartford). Having a terminal at St Pancras will very likely increase the
number of people using rail door-to-door.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Dave Liney
writes

Only if you take as truth that most of the people getting on Eurostar trains
are from SWT destinations and that is because people can't cope with the
"struggle" of 1.9 miles/20-30 minutes from St Pancras. I don't.

The argument is more finely balanced than the inconvenience of a poor
interchange. There is the additional time and the fact that there is now
an additional leg of the journey in both directions.

It is the *combination* of these factors that will make St Pancras far
less attractive than Waterloo for customers currently using the latter.

Considering that they won't survive if they haven't done their sums properly

Since Eurostar isn't even remotely "commercial" in the normal sense of
the term, there is every likelihood that they would survive a bad
decision. The shareholders are hardly short of funds!

I'd expect them to have taken the job seriously. Perhaps you don't know all
the facts?

I don't any more than you do. But one only has to look at the history of
the line - customer predictions that were miles off-target, the great
plan for direct services from Manchester, Edinburgh and Leeds that never
transpired - oh, yes, and the famous South Wales to Paris night service.

I'd expect them to do the same as they do at Heathrow which is head for the
tube/train to where they want to go.

And you think that's better than stepping off the train in Waterloo?

--
Paul Terry

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

Dave Liney wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 24 Nov 2004:

There is nothing wrong with that suggestion. But when there isn't a business
case for two terminals then one will have to close. Closing StP isn't an
option (it would make the CTRL phase 2 rather pointless) so Waterloo has to.

Granted - but I think you'll find that the whole point of the argument
is that there *is* a business case for two terminals. This is what we
are disagreeing with - the necessity of closing Waterloo International.
We reckon that there would be sufficient passenger numbers to make
retaining it worthwhile, AS WELL AS the new terminus at St Pancras.
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 22 November 2004