"TP" wrote in message
...

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 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.
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..

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:31:58 on
Wed, 24 Nov 2004, TP remarked:
You have missed the point. That is, the customer profile of Eurostar
passengers from the UK would indicate that there is an exceptionally
high proportion whose journeys originate in the SWT corridor.

That's because the SWT corridor is where so many 'movers and shakers'
choose to locate. It ain't called 'the stockbroker belt' for nowt.

St Pancras is not really a viable option for those people. Instead,
they will head around the M25 for Heathrow or Gatwick.

Isn't that why they are building a new E* station on the M25?


No, not really, because Ebbsfleet is positioned almost diametrically
opposite to the market we are discussing.

Faced with the options of St Pancras, Ebbsfleet, Heathrow and Gatwick
I think most of the SWT corridor executive types would take Heathrow
as their first choice, followed by Gatwick.

The big commercial mistake here is abandoning the easy, high value
full fare/first class customer base of the SWT corridor's movers and
shakers in favour of the £59 a time cheapskates who will allegedly
flock to St Pancras from points north.

I think Eurostar are committing a grievous error. At first the
abandonment seemed logical - concentrating all efforts at St Pancras
seems like a good idea, until you think about it.

Perhaps this decision is being forced on Eurostar because so few
passengers would choose to travel from St Pancras if Waterloo
International remained open. It is easy to see the flagship St
Pancras project becoming a seriously expensive commercial flop if the
far superior connections at Waterloo remained available.

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

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

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

"Dave Liney" wrote:

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.


You have missed the point. That is, the customer profile of Eurostar
passengers from the UK would indicate that there is an exceptionally
high proportion whose journeys originate in the SWT corridor.

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?
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 22 November 2004

"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!

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.

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?
--
-- Chris.

Mrs Redboots wrote:

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.


If Waterloo International remained open, St Pancras International
would be little more then a hideously expensive flop.