On Sun, 08 May 2005 08:51:51 GMT, Neil Williams wrote:

I've long said there should be serious tax breaks for companies
relocating their HQs out of London to other cities

Why? The economic case is already quite beneficial with all the London
Weighting that's saved. The company I used to work for built a prestige
HQ 50 miles out, and the LW savings paid for it in 8 years. (Probably 7,
actually, if the annual increases which would have happened but didn't
are allowed for).

For tax breaks to compare, I think they would have to be terminally
serious in some cases ;-)

--
A bit unusual: http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13145898.html
(A panoramic 5-megapixel view of Wimbledon Depot Open Day, 1991)

Mick wrote:
There are two ways to travel into London. One is by car and the other
is by train.

Travelling by car is discouraged by the Congestion Charge. Especially
as there is talk of expanding the catchment area as well. They
obviously want you to catch public transport.

Anyone who uses public transport (trains) can tell you that the
system is nearly full already - this is confirmed by reports that
some train operators are considering increasing the ticket prices to
reduce the number of people on the trains back to a manageable level
(as if using a supply/demand model can work on a public service -
where do they get these boffins??!!)

Has anyone in London heard of an "Intergrated Transport Policy" or
something similar? Or are we, the punters, going to get shafted both
ways with the above proposals. There are too many people in London,
no one is doubting that - I just wish they would have the balls to
come out and say it - "We want you to leave - we're full".

THe whole of the UK lacks a coherent planning and transport policy. London
is not unique, merely different..

"Mick" wrote in message
...
Anyone who uses public transport (trains) can tell you that the system is
nearly full already

I disagree. I rarely travel in to London on a train where all seats are
occupied, and the same applies coming out, often right in the height of the
evening peak. Furthermore plenty of these trains are 4- or 8-cars long,
despite parts of the infrastructure being capable of handling 12.

David Splett wrote:
"Mick" wrote in message
...
Anyone who uses public transport (trains) can tell you that the
system is nearly full already

I disagree. I rarely travel in to London on a train where all seats
are occupied, and the same applies coming out, often right in the
height of the evening peak. Furthermore plenty of these trains are 4-
or 8-cars long, despite parts of the infrastructure being capable of
handling 12.

The fact remains that some train operators are looking at ways to reduce the
number of people wishing to travel by increasing ticket prices - I don't
have references, but read this in one of the newspapers last week. This
therefore comfirms that these operators feel that their trains are "nearly
full". You're lucky if you can get a seat on your train - you obviously
don't travel on my line during peak hours.

Mick wrote:

The fact remains that some train operators are looking at ways to
reduce the
number of people wishing to travel by increasing ticket prices - I
don't
have references, but read this in one of the newspapers last week.
This
therefore comfirms that these operators feel that their trains are
"nearly
full". You're lucky if you can get a seat on your train - you
obviously
don't travel on my line during peak hours.

Lucky if you get a seat? More like lucky if you can squeeze in and the
doors still close

I find it very sad that London's rail links are being allowed to decline
like this.

A good example being the commuter services into Waterloo, which are pretty
much at the limit of their capacity. The move to St Pancras of the Eurostar
terminal is a perfect opportunity to vastly improve services into Waterloo -
in the words of SWT:

"South West Trains... believes that it could eliminate almost all
overcrowding and sharply reduce delays if it was allowed to use the five
Eurostar platforms." (ok, they would say that, but there can be little doubt
that more platforms at Waterloo would be a Good Thing for rail users)

However the Department of Transport take a different view. Their
responsibility, they argue, is not to improve transport services, but to
raise as much money as possible in the short term by selling off the
railway's assets. From a DoT statement:

"The facilities at Waterloo and North Pole (the Eurostar maintenance depot,
which is also closing) represent significant assets and the department
requires that their future use achieves the best value for money."

So instead of much needed investment, we get a quick cash-grab, and rather
than providing us with an integrated transport policy the govt. gets to
raise a few hundred million that it can put towards something really useful,
like ID cards for everyone.

And once we get these much-needed offices and shops built on the railway's
land, how are people going to travel to them, anyway?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...557246,00.html

On Tue, 10 May 2005, Tim wrote:

So instead of much needed investment, we get a quick cash-grab, and
rather than providing us with an integrated transport policy the govt.
gets to raise a few hundred million that it can put towards something
really useful, like ID cards for everyone.

Oh GOOD GOD that is sickening! It's not often you get to combine passing
up an opportunity to dramatically improve a great swathe of rail services
with the probable destruction of a beautiful landmark building!

It's almost enough to make me write to my MP. Maybe we could get the
Grimshaw station building listed? That might scupper the *******s.

One question, though; SWT says "the quarter-mile-long platforms would
allow it to add carriages to its services to Portsmouth, Bournemouth,
Southampton, Weymouth and Winchester.". Do the stations on those lines
(the ones that would be served by these services, anyway) have
sufficiently long platforms themselves?

tom

--
LEDERHOSEN IS NOT EDIBLE

Tom Anderson wrote:
One question, though; SWT says "the quarter-mile-long platforms would
allow it to add carriages to its services to Portsmouth, Bournemouth,
Southampton, Weymouth and Winchester.". Do the stations on those lines
(the ones that would be served by these services, anyway) have
sufficiently long platforms themselves?

Yup... In the 70s and 80s Southern Region used to run 12 car trains
to (from memory) Woking, Basingstoke, Winchester, Southampton,
Brockenhurst, Bournemouth and Weymouth. They also used to stop at
a few intermediate stations which had only 8 car platforms (eg
New Milton).

Pete.

Tim wrote:
I find it very sad that London's rail links are being allowed to
decline like this.

A good example being the commuter services into Waterloo, which are
pretty much at the limit of their capacity. The move to St Pancras
of the Eurostar terminal is a perfect opportunity to vastly improve
services into Waterloo - in the words of SWT:

"South West Trains... believes that it could eliminate almost all
overcrowding and sharply reduce delays if it was allowed to use the
five Eurostar platforms." (ok, they would say that, but there can be
little doubt that more platforms at Waterloo would be a Good Thing
for rail users)

However the Department of Transport take a different view. Their
responsibility, they argue, is not to improve transport services, but
to raise as much money as possible in the short term by selling off
the railway's assets. From a DoT statement:

"The facilities at Waterloo and North Pole (the Eurostar maintenance
depot, which is also closing) represent significant assets and the
department requires that their future use achieves the best value for
money."

So instead of much needed investment, we get a quick cash-grab, and
rather than providing us with an integrated transport policy the
govt. gets to raise a few hundred million that it can put towards
something really useful, like ID cards for everyone.

And once we get these much-needed offices and shops built on the
railway's land, how are people going to travel to them, anyway?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...557246,00.html

You're reading something that isn't there. Achieving best value for money
does not mean selling them off. It does mean putting them to the most
effective use.