"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
sweek wrote:
i don't see the point in this. There is so much congestion on stations
already that we should work on actually spreading people around more
stations, not trying to centralise it. As long as the termini are
interconnected I think you're fine. And of course Crossrail schemes
can help with that as well.

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all lines
interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too many
lines interchanging at the same station. That way a terrorist strike on a
single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station
has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen
that frequently?

d wrote:

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really
happen that frequently?

In the 70s and 80s it did happen that frequently. We don't know what the
future will hold.

d wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
sweek wrote:
i don't see the point in this. There is so much congestion on stations
already that we should work on actually spreading people around more
stations, not trying to centralise it. As long as the termini are
interconnected I think you're fine. And of course Crossrail schemes
can help with that as well.
Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all lines
interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too many
lines interchanging at the same station. That way a terrorist strike on a
single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station
has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen
that frequently?

*Attacks* don't happen that frequently. There have been periods where
disruption due to phoned-in (fake) bomb threats happened on a very,
*very* regular basis.

--

Stephen

Dolly: A kebab? It's hardly a sex life.
Twinkle: Depends what you're into.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Stephen Farrow wrote:

d wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all lines
interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not too many
lines interchanging at the same station. That way a terrorist strike on a
single station causes minimal disruption. A single London Central station
has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really happen
that frequently?

*Attacks* don't happen that frequently. There have been periods where
disruption due to phoned-in (fake) bomb threats happened on a very,
*very* regular basis.

Phoning in fake bomb threats for multiple stations doesn't seem much
harder than phoning in for one.

tom

--
Tomorrow has made a phone call to today.

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Stephen Farrow wrote:

d wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in
message ...

Actually, it's best if all main lines passed through London, and all
lines interchanged with each other and with all tube lines, but not
too many lines interchanging at the same station. That way a
terrorist strike on a single station causes minimal disruption. A
single London Central station has no benefits and huge disbenefits.

Planning rail routes and services around terrorism? Does it really
happen that frequently?

*Attacks* don't happen that frequently. There have been periods where
disruption due to phoned-in (fake) bomb threats happened on a very,
*very* regular basis.

Phoning in fake bomb threats for multiple stations doesn't seem much
harder than phoning in for one.

It isn't, and that certainly used to happen as well - but the fact
remains that funnelling all routes through a single station makes
causing disruption easier.

--

Stephen

Fire bad. Tree pretty.