On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Paul Scott
writes

They could make Stratford a request stop for Eurostars... ;-)

I've often wondered whether St Pancras, let alone Stratford, was a wise
decision by Eurostar. Whenever I've travelled on the service, it has
seemed that an awful lot of passengers prefer the convenience of
Waterloo because they are [people who want to go via Waterloo]

True. But what you probably didn't notice is all the people who weren't on
the train because they didn't want to go via Waterloo. People from the
north, for example.

tom

--
4 8 15 16 23 42

In message , Tom
Anderson writes

True. But what you probably didn't notice is all the people who weren't
on the train because they didn't want to go via Waterloo. People from
the north, for example.

Whether people from the north will find it attractive to give-up flying
to Paris or Brussels in order to spend considerably more in terms of
both money and time by travelling via London by train remains to be
seen.
--
Paul Terry

In message ,
writes

Paul am I missing something here I travel at least five times a year
to Brussels on Estar and a conservative estimate tells me I am going
to save sweet FA over all by the measly twenty minutes or so of time
saved on the Estar leg of my journey .

In that case I don't think you've missed anything at all. My point is
that Eurostar's move risks losing an established customer base (many of
whom live close to Heathrow or Gatwick, so who may choose to fly rather
than cross London) for a somewhat unknown market from "the north".

I am from the north and while I can travel from Preston to Ostend and
return for £ 100.00 you won't catch me paying over two hundred quid to
fly over with only four hours of time saving plus the stress of
wondering if my bag is going to show up on the carousel on arrival in
both directions .

A colleague flies regularly from Leeds-Bradford to Paris for £50 return.
He tells me he has no intention of extending the round-trip by eight
hours and at least £150 given the likelihood of an overnight stay in
London on at least one leg of the journey.

But it all depends on circumstances: where you live and how you travel.
I don't even take hold baggage when going on holiday, let alone when
going for a one-day business trip. If it doesn't fit in the overhead
locker, it doesn't get taken!

--
Paul Terry

Paul Terry wrote:
In message ,
writes

Paul am I missing something here I travel at least five times a
year to Brussels on Estar and a conservative estimate tells me I am
going to save sweet FA over all by the measly twenty minutes or so of
time saved on the Estar leg of my journey .

In that case I don't think you've missed anything at all. My point
is that Eurostar's move risks losing an established customer base
(many of whom live close to Heathrow or Gatwick, so who may choose
to fly rather than cross London) for a somewhat unknown market from
"the north".


I think you're overestimating the risk.

If existing E* customers live close to Gatwick, they will be able to get
to St Pancras on Thameslink (from December this year) rather more easily
than they currently get to Waterloo.

If existing E* customers live close to Heathrow, they can get to St
Pancras either on the Piccadilly Line or via Paddington and the Circle
Line (instead of Paddington and the Bakerloo).

In my own case, living in Chiswick, I often take a cab from home to
Chiswick station (easier than walking ¾ mile with luggage) for the
journey to Waterloo. I can just as easily take a cab to Hammersmith and
take the H&C to St Pancras, with a similar journey time from home to the
E* station. I certainly do not plan to fly even though Heathrow is my
local airport.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:53 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

spindrift wrote:

Nobody seems to have considered the fact that it may well hurt French
feelings to arrive in London at a station called "Waterloo".......

Some sensitivity, please.

Of course it was considered - and led to the suggestion that St Pancras
station should be renamed London Agincourt.

This, of course would lead to the French retaliating by renaming the
Gare du Nord after a great French military victory over the English.

Oh, wait a minute. Something's not quite right there... ;-)

In article ,
(James Farrar) wrote:

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:53 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

spindrift wrote:

Nobody seems to have considered the fact that it may well hurt
French feelings to arrive in London at a station called
"Waterloo".......

Some sensitivity, please.

Of course it was considered - and led to the suggestion that St
Pancras station should be renamed London Agincourt.

This, of course would lead to the French retaliating by renaming the
Gare du Nord after a great French military victory over the English.

Oh, wait a minute. Something's not quite right there... ;-)

They have to make do with Austerlitz.

When I was young, we had exchange visits with a Parisian family. When we
were visiting each other's cities we were rather puzzled why stations
seemed to be named after defeats!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

James Farrar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:53 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

spindrift wrote:

Nobody seems to have considered the fact that it may well hurt French
feelings to arrive in London at a station called "Waterloo".......

Some sensitivity, please.
Of course it was considered - and led to the suggestion that St Pancras
station should be renamed London Agincourt.

This, of course would lead to the French retaliating by renaming the
Gare du Nord after a great French military victory over the English.

There is already a station in East Sussex...

Oh, wait a minute. Something's not quite right there... ;-)


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

This, of course would lead to the French retaliating by renaming the
Gare du Nord after a great French military victory over the English.

Oh, wait a minute. Something's not quite right there... ;-)

Castillion (1453)

e.g. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/thi...cle3055783.ece

#Paul

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:13:02 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

James Farrar wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:53:53 +0100, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

spindrift wrote:

Nobody seems to have considered the fact that it may well hurt French
feelings to arrive in London at a station called "Waterloo".......

Some sensitivity, please.
Of course it was considered - and led to the suggestion that St Pancras
station should be renamed London Agincourt.

This, of course would lead to the French retaliating by renaming the
Gare du Nord after a great French military victory over the English.

There is already a station in East Sussex...

That was a Norman victory, not a French one...