In message . com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 15:06, rail wrote:
In message .com
wrote:





On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?


I've had the decency to justify my understanding of both question and
answer. Are you gentleman enough to explain your understanding of the
question and answer?


The question was would it be feasible to run international services from
Waterloo after E* moved to St Pancras. The answer is no because the only
stock that could operate such a service is having its third rail capabilty
removed and no one else inrends to build stock with that capacity. Further
the facilities that enable such services to operate from Waterloo have been
or are being removed and the track layout is going to be remodelled.

And no, I have never claimed to be a gentleman.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On 11 Nov, 21:56, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:





On 11 Nov, 15:06, rail wrote:
In message .com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

I've had the decency to justify my understanding of both question and
answer. Are you gentleman enough to explain your understanding of the
question and answer?

The question was would it be feasible to run international services from
Waterloo after E* moved to St Pancras. The answer is no because the only
stock that could operate such a service is having its third rail capabilty
removed and no one else inrends to build stock with that capacity. Further
the facilities that enable such services to operate from Waterloo have been
or are being removed and the track layout is going to be remodelled.

And no, I have never claimed to be a gentleman.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's what I thought you meant.

And it would be possible to run Eurostars from Waterloo, if Eurostar
decided it was commercially worthwhile. They don't have to
decommission the third rail kit if they don't want to. The "no turning
back" point for the future of international trains from Waterloo was
signing agreements to hand the station back to the UK authorities. The
decision to remove the third rail kit followed from this - it wasn't
the cause.

Rob.

In message . com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 21:56, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:





On 11 Nov, 15:06, rail wrote:
In message .com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

I've had the decency to justify my understanding of both question and
answer. Are you gentleman enough to explain your understanding of the
question and answer?

The question was would it be feasible to run international services from
Waterloo after E* moved to St Pancras. The answer is no because the only
stock that could operate such a service is having its third rail capabilty
removed and no one else inrends to build stock with that capacity. Further
the facilities that enable such services to operate from Waterloo have been
or are being removed and the track layout is going to be remodelled.

And no, I have never claimed to be a gentleman.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's what I thought you meant.

And it would be possible to run Eurostars from Waterloo, if Eurostar
decided it was commercially worthwhile.

No they won't they don't have the stock or the facilities any longer. It is
very simple and all wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change it.
The question wasn't is it possible but is it feasible, it isn't.

They don't have to
decommission the third rail kit if they don't want to. The "no turning
back" point for the future of international trains from Waterloo was
signing agreements to hand the station back to the UK authorities. The
decision to remove the third rail kit followed from this - it wasn't
the cause.


I never said it was, that was your fantasy.

The no turning back point was the economic decision that there was no
business case for running two international termini a couple of miles apart.
Especially when one has a dedicated high speed line for access and the other
has to run through some of the most congested lines in the world.

Whatever fantasies you come up with does not alter the fact that it is no
longer feasible to operate International services from Waterloo.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"Jim Hawkins" wrote in message
...

Hurd Deep in the English Channel is 172 m its deepest.
Beaufort Dyke, in the North Channel is between 200 and 300 m deep.

And Beaufort Dyke was the repository for a non-trivial quantity of discarded
munitions. Might not be a good idea to disturb it.

--
Tim

Selective killfiling - because life's too short

http://tim-fenton.fotopic.net
http://timsworkspace.fotopic.net

New Heritage and Steam pics added ...

In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:


"Jim Hawkins" wrote in message
...

Hurd Deep in the English Channel is 172 m its deepest.
Beaufort Dyke, in the North Channel is between 200 and 300 m deep.

And Beaufort Dyke was the repository for a non-trivial quantity of
discarded munitions. Might not be a good idea to disturb it.


Isn't Hurd deep where Bomber Command aircraft dumped any bombs they hadn't
dropped on target?

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

On 12 Nov, 07:50, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:





On 11 Nov, 21:56, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 15:06, rail wrote:
In message .com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

I've had the decency to justify my understanding of both question and
answer. Are you gentleman enough to explain your understanding of the
question and answer?

The question was would it be feasible to run international services from
Waterloo after E* moved to St Pancras. The answer is no because the only
stock that could operate such a service is having its third rail capabilty
removed and no one else inrends to build stock with that capacity. Further
the facilities that enable such services to operate from Waterloo have been
or are being removed and the track layout is going to be remodelled.

And no, I have never claimed to be a gentleman.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's what I thought you meant.

And it would be possible to run Eurostars from Waterloo, if Eurostar
decided it was commercially worthwhile.

No they won't they don't have the stock or the facilities any longer. It is
very simple and all wishful thinking in the world isn't going to change it.
The question wasn't is it possible but is it feasible, it isn't.

They don't have to
decommission the third rail kit if they don't want to. The "no turning
back" point for the future of international trains from Waterloo was
signing agreements to hand the station back to the UK authorities. The
decision to remove the third rail kit followed from this - it wasn't
the cause.

I never said it was, that was your fantasy.

The no turning back point was the economic decision that there was no
business case for running two international termini a couple of miles apart.
Especially when one has a dedicated high speed line for access and the other
has to run through some of the most congested lines in the world.

Whatever fantasies you come up with does not alter the fact that it is no
longer feasible to operate International services from Waterloo.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All of which quite neatly misses the point - you gave the rolling
stock as the reason why it's not feasible. The rolling stock decision
could easily be reversed - the kit is still on the trains, after all.

It might even be feasible to reverse the decision to leave Waterloo -
the kit's still in place in use as I type this. That would, though,
require the agreeement of other companies who have agreements with
Eurostar to take over the terminal.

Of course it's feasible.

It's just not economically viable, so it won't happen.

Rob.

In message om
wrote:

On 12 Nov, 07:50, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:





On 11 Nov, 21:56, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 15:06, rail wrote:
In message .com
wrote:

On 11 Nov, 00:32, rail wrote:
In message . com
wrote:

On 10 Nov, 13:01, rail wrote:
In message
wrote:

Would it be feasible to retain at least some sort of international
service from Waterloo, even if it would be short hops across the
Channel to Lille or Brussels?

I've had the decency to justify my understanding of both question and
answer. Are you gentleman enough to explain your understanding of the
question and answer?

The question was would it be feasible to run international services from
Waterloo after E* moved to St Pancras. The answer is no because the only
stock that could operate such a service is having its third rail capabilty
removed and no one else inrends to build stock with that capacity. Further
the facilities that enable such services to operate from Waterloo have been
or are being removed and the track layout is going to be remodelled.

And no, I have never claimed to be a gentleman.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's what I thought you meant.

And it would be possible to run Eurostars from Waterloo, if Eurostar
decided it was commercially worthwhile.

No they won't they don't have the stock or the facilities any longer. It
is very simple and all wishful thinking in the world isn't going to
change it. The question wasn't is it possible but is it feasible, it
isn't.

They don't have to
decommission the third rail kit if they don't want to. The "no turning
back" point for the future of international trains from Waterloo was
signing agreements to hand the station back to the UK authorities. The
decision to remove the third rail kit followed from this - it wasn't
the cause.

I never said it was, that was your fantasy.

The no turning back point was the economic decision that there was no
business case for running two international termini a couple of miles
apart. Especially when one has a dedicated high speed line for access and
the other has to run through some of the most congested lines in the
world.

Whatever fantasies you come up with does not alter the fact that it is no
longer feasible to operate International services from Waterloo.

-- Graeme Wall This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at
http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All of which quite neatly misses the point - you gave the rolling stock as
the reason why it's not feasible. The rolling stock decision could easily
be reversed - the kit is still on the trains, after all.

No, it's coming out as fast as they can do it.


It might even be feasible to reverse the decision to leave Waterloo -
the kit's still in place in use as I type this.

Not sure what kit you are talking about here but there are no longer any
customs, immigration or security (sic) facilities there[1]. Nor are there
any paths available now. So it is not feasible.

That would, though, require the agreeement of other companies who have
agreements with Eurostar to take over the terminal.

Which isn't going to happen.


Of course it's feasible.

No it isn't regardless of your fantasies.


It's just not economically viable, so it won't happen.


The whole operation is not economically viable according to the Fake Doctor
:-)

[1] The physical equipment is being transferred to Ebbsfleet, hence the delay
to the opening of that station.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

"rail" wrote in message
...
In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:


"Jim Hawkins" wrote in message
...

Hurd Deep in the English Channel is 172 m its deepest.
Beaufort Dyke, in the North Channel is between 200 and 300 m deep.

And Beaufort Dyke was the repository for a non-trivial quantity of
discarded munitions. Might not be a good idea to disturb it.


Isn't Hurd deep where Bomber Command aircraft dumped any bombs they hadn't
dropped on target?

--
Graeme Wall


Yes, and where Glenn Miller lost his life when his plane was hit by one of
them.

Jim Hawkins

In message
"Jim Hawkins" wrote:


"rail" wrote in message
...
In message
"Tim Fenton" wrote:


"Jim Hawkins" wrote in message
...

Hurd Deep in the English Channel is 172 m its deepest. Beaufort Dyke,
in the North Channel is between 200 and 300 m deep.

And Beaufort Dyke was the repository for a non-trivial quantity of
discarded munitions. Might not be a good idea to disturb it.


Isn't Hurd deep where Bomber Command aircraft dumped any bombs they
hadn't dropped on target?

-- Graeme Wall


Yes, and where Glenn Miller lost his life when his plane was hit by one of
them.


Alledgedly, another story is that it was a cover up because he died of a
heart attack while in bed with a prostitute.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

Isn't Hurd deep where Bomber Command aircraft dumped any bombs they
hadn't dropped on target?

-- Graeme Wall


Yes, and where Glenn Miller lost his life when his plane was hit by one
of
them.


Alledgedly, another story is that it was a cover up because he died of a
heart attack while in bed with a prostitute.


Wot! And his band?
john