On Mar 23, 1:58*pm, TimB wrote:
On Mar 23, 8:42 pm, "tim....." wrote:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to..._sectors/trans...


Aha. So they're saying 'It is much cheaper to safeguard the land at
the start' [for quadrupling] rather than actually planning to build
four tracks from the start. Fair enough. And the plan is to connect
with Heathrow Express at Old Oak rather than running the HSL via
Heathrow - also sensible, I think.

This looks excellent. I will believe when constructions starts!

Although, I am not convinced that a Central London (Well Camden)
terminal is impossible. Accessing Euston with its spare capacity
would not be that difficult.

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Although, I am not convinced that a Central London (Well Camden)
terminal is impossible. Accessing Euston with its spare capacity
would not be that difficult.

Not having a terminus in Central London seems to be madness, as you'd
lose a lot of time getting to/from the terminus by creakingly slow
LUL/LOROL.

Euston would seem to be a good idea, given that it (unlike the other
termini) has plenty of spare platform capacity.

(On the subject of Euston, has anyone noticed that VT are now
operating from consistent platforms rather than deliberately
randomising it as they used to? Regulars are starting to wise up...)

Neil

--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

Am Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:10:11 UTC, schrieb
(Neil Williams) auf uk.railway :

Although, I am not convinced that a Central London (Well Camden)
terminal is impossible. Accessing Euston with its spare capacity
would not be that difficult.

Not having a terminus in Central London seems to be madness, as you'd
lose a lot of time getting to/from the terminus by creakingly slow
LUL/LOROL.

Do all Londoners live within the immediate vicinity of Euston Station
or St. Pancras?

Or do they not have to get to/from the terminus by creakingly slow
LUL/LOROL or even buses?

I would suggest not build one single line from West London with four
tracks, but rather several lines which terminate in different places.
If the West Midland line starts at Heathrow, how about a line in the
East starting at Stratford Int'l with a thru connection to Ebbsfleet
Intl'?


Cheers,
L.W.



--
-----------------------------------------------------

On 24 Mar, 09:27, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

*Do all Londoners live within the immediate vicinity of Euston Station
or St. Pancras?

No. But I'd venture that the majority of travel involving London is
people going *into* it from outside to work, not *out* of it for
leisure. So where they live is less relevant than ensuring that it is
easy to get to/from workplaces in central London.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:
On 24 Mar, 09:27, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

Do all Londoners live within the immediate vicinity of Euston Station
or St. Pancras?

No. But I'd venture that the majority of travel involving London is
people going *into* it from outside to work, not *out* of it for
leisure. So where they live is less relevant than ensuring that it is
easy to get to/from workplaces in central London.

Neil

Arguably a station west of London but on Crossrail is easier to get to,
say, Docklands from than somewhere like Euston or St. Pancras.

Proposed Crossrail journey times are really rather fast compared to
anything you're used to on conventional tube or rail. Taking Acton Main
Line, which is a bit west of OOC:

Tottenham Court Road - 11m
Farringdon - 14m
Liverpool St. - 16m
Canary Wharf - 23m
Stratford - 27m

Knock a minute or so off for the shorter distance and it isn't far off
the time from existing London terminals, particularly given walking
times to the Circle/Met Line from say St. Pancras or Euston platforms.

Tom

Am Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:06:21 UTC, schrieb Neil Williams
auf uk.railway :

On 24 Mar, 09:27, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

*Do all Londoners live within the immediate vicinity of Euston Station
or St. Pancras?

No. But I'd venture that the majority of travel involving London is
people going *into* it from outside to work, not *out* of it for
leisure. So where they live is less relevant than ensuring that it is
easy to get to/from workplaces in central London.

Yeah, but that is quite irrelevant when they want to travel to
another city or another part of the country.


Cheers,
L.W.

-- -----------------------------------------------------

On 24 Mar, 16:16, "Lüko Willms" wrote:

* Yeah, but that is quite irrelevant when they want to travel to
another city or another part of the country.

You are missing the point spectacularly.

Travel *into* London for business is the most important (and largest)
market served by rail in London.

The UK is not like Germany with no particular centre. People are far
more likely to need to go *to* Central London than *from* the suburbs,
even given the population there.

Neil

Neil Williams wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:06:20 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Although, I am not convinced that a Central London (Well Camden)
terminal is impossible. Accessing Euston with its spare capacity
would not be that difficult.

Not having a terminus in Central London seems to be madness, as you'd
lose a lot of time getting to/from the terminus by creakingly slow
LUL/LOROL.

Euston would seem to be a good idea, given that it (unlike the other
termini) has plenty of spare platform capacity.

In this BBC piece today about Adonis' latest speech:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7964727.stm
"...A Times newspaper [article] has suggested there might be an interchange
near Wormwood Scrubs in west London, where passengers would switch onto the
Crossrail line - also scheduled for construction - into London.

"The rail industry doesn't think much of that idea," commented the BBC's Tom
Symonds. "Its got to go into Euston," he quoted a senior engineer at the
conference as saying.

Paul