Idea for non-stop Scotland to London

[HowardGWR]

I beg to differ

in fact id go as far as to say utter nonsense

It might have been helpful had you illuminated this opinion with a few points of fact.

You stated that HS2 to Scotland would have no effect on air patronage. Could we hear from you why?

 

[Camden]

Because it was desirable to have a high-speed link into the terminal (rather than using existing congested suburban lines with low linespeeds and restricted loading gauge) and it was genuinely easier to do that into St Pancras (which at the time was a backwater)

I agree St Pancras was a backwater, but given the station space was available at Waterloo it seems hard to believe that separation (albeit more costly) of local and international tracks couldn't have taken place there.

Instead of redevelopment for HS1, perhaps St Pancras could either have been redeveloped for HS2, or perhaps used to provide some capacity relief during Euston reconstruction (with some trains coming in via Camden Road).

Instead Euston redevelopment has seemed to hardly be out of the news, and I can't see St Pancras having the capacity to provide such amenity during its reconstruction either.

So it may have been easier at the time to redevelop St Pancras for HS1, but was it the best thing for the longer term.

 

[button_boxer]

I agree St Pancras was a backwater, but given the station space was available at Waterloo it seems hard to believe that separation (albeit more costly) of local and international tracks couldn't have taken place there.

You'll never please everyone. Putting Eurostar at St Pancras makes it much more attractive to passengers connecting to or from any of the West Coast, East Coast or Midland main lines (no Underground transfer required at all) and arguably from Paddington as well (via the H&C from ground level platforms rather than having to take luggage down to the deep tube). Waterloo International is only really convenient to people whose connections bring them in to Waterloo or Waterloo East.

 

[jopsuk]

How would you have routed a twin track railway through south London? There's technical reasons why so little of the railway network south of the Thames is underground- much harder terrain to tunnel through, both down to soil type and topography.

Kings Cross St Pancras is also much better for connections- a no-change underground connection to almost every other London Terminal other than Waterloo, it has Thameslink, all three "north" mainlines (Euston is a short walk). Waterloo has the Surrey Stockbrokers (massive generalisation alert!) and trains to Cannon Street.

 

[swt_passenger]

I never understood the logic of moving from Waterloo. The trains go south, so why put them into a station in the north of the city facing north. Not to mention all the work that then required at St Pancras.

That point was regularly made at the time, and only made sense if the London to Paris route was a straight line - but it is clearly nothing like that, or it would go through St Leonards or Hastings.

The trains from Waterloo practically went south west on departure, but basically had to then go a long way due east through south London to get near HS1 (CTRL as was). If you draw a line on a map from the tunnel portal to a random 'central London' point - and then re-orientate your map so that line is upright, the route into St Pancras immediately appears quite sensible compared to the original route into Waterloo.

 

[Railsigns]

Surely non stop runs will become impossible soon, due to the need to stop at Berwick / Carlisle for border checks !!

What? Why?

 

[Class 170101]

I never understood the logic of moving from Waterloo. The trains go south, so why put them into a station in the north of the city facing north. Not to mention all the work that then required at St Pancras.

The French would never have allowed the Channel Tunnel to be built if the terminus remained permanently at Waterloo :P

 

[Murph]

The French would never have allowed the Channel Tunnel to be built if the terminus remained permanently at Waterloo :P

I heard they put up a brief fight about that, then surrendered.

 

[HowardGWR]

I heard they put up a brief fight about that, then surrendered.

I'll try and pretend I didn't read that. Remember what you wrote when the Battles of Verdun (for example) come up for remembrance shortly. I wish this xenophobic stuff could fade away but - wishing for the impossible I imagine.

On a serious rail point, I think Waterloo is the most uselessly situated of all the London termini.

 

[Murph]

I'll try and pretend I didn't read that. Remember what you wrote when the Battles of Verdun (for example) come up for remembrance shortly. I wish this xenophobic stuff could fade away but - wishing for the impossible I imagine.

My apologies. Maybe it's old-fashioned now, or from a past generation, I don't know, but it was meant as light-hearted British humour. I mean no disrespect to those who have fought bravely and with honour, or died for an honourable cause.

 

[edwin_m]

On a serious rail point, I think Waterloo is the most uselessly situated of all the London termini.

Waterloo and London Bridge are the only ones south of the river and not on or easy walking distance from the Circle Line. And many of the trains from London Bridge go to Cannon Street or Charing Cross.

Eurostar leaving Waterloo has at least made space to handle the predicted huge growth in commuter numbers.

 

[DiscoStu]

What? Why?

I'm preeeetty sure he was joking

 

[Railsigns]

I'm preeeetty sure he was joking

I guessed that, but the joke doesn't work now that Scots have rejected independence.

 

[fowler9]

I think rail travel is less appealing once journey times exceed 3 hours. People used to fly to Manchester from London. I know the london to Paris routes are still popular but hasnt Eurostar destroyed the competition ?

Only time I flew internally in the UK was between Manchester and London was to transfer to a long haul flight. No way with the current set up I would have paid more money to get a train. That said it can work. I think several airlines have agreements with Thalys so that you get the train between Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. Air France don't fly the route anymore.

 

[anti-pacer]

Has anyone flown from a Scottish airport to London City? If so, from landing to exiting the airport, with a luggage, how long does it take?

 

[route:oxford]

Has anyone flown from a Scottish airport to London City? If so, from landing to exiting the airport, with a luggage, how long does it take?

Varies, but on average Less than 10 minutes.

 

[cjt0131]

Has anyone flown from a Scottish airport to London City? If so, from landing to exiting the airport, with a luggage, how long does it take?

I have flown into LCY many times

with hold luggage about 20 minutes tops

HBO 10 minutes

 

[Chrism20]

Varies, but on average Less than 10 minutes.

With hold luggage the longest I have waited is fifteen minutes. There isn't a lot of hold baggage on those sectors tbh, the most I've seen was twenty two bags and that was from a full RJ100

 

[leightonbd]

Has anyone flown from a Scottish airport to London City? If so, from landing to exiting the airport, with a luggage, how long does it take?

Agree with what the others have said; you can easily be on the DLR platform in 10 mins from touchdown if you have hand baggage only.

The big risk factor is early morning fog at City which can mean you don't even take off from Edinburgh, though the last time I caught that was over two years ago. Being held in a holding pattern to queue for landing (which can happen at LHR) doesn't seem so much of a problem.

 

[Bald Rick]

The manager of the Marks & Spencer on Waterloo concourse told me they used to do a big trade on Sunday evenings with returning weekenders from Paris walking between trains, which was all lost when the St Pancras move took place.

Can't have done them that much harm, seeing as they expanded their main unit, opened a second on the station, then a third across Waterloo Road.

 

[HowardGWR]

We've probably done this one to death now, but, essentially, the Scottish cities are beyond the 3 hour barrier. With HS2, we are in a different ball game, but transfer and outer suburban pax will still prefer air. I can see that some business travellers will increasingly prefer the quiet and service on a London to Scotland trip, as long as full internet facilities are a given component. That's why I think improved super fast service to and from Scots cities to London will extract some traffic from air, compared with now..

 

[amcluesent]

In my experience, Glagow-Euston is less attractive than flying as GLC facilities are poor (no FC lounge) and onward travel by train is unappealing, i.e. the tatty diesel trains running down to East Kilbride. If you live in Busby, Clarkston or even down to East Kilbride, it hardly takes any longer to get home driving on the M8/M77 from the airport.

More people to the west of Glasgow would consider the train if there were more services that stopped at Motherwell. As it stands, if you miss the early evening train from Euston, you're left waiting hours for the next stopping service.

You also need to factor in the total ban on FC travel in the public sector. 4hrs in FC with quiet and space was acceptable, 4h in standard on the Pendolini less so. At least flying you are only scrunched up in a hot, airless cabin for 75 mins.

 

[edwin_m]

I guessed that, but the joke doesn't work now that Scots have rejected independence.

I think the joke might return within a few years.

 

[Railsigns]

I think the joke might return within a few years.

But not "soon", though (let alone the prospect of border controls).

 

[380gk]

In my experience, Glagow-Euston is less attractive than flying as GLC facilities are poor (no FC lounge) and onward travel by train is unappealing, i.e. the tatty diesel trains running down to East Kilbride. If you live in Busby, Clarkston or even down to East Kilbride, it hardly takes any longer to get home driving on the M8/M77 from the airport.

More people to the west of Glasgow would consider the train if there were more services that stopped at Motherwell. As it stands, if you miss the early evening train from Euston, you're left waiting hours for the next stopping service.

You also need to factor in the total ban on FC travel in the public sector. 4hrs in FC with quiet and space was acceptable, 4h in standard on the Pendolini less so. At least flying you are only scrunched up in a hot, airless cabin for 75 mins.

There is a first class lounge at Glasgow has been for several months.
156 aren't overly tatty and the team at Corkerhill do their best to keep them clean.
If more modern stock (170s) could be used, journey times would be slower.
People to the west of Glasgow would be more likely to travel if the trains stopped nowehere before Preston! However for those in Lanarkshire, Motherwell serves a good purposes but is in drastic need of a new building. Ideally, a 'slow' service would be used to connect into these fast services from intermediate stations, paths could be an issue though.
From personal experienece, I cannot stand travelling standard class with virgin. First is far superior with far more space - virgin are a victim of their own success though. if their tickets weren't as good value they wouldn't be as busy.
I just wish fares were more reasonable on the 1630 London to Glasgow.200 odd quid most of the time for a ticket which is cheek consisting the train empties at Preston.

 

[Timster83]

In my experience, Glagow-Euston is less attractive than flying as GLC facilities are poor (no FC lounge) and onward travel by train is unappealing, i.e. the tatty diesel trains running down to East Kilbride. If you live in Busby, Clarkston or even down to East Kilbride, it hardly takes any longer to get home driving on the M8/M77 from the airport.

Add in the 30 minute connection time for valid connections at GLC and the possibility that trains from the southside sometimes get delayed or cancelled, and it's not a very attractive proposition.

If I was leaving after work and staying in a Central London hotel, and the price was right, I'd consider travelling by train to London and back.

But quite often, the airfare for HBO is £35-£45 each way and a return trip gives at least 1,000 BA Avios. And it's hardly a major hassle travelling by train from Gatwick or Heathrow into London.

On business, our head office is in Maidenhead so flying into Heathrow is a no-brainer.

 

[Greenback]

You'll never please everyone. Putting Eurostar at St Pancras makes it much more attractive to passengers connecting to or from any of the West Coast, East Coast or Midland main lines (no Underground transfer required at all) and arguably from Paddington as well (via the H&C from ground level platforms rather than having to take luggage down to the deep tube). Waterloo International is only really convenient to people whose connections bring them in to Waterloo or Waterloo East.

Speaking as someone who arrives at Paddington, I consider reaching St Pancras to be no easier or more difficult than Waterloo. My perception is that it's pretty much the same.

We've probably done this one to death now, but, essentially, the Scottish cities are beyond the 3 hour barrier. With HS2, we are in a different ball game, but transfer and outer suburban pax will still prefer air. I can see that some business travellers will increasingly prefer the quiet and service on a London to Scotland trip, as long as full internet facilities are a given component. That's why I think improved super fast service to and from Scots cities to London will extract some traffic from air, compared with now..

I don't believe the 3 hour barrier is a rigid one. There will always be people who prefer to fly whatever the circumstances, transfer passengers being one fo those groups as you pointed out. Similarly there will also be those who prefer not to fly like Mrs Greenback.

I agree that HS2 services will take some traffic from the air market, but it's not all down to speed and timings.

In my experience, Glagow-Euston is less attractive than flying as GLC facilities are poor (no FC lounge) and onward travel by train is unappealing, i.e. the tatty diesel trains running down to East Kilbride. If you live in Busby, Clarkston or even down to East Kilbride, it hardly takes any longer to get home driving on the M8/M77 from the airport.

More people to the west of Glasgow would consider the train if there were more services that stopped at Motherwell. As it stands, if you miss the early evening train from Euston, you're left waiting hours for the next stopping service.

You also need to factor in the total ban on FC travel in the public sector. 4hrs in FC with quiet and space was acceptable, 4h in standard on the Pendolini less so. At least flying you are only scrunched up in a hot, airless cabin for 75 mins.

I think that this supports my view that there's more to it than speed, though faster journeys on HS2 will undoubtedly convert some of the people who find the trains less comfortable for a longer journey.

Frequency and how easy it is to access the railway station or airport are also big considerations, and these need to be remembered when talking about non stop trains. Passengers from places like Motherwell are not going to be persuaded to travel by rail if they have to make their way to Glasgow Central just to whizz through their home town without stopping.

 

[Class 170101]

On a serious rail point, I think Waterloo is the most uselessly situated of all the London termini.

Thats why the Waterloo and City Line was built by the LSWR in 1898.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Waterloo and London Bridge are the only ones south of the river and not on or easy walking distance from the Circle Line. And many of the trains from London Bridge go to Cannon Street or Charing Cross.

Eurostar leaving Waterloo has at least made space to handle the predicted huge growth in commuter numbers.

And its either London Bridge or Waterloo that the highest proportion of commuters who walk to work upon arrival at the forementioned London Terminals.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thats why the Waterloo and City Line was built by the LSWR in 1898.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


And its either London Bridge or Waterloo that the highest proportion of commuters who walk to work upon arrival at the forementioned London Terminals.

Except actually it's Cannon St by a long chalk. You know, that one that has the circle line directly beneath it.

 

[paul1609]

Can't have done them that much harm, seeing as they expanded their main unit, opened a second on the station, then a third across Waterloo Road.

Hmm the M&S Food Place on Waterloo concourse is the busiest of any that I use. It's not that unusual to queue for the cash desk from just inside the entrance.