why on earth did they move the Eurostar service out of Waterloo to St Pancras,it only made a time diffrence of 20 minutes shorter to get to Paris,yet the government spend £800 million revamping it. Southwest trains said that the platforms at Waterloo will not be used for 5 years, i see nothing stopping Southwest trains using those platforms now.
This government has no idea how to save money,instead they waste it,same goes for the 2012 olympics,a total waste of money which could of been better spent on Hospitals and schools.
that's my rant over,what's your thoughts.
2007-11-13 22:35:27 · 17 answers · asked by david c 2 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Rail
SouthWest Trains cannot currently use those platforms because the lines don't go where SWT operates. It will require almost completely remodelling the approach to Waterloo in order for those platforms to be used efficiently not to mention resignalling the whole area.
It will happen, but it will take a lot of work and a lot of time-unless they just close Waterloo for a few weeks and do it all at once.......and that is not going to happen. I think the plan is that some sort of temporary arrangement will be put in place and then the station is being redesigned completely in 2012.
2007-11-13 23:16:52 · answer #1 · answered by Very happily married. 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No it was not a waste of money!
The Eurostar now has a designated station & line for it to run on so opening up the lines in North Kent & South London for more commuter trains and so aleviating the pressure on the commuter line. OK it will take 5 year but that is because Network Rail is going to use the time to refurbish the whole of Waterloo Station, meaning that when certain platforms are closed for refits they can use the old Eurostar paltforms.
Anyway this has always been planned since the Tunnel was planned & Waterloo was always going to be a temporary home. St Pancras has now been completed On Time & On Budget, which has set a brilliant standard for the company to work to proving that we can get the job done!
Now we move on to the Next Railway Project: Kings Cross Redevelopment which is costing £400, 000,000.
You have to look at it like this: over the last 30 to 40 years there has been under investment in the railways here in the UK meaning that their condition has deterioated. Now we are getting the job done, making the railway fit for purpose and brining it into the 21st Centrury & planning for the future.
But I suppose that the railway will alway get it wrong in some people eyes even if we invest or if we don't. so this arguement will not get anywhere & I will get the thumbs down!
2007-11-13 23:20:25 · answer #2 · answered by Joolz of Salopia 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Why should it be Railways or Hospitals and Schools? It should and is both and both need money spending on them. A great deal of private money went into St. Pancras which would not have been available for other projects. It is not always possible in the field of public finance to vire (the technical term) money from one head of expenditure to another.
Where we have fallen lamentably short is in not immediately moving on to further high speed links to the North and Scotland and to the West and Wales.
And whilst I agree with the sentiments about the Olympics which I think are a big, big mistake and will take money from other lottery supported projects, the move to St. Pancras assists the north in that connections are far more easily made from King's Cross without the need to use taxis/buses or the underground to get to Waterloo. Once the replacement for King's Cross Thameslink opens shortly there will also be a benefit to people from the South Coast.
2007-11-13 23:38:22 · answer #3 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Waterloo St is a bit of a dump whereas the new St pancras looks superb.
personally i think new buildings and improvement are vital,
spending a few quid on new hospitals wouldnt be a bad idea either.
2007-11-13 22:42:47 · answer #4 · answered by dave_uk06 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In an recent interview about this hospital saving his daughters life he made no bones about the fact that as and when he would make a donation and thought that more people who could afford it ought to make a donation to this wonderful hospital. I do not think it was done to advertise the fact that he donated such a vast amount. He just a real wonderful man...who just happens to be a hugh celebrity and who loves his wife and kids. Oh I hope he does not die young as seems to be the case with all good people.
2016-05-23 02:53:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I think it was a waste. Especially as they are not even sure whether they will complete stage 2, having high speed services running north from St. Pancras.
Whoever made this decision is a complete muppet!
2007-11-17 01:30:24 · answer #6 · answered by Matt C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not a waste.
St. Pancras station is a fine example of Victorian architecture, and part of the industial heritage of Great Britain. It is the embodiment of British inginuity and vision. It is our duty to look after it, so future generations can enjoy it.
What would you rather have in it's place, a McDonalds?
2007-11-13 23:33:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think the french were a bit sensitive about the trains stopping at Waterloo!
2007-11-13 22:39:19 · answer #8 · answered by KKL2006 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
No. I think it a brilliant spend. I knew the area 45 years ago, and this is the start of re-vitalising the whole area.
Also the overground and underground connections are much better.
All in all a good spend.
2007-11-13 22:40:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It's always bleedin' London, isn't it?
Liverpool Capital of Culture for 2008 is getting nowt, I believe from the government.
Same as it ever was.
2007-11-13 22:47:10 · answer #10 · answered by gaz 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋