On 30/12/2010 13:42, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:13:21 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Dec 30, 11:03 am, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Dec 30, 9:16 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
The current plan is to terminate Crossrail at Maidenhead I believe.

During past discussions I recall various people putting forward the idea
that Reading would be a more logical terminus. Others pointed out that
there wasn't much point as long as Reading wasn't remodelled.

Well, now we're getting the remodelling AND the wires will one day pass
through Reading to Oxford and Newbury.

The question I have is does it make more sense to leave the Crossrail
terminus at Maidenhead or extend it to (or beyond?) Reading at some point in
the future?

Clearly, the question is almost rhetorical. Crossrail should go to
Reading.

This is just thinking small. Crossrail joins up two mainlines - so why not run services such as Bristol - Norwich (once the knitting
permits) ?

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

The service will require proper inter-city stock with loos (NOT bathrooms PLEASE), doors that close properly and adequate seating.

The substandard stock which you describe will be used on services such as Maidenhead - Shenfield.

I take it you mean lavatories.

On 30/12/10 15:03, in article , "Martin
Edwards" wrote:


I take it you mean lavatories.

A lavatory is literally a place for washing, and a washbasin is sometimes
(correctly) called a lavatory basin by those who make and install them.
Though widely used as such it is not a term for a place for urination. Of
course, places for urinating generally include facilities for washing as
well.

On 30/12/2010 18:23, Stephen Furley wrote:



On 30/12/10 15:03, in article , "Martin
wrote:


I take it you mean lavatories.

A lavatory is literally a place for washing, and a washbasin is sometimes
(correctly) called a lavatory basin by those who make and install them.
Though widely used as such it is not a term for a place for urination. Of
course, places for urinating generally include facilities for washing as
well.

Well spotted.

On 30/12/2010 15:03, Martin Edwards wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

The service will require proper inter-city stock with loos (NOT
bathrooms PLEASE), doors that close properly and adequate seating.

The substandard stock which you describe will be used on services such
as Maidenhead - Shenfield.

I take it you mean lavatories.

To call a spade a spade: Toilets.

There. That wasn't difficult, was it?

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:59:30 +0000, Philip wrote:

On 30/12/2010 15:03, Martin Edwards wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

The service will require proper inter-city stock with loos (NOT
bathrooms PLEASE), doors that close properly and adequate seating.

The substandard stock which you describe will be used on services such
as Maidenhead - Shenfield.

I take it you mean lavatories.

To call a spade a spade: Toilets.

Is that anything like a tiolet ?

There. That wasn't difficult, was it?

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:37:05 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:59:30 +0000, Philip wrote:

On 30/12/2010 15:03, Martin Edwards wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

The service will require proper inter-city stock with loos (NOT
bathrooms PLEASE), doors that close properly and adequate seating.

The substandard stock which you describe will be used on services such
as Maidenhead - Shenfield.

I take it you mean lavatories.

To call a spade a spade: Toilets.

Is that anything like a tiolet ?

Hopefully not, no. One would expect a toilet to be less smelly than a
tiolet, as well as having a comprehensible locking mechanism and not being
out of order.

On 30/12/2010 19:59, Philip wrote:
On 30/12/2010 15:03, Martin Edwards wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

The service will require proper inter-city stock with loos (NOT
bathrooms PLEASE), doors that close properly and adequate seating.

The substandard stock which you describe will be used on services such
as Maidenhead - Shenfield.

I take it you mean lavatories.

To call a spade a spade: Toilets.

There. That wasn't difficult, was it?

No.