Crossrail western termunus
 

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.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 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) ?

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Dec 30, 11:03*am, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 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?

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, 1506 wrote:

On Dec 30, 11:03*am, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 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?

But they'll have a single-seat ride to Oxford Circus!

tom

--
Sport in general is ridiculous and should be banned. -- Ian Tindale

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, 1506 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.

No, Crossrail should go to Slough. Trying to run suburban metro and home
counties commuter services with the same tracks and trains is a
transparently stupid idea which we will come to regret very quickly.

tom

--
Sport in general is ridiculous and should be banned. -- Ian Tindale

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Dec 30, 12:27*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, 1506 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.

No, Crossrail should go to Slough. Trying to run suburban metro and home
counties commuter services with the same tracks and trains is a
transparently stupid idea which we will come to regret very quickly.

Thameslink?

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:13:21 -0800 (PST), 1506 wrote:

On Dec 30, 11:03*am, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 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.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Dec 30, 1:42*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 03:13:21 -0800 (PST), 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 11:03 am, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 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

So, folks alighting or boarding in the tunnel section will have to
deal with:
Different door arrangements
Some stock with limited access (less doors/narrow doors).
Seating not designed for rapid transit use.
Space taken up for luggage space and "facilities", and
Presumably ill organized standing space.

Right.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Dec 30, 12:33*pm, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 12:27*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, 1506 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.

No, Crossrail should go to Slough. Trying to run suburban metro and home
counties commuter services with the same tracks and trains is a
transparently stupid idea which we will come to regret very quickly.

Thameslink?

Thameslink also does it wrong, IMHO. It's only saving grace is that it
doesn't serve the northern section within the M25 very well (because
the line capacity is needed for all the other services), so the lack
of metro-service-orientated stock is less of a problem. Ideally, you'd
want to run everything south of St. Albans as a metro service, with
suitable high-density stock to match. The easiest (and most expensive)
way of doing this would be to extend the freight lines from Hendon to
St. Albans, and find a southern location to connect to the other end
at West Hampstead, (perhaps a tunnel to the Goblin). This new-found
capacity would then let you add new stations such as Brent Cross
(whilst retaining Hendon and Cricklewood), another between Cricklewood
and West Hampstead, Napsbury, retaining a full service for Kentish
Town; with the interchanges to Thameslink at St. Albans and West
Hampstead. The freed up capacity on the most congested section of
Thameslink would then allow more services from Luton and Bedford, and
potentially further afield (such as Leicester, though I personally
think these would be better operated by EMT as there'd be less demand
on the existing fast lines), as well as freight from the Goblin
straight up the MML.

Outer suburban: Bedford-Luton, St. Albans, West Hampstead, St.
Pancras.
Inner suburban: Luton-St. Albans, West Hampstead, St. Pancras.
Metro: St. Albans-West Hampstead-Gospel Oak (or somesuch)

As for Crossrail, if they widened the formation to six tracks out to
Heathrow, then Crossrail could satisfactorily provide the suburban
services from Reading to Heathrow, with the interchanges at Heathrow
and OOC. Let something like the H&C line operate the metro service,
and then you could again improve the service levels to the existing
stations as well add several more stations.

Outer suburban: Didcot & Newbury-Reading, Heathrow Hub, OOC,
Paddington
Inner suburban: Reading-Heathrow Hub, OOC, Paddington
Metro: Heathrow Hub-OOC-Paddington

Crossrail western termunus
 

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.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On 2010\12\30 14:59, Jamie Thompson wrote:

This new-found
capacity would then let you add new stations such as Brent Cross
(whilst retaining Hendon and Cricklewood), another between Cricklewood
and West Hampstead, Napsbury,

I presume you mean Mapesbury. Napsbury is near St Albans.

Crossrail western termunus
 

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.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 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?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

Crossrail western termunus
 

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?

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Dec 30, 11:13*am, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 11:03*am, wrote:



On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 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?

Bathrooms???

Toilets maybe but bathrooms?

Paul

Crossrail western termunus
 

1506 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?

Sandringham passengers may have access to bathrooms, but the rest of us
mere mortals do not.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589933.html
(08 530 at Colchester, 13 Apr 1980)

Crossrail western termunus
 

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?

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Dec 30, 3:05*pm, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2010\12\30 14:59, Jamie Thompson wrote:



This new-found
capacity would then let you add new stations such as Brent Cross
(whilst retaining Hendon and Cricklewood), another between Cricklewood
and West Hampstead, Napsbury,

I presume you mean Mapesbury. Napsbury is near St Albans.

Indeed it is, and is exactly what I meant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napsbury_railway_station

....there have been lots of call to rebuild the station, but I suspect
that capacity is at such a premium that there's no chance. The fact
they have no plans to extend the platforms at Hendon, Cricklewood,
Kentish Town and formerly Radlett (researching this post I see the
locals won their fight to get them extended - well done!), should tell
you how disproportionate the focus is towards the regional services.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Dec 30, 7:56*pm, Philip wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 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?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

Full bathrooms? very few trains have them. As for Half bathrooms (a
commode and hand basin), a substantial number of trains have them. I
did not know you were pedantic enough to require "realtor speak". :-)

Most sleeping trains, AFIK, have three quarter bathrooms (A commode, a
shower, and a hand basin)

Thinking about it, Thameslink trains have half baths, so it is not
unreasonable to think Crossrail trains might.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Dec 31, 12:25*pm, "tim...." wrote:
"Robert Cox" wrote in message

news:2010123019233514223-coppercapped@gmailcom...





On 2010-12-30 11:03:23 +0000, said:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 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) ?

In the timescale you are writing about, it is highly likely that Oxford
will be re-connected to Cambridge using the old LNWR line in some fashion.

You are joking, of course?

It's taken them 25 years of discussion to not even get an agreed plan to
re-open the railway that is still in situ.

IMHO they will never ever get around to filling in the bit that isn't there
anymore.

You are probably right. It is still a wonderful thought though. An
arc from Felixstowe to Brighton would be a wonderful freight and
passenger bypass for London.

Crossrail western termunus
 

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.

Crossrail western termunus
 

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.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On 30/12/2010 15:05, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2010\12\30 14:59, Jamie Thompson wrote:

This new-found
capacity would then let you add new stations such as Brent Cross
(whilst retaining Hendon and Cricklewood), another between Cricklewood
and West Hampstead, Napsbury,

I presume you mean Mapesbury. Napsbury is near St Albans.

My paternal grandfather spent his last years in a mental hospital there.
I think it has been pulled down by now.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Dec 31, 1:19*pm, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/12/2010 15:05, Basil Jet wrote:

On 2010\12\30 14:59, Jamie Thompson wrote:

This new-found
capacity would then let you add new stations such as Brent Cross
(whilst retaining Hendon and Cricklewood), another between Cricklewood
and West Hampstead, Napsbury,

I presume you mean Mapesbury. Napsbury is near St Albans.

My paternal grandfather spent his last years in a mental hospital there.
* I think it has been pulled down by now.

It has indeed, and apparently once even had it's own siding at the
former station.

I suspect the redevelopment and all the new homes may have been the
impetus for (re)opening a station. One piece from 4 years ago
suggested 7500 new homes.

Crossrail western termunus
 

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.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On 31/12/2010 15:07, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Dec 31, 1:19 pm, Martin wrote:
On 30/12/2010 15:05, Basil Jet wrote:

On 2010\12\30 14:59, Jamie Thompson wrote:

This new-found
capacity would then let you add new stations such as Brent Cross
(whilst retaining Hendon and Cricklewood), another between Cricklewood
and West Hampstead, Napsbury,

I presume you mean Mapesbury. Napsbury is near St Albans.

My paternal grandfather spent his last years in a mental hospital there.
I think it has been pulled down by now.

It has indeed, and apparently once even had it's own siding at the
former station.

I suspect the redevelopment and all the new homes may have been the
impetus for (re)opening a station. One piece from 4 years ago
suggested 7500 new homes.

Thanks for the update. I have lived in Birmingham for many years, but I
still like to hear stuff about the old territory.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Jan 1, 6:13*am, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2010-12-31 16:07:14 +0000, Bruce said:





Robert Cox wrote:

In the timescale you are writing about, it is highly likely that Oxford
will be re-connected to Cambridge using the old LNWR line in some
fashion.

Not in our lifetime, Robert. *Not a chance.

Oxford to Milton Keynes, probably. *Eastward from there, the X5 bus
looks about the best bet with the new A421 now open between the M1 and
the Bedford southern bypass, giving a fast dual carriageway for most
of the distance between the M1 and Cambridge.

I doubt that a reopened East-West Rail would ever go further east than
Bedford. *It will be difficult enough to justify reopening Oxford to
Milton Keynes.

This is what happens when one makes a post without thinking the whole
thing through!

Having thought some more about what I was trying to say, I have today
posted a fuller version of my reasons for thinking that running Bristol
to Norwich trains via the Crossrail tunnel was not a good idea as a
reply to v.meldrew's post dated 31/12/10.

The issue then becomes: if it can be shown that there is a latent
demand for through travel from 'The West' (by which I include all of
those areas such as Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and South Wales where the
traffic could be routed through Bristol as a suitable node) to Norwich
or, in practice, the whole swath of East Anglia from Harwich round to
Kings Lynn then what is a suitable route which does /not/ use Crossrail?

Of the existing routes those via both London and via Birmingham are
well off the direct line connecting these areas and are themselves
already congested. Of the potential alternatives that via Didcot,
Oxford and the old LNWR route to Cambridge offers the shortest distance
and is more or less existent as far as Bedford. As you say, things get
interesting east of here!

If we rule out the possibility of tipping passengers out of the train
at Bedford to continue their journeys by coach to Cambridge or points
east, then we have to look at running trains towards Cambridge or other
suitable railheads. A possibility would be to run the trains down the
old MR line to Manton from Bedford where they would reverse to gain
Peterborough or, preferably, Ely[1] which could then be used as a
railhead instead of Cambridge. This might well be a suitable first
phase - to see if demand really existed as it only requires rolling
stock and possibly some signalling changes at Manton. If the results of
Phase 1 are encouraging, a minor improvement (Phase 2?) would be to
save time by shortening the route and avoiding the reversal at Manton
by using some or all of the alignment of the old Market Harborough to
Stamford line from somewhere near Harrington to Luffenham where it
would rejoin the Phase 1 route.

I agree with you that re-opening the section of the old LNWR route to
Cambridge east of Bedford will be very difficult to justify as so much
of it has been lost. But, a big 'but' I will admit, if my Phases 1 and
2 show that a demand exists which can wash its face financially[2] then
consideration should be given to shortening the route to Cambridge as
it is the most important traffic generator in the area.

Stranger things have happened! One should at least start the New Year
on an optimistic note!

[1] This does not preclude running trains through to Norwich.

[2] This implies, inter alia, that more passengers would be carried by
this route than would make the journey if the only alternatives were
via Birmingham or via Paddington, LUL and Liverpool Street.

Great post, clear thinking. It is a long shot, but we can hope.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Jan 1, 4:41*am, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2010-12-31 16:25:53 +0000, said:





On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:48:11 +0000, Robert Cox wrote:

On 2010-12-31 12:25:15 +0000, tim.... said:

"Robert Cox" wrote in message
news:2010123019233514223-coppercapped@gmailcom...
On 2010-12-30 11:03:23 +0000, said:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 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) ?

In the timescale you are writing about, it is highly likely that Oxford
will be re-connected to Cambridge using the old LNWR line in some
fashion.

You are joking, of course?

It's taken them 25 years of discussion to not even get an agreed plan
to re-open the railway that is still in situ.

IMHO they will never ever get around to filling in the bit that isn't
there anymore.

tim

Er, yes! 'Cos I thought that travelling from Bristol to Norwich in a
through train via Tottenham Court Road was also a humorous concept.

More sensible surely than having to change at Liverpool Street and
Paddington. *After all the railway doesn't expect passengers from London
to Edinburgh to get off the train south of the Tyne, then travel on the
Metro to another station north of the river to join another train
for the rest of the journey to Edinburgh.

From the passenger's perspective I agree with you - if possible the
number of changes should be minimised. After all, one doesn't
(usually!) change cars during a journey.

But the point here is that if your suggestion is adopted two very
different types of trains will be using the same tunnels. Mixing low
density Intercity-type trains (which I assume would be used for the
Bristol to Norwich passengers) with the high capacity metro-type trains
which will be offered for the Hayes to Ilford type of journey will
cause all sorts of loading and unloading issues. It certainly will not
improve the journey experience of the long distance passenger if he or
she is pushed and shoved by people only travelling from Paddington to
Tottenham Court Road.

The Crossrail tunnels will cost billions and will have to be
intensively used to make any sort of financial sense. To maximise the
throughput station dwell times have to be minimised and this means
using vehicles which are optimised for the metro role. Intentionally
reducing the throughput of the tunnel from the theoretical maximum of
24 or 30[1] trains per hour in the peaks helps neither the groups of
people the tunnel is intended to help nor does it make operational
sense. Intercity stock is not designed to permit 20 sec station stops
or to accommodate large numbers of standing passengers[2].

If sufficient demand can be shown to exist for journeys from the 'The
West' to East Anglia then a more suitable and lower cost route should
be used. This could be arranged by either using existing routes
(although both the North London Line and routes and those via
Birmingham are suffering increasingly from congestion) or a judicious
combination of re-opened or new construction. But do not send long
distance intercity trains under the centre of London in the Crossrail
tunnels.

[1] The S-Bahn tunnel under Munich shows that such a throughput can be
reached and maintained for the peak periods.

[2] If it is intended to run the intercity trains non-stop between
Paddington and Liverpool Street then although the intercity passengers
may travel in comfort, because of the reduced metro capacity the local
passengers will be worse off.

Crossrail's central section is likely to be one of the most intensely
utilized urban railroads outside of Tokyo. Think TfL Central Line
plus some! It will only work with a dedicated fleet of high capacity
purpose built trains. Moreover, signaling and control systems will be
designed for this type of service. There is NO prospect of other
trains sharing the tunnels.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On 31/12/2010 09:34, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:56 pm, wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 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?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

Full bathrooms? very few trains have them. As for Half bathrooms (a
commode and hand basin), a substantial number of trains have them. I
did not know you were pedantic enough to require "realtor speak". :-)

Most sleeping trains, AFIK, have three quarter bathrooms (A commode, a
shower, and a hand basin)

Thinking about it, Thameslink trains have half baths, so it is not
unreasonable to think Crossrail trains might.

A bathroom is a room with a bath... no ordinary members of the public
have access to trains fitted with baths in the UK.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Jan 5, 7:15*am, Jeremy Double wrote:
On 31/12/2010 09:34, 1506 wrote:





On Dec 30, 7:56 pm, *wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 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?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

Full bathrooms? very few trains have them. As for Half bathrooms (a
commode and hand basin), a substantial number of trains have them. *I
did not know you were pedantic enough to require "realtor speak". *:-)

Most sleeping trains, AFIK, have three quarter bathrooms (A commode, a
shower, and a hand basin)

Thinking about it, Thameslink trains have half baths, so it is not
unreasonable to think Crossrail trains might.

A bathroom is a room with a bath... no ordinary members of the public
have access to trains fitted with baths in the UK.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos athttp://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/- Hide quoted text -

Clearly you did not read my post. See also:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-half-bathroom.htm

Crossrail western termunus
 

In message Jeremy Double
was claimed to have wrote:

A bathroom is a room with a bath... no ordinary members of the public
have access to trains fitted with baths in the UK.

That depends on where you're located, in the US a bathroom typically
means a lavatory (which may or may not include a shower or bath)

While this discussion is taking place in uk.* groups it's also in
misc.transport.urban-transit, so it's quite likely that one or more
members will interpret words based on local custom and not just one
specific region's definition.

In other words, you're both right.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:19:41 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-half-bathroom.htm

....applies only in the US and possibly Canada. Use that phrase in
the UK and people will just get confused.

If you prefer to use US terminology in a crosspost like this,
"restroom" will at least be understood internationally; in the UK a
"bathroom" always contains a bath, and indeed need not contain a WC.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Jan 2, 2:32*pm, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2011-01-01 20:25:29 +0000, D1039 said:



Patrick

[1] Assuming through trains still? I believe it's in the RUS
[2] Possibly involving attachment of the electric portion at Bristol
to the bi-mode half-set

But that sort of journey is not the target market for Crossrail. It is
a big city Metro-type operation. Think LUL's Central Line on steroids.

Exactly: High Capacity, lots of standing room, several sets of wide
doors, keen acceleration. Crossrail will have as much in common with
an Intercity operation as fast food with a gourmet meal.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Jan 5, 7:39*am, Neil Williams wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 23:19:41 -0800 (PST), 1506
wrote:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-half-bathroom.htm

...applies only in the US and possibly Canada. *Use that phrase in
the UK and people will just get confused.

If you prefer to use US terminology in a crosspost like this,
"restroom" will at least be understood internationally; in the UK a
"bathroom" always contains a bath, and indeed need not contain a WC.

Neil

One rarely has a problem asking the whereabouts of the bathroom in the
UK. And, had you refered to my link: John Lewis is hardly a North
American company.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On 30 Dez. 2010, 20:56, Philip wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 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?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

The Orient Express?

Crossrail western termunus
 

"amogles" wrote in message

On 30 Dez. 2010, 20:56, Philip wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 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?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

The Orient Express?

Actually, the Venice Simplon-Orient-Express train is quite poorly
equipped in this regard. Cabins only have washbasins, with lavatories at
the end of the carriages.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Jan 5, 12:23*pm, amogles wrote:
On 1 Jan., 13:41, Robert Cox wrote:

The Crossrail tunnels will cost billions and will have to be
intensively used to make any sort of financial sense. To maximise the
throughput station dwell times have to be minimised and this means
using vehicles which are optimised for the metro role. Intentionally
reducing the throughput of the tunnel from the theoretical maximum of
24 or 30[1] trains per hour in the peaks helps neither the groups of
people the tunnel is intended to help nor does it make operational
sense. Intercity stock is not designed to permit 20 sec station stops
or to accommodate large numbers of standing passengers[2].

Crossrail will be designed to handle the peak load at peak time. That
means that the rest of the time there will be spare capacity. How
about routing a limited number of intercity trains through the tunnel
at off peak times? It is precisely at late evenings that the lower
density of trains on the Underground makes changing btween London
terminii take longer. If the last trains to Bristols or Cardiff could
pick up theatre goers in central London that might help make the train
an option where it isn't today.

Great theory. Will your intercity trains be fitted with ATO and the
correct emergency equipment for the tunnel section? What happens when
stock is substituted?

Crossrail western termunus
 

On Jan 5, 12:58*pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"amogles" wrote in message



On 30 Dez. 2010, 20:56, Philip wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 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?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

The Orient Express?

Actually, the Venice Simplon-Orient-Express train is quite poorly
equipped in this regard. Cabins only have washbasins, with lavatories at
the end of the carriages.

So, a bathroom at the end of each car. I assume that there are shower
facilities on board?

Crossrail western termunus
 

"1506" wrote in message

On Jan 5, 12:58 pm, "Recliner" wrote:
"amogles" wrote in message



On 30 Dez. 2010, 20:56, Philip wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 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?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

The Orient Express?

Actually, the Venice Simplon-Orient-Express train is quite poorly
equipped in this regard. Cabins only have washbasins, with
lavatories at the end of the carriages.

So, a bathroom at the end of each car. I assume that there are shower
facilities on board?

Unfortunately not (one of the reasons I wouldn't contemplate a trip on
it). From www.orient-express.com/web/vsoe/journey_questions.jsp#122965
"Are there showers on board the Orient-Express?

No. These are the original 1920s carriages and as such do not have all
the modern amenities such as showers. Each cabin contains a wash basin
with hot and cold water."

However, the more modern Eastern & Oriental Express does have en suite
bathrooms with showers and toilet. The even more luxurious Rovos Rail
in South Africa offers a bathroom complete with separate shower and
victorian bath with its Royal suites (which take up half a carriage
each). www.rovos.com/train-royal.html

That's one train I would like to experience, but probably in the more
affordable Pullman suites which only have showers, not baths.

Crossrail western termunus
 

On 05/01/2011 12:58, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

On 30 Dez. 2010, 20:56, wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 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?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

The Orient Express?

Actually, the Venice Simplon-Orient-Express train is quite poorly
equipped in this regard. Cabins only have washbasins, with lavatories at
the end of the carriages.


The Canadian, washbasins and loos in the 1st class cabins with a shower
cubicle at the end of the corridor.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net