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.

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) ?

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?

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

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.

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.

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 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 Dec 30 2010, 1:42*pm, wrote:
(NOT bathrooms PLEASE)

Oh I don't know. After most train journeys I feel like I need a
bath. Getting the TOC to pay for the hot water sounds like a good
idea.