In message , at 09:14:39 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough, and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 09:53:26 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:14:39 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough,

Maybe not. That is outwith my knowledge. However, given the scale of
Crossra,il solving that issue would be small potatoes.

and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

In message , at 10:30:30 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough,

Maybe not. That is outwith my knowledge. However, given the scale of
Crossra,il solving that issue would be small potatoes.

Have you been to the station? It's a single track about 4 coaches long.

and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:30:30 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough,

Maybe not. That is outwith my knowledge. However, given the scale of
Crossra,il solving that issue would be small potatoes.

Have you been to the station? It's a single track about 4 coaches long.

and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.

There could be fewer Paddington reversers.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:38:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:30:30 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough,

Maybe not. That is outwith my knowledge. However, given the scale of
Crossra,il solving that issue would be small potatoes.

Have you been to the station?

My previous answer indicated the contrary.

It's a single track about 4 coaches long.

Thank you for enlightening me.

and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.

Are you unaware of the 14tph reversing @ Westbourne Park?

In message , at 11:06:58 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.

Are you unaware of the 14tph reversing @ Westbourne Park?

I knew some would be reversing at Paddington, but with only 8tph from
each of the branches to the east, that only leaves 2tph which seems too
few.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 11:06:58
on Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.

Are you unaware of the 14tph reversing @ Westbourne Park?

I knew some would be reversing at Paddington, but with only 8tph from
each of the branches to the east, that only leaves 2tph which seems
too few.

There will be 24tph through the core but only 10 will continue past
Paddington.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 11:34:33
on Fri, 5 Jun 2015, remarked:
I knew some would be reversing at Paddington, but with only 8tph from
each of the branches to the east, that only leaves 2tph which seems
too few.

There will be 24tph through the core but only 10 will continue past
Paddington.

Where are they starting from?

My impression is that Abbey Wood has 8tph and they hope Shenfield will
also have 8tph despite only currently having permission to do 6tph.
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:34:33 -0500,
wrote:

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 11:06:58
on Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.

Are you unaware of the 14tph reversing @ Westbourne Park?

I knew some would be reversing at Paddington, but with only 8tph from
each of the branches to the east, that only leaves 2tph which seems
too few.

There will be 24tph through the core but only 10 will continue past
Paddington.

Thank you. That fits with what I have read.

On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:34:33 -0500,
wrote:

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 11:06:58
on Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.

Are you unaware of the 14tph reversing @ Westbourne Park?

I knew some would be reversing at Paddington, but with only 8tph from
each of the branches to the east, that only leaves 2tph which seems
too few.

There will be 24tph through the core but only 10 will continue past
Paddington.

Thank you. That fits with what I have read.