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

Roland Perry wrote:
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?

In the peak, 12 each per hour from both eastern branches. Of these, ten
proceed beyond Paddington.
Off peak, six from Shenfield, eight from Abbey Wood. Six proceed beyond
Paddington.

See
http://www2.ealing.gov.uk/ealing3/ex...Appendix_2.pdf

In message
-septem
ber.org, at 20:25:58 on Fri, 5 Jun 2015, Recliner
remarked:

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.

Where are they starting from?

In the peak, 12 each per hour from both eastern branches. Of these, ten
proceed beyond Paddington.
Off peak, six from Shenfield, eight from Abbey Wood. Six proceed beyond
Paddington.

The tourist demand to Windsor would be off-peak, so it would be
abstracting from the six-beyond-Paddington, which actually means none to
Maidenhead. Unless the "Orange" service was extended to all day and sent
to Windsor, replacing 2tph of the Paddington terminators. Which is quite
a big change to the pattern.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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.

Those are off-peak figures I think. There are only 16 through the core then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

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.

Those are off-peak figures I think. There are only 16 through the core then.

See my post upthread: 14 tph off-peak, 24 peak.