On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 01:36:02 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\06\04 21:05, Robert wrote:
On 2015-06-04 19:49:39 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Funny you should say that.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2...end-beginning/

Well, I never...! :-)


"What is more curious is that it looks like there will be 2tph off-peak
that will run from London all stations to West Drayton, then fast to
Slough, then fast to Maidenhead. This appears to be making best use of
limited capacity by extending a suburban metro service to Slough to
provide a better service to that town. It will also provide a much
better service for the tourist market to Windsor. The continuation fast
to Maidenhead is merely in order to terminate at the first opportunity."

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.

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 05/06/2015 10:30, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.

Have you looked at the Windsor station site and seen who it's neighbours
are? Most of the station site has been sold off as a retail mall. IIRC
the current platform can only cope with a two car DMU. You could
re-extend the platform back across the Goswell Road, there's probably
enough space to fit a Crossrail train.

I seem to remember there was a project[1] to reroute the line to an end
on junction with the LSWR line at Riverside but that would involve a
tunnel and a major rebuild at low level for the latter.

[1] A "fantasy" project not a DfT idea.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

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?

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 11:02:08 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-05 09:49:05 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

On 05/06/2015 10:30, e27002 aurora wrote:
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.

Have you looked at the Windsor station site and seen who it's
neighbours are? Most of the station site has been sold off as a retail
mall. IIRC the current platform can only cope with a two car DMU. You
could re-extend the platform back across the Goswell Road, there's
probably enough space to fit a Crossrail train.

I seem to remember there was a project[1] to reroute the line to an end
on junction with the LSWR line at Riverside but that would involve a
tunnel and a major rebuild at low level for the latter.

[1] A "fantasy" project not a DfT idea.

With the amounts of money being spent on Crossrail an extended station
would be feasible; any shops or car parks in the way could be moved and
bridges don't cost the earth these days.

Thank you Robert. So this would have veen doable. Maybe NR will see
the light, :-)

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

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 13:12:04 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-05 10:45:07 +0000, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 11:17:36 on Fri, 5 Jun
2015, Robert remarked:
In view of the geography it would be necessary to build a burrowing
junction at Slough - the ramps would have to start somewhere near
Dolphin Junction on the London side and the tunnels would have to
incorporate platforms for Slough. For such a construction to half-way
economic there would have to be at least 4 trains per hour to and from
Windsor

On the single track/platform?

That's as it is. If Crossrail comes (and it's a big "if") then why
would things stay the same?

The bridges over the Thames and its side-arm originally had two tracks
as did the whole branch including the south to west chord at Slough.

Big plans can come to fruition - I've just watched the Reading area be
transformed. Why could such a transformation not happen in the Slough
and Windsor area too - at some time in the future when Crossrail (Phase
1) has settled down?

The Reading work is great and solves the GWML's biggest bottleneck.
That also means that we just promoted what was the second biggest. :-)