Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains
to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's little room for
any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to Reading - even if
you remove, say, half of those (12) that would probably terminate at
Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow though
- I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a train every
5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18 to Maidenhead
would be a better assumption? Still no real room to insert slow
Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though.

Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains
not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost
station' at Westbourne Park?

They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like "We're
not going to Reading".

John Rowland wrote:
Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra
trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail, so there's
little room for any other way of running slow (non-Crossrail) to
Reading - even if you remove, say, half of those (12) that would
probably terminate
at Heathrow. I doubt it would be as many as 12 trains to Heathrow
though - I can't see the customer levels for heathrow needing a
train every 5 minutes (12 an hour). So maybe 6 Heathrows and 18
to Maidenhead would be a better assumption? Still no real room to
insert slow Readings in between the CRossrails after Hayes though.

Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail
trains not going any further than the turnback sidings at the
'ghost station' at Westbourne Park?

They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like
"We're not going to Reading".

And "we're not going to Terminal 5 at Heathrow". (Current plans are to
serve T123 and T4 only.) I agree that some of the current plans look
odd, but I don't have your confidence that sense will prevail.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra trains
to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail,

Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains
not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost station'
at Westbourne Park?

They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like
"We're not going to Reading".

*raises eyebrow*

What makes us think this is the case?

tom

--
Jim-Jammity Jesus Krispy Kreme Christ on a ****-rocket!

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, John Rowland wrote:

Paul Scott wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
...

24 Crossrail trains an hour leaves little or no room for extra
trains to fit in on the same tracks as Crossrail,

Your proposals haven't accounted for about half the crossrail trains
not going any further than the turnback sidings at the 'ghost
station' at Westbourne Park?

They won't actually do that - it's another accounting fiction, like
"We're not going to Reading".

*raises eyebrow*

What makes us think this is the case?

I don't know what makes "us" think it, but what makes *me* think it is that
I was told it by someone heavily involved in the project (I can't remember
who).