On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, wrote:

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the
nearest that makes sense.

Chelmsford!

Somewhere upthread, it was asserted that the place had to be a junction -
Shenfield and Colchester are, Chelmsford isn't. Not that this is
necessarily a correct assertion.

tom

--
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees. -- Emiliano Zapata

On Dec 6, 7:27*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the
nearest that makes sense.

Chelmsford!

Somewhere upthread, it was asserted that the place had to be a junction -
Shenfield and Colchester are, Chelmsford isn't. Not that this is
necessarily a correct assertion.

I thought it was more that it hasn't got the facilities.

In message , at 12:05:22
on Sat, 6 Dec 2008, remarked:
And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the
nearest that makes sense.

Chelmsford!

I have explained several times why Chelmsford is not a suitable place
for this.
--
Roland Perry

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On Dec 6, 7:27*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008, wrote:
In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the
nearest that makes sense.

Chelmsford!

Somewhere upthread, it was asserted that the place had to be a
junction - Shenfield and Colchester are, Chelmsford isn't. Not that
this is necessarily a correct assertion.

I thought it was more that it hasn't got the facilities.

But if the location fits otherwise it could have the facilities added.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 7 Dec, 19:25, wrote:
But if the location fits otherwise it could have the facilities added.

They're completely rebuilding Maidenhead, Shenfield and West Drayton
to act as termini, so the "lack of facilities" argument doesn't
actually wash. It's the most sensible operationally, which in this
case is all stations to Shenfield.

That said, I've decided all Crossrail trains will terminate at
Stratford. The people of Essex can go to their rooms and think about
what they've done.

U

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 21:13:13 on Wed,
3 Dec 2008, Peter Smyth remarked:
And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the
nearest that makes sense.

Southend Victoria? It is as close to Central London as Reading is.

Why would a commuter from Southend want to take a Crossrail train
rather than the much more direct line to Fenchurch St?

How different from the people who currently travel from Southend Victoria
to Liverpool St now? If they want the city they will get to Fenchurch St
quicker but quite a lot still travel to Liverpool St.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Peter
Campbell Smith) wrote:

I spent a while shuttling between various industrial sites around
Paris and the RER really is a boon for that: in London it would
have been train-tube-
train, but in Paris it was typically one quick change at Chatelet.

Chatelet is so spread out that the idea of "one quick change" is a bit
implausible.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Dec 7, 8:31*pm, Mr Thant
wrote:
On 7 Dec, 19:25, wrote:

But if the location fits otherwise it could have the facilities added.

They're completely rebuilding Maidenhead, Shenfield and West Drayton
to act as termini, so the "lack of facilities" argument doesn't
actually wash. It's the most sensible operationally, which in this
case is all stations to Shenfield.

That said, I've decided all Crossrail trains will terminate at
Stratford. The people of Essex can go to their rooms and think about
what they've done.

U

I've got no problem at all with terminating at Shenfield, where
Crossrail simply replaces existing services and links local stations
with a station where several longer distance services stop.

It's Maidenhead I have the problem with, whatever the excuses. If
extending to Reading puts the whole project at risk, they might as
well just terminate everything at Paddington and save on duplicating
services to reach Reading. (It's not just Twyford and the Henley
branch, it's the need to have something to change to at Maidenhead if
you get on at any of the local stations.)

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at 08:16:49 on Thu,
4 Dec 2008, Martin Edwards remarked:
despite having to get through immigration (which, last time I
entered the US, in SFO wasn't too onerous at all).

I didn't find it too bad in Atlanta, but you do need a prebooked
address. In my case I wasn't visiting anyone but had booked the motel
(in Lafayette) on the Web.

You need an address wherever you enter, and starting real soon you
have to register your details in advance.

What if you change your plans, as we did while visiting my brother last
time we were there? Even if we'd known we were going to visit Niagara, we
wouldn't have known we'd have had to stay in a Pennsylvania motel when the
car engine blew up!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Peter
Campbell Smith) wrote:

I spent a while shuttling between various industrial sites around
Paris and the RER really is a boon for that: in London it would
have been train-tube-
train, but in Paris it was typically one quick change at Chatelet.

wrote in
:

Chatelet is so spread out that the idea of "one quick change" is a bit
implausible.

The RER platforms are close together; in one direction it's cross-platform
for a N-S to E-W change (line A to B/D) and in the other it's at the next
platform. But by 'quick change' I was really meaning that the frequency on
the RER is such that you rarely have to wait long for a train.

But I agree that if you need to change to the Metro it's a bit of a hike,
and as for Gare du Nord ...

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com