In message , at 20:12:31 on Tue, 6 Oct 2020,
Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:40:31 on Tue, 6 Oct 2020,
Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:45:21 on
Tue, 6 Oct 2020, Recliner remarked:
On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 12:14:46 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 11:49:29 on
Tue, 6 Oct 2020, Trolleybus remarked:

Personally, I don't think Crossrail should go as far as Reading. I
think Slough was far enough.

Windsor IMO, assuming crossing the mainline is at all possible.

It's single track from Slough and a single platform, so capacity and
the ability to recover during disruption are poor.

If Crossrail is supposed to be for shifting commuters deep into the
core, rather than them being dumped at Paddington on legacy services,
then Reading is a sensible terminus. And don't forget the people
commuting *to* Reading from smaller stations on the GWR corridor.

But conveying commuters from stations in Berkshire to Reading isn't
TfL's job. As Neil says, Crossrail should be focusing on travel in the
Greater London area.

Are there enough paths for both the Crossrail trains you'd be running
only as far as Slough, plus the legacy commuter services from Berkshire?

No, they'd need to change where the services meet.

And the local trains reverse and go back to Reading? Has Slough got
enough platforms for that, as well as reversing the Crossrails.

Remember that Reading was never the original target for Crossrail.

It was, but they had to deny it in order to reduce the projected costs
(awaiting some tooth fairy to pay for 'extending' it to Reading).

What would have happened at Maidenhead?

Crossrail would have reversed, but the locals from Reading would have
run through to Paddington. Whether they in fact had sufficient
paths/platforms to do that is probably lost in the mists of time.
--
Roland Perry