In message , Richard J.
writes

Darling latched on to this in his statement today: "On the basis of the
Review's work, it is clear that the case for a limb to Richmond/Kingston
is relatively weakly developed, and that an extension on the western
side to Maidenhead might provide a better solution. This would be a key
change, and would align directly with key Review concerns about the
scale and deliverability of the project and number of interfaces it has
with the national railway."

Incidentally, I don't think it's a case of Maidenhead instead of
Kingston. The difficulties of getting BAA to give up HEx and of sharing
tracks with FGWL's slower diesel trains have led CLRL to develop the
Maidenhead proposal, using trains that would otherwise have reversed at
Paddington.

Surely once you're running trains to Maidenhead, it would make sense to
extend them a couple of stops to Reading, where there's a far greater
range of connections and plenty of bay platforms to terminate them.
--
Spyke
Address is valid, but messages are treated as junk. The opinions I express do
not necessarily reflect those of the educational institution from which I post.