Unless I'm very much mistaken, it was Jonn Elledge
), in message
who said:
"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...

We won't argue about distances but this version of Crossrail feels
very biased to Greater London and in particular mayoral ambitions
about East London regeneration than appropriate transport need.


I agree the whole thing looks politically motivated, but in this case
I don't think that's really a bad thing. The eastern end of the
Thames really does need regenerating, and Canary Wharf could do with
another line to the centre of town as I believe the existing ones are
already pushing capacity. What's more, the Shenfield line is one of
the busiest stretches of national rail in the London area (there are
12 trains per hour as far as Gidea Park in the peaks). I always felt
that Crossrail should effectively be a slightly larger-scale tube
line, rather than a way for long distance trains to cross London.
After all, does anyone really want to go from Southend to Reading?

I do think that an all stops Slough service should be included (and
also that they'd resurrect Maryland); but I disagree that Crossrail
should push too far out of London.


They should keep the central part of it as planned with all existing stops,
but use the services to form part of a much bigger plan.

Crossrail services should couple to existing trains either side of the
central area, allowing for fast intercity routes.

E.g.

Norwich-Ipswich-Colchester-Stratford

Five minute wait, train divides into regular Liverpool street intercity, and
our sections hooks up to crossrail shuttle.

Call at all stations to Ealing Broadway.

Five minute wait, train divides, crossrail shuttle goes back, and our
section joins with an intercity out of Paddington.

Slough-Reading-Oxford-Swindon-Bristol-Cardiff


NOw what the **** is wrong with that? Basically express intercity services,
but running /through/ London and stopping within.

Southend to Birmingham.
Cambridge to Plymouth.
Ashford to Windsor.

Why the **** not?

BTN