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)