On 2010\12\30 14:59, Jamie Thompson wrote:

This new-found
capacity would then let you add new stations such as Brent Cross
(whilst retaining Hendon and Cricklewood), another between Cricklewood
and West Hampstead, Napsbury,

I presume you mean Mapesbury. Napsbury is near St Albans.

On 30/12/10 15:03, in article , "Martin
Edwards" wrote:


I take it you mean lavatories.

A lavatory is literally a place for washing, and a washbasin is sometimes
(correctly) called a lavatory basin by those who make and install them.
Though widely used as such it is not a term for a place for urination. Of
course, places for urinating generally include facilities for washing as
well.

On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

On 30/12/2010 15:03, Martin Edwards wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

The service will require proper inter-city stock with loos (NOT
bathrooms PLEASE), doors that close properly and adequate seating.

The substandard stock which you describe will be used on services such
as Maidenhead - Shenfield.

I take it you mean lavatories.

To call a spade a spade: Toilets.

There. That wasn't difficult, was it?

On Dec 30, 11:13*am, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 11:03*am, wrote:



On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 9:16*am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
The current plan is to terminate Crossrail at Maidenhead I believe.

During past discussions I recall various people putting forward the idea
that Reading would be a more logical terminus. * Others pointed out that
there wasn't much point as long as Reading wasn't remodelled.

Well, now we're getting the remodelling AND the wires will one day pass
through Reading to Oxford and Newbury.

The question I have is does it make more sense to leave the Crossrail
terminus at Maidenhead or extend it to (or beyond?) Reading at some point in
the future?

Clearly, the question is almost rhetorical. *Crossrail should go to
Reading.

This is just thinking small. *Crossrail joins up two mainlines - so why not run services such as Bristol - Norwich (once the knitting
permits) ?

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

Bathrooms???

Toilets maybe but bathrooms?

Paul

1506 wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

Sandringham passengers may have access to bathrooms, but the rest of us
mere mortals do not.
--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p10589933.html
(08 530 at Colchester, 13 Apr 1980)

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:59:30 +0000, Philip wrote:

On 30/12/2010 15:03, Martin Edwards wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

The service will require proper inter-city stock with loos (NOT
bathrooms PLEASE), doors that close properly and adequate seating.

The substandard stock which you describe will be used on services such
as Maidenhead - Shenfield.

I take it you mean lavatories.

To call a spade a spade: Toilets.

Is that anything like a tiolet ?

There. That wasn't difficult, was it?

On Dec 30, 3:05*pm, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2010\12\30 14:59, Jamie Thompson wrote:



This new-found
capacity would then let you add new stations such as Brent Cross
(whilst retaining Hendon and Cricklewood), another between Cricklewood
and West Hampstead, Napsbury,

I presume you mean Mapesbury. Napsbury is near St Albans.

Indeed it is, and is exactly what I meant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napsbury_railway_station

....there have been lots of call to rebuild the station, but I suspect
that capacity is at such a premium that there's no chance. The fact
they have no plans to extend the platforms at Hendon, Cricklewood,
Kentish Town and formerly Radlett (researching this post I see the
locals won their fight to get them extended - well done!), should tell
you how disproportionate the focus is towards the regional services.

On Dec 30, 7:56*pm, Philip wrote:
On 30/12/2010 11:13, 1506 wrote:

And how do you think the Bristol and Norwich passengers will feel
about travelling in rapid transit trains with no bathrooms, many
draughty doors, and limited seating?

Bathrooms?! How many trains have bathrooms that you can think of?

Full bathrooms? very few trains have them. As for Half bathrooms (a
commode and hand basin), a substantial number of trains have them. I
did not know you were pedantic enough to require "realtor speak". :-)

Most sleeping trains, AFIK, have three quarter bathrooms (A commode, a
shower, and a hand basin)

Thinking about it, Thameslink trains have half baths, so it is not
unreasonable to think Crossrail trains might.

On Dec 31, 12:25*pm, "tim...." wrote:
"Robert Cox" wrote in message

news:2010123019233514223-coppercapped@gmailcom...





On 2010-12-30 11:03:23 +0000, said:

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 02:09:02 -0800 (PST), 1506 wrote:

On Dec 30, 9:16 am, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
The current plan is to terminate Crossrail at Maidenhead I believe.

During past discussions I recall various people putting forward the
idea
that Reading would be a more logical terminus. Others pointed out that
there wasn't much point as long as Reading wasn't remodelled.

Well, now we're getting the remodelling AND the wires will one day pass
through Reading to Oxford and Newbury.

The question I have is does it make more sense to leave the Crossrail
terminus at Maidenhead or extend it to (or beyond?) Reading at some
point in
the future?

Clearly, the question is almost rhetorical. *Crossrail should go to
Reading.

This is just thinking small. *Crossrail joins up two mainlines - so why
not run services such as Bristol - Norwich (once the knitting
permits) ?

In the timescale you are writing about, it is highly likely that Oxford
will be re-connected to Cambridge using the old LNWR line in some fashion.

You are joking, of course?

It's taken them 25 years of discussion to not even get an agreed plan to
re-open the railway that is still in situ.

IMHO they will never ever get around to filling in the bit that isn't there
anymore.

You are probably right. It is still a wonderful thought though. An
arc from Felixstowe to Brighton would be a wonderful freight and
passenger bypass for London.