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 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 31/12/2010 09:34, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:56 pm, 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.

A bathroom is a room with a bath... no ordinary members of the public
have access to trains fitted with baths in the UK.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

On 31/12/2010 09:34, 1506 wrote:
On Dec 30, 7:56 pm, 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.

Full bathrooms? Half bathrooms? What?

I realise that others like to complicate matters more than we do here in
Yorkshire, but let's be clear: It's a bloody toilet.

Phil.

On 30 Dez. 2010, 20:56, 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?

The Orient Express?

"amogles" wrote in message

On 30 Dez. 2010, 20:56, 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?

The Orient Express?

Actually, the Venice Simplon-Orient-Express train is quite poorly
equipped in this regard. Cabins only have washbasins, with lavatories at
the end of the carriages.

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, 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.

No, Crossrail should go to Slough. Trying to run suburban metro and home
counties commuter services with the same tracks and trains is a
transparently stupid idea which we will come to regret very quickly.

tom

--
Sport in general is ridiculous and should be banned. -- Ian Tindale

On Dec 30, 12:27*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, 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.

No, Crossrail should go to Slough. Trying to run suburban metro and home
counties commuter services with the same tracks and trains is a
transparently stupid idea which we will come to regret very quickly.

Thameslink?