On 30/12/2010 18:23, Stephen Furley wrote:



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

Well spotted.

On 30/12/2010 19:59, 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.

There. That wasn't difficult, was it?

No.

On 30/12/2010 15:05, 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.

My paternal grandfather spent his last years in a mental hospital there.
I think it has been pulled down by now.

On Dec 31, 1:19*pm, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 30/12/2010 15:05, 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.

My paternal grandfather spent his last years in a mental hospital there.
* I think it has been pulled down by now.

It has indeed, and apparently once even had it's own siding at the
former station.

I suspect the redevelopment and all the new homes may have been the
impetus for (re)opening a station. One piece from 4 years ago
suggested 7500 new homes.

On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:37:05 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote
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 ?

Hopefully not, no. One would expect a toilet to be less smelly than a
tiolet, as well as having a comprehensible locking mechanism and not being
out of order.

On 31/12/2010 15:07, Jamie Thompson wrote:
On Dec 31, 1:19 pm, Martin wrote:
On 30/12/2010 15:05, 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.

My paternal grandfather spent his last years in a mental hospital there.
I think it has been pulled down by now.

It has indeed, and apparently once even had it's own siding at the
former station.

I suspect the redevelopment and all the new homes may have been the
impetus for (re)opening a station. One piece from 4 years ago
suggested 7500 new homes.

Thanks for the update. I have lived in Birmingham for many years, but I
still like to hear stuff about the old territory.

On Jan 1, 6:13*am, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2010-12-31 16:07:14 +0000, Bruce said:





Robert Cox wrote:

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.

Not in our lifetime, Robert. *Not a chance.

Oxford to Milton Keynes, probably. *Eastward from there, the X5 bus
looks about the best bet with the new A421 now open between the M1 and
the Bedford southern bypass, giving a fast dual carriageway for most
of the distance between the M1 and Cambridge.

I doubt that a reopened East-West Rail would ever go further east than
Bedford. *It will be difficult enough to justify reopening Oxford to
Milton Keynes.

This is what happens when one makes a post without thinking the whole
thing through!

Having thought some more about what I was trying to say, I have today
posted a fuller version of my reasons for thinking that running Bristol
to Norwich trains via the Crossrail tunnel was not a good idea as a
reply to v.meldrew's post dated 31/12/10.

The issue then becomes: if it can be shown that there is a latent
demand for through travel from 'The West' (by which I include all of
those areas such as Devon, Cornwall, Somerset and South Wales where the
traffic could be routed through Bristol as a suitable node) to Norwich
or, in practice, the whole swath of East Anglia from Harwich round to
Kings Lynn then what is a suitable route which does /not/ use Crossrail?

Of the existing routes those via both London and via Birmingham are
well off the direct line connecting these areas and are themselves
already congested. Of the potential alternatives that via Didcot,
Oxford and the old LNWR route to Cambridge offers the shortest distance
and is more or less existent as far as Bedford. As you say, things get
interesting east of here!

If we rule out the possibility of tipping passengers out of the train
at Bedford to continue their journeys by coach to Cambridge or points
east, then we have to look at running trains towards Cambridge or other
suitable railheads. A possibility would be to run the trains down the
old MR line to Manton from Bedford where they would reverse to gain
Peterborough or, preferably, Ely[1] which could then be used as a
railhead instead of Cambridge. This might well be a suitable first
phase - to see if demand really existed as it only requires rolling
stock and possibly some signalling changes at Manton. If the results of
Phase 1 are encouraging, a minor improvement (Phase 2?) would be to
save time by shortening the route and avoiding the reversal at Manton
by using some or all of the alignment of the old Market Harborough to
Stamford line from somewhere near Harrington to Luffenham where it
would rejoin the Phase 1 route.

I agree with you that re-opening the section of the old LNWR route to
Cambridge east of Bedford will be very difficult to justify as so much
of it has been lost. But, a big 'but' I will admit, if my Phases 1 and
2 show that a demand exists which can wash its face financially[2] then
consideration should be given to shortening the route to Cambridge as
it is the most important traffic generator in the area.

Stranger things have happened! One should at least start the New Year
on an optimistic note!

[1] This does not preclude running trains through to Norwich.

[2] This implies, inter alia, that more passengers would be carried by
this route than would make the journey if the only alternatives were
via Birmingham or via Paddington, LUL and Liverpool Street.

Great post, clear thinking. It is a long shot, but we can hope.

On Jan 1, 4:41*am, Robert Cox wrote:
On 2010-12-31 16:25:53 +0000, said:





On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 14:48:11 +0000, Robert Cox wrote:

On 2010-12-31 12:25:15 +0000, tim.... said:

"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.

tim

Er, yes! 'Cos I thought that travelling from Bristol to Norwich in a
through train via Tottenham Court Road was also a humorous concept.

More sensible surely than having to change at Liverpool Street and
Paddington. *After all the railway doesn't expect passengers from London
to Edinburgh to get off the train south of the Tyne, then travel on the
Metro to another station north of the river to join another train
for the rest of the journey to Edinburgh.

From the passenger's perspective I agree with you - if possible the
number of changes should be minimised. After all, one doesn't
(usually!) change cars during a journey.

But the point here is that if your suggestion is adopted two very
different types of trains will be using the same tunnels. Mixing low
density Intercity-type trains (which I assume would be used for the
Bristol to Norwich passengers) with the high capacity metro-type trains
which will be offered for the Hayes to Ilford type of journey will
cause all sorts of loading and unloading issues. It certainly will not
improve the journey experience of the long distance passenger if he or
she is pushed and shoved by people only travelling from Paddington to
Tottenham Court Road.

The Crossrail tunnels will cost billions and will have to be
intensively used to make any sort of financial sense. To maximise the
throughput station dwell times have to be minimised and this means
using vehicles which are optimised for the metro role. Intentionally
reducing the throughput of the tunnel from the theoretical maximum of
24 or 30[1] trains per hour in the peaks helps neither the groups of
people the tunnel is intended to help nor does it make operational
sense. Intercity stock is not designed to permit 20 sec station stops
or to accommodate large numbers of standing passengers[2].

If sufficient demand can be shown to exist for journeys from the 'The
West' to East Anglia then a more suitable and lower cost route should
be used. This could be arranged by either using existing routes
(although both the North London Line and routes and those via
Birmingham are suffering increasingly from congestion) or a judicious
combination of re-opened or new construction. But do not send long
distance intercity trains under the centre of London in the Crossrail
tunnels.

[1] The S-Bahn tunnel under Munich shows that such a throughput can be
reached and maintained for the peak periods.

[2] If it is intended to run the intercity trains non-stop between
Paddington and Liverpool Street then although the intercity passengers
may travel in comfort, because of the reduced metro capacity the local
passengers will be worse off.

Crossrail's central section is likely to be one of the most intensely
utilized urban railroads outside of Tokyo. Think TfL Central Line
plus some! It will only work with a dedicated fleet of high capacity
purpose built trains. Moreover, signaling and control systems will be
designed for this type of service. There is NO prospect of other
trains sharing the tunnels.

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 Jan 5, 7:15*am, Jeremy Double wrote:
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 athttp://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdouble/collections/72157603834894248/- Hide quoted text -

Clearly you did not read my post. See also:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-half-bathroom.htm