On Mar 22, 3:50*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 05:19:58 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

However, many folks have travelled to the terminus by subway.
Ascending escalators, waiting for a train, and accessing one's
platform all add to the journey time.

True. *But to me fastest is not necessarily best.

Rather wise words Mr. Williams. Thank you.

On Mar 22, 4:00*pm, Neil Williams wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:10:06 +0000, David Cantrell

wrote:
By "half bathrooms" do you mean "bogs"?

Yes he does. *He has this curious obsession with the use of the US
term in here, largely I think because it winds people up.

There are some depths to which I will not stoop.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:03:36 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:18:40 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:46:55 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 05:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
By the time Crossrail is built, Paddington to Reading will be
electrified. Crossrail will run to Reading.

Well yes, thats part of the scheme.

Is it? When was that announced?

Unofficially. Maidenhead is hardly the most logical place for a terminus.

So it hasn't been announced, and isn't part of the plan, but is just
your presumption. Given that it's a TfL managed project, and is
ordering sans-toilet trains, Maidenhead may be as far west as it
should go.


Presumably improved now that the Moorgate branch is no more? But

Perhaps, I haven't been on it since that closed. Though given that section
didn't have much traffic

there's still the need to change voltage at Farringdon, something that
won't be needed with XRail.

That takes seconds. The main issue when I used it was the slow speed on the
line itself and the constant stopping.

Maybe also connected with the rebuilding of Blackfriars station?
Certainly, it should be much quicker once the project is complete
(including London Bridge and the new tracks between the two).

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:06:09 +0000
Recliner wrote:
Unofficially. Maidenhead is hardly the most logical place for a terminus.

So it hasn't been announced, and isn't part of the plan, but is just
your presumption. Given that it's a TfL managed project, and is
ordering sans-toilet trains, Maidenhead may be as far west as it
should go.

AFAIK the line to reading is "protected". Whatever that means in practice.

That takes seconds. The main issue when I used it was the slow speed on the
line itself and the constant stopping.

Maybe also connected with the rebuilding of Blackfriars station?

They hadn't even started on that when I worked down there. This was 2006-2007.

Certainly, it should be much quicker once the project is complete
(including London Bridge and the new tracks between the two).

Given the money spent one would hope so.

B2003

On Mar 23, 9:28*am, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:06:09 +0000

Recliner wrote:
Unofficially. Maidenhead is hardly the most logical place for a terminus.

So it hasn't been announced, and isn't part of the plan, but is just
your presumption. *Given that it's a TfL managed project, and is
ordering sans-toilet trains, Maidenhead may be as far west as it
should go.

AFAIK the line to reading is "protected". Whatever that means in practice..

That takes seconds. The main issue when I used it was the slow speed on the
line itself and the constant stopping.

Maybe also connected with the rebuilding of Blackfriars station?

They hadn't even started on that when I worked down there. This was 2006-2007.

Certainly, it should be much quicker once the project is complete
(including London Bridge and the new tracks between the two).

Given the money spent one would hope so.

The assumption that Crossrail will run to Reading is a reasonable
one. Maidenhead was chosen as the Western Terminus in order to keep
the project within budget. If this remains the case, trains for the
section beyond Maidenhead will share the reliefs from a flat Junction
beyond Paddington to Maidenhead. At Maidenhead Crossrail reversal
will have to be handled within the two relief lines which will coping
with said thru trains.

Meanwhile, the route is being electrified to Reading where ample new
platform accomodation is being constructed. This is happening under a
budget outwith Crossrails.

So, no, the powers that be do not admit that Crossrail will run to
Reading. Received wisdom is that it will.

On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 04:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
Meanwhile, the route is being electrified to Reading where ample new

Is this going to be the first stage of the electrification of the whole
GWR main line or is that still pie in the sky?

So, no, the powers that be do not admit that Crossrail will run to
Reading. Received wisdom is that it will.

If the infrastructure is already going to be there anyway there's no really
good reason not to.

B2003

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 05:23:19AM -0700, 77002 wrote:
On Mar 22, 11:47=A0am, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 11:10:06 +0000
David Cantrell wrote:
It makes sense to me. =A0An awful lot of journeys will be a hell of a lo=
t
shorter than Maidenhead (not Reading) to Shenfield, and even for those
few people going all the way, it's only an hour and a half, as near as
damnit the same as Richmond to Upminster, which also has no bogs and
no-one seems to mind that.
I suspect the central bit will be packed as people use it as an alternati=
ve
to the tube (assuming Oyster will be valid and they're not going to try i=
t
on with special fares). I don't think you'd want smelly , possibly blocke=
d
toilets in the carraige in that scenario.
Thameslink has on board facilities. Thameslink's central section is
extremely well utilized.

Brighton to Bedford is nearly an hour longer journey, so there's more
reason to have bogs on the trains.

--
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

I apologize if I offended you personally,
I intended to do it professionally.
-- Steve Champeon, on the nanog list

On 23/03/2012 12:44, d wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 04:57:19 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
Meanwhile, the route is being electrified to Reading where ample new

Is this going to be the first stage of the electrification of the whole
GWR main line or is that still pie in the sky?

So, no, the powers that be do not admit that Crossrail will run to
Reading. Received wisdom is that it will.

If the infrastructure is already going to be there anyway there's no really
good reason not to.


AIUI the Crossrail maintenance depot will be at Reading.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Mar 23, 12:44*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 04:57:19 -0700 (PDT)

77002 wrote:
Meanwhile, the route is being electrified to Reading where ample new

Is this going to be the first stage of the electrification of the whole
GWR main line or is that still pie in the sky?

This is something about which I have no knowledge. Perhaps someone
will stop by with an answer. AFIK, it is HMG's intention to electrify
the GW mainline. Although curiously work has started on the northern
electrification programs anounced at the same time. I am not aware of
any work on the GW mainline in this regard.

So, no, the powers that be do not admit that Crossrail will run to
Reading. *Received wisdom is that it will.

If the infrastructure is already going to be there anyway there's no really
good reason not to.

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...
On 23/03/2012 12:44, d wrote:

If the infrastructure is already going to be there anyway there's no
really
good reason not to.

AIUI the Crossrail maintenance depot will be at Reading.

Crossrail's depot is at Old Oak Common, in the area currently given over to
tunnel segment manufacture.

The new depot being built at Reading is to replace the existing upper and
lower triangle DMU maintenance and stabling sites, and is also intended to
provide facilities for the EMUs planned for the route following
electrification, i.e. the second hand 319s. Space is also allocated for IEP
maintenance.

Paul S