On Fri, 05 Jun 2015 01:36:02 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 2015\06\04 21:05, Robert wrote:
On 2015-06-04 19:49:39 +0000, Paul Corfield said:

On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:06:21 +0100, Robert
wrote:

On 2015-06-04 10:36:20 +0000, Graeme Wall said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33002819

Now they can start building the railway... :-)

Funny you should say that.

http://www.londonreconnections.com/2...end-beginning/

Well, I never...! :-)


"What is more curious is that it looks like there will be 2tph off-peak
that will run from London all stations to West Drayton, then fast to
Slough, then fast to Maidenhead. This appears to be making best use of
limited capacity by extending a suburban metro service to Slough to
provide a better service to that town. It will also provide a much
better service for the tourist market to Windsor. The continuation fast
to Maidenhead is merely in order to terminate at the first opportunity."

Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

In message , at 09:14:39 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough, and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 09:53:26 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:14:39 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough,

Maybe not. That is outwith my knowledge. However, given the scale of
Crossra,il solving that issue would be small potatoes.

and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

In message , at 10:30:30 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough,

Maybe not. That is outwith my knowledge. However, given the scale of
Crossra,il solving that issue would be small potatoes.

Have you been to the station? It's a single track about 4 coaches long.

and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:30:30 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough,

Maybe not. That is outwith my knowledge. However, given the scale of
Crossra,il solving that issue would be small potatoes.

Have you been to the station? It's a single track about 4 coaches long.

and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.

There could be fewer Paddington reversers.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 10:38:49 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:30:30 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough,

Maybe not. That is outwith my knowledge. However, given the scale of
Crossra,il solving that issue would be small potatoes.

Have you been to the station?

My previous answer indicated the contrary.

It's a single track about 4 coaches long.

Thank you for enlightening me.

and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.

Are you unaware of the 14tph reversing @ Westbourne Park?

In message , at 11:06:58 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
and are you happy to reduce the service
frequency west of Slough as a result?

Not at all. But, one would be delighted to see more trains west of
Westbourne Park.

The number of trains in the core is fixed, so not much prospect of
movement there. The reduction would be west of Slough, on account of
trains going to Windsor rather than Maidenhead.

Are you unaware of the 14tph reversing @ Westbourne Park?

I knew some would be reversing at Paddington, but with only 8tph from
each of the branches to the east, that only leaves 2tph which seems too
few.
--
Roland Perry

On 05/06/2015 10:30, e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2015 09:53:26 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:14:39 on
Fri, 5 Jun 2015, e27002 aurora remarked:
Given the cost of the project, it seems a shame that if they want to
provide a service for Windsor they couldn't have built a tunnel at
Slough and actually gone to Windsor. But I don't understand why they
don't turn at Slough... is the bay platform gone?

Agreed, omitting the Windsor branch was an error.

Is Windsor station long enough,

Maybe not. That is outwith my knowledge. However, given the scale of
Crossra,il solving that issue would be small potatoes.

Have you looked at the Windsor station site and seen who it's neighbours
are? Most of the station site has been sold off as a retail mall. IIRC
the current platform can only cope with a two car DMU. You could
re-extend the platform back across the Goswell Road, there's probably
enough space to fit a Crossrail train.

I seem to remember there was a project[1] to reroute the line to an end
on junction with the LSWR line at Riverside but that would involve a
tunnel and a major rebuild at low level for the latter.

[1] A "fantasy" project not a DfT idea.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.