"Chris" wrote...
Plenty of *uninformed* comment too, to boot - why doesn't everyone
READ the CrossRail website contents, and if you're that interested,
ensure that you attend one of Network Rail / CrossRail exhibitions???
And if you're NOT that interested (fair enough), refrain from posting
in CrossRail threads? - because we could do with cutting down on the
spread of inaccurate info.

I wouldn't worry unduly; much of the content of every thread in every
'news'group is speculation, and few would expect much solid 'fact'.

And reliance on official handouts is not really a viable solution; I've been
to Crossrail exhibitions where they were unable to answer a single question
with any authority - and until recently, the web site was denying even the
possibility of reaching Reading.

As one of the few in this group who has always argued that Reading was not
only logical, but inevitable, I'm equally confident that more wise decisions
will erupt over the ten years before the line opens (8? don't make me
laugh!).

Reading is logical because of the interchange facilities, as well as the
ability to fill up the train with Reading-bound travellers as the London
leavers thin out (and vice versa); something Maidenhead simply couldn't
offer.

But the main attraction of Reading is (and always was) the interchange
opportunities. And to take full advantage of them, I'm happy to speculate
that stopping patterns won't be the simple 'all stations' that has been
claimed and rarely questioned.

The Metropolitan line has demonstrated for decades that LU have no
difficulty understanding mixing stoppers with semi-fasts, and the Crossrail
tunnels will (easily) accomodate some fasts or semifasts from Reading, even
a few non-stoppers in the peaks, relieving FGW's problem of the
trains-formerly-known-as-Intercity being assimilated by Reading-London
commuters.

I'm sure others with imagination can foresee many other possibilities; wires
to Oxford becoming viable is just one dream for the decade after Crossrail
opens.

There's an interesting side debate on the future of all the DMUs being no
longer required, especially when DaFT is still planning to order more new
ones, just as electrification is being taken seriously all round.

Just don't get sidetracked by the 'Heathro Hub'; more of a successor to
Jethro Tull than a policy, at this stage.
--

Andrew

"She plays the tuba.
It is the only instrument capable
of imitating a distress call."

On 9 May, 15:13, "Andrew Heenan" wrote:

But the main attraction of Reading is (and always was) the interchange
opportunities. And to take full advantage of them, I'm happy to speculate
that stopping patterns won't be the simple 'all stations' that has been
claimed and rarely questioned.

The Metropolitan line has demonstrated for decades that LU have no
difficulty understanding mixing stoppers with semi-fasts, and the Crossrail
tunnels will (easily) accomodate some fasts or semifasts from Reading, even
a few non-stoppers in the peaks, relieving FGW's problem of the
trains-formerly-known-as-Intercity being assimilated by Reading-London
commuters.

But the Met has access to a fast line south of Harrow-o-t-Hill for
fast trains to overtake the all-station stoppers, something that
Crossrail certainly won't get is access to the fast lines twixt
Reading & Padd. And terminating platforms at Padd on the up lines,
like there are at Baker Street - every train coming from LHR or
Maidenhead / Reading has to go through the portal, interlinking with
the starters coming from the yard just outside the portal.....skip
stopping is just about the only way you might get a slightly faster
trip - if you were to accept that stations wouldn't get a regular xx
mins past each hour 'Metro' service.

The latter might just work, but I think they'll go for a regular
clockface timetable at all but the very small stations.

I'm sure others with imagination can foresee many other possibilities; wires
to Oxford becoming viable is just one dream for the decade after Crossrail
opens.

I'm certainly with you on that one, assuming the money can be found.

There's an interesting side debate on the future of all the DMUs being no
longer required, especially when DaFT is still planning to order more new
ones, just as electrification is being taken seriously all round.

There's always a demand for DMUs in parts of the country where usage
doesn't demand electrification. At the moment, they could always be
cascaded to the SW, where they are desparate for more stock.

Just don't get sidetracked by the 'Heathro Hub'; more of a successor to
Jethro Tull than a policy, at this stage.

Yup.

"Chris" wrote ...
But the Met has access to a fast line south of Harrow-o-t-Hill for
fast trains to overtake the all-station stoppers, something that
Crossrail certainly won't get is access to the fast lines twixt
Reading & Padd. And terminating platforms at Padd on the up lines,
like there are at Baker Street - every train coming from LHR or
Maidenhead / Reading has to go through the portal, interlinking with
the starters coming from the yard just outside the portal.....skip
stopping is just about the only way you might get a slightly faster
trip - if you were to accept that stations wouldn't get a regular xx
mins past each hour 'Metro' service.

I agree it won't be easy - and the initial service will probaly be closer to
your vision than mine; but with the faster acceleration available, the
reallignment at Reading, the vague possibility of some intelligent design in
signalling and points, Crossrail could be so much more than the 'official'
version.

All it really needs is for DaFT / Network Rail / TfL to realise that a
little extra design and build expense will actually make the line much more
useful (and therefore more likely to repay the investment).

But there, I'm dreaming again ;o)
--

Andrew

"If A is success in life, then A = x + y + z.
Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut." ~ Albert Einstein