Mike_Walker

The problem with that is: ECW didn't build any buses for M&D after 1950.

Probably not but then BR were working on the service they provided on the HW line which, even after the Total Route Modernisation of the early nineties, was a shadow of what Chiltern offers today. As mentioned earlier, whilst there are many who travel from the west to The City and Docklands, there are as many, if not more, who travel on to other destinations in London whose commute has been rendered worse by the arrival of the EL which is not the case on the east side where things have been improved.

A couple of colour images here. It looks to be the standard later BR dark green for the body but as always, colour films can be deceptive. As can be seen the waist band is definitely light green. If this is a "bus company" colour my best suggestion would be the light green used by LT for the relief paint on its Green Line coaches, ECW had built one of the prototype Routemasters which was a Green Line (CRL4/RMC4) so they may have had some paint to use up. Otherwise at that time ECW was only bodying vehicles for the BTC and SBG companies and it's certainly too pale for either Tilling green or that used by Eastern Scottish . Hope this helps. SC79958 Aviemore 9/58 (Colour-Rail) Sc79959 Perth 9/8/63 For comparison here's the restored RMC4. The light green looks pretty similar and it is possible they used the "Country Area" Lincoln green for the main body.

But the BR leaflet Mike posted showed the Amersham line.

Regarding the new Old Oak Common station; this is another opportunity wasted by short-sighted civil servants and ministers who can't see the bigger picture. Whilst sitting astride the GWML and above HS2, it is also surrounded by other rail lines. Two branches of the London Overground network, the West London Line and the Richmond line, pass over at either end of the OOC site and the LU Central Line is close by too. If stations were provided on these connected to OOC by Travellator-style moving walkways think of the additional connections and travel opportunities that would be opened up. Proposals were put forward by TfL for a LO station(s) whilst Chiltern proposed a two-platform terminal station next to North Acton LU station (beyond the proposed EL turnback sidings) served by trains from the High Wycombe line but both proposals were thrown out without any reasonable consideration by the DfT yet they call it the "OOC Interchange". We are led by Donkeys, I sympathise with @jjb1970 ! Sadly, this incompetence isn't confined to the DfT but seems to extend to every part of government at all levels. There is a picture in my newspaper today of a box placed over one of Citizen Kahn's new ULEZ cameras emblazoned with the slogan: "Stop electing idiots". Amen!

Spot on.

That reminds me of a wonderful sketch the late, great Dave Allen filmed at Maidenhead. As the driver of the Marlow Donkey he couldn't get it to start so he got down onto the track and inserted a large key. I've tried in vain to find it of t'web but if anyone else can...

It would have been better in the respect that it would have maintained a basically similar pattern of service on the Western side and the trains would have been more main line than metro - think of them as an updated Networker version of the Thameslink 319s - remember this scheme was being worked up some 35 years ago and had it come to fruition those 341s would probably have been facing retirement today. Compare today's Thameslink with the Elizabeth Line. TL is an integrated service not a metro superimposed on a largely rural area. I think the Aylesbury branch was dropped to save costs. A pity as it could have been useful as would have been including the High Wycombe line, possibly more so than Aylesbury particularly in the light of how usage of that line has exploded since privatisation; there is no reason to doubt that a high frequency Crossrail service to HW would have had a similar effect to Chiltern's offering today. Plus of course connecting the HW line into Crossrail would have been a simple case of restoring the double track between OOC and Northolt Junction. I never understood why this wasn't considered by BR. Perhaps Mike @The Stationmaster can tell us. There was no Abbey Wood branch for the simple reason that the huge redevelopment of Docklands hadn't started and therefore there was no real need for it at that time. As anyone who watched the recent series The Gold will know, that didn't really get underway until the second half of the eighties. It is perfectly possible that the original Crossrail concept might have been expanded to include Docklands but not necessarily Abbey Wood. The EL depot at OOC is huge and can more than cope with the fleet. It only ran out of space when all but a few units were not being used. In normal times units stable overnight at Maidenhead, Gidea Park and Plumstead in addition to OOC. The present fleet is large enough to service 24 TPH through the central core which is the maximum that can be handled - that's one train every 2 1/2 minutes - so there would be no point enlarging the fleet. Yes, there is passive provision in the core for 11 car trains and using that wouldn't be too expensive due to the way they're designed, really a case of bringing them up to service standard and extending the platform edge doors. The real expense would be in extending the GEML and GWML platforms - virtually every station would be involved and it's not just a case of extending the actual platform; at most signals would need re-siting (expensive in itself) and at many locations major trackwork alterations would be required. Then there's the small matter of building two new cars per set and inserting them. Delaying any part of HS2 to save costs is a total folly and shows just how short-term any government thinks. My house needs repairs: I think I'll wait for five years when inflation might be lower and therefore cheaper... Ha! I think not! As has been pointed out many times recently, when (if) inflation does drop back to 2% prices will stay at their present level not drop. Regarding the "selling" of HS2 I always point out its about capacity rather than speed and ask objectors if they were building a new road would it be a cart track or a modern dual carriageway? HS2 is being built to the latest standards as was the new build sections of Crossrail and rightly so. I find that in the majority of cases they accept the argument often with the caveat: Oh, I hadn't understood that.

Now that would have been a much better scheme, much better than what we've got. How was it proposed to reach the GWML from Wembley? Presumably by a tunnel.

Or keeps Hitachi in business. It's rumoured there's a chair reserved for the Japanese ambassador in the SoS's office... 🤣

As I've said before, the problem with Crossrail on the west side is that it delivers a poorer service than that which existed previously - there are those within the company who think it's not a good idea to operate on the main line west of Hayes. Heathrow to Abbey Wood and Shenfield would be better. Part of the problem is that, like HS2, it was badly sold to the public. Here in the Thames Valley we were constantly being told how much quicker journeys to the City and Docklands would be overlooking the fact that those using Thames Valley local services and heading for those destinations are in the minority. The majority head for destinations such as the West End and areas such as that around Victoria or along the Thames. For these, their travel options and now poorer.

Actually the plan, if it ever comes to fruition which looks unlikely, is that LHR would be served by the GWR semi-fast services and possibly one or two inter-city services per hour. This would add a few minutes to the overall journey time but would open up useful connections. The current plan is also that all GWML services will call at the new Old Oak Common interchange station adding around 4 1/2 minutes to present journey times.

Speaking to the Marlow & District Railway Society last week, Mark Hopwood (GWR MD) said that whilst it was highly desirable there was no funding currently available and none likely in the foreseeable future.

Just found a picture of W38 at Marlow in 1951 in the Wild Swan Marlow Branch book (p139 if anyone wants to look it up). Won't put it here due to copyright etc. but it's in either late GWR chocolate and cream with early BR numbering, i.e. W38 not W38W, or BR crimson and cream and is still fully panelled with a full set of toplights although it can't be seen if the end windows have been plated over or not.

We used to have a dial phone on Swindon Panel at Didcot. One day a mother was explaining to her two boys what it was; one looked quizzical and asked: "How do you text on it?"

The PR man referred to addressed the Marlow-Maidenhead Passengers' Association on several occasions and was the guy originally to be sent to speak to the MDRS. As with the Henley group he was roundly laughed at by the MMPA and as said hadn't a clue. Yes, I was aware that in an earlier period the stopping service terminated at Slough rather than Hayes but I passed it over in the interests of brevity. The other important thing to remember is that the original Crossrail proposal was by BR and would have been integrated from the start not a glorified tube line superimposed on the "big railway" by an empire-building London Mayor!

It's KR Models; what do you expect? Accuracy?

Some years ago, the Marlow & District Railway Society had a talk on the Crossrail (as it then was) project. Initially it was to be by the public relations manager, west and hearts sank as he was a typical PR man but for unknown reasons at the last minute he was replaced by his opposite number from the east. He was a revelation in that he had a civil engineering background and could therefore go into the interesting things like how the central section was being built. However, in response to those members concerned at the effect it would have on the GWML he rather surprised us by saying: "Frankly, I can't understand why we are going out to Maidenhead (this was before the terminal moved west to Reading), who is going to catch an all-stations metro type train from there when they can get on a semi-fast GWR service? In my opinion our western terminal should be Heathrow." There was broad agreement with that. The problem is that the east and west sides of the central core are totally different railways. On the GEML, Elizabeth Line services have basically replaced the previous GE all stations stopping services between Liverpool St and Shenfield which have always operated on their own dedicated lines. All the other passenger services to places like Southend, Walton, Ipswich and Norwich plus all of the freight traffic is routed along the main lines so the arrival of the EL has made no difference. The GWML has always been a four-track mixed use railway. Local and semi-fast passenger services have traditionally been restricted to the Relief (Slow for those in other parts of the country) lines along with freight. The latter on the GWML is dominated by heavy stone trains restricted to 45 (loaded) or 60mph (empty) which also take longer to accelerate or stop compared to the 75mph intermodal trains which make up almost the entire GEML freight business. Since the arrival of the HSTs in 1976, class 1 passenger trains have had almost exclusive use of the Main lines allowing unbroken 125mph running west of Acton. The frequency of these can be up to 10 an hour in each direction compared to the GEML where the only really fast trains are the hourly Norwich services running at a maximum 90mph west of Shenfield. GWML timetables have always been designed around these constraints. East of Hayes there were all-stations services into Paddington, west of there there was a mix of all stations and limited stop trains which all ran "fast" after Hayes stopping only at Ealing Broadway and sometimes Southall. If you wanted to go to one of the inner stations you changed at Hayes where a stopping service would be the next up train. At times it was very tightly timed and things could go wrong - many is the time I've been on a semi-fast that has crawled down the DR behind a delayed stopper - but generally it worked. From May, the EL will have almost sole use of the Relief lines east of Slough; GWR's semi-fasts will usually cross to/from the Mains at Dolphin Junction although a few will make the move at Stockley Junction east of West Drayton. The only non-EL traffic on the Reliefs will be freight. This is to try and ensure that EL services arrive at Westbourne Park within seconds of their booked path. With up to 24 trains per hour each way in the central core this is essential if the service is not to melt down. At present, eastbound EL trains often stand for up to 5 minutes at Westbourne Park to await their correct time/path through the core but that will no longer happen after May. Fortunately, the 387s have a top speed of 110mph and impressive acceleration so they shouldn't be too big a drag on the reliability of the 125mph IET services but you can see why it is not possible to stop at Ealing without taking a large bite out of the capacity. The crossovers at Dolphin are 45mph which is a bit of a restraint so the timetable has been designed so that up and down 387s will pass over Dolphin Junction at roughly the same time - fortunately it's a traditional double junction (due to space constraints) not a modern single lead like Stockley. The latter is a 70mph crossover and therefore, in theory, causes less potential disruption to the Main lines but there are three intermediate stations between the two junctions which EL trains will be calling at and causing a major obstacle if GWR services routinely stayed on the Reliefs as far as Stockley. At the end of the day, the service from May will be a compromise and one which requires a high degree of punctuality if it is to work reliably. We can only hope - a lot of senior management have fingers, toes and various other anatomical parts firmly crossed! For those of us travelling from Maidenhead and Twyford we will have our fastest ever all-day services to/from Paddington and the timetables of the Windsor, Marlow and Henley branches have bee recast to make connections as far as possible with GWR services on the main lines rather than EL. Regrettably the downside is the loss of easy connections onto LU or to the airport without resorting to the EL. However, I understand that in the peaks some EL services will actually operate semi-fast. Mike is of course right that the GWML really needs to be a 6-track railway, indeed when Mark Hopwood asked me to draw up a plan to widen the GWML that was our first thought but there simply wasn't the land available so we went for 5 tracks. The intention was that there would 3 relief and 2 main lines. The middle relief would have been bi-directional allowing a tidal flow. In the morning peaks it would be used by London bound semi-fasts and in the evening by westbounds. At other times it would host semi-fasts and freights in either direction as required. Sadly, I no longer appear to have the original drawing on my computer.

No they won't be stopping at Ealing Broadway or Hayes (for easy connection to LHR) something else Mr H got a severe ear-bashing over on Thursday. Of course, the reason is stopping at one or both when running on the UM takes a big bite out of capacity. Which took us off into recalling the wistful realms of a 5-track railway from Slough to Hanwell Bridge that Mark was proposing nearly two decades ago.

Yes, I was going to say you didn't have to go via Reading, Mike. And are the seats on a 80x actually any better than those on a 345? OK so you'd have to endure it for a shorter period of time.

Access to the internet and/or smartphones came up during a discussion on the closure of ticket offices as part of a presentation to the Marlow & District Railway Society on Thursday by our President, Mark Hopwood, MD of GWR. He took the view that it was "progress" and the railway shouldn't be held back. He cited other forms of "modernisation" like self-service checkouts in supermarkets and closing bank branches: "Everything is on-line these days". I think he was genuinely taken aback by the negative reaction he got but still sees the cashless/internet society as the way forward. As most of our members are a lot older than him (he joined as a junior member aged 14!) I think he views us as a bunch of wrinkly old luddites! As I've said previously in another thread, we have a local resident who is determined not to join the 21st century and as a result can't renew his licence to use the local dump commercially or even to renew his fishing licence! He has to get a neighbour to do both for him. Sadly it goes to show just how out of touch those who rule us are in every walk of life.

The Chiltern Class 115s could be gloriously mis-matched. This set I photographed at High Wycombe has different livery style on each car; all blue, two versions of blue and grey plus refurbed white with a blue stripe.

I've always understood that there was an "understanding" that NBL would get a follow on order after the D600 batch but that these were subsequently changed to the Swindon design but with NBL MAN and Voith transmissions. Not sure if the final five Swindon ones were for "levelling up" but they were ordered late after the names had been originally allocated to the entire class. In order to keep the strict alphabetical order some reallocation of names on the last NBL examples (not actually built by then) was required. The WR were lucky we had such a large Navy back then with plenty of "Zs" to choose from!

I don't think there's much chance of a "merger" between the three organisations which are very different and complimentary in their operations/objectives. What might make sense and be commercially attractive would be for VT to run weekend trips from Birmingham to Oxford (one round trip per day) rather than or as an alternative to Stratford-upon-Avon (currently two trips). On arrival at Oxford the train could continue either ECS or as a service train to Didcot for servicing and stabling.

Can anyone explain why in GW days these appear to have been branded "Return empty to Fowey". Surely they would usually be loaded going to Fowey. In BR days most china clay wagons were usually branded for return to St. Blazey which makes far more sense.