If this HQ^▸ (Headquarters) has ample car parking I will not be impressed.

I did mean continuing to Reading from Didcot as there are four tracks between those points. Would it be over complicated to have stations between Didcot and Swindon on the loops for faster trains to pass stopping services? Or would the stopping services have too long a wait/block the path of what’s currently using the loop?

My thinking on long distance or local services is that InterCity mostly had it right. Junctions and major settlements served by long distance then local services running from junction or major settlement to the next. Swindon to Didcot, Oxford or even Reading as there are four tracks, would make perfect sense if stations reappeared between Swindon and Didcot. Attempting to provide all stations in the south with a direct train to london for example is unnecessary in my opinion if you had local trains doing short trips from said important InterCity junction to the next. Provided the local service between the two points was hourly or more, and ran later than the long distance trains. There are examples perhaps where a long distance train can become local at the end of its route for operations sake, like Cornwall for example but the somewhere like the north cotswold line would benefit from less stops for the long distance trains and a better local service between the two junction points, if operationally possible of course. The southern third rail network would really require a lot of thinking but if it already commands decent numbers with plenty of capacity perhaps it’s best left as is. This is all the opinion of someone who doesn’t have a vast knowledge of the operating headaches of the modern railway of course but I do realise how lucky Reading is with its position on the network with local and long distance. Aylesbury always strikes me as somewhere that it is really difficult to use the train to go anywhere but the obvious capital and with its limited service Newbury behaves like it’s the end of a long branch rather than a town on a busy line to the West Country, something extending the Bedwyn train to Westbury might eliminate, or even a Newbury to Westbury local with a bay reinstated. Plenty is possible.

Those pesky TFL^▸ (Transport for London) travel updates at Reading (General) across all platforms. I’m sure anyone who is going there will have a clever little device in their hand and find out on the journey or once they arrive.

So it is. Well spotted.

5 Dukes cut lock on the Oxford Canal? Just south of Wolvercote Junction?

I guess there is simply no way of calculating how railways contribute to an economy beyond the profit or loss they make. I should imagine that the London Underground has enormously played its part in contributing to the economy of London while at the same time not turned a profit for long periods in the past (recent developments aside of course, which I see as a bargaining tool). How is the National network not seen as a benefit to the economy, regardless of which services are making a profit or a loss, when it’s clear it is seen like this in other European countries?  It’s not just lines that need protecting but frequency of service particularly at a time when it should be encouraged to use the train. This switch cannot be done with a market led system as use for many types of journeys will never be encouraged if the network is poorly integrated, expensive and vehicles lack capacity. Skeleton services do not encourage use. Surely standard retail economics cannot be applied to (perceived) public transport?

I don’t have much faith in things with a ‘seamless user experience’. I’m not keen on a railway which requires a charged battery, an app and the latest operating system to be used. Embrace technology yes, but keep options open and simple to make things easy for anyone to use. I don’t particularly want to see a book ahead railway nor passengers competing for space on trains.

The behaviour of society was also different on a Sunday in the BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) days. Times have changed. My point was not so much that BR did a better job, more that the unfashionable routes had options where cross subsidy was available. Public run services can run a more cohesive network over TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)’s that favour the busiest routes and full capacity as often as possible. Do we look at transport networks as a financial situation or a societal one? I would always choose quality of life over the price it may cost.

Agreed. They are not fit for purpose because they are run for profit not people. Private public transport folds at the first sign of any difficulty and getting services back is much harder than getting rid of them in the first place. Cross country is the largest operator that doesn’t serve the capital and as I’ve stated before our railways are run for London not for connecting the country.

Flys or flies in this context?

And quite possibly closer to the centre of Birmingham than London as the crow (or any other bird that flys in a straight line) flys.

As well as the unimaginatively named Thames Valley Park getting a station on the relief lines in east Reading that appears from time to time, although it’s been a good ten years since I last read anything about it.

London Oxford Airport

In an ideal world London would have no more infrastructure projects facing it until the rest of the country has been improved. The majority of our railways and services favour London and this has created part of the imbalance and the reliance on cars elsewhere in the country.