Had a good look at this one today as it left London and it's no surprise a 3-Car Turbo would have been insufficient on the date in question.  A 2+7 HST (with six standard class carriages and one first class) was pretty packed in Standard Class and at a rough guess at least three dozen people were having to stand.  The First Class coach was about 75% full.  Summer tourists swell these trains with lots of people travelling to Slough (for Windsor) and Oxford in addition to the usual passengers which get close to filling it all over the year.

Makes my comments about making the summer standby set at Paddington a 5 or 6 car formation even more sensible in my mind in case of HST failures, and also makes comments about the additional standard class seats being provided at the expense of first class ones 'just so the Reading commuters can get a seat' as pretty ridiculous given similar loadings on other morning trains I witnessed today.

Another Turbo replacing a HST diagram today, with the 05:20 PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-GMV, 08:43 GMV-PAD, 11:50 PAD-OXF^» (Oxford - next trains), 15:01 OXF-PAD, 16:21 PAD-HFD^» (Hereford - next trains), and 20:20 HFD-PAD on diagram IW024 being replaced by a Turbo.  Not any old Turbo though as all the stops have not been pulled out and a whopping 2-Car train has been provided in the form of 165135.  I believe that is three out of the last four Saturdays when this diagram has been partly, or wholly, covered by a Turbo

The 08:43 GMV-PAD is usually full and standing when it arrives at Paddington when it's a HST, so it was of no surprise to find people having to stand from Moreton-In-Marsh onwards.  The situation would have been even worse had it not been for desperate pleas from the station staff at Oxford not to board it and wait for the 10:37 to Didcot for a connection to London.  That included a group of 100+ 'Education First' European students who swamp Oxford's trains every summer Saturday.  The Slough stop was also canned.

Whilst the other trains on this diagram might not be quite as busy, they will all have been cosy as a result, especially the 16:21 PAD-HFD.  Very, very disappointing FGW^▸ (First Great Western)!

Interesting stuff regarding the transfers - I didn't know that.  I won't be holding my breath over harmonisation though!

I've never seen so many pristine hi-vis overalls!   

It's an interesting question.  Currently, I'd say around 20% of all work at Paddington LTV^▸ (London [and] Thames Valley) and Oxford drivers depots covers trains that Crossrail will either directly, or indirectly take over.  That figure is probably 15% at Reading depot, who tend to do a little more branch line work.   There's also the Heathrow Connect drivers (who also do Heathrow Express) that will be affected slightly.  That's getting on for 100 drivers worth of work.

Possibly the most sensible thing to do is to transfer Paddington LTV depot over to Crossrail, and split Reading depot into two - a larger part for the Greater Western work, and a smaller part for the Crossrail work.  Oxford could then absorb other work such as increased Cotswold Line frequency and potentially the East West Rail services to Milton Keynes and Bedford.

But, what sway will the unions have in all of that...?  

I agree that it would not be a similar station to Warwich Parkway, but it does have some striking parallels to Stratford Upon Avon Parkway, and even Tiverton Parkway.

People who work in Worcester, but are fed up of the high traffic volumes that build up on the approaches to the town centre might use is.  People who live in the surrounding villages and east side of Worcester might use it (though many might be existing passengers using it instead of Shrub Hill or Pershore).  Finally, it may well be useful as an interchange station for people travelling from/to Gloucester/Cheltenham and the Cotswolds/Oxford as it will likely reduce journey times on any other option available currently.

Certainly it doesn't make my 'top 10 list of things which have to be built ASAP', but I think it will prove successful, even if on a more modest level than the likes of Warwick Parkway.

Yes, they're at the end of the fourth coach in the proposed layouts (which are of course subject to change), so not far off the middle.  Space for those confined to a wheelchair is located at either end of the 5-Car units on the proposed design though - so that may well cause problems depending on the method of operation at shorter station platforms.

Operationally, without a doubt, yes.

How would SDO^▸ (Selective Door Opening) work?  With a double stop at each station concerned?  Or with the rear half of the front train on the platform and the front end of the rear train on?  Either option = delays and confusion galore!

They'll all need doing - at least the ones that'll have these 10-Car IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.)'s stopping at them.  Even the two longest (at Kingham and Moreton in the 'Down' direction) aren't quite long enough.

Most nights with the 57s I think    An 08 was despatched to drag the carriages in from Paddington to the Oak the morning before last again.

If indeed that is the case I forsee problems ahead... 

I think as a medium to long term plan, the opening of Worcester(shire?) Parkway and redoubling of the line from Norton Junction to Evesham West Junction, together with resignalling in the Worcester area, will pave the way for services to be extended through to Evesham to provide a half-hourly service throughout the day.  It probably wouldn't be cost effective for LM, as ChrisB says, but that's where subsidies from the local bodies may come in and any staffing and stock costs would not be too astronomic.

Certainly that's for well in the future though when the new station is well established, and the infrastructure have been improved.  Possibly nearer in the future you might be able to squeeze the odd extra train in the peak hours to improve the commuting service from Evesham and Pershore - and Worcester Parkway may well be the added factor that allows that to reach the tipping point in favour.  A LM extension would be the obvious choice.

Despite having poor reliability, I think the 67s on Chiltern are more reliable than the 57s on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) though.

That's one of my concerns about the Cotswold Line and 10-Car Bi-Mode trains (the same can be said to a slightly lesser extent about other routes with short platforms) - if you are going to platform just six out of the ten coaches at certain stations then that is a recipe for delays and confusion.  Yes, I know that HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) do a similar thing now, but they're not as long and it will potentially affect Standard Class as well as First Class customers, some of whom may need to walk well over 100 metres down the train to find a door that opens.  I do hope due consideration is being given to this and that many of the platforms will be extended to cater for at least seven, preferably eight, 26m long carriages.