Not sure of signal boxes but Scours Lane does (at least did) have a name plate identifying it.  There is no white house that I know of either, hence my suggestion that a Mr. Whitehouse might be involved in the project (it is marked as Whitehouse rather than White House).

Anyway, it looks as if the wiring teams are about to get going as two gangs were busy installing brackets where the wires will attach onto the gantry posts installed in the east end sidings of the new depot today.

Just for accuracy's sake, Tilehurst East Junction wasn't being relaid, but continuing work to install the crossovers required for the new Whitehouse Junction next to it, was - in readiness for the post-Easter blockade track layout.  Whitehouse Junction is basically at the location of the current Scours Lane Junction, so quite why it was deemed necessary to rename it is beyond me?  Perhaps a Mr. Whitehouse is involved in the project and fancied a bit of glory?

That's about average on the Cotswold Line. 

100% coverage of 180 diagrams last week! 

3Q04 (the track recording train) was over Wolvercote at 13:23, so had your train been let though next it would probably have been less than 10 minutes late departing Oxford, and would have delayed the down train by about 10 minutes - which is exactly the amount of time that it sits at Evesham later in the journey, so it would have probably got to Worcester more or less on schedule.

As it is, your train is delayed by 25 minutes, is now not calling at Slough, and even with that missed stop the delay will almost certainly impact on its next working at 14:50 from Paddington.

I'm always hesitant to apportion blame when I might not know the full facts, but on the face of it, that looks like bad regulation both on an overall delay minutes basis and a customer impact basis.   

Will it reach out that far?  From my experience of them, even the extremities of the platforms are out of range.  Good to see the larger stations and the 180s now fitted though.

And when the wires do come down, a more robust service can be provided using IEP^▸ (Intercity Express Program / Project.) Bi-Mode, HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) and Electric IEP's with their auxiliary diesel engine.

Good news for you then, 180108 is heading your way right now! 

I wonder whether this scheme is quite as 'shovel ready' as others, for example Kenilworth?

Oh yes, I hadn't twigged it was a Bank Holiday on May 1st.


Point taken and understood.  However if I did that they'd no doubt shrug their shoulders and say even market led and government regulated, it's still rather ridiculous that a journey on the same train for 53 miles costs ^22.30 when a journey of 110 miles can cost just ^9.

It's a mess isn't it!  A good example BNM, though I can't find any train at 14:06 to Westbury, your example does work with other trains, such as the 12:18.  Though personally, I'm not convinced there are enough people out there who would choose to take advantage of the journey you describe to make much of a difference in terms of the overall impact on revenue, and perhaps a modest rise in the cheapest advances (countered by a modest decrease in walk-on fares) is exactly what's needed anyway?  After all, the gulf widens every year.

Again, if I asked my five random non-train travelling chums whether they thought it fair that if you know your travelling from London to Westbury in advance then you can get tickets well over twice as cheap than if you know you're travelling in advance the much shorter distance to Newbury on the same train, I know what the answer would be.

Moving away from the discussion about whether enough warnings are given when you buy the ticket, I'll ask the obvious question:

If a passenger was allowed to start/end short on an advance ticket under the T&C as long as they travelled on the train they're booked on (with a caveat that they might not have their reserved seat) what potential revenue would be lost by the operator, and how would capacity on the train and/or advance purchase quotas be affected?  Is it really a big issue as long as they travel on the same train they're booked on?  Surely if their are any gains they would be exploited by such a small number of individuals as to make it pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things, in the same way that split ticketing has a tiny effect on overall revenue?

From a customer service standpoint, I can pretty much guarantee that if I asked five random friends of mine that don't travel regularly by train for their opinion, they would all think it's pretty ridiculous that starting/ending short isn't allowed.

Possibly foundations for a temporary footbridge whilst the permanent one is replaced?  That's what often happens - for example Radley, Iver and Bicester North have had similar temporary structures in recent years.

Works to extend the Down Main platforms at Langley and West Drayton have now been completed and the Up Main platform at Langley has also been raised to an acceptable height along its full length.  That means that all platforms between London and Slough can accept at least 6-Car length Turbo trains on both the Main and Relief lines, and hopefully the days of a late evening train leaving Paddington with two cars in service, packed to the rafters, with more units hitching a ride to Reading Depot locked out of use at the back will be a thing of the past.

Weeks 5 and 6 of '180 watch' - better, but hardly overwhelming.

Al least in terms of the diagrams that aren't covered, it's usually OC504 which is first to go and that diagram only has one trip down the Cotswold Line on it (09:21 PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains)-WOF and 12:06 WOF-PAD), so that's not too bad as long as a 3-car Turbo is used.  Set 106 has now spent over a week locked away, hopefully receiving some major work as it's the worst unit of the lot according to common consensus!