The cold is to numb your posterior in order that you wont notice the hard seats.
Impressed though if a trolley actually appeared and offered hot drinks.

Reported as a collision, but the video appears to show only one train.

It looks to me as though the second vehicle de-rails, but stays more or less upright and in line. The rapid deceleration then leads to other vehicles derailing. One vehicle that is presumably still on the track crumples as it strikes a nearly stopped vehicle.

Early reports suggest no loss of life nor serious injuries.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-india-50386665/india-train-collision-lucky-escape-for-passengers-in-hyderabad

And we need to remember that "compliance" is a moving target. Standards are ever increasing.
Voyagers are compliant NOW but may not remain so.
Even IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) will probably be no longer compliant in say 25 years when re use is being considered.

If the liner terminal is to be rail served, then I feel that this needs to be every day and according to a published timetable.

If the service is to run only when the sailing schedules suggest a need, then I foresee all sorts of problems.
1) Cruise ship arrives late, train already left.
2) Cruise ship leaves on a different day, and "the railway" cant cope with this.
3) "the railway" forgets to or is unable to supply trains and crew on the required dates.
4) "no one told us that there was a ship today"

And of course a regular service might be useful for staff employed at or near the dock.

Whilst an adequate supply of fully compliant rolling stock is clearly desirable in the long term, in the near term I feel that a "non compliant" HST^▸ (High Speed Train) with vacant seats is in practice of far more use to the disabled than is a grossly overcrowded short DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) as pictured.
A short term derogation for use of non compliant trains to ease gross overcrowding seems like a commonsense approach.

XC services at present are not very suitable for connecting to a liner.
It should be possible to obtain something better however, rather than to write off the idea because the PRESENT rolling stock is unsuitable.
IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) are the obvious choice, hopefully of the same MECHANICAL specification as the present fleet but with an improved internal fit out.
The Voyagers thereby displaced could be most useful for strengthening other services.

I agree that a ship for thousands wont wait for 20 who are late.
In the case of a thousand passengers of whom several hundred are coming by train, then it might be more reasonable for the ship to wait.

I think that you might be missing something.
If the ticket is not reliably checked or examined, then many extra journeys beyond those paid for could be made.

An ordinary season ticket expires on the date stated and can not be used after that date. A ticket valid for 11 journeys, but with no expiry date, or a very long date, would in practice be valid for 11 ticket checks, plus numerous extra uses when not checked.

Yes, but. If a significant percentage of ocean liner passengers are arriving by train, then the ship could wait for the train.
Alternatively, perhaps passengers could be allowed to board the ship up to 24 hours before it sails, to allow a margin for railway problems.

With growing concerns regarding the environmental costs of air and road transport, I am strongly in favour of new or re-instated rail links to seaports.

Rail is greener than road or air.
Cruise ships are not particularly green, but this might not tell the whole story. A 2 week cruise can be a most enjoyable holiday, and the fuel used should IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion) be compared with that used by a hotel AND that used by an airliner.

Fuel used by liner from UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to USA is more than that used by a jumbo jet. But fuel used by the liner probably compares favourably to that used by a hotel for the same duration, AND that used by an aircraft.

I agree that voyagers are not very suitable for ocean liner customers, but that is NOT a reason to oppose rail serving the ocean terminals.
By the time it is achieved, voyagers might well be replaced or supplemented by something more suitable.
IETs^▸ (Intercity Express Train) but with a "broadgage approved" internal fit out might be suited.

My cynical mind naturally assumes that no Crossrail trains will run Westwards from Paddington until 2021 or later.
Apart from the points already made re needing the Crossrail platforms for test running, it seems a reasonable assumption that if running west of Paddington WAS planned, that this would have been announced with much fanfare.

"Despite this slight delay to operation through the central core, we are very pleased to announce that our new state of the art trains WILL be operating a very frequent service between Paddington and Reading from xx-yy"

The absence of any such announcement means it (almost certainly) wont happen.

Latest delay now announced, not opening until 2021, and another £650 million cost overrun.
I have no faith in it fully opening by that date, and expect further cost overruns.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50345344

At least 3 DIAGRAMS that is, over 20 SERVICES half length again.

As an interesting training exercise for the local fire brigade perhaps ? Makes a change from igniting a building due for demolition.

I know, but meanwhile; no exit from the down side. Long detour required via lift and subway to the up side in order to then return via the main road, to find that the bus has left.
If this closure is unavoidable, then clear signage is needed, and a clearly defined new stopping point for the bus, together with checks to see if the bus does actually go to the new bus stop.
Some of the buses to Minehead seem to stop in the main road "outside the snooker club that was knocked down a few years ago" others stop by the now locked down side exit, and others leave from the up side.