IIRC after the long corridor at Vauxhall underground there are steps up to the street before you get into the SR station (where there is indeed lift access to the platforms). Not ideal but preferable to the even longer walk at Waterloo.
No need to access the long subway, lift from bus station side forecourt into LU station ticket hall.
Those trains still 'do their bit' further east with the high capacity being well used at Twickenham and Richmond, and people using those stations for interchange.
Yes, Twickenham has cried out for remodelling for a long time given the space that still exists at that location even after the station buildings were changed.
I'm not sure that works given the need to provide 4tph at Teddington and Kingston.
In railway terms it is a backwater with stops every five to seven minutes. In those terms getting above 70mph saves a few seconds here and there.
It's Feltham for Heathrow. Multiple bus options just outside the station. No such facilities at Staines
Yes, it is Feltham now, although route 442 still runs from Staines to Heathrow Terminal 5, albeit involving a walk to the nearest bus stop. The opening of the north east exit at Feltham has made bus transfer a little smoother.
As noted above, Twickenham rather than Richmond has the space for any track layout changes. The width of the western approach to Richmond would be near impossible to change.
All stations to Ascot, then Staines and Waterloo.
I wonder if the Richmond Platform 2/ Platform 3 island could be moved eastward, and dug away at the Western end to allow a crossover to a slow London platform where 3 is? I agree this would ideally be combined with 4 platforms at Twickenham, a full use of the 3 at St Margret's, and as much triple or quadruple tracking in between as possible.
Given where the station entrance is, and concourse area, I just can't see how that sort of upheaval would work at Richmond or be countenanced. In the up direction the two track is only from St Margarets to Barnes in any case, and trains would suffer too long a delay in a short loop.
It really depends on what goes first on the train planning graph. Prior to the 2004 changes, the 1807 from Waterloo to Reading was fast from Clapham Junction to Feltham, and the 0713 from Reading was Ascot - Staines - Richmond - Clapham Junction - Waterloo. However, the change in December 2004 was to introduce a more comprehensive and even stopping service and that was the end of any semblence of fast services.
Virginia Water used to be omitted from faster services as well. Trouble with missing out too many stations is that the two services would catch each other up. Back at the turn of the century, the two off-peak trains to Reading each half hour went through Staines six minutes apart.
No connection between the SWR lines and the terminating platforms nowadays, and I don't see one being put back.
There are only 4tph of usable services between Feltham and Waterloo (the other two are stoppers via the Hounslow Loop and are overtaken), and its usage justifies more services, not less.
What’s the point of a fast service from Reading when you have the GWR?
You are right that there is no call for a non-stop service from Reading to Waterloo. However, journey times from Wokingham and Bracknell towards London are such that people drive to Twyford and Maidenhead, or Fleet and Farnborough, rather than using their local station. This may not necessarily be a bad thing if it means a better service exists for passengers further east but may be seen as bad from the point of view of overloading car parks and causing local traffic issues. By all means have services return east from Wokingham if that is what makes them viable but Reading is a natural traffic objective.
it's for Wokingham, Bracknell, Ascot, Egham and Staines, mainly. But Reading is an excellent place to have at the other end, with tons of inbound demand and connections.
Two trains per hour skipping Earley etc would be ok, if changes to the Reading-Guildford line timetable could be contrived that would allow one such train per hour to call at Earley etc.
Aren't those the same thing?
I don't think it needs to go underground until Richmond. I wonder if a cut and cover line could be built fairly quickly if the line closed for a period, then the surface land sold off to be used for housing to pay for the work. The line of route would represent quite valuable real estate.