Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[notlob.divad]

And that is because....? Survey says, the government are stalling on projects to improve the infrastructure that will support the wider growth.

No survey says ... Because the promised infrastructure spending is focused on a narow group of chosen locations, and people are jumping in early knowing the leveraged value of their property and business will go up once said infrastructure is built, simply due to the location they are in. The increase in business premises value alone due to these infrastructure projects due to the percieved desire-ability to be in the heart of it all will far outstrip any increase in the profits those companies for actually doing what they are supposed to exist for.

Meanwhile the old industrial towns that are scattered across the North will go further to the dogs with a lucky handful turned into dormitory towns and the rest eft to wither and die.

 

[Bevan Price]

That's a very good point I hadn't thought of. Westbound trains have, as you say, all come from Picc P14, and are therefore already spaced out by the dwell time at Picc which will tend to be higher than Oxford Road as it's busier. Eastbound they have come from either the CLC or the Windsor Link and may or may not have called at Deansgate, so there is the potential for them to be closer together and thus need the "padding" provided by two eastbound platforms.

This does mean that if 15/16 get built, Oxford Road will need to start using 1 more, because there will no longer necessarily be that spacing. If it doesn't, Oxford Road will simply become the bottleneck westbound instead.

One of the problems for westbound trains arises when one train calls at Deansgate, but the following train does not; the latter often waits at Oxford Road until Deansgate has cleared. This situation seems most likely to arise when, for example, a EMT Norwich - Liverpool train is late. In consequence, the Oxford Road to Warrington Cen & Liverpool Lime St local starts late - and delays several following services. The situation is made even worse if some trains are of short formation, because that extends station dwell times while passengers try to get on/off overcrowded trains.

 

[notlob.divad]

Part of the strategy of the 2nd Munich city tunnel (due 2026 IIRC) and the almost built northern chord from the S1 airport line is to give Munich airport regional connectivity.

Correct, but see the difference: The Germans doing things properly and create extra cross city paths and provide grade seperated chords that avoid going into the City Centre. Whereas in the UK you build chords that send you back the way you came require 2 cross city paths on limited infrastructure and squeeze more journeys and passenger interchanges into already congested station platforms.

If Manchester was in Germany, they would have built a proper S-Bahn 20-30 years ago. Every Junction within km of St Peter's Square would have been grade seperated. And they would have done, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Nottingham-Derby, Norwich and Southampton as well whilst they where at it.

 

[Bevan Price]

Yes it is funny how it is the Chat Moss stopper that is the one everyone always suggests gets cut. Like the people who live along that line are not worthy enough. For years the Chat Moss stopper went to Victoria, and as a result people who lived in the vicinity of stations along the line west of Earlestown had to change trains twice to get anywhere beyond Manchester. Whilst occasionallly this was a nice same platform change, more often than not it was a trek (often with the proverbial heavy suitcase) across the wilderness of the Earlestown Triangle. And try explaning that to someone coming to visit for the first time.

Now the TPEs are routed across Chat Moss and provide the link to Victoria and beyond, it is sensible to serve the Castlefield Corridor with the stopping service. Want to turn it in the Mayfield siding. Fine do it. Want to turn it at Oxford Road, fine do it. But sending a 3rd Chat Moss service to Victoria, where it will likely terminate right in front of a TPE express, is the same kind of backward illogical thinking that the UK is renowned the world over for. And they wonder why some of us feel the railways are being configured more and more to serve a cream of the elite rather than provide the public transport network the country desperatly needs.

Yes, some people from the Chat Moss line want to make connections. But others work in the city or want to go shopping. For most of them, Victoria is far more convenient than having to use the rather remote Platforms 13/14 at Piccadilly.

The worst mistake was "kiiling" the fast Airport service via Chat Moss; they should have kept that - in addition to the fast service via Warrington Central, and retained the hourly Chat Moss stoppers to Vicroria. St. Helens Junction has lost one train per hour to/from Manchester, and journey times to/from Piccadilly have been increased by about 10 minutes, partly because of long (4 minute) booked stops at Oxford Road.

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of the problems for westbound trains arises when one train calls at Deansgate, but the following train does not; the latter often waits at Oxford Road until Deansgate has cleared. This situation seems most likely to arise when, for example, a EMT Norwich - Liverpool train is late. In consequence, the Oxford Road to Warrington Cen & Liverpool Lime St local starts late - and delays several following services. The situation is made even worse if some trains are of short formation, because that extends station dwell times while passengers try to get on/off overcrowded trains.

Short trains are a very large part of the problem - if every train was an 8-car Class 319 (or Class 150 formation), it'd cope reasonably well, just as Thameslink did for years prior to the Class 700s coming along. But if people are having to cram onto a single or even double Class 150, it just takes ages - worse if it's a 158.

The Liverpool-Norwich is a goodly part of the issue - it could really do with being a 6-car set, which if it goes over to TPE and Class 185 operation might finally be achieved. It's not like that service hasn't been an issue since about 1995 or before (1995 was when I first became aware of that service).

 

[CdBrux]

Correct, but see the difference: The Germans doing things properly and create extra cross city paths and provide grade seperated chords that avoid going into the City Centre. Whereas in the UK you build chords that send you back the way you came require 2 cross city paths on limited infrastructure and squeeze more journeys and passenger interchanges into already congested station platforms.

If Manchester was in Germany, they would have built a proper S-Bahn 20-30 years ago. Every Junction within km of St Peter's Square would have been grade seperated. And they would have done, Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh, Nottingham-Derby, Norwich and Southampton as well whilst they where at it.

I don't doubt. But it does mean that having regional connectivity to the main airport of the region *is* seen as important as well as having decent local services. This until recently was the case in the NW and seems to have gone wrong for a variety of reasons. So therefore the aims should be to have the best of both. My apologies if that is what you were suggesting and I mis understood

 

[CdBrux]

Short trains are a very large part of the problem - if every train was an 8-car Class 319 (or Class 150 formation), it'd cope reasonably well, just as Thameslink did for years prior to the Class 700s coming along. But if people are having to cram onto a single or even double Class 150, it just takes ages - worse if it's a 158.

The Liverpool-Norwich is a goodly part of the issue - it could really do with being a 6-car set, which if it goes over to TPE and Class 185 operation might finally be achieved. It's not like that service hasn't been an issue since about 1995 or before (1995 was when I first became aware of that service).

SO if this is sorted out plus some of the other measures mentioned is 15/16 still needed for the current timetable. IF it is a goodly part of the issue it suggests if sorted then 15/16 impact would be much more marginal

 

[Bletchleyite]

SO if this is sorted out plus some of the other measures mentioned is 15/16 still needed for the current timetable. IF it is a goodly part of the issue it suggests if sorted then 15/16 impact would be much more marginal

Quite possibly not - but are we genuinely going to see a significant train length increase on Northern? Though to be fair doing that would benefit more people than 15/16.

 

[B&I]

Firstly, continuing to call it Ringway does nothing for your argument save making you sound like some voice from the past.

It's also amusing because of how much it winds some people up.

Secondly the aspirations of the movers and shakers are to attract business and tourism to the region, which in turn will drive the local economies, which in turn might mean those commuters don't have to shoehorn onto small commuter trains into Manchester, or any other city. Its about developing the North of England into a credible economic area that can attract business, and improve job prospects in the region instead of the ridiculous model of cramming all the eggs into one basket in the capital.

One airport is going to make the square root of sod all difference to that. Manchester Airport has had direct services to quite a few places for over 20 years, but few are economic powerhouses. The ego tripping of the 'movers and shakers' has very little to do with what will actually benefit any ordinary person.

 

[Greybeard33]

Yes it is funny how it is the Chat Moss stopper that is the one everyone always suggests gets cut. Like the people who live along that line are not worthy enough. For years the Chat Moss stopper went to Victoria, and as a result people who lived in the vicinity of stations along the line west of Earlestown had to change trains twice to get anywhere beyond Manchester. Whilst occasionallly this was a nice same platform change, more often than not it was a trek (often with the proverbial heavy suitcase) across the wilderness of the Earlestown Triangle. And try explaning that to someone coming to visit for the first time.

Now the TPEs are routed across Chat Moss and provide the link to Victoria and beyond, it is sensible to serve the Castlefield Corridor with the stopping service. Want to turn it in the Mayfield siding. Fine do it. Want to turn it at Oxford Road, fine do it. But sending a 3rd Chat Moss service to Victoria, where it will likely terminate right in front of a TPE express, is the same kind of backward illogical thinking that the UK is renowned the world over for. And they wonder why some of us feel the railways are being configured more and more to serve a cream of the elite rather than provide the public transport network the country desperatly needs.

Any change inevitably creates winners and losers. I am sure there are commuters from the Chat Moss stations who work in the Spinningfields area and are aggrieved that the stopper no longer goes to Victoria. Likewise people who want get to Ashton-under-Lyne or stations on the Calder Valley line, and now have to change twice.

If the stopper arrived at Victoria right in front of the Scarborough express, it would provide a convenient connection for those travelling to Huddersfield/Leeds/York/Scarborough from stations east of Lea Green.

Lime Street has two faster trains to Oxford Road and Piccadilly via the CLC line.

 

[Chester1]

Oxford Road P1 is only 105m long, like P5, versus 160m for P2-4. In normal operation there is no point in using P1, because all westbound through services come from Piccadilly P14 and can be handled by P2. P1 is used in times of disruption, e.g. a failed/delayed train in P2 or a westbound queue through Deansgate. P1 can also be used as an additional terminal platform, e.g. for a short working or during engineering works.

Closure of P5 is part of the Oxford Road remodelling project, which is subject to the same TWAO approval as Piccadilly P15/16.

Platform 1 could be extended seperate to the redevelopment project if it is deemed worthwhile e.g. to allow longer units. I believe that TPE 160m 8 coach Scotland services foul junctions. Could the layout of the station be slightly altered to make 160m sets fully fit? Oxford Road doesn't need 200m+ platforms. More station facilities and better disabled access should be the priority at Oxford Road. If Piccadilly 15 and 16 are never going to built then maybe there is merit to reopening platform 6 so 4tph can comfortably terminate at Oxford Road.

 

[Greybeard33]

Platform 1 could be extended seperate to the redevelopment project if it is deemed worthwhile e.g. to allow longer units. I believe that TPE 160m 8 coach Scotland services foul junctions. Could the layout of the station be slightly altered to make 160m sets fully fit? Oxford Road doesn't need 200m+ platforms. More station facilities and better disabled access should be the priority at Oxford Road. If Piccadilly 15 and 16 are never going to built then maybe there is merit to reopening platform 6 so 4tph can comfortably terminate at Oxford Road.

Class 350 carriages are 20.4m long, so an 8-car formation is 163m+. But the Scottish services no longer call at Oxford Road, so not a problem any more. An 8-car 319 would just fit the existing platforms. 6-car 323s and 331s will fit easily, as will the TPE Mk5A+68 sets and the 5-car 802s and 397s.

 

[sprunt]

We have had this debate many times before

So why did you re-start it with the laughable phrase "Is it time that we start to question the extent to which the problems are caused by the sacred cows that have been allowed to develop around transport in Manchester and the north more generally" as if it were a brand new theory? "Look at me!"

 

[notlob.divad]

If the stopper arrived at Victoria right in front of the Scarborough express, it would provide a convenient connection for those travelling to Huddersfield/Leeds/York/Scarborough from stations east of Lea Green.

So a duplicate connection that is provided by the newcastle service at Newton-Le-Willows, and no connection to those wanting to travel to Sheffield, Stockport, Doncaster, Nottingham, Macclesfield etc.. and the precious airport.

Apparently it is alright for people from St. Helens, Huyton, and the outer suburbs of Liverpool to be discouraged from using the train to the airport, by being made to change not once but twice on route.

Maybe its the luggage, maybe those people who live along this line pack lighter and so are more capable of carrying it across the Earlestown triangle than people from other areas of the North are from carrying it within the confines of Piccadilly station.

On the other hand maybe its the cars, maybe the people living along this line have developed a special form of motor vehicle secret to the rest of the world that takes up zero space on the motorways which means they don't contribute to the congestion on the motorways.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 350 carriages are 20.4m long, so an 8-car formation is 163m+. But the Scottish services no longer call at Oxford Road, so not a problem any more. An 8-car 319 would just fit the existing platforms. 6-car 323s and 331s will fit easily, as will the TPE Mk5A+68 sets and the 5-car 802s and 397s.

If Northern end up with the 350/2s there is probably merit in extending, but if not then probably not worth it as you say.

 

[js1000]

Short trains are a very large part of the problem - if every train was an 8-car Class 319 (or Class 150 formation), it'd cope reasonably well, just as Thameslink did for years prior to the Class 700s coming along. But if people are having to cram onto a single or even double Class 150, it just takes ages - worse if it's a 158.

The Liverpool-Norwich is a goodly part of the issue - it could really do with being a 6-car set, which if it goes over to TPE and Class 185 operation might finally be achieved. It's not like that service hasn't been an issue since about 1995 or before (1995 was when I first became aware of that service).

Dwell times are poor at Piccadilly at best of times.

The irony is the problem of dwell times is actually exercerbated when there are multiple trains through 13/14 are delayed.

Gormless hoardes passengers clogging up the platform and getting in the way of passengers alighting. It's a vicious cycle.

 

[B&I]

So why did you re-start it with the laughable phrase "Is it time that we start to question the extent to which the problems are caused by the sacred cows that have been allowed to develop around transport in Manchester and the north more generally" as if it were a brand new theory? "Look at me!"

Because a lot of the debate is framed around supposedly unquestionable assumptions, which I decided to question, because they are to varying extents rubbish. It's called 'debating'. It may be a new concept to you, given the apparent difficulty you are having accepting that any views different to yours could exist

 

[CdBrux]

Because a lot of the debate is framed around supposedly unquestionable assumptions, which I decided to question, because they are to varying extents rubbish. It's called 'debating'. It may be a new concept to you, given the apparent difficulty you are having accepting that any views different to yours could exist

Debating is very valid. The way you do it is not, but you don't seems to be capable of understanding this and thus detract rather than add to the discussion here. Since you'll no doubt disagree it's probably best we each make our own judgement and leave it at that.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's also amusing because of how much it winds some people up.

Are you admitting to trolling? Should I be hitting the report button...?

One airport is going to make the square root of sod all difference to that. Manchester Airport has had direct services to quite a few places for over 20 years, but few are economic powerhouses. The ego tripping of the 'movers and shakers' has very little to do with what will actually benefit any ordinary person.

That's your opinion, not everyone agrees especially the airlines flying to Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, New York, LA, Dubai, Singapore, Beijing, Hong Kong to name a few. Admittedly these are just little economic hamlets, but they are a start.

Oh and the owners of the airport also seem to disagree with you, investing over a billion pounds in increasing capacity, with the intention of attracting even more long haul flights from little backwater cities....

 

[B&I]

Are you admitting to trolling? Should I be hitting the report button...?

At least you still have a sense of humour. Some on here do seem to think that challenging the majority view should be a reportable offence.

That's your opinion, not everyone agrees especially the airlines flying to Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, New York, LA, Dubai, Singapore, Beijing, Hong Kong to name a few. Admittedly these are just little economic hamlets, but they are a start.

Oh and the owners of the airport also seem to disagree with you, investing over a billion pounds in increasing capacity, with the intention of attracting even more long haul flights from little backwater cities....

Ok, I walked into that one.

Direct rail services to Manchester Airport do not seem to have done much for the economic fortunes of places provided with them. If connectivity to the airport mattered so much, why would anyone invest anywhere other than Manchester or other places immediately beside the airport ?

BTW I'm writing this while standing on a crammed Pacer on a Manchester suburban line, the sort of.aspect of public tranaport around Manchester which doesn't seem to concern many on here.

 

[B&I]

Debating is very valid. The way you do it is not, but you don't seems to be capable of understanding this and thus detract rather than add to the discussion here. Since you'll no doubt disagree it's probably best we each make our own judgement and leave it at that.

Any time you want to discuss the subject matter of what I have written, let me know.

 

[Bantamzen]

At least you still have a sense of humour. Some on here do seem to think that challenging the majority view shiuld be a reportable offence.

You have to sometimes, but hey it could be worse. We could be arguing about the colour of a seat cover or handrail....

Ok, I walked into that one.

Direct rail services to Manchester Airport do not seem to have done much for the economic fortunes of places provided with them. If connectivity to the airport mattered so much, why would anyone invest anywhere other than Manchester or other places immediately beside the airport ?

BTW I'm writing this while standing on a crammed Pacer on a Manchester suburban line, the sort of.aspect of public tranaport around Manchester which doesn't seem to concern many on here.

To be fair direct rail service outwith Manchester are still very much in their infancy, but are a growing market so show that demand is there. The thinking behind them being part of a bigger strategy is that as MIA grows it's international market, it will make connectivity to all the major towns & cities attractive enough to encourage business beyond the capital. Currently getting from the UK's major hub at Heathrow anywhere other than the capital is difficult by rail, and still very limited by air. My argument, as indeed many others is, that London could not have grown, particularly in the financial sector without the international connectivity it enjoys. So as Manchester Airport is the biggest airport outside of the Home Counties, by improving both the journey options to and from it, and improving connectivity there is a reasonable chance that this will help bolster local economies. Manchester is already enjoying some of these fruits, but the plan is not simply to put all eggs into a single basket as with London, but to try and spread it out across the region. Otherwise all will descend into Manchester every day, and heap on even more misery for it's commuters.

Now of course that's not to say it is a guarantee of sucess, indeed far from it. But it is part of a wider strategy to get the North of England on the map as it were. And let's face it, we are talking about a couple of trains an hour from Yorkshire & the North East, and from Merseyside & the North West. It really shouldn't be so difficult to enable with a bit of joined-up thinking. As for the locals, well I totally agree that they need to feel the benefits of investment, starting with longer trains (and the platforms to accommodate them) to get the capacity up to and beyond current demand. Simply declaring that Manchester routes are for Manchester people only won't solve the problem, and will probably create many more of their own, such as Ministers becoming reticent to rubber stamp improvement projects because they perceive that they will only benefit passengers for a few hours a day.

 

[B&I]

You have to sometimes, but hey it could be worse. We could be arguing about the colour of a seat cover or handrail....




To be fair direct rail service outwith Manchester are still very much in their infancy, but are a growing market so show that demand is there. The thinking behind them being part of a bigger strategy is that as MIA grows it's international market, it will make connectivity to all the major towns & cities attractive enough to encourage business beyond the capital. Currently getting from the UK's major hub at Heathrow anywhere other than the capital is difficult by rail, and still very limited by air. My argument, as indeed many others is, that London could not have grown, particularly in the financial sector without the international connectivity it enjoys. So as Manchester Airport is the biggest airport outside of the Home Counties, by improving both the journey options to and from it, and improving connectivity there is a reasonable chance that this will help bolster local economies. Manchester is already enjoying some of these fruits, but the plan is not simply to put all eggs into a single basket as with London, but to try and spread it out across the region. Otherwise all will descend into Manchester every day, and heap on even more misery for it's commuters.

Now of course that's not to say it is a guarantee of sucess, indeed far from it. But it is part of a wider strategy to get the North of England on the map as it were. And let's face it, we are talking about a couple of trains an hour from Yorkshire & the North East, and from Merseyside & the North West. It really shouldn't be so difficult to enable with a bit of joined-up thinking. As for the locals, well I totally agree that they need to feel the benefits of investment, starting with longer trains (and the platforms to accommodate them) to get the capacity up to and beyond current demand. Simply declaring that Manchester routes are for Manchester people only won't solve the problem, and will probably create many more of their own, such as Ministers becoming reticent to rubber stamp improvement projects because they perceive that they will only benefit passengers for a few hours a day.

I understand the concept you ars trying to promote, but, laudable as the goal is of trying to reverse the ludicrous centralisation of almost all economic development in and around London, I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

Most people use airports very rarely, and not for business purposes when they do use them. Day to day commuting is much more important to economic activity. If government ministers really would oppose investment designed to.mkae that easier because it is.most used at the peaks (which BTW has not stopped such investment in and around London), then they really are more dishonest / stupid than I already thought they were.

If the airport is as important as you claim, then investment will.naturally gravitate towards the places closest to it, regardless of links to elsewhere. Why invest in Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield or Newcastle, as opposed to Manchester, when in every case you have to.pass through Manchester to reach any of these by rail from Manchester Airport ?

So long as government policy remains to encourage most eggs to.be put into one large basket (in and around London), with a few spare eggs going into the smaller Manchester basket, the rest of the north will remain in the economic doldrums. Rail connections generally are only one part of this jigsaw.

The couple of trains an hour from Yorkshire are feeding into what may be the most dysfunctional piece of railway infrastructure in Britain at the current time, and contributing to a day to day railway service so poor in quality thay it is driving thousands back onto the roads. They are a luxury we cannot currently afford.

And don't start me about airport services from Merseyside. The best direct service has been axed and replaced with an appallingly unreliable bodge-together of several stoppers. The supposed replacement is a joke of a service along the CLC which is substantially slower than the TPE service it replaced, and much less reliable. If your theory about the importance of airport conectivity to economic growth is correct, why is Liverpool being made an exception to this ? Or could it be that Manchester Airport has already achieved its maximum market share among leisure travellers in and arounf Liverpool, and has decided instead to target fresh markets east of the Pennines ?

And, much as I know this comment will pain some on here, the vast majority of people using Ringway are still using it to go in their holidays. Neglecting that market in favour of a handful of travellers from the other side of the country is not an efficient use of resources, and may do a lot to explain all that traffic circluating the airport by motorway

 

[Bantamzen]

I understand the concept you ars trying to promote, but, laudable as the goal is of trying to reverse the ludicrous centralisation of almost all economic development in and around London, I think this is the wrong way to go about it.

Most people use airports very rarely, and not for business purposes when they do use them. Day to day commuting is much more important to economic activity. If government ministers really would oppose investment designed to.mkae that easier because it is.most used at the peaks (which BTW has not stopped such investment in and around London), then they really are more dishonest / stupid than I already thought they were.

If the airport is as important as you claim, then investment will.naturally gravitate towards the places closest to it, regardless of links to elsewhere. Why invest in Liverpool, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield or Newcastle, as opposed to Manchester, when in every case you have to.pass through Manchester to reach any of these by rail from Manchester Airport ?

So long as government policy remains to encourage most eggs to.be put into one large basket (in and around London), with a few spare eggs going into the smaller Manchester basket, the rest of the north will remain in the economic doldrums. Rail connections generally are only one part of this jigsaw.

But they are one part as you say, and that is the key. Without them Manchester, its rail and road network will not attract the kind of investment that it, and the rest of the region needs. I'm afraid Manchester (& Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield et al) needs to think beyond it's boundaries, otherwise it will simply fade from the view of the Treasury. I'm afraid Manchester is stuck with the rest of the North, and so the region as a whole will have to accept that any investment must show its worth to be benefiting as wider an area as possible.

 

[Greybeard33]

But they are one part as you say, and that is the key. Without them Manchester, its rail and road network will not attract the kind of investment that it, and the rest of the region needs. I'm afraid Manchester (& Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield et al) needs to think beyond it's boundaries, otherwise it will simply fade from the view of the Treasury. I'm afraid Manchester is stuck with the rest of the North, and so the region as a whole will have to accept that any investment must show its worth to be benefiting as wider an area as possible.

Indeed. Channel 4 has just announced that it is relocating to Leeds, not to Salford or Trafford Park adjacent to the BBC and ITV studios. Considering the cosmopolitan nature of the media industry, I am sure that the transport connectivity between Leeds and Manchester Airport will have been a factor in the decision. Liverpool, with its even better links to the airport, is likewise in a strong position to attract inward investment in competition with more costly sites in Greater Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed. Channel 4 has just announced that it is relocating to Leeds, not to Salford or Trafford Park adjacent to the BBC and ITV studios. Considering the cosmopolitan nature of the media industry, I am sure that the transport connectivity between Leeds and Manchester Airport will have been a factor in the decision. Liverpool, with its even better links to the airport, is likewise in a strong position to attract inward investment in competition with more costly sites in Greater Manchester.

You reckon? I reckon they'll be more interested in the ECML to London.

 

[sprunt]

It's called 'debating'. It may be a new concept to you, given the apparent difficulty you are having accepting that any views different to yours could exist

I'm not the one trying to close down people who disagree with me by saying

We have had this debate many times before

 

[B&I]

I'm not the one trying to close down people who disagree with me by saying

I was apologising in advance for repeating myself. If you were not allowed to repeat yourself on this forum, I suspect it would habe ground to a halt within 20 minutes.

You are the one who, instead of dealing with the substance of any of the issues raised, is still, a couple of days later, getting your knickers in a twist about the way I expressed them

 

[B&I]

But they are one part as you say, and that is the key. Without them Manchester, its rail and road network will not attract the kind of investment that it, and the rest of the region needs. I'm afraid Manchester (& Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield et al) needs to think beyond it's boundaries, otherwise it will simply fade from the view of the Treasury. I'm afraid Manchester is stuck with the rest of the North, and so the region as a whole will have to accept that any investment must show its worth to be benefiting as wider an area as possible.

Quite. Which is why investment between and within all of those places (and more), reflecting the multiplicity of journeys between and within them, is important, rather than focusing to the degree we do on a single airport which generates little traffic in the bigger scheme of things.

Unfortunately the government, locked into thinking in terms of core and periphery by decades of concentration of development in and around London, cannot get to grips with a polycentric region like the north of England. To.make things worse, despite treating Manchester as to all intents and purposes the core and the rest of the north as the periphery, the government cannot or will not invest enough in the city to allow it to fulfill that function.

BTW the government's refusal to invest in local public transport around any city outside London is inexcusable, given the congestion and air pollution generated as a result, before we even begin thinking about the economic effects.

 

[Greybeard33]

So a duplicate connection that is provided by the newcastle service at Newton-Le-Willows, and no connection to those wanting to travel to Sheffield, Stockport, Doncaster, Nottingham, Macclesfield etc.. and the precious airport.

Yes, I agree that, pedantically, Newton-Le-Willows would benefit less from a rapid connection to the Scarborough service than would St Helens Junction, Earlestown, Patricroft and Eccles. But do you expect everyone from the St Helens area to railhead to Lea Green or NLW when they want to travel to Leeds and beyond? And, given your professed concern for GM rail users, what about those who live near Patricroft or Eccles?

Apparently it is alright for people from St. Helens, Huyton, and the outer suburbs of Liverpool to be discouraged from using the train to the airport, by being made to change not once but twice on route.

Maybe its the luggage, maybe those people who live along this line pack lighter and so are more capable of carrying it across the Earlestown triangle than people from other areas of the North are from carrying it within the confines of Piccadilly station.

On the other hand maybe its the cars, maybe the people living along this line have developed a special form of motor vehicle secret to the rest of the world that takes up zero space on the motorways which means they don't contribute to the congestion on the motorways.

So you really believe Huyton and St Helens are more deserving of direct services to Manchester Airport than are Leeds, York, Newcastle and Middlesbrough?!