No I'm comparing one line with one line. The West Coast diversionary route was a key reason for Chat Moss electrification, like it was for Stone.
Where was it explicitly stated? 'Key' does not mean 'only' or even 'main' wrt Chat Moss.
What I'm saying we've seen exponential growth without electrification. Since the introduction of 185s passenger numbers on TPE routes have increased by 100%. Will electrification result in further growth of over 100% over the next 10 years? If not then how can it be claimed electrification sparks growth if growth slows down post-electrification. Had Manchester-York/Blackpool/Windermere been electrified by 2006 would people be claiming the exponential growth is down to electrification?
'Exponential' is your word, I hadn't used it at all. Electrification doesn't have to produce dramatic growth because it is a long term investment unlike repacing diesels in like-for-like schemes. 185s are great stop-gaps because they are so overpowered that the gradients on the Pennine routes can be tackled with ease. They are wasteful compared with electric traction though, plus pollution can no longer be considered insignificant even away from city centres. If there are routing benefits to the Chat Moss electrification, then so much the better. Most rail routes don't exist in a vacuum.
One reason why a civil servant claimed the BCR for replacing Pacers is poor is because the use of old Pacers isn't preventing passenger growth as you might expect. Growth doesn't just happen as a result of electrification. Incidentally Patrick McLoughlin re-confirmed a commitment to withdraw Pacers today, I think the first time it's been mentioned since the election.
'A civil servant claimed' is a bit unofficial, presumably nameless.
That sounds like a David Cameron type statement. Major lines in the North don't include Manchester-Warrington-Liverpool, Manchester-Sheffield, Manchester-Holyhead and Manchester-Cardiff in your opinion?
Patience is a virtue. The major lines in the south with
real passenger volumes weren't all electrified in one decade. If the passenger numbers are there, or electrificaztion supported lines that did have them then the budget will be found. I have no allegance to David Cameron, I'm just taking a national view, not a 'support your local railway' stance.
Maybe because DfT wanted a headline Liverpool-Newcastle service in under 3 hours to run via Chat Moss?
Maybe not. Speculation is OK, but I assume from it that you don't actually know.
I never made any such claim. I said electrification and a cascade of 319 (together with the consequences of the 170s going to Chiltern) resulted in some services getting extra capacity when they didn't necessarily need it and other services which desperately need extra capacity not getting anything. Do you think it's better to provide for potential passengers than real passengers?
Yes you are right, you said:
"They (DfT) thought it would help with overcrowding on the CLC line as there would be more Manchester-Liverpool services. However, so far this hasn't
proved to be the case...."
So once again, you have written off the case for adjacent lines helping with overcrowding after less than 3 months experience. Electrification is a 50-100 year life investment, so it's a bit daft to expect lightning results, unless this is just a postulation for this thread.
Do you think that it's better to plan ahead or just do firefighting?
If those 130 carriages had been delivered already we wouldn't be worrying about new emission standards for DMUs, no open production line for DMUs suitable for UK use and the problems caused by Chiltern poaching the 170/3s would have been less severe.
1) They weren't delivered but unfortunately the electrification programme hit a few problems, in part caused by unreliable ground conditions along the lines.
2) We are where we are. If they were purchased, we should be worrying about their emissions, not the standards, unless your desire to have new DMUs overrides all considerations of diesel pollution.
3) Chiltern didn't 'poach' the 170s, - it was a commercial deal. They weren't anybody's to poach because they are owned by the ROSCO. The ROSCO probably looked at the state that Northern and their current leased stock was in 3-4 years ago and decided that Chiltern would be a better keeper of theirs over the next few years.
Electrification could still have occurred as a long term solution with the DMUs an immediate solution.
Why do today what we can put off until tomorrow.
At the moment we don't know which lines will get the new trains in the North and we also don't know which lines may get cascaded Turbostars if Northern bidders take up that option, so I don't know if the lines I use most will get new or newer trains.
Wait and see if they actually materialise and in what quantities.
