We need to talk about Castlefield again.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Another worthwhile option might be turning Hoscar, New Lane and Bescar Lane into request stops, as very rarely are you likely to get a request. Or even close them; they are barely used and barely serve anything at all.

So, here we have three stations in West Lancashire looked at as prime candidates for closure.

Are you trying to succeed where the 1960's master plan of UK lines closures failed?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So, here we have three stations in West Lancashire looked at as prime candidates for closure.

Are you trying to succeed where the 1960's master plan of UK lines closures failed?

I'm not sure we should shy away from closing barely-used small stations that don't really serve anything if they are operationally awkward and stand in the way of providing the necessary service.

I'm not saying we definitely should close them, but they certainly slow down services up that way and aren't used by many people.

 

[geordieblue]

@Bletchleyite - I think you're contradicting yourself a bit. You've talked a lot about the importance of a Takt - a simple, frequent train network prioritising easing changes. You've also frequently criticised Northern's 'X-to-Y one tph' approach. However, there seems to be some sort of nostalgia for Southport (in the sense you say 'Sandgrounders' instead of 'Southport'; you wouldn't say Glaswegians need 2tph to London, you'd say Glasgow; ditto with Newcastle / Geordies or whatever other group you want to use), and, even though a cutting back of Southport services to Vic will provide a fairly simple change into Castlefield, you appear willing to sacrifice your principles.
You otherwise seem to suggest that the pain should be shared - what would this look like for Southport? 1tph to Vic, 1tph across Castlefield? Because that's not a recipe for reliability. Or does this idea of sharing pain mean that Southport should retain its current service pattern? Because that's not sharing!
This absolutely isn't a personal attack - I won't pretend to be an expert on railways in the northwest - but I suppose I'm confused by someone who is normally very vocal about how the system should be run, seemingly abandoning their principles when it refers to their local line.

 

[S&CLER]

This is an interesting point, and I'd want to know passenger figures before looking at it. Certainly Burscough Bridge has significant passenger numbers (in so far as you get significant numbers on a line like that) - it's basically "West Lancashire Parkway" for people going to Manchester. I don't know about figures from stations further east - certainly Gathurst (sorry @Gathursty) might be one to miss out on a semifast, but I'm not sure about Appley Bridge and Parbold.

When the post-1998 service pattern was introduced (1tph to Vic, 1tph to Ringway) quite a few trains did run non-stop Southport to Wigan, but I'm not sure if this is the best way or not.

Other than that I'm not sure how else you'd speed it up that much. Running via Bolton will help provided they don't end up doing local stations between Bolton and Salford Crescent? There could really do with being a half-hourly Bolton-Vic-wherever EMU to do those separately if it could be pathed. You could I suppose send it non-stop via Parkside but I think people would rather have a Bolton stop than that.

Another worthwhile option might be turning Hoscar, New Lane and Bescar Lane into request stops, as very rarely are you likely to get a request. Or even close them; they are barely used and barely serve anything at all.

The non-stops from Southport to Wigan were not a success; too many people got on them expecting to stop at Parbold etc. The Lanes survive only because the local roads were unsuitable for buses in the 1960s, and perhaps still are. A Southport-Preston service via the Burscough north curve would be a more natural home for them. Both Parbold and Appley Bridge were reasonably busy in normal times, Appley Bridge being the last station in the GM ticketing area. There is much new housing there. If the engineering firm that currently occupies the yard there could be moved, the car park could be expanded, and the annoyance to residents caused by parking in local roads could be eliminated.

I cannot resist the temptation to observe that in the 1880s the 5.0 pm from Manchester Central to Southport Lord Street ran non-stop to Birkdale Palace via the Warrington Straight Line in about 55 minutes. This is probably the fastest train that Southport has ever enjoyed.

 

[daodao]

The non-stops from Southport to Wigan were not a success; too many people got on them expecting to stop at Parbold etc. The Lanes survive only because the local roads were unsuitable for buses in the 1960s, and perhaps still are. A Southport-Preston service via the Burscough north curve would be a more natural home for them. Both Parbold and Appley Bridge were reasonably busy in normal times, Appley Bridge being the last station in the GM ticketing area. There is much new housing there. If the engineering firm that currently occupies the yard there could be moved, the car park could be expanded, and the annoyance to residents caused by parking in local roads could be eliminated.

I cannot resist the temptation to observe that in the 1880s the 5.0 pm from Manchester Central to Southport Lord Street ran non-stop to Birkdale Palace via the Warrington Straight Line in about 55 minutes. This is probably the fastest train that Southport has ever enjoyed.

I don't see why 1 of the 2 tph from Southport to Wigan could not just call at Meols Cop and Burscough, to accelerate journeys from Southport to M/c.

Hoscar couldn't be served by Southport-Preston trains.

Southport Chapel Street to Victoria was achievable in under 50 minutes in 1910, calling only at St.Luke's; the quadruple lines on most of the section from Wigan to Victoria will have helped. Some of the peak services were extended to Birkdale to compete with the CLC route via Gateacre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You otherwise seem to suggest that the pain should be shared - what would this look like for Southport? 1tph to Vic, 1tph across Castlefield? Because that's not a recipe for reliability. Or does this idea of sharing pain mean that Southport should retain its current service pattern? Because that's not sharing!
This absolutely isn't a personal attack - I won't pretend to be an expert on railways in the northwest - but I suppose I'm confused by someone who is normally very vocal about how the system should be run, seemingly abandoning their principles when it refers to their local line.

There's a few things that might help. One is the peak extra to Castlefield as option C I think proposes. Another might be to make Victoria less of a hovel so people hate using it less, it really is a horrid station. A third might be to look to expand the Manchester Ctlz ticketing to more of the North West, so the tram can easily be used to connect. A fourth is to look at the timetable to ensure the connection at Salford is good both ways.

I suppose one issue is that the present service is one to each. No reason that shouldn't be reliable per-se, the question would be what you take off Castlefield to accommodate it. Though I have wondered if Sandgrounders (I use the term a bit like Ringway - it is a bit nostalgic but I do tend to use those terms anyway, e.g. I refer to Stopfordians etc too) might prefer a cut to hourly but to Castlefield with a peak extra each way to Vic, which was the pre-1997 service - that is, do they actually want both stations, or do they just want Castlefield?

 

[Glenn1969]

Why so much concern about Southport which when compared to most is a small market? You keep telling most people to accept having to change (I live on a corridor that has never had access to Castlefield direct but has a long standing desire for it) so why should Southport customers not just change at Salford Crescent?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why so much concern about Southport which when compared to most is a small market? You keep telling most people to accept having to change (I live on a corridor that has never had access to Castlefield direct but has a long standing desire for it) so why should Southport customers not just change at Salford Crescent?

Well, they can, provided that's eased by ensuring the connection with the Blackpool EMUs is good in both directions, and not, as I can just bet will happen, 29 minutes.

 

[Greybeard33]

Well, they can, provided that's eased by ensuring the connection with the Blackpool EMUs is good in both directions, and not, as I can just bet will happen, 29 minutes.

Southport really does quite well in Option C. 2tph to Stalybridge, both fast between Bolton and Salford Crescent. Whereas in the baseline timetable, the Stalybridge train calls at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley.

And for the commuters who really must go to Piccadilly, a peak semi-fast via Atherton direct to Oxford Road, with a connection to Piccadilly within minutes. Or the alternative of changing at Wigan to the fast peak North Western to Hazel Grove via Golborne service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Southport really does quite well in Option C. 2tph to Stalybridge, both fast between Bolton and Salford Crescent. Whereas in the baseline timetable, the Stalybridge train calls at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley.

And for the commuters who really must go to Piccadilly, a peak semi-fast via Atherton direct to Oxford Road, with a connection to Piccadilly within minutes. Or the alternative of changing at Wigan to the fast peak North Western to Hazel Grove via Golborne service.

We've not seen the timetables - have you? Do those connections work well?

Moses Gate, Clifton (once houses get built), Farnworth and Kearsley really could do with being a separate half hourly Bolton-<somewhere east of Victoria> service. Putting them in the longer distance stuff invariably results in slow DMUs (or 769s, which might as well be slow DMUs) doing stopping services. Pity the Denton line isn't wired, as Bolton-Vic-Denton-Reddish S-Stockport would, if it could be pathed post-HS2, be quite a useful service.

 

[Killingworth]

Why so much concern about Southport which when compared to most is a small market? You keep telling most people to accept having to change (I live on a corridor that has never had access to Castlefield direct but has a long standing desire for it) so why should Southport customers not just change at Salford Crescent?

I'd just say that when I travelled from Sheffield to Southport a couple of years ago I was routed to change on Platform 14 at Piccadilly and again at Salford Crescent. Today it might be at Oxford Road. I can see the point Southport line users are making. Next time I'd be tempted to change once at Hunts Cross. Trouble is we can't all have all the stops and timings we'd like. Thinks, why have I only been to Southport once? Nice place, but it seemed a long way!

 

[Greybeard33]

We've not seen the timetables - have you? Do those connections work well?

Moses Gate, Clifton (once houses get built), Farnworth and Kearsley really could do with being a separate half hourly Bolton-<somewhere east of Victoria> service. Putting them in the longer distance stuff invariably results in slow DMUs (or 769s, which might as well be slow DMUs) doing stopping services. Pity the Denton line isn't wired, as Bolton-Vic-Denton-Reddish S-Stockport would, if it could be pathed post-HS2, be quite a useful service.

Oxford Road - Piccadilly will be 8tph, so is pretty much guaranteed to be a good connection. For Wigan and Bolton, we will have to wait for the timetables.

There is no capacity at Victoria for another service from Bolton. The stations between Bolton and Salford Crescent will unfortunately be served by the Blackburn/Clitheroe DMUs.

 

[tbtc]

@Bletchleyite - I think you're contradicting yourself a bit. You've talked a lot about the importance of a Takt - a simple, frequent train network prioritising easing changes. You've also frequently criticised Northern's 'X-to-Y one tph' approach. However, there seems to be some sort of nostalgia for Southport (in the sense you say 'Sandgrounders' instead of 'Southport'; you wouldn't say Glaswegians need 2tph to London, you'd say Glasgow; ditto with Newcastle / Geordies or whatever other group you want to use), and, even though a cutting back of Southport services to Vic will provide a fairly simple change into Castlefield, you appear willing to sacrifice your principles.
You otherwise seem to suggest that the pain should be shared - what would this look like for Southport? 1tph to Vic, 1tph across Castlefield? Because that's not a recipe for reliability. Or does this idea of sharing pain mean that Southport should retain its current service pattern? Because that's not sharing!
This absolutely isn't a personal attack - I won't pretend to be an expert on railways in the northwest - but I suppose I'm confused by someone who is normally very vocal about how the system should be run, seemingly abandoning their principles when it refers to their local line.

Why so much concern about Southport which when compared to most is a small market? You keep telling most people to accept having to change (I live on a corridor that has never had access to Castlefield direct but has a long standing desire for it) so why should Southport customers not just change at Salford Crescent?

I agree with both of these posters.

It's fine to suggest that everyone else loses direct links and long established services but the real test is whether you'd accept it on your own route (or, perhaps, your boyhood route).

For example, I live in Sheffield...

...Sheffield has had a direct service each hour to Manchester Airport since the 1990s (ignoring "temporary" Covid timetables)...

...I've used the direct service to/from Manchester Airport in the past - it was convenient for me...

...I know a number of people who do use the direct train from time to time...

...cutting this link will inconvenience some people in Sheffield (and the same goes for places east of Sheffield)...

...but cutting the link makes sense in the grand scheme of things - it'll upset a number of people this side of the Pennines, it'll potentially inconvenience me if I ever take another foreign holiday, but it's a price worth paying (to ensure a simpler and more reliable service from Sheffield to central Manchester and remove conflicts for other services).

I'm not going to argue that "it's unfair for Sheffield to lose its Airport link because other routes aren't sharing the pain" - it wouldn't be practical for every line to lose 10% of its Airport services, it's much better to drop one hourly service in full.

But then, it's only a few posts ago that @Bletchleyite was suggesting that one line west of Wigan Wallgate (Kirkby) should lose all of its direct Manchester services but it'd apparently be unfair for the other line west of Wigan Wallgate to have the proposed changes (even though Southport would still have two trains per hour to Manchester under these plans - the same frequency it's had since I can remember) - fine for other routes to be simplified in the interests of simplification but not your own pet line I guess.

We don't have enough capacity in/around Manchester for everywhere to have a direct service to everywhere. We aren't going to build two additional through platforms at Piccadilly any time soon. Ordsall exists, so it's too late to worry about whether it was worthwhile building it. We need a simpler network of services that deals with the finite amount of paths that are available and minimises conflicting movements as much as possible (obviously some conflicts are going to be unavoidable given all of the flat junctions). Easier to remember timetables, such as a half hourly pattern on routes where possible (and multiples thereof).

Some places are losing their entire Manchester services under these plans (e.g. local stations west of Warrington), some places are seeing their Manchester journey times significantly increased (e.g. stations west of Chester), some places are making a lot less fuss than a seaside town that will retain it's two trains per hour to Manchester.

The idea that one little route is so important that it's worth breaking things for is a nonsense - if we allow one wealthy group of commuters to badger the PM and get their special little service maintained then the whole thing falls apart - if Southport passengers are so worthy of having their services untouched then where do we draw the line?

 

[geordieblue]

I agree with both of these posters.

It's fine to suggest that everyone else loses direct links and long established services but the real test is whether you'd accept it on your own route (or, perhaps, your boyhood route).

For example, I live in Sheffield...

...Sheffield has had a direct service each hour to Manchester Airport since the 1990s (ignoring "temporary" Covid timetables)...

...I've used the direct service to/from Manchester Airport in the past - it was convenient for me...

...I know a number of people who do use the direct train from time to time...

...cutting this link will inconvenience some people in Sheffield (and the same goes for places east of Sheffield)...

...but cutting the link makes sense in the grand scheme of things - it'll upset a number of people this side of the Pennines, it'll potentially inconvenience me if I ever take another foreign holiday, but it's a price worth paying (to ensure a simpler and more reliable service from Sheffield to central Manchester and remove conflicts for other services).

I'm not going to argue that "it's unfair for Sheffield to lose its Airport link because other routes aren't sharing the pain" - it wouldn't be practical for every line to lose 10% of its Airport services, it's much better to drop one hourly service in full.

But then, it's only a few posts ago that @Bletchleyite was suggesting that one line west of Wigan Wallgate (Kirkby) should lose all of its direct Manchester services but it'd apparently be unfair for the other line west of Wigan Wallgate to have the proposed changes (even though Southport would still have two trains per hour to Manchester under these plans - the same frequency it's had since I can remember) - fine for other routes to be simplified in the interests of simplification but not your own pet line I guess.

We don't have enough capacity in/around Manchester for everywhere to have a direct service to everywhere. We aren't going to build two additional through platforms at Piccadilly any time soon. Ordsall exists, so it's too late to worry about whether it was worthwhile building it. We need a simpler network of services that deals with the finite amount of paths that are available and minimises conflicting movements as much as possible (obviously some conflicts are going to be unavoidable given all of the flat junctions). Easier to remember timetables, such as a half hourly pattern on routes where possible (and multiples thereof).

Some places are losing their entire Manchester services under these plans (e.g. local stations west of Warrington), some places are seeing their Manchester journey times significantly increased (e.g. stations west of Chester), some places are making a lot less fuss than a seaside town that will retain it's two trains per hour to Manchester.

The idea that one little route is so important that it's worth breaking things for is a nonsense - if we allow one wealthy group of commuters to badger the PM and get their special little service maintained then the whole thing falls apart - if Southport passengers are so worthy of having their services untouched then where do we draw the line?

Also worth saying that Southport already has a good service to Liverpool - it's not like some other stations which only receive 1tph (and yes, it's a decent-sized town, but this is not a huge decrease in quality of service)

 

[Purple Orange]

It’s an interesting thought experiment - what would you accept being taken away from your line in the name of improving the overall network?

Maybe worth a speculative thread?

 

[EllieAquitrain]

Not at all? You would need to increase the size of the fleet somewhat for quite a questionable aim. Moreover, it would play havoc with reliability of Merseyrail.

I assume you mean via Wigan? Rochdale isn't on the way.

Liverpool Central - Stalybridge via Rochdale? Easy!

Liverpool Central - Kirby - Wigan - Atherton - Manchester Victoria - Rochdale - Hebden Bridge - Brighouse - Huddersfield - Stalybridge. Prime for Merseyrail operation?

(I had intended to go Liv Central - Kirby - Wigan - Bamber Bridge - Blackburn - Burnley - Todmorden - Man Victoria - Man Piccadilly - Guide Bridge - Stalybridge but unfortunately I'd forgotten which direction the Kirby branch points at Wigan...)

 

[Bletchleyite]

But then, it's only a few posts ago that @Bletchleyite was suggesting that one line west of Wigan Wallgate (Kirkby) should lose all of its direct Manchester services but it'd apparently be unfair for the other line west of Wigan Wallgate to have the proposed changes (even though Southport would still have two trains per hour to Manchester under these plans - the same frequency it's had since I can remember) - fine for other routes to be simplified in the interests of simplification but not your own pet line I guess.

I was proposing that, but that would have come with considerable alternative benefits, namely a doubling of service frequency, the addition of the presently missing evening service and through trains to Liverpool. All Southport is really getting (unless you actually want to go to Bolton) is the existing Castlefield train diverted to Vic and beyond with very little else of benefit.

 

[Greybeard33]

All Southport is really getting (unless you actually want to go to Bolton) is the existing Castlefield train diverted to Vic and beyond with very little else of benefit.

The third hourly train Southport gets in the peaks is not a benefit? Even though it goes direct to Oxford Road semi-fast?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The third hourly train Southport gets in the peaks is not a benefit? Even though it goes direct to Oxford Road semi-fast?

Does assume the peak extras actually happen, but that is a good point.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Liverpool Central - Stalybridge via Rochdale? Easy!

How do you reach Stalybridge via Rochdale as stated above?

 

[tbtc]

I was proposing that, but that would have come with considerable alternative benefits, namely a doubling of service frequency, the addition of the presently missing evening service and through trains to Liverpool

...but your argument is that it's unfair to divert Southport - Castlefield services (to Victoria) because some people will have built their lives around that direct service - yet you're happy to cut the entire Manchester service from places like Widnes and Kirkby - some people will commute from those towns into Manchester - the fact that you propose amending the frequency from Widnes/ Kirkby to Liverpool will be no consolation for those who have had direct Manchester services all of their working lives - you can quadruple the frequency west towards Liverpool but that's not going to help people who travel east towards Manchester.

A number of other places would see their Manchester services reduced or diverted under the proposals - the whole point of it is to thin the timetable out a little to suit the finite number of paths that the infrastructure.

Just accept the fact that all of your rationalisation and organisation and perfect Germanic order goes out of the window when it comes to your boyhood line because changes are only for other people to suffer.

 

[40129]

It’s an interesting thought experiment - what would you accept being taken away from your line in the name of improving the overall network?

Maybe worth a speculative thread?

Okay. I'm going to be the first to answer this question.

My local line is the Chester - WBQ - Newton le Willows - Manchester route.

Pre-covid, I could take an hourly direct train to North Wales via Chester, Warrington, Piccadilly and Manchester Airport plus 2 direct trains per day to Victoria and Leeds via Halifax. All from a station five minutes walk from my house.

The recovery task force consultation proposes either:
A. Diverting the hourly Piccadilly/Airport service to Stalybridge via Victoria (no change to Leeds service)
B. Retain Piccadilly/Airport service but cut Leeds service back to Stalybridge
C. Diverting the hourly Piccadilly/Airport service via Northwich and curtailing it at Piccadilly and replacing it with a 2 TPH Chester - Victoria - Leeds service

In my response, I've selected C as my preferred option even though I'd lose my direct service to North Wales and Manchester Airport and Piccadilly, and I've directly benefited having those direct links.

Why?

Because the direct links to Piccadilly, Manchester Airport and North Wales are nice to haves but replacing them with a more regular/frequent service to Victoria would likely be the best shot at having a reliable service. Furthermore, like many out of city Airport passengers (I suspect), I only travel to Manchester Airport a couple of times per year, whereas I travel to Chester, Warrington and/or Central Manchester at least weekly. On the occasions that I need to go to Manchester Airport it would be a simple change at Newton le Willows or Chester respectively, the former being same platform.

Regarding the choice of Central Manchester stations, Piccadilly and Victoria are only a mile apart and are both convenient for the main retail and leisure areas (Victoria possibly more so given its proximity to Printworks) and regular trams run between them. Deansgate would be almost equally convenient (due to the trams) if all Castlefield corridor trains were to stop there.

Finally, having all Manchester trains use the same terminal would be far more convenient than having to figure out whether I need to dash to Piccadilly or Victoria after that last pint only to get there, just miss the train and have to jump the tram to the the other station only to miss that train as well. Note: I understand it's almost as frustrating when sober and with or without shopping bags!

 

[Jozhua]

Okay. I'm going to be the first to answer this question.

My local line is the Chester - WBQ - Newton le Willows - Manchester route.

Pre-covid, I could take an hourly direct train to North Wales via Chester, Warrington, Piccadilly and Manchester Airport plus 2 direct trains per day to Victoria and Leeds via Halifax. All from a station five minutes walk from my house.

The recovery task force consultation proposes either:
A. Diverting the hourly Piccadilly/Airport service to Stalybridge via Victoria (no change to Leeds service)
B. Retain Piccadilly/Airport service but cut Leeds service back to Stalybridge
C. Diverting the hourly Piccadilly/Airport service via Northwich and curtailing it at Piccadilly and replacing it with a 2 TPH Chester - Victoria - Leeds service

In my response, I've selected C as my preferred option even though I'd lose my direct service to North Wales and Manchester Airport and Piccadilly, and I've directly benefited having those direct links.

Why?

Because the direct links to Piccadilly, Manchester Airport and North Wales are nice to haves but replacing them with a more regular/frequent service to Victoria would likely be the best shot at having a reliable service. Furthermore, like many out of city Airport passengers (I suspect), I only travel to Manchester Airport a couple of times per year, whereas I travel to Chester, Warrington and/or Central Manchester at least weekly. On the occasions that I need to go to Manchester Airport it would be a simple change at Newton le Willows or Chester respectively, the former being same platform.

Regarding the choice of Central Manchester stations, Piccadilly and Victoria are only a mile apart and are both convenient for the main retail and leisure areas (Victoria possibly more so given its proximity to Printworks) and regular trams run between them. Deansgate would be almost equally convenient (due to the trams) if all Castlefield corridor trains were to stop there.

Finally, having all Manchester trains use the same terminal would be far more convenient than having to figure out whether I need to dash to Piccadilly or Victoria after that last pint only to get there, just miss the train and have to jump the tram to the the other station only to miss that train as well. Note: I understand it's almost as frustrating when sober and with or without shopping bags!

Victoria ain't always the nicest, but it sure as hell beats platforms 13/14!

I just wish they would offer free transfers on Metrolink in the city centre, that would be the simplest option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Victoria ain't always the nicest, but it sure as hell beats platforms 13/14!

I just wish they would offer free transfers on Metrolink in the city centre, that would be the simplest option.

They wouldn't be free, just added into the fare as they are in London.

 

[Purple Orange]

They wouldn't be free, just added into the fare as they are in London.

They are free if you boarding a train from a Greater Manchester station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are free if you boarding a train from a Greater Manchester station.

Yes, but TfGM isn't going to (and shouldn't) throw subsidy into tickets that aren't for internal GM travel any more than TfL would subsidise putting the + on a Manchester to Brighton ticket.

In all seriousness, though, it's probably easier just to use contactless if you want it. The main reason for having it included in the fare crossing London is to save you faffing about buying a ticket, which is no longer necessary anyway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Looking at the rhetorical thread title of this rather long running thread with over 550 postings made upon it, the question that springs to my mind is the single word ..... "WHY"?

I appreciate that the thread appears on the "Speculative Ideas" forum, but besides people who wish to indulge in unofficial self-important posturing, whatsoever those within the rail industry eventually choose the action to take, nothing said on this thread will affect the eventual outcome.

 

[Purple Orange]

Looking at the rhetorical thread title of this rather long running thread with over 550 postings made upon it, the question that springs to my mind is the single word ..... "WHY"?

I appreciate that the thread appears on the "Speculative Ideas" forum, but besides people who wish to indulge in unofficial self-important posturing, whatsoever those within the rail industry eventually choose the action to take, nothing said on this thread will affect the eventual outcome.

Why even bother contributing or reading a forum?

 

[zwk500]

Looking at the rhetorical thread title of this rather long running thread with over 550 postings made upon it, the question that springs to my mind is the single word ..... "WHY"?

I appreciate that the thread appears on the "Speculative Ideas" forum, but besides people who wish to indulge in unofficial self-important posturing, whatsoever those within the rail industry eventually choose the action to take, nothing said on this thread will affect the eventual outcome.

A lot of times posts on the forums correct misconceptions, or explain things to people to clarify why a seemingly straightforward solution isn't what it first appeared to be. People who've had the discussions on here can then go to a public consultation and make a far more substantive and considered contribution, which will be taken into account by those running the consultation.

Other times it's just fun and interesting to have a discussion with like-minded people where you don't get glowering looks from family members bored of hearing you bang on about trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looking at the rhetorical thread title of this rather long running thread with over 550 postings made upon it, the question that springs to my mind is the single word ..... "WHY"?

I appreciate that the thread appears on the "Speculative Ideas" forum, but besides people who wish to indulge in unofficial self-important posturing, whatsoever those within the rail industry eventually choose the action to take, nothing said on this thread will affect the eventual outcome.

In essence, are you not just saying that the Speculative Ideas part of the forum is not for you? In that case why not simply not read it? The purpose of its creation was to separate out speculation so it is easily avoidable by those not interested in it.