Well, SWT were promised new trains (450s), those trains got built but SWT weren't allowed them (they became 350s and moved elsewhere), SWT's consolation after a number of years is to get cascaded stock from TSGN...
...but you don't see the same number of complaints about "cast offs" from those in SWT-territory as you do from those around Manchester.
SWT were allowed to order additional carriages to run longer services yet Network Rail hadn't agreed to lengthen platforms, so they had surplus carriages on order that they couldn't use.
TPE also got an order of new carriages cut back while LM were refused permission to order additional 172s, so what's so unique about SWT, apart from the number of carriages being cut after the order has been placed rather than before?
It's a carefully skewed set of figures that only uses carefully selected data - only using the infrastructure costs and not the subsidy per passenger mile makes a huge difference (all of those forty pences per mile on Northern add up - compared to the Network South East franchises that are roughly at the break-even mark).
Of course it's not 40p per mile adding up. It's the average that's 40p. Southeastern's 13p per passenger mile subsidy is not due to their commuter services not being profitable, it's due to HS1 services requiring a very high subsidy, apparently much higher than any Northern service.
Someone who works for TfGM once said that any service within a PTE area with less than around 200 passengers is generally not making a profit but outside a PTE area they can be profitable with lower loadings.
I think that the 3+2 issue is overplayed by some. Posters in "the north" like to praise the wonderful modern 333s and like to talk about the capacity/acceleration of 323s but both of these EMUs have 3+2 seats, as do some Pacers/Sprinters. The idea that people won't cope with 3+2 seats on 319s seems odd.
When have people praised the 3+2 seating on 323s? I've never seen a post on here which has done that.
I've seen and written posts about 323s having more standard class seats than a Pendolino when talking about how revenue is split between different TOCs.
I've also seen and written posts about 4 car 319s not having 33% more capacity than a 3 car 323 when people have said about shortened 319s being suitable to replace 323s or when people have said about 319s being a nice big capacity increase over a 323.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
My post is one from somebody who knows what they are talking about when it comes to Metrolink - that's also likely to be the case for jcollins (as it would appear you are trying to have a go at as well as me) and I'd guess that's because the
MCURA have an obvious incentive to co-operate with Metrolink and have dialogue with TfGM about it. (I can think of no other reason you'd bring up Knutsford other than to insult jcollins - I don't live there and Metrolink doesn't go there.)
I think pro-Metrolink Moonshot is bitter that Metrolink can't be extended beyond Altrincham. To do so would require AC electrification of the line south of Timperley and buying new dual voltage tram-trains and only running dual voltage tram-trains to Altrincham even if they terminate there. The cost TfGM predicted to extend Metrolink to Knutsford would be similar to the cost of buying enough 2 car DMUs to replace all the 142s so was dismissed as non-economically viable. I'd prefer the latter option even if it means the difference between Knutsford having 2tph to Manchester and 4tph to Manchester.
