Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Those take much longer to type than their modern names
And unlike Ringway (and Speke, for that matter) they are not used in local parlance.
Those take much longer to type than their modern names
And unlike Ringway (and Speke, for that matter) they are not used in local parlance.
And unlike Ringway (and Speke, for that matter) they are not used in local parlance.
2b) Progress the Hope Valley improvements. If double tracking the Dore curve is enough to reintroduce the EMR service reliably on its own, then do so.
https://live-webadmin-media.s3.amaz...d-surface-access_online-2016-final-190716.pdf
Search engines are brilliant things don’t you agree? Took me no more than 5 minutes to find this.
Page 15 is interesting. On passenger numbers totalling 20.4m per annum it states £918m in GVA is generated by the airport. This increases to £1,573m on 35m passengers. So by extension, we could assume at current levels, GVA will be roughly £1,350m on 30m passengers.
Once again you are projecting your decades old, parochial view on the airport's operations. There's really no point arguing any further at this point. Read the entire thread, its all been covered extensively.
Answer, it won't. The aviation industry is already adjusting to emissions challenges, with more efficient craft, point to point operations as opposed to hub to hub, and of course building a railway station to get more of their passengers out of their cars... Oops...
Of course when it becomes apparent that aviation was just a nice cover so that Western countries could hide in their cars, waste a third of their food, use vast amounts of resources on plastic, well aviation will drop down the list considerably.
Intelligent? Merci.Personne n'aime un cul intelligent
I'm going to limit myself to one comment ...and not respond any further.
Manchester does not have a third rate public transport system. It has both heavy and light rail provision at a reasonable level from satellite towns and suburbs into the city centre. It could always be better....but equally it could be a lot worse. I get the feeling that you are making increasingly outrageous claims to further your own agenda. (Incidentally - you aren't the same bloke as that guy from Liverpool who also had an issue with Manchester International Airport are you?) Whilst I agree with your sentiments about the sustainability of air travel in the long term I have to say as someone who is watching with this debate with interest (I am a GM resident) that your current debating style is not impressing me.
Without diving in to this airport dog fight too deeply may I suggest we look at trends and see where travel patterns are finding their own levels?
Using the statistics and tools in the ORR's release we can see that almost every station in the north saw minimal or negative growth from 2017-18 to 2018-19. Manchester Airport bucks the trend by a big margin at approaching 20%. Looking quickly I may have missed one (probably a very small station) but I couldn't find one bigger. Very few others even get to 5% growth and a mere handful over 10%.
Any normal business would prioritise the growth areas.
Instead of continually patching up the Victorian past we need to think big, like they did, and look into the future. That might include looking at some of the ideas they had that have been left to one side.
But it's true. In 50 years time we may not be flying anything like as much and cruises may be outlawed. Cars may be rationed and we'll all be walking a great deal more, moderating our activities accordingly.
South coast services have long been diverted away from their old main line (via Dorking) to run via Gatwick. I've even been on a train that ran from Southampton, along the coast to Hove then up the BML.
We've also had refocusing of Reading - Tonbridge services on Gatwick, WCML services via Kensington Olympia and not to forget Thameslink !
It can, and unfortunately it very well might. There have to be winners and losers when employing a contingency, and unless there's a better way to resolve the issues in both locations then I'm not sure what else can be done.
That is the long term plan.I thought the plan was for Liverpool to Nottingham to remain as a through journey but passengers beyond Nottingham for Grantham, Peterborough and stations to Norwich would have to change at Nottingham?
That is the long term plan.
However, short time, the argument is that it might make sense for it to be one of the services that doesn't go through Castlefield to ease the congestion through the area.
The bay platforms 1 and 2 at Manchester Victoria are only 111m and 98m long respectively. They are too short to take TPE's 5-car 802s or Mk5A+68 sets. It would be very difficult/costly to extend them into the station concourse.1b) Turn back one of the two TPE airport services in one of the bays at Manchester Victoria.
I thought that applied to the Chat Moss Airport/Crewe stopper which could be terminated at Victoria. Given that the Nottingham is routed via Warrington it surely has no choice but to pass through Castlefield?
Personally, that is the side I fall on.That is one argument. Another argument is that an intercity service connecting 3 of the 10 biggest cities in Britain should not be dismembered, even temporarily
I thought the plan was for Liverpool to Nottingham to remain as a through journey but passengers beyond Nottingham for Grantham, Peterborough and stations to Norwich would have to change at Nottingham?
That is the long term plan.
However, short time, the argument is that it might make sense for it to be one of the services that doesn't go through Castlefield to ease the congestion through the area.
I think when it was discussed before someone said it can't be pathed across Crewe station in the northbound direction.Which way would it go - Liverpool- Crewe-Derby-Nottingham?
Yes, I can imagine that by searching 'why Manchester Airport is vital to the economy of the north west' it is fairly easy to find a report stating this, produced by the airport, which will.not doubt take an entirely neutral perspective on the issue
It might be possible to find space for a 4-car EMR service from the Stockport lines to terminate in P11/12 instead of it running through P13/14. That is very different from terminating a 5- car TPE service from the East lines in P1-3.Oddly, the space in the main shed at Piccadilly which absolutely, categorically , definitely doesn't exist when anyone suggests putting one of the TPE airport services into it magically becomes available for the EMR service.
Short term it would be cut at Piccadilly.Which way would it go - Liverpool- Crewe-Derby-Nottingham?
It might be possible to find space for a 4-car EMR service from the Stockport lines to terminate in P11/12 instead of it running through P13/14. That is very different from terminating a 5- car TPE service from the East lines in P1-3.
But in any case I very much doubt that the EMR service is under threat of eviction from the Castlefield corridor, any more than the three Northern CLC line services or the three TPE services. Much more likely that DfT is looking at diversion to Victoria of Northern and/or TfW Chat Moss and/or Bolton line services for the short term "decongestant" timetable.
Perhaps you should follow the references in the report and fact check it for yourself. It’s all there to follow.
Back on topic of P15 & 16, I would split the Southport-Alderley Edge service and have them terminate at Piccadilly and go through Victoria respectively.
The Liverpool-Airport-Crewe service should stay as the airport is just absolutely vital to the economy of Liverpool. The city relies on Manchester airport way too much. Taking liberties.
It might be possible to find space for a 4-car EMR service from the Stockport lines to terminate in P11/12 instead of it running through P13/14. That is very different from terminating a 5- car TPE service from the East lines in P1-3.
But in any case I very much doubt that the EMR service is under threat of eviction from the Castlefield corridor, any more than the three Northern CLC line services or the three TPE services. Much more likely that DfT is looking at diversion to Victoria of Northern and/or TfW Chat Moss and/or Bolton line services for the short term "decongestant" timetable.
The Liverpool - Nottingham service provides a direct link between four large cities, three of which have metro mayors who are highly influential stakeholders in the Rail North Partnership (RNP). Only a political masochist would choose to butcher this service.Of those long distance services, I'd say the EMR is the most under threat, however what is more likely to happen is it being split at Nottingham.
Notwithstanding this tongue-in-cheek comment, I suspect that political considerations might well ensure that both direct Liverpool - Manchester Airport services (CLC and Chat Moss) survive. Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham have been marching in lockstep on RNP issues.The Liverpool-Airport-Crewe service should stay as the airport is just absolutely vital to the economy of Liverpool. The city relies on Manchester airport way too much. Taking liberties.
The Liverpool - Nottingham service provides a direct link between four large cities, three of which have metro mayors who are highly influential stakeholders in the Rail North Partnership (RNP). Only a political masochist would choose to butcher this service.