Greater Manchester has "ambitions" for devolution of some local rail services from 2025

[Shaw S Hunter]

The livery is a proxy for the real issue: The vast majority of City Line stations are in the Liverpool region, with less than a handful in GM, and the Liverpool region has for decades produced the vast majority of passenger journeys, dwarfing the numbers produced by Manchester. This includes journeys wholly within the metropolitan area, at a proportion of something like 4 to 1.

The inclusion of the City Line within Manchester trains ownership, even shared, would amount to local control being taken away from where it should reside. It would be offensive for Manchester to seize the financial benefit of millions of Liverpool passengers' fares and control our services.

But it's not about ownership, it's about oversight. Clearly when there are boundaries involved then there has to be a negotiation about cross-boundary issues. I don't see why Manchester representatives would expect, let alone experience, any advantage over their Liverpool counterparts in such discussions. Perhaps a few still cling to old prejudices but in 2023 we can surely restrict such rivalries to the sporting arena and have genuinely adult and responsible discussions about matters as important as public transport.

Perhaps I should add that the CLC route passes through Cheshire with plenty of passenger demand in both directions. Perhaps it is Warrington residents that should be more concerned about being neglected. And how about commuters into both Liverpool and Manchester from other administrative areas? If we want the levelling up concept to have any meaning then petty parochialism needs to be confined to the dustbin of history.

 

[daodao]

Perhaps I should add that the CLC route passes through Cheshire

Of the 2 surviving CLC routes, only the line from Cheadle Heath to Chester via Northwich passes through Cheshire. The ex-CLC line from Manchester to Liverpool runs entirely north of the River Mersey, i.e. within Lancashire, or rather the unitary authorities that have administered this area since 1974, some of which do extend into historic Cheshire.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Of the 2 surviving CLC routes, only the line from Cheadle Heath to Chester via Northwich passes through Cheshire. The ex-CLC line from Manchester to Liverpool runs entirely north of the River Mersey, i.e. within Lancashire, or rather the unitary authorities that have administered this area since 1974, some of which do extend into historic Cheshire.

I was still a child in 1974, and hadn't yet emigrated to The North, so to my mind Warrington has effectively always been in Cheshire. Its status as a unitary authority came about only in 1998, having been very much part of Cheshire since 1974, and that hasn't changed the fact that it still lies within the ceremonial county of Cheshire. So my comment wasn't actually wrong. Assuming you weren't simply being sarcastic you have rather effectively illustrated my point about parochialism. Do you also consider that Southport isn't really in Merseyside or that Saddleworth is wholly in Yorkshire? And what do you make of the Derbyshire district of Glossop being very much part of the Greater Manchester public transport fares system? Boundaries have their place but I think seeking to preserve them as being somehow sacrosanct too often gets in the way of making things better for those who live in their vicinity.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

I still cannot get my head round Burnhams proposed station at Golbourne. What is going to stop there? There is a perfectly good station at Newton-le-Willows which has just had a rebuild and a large car park and has four trains an hour to Manchester, two to Liverpool and two to Chester. It seems to me a vanity project.

Future boundary station perhaps, especially when Manchester's very own Great Burnham Railways takes helm.... or rather a bee line for it.

Speaking of which how would this work with other boundary stops, extend to Walsden, Marsden, New Mills Central and the like or retain as is? Unlike West and South Yorkshire who have Denby Dale*, Darton, Moorthorpe and South Elmsall as the boundary stations, meaning no extra fares if using two ranger/rover tickets.


* Historically it was Penistone, but this changed sometime between 1975 and 1993.

 

[Parjon]

But it's not about ownership, it's about oversight.

This isn't correct. There is money involved, where one population benefits from revenues (in aggregate across the GM area) and the other does not.

Clearly when there are boundaries involved then there has to be a negotiation about cross-boundary issues.

On the subject of oversight and negotiations these should be happening from the other end of the M62. No one would suggest the Central Line be run by Essex County Council much less Birmingham.

I don't see why Manchester representatives would expect, let alone experience, any advantage over their Liverpool counterparts in such discussions. Perhaps a few still cling to old prejudices but in 2023 we can surely restrict such rivalries to the sporting arena and have genuinely adult and responsible discussions about matters as important as public transport.

I didn't bring up discrimination...

Perhaps I should add that the CLC route passes through Cheshire with plenty of passenger demand in both directions. Perhaps it is Warrington residents that should be more concerned about being neglected. And how about commuters into both Liverpool and Manchester from other administrative areas?

The rail users in towns and villages surrounding major cities benefit from the economies of scale, the railways would not exist were the big cities not there. They don't host the majority of infrastructure for urban services nor do they produce the majority of patronage. Warrington does not have a PTE or an urban rail network. Were it to develop a tram network you can be sure that no one in Liverpool would seek to demand "oversight" of it!

If we want the levelling up concept to have any meaning then petty parochialism needs to be confined to the dustbin of history.

Abstraction of fares from and control of a line almost exclusively within the Liverpool region to a neighbouring city would be the opposite of "leveling up". Ensuring that our own city is successful, rather than just cannibalised and asset stripped to benefit people in another city, isn't parochialism.

 

[WatcherZero]

There's absolutely nothing in this to do with services in Liverpool, total hypochondria.
Stations in GM will be branded Bee just like stations in Merseyside are branded Merseytravel, there will be integrated fares inside Greater Manchester with other public transport, there will be a body under Great British Railways looking at infrastructure investments to improve services within Greater Manchester continuing the work of the Manchester Taskforce and GMCA will have similar freedom to the London Mayor and Welsh Government to identify and pursue large infrastructure projects within the county using their own resources.

 

[daodao]

I was still a child in 1974, and hadn't yet emigrated to The North, so to my mind Warrington has effectively always been in Cheshire. Its status as a unitary authority came about only in 1998, having been very much part of Cheshire since 1974, and that hasn't changed the fact that it still lies within the ceremonial county of Cheshire. So my comment wasn't actually wrong. Assuming you weren't simply being sarcastic you have rather effectively illustrated my point about parochialism. Do you also consider that Southport isn't really in Merseyside or that Saddleworth is wholly in Yorkshire? And what do you make of the Derbyshire district of Glossop being very much part of the Greater Manchester public transport fares system? Boundaries have their place but I think seeking to preserve them as being somehow sacrosanct too often gets in the way of making things better for those who live in their vicinity.

For ceremonial purposes, the town of Warrington (but not places such as Lymm in the borough of Warrington but south of the Mersey) is in Lancashire, and for example, there is a different formal toast to the monarch at ceremonial dinners within the historic County Palatine of Lancashire.

However, this is irrelevant to the topic - it is simply better to refer solely to the current administrative authorities to avoid confusion. I have a postal address that finishes with Cheshire (as it is within the historic county) and a Warrington postcode, but what matters in practice is that I live in the current borough of Trafford.

There's absolutely nothing in this to do with services in Liverpool, total hypochondria.
Stations in GM will be branded Bee just like stations in Merseyside are branded Merseytravel, there will be integrated fares inside Greater Manchester with other public transport, there will be a body under Great British Railways looking at infrastructure investments to improve services within Greater Manchester and GMCA will have similar freedom to the London Mayor and Welsh/Scottish Governments to identify and pursue large infrastructure projects within the county using their own resources.

The boundaries of both Merseyside and Greater Manchester are extremely artificial and do not reflect the reality of economic geography. It really is not sensible to devolve powers to them regarding national infrastructure such as main-line railways, as distinct from local light rail or metro networks. Greater Manchester is not the equivalent of Scotland; it is an ill-defined city region in contrast to a country that could well eventually regain full independence. However, it is reasonable to convert some local non-strategic heavy rail lines wholly within Greater Manchester to Metrolink and put them under the aegis of TfGM, such as those to Marple Rose Hill and Wigan via Atherton.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

..... there will be a body under Great British Railways looking at infrastructure investments to improve services within Greater Manchester continuing the work of the Manchester Taskforce and GMCA will have similar freedom to the London Mayor and Welsh Government to identify and pursue large infrastructure projects within the county using their own resources.

I note the use of the phrase "using their own resources" above. Will it still be the case in future years with the same funding budget whether Conservative or Labour governments that are in power and distributing area funding.

 

[Parjon]

There's absolutely nothing in this to do with services in Liverpool, total hypochondria.
... continuing the work of the Manchester Taskforce and GMCA will have similar freedom to the London Mayor and Welsh Government to identify and pursue large infrastructure projects within the county using their own resources.

Assuming this is kept to the six "trailblazer" lines mentioned, this would be the case. However these look very much like a starting point.

So as and when that includes farebox revenue (per the comparator devolution deals) you can keep your hands off our highly valuable City Line and fingers out of our till.

Plenty of doctors dismiss repeat illness complaints as hypochondria, only for the patient to present at A&E with stage four cancer.

We're already helping pay for your city's HS2 infrastructure while getting none ourselves, thanks to the way early conversations were manipulated and dominated by your representatives. You mention the Manchester Taskforce, which treated a national rail hub issue as a local priority (hence the name) and left a neighbouring metropolitan city with a sub-optimal outcome.

We have enough examples of being ripped off to know it's not hypochondria to keep an eye on these things.

 

[Meerkat]

So as and when that includes farebox revenue (per the comparator devolution deals) you can keep your hands off our highly valuable City Line and fingers out of our till.

I'm intrigued by your repeated mentioning of this! Is this City line a rare cash cow in the sea of subsidy that is Northern?

 

[Confused52]

..
Perhaps I should add that the CLC route passes through Cheshire with plenty of passenger demand in both directions. Perhaps it is Warrington residents that should be more concerned about being neglected. And how about commuters into both Liverpool and Manchester from other administrative areas? If we want the levelling up concept to have any meaning then petty parochialism needs to be confined to the dustbin of history.

The treatment of the CLC, and specifically the Manchester and Allerton Junction Line, through Warrington has been disgusting over the last few years with the interests of Greater Manchester and Merseyside placed ahead of Warrington at every opportunity. We already have a hard break in Fares strategy at the Metropolitan County boundaries. With more money to one party this will get worse. The fares strategy needs to be common across the whole of the North West if geographical mobility of labour, which is the actual intention of levelling up, is to be attained and equality of service frequencies at peak times is an equal component of the required mix. Evidence so far shows that Greater Manchester under Andy Burnham cannot handle powers with an eye on the greater good. His plans for the ULEZ and the Manchester Task Force along with fighting over the HS2 costs at Piccadilly show how insular they can be.

Given that the overall costs of the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester route are the same all the way along we can expect that the journeys from Warrington stations to both City regions will be bled harder to pay for the new strength in negotiation this change gives to the City Regions. Warrington always loses out because of the decision to go to Cheshire in 1974. The latest news on TFN rejecting turn rounds in Warrington demonstrates this further, until you see that they only considered either side of Birchwood and then it is clear they were not actually trying to improve the service in Warrington in the first place.

 

[Greybeard33]

Assuming this is kept to the six "trailblazer" lines mentioned, this would be the case. However these look very much like a starting point.

So as and when that includes farebox revenue (per the comparator devolution deals) you can keep your hands off our highly valuable City Line and fingers out of our till.

Plenty of doctors dismiss repeat illness complaints as hypochondria, only for the patient to present at A&E with stage four cancer.

We're already helping pay for your city's HS2 infrastructure while getting none ourselves, thanks to the way early conversations were manipulated and dominated by your representatives. You mention the Manchester Taskforce, which treated a national rail hub issue as a local priority (hence the name) and left a neighbouring metropolitan city with a sub-optimal outcome.

We have enough examples of being ripped off to know it's not hypochondria to keep an eye on these things.

I believe Northern Trains' Merseyrail City Line service group currently comprises the routes from Lime Street to Oxford Road via Warrington Central; to Manchester Airport via Newton-le-Willows; to Wigan North Western; and to Blackpool North. (The Warrington Bank Quay via Earlestown service is currently suspended). By my count these serve a total of 20 stations within the GM boundary. Nevertheless, as a GM resident I personally would have no issue with Merseyrail taking ownership of all of these services, including revenue collection and operating subsidy, subject to service level agreements with TfGM and the Lancashire and Blackpool councils. Transport for Wales already operates services into GM from both South Wales via Wilmslow and North Wales via Warrington, and that arrangement seems to work well.

Given the good cooperative relationship between Mayor Andy Burnham (himself Merseyside born and bred) and Mayor Steve Rotheram, I find it hard to believe that these services will become a bone of contention between the two Combined Authorities.

Transport for the North has recently set up a North West Rail Business Unit under the Rail North Partnership, which should facilitate compromises between the city regions and other local transport authorities about the specification of cross boundary services throughout the region.

Given that the overall costs of the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester route are the same all the way along we can expect that the journeys from Warrington stations to both City regions will be bled harder to pay for the new strength in negotiation this change gives to the City Regions. Warrington always loses out because of the decision to go to Cheshire in 1974. The latest news on TFN rejecting turn rounds in Warrington demonstrates this further, until you see that they only considered either side of Birchwood and then it is clear they were not actually trying to improve the service in Warrington in the first place.

My understanding is that TfN and the Manchester Task Force are now proposing a whole route upgrade of the CLC line instead of turnback sidings at Warrington West and Birchwood. We will have to wait for the details to be published, but I imagine this will include electrification to speed up the stopping services and enable 2tph all stations stoppers to be operated right through from Liverpool to Manchester (currently the through stopper has to skip some stations to stay ahead of the following semi-fast). It seems to me this would be a better outcome for Warrington than the previous proposal for separate, overlapping diesel stoppers from Lime Street to Birchwood and from Oxford Road to Warrington West.

 

[Confused52]

..

My understanding is that TfN and the Manchester Task Force are now proposing a whole route upgrade of the CLC line instead of turnback sidings at Warrington West and Birchwood. We will have to wait for the details to be published, but I imagine this will include electrification to speed up the stopping services and enable 2tph all stations stoppers to be operated right through from Liverpool to Manchester (currently the through stopper has to skip some stations to stay ahead of the following semi-fast). It seems to me this would be a better outcome for Warrington than the previous proposal for separate, overlapping diesel stoppers from Lime Street to Birchwood and from Oxford Road to Warrington West.

The real answer has always been electrification but that choice prolongs the lack of a decent service for a very long time whist the Castlefield restrictions seriously impair the service in Warrington. One can see electrification work elsewhere taking precedence. I wonder if the work to put turn rounds in at Birchwood and Warrington West would be achieved much faster than electrification, full re-signalling and re-modelling at Oxford Road. That Warrington which is building so many homes in the Town Centre should not have a better service to employment centres in Liverpool and Manchester for a very long time seems short sighted. The worry is that the needs of Warrington which flow from the performance of the railway carry little weight compared to the same concerns in Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

 

[Greybeard33]

The worry is that the needs of Warrington which flow from the performance of the railway carry little weight compared to the same concerns in Greater Manchester and Merseyside.

On the contrary, Warrington's objections succeeded in getting a major change to the MTF timetable proposals for the CLC line, to the detriment of both city regions.

The original MTF proposal was to split both stoppers at Warrington Central, with 2tph all day to Lime Street and 1tph all day to Oxford Road. That would have provided all LCR stations with at least 2tph and all GM stations with at least 1tph. But to satisfy Warrington's demand that direct cross-Warrington services must be retained (Warrington West to Padgate), the current timetable has retained 1tph all day through from Lime Street to Oxford Road. In consequence the LCR stations Halewood and Hunts Cross only get 1tph to Lime Street and Warrington, and the GM stations Glazebrook, Chassen Road, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park only get 1tp2h.

GMCA and LCR agreed to this compromise timetable because they recognise the importance of proceeding by regional consensus, rather than the city regions riding roughshod over the interests of the other authorities.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

For ceremonial purposes, the town of Warrington (but not places such as Lymm in the borough of Warrington but south of the Mersey) is in Lancashire, and for example, there is a different formal toast to the monarch at ceremonial dinners within the historic County Palatine of Lancashire.

You might like to check your facts on this.

Ceremonial counties of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The table half-way down the article states very clearly that the unitary authority area of Warrington is part of the ceremonial county of Cheshire, as enshrined by the Lieutenancies Act of 1997.

 

[Confused52]

On the contrary, Warrington's objections succeeded in getting a major change to the MTF timetable proposals for the CLC line, to the detriment of both city regions.

The original MTF proposal was to split both stoppers at Warrington Central, with 2tph all day to Lime Street and 1tph all day to Oxford Road. That would have provided all LCR stations with at least 2tph and all GM stations with at least 1tph. But to satisfy Warrington's demand that direct cross-Warrington services must be retained (Warrington West to Padgate), the current timetable has retained 1tph all day through from Lime Street to Oxford Road. In consequence the LCR stations Halewood and Hunts Cross only get 1tph to Lime Street and Warrington, and the GM stations Glazebrook, Chassen Road, Humphrey Park and Trafford Park only get 1tp2h.

GMCA and LCR agreed to this compromise timetable because they recognise the importance of proceeding by regional consensus, rather than the city regions riding roughshod over the interests of the other authorities.

I worry that the reasoning will not work a second time, although I am grateful that WBC got the a good result. The value of the additional Park and Ride capacity at Warrington West to serve the additional houses and businesses in Omega area is lost because of the poor performance of the service to Manchester, where the peak capacity is less than than it was meant to be and less attractive way of journey time. The ULEZ debacle suggests that overall Greater Manchester in particular is very insular in its outlook. The concentration of developments in Central Warrington will put more pressure on commuting to both Manchester and Liverpool leading to overcrowding with the relatively short platforms at Warrington Central. Is there a strategic plan?

 

[Greybeard33]

I worry that the reasoning will not work a second time, although I am grateful that WBC got the a good result. The value of the additional Park and Ride capacity at Warrington West to serve the additional houses and businesses in Omega area is lost because of the poor performance of the service to Manchester, where the peak capacity is less than than it was meant to be and less attractive way of journey time. The ULEZ debacle suggests that overall Greater Manchester in particular is very insular in its outlook. The concentration of developments in Central Warrington will put more pressure on commuting to both Manchester and Liverpool leading to overcrowding with the relatively short platforms at Warrington Central. Is there a strategic plan?

Is it not Warrington that is insular in its outlook? The CLC line is an Intercity route between the two largest conurbations in North West England, which happens to pass through Warrington. It is also an important commuter route into both cities from their respective hinterlands. Warrington is doubly fortunate in also having Bank Quay station on the WCML, providing direct services to London, Birmingham and Scotland, as well as Manchester and Chester. Many larger towns are less well served by rail.

The business case for Warrington West station failed to properly consider the timetabling repercussions of the proposed service level. The station was built on a false prospectus.

 

[Confused52]

Is it not Warrington that is insular in its outlook? The CLC line is an Intercity route between the two largest conurbations in North West England, which happens to pass through Warrington. It is also an important commuter route into both cities from their respective hinterlands. Warrington is doubly fortunate in also having Bank Quay station on the WCML, providing direct services to London, Birmingham and Scotland, as well as Manchester and Chester. Many larger towns are less well served by rail.

The business case for Warrington West station failed to properly consider the timetabling repercussions of the proposed service level. The station was built on a false prospectus.

Not at all. The issue which started this disaster was the promotion of Manchester Airport through use of the Castlefield Corridor. As the majority interest Manchester City Council and the rest of GM has pushed the growth and access of the Airport to the dis-benefit of the towns which the CLC and the MSJA were built to serve. The Ordsall curve being the epitome of insular stupidity. The notion that the best way to deal with the commuter volume is to make services only go in one direct and not go through Warrington or to stop at stations with large car parks takes the biscuit. Compare Lea Green with Warrington West.
The business case for Warrington West was undermined by Network Rail increasing costs and then taking away the service that justified the extra costs they had put in. The services could have been put in if they had consistently used 195s and the SRTs for them but the Arriva Northern bust up meant that fell foul of the Random Unit choice machine.
Manchester in particular forgets that as a regional centre which prevents some developments elsewhere it carries a responsibility well as the benefits. This has been apparent since the formation of SELNEC and is perhaps what annoys Liverpudlians, as well as the building of the Ship Canal (and that did Warrington no favours either!!).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As the majority interest Manchester City Council and the rest of GM has pushed the growth and access of the Airport to the dis-benefit of the towns which the CLC and the MSJA were built to serve

Would this be because the ten area councils in Greater Manchester have shareholdings in Manchester Airport?

 

[Greybeard33]

Not at all. The issue which started this disaster was the promotion of Manchester Airport through use of the Castlefield Corridor. As the majority interest Manchester City Council and the rest of GM has pushed the growth and access of the Airport to the dis-benefit of the towns which the CLC and the MSJA were built to serve. The Ordsall curve being the epitome of insular stupidity. The notion that the best way to deal with the commuter volume is to make services only go in one direct and not go through Warrington or to stop at stations with large car parks takes the biscuit. Compare Lea Green with Warrington West.
The business case for Warrington West was undermined by Network Rail increasing costs and then taking away the service that justified the extra costs they had put in. The services could have been put in if they had consistently used 195s and the SRTs for them but the Arriva Northern bust up meant that fell foul of the Random Unit choice machine.
Manchester in particular forgets that as a regional centre which prevents some developments elsewhere it carries a responsibility well as the benefits. This has been apparent since the formation of SELNEC and is perhaps what annoys Liverpudlians, as well as the building of the Ship Canal (and that did Warrington no favours either!!).

Manchester Airport and the Class 195 are both red herrings (as of course is the Ship Canal! )

At the time that Warrington West station was planned and promoted there were more services to the Airport than there are now. The Ordsall Chord timetable recast did not increase the number of Airport services, just changed their destinations and routes (to the disbenefit of the GM stations on the Styal line). And the Northern Hub works, which included the Chord, were intended to improve train services across the whole of the North of England, not just within GM.

The Class 195s were originally ordered to operate "Northern Connect" regional express services, as required by the Arriva Rail North franchise agreement. Not to speed up the stopping services on the CLC line.

The Manchester Task Force, which developed the December 2019 timetable recast, is not a creature of MCC or the GMCA. It was set up by the DfT and Transport for the North to address the issue of Castlefield corridor congestion, and has representation from across the rail industry and stakeholders. The changes have removed two TPE services from Manchester Airport, to the disbenefit of Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle as well as Manchester.

 

[Confused52]

The Class 195s were originally ordered to operate "Northern Connect" regional express services, as required by the Arriva Rail North franchise agreement. Not to speed up the stopping services on the CLC line.

Yes, that was the service we had at West and we lost because of the Task Force. It was also the key cross Warrington service between Birchwood and Warrington West. We had hoped for the occasional extra service on the Liverpool Nottingham when it was split. Instead the didn't split the Liverpool Norwich (including taking away the last train from Liverpool altogether), they sent a peak time only service along the same route that caused much of the timekeeping problems importing delays from the Hope Valley. Even worse they handed the peak faster service to TPE who were a basket case before implementation. In the transfer plan they opened up training slots along the CLC for TPE which were hardly used but meant that the Connect Service LIV-MAN-LIV was lost. AIUI the semi-fast service from WAW was what let the business case recover from Network Rail's additional cost. The reason for not adding the second semi fast was the EMR needing the stopper to go faster, the connect service was timed anyway for a sprinter. Changing the 195 to the stopper would have made the timings work better. and allowed the extra service. Well it would have until the disaster that was created by the unreliability caused by the Ordsall Curve. We then got our service cut to fix the problem we didn't cause. The reality is that the lack of consideration of this line happens at every turn. The so called political victory of cross-Warrington services is little more than pyrrhic since the TPE cancellations make it impossible to rely on for journeys to work. The actual service we have got is a one per hour slower than before to Manchester and a good service to Liverpool. What we needed according to the isochrones that were used to decide that the station was needed was a fast and more-regular service to Manchester for employment reasons.

The Task Force has been a disaster for us and no same person will expect it to be any better. I don't expect electrification will actually happen until after the work through WBQ LL to Liverpool which will be given a higher priority. The ide of GM tramification is even worse but the fear is that GM gets what it wants at any cost the rest of the North West.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sold on the idea that Warrington West should ever have been built, to be honest, let alone allowing it to become a tail that wags the dog of the whole CLC line.

If Northern Powerhouse Rail is built, giving a fast Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester service, there's really no reason not to make the CLC a local line, be that with Merseyrail and Metrolink meeting at a set of buffer stops or be it a through stopping "big railway" EMU service 4 to 6 times an hour a bit more like the Birmingham Cross City. Imagine the regenerative power of 4-6tph at say Humphrey Park?

The only answer to "but, but, Warrington West has to have a fast through service to Manchester" is "no, it doesn't". I'd love Avanti services to stop at Bletchley, but it shouldn't actually happen for similar reasons. It's a local station meriting a local stopping service - ideally a more frequent one - but not an InterCity service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Imagine the regenerative power of 4-6tph at say Humphrey Park?

Noting the current footfall of Humphrey Park, what do you expect the average patronage there per train on the 4-6tph service that calls there. It will take something akin to the Pied Piper of Hamelin to bring forth the local residents out of their homes to make such an aspiration worthwhile.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Noting the current footfall of Humphrey Park, what do you expect the average patronage there per train on the 4-6tph service that calls there. It will take something akin to the Pied Piper of Hamelin to bring forth the local residents out of their homes to make such an aspiration worthwhile.

I think you're rather understating what I meant by regeneration. Look at the effect of the Lizzie on what are/were fairly manky parts of East London - and that's only just started.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think you're rather understating what I meant by regeneration. Look at the effect of the Lizzie on what are/were fairly manky parts of East London - and that's only just started.

Humphrey Park in its area of the Manchester conurbation cannot be compared to the stated London areas shown above. Cars, vans and buses are more to the fore traditionally there and even Paul on his way to Damascus, via Humphrey Park, would have had difficulty in calling down rail-based Damascene moments upon the local residents.

Just imagine the scenario...."What do you mean I cannot go to Gorse Hill on this train, when the bus takes me there. It's a damn long walk from Trafford Park station to Gorse Hill"

 

[Bletchleyite]

Humphrey Park in its area of the Manchester conurbation cannot be compared to the stated London areas shown above. Cars, vans and buses are more to the fore traditionally there and even Paul on his way to Damascus, via Humphrey Park, would have had difficulty in calling down rail-based Damascene moments upon the local residents

It's ridiculous to suggest that "build it and they'll come" doesn't apply outside London. What'll be your next proposal? Cut Merseyrail and Metrolink to hourly because nobody uses rail?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's ridiculous to suggest that "build it and they'll come" doesn't apply outside London. What'll be your next proposal? Cut Merseyrail and Metrolink to hourly because nobody uses rail?

I notice that you chose to ignore the final scenario in my last posting.

Build it and they still will use the buses as normal as they will realise that most of them live nowhere near the railway station.

 

[Meerkat]

It's ridiculous to suggest that "build it and they'll come" doesn't apply outside London. What'll be your next proposal? Cut Merseyrail and Metrolink to hourly because nobody uses rail?

From a look at Google satellite views Humphrey Park was probably a poor choice - unlikely to be allowed to knock down those sort of houses. But Urmston looks a goer - lots of opportunity there to build blocks of flats.
The effect of Crossrail is mental - loads of the stations out West are getting thousands of flats built around them, Acton is going full Manhattan!

 

[MattRat]

I notice that you chose to ignore the final scenario in my last posting.

Build it and they still will use the buses as normal as they will realise that most of them live nowhere near the railway station.

No, you build trams that link into heavy rail. Manchester has already proven it works, so can do it again (and other places can copy).

 

[Confused52]

I'm not sold on the idea that Warrington West should ever have been built, to be honest, let alone allowing it to become a tail that wags the dog of the whole CLC line.

If Northern Powerhouse Rail is built, giving a fast Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester service, there's really no reason not to make the CLC a local line, be that with Merseyrail and Metrolink meeting at a set of buffer stops or be it a through stopping "big railway" EMU service 4 to 6 times an hour a bit more like the Birmingham Cross City. Imagine the regenerative power of 4-6tph at say Humphrey Park?

The only answer to "but, but, Warrington West has to have a fast through service to Manchester" is "no, it doesn't". I'd love Avanti services to stop at Bletchley, but it shouldn't actually happen for similar reasons. It's a local station meriting a local stopping service - ideally a more frequent one - but not an InterCity service.

You are entitled to your opinion but so am I.

I take it you have been to Humphrey Park. Which houses were you suggesting be knocked down for the regeneration?