I don't think creating a regional centre in Manchester necessarily disadvantages Liverpool, especially if there is also good rail and other service between the two. For example the Transpennine re-routeing via Victoria gives Liverpool faster and in some cases more frequent journeys to places beyond Manchester.
Agreed; it's not guaranteed that Liverpool would see a nett disadvantage, but it would be the more likely outcome. Even though costs can be higher in Greater Manchester, it is already the most attractive (business-wise) destination in the region.
They are probably getting at two things:
(1) Government can potentially borrow at lower rates than private bodies, so buying the trains outright would involve lower payments than the capital element of a ROSCO lease.
(2) If they borrow to buy the trains then once the loan is paid back they only have to pay the maintenance costs, not the capital element of the lease which it is widely believed the ROSCO will carry on charging as long as the trains can run.
I do agree though that Merseytravel would have to be very sure of their figures before they decide to do something like this. Rather ironically the DfT shares suspicion (2) and will be watching with interest if Merseytravel try to prove it.
There is more to it than points 1 and 2: Small order premium would add to the initial outlay, Unit operational costs would be higher, and this approach would perpetuate the problems around the isolation of system with impact on flexibility and service offering.
On the subject of non-standard trains, the Merseyrail network needs a high-performance fleet of 20m vehicles with third rail power but maximum speed is not a big issue. Rail North probably needs 12mph 23m vehicles for an electrified Transpennine (possibly some bi-modes), with no need for third rail, and I think cascaded 319s or similar will meet the needs of the other electric routes. Thus the Merseyrail spec has more in common with the South of London fleets than with the rest of what Rail North needs. Going for something totally bespoke would need to bring major benefits as the extra costs would be significant.
Re the vehicles: I am sure that other routes across the Rail North area (and other regions) would benefit from vehicles from the same fleet spec as would be required for Merseyrail.
Because the 500 is only every 30 mins if you have not long missed one you are best getting an 86A or 80A, perhaps changing at Parkway for a train. The 82A is also every 30 mins and doesn't take much longer than the 500 as another option. As long as an airport rail link went through South Parkway there might be a half decent market. You currently see a reasonable number of people getting on and off the 86A's and 80A's at Parkway with their wheely cases.
OK; I know it's been asked before, but what would be the scale of the potential patronage based on usage of those bus services?
Starting with say Liverpool City Centre to Airport direct, non-stop, what is the current demand? About 400k p/a? Higher?
Then include a factor for the sparks effect. Factor of 1.5 say?
If you want to include intermediate journey's you would need to define to route and go from there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And where are you based Olaf? As if I need ask.
Well for a start, it would seem that your intellect has let you down; don't let your ignorance cloud your judgement.
No one's stopping you from building a "regional centre" if that's what you want to do, but I think it's quite unreasonable of you to expect another city to pay for it by having their excellent infrastructure dismantled.
No one has mentioned the dismantling of infrastructure on Merseyside (it would, I expect require significant extra investment to make the concept workable), no one has suggest that LCP pay for it. Most of the money will come from central government as does the existing massive subsidy to Merseyrail.
The arguments come across as immature empire building slamming everything done in Liverpool as if it's some sort of affront to greater manchester. How about you get on and build up your own city positively instead of thinking you can only do it by destroying or dominating those around you? It's an attitude from your region which has even started to get noticed in the press and isn't exactly edifying.
You are barking up the wrong tree, and show your skirts.
The issue of rolling stock, for example. These matters are well known which is why rolling stock features in the rail north agenda. The same logic applies if it's merseyrail or rail north, so what if they do it separately?
They are not well know; the scope of what will be required is not fully defined until the service patterns are know, and they still have not come to fruition.
Economies of scale for a combined fleet only work if the fleet is suitable. You say it should have a combined order and a non-dedicated fleet despite that merseyrail is not only a third rail system but also a system where there is a stop every minute or so (like the tube). It's two totally different use cases for a railway line between towns that has stops every five to twenty minutes versus a railway which is a frequent stop metro in all but frequency (and including in frequency in parts) and totally different priorities when it comes to rolling stock design and efficiency. I assume you don't intend for people to travel across the pennies and a hundred miles up to Newcastle, or onwards to Scotland, in 60mph 3rd rail metro trains, so I can only assume you mean that merseyrail should receive completely inappropriate units to operate its services.
I happy for you to continue deluding yourself.
But the reason why you don't see that as a problem is because of course you want to take merseyrail apart and have it "serve the centre" some 30 or so miles away (when it already serves the centre today ie Liverpool and will do in 50, 100 years time, provided people like yourself don't wreck it so it serves no one).
No, I have not even hinted at that. You seem to be reading something between the lines that is not there.
It's an agenda of idiocy and childishness.
Pot calling kettle black.
Have you done your homework yet?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Unfortunately I've heard those silly types of comments from people who really should know better. I can only reiterate what I said before, that you'd be fools if you trusted them. Liverpool has to lobby hard for its own corner and put itself first, because believe you me those in Manchester will lobby hard for theirs and a bright sunny future for Liverpool does not figure. They certainly don't need your regional generosity, and will only take advantage of it as a weakness.
That unfortunately illustrates one of the major obstacles to all attempts of progress on Merseyside; the massive chip on it's shoulder, and the inverse snobbery.
The investment in the Northern Hub will be undermined if those in responsible positions on Merseyside continue with this small-world view. The world has changed significantly in recent years and cities under 10million are going to find it harder to get a place at the table. This exercise is aimed at pushing Manchester back-up the rankings so that it can drag the rest of the region with it.
Undermine it or delay it and Merseyside will be shooting itself in the foot.
I think a lot of my negativity comes not from the fact I can't see things being possible but as I have said before the lack of political will to get stuff done. I caught the tram from Manchester city centre to the airport the other day and thought why can't we do something like that in Liverpool.
