I think many on his thread miss the point. A great deal of money was spent on infrastructure when the line was initially saved from closure and again after the recent landslide, something which we are very grateful for. Unfortunately it has stopped short of upgrading it to make suitable for long distance running. When you listen to those in the know, there always seems to be reasons why it’s not suitable, i.e line speed restrictions, single track over Ribblehead, signalling, not enough loops, infrastructure preventing container traffic, etc etc. Now these may be valid points, but these are the reasons the line is underused. It is an absurdity to suggest going via York to Glasgow is better, or via the Bentham line, or all the other alternative suggestions being made. Yes in the current state of the S&C we are having to consider some of these, but it’s not because they logical routes. Look on a map! The S&C is the logical route unfortunately it just needs more investment, but with that considering anything else is ridiculous, it’s the most direct route and has plenty of capacity and would relieve an already heavily used ECML & WCML both of which are set to get even more busy. Take the Carlisle-Chirk log train, why does it go down the S&C, a much longer less direct route? The reason is it’s quicker than down the much more direct route from Carlisle to Preston section because of capacity problems.