As per the discussion in the thread, again you identify that, along with every proposal made by posters in this discussion to *not* use the chord (seemingly solely on the grounds of some personal vendetta), this simply shoves the "problem" to be dealt with somewhere else.
Meanwhile the DfT consultation indicates, backed up with actual modelled evidence, Option C makes use of the chord, provides a net benefit in overall connectivity terms, provides more robust performance and does not require new infrastructure. Win, win, win and win. Anything else is worse.
Leaving an £85 million flagship piece of infrastructure completely unused is the absolute best way of ensuring that there is never another penny invested again. Especially when multiple option have been presented to both use it robustly and still provide overall connectivity benefits.
I didn't say we shouldn't use the chord - I suggested a method of using it that would reduce disruption and other methods that might have been more successful in reducing congestion around central Manchester. (aka the airport shuttle)
The key issue with the chord is that trains are now stopping at three stations, on the most congested part of the railway, in the largest city in the North West, at a major interchange between several railway lines. To make it work, you have to increase platform capacity at every station involved.
Leaving an £85m piece of infrastructure unused because Westminster didn't complete a project properly would be a fantastic symbol of the waste caused by constant stop-starting & half-completion of schemes.
Now, when I've used it, I have seen a pretty decent number of passengers on board. And some of them will doubtlessly rely on it for part of their journeys. Having 5 car trains go through is more acceptable.
The thing is, it should never have been built. Or rather, it should only have been built in conjunction with the other parts of the programme, and those other parts should have been built first, because they would have brought immediate advantage, whereas the Chord brought immediate overall disadvantage without the other bits.
To fail to acknowledge a mistake simply for reasons of pride is foolishness of the highest order.
Yeah. Its a very typical Tory move of cancelling the project halfway-through, to get the least benefit out of it possible.
Can't wait for them to do the same with HS2, but that's another debate.
Would it? Not if you ask anyone from the Southport line (loss of Picc services), Wigan (loss of fast services) or the Atherton Line (downgrade from 3 to 2tph), all of which are being sacrificed in favour of bucket and spade passengers from Yorkshire* (as the proper fix for the "crossing the formation" issue is simply to terminate all the TPEs that reverse in Picc there, and have a separate service to Ringway replacing them - with the bonus that that would release either 2 or 3 Class 185s for strengthening).
Not something I can support, I'm afraid. Of the options, C is best, but we shouldn't even have gone there in the first place.
* With most airport jobs being low-paid, it's unlikely there will be many long distance commuters to work there, so it is air passengers.
This is true, the number of services running to the chord from other places has been reduced, if not in frequency, definitely in quality. (*ahem Bolton*)
Unfortunately, as long as Metrolink is not properly integrated into NR ticketing in the city centre, there's not much it's going to do to help people transfer.
In the longer term, maybe tram-train out to Wigan may be a good solution to get city centre connectivity and reduce congestion, but I don't know if the trams will be fast enough to keep up with expected journey times.
The best option would be a Manchester Crossrail or Metro. But that's seemingly out of the picture.
)
