tenthofjune

A relative came down from Glasgow yesterday to attend an event in the middle of Manchester, so had purchased a return ticket to Manchester Piccadilly. Heading home today, she had originally planned to get a train from Blackrod or Horwich in to Manchester to catch her return train. Unfortunately with the current engineering work on the line it meant replacement buses, which even if they actually turn up means a 30 min train journey becomes an hour and a quarter. We therefore decided that a better option was to drive her in to Manchester (a return journey for me that was still quicker than the one-way bus journey).

What is ridiculous though, is that the better solution would have been to take her to Wigan North Western station, as the train she had a ticket for, called at Wigan on the way to Glasgow. National Rail, however, has a condition which reads as follows:

Break of journey
You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.

Now I can understand that it would be wrong to purchase a ticket and then want to stop off somewhere to carry out some business for a few hours and then carry on, but when you have purchased a ticket for a seat from Manchester to Glasgow, getting on at Wigan (especially when the reason is due to an inconvenience cause by the rail companies in the first place) is not using any extra service, it’s actually less. It would only make sense if the ticket for a shorter journey actually cost more (although nothing would surprise me with the illogical ticket pricing we have in the UK)

A new website has launched today, from the creators of TheyWorkForYou and FixMyStreet, comes FixMyTransport which as well as letting you report issues, allows you to open up an issue for wider support/discussion.

Further to my post about how Blackrod Station is treated as Lostock’s poor relation, I have created a page about the lack of service and amenities at Blackrod Station.

If you feel the same way, please support it.

I see that Blackrod Station is finally getting better access to both platforms, but I can’t help feeling that this is only being done because they are obliged to under DDA regulations.

Below are the passenger figures for Blackrod, Horwich and Lostock for the past six years¹.

Can someone please explain why, when Blackrod handles almost double the passengers handled by Lostock, Blackrod Station has no ticket office (or even a simple ticket machine) and no live information signs yet Lostock has both of these and enjoys twice as many calling services as Blackrod.

[1] Office of Rail Regulation – Station Usage Data

According to the Bolton News, six railway station in Bolton have been identified by Network Rail as those most in need of improvement. Not surprisingly, once again, Blackrod station is missing from that list. (Full National list here)

Can someone please explain why Lostock station, which has both a ticket office and live train information screens, is on the list of six stations earmarked for improvements, when Blackrod with neither of these basic facilities is not? I’m not saying Lostock should not receive investment (particularly in reinstating the Wigan platforms short-sightedly removed in the past) but surely Blackrod station is in more need.

Given the lack of respect Blackrod station is given on the timetabled service, the cynic in me would guess that secretly Network Rail will be thinking “Why spend money on a station we’re trying to close down by reducing the service?”.

Network Rail are running a survey about station improvements. If you feel Blackrod (or an other station) deserves better, go to www.networkrail.co.uk/actionstations and make your views known.

Commuters at Blackrod Station are having the proverbial excrement dropped on them from a great height: From 14th December, Northern Rail are switching Manchester bound trains which currently stop at Deansgate, Manchester Oxford Road and Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Victoria.

Not surprisingly, this causes problems for those reliant on the service to get to work, according to comments on Phil Morgan’s Blackrod Station website, with increased journey times, inconvenient changes that were not previously required and in some cases, additional childcare costs because the commuter can no longer get to work on time after dropping her daughter at school.

Many also question the apparent discrimination against Blackrod when more trains stop at Lostock. Why is Blackrod treated in this way? Being so close to the GM border, is it a case of ‘out of sight, out of mind’? Could this be the start of the rot? How long before the number of trains are run down as low as Clifton?

Ironically, these are the one set of commuters (city centre workers) who would actually benefit from the TIF proposals, yet GMPTE see fit to allow Northern Rail to ride roughshod over them in this manner.

It also highlights the fact that when you become dependent on public transport, you put yourself totally at the mercy of the transport operator who won’t hesitate to put their interests over the paying passenger.

This is the so-called ‘world class’ system we are being promised by Richard Leese – No thanks.

We can argue until the cows come home about the accuracy of the ‘only 10% will pay the congestion charge” claim of the Yes Vote campaign (it’s 20% according to the TIF consultation brochure), but let’s play along.

The pro-toll advocates say that it will only be 10% because others will be able to switch to a viable alternative (I can’t as previously posted). Following this logically through, this means that the remaining 10% are precisely the ones for whom the TIF proposals will not provide a viable public transport alternative.

So basically, the yes campaign are happy to promote the notion that the improvements should be paid for by those who can’t benefit from them.

How is that fair?

You’ve got to hand it to the Manchester Congestion Charge ‘Yes Vote’ camp: their lack of targeting their advertising properly is helping to galvanise the ‘no’ vote.

Rule 1: Don’t play to one of the opposition’s main arguments

The pro-toll’s decision to go with the ‘I won’t pay’ adverts has only angered those who will have to pay. Couple that with fact that these have been sited along routes which will not receive funding to provide an alternative and you only reinforce people’s decision to vote no.

Rule 2: Don’t promote a service to those who won’t get it

Now, having realised that, they have switched to a ‘that sounds fair’ slogan, but you have to question the wisdom of large bill-board posters proclaiming the building of Metrolink routes smack in the middle of those areas that will never have the benefit of Metrolink. Again, when the lack of Metrolink is a sore point, this only reinforces a no vote.

Well done – keep it up!

In the past three weeks, I have contacted a number of people regarding the Manchester Congestion Tax. It is interesting to note the lack of response from the majority, without even the decency of a simple acknowledgement from some.

These details are updated as of 30th November:

Not a very impressive set of figures really; only three replies.

Given Ruth Kelly’s lack of response in the past, I don’t hold out much hope.

I will keep this post updated.

Update: 12th December

Ruth Kelly has finally responded – well sort of…

Only ten minutes after hearing the excellent result of the referendum, I arrived home to a letter from Ruth Kelly, but far from actually replying to my concerns, it would appear that she has simply forwarded my letter to GMPTE whose reply she has simply forwarded back to me without comment. A secretary could have done that!

It clearly stated in my original letter that I was fully aware of GMPTE’s attitude, so what was the point of getting them to repeat their propaganda? Given Ruth Kelly’s support for the TIF bid, it would seem that she is simply sitting on the fence.

Have a read of this letter from Howard Bernstein to the DfT in London. In it he clearly states:

Heavy rail rolling stock and associated infrastructure (platform extensions, turnbacks, depots and stabling). These costs are now assumed to be met by the Department directly through the TOCs (Train Operating Companies) and Network Rail rather than through TIF grant to Greater Manchester and Prudential Borrowing cover.

AGMA are actively promoting extra carriages and platform extensions as part of the TIF package, yet they are clearly not.

While looking at the details for Blackpool Illuminations, the guide has an advert for Transpennine Express, claiming a fare for Manchester to Blackpool of only £4 (£8 for the family as the children go free). Hmmm…. not bad, that’s worth considering as an alternative to driving, except for one thing:

That fare is not available!

In reality, the cheapest return for two adults is £25.40, the cheapest single is £25.20, over three times the advertised price.

Even from our local station, Blackrod, it is still £21 return for two adults. Compare that to just under £9 of fuel (even at today’s prices) for a return trip by car, and the train represents a premium of 133% over the car.

When you also consider the reduced flexibility of the rail timetable, and the fact that it would drop us off a couple of miles from where we want to be, the car wins hands down, yet again.

While I was on the Transpennine Express site, they were also advertising Manchester-Glasgow fares for £10 each way, so at a cost of £40 return for two adults, I was interested, especially after my last look at using rail to get to Glasgow, but sadly, the truth is once again different – it still costs a minimum of £120 return for two adults.

How are they allowed to advertise these fares when they are obviously extremely limited?

They even have the cheek to claim that ‘It’s quicker, cheaper, more direct, and less hassle than any other way.’ That’s definitely not the case for more than one person. Even for one person, it is still more expensive and unless the stations are adjacent to your house and destination, then ‘direct’ does not enter into it.