Prophead - You say that the Channel Tunnel was built as a "nationally important project". Well, it was certainly justified to the public on that premise. But once completed it turned out not to be so national after all. Those promised services direct from Regional UK were strangled at birth. I wonder whether that sets a precedent which we may see repeated with R3?
I haven't discussed rail services to Manchester Airport with you, but it does appear to have through-train services with no changes to most major population centres across the North of England. Not sure what point you're trying to make here? I've certainly never discussed travelling to Manchester Airport using two or three trains with you? Is this some crude attempt to 'bait and switch' the discussion onto ground you're more comfortable with?
What I did point out is that you appear to be fine with non-SE residents having to change trains on international journeys, yet appear to suggest that it is unacceptable for SE residents to be expected to change planes at a downroute hub airport when necessary. Your disapproval is very selective.
Moving to the long-term forecasts, you tell us that even half of those quoted financial benefits would be great. Do you similarly accept that a loss of 37000 regional flights per annum by 2030 rising to 80500 by 2050 would still be disastrous? Those figures are of course half the 74000 / 161000 forecast.