• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Manchester If Only

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kali

Member
Joined
5 Jun 2012
Messages
180
Covent Garden and Leicester Square are on the same line, and it's most definitely qucker to walk between those... ( you can see the platforms for one from the other ).

The tube isn't the be-all and end-all; I lived in areas with no tube a couple of times and the bus services were actually quite rapid, usually because of the bus type ( Routemaster ) allowing for much shorter stops, and doubling up each service meaning they only have to pick up from alternate stops. Balancing the speed of the tube is the hassle of getting in and out of it which makes it less appealing than you'd think for medium distance trips. For longer centre<->suburb or right-across-centre runs it definitely wins if there's congestion - whether it would still win if you banned private cars from the city centre is another matter. I would be more inclined to do the latter and provide more busses/light rail in general than go straight for tubes.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ATW Alex 101

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2010
Messages
2,087
Location
Ellesmere port
A nice idea for an underground in Manchester but I'm sorry to put it harshly but like the others, I don't think it would happen what with the trams and that. There is no money either and most of the places are on the rail/tram network. it would be a great idea of you suggested it before the trams came along.

Don't worry about the criticism you are getting, sadly you have to accept harsh criticism on this forum, I did, but do feel free to relay your ideas
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,391
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
Indeed, the Metrolink has as good as destroyed any case for a Picc-Vic tunnel.

Would not the Ordsall Chord project, once fully operational, bring the same benefit regarding heavy-rail links between Manchester Victoria and Manchester Piccadilly stations ? This does not seem to have impinged upon the expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
For longer centre<->suburb or right-across-centre runs it definitely wins if there's congestion - whether it would still win if you banned private cars from the city centre is another matter. I would be more inclined to do the latter and provide more busses/light rail in general than go straight for tubes.

Manchester held a referendum in 2008 on a two-banded congestion charging scheme that all ten constituent body authorities in what is described as "Greater Manchester" fully participated in, with the monies raised said to fund the expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system.

All ten areas voted overwhelmingly against this proposal and the idea had to be dropped.
 

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,565
Location
Macclesfield
Also, I believe Leeds, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Birmingham to name but four are all larger than Manchester as a city, where are their proposals?
Birmingham's underground rail proposal was decreed in 2005 to be far too costly and complex when compared to the alternative to extend the street-running Midland Metro - And Centro can't even muster the conviction and funding to do that properly, so I am in full agreement with you that the opportunity to construct an underground line in Manchester has long past. Between the Ordsall chord, as Paul has pointed out, and the Metrolink, cross-city journeys and interchange opportunities will be well catered for without the need to construct incredibly expensive rail tunnels under the city centre.
 
Last edited:

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,856
Would not the Ordsall Chord project, once fully operational, bring the same benefit regarding heavy-rail links between Manchester Victoria and Manchester Piccadilly stations ? This does not seem to have impinged upon the expansion of the Manchester Metrolink system.
.

I meant it ended the chances of a direct tunnel straight under the city as was proposed in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
Having lots of people isn't a reason for Mass transport like an Underground system? What is then?
Every city is different, so every city should have a transport system designed to fit local needs and the local environment.

London got underground trains because:
  • surface rail wasn't permitted right into the centre (look at the line created by Paddington, Marylebone, Euston, St Pancras, Kings Cross and Liverpool Street stations)
  • underground trains were in fashion at the time
  • and most importantly, London is mostly built on clay - which is easy for tunnelling. (South London isn't built on clay, look at a tube map to see the result.)

Oh and most of the London Underground isn't actually underground...
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
Again though have you ever used the Met, to me when its quicker to walk its kind of pointless, it's quicker to walk from Piccadilly station to Market street than get the tram. And like i say the fact it has to go through the centre at about 5mph isn't efficient when you have the London Underground going to stations that are only a short distance away at 40mph

It is generally quicker to get a tram through central Manchester than it would be to travel the same distance in London via the Tube. What you lose on the slower tram speed you more than gain through not having to walk so far to get to a stop, and through not having to descend to platform level, and climb back up again. From personal experience, it is always quicker to walk in central London, for any distance up to 3/4 of a mile, than to take the Tube; while in Manchester, the Metrolink is generally quicker than walkng for journeys over half a mile.

In any case, Manchester also has the Metroshuttle free bus service which covers the whole of the central business district in working hours - which is commonly the quickest way to get from anywhere to anywhere in the city centre (and avoids getting wet to the bargain).

The Tube doesn't travel at 40 mph in the centre of London; average service speed (including wait times and turnround times) for the London Underground is 33 kph. This is slowish for a metro system - average service speeds around 35-40 kph are more common - but is faster than the Paris Metro, which averages a bit under 30kph. The original Phase 1 Manchester Metrolink averaged 30 kph; the Phase 2 and Phase 3 services are slower, because stops are closer together - but the eventual full Phase 3 service will average around 25 kph. This is high for a tram system; most ground level light rail systems in Europe average between 20 and 25 kph in service.

But, given that the central business district of Manchester is not much more than a mile across, trams are a much better option than an underground railway would be - beside being cheaper to build and provide a much more attractive traveller experience. Nobody in their right mind would choose to travel by underground, who could travel by tram for the same journey.

The sole advantage that an underground metro provides over a surface light rail system is in terms of capacity. A tram line will typically carry around 4,000 persons per hour in each direction over the peak period; an underground metro typically carries over 20,000 persons per hour over the two-hour peak. Which is why you will find metros in most capital cities; as governments typically llike to concentrate a lot of jobs close to the centre of government; and then need a system to carry these government employees in and out of the city. To justify building a metro line, there would need to be a requirement for around 80,000 city centre jobs (- and these 80,000 emlployees would need to be living within walking distance of suburban metro stops. There are only 140,000 jobs in total in central Manchester - even including the two education precints; and around a third of these are filled by persons travelling from outside the Manchester conurbation (by car or train). So a metro would only be worth building if every commuter within the Manchester conurbation were to use it; which would imply a very odd-shaped pattern of residence.

There simply isn't any corridor in Manchester that requires so great a commuter capacity as to force the construction of an underground metro over a tram; and since in all other respects the tram is superior, there is no justification for building such a system.
 

Tiny Tim

Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
463
Location
Devizes, Wiltshire.
I've seen Telford, Milton Keynes and Inverness all claim to be the fastest growing places in the UK (the Inverness one claimed Europe) - do you have a source for such a statement please? I find it very, very dubious.

These claims are all probably correct by some measure. A hamlet of 50 people that develops a new housing estate accommodating a further 50 people could easily claim a 100% increase in population. Correctly.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
Given that Manchester has a tram which connects the main stations...

...has seen that tram extended to a few new routes...

...is seeing further new routes being planned/ built...

...will see a huge amount of infrastructure improvements on national rail lines over the next few years (Ordsall Chord, electrification to Liverpool, electrification to Preston, electrification to Leeds)...

...will get an HS2 station being planned for the city centre...

...already has three free shuttle bus services around the city centre...

...it's hard to buy into the "Manchester is hard done by" argument.

So much easier to focus on how London seems to have more, and ignore the fact that there are plenty of cities in the UK that have a lot less, eh?
 

185

On Moderation
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
5,709
Oh my, a passing bandwagon. Right! *shamefully climbs on*

In my honest opinion, Manchester does need to start doing something to increase capacity, as all modes on the three current bus, train and tram system are busting at the seams in peak hour, and services are running slower and slower due to congestion.

I would welcome an underground system, as would any town, but costs in this day and age make it utterly unnaffordable. Whereas the works cost is quite affordable, add on the consultants surveyors, mission-impact-survey-proffessionals et-al then the price goes through the roof.

The only affordable way forward for Manchester is the further expansion of Metrolink, further cross city tram routes, additional rail terminal stations, additional tracking (4-tracking) from Deansgate to Piccadilly, and bus-gates (bollard protected bus lanes) running from the city for 5 miles on the main bus corridors.

Leigh needs to be re-worked to be made as a Metrolink line, as the current busway project is pointless - it duplicates a free-running part of the East Lancs Road, then joins the East Lancs Road just where the traffic starts to build, ie straight into 8 miles of congested traffic jam. The line could either be routed via the Port Salford / Trafford Centre planned line or into north Eccles, then via a new line next to the M62 & the Eccles rail line. Although I would much prefer Leigh to have a proper rail line, there is no way we would get funding for that from TfGM... if it ain't Metrolink, they ain't interested.

New rail stations are needed at key congested road arteries to increase Park an Ride such as Leigh South (East Lancs Road).
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,021
It must really hurt the good people of Manchester that Newcastle and Sunderland have an underground train system!
I don't think you can count a couple of short tunnels under Newcastle City Centre as 'an underground train system'. And in Sunderland, the Metro only re-used existing heavy-rail alignments...
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,069
Location
Redcar
I don't think you can count a couple of short tunnels under Newcastle City Centre as 'an underground train system'. And in Sunderland, the Metro only re-used existing heavy-rail alignments...

Though when you're on Sunderland station it certainly feels like you're on an underground network!
 

nerd

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
524
Oh my, a passing bandwagon. Right! *shamefully climbs on*

In my honest opinion, Manchester does need to start doing something to increase capacity, as all modes on the three current bus, train and tram system are busting at the seams in peak hour, and services are running slower and slower due to congestion.

I would welcome an underground system, as would any town, but costs in this day and age make it utterly unnaffordable. Whereas the works cost is quite affordable, add on the consultants surveyors, mission-impact-survey-proffessionals et-al then the price goes through the roof.

The only affordable way forward for Manchester is the further expansion of Metrolink, further cross city tram routes, additional rail terminal stations, additional tracking (4-tracking) from Deansgate to Piccadilly, and bus-gates (bollard protected bus lanes) running from the city for 5 miles on the main bus corridors.

Leigh needs to be re-worked to be made as a Metrolink line, as the current busway project is pointless - it duplicates a free-running part of the East Lancs Road, then joins the East Lancs Road just where the traffic starts to build, ie straight into 8 miles of congested traffic jam. The line could either be routed via the Port Salford / Trafford Centre planned line or into north Eccles, then via a new line next to the M62 & the Eccles rail line. Although I would much prefer Leigh to have a proper rail line, there is no way we would get funding for that from TfGM... if it ain't Metrolink, they ain't interested.

New rail stations are needed at key congested road arteries to increase Park an Ride such as Leigh South (East Lancs Road).

'Busting at the seams' certainly applies to the trains (at least from Bolton and the north) and Metrolink. It is less true of the buses - which run full for a much shorter period.

Currently there are 140,000 jobs/student places in the city centre, including the Salford and Manchester education precincts. Some 30,000 workers/students live close enough to be able to walk/cycle daily. So the transport system has to handle around 110,000 peak period trips. Approx 45,000 of these are by car, 35,000 by bus, 23,000 by train and 7,000 by tram (all 2010 figures).

But the city centre is currently adding 3,000 to 5,000 jobs per year - so over the next ten years, it is likley that commuter flows could increase by around 40,000. As you say, there is not currently the capacity.

However:

- the Metrolink is expanding from 31 trams (in 2010) to 94 trams (in 2015). This may be expected to increase peak period tram ridership by around 14,000

- the likelihood is that three at least of the east-west current heavy rail commute lines will convert to tram-train operation. This should add a further 5,000 commuter capacity over each peak period.

- the Northern Hub will add two extra platforms at Piccadilly; which, together with another two platforms released there by the tram-train conversions and new platorms at Salford Central and Salford Crescent, will increase peak period capacity for heavy rail commuter services by around 7,000 per day.

- the Leigh Busway is a perfectly sound project; as it is linked into the creation of dedicated bus-lanes all along the East Lancs road into the centre of Salford, and then across the city centre to Manchester Uni. Together with the three 'cross-city' bus routes (to Didsbury, Middleton and Earlstown) , this will add a capacity of around 4,000 bus places in each peak period.


So the service expansions currently funded and underway should provide an extra peak period capacity for around 30,000 commuters into central Mancester by 2016.


But - if the jobs growth is more rapid than currently, or anyway once HS2 arrives on the scene and dumps an additional 8,000 peak travellers per hour into central Manchester - then still more capacity could be needed.

Possible further expansions:

- double all the Metrolink services. The currrently purchased 94 trams only allows one (out of four) Metrolink lines to be doubled. Buy another 50, and we could double the lot.

- create a Manchester Overground. Once the Ordsall Curve has been built, it will become possible for most north-south suburban commuter services to be doubled in length, and to run through the city centre (e.g. Hazel Grove to Bolton; Macclesfield to Rochdale) much on the same pattern as Thameslink. The key constraint is the pinch-point at Deasgate Station (Oxford Road already has four through platforms)m, which would need to be four-tracked. This won't be cheap; but will be a lot less expensive than going underground.

- extend the cross-city rapid bus system. The key need is for a service to run along the Stockport Road and through towards Bolton. Again, not cheap, but it would be a major addition to bus capacity.

Taking all those together, and there could be an extra capacity for 30,000peak period commuters by 2030.

Which, combined with further city centre residential development, should mean that Manchester will only begin to feel serioulsy squeezed for commuter capacity once City centre jobs top 220,000 (or 80,000 more than today).
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,887
Location
Fenny Stratford
I don't think you can count a couple of short tunnels under Newcastle City Centre as 'an underground train system'. And in Sunderland, the Metro only re-used existing heavy-rail alignments...

I can and I am! The Metro is class like bonny lad!

And as Ainsworth says Sunderland Station is underground :) It was really just to stir the pot a bit because Newcastle has an underground and Manchester doesnt :)
 
Last edited:

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Main reason Manchester will struggle to become world class is because of its lack of underground train. If anyone from the City council figures a way of building one and is reading this, you can use my template if you like for a fee :)

I'm confused by this. You've got a Metrolink icons next to certain stops on the Bury and Altrincham lines but not others - are you proposing building new heavy rails along the same route?

The idea of a RER/S-Bahn style network for Manchester with an Underground city centre section was what would have been built had more funding been available in the 1970/80s but it wasn't.

Now the Orsdall Chord has got funding an Underground section is definitely off the cards.

Hopefully, the western Airport link (extending the Airport spur beyond the Airport) which Network Rail said they will review in the 2019-2024 CP will get funding and then that will allow more direct cross-Manchester journeys and faster Airport links for some places.
 

W230

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
1,217
Not really, 100 miles inbetween Brum and London and like i say similarish distance between Liverpool and Leeds, and I reckon Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds combined potentially offer more to the nation than Birmingham will. I mean London will always be the biggest city so i don't see the massive benefit to have Birmingham connected to it, especially as the cost only reduces the travel time by about 25 minutes
Don't forget that London draws in huge numbers of commuters from the south east (and further) as a whole. Manchester does not bring in so many from the north west. Yes, there are some who will commute to Manchester from other cities but nowhere near the same numbers as commute to London and they will not come as far. It's widely accepted that the increased salaries available to those who commute to London as opposed to elsewhere in the south east also encourages huge numbers to commute. Manchester does not have this same situation.

This is mainly for the reason you already outlined. the cities of Liverpool, Leeds, and little old Sheffield (which seemed to be forgotten about in this post) are all within 40 miles of Manchester and all of similar size.

I don't disagree that London sucks up much of the investment on these huge new infrastructure projects and that other parts of the country have lots to offer too, but I don't think that building an underground network under Manchester would change that.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
This is mainly for the reason you already outlined. the cities of Liverpool, Leeds, and little old Sheffield (which seemed to be forgotten about in this post) are all within 40 miles of Manchester and all of similar size.

And you've forgotten about little old Salford.

What you have to remember about Manchester is journeys like Liverpool-Leeds are via Manchester, so a TPE 185 arriving at Manchester Piccadilly for Liverpool could easily already have 100+ passengers on board who aren't alighting there.
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,342
Horses for courses. Street-running systems like Metrolink are slower and have less capacity than an underground system, but you don't lose time going up and down to the platforms (and you don't need to provide lifts and escalators). An "RER" type system with just a few city centre stations linked by fast services is a different thing from a "metro" type underground system with stations close together. At the moment Manchester has quite a good public transport network but with obvious improvements needed, mainly to improve interchange between metrolink, rail and buses, but some of these gaps will be addressed by future metrolink extensions. Also, some of the suburban rail services are seriously underused off-peak.
 

The Ham

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
12,030
the other reason that underground lines get built over overground lines is that the land costs are high (which is why it makes sense in London). It is more likely that as Manchester already has cross city lines that these will be upgraded, and widened.

To maximise the land available and/or to offset the land costs you may end up with lines being built over (akin to Birmingham New Street or the Tesco at Gerrards Cross) resulting in semi underground lines.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,391
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
Just to ask a question of the pro-Underground forum members, how many tph movements would be achieved by this, in comparison to the Ordsall Chord project, and what routes would be making use of the proposed Underground system ?

I have received a telephone call this afternoon to ask that I make mention of the geological fault lines in that area which caused problems in past years in the Bradford Colliery seams, when considering the stability of underground transportation tunnels.
 
Last edited:

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
That is false, Glasgow has only the Subway and national rail. A lot of the places you list gained their system in the 19th Century when such engineering projects were common, indeed Glasgow's is the third oldest in the world after London and Budapest. I can't really imagine in a time of such other sustainable transport methods that full underground systems will ever be rife as they were in the late 19th Century again. Also, I believe Leeds, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Birmingham to name but four are all larger than Manchester as a city, where are their proposals?

I believe that the Glasgow Subway is the second oldest underground railway in Glasgow. The line through Queens St Low Level is older and is as much "underground" as the Met.

In addition the Mersey Railway is "Underground" and opened in 1886 which you missed. As far as Underground lines in Liverpool go the proposals are working quite well as operational railways, in the way envisaged in the 1960s, improving access to the city centre for existing suburban railways. This is probably the key to future developments in the UK, enhancing the existing railway assets where possible and creating better networks.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,856
I believe that the Glasgow Subway is the second oldest underground railway in Glasgow. The line through Queens St Low Level is older and is as much "underground" as the Met.

In addition the Mersey Railway is "Underground" and opened in 1886 which you missed. As far as Underground lines in Liverpool go the proposals are working quite well as operational railways, in the way envisaged in the 1960s, improving access to the city centre for existing suburban railways. This is probably the key to future developments in the UK, enhancing the existing railway assets where possible and creating better networks.

I meant third oldest dedicated underground subway system, not those that are currently used for NR operation or similar.
 

John55

Member
Joined
24 Jun 2011
Messages
800
Location
South East
I meant third oldest dedicated underground subway system, not those that are currently used for NR operation or similar.

Could you elaborate as I don't understand your thinking here. The Metropolitan wasn't a dedicated subway system so by your logic the London Underground isn't the oldest. You are in danger of incurring the wrath of LURS!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
20,270
The only place in Manchester with the loading to justify a high capacity public transport systme that does not rely on roads is really the Oxford Road corridor to the airport.

The cheapest solution there is not some sort of underground railway.... but probably an Urban Gondola/Funitel type thing.... but people just laugh when I suggest that.
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,856
Could you elaborate as I don't understand your thinking here. The Metropolitan wasn't a dedicated subway system so by your logic the London Underground isn't the oldest. You are in danger of incurring the wrath of LURS!

I meant it as what they are used as now - as the lines under Liverpool and Queen St line in Glasgow are now NR, I make the Glasgow Subway to be the third oldest subway, regardless of what it was designed to be, in the world; sorry if this wasn't clear before.

Perhaps if this is an issue you should contact SPT as they openly claim in their literature to be the world's third oldest subway behind London and Budapest...
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
The only place in Manchester with the loading to justify a high capacity public transport systme that does not rely on roads is really the Oxford Road corridor to the airport.

The cheapest solution there is not some sort of underground railway.... but probably an Urban Gondola/Funitel type thing.... but people just laugh when I suggest that.

The problem is the capacity of trains on the Airport-Piccadilly line is excessively more than what is required for the current number of passengers, yet the plan is to provide even more capacity post-Ordsall Chord because it's believed that the major towns and cities in the north of England need direct links to the largest Airport outside the South East.

Say you proposed South TPE would terminate at Piccadilly or go to Liverpool instead, that's one change for some people but others like those in Rotherham have already made one change to board a TPE service, so then it becomes two - with luggage and possibly young children, so the train becomes a lot less attractive.

With your plan being from Oxford Road to the Airport, would trains like Blackpool-Manchester Airport terminate at Oxford Road for a connection to a 'skylink'? If so it would also make onward connections for people from places like Bolton and Salford less attractive. Also would through ticketing be available to onward rail stations?

One positive about that idea would be that something like that would be popular with tourists as it's not something you have in every city.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,770
The opening of the Ordsall curve will help to get passnegers from Vikky to Pikky without having to use buses, trams or the non-existent underground!

If there really WAS a need to get people a short distance across a city, look no further than the Emirates airway that travels across the Thames! Allowing that it cost £m's and is, I hear, unlikely to ever be in profit (anyone??) it could be a solution for major cities in the future. Don't look down, look up!!

(Liverpools ex-overhead railway - where did it all go wrong.......)
 

MidnightFlyer

Veteran Member
Joined
16 May 2010
Messages
12,856
Say you proposed South TPE would terminate at Piccadilly or go to Liverpool instead, that's one change for some people but others like those in Rotherham have already made one change to board a TPE service, so then it becomes two - with luggage and possibly young children, so the train becomes a lot less attractive.

This may be irrelevant but I believe there are advanced proposals to divert TPE services to stop at Rotherham Central from March 2015. Makes sense to me really, it's a large conurbation. I'm always intrigued with all these Manchester Airport link posts - I wonder just how many would indeed not travel by rail if it meant even a cross-platform interchange at Picc / Oxford Rd...
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
'Busting at the seams' certainly applies to the trains (at least from Bolton and the north) and Metrolink

According to http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/files/happiest_commuter_index.pdf 70% of arrivals into Manchester between 07:00 and 09:59 have spare seats (or, at least, have sufficient capacity for all standard class passengers to have a seat) - the figure is for 2011 but since then Northern have gained extra seats (albeit mainly Pacer seats!).

So, if 70% of peak arrivals into Manchester have spare seats I can't see a need for any new underground railway.

The problem is the capacity of trains on the Airport-Piccadilly line is excessively more than what is required for the current number of passengers, yet the plan is to provide even more capacity post-Ordsall Chord because it's believed that the major towns and cities in the north of England need direct links to the largest Airport outside the South East

Well, you know my thoughts on every village in northern England requiring an hourly link to Manchester Airport just for those annual holidays :lol:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
This may be irrelevant but I believe there are advanced proposals to divert TPE services to stop at Rotherham Central from Dec 2014~. Makes sense to me really, it's a large conurbation. I'm always intrigued with all these Manchester Airport link posts - I wonder just how many would indeed not travel by rail if it meant even a cross-platform interchange at Picc / Oxford Rd...

Rotherham has a token TPE service at anti-social hours (an old arrangement to make up for lack of Northern stoppers from Sheffield to Doncaster), though I appreciate that you are talking about something more substantial than this infrequent arrangement.

Rotherham does get a pretty rubbish service considering its size and the number of trains that pass through the town non stop (two XC an hour, one TPE an hour plus the Northern 158 from Sheffield to Hull).

And, yes, how do other airports manage without so many trains?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top