Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[cle]

Did someone say carbuncle?

 

[CHAPS2034]

I have it on reasonable authority that there will be an announcement within next week and decisions have been taken.

However that is caveated in that within that week they may decide against announcing anything or delay it. But information is starting to filter out.

Being suggested on the TPE electrification thread (see above) that the decision on P15/16 has been made and may be released before the parliamentary recess at the end of next week.

Based on past performance, this leads me to think there may be a repeat of the farce of announcing cancellation of MML and GW electrification last year for which the Boiled Egg has recently received a rollicking from the Transport Committee. Sure it won't stop him though.

Hope to be proved wrong, though I'm not holding my breath.

CW

 

[Class 170101]

To be honest if he pulls that trick again he should be summoned by the speaker for contempt of Parliament and ordered to resign.

 

[snowball]

Unfortunately it has long been a standard ministerial trick.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I have long theorised that Grayling would cancel the platform 15 & 16 project and turn the Ordsall Chord into a white elephant as to have an excuse to spend less on the North.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have long theorised that Grayling would cancel the platform 15 & 16 project and turn the Ordsall Chord into a white elephant as to have an excuse to spend less on the North.

The Ordsall Chord is a white elephant whether P15/16 are built or not. It was an utter waste of money built essentially only with the objective of running yet more half-empty trains to Manchester Airport when terminating them in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly would make more sense.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The Ordsall Chord is a white elephant whether P15/16 are built or not. It was an utter waste of money built essentially only with the objective of running yet more half-empty trains to Manchester Airport when terminating them in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly would make more sense.

Regular readers will be well aware of your views on rail connections to Manchester Airport but they are irrelevant. Permission for Manchester's second runway included ensuring the airport having a policy to promote the use of public transport as much as possible. Given that the airport's catchment area includes most of northern England it is inevitable that such a policy will lead to through services to a wide variety of destinations. Remember also that the districts of Greater Manchester remain shareholders in the airport and as such will support such a policy ensuring that where possible Manchester's satellite towns have trains to the airport. Given that these towns lie on longer distance routes to/from Manchester it can be no surprise that airport rail services have developed in the way that they have and that they will continue to do so. The Ordsall Chord is a significant facilitator of this as well as making it easier to send services to the airport to terminate rather than occupying valuable platform space in Manchester itself, especially at Victoria.

The current problems are not due to use of the chord but due to poor planning of staff training by the TOCs, especially Northern, and over ambitious turn round times on certain services, mostly TPE. Some of the latter is driven by the general shortage of rolling stock which is exacerbated by the poor progress being made generally on electrification and Network Rail's failure to deliver its projects on time just makes things a whole lot worse. There are far too many people, both here and in the wider world, jumping to quick conclusions regarding the current situation and looking for scapegoats. If you want a scapegoat it's the much longer-term issue of the under-funding of railways in this country and the unwillingness of decision makers to take a long-term view.

 

[B&I]

Regular readers will be well aware of your views on rail connections to Manchester Airport but they are irrelevant. Permission for Manchester's second runway included ensuring the airport having a policy to promote the use of public transport as much as possible. Given that the airport's catchment area includes most of northern England it is inevitable that such a policy will lead to through services to a wide variety of destinations. Remember also that the districts of Greater Manchester remain shareholders in the airport and as such will support such a policy ensuring that where possible Manchester's satellite towns have trains to the airport. Given that these towns lie on longer distance routes to/from Manchester it can be no surprise that airport rail services have developed in the way that they have and that they will continue to do so. The Ordsall Chord is a significant facilitator of this as well as making it easier to send services to the airport to terminate rather than occupying valuable platform space in Manchester itself, especially at Victoria.

So, the entire railway system of the north of England has been (badly) rearranged, at colossal cost, to facilitate Manchester Airport's expansion ? Good to see where our priorities lie

 

[Sceptre]

Someone who’s got the PDFs to hand might be able to confirm, but I believe that the Platform 15 and 16 were listed as essentials if the chord was built, as opposed to the other plans such as an Ardwick flyover.

 

[mmh]

The Ordsall Chord is a white elephant whether P15/16 are built or not. It was an utter waste of money built essentially only with the objective of running yet more half-empty trains to Manchester Airport when terminating them in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly would make more sense.

There speaks someone with no empathy with the massive part of the country where Manchester is the "local" airport. It should have a far better rail service than it does.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There speaks someone with no empathy with the massive part of the country where Manchester is the "local" airport. It should have a far better rail service than it does.

Eh? It has without doubt the best train service (in terms of coverage, though the frequency isn't bad either) of any UK airport and has had since the day it opened. Vast swathes of the North West are connected to it directly, and almost all of it with only one change. What exactly do you want? Every train terminating at Picc to be extended there so each one can carry the proverbial one man and his large trolley suitcase[1]?

[1] Dogs aren't so easy on planes.

 

[Altfish]

Eh? It has without doubt the best train service (in terms of coverage, though the frequency isn't bad either) of any UK airport and has had since the day it opened. Vast swathes of the North West are connected to it directly, and almost all of it with only one change. What exactly do you want? Every train terminating at Picc to be extended there so each one can carry the proverbial one man and his large trolley suitcase[1]?

[1] Dogs aren't so easy on planes.

I regularly use the Airport station in preference to Piccadilly (It is easier to get to for me). I usually catch the TPE Newcastle/Leeds/York or Edinburgh/Glasgow trains from there.
I don't know which these one man and a dog trains are that you refer to. Most trains I catch are 20 to 25% full leaving the station. I can't comment on the Northern Rail services as I don't use them.
I will also comment that when boarding at the likes of Leeds there are many passengers with large suitcases who are immensely grateful for a direct service to MIA.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I regularly use the Airport station in preference to Piccadilly (It is easier to get to for me). I usually catch the TPE Newcastle/Leeds/York or Edinburgh/Glasgow trains from there.
I don't know which these one man and a dog trains are that you refer to. Most trains I catch are 20 to 25% full leaving the station. I can't comment on the Northern Rail services as I don't use them.

I was speaking figuratively. With the high loadings at most times of day on many Northern and (particularly) TPE services, there is no justification to waste units providing a duplicated service which is loaded 20 to 25%. With the new TPE 5-car units/stock, this will be even more pronounced, likely to drop to 10-15%. This is an utter waste of money and rolling stock.

I will also comment that when boarding at the likes of Leeds there are many passengers with large suitcases who are immensely grateful for a direct service to MIA.

I'm sure there are, but they'll pull their trolley cases further on arrival at the Airport than they would if they had to make a change from even platform 1 to platform 12 at Picc. Hence my view to drop those through services (not all of them, just the Ordsall Chord ones) and provide Class 319 operated services from the Picc main station as a replacement. This would free up at least one (possibly two) Class 185s far more useful for other purposes.

 

[Altfish]

I was speaking figuratively. With the high loadings at most times of day on many Northern and (particularly) TPE services, there is no justification to waste units providing a duplicated service which is loaded 20 to 25%. With the new TPE 5-car units/stock, this will be even more pronounced, likely to drop to 10-15%. This is an utter waste of money and rolling stock.

So where do you propose the Edinburgh/Glasgow units are parked at the Manchester end between services?

I'm sure there are, but they'll pull their trolley cases further on arrival at the Airport than they would if they had to make a change from even platform 1 to platform 12 at Picc. Hence my view to drop those through services (not all of them, just the Ordsall Chord ones) and provide Class 319 operated services from the Picc main station as a replacement. This would free up at least one (possibly two) Class 185s far more useful for other purposes.

It will also ensure that many people choose to drive to the Airport instead

 

[Bletchleyite]

So where do you propose the Edinburgh/Glasgow units are parked at the Manchester end between services?

Can I suggest re-reading my post and noting which services I said should be removed from the Airport?

For clarity I will explain it again - I am referring to the TPE trains which used to reverse in Piccadilly platforms 1/2 and I believe now use the Ordsall Chord. In my view those trains should terminate at Piccadilly instead (not via Victoria) and not continue to the Airport. This would free up either one or two (I'd have to check but I think two) Class 185s.

For trains that run through 13/14 and cannot do otherwise, it's a terminus of convenience that might as well remain, as there's not really anywhere else to send them other than maybe the Stockport bay which is probably too short.

It will also ensure that many people choose to drive to the Airport instead

It may ensure that a *few* people drive or take a taxi to the airport; others are happy with connections such as the huge number of people who travel to London and change to the Heathrow Express, Connect or the Piccadilly Line to reach Heathrow, or the Gatwick Express to reach Gatwick. So what? That is to me acceptable against the significant benefit of reduced overcrowding on other services. You cannot have a direct train from everywhere to everywhere.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Can I suggest re-reading my post and noting which services I said should be removed from the Airport?

Would I be right in thinking that the Southport to Manchester Airport trains have now been re-routed to terminate elsewhere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would I be right in thinking that the Southport to Manchester Airport trains have now been re-routed to terminate elsewhere?

Victoria, yes.

 

[driver_m]

I was speaking figuratively. With the high loadings at most times of day on many Northern and (particularly) TPE services, there is no justification to waste units providing a duplicated service which is loaded 20 to 25%. With the new TPE 5-car units/stock, this will be even more pronounced, likely to drop to 10-15%. This is an utter waste of money and rolling stock.



I'm sure there are, but they'll pull their trolley cases further on arrival at the Airport than they would if they had to make a change from even platform 1 to platform 12 at Picc. Hence my view to drop those through services (not all of them, just the Ordsall Chord ones) and provide Class 319 operated services from the Picc main station as a replacement. This would free up at least one (possibly two) Class 185s far more useful for other purposes.

Maybe it might seem a waste to you, but seeing as Manchester Airport is rapidly expanding with more flights to both short and long haul destinations, the excellent transport links are helping the Airport to justify its big plans. Instead of calling it a waste, we should be applauding a proper transport hub that is genuinely better than any of the London ones .After all, Gatwick lost its very useful link to the north years ago cutting back the southern service and the Heathrow connections to the rest of the country are a disgrace.

 

[Altfish]

Maybe it might seem a waste to you, but seeing as Manchester Airport is rapidly expanding with more flights to both short and long haul destinations, the excellent transport links are helping the Airport to justify its big plans. Instead of calling it a waste, we should be applauding a proper transport hub that is genuinely better than any of the London ones .After all, Gatwick lost its very useful link to the north years ago cutting back the southern service and the Heathrow connections to the rest of the country are a disgrace.

Indeed, add HS2 and The Western Link and we are properly sorted.

 

[Altfish]

Can I suggest re-reading my post and noting which services I said should be removed from the Airport?

For clarity I will explain it again - I am referring to the TPE trains which used to reverse in Piccadilly platforms 1/2 and I believe now use the Ordsall Chord. In my view those trains should terminate at Piccadilly instead (not via Victoria) and not continue to the Airport. This would free up either one or two (I'd have to check but I think two) Class 185s.

For trains that run through 13/14 and cannot do otherwise, it's a terminus of convenience that might as well remain, as there's not really anywhere else to send them other than maybe the Stockport bay which is probably too short..

For TPE, that's the Middlesborough service then; the Newcastle service is an additional one.
Cleethorpes still reverses. Hull terminates.
I'm not aware of any Northern trains reversing - I'm sure you'll correct me.
ATW - some go to MIA, some terminate in siding near Mayfield.

Stockport viaduct is already at capacity; Ardwick depot is another option but requires a movement across Piccadilly throat... just what the Ordsall Chord was built to eliminate.

It may ensure that a *few* people drive or take a taxi to the airport; others are happy with connections such as the huge number of people who travel to London and change to the Heathrow Express, Connect or the Piccadilly Line to reach Heathrow, or the Gatwick Express to reach Gatwick. So what? That is to me acceptable against the significant benefit of reduced overcrowding on other services. You cannot have a direct train from everywhere to everywhere.

Driving in London is a big no. In Manchester it is not too bad, so people are easily persuaded to ditch the train. You underestimate the reluctance of non-railway people to change trains. For many people it may be their only train journey of the year.

 

[Bantamzen]

Maybe it might seem a waste to you, but seeing as Manchester Airport is rapidly expanding with more flights to both short and long haul destinations, the excellent transport links are helping the Airport to justify its big plans. Instead of calling it a waste, we should be applauding a proper transport hub that is genuinely better than any of the London ones .After all, Gatwick lost its very useful link to the north years ago cutting back the southern service and the Heathrow connections to the rest of the country are a disgrace.

Exactly, watch the pressure grow on the government to re-consider a HS2 and/or western approach to Heathrow once the third runway plans starts to turn into reality. Manchester Airport's ambitions are clear, they want more long haul flights going from there and less European holiday resort flights, many of which they can pass onto one of the regional airports where there is still plenty of capacity. And for this they will want to be connected by not just a shuttle or tram to central Manchester, but by services from around their catchment areas, which is effectively the whole of the North of England, lots of Wales and even Scotland to a lesser degree.

People might still use the various connections from the London terminals to Heathrow & Gatwick, but that doesn't mean that they like it & wouldn't switch if a direct option where available or the roads just weren't so congested. I fear the member's objections to the airport are as much based on London not having the same than about helping to further grow a rapidly growing business.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Certainly, the focus should be on Long Distance services to the airport - where it's worth getting a taxi or lift to the station then on to the airport.

For the more local services, the expense of the train does not outweigh the convenience of a car or taxi.

I live 1.5 miles from my local station and, bar one service a day, need to change to get to the airport. Parking at my local station now costs £3/day, the rail fare is an eye-watering £17.70 for a Short Anytime Return. A taxi can be had for around £35 each way and on airport parking for £40 for the week. It's simply not attractive to travel by train to the airport for a local service. However - advances to Sheffield can be had for £10 each way, that makes a lot more sense!

 

[jonesy3001]

When is the announcement about platforms 15/16, i'm still not convinced that the project will go ahead, the Tories would rather look after there precious London then anywhere else when it come to transport.

 

[Altfish]

When is the announcement about platforms 15/16, i'm still not convinced that the project will go ahead, the Tories would rather look after there precious London then anywhere else when it come to transport.

Isn't it due to be cancelled the day the summer recess starts!

 

[jonesy3001]

I thought it was going to be announced at the end of the year but reading posts on ere its before the summer break.

 

[Greybeard33]

The Ordsall Chord is a white elephant whether P15/16 are built or not. It was an utter waste of money built essentially only with the objective of running yet more half-empty trains to Manchester Airport when terminating them in the low numbered platforms at Piccadilly would make more sense.

Prior to the May timetable change there were 10tph between Manchester Airport and Piccadilly (1*N Wales, 1*Glasgow/Edinburgh, 1*Middlesbrough (reversing at Piccadilly), 1*York (reversing), 1*Cleethorpes (reversing), 2*Piccadilly terminators, 1*Liverpool, 1*Southport, 1*Blackpool/Barrow).

In the current timetable (neglecting temporary variations) there are 9tph (1*N Wales, 1*Glasgow/Edinburgh, 1*Middlesbrough via Ordsall Chord, 1*Newcastle via Chord, 1*Cleethorpes (reversing), 2*Liverpool, 1*Blackpool, 1*Preston/Barrow).

So how is this "yet more half-empty trains"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I stand corrected on the number. However, I would remove the Middlesbrough, the Newcastle and the Cleethorpes (terminating those in P1/2 at Picc instead, which I think would actually free up *three* valuable Class 185s, more than I thought) and replace them with a half hourly Class 319/323 all stations service (removing the local stops from the others).

This would have the added benefit of removing 2tph from the overcrowded Castlefield line.

 

[dggar]

Certainly, the focus should be on Long Distance services to the airport - where it's worth getting a taxi or lift to the station then on to the airport.

For the more local services, the expense of the train does not outweigh the convenience of a car or taxi.

I live 1.5 miles from my local station and, bar one service a day, need to change to get to the airport. Parking at my local station now costs £3/day, the rail fare is an eye-watering £17.70 for a Short Anytime Return. A taxi can be had for around £35 each way and on airport parking for £40 for the week. It's simply not attractive to travel by train to the airport for a local service. However - advances to Sheffield can be had for £10 each way, that makes a lot more sense!

a £3 dropping off charge (£4 if longer than 5minutes) has recently been introduced at Manchester Airport.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Being suggested on the TPE electrification thread (see above) that the decision on P15/16 has been made and may be released before the parliamentary recess at the end of next week.

Based on past performance, this leads me to think there may be a repeat of the farce of announcing cancellation of MML and GW electrification last year for which the Boiled Egg has recently received a rollicking from the Transport Committee. Sure it won't stop him though.

Hope to be proved wrong, though I'm not holding my breath.

CW

My comment above specifically referred to TRU and not anything to do with 15/16 which is not part of TRU. That does not mean it won't be announced at same time but i have not heard anything to suggest it would.

 

[tbtc]

So, the entire railway system of the north of England has been (badly) rearranged, at colossal cost, to facilitate Manchester Airport'a expansion ? Good to see where our priorities lie

Yup.

Everyday commuters are less important than irregular Airport passengers - which is why we've spent huge sums on the Ordsall Chord to increase the number of stations that can have direct Airport services (the Rochdale line).

At the moment we run nine trains an hour from Piccadilly to the Airport. Maybe that's about the right number of trains, but it causes a few problems:

Firstly, the fact that we apparently have to maintain regular through services from Cleethorpes/ Middlesbrough/ Glasgow/ Barrow etc means that we have some awkward gaps in the service from the Airport to central Manchester.

From the Airport to Piccadilly at

• xx:10
• xx:19
• xx:29
• xx:37
• xx:40
• xx:47
• xx:50
• xx:53
• xx:58

(i.e. seven trains in thirty minutes from xx:29 to xx:58 then two in the subsequent thirty minutes from xx:59 to xx:28)

From Piccadilly to the Airport at

• xx:07
• xx:13
• xx:17
• xx:20
• xx:29
• xx:33
• xx:50
• xx:55
• xx:59

(i.e. six trains in thirty minutes then a seventeen minute gap until the xx:50!)

Are there any lines with a "turn up and go" number of services per hour where the gap between trains is that long at times? Since the main market from the Airport is going to be central Manchester, that leaves the passengers wanting Piccadilly (or Oxford Road) with some really awkward gaps, for the sake of maintaining all of those through services.

If the service pattern was three/four non-stop EMUs per hour and three/four stoppers per hour (all with appropriate levels of luggage space etc) then you'd have a much better spread of services. And a southbound "fast" could be a northbound "slow" (+ vice versa), rather than the current set up where a southbound ex-Cleethorpes service must run back north as a Cleethorpes service.

Then, there's the local stations on the line, which get a poor service (due to the need to squeeze so many non stop services per hour down the route).

Then, there's the waste of DMUs (due to the need to maintain regular through services from everywhere - whilst TPE could really do with a spare DMU at Scarborough to avoid the cancellations that that line has had, they have to use a DMU to extend the Cleethorpes - Piccadilly service to the Airport).

And the need to maintain the fixed path on the Airport branch means services on other lines in northern England can't be easily amended

But the main problem I have is with the passenger volumes. There's around thirty two passengers on every service arriving at/departing the Airport. Thirty two. Worth all of those carriages/ seats per hour?

Is it really worth wasting so many scarce resources on the Airport branch (inconveniencing short distance passengers due to the awkward gaps, inconveniencing other routes due to the interconnected service patterns, inconveniencing local stations with their poor service) for the sake of providing a direct train for the "once a year" holiday crowd wanting a direct train from Middlesbrough etc?

Apparently yes, yes it is. Those Airport passengers are much more important than every day passengers. Hope that helps explain where our priorities do actually lie (though I wish it weren't the case).

Liverpool, Birmingham, Southampton, Gatwick and Luton airports all have stations on main lines. Heathrow and Stansted cope on branches (without diverting long distance services up those branches). Nobody is suggesting direct services from every Valley Line station to Cardiff International Airport, or from every station south of Glasgow to Prestwick Airport. But for some reason, Manchester is special... It's a big Airport, sure, but at the moment the tail is wagging the dog. The rest of the railway in northern England is at the mercy of maintaining all of these direct service to Manchester Airport.