Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Bletchleyite]

I absolutely agree, @tbtc.

 

[transmanche]

the Tories would rather look after there precious London then anywhere else when it come to transport.

• London's mayor is Labour.
• The Mayor is de facto the Police & Crime Commissioner and head of TfL.
• The Greater London Authority is controlled by Labour.
• 2/3 of local authorities in London are controlled by Labour (21 out of 32, only 7 are controlled by the Tories).
• 2/3 of London MPs are Labour (49 out of 73).
• The top 3 most deprived (by income) local authority areas in England are in London.
• Of the 25 most deprived (by income) local authority areas in England, 7 are in London.
• Taking into account all 'indices of deprivation', 4 of the 10 most deprived local authority areas in England are in London.

This belief, by some ill-informed people, that London is some sort-of glorious Tory heartland is so far from the truth that it's laughable.

 

[B&I]

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.

Or you could ask, is it really necessary for quite so many people to be flying all the time, and should the entire railway network of the north of England be rearranged around facilitating Manchester.Airport's expansion ?

 

[B&I]

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!

Doesn't this post perfectly illustrate the idiocies which bedevil Manchester's public transport, when greater priority is given to getting the good burghers of Middlesbrough or Scarborough to the airport than is given to transporting local people to it, and yet long distance rail journeys through its city centre have been mucked around with beyond all recognition, at a cost of hundreds of millions, solely to get people for far away to the airport ? If I actually lived in Manchester, and was trying to get around it on a daily basis, I'd be livid about the way its public authorities choose to spend their money

 

[B&I]

• London's mayor is Labour.
• The Mayor is de facto the Police & Crime Commissioner and head of TfL.
• The Greater London Authority is controlled by Labour.
• 2/3 of local authorities in London are controlled by Labour (21 out of 32, only 7 are controlled by the Tories).
• 2/3 of London MPs are Labour (49 out of 73).
• The top 3 most deprived (by income) local authority areas in England are in London.
• Of the 25 most deprived (by income) local authority areas in England, 7 are in London.
• Taking into account all 'indices of deprivation', 4 of the 10 most deprived local authority areas in England are in London.

This belief, by some ill-informed people, that London is some sort-of glorious Tory heartland is so far from the truth that it's laughable.

Yes, what Jonesy should have written was 'their precious London commuting towns'

 

[jonesy3001]

Yes, what Jonesy should have written was 'their precious London commuting towns'

You said it for me, no need to edit it.

 

[Altfish]

Doesn't this post perfectly illustrate the idiocies which bedevil Manchester's public transport, when greater priority is given to getting the good burghers of Middlesbrough or Scarborough to the airport than is given to transporting local people to it, and yet long distance rail journeys through its city centre have been mucked around with beyond all recognition, at a cost of hundreds of millions, solely to get people for far away to the airport ? If I actually lived in Manchester, and was trying to get around it on a daily basis, I'd be livid about the way its public authorities choose to spend their money

There is nothing stopping local people getting on all these 'empty' trains. In fact many do.
Manchester Airport Group employs more than 3000 people, then there all the subcontractors, hotel staff, train staff, etc., etc., These numbers are growing by the week.
A dedicated tram route has been put in, with early starts for staff.
So there is no priority given to 'outsiders' - it is a busy place, an economic driver, it needs connections, as many as possible

 

[driver_m]

Saying Liverpool has an airport station is stretching it TBTC. It needs a dedicated one, not one a few miles away with an attached bus service . But they're in a chicken and egg situation. Expand to justify a line, or line first to help build traffic. Its a great airport and I much prefer using it to Manchester but the public transport connections are rubbish in comparison to Manchester. The best setup besides Manchester is probably Birmingham International though. Extremely well connected in its own right from all points barring East.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is nothing stopping local people getting on all these 'empty' trains. In fact many do.
Manchester Airport Group employs more than 3000 people, then there all the subcontractors, hotel staff, train staff, etc., etc., These numbers are growing by the week.
A dedicated tram route has been put in, with early starts for staff.
So there is no priority given to 'outsiders' - it is a busy place, an economic driver, it needs connections, as many as possible

I'd agree, but elsewhere there are Class 185 operated services full and standing. It simply cannot be justified in this context.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'd agree, but elsewhere there are Class 185 operated services full and standing. It simply cannot be justified in this context.

Which particular Class 185 operated services are you making reference to in your posting above and what are their starting and finishing stations?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which particular Class 185 operated services are you making reference to in your posting above and what are their starting and finishing stations?

A significant number of TPE services throughout their network are heavily overcrowded at all times of day. It'd be easier to say which are *not*.

 

[Altfish]

I'd agree, but elsewhere there are Class 185 operated services full and standing. It simply cannot be justified in this context.

The overcrowding is being addressed in a proper manner, not by cutting services but by increasing the number of carriages. By this time next year capacity will have risen appreciably.
I regularly travel on 185s and they are standing in a morning between Huddersfield and Leeds (Not done it in the other direction in morning rush) even if there is a 6-car unit, which there often is. The biggest problem on the return journey (usually mid afternoon for me) is suitcases. Not enough storage and people putting them in vestibules, aisles, etc....and guess where most of them are going?
The other crowded services are the morning rush Scotland to Manchester on the 350/4s from Preston. They are 4 carriages, to be upped to 5 IIRC. Could do with 8 carriages to be honest but they are too big for Oxford Road...mind they've solved that by not stopping there.

 

[Altfish]

A significant number of TPE services throughout their network are heavily overcrowded at all times of day. It'd be easier to say which are *not*.

I'd disagree. I regularly use them and boarding in Manchester/ Leeds/ York/Lockerbie or Newcastle have always got a seat. They are busy (can be very busy) but not overcrowded

 

[Killingworth]

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.

It's certainly not just the North-West. All of the north from Edinburgh and Glasgow, down through Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Cleethorpes and places in between are now connected to Manchester Airport, mostly without any change. It certainly is well connected and those routes are increasingly being used, the trains often crammed with large amounts of luggage.

That can be evidenced in other ways, like air travellers clogging up smaller station car parks for a week or more while away because it's a lot cheaper than airport parking.

 

[LM93]

It's certainly not just the North-West. All of the north from Edinburgh and Glasgow, down through Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Cleethorpes and places in between are now connected to Manchester Airport, mostly without any change. It certainly is well connected and those routes are increasingly being used, the trains often crammed with large amounts of luggage.

That can be evidenced in other ways, like air travellers clogging up smaller station car parks for a week or more while away because it's a lot cheaper than airport parking.

Is it bad that more people are using the trains, after all, the more people use them, the less subsidy they need, the greater chance of investment

 

[greyman42]

A significant number of TPE services throughout their network are heavily overcrowded at all times of day. It'd be easier to say which are *not*.

As regular user, that is correct.

 

[Ianno87]

It's certainly not just the North-West. All of the north from Edinburgh and Glasgow, down through Newcastle, Middlesbrough, Scarborough, Cleethorpes and places in between are now connected to Manchester Airport, mostly without any change. It certainly is well connected and those routes are increasingly being used, the trains often crammed with large amounts of luggage.

That can be evidenced in other ways, like air travellers clogging up smaller station car parks for a week or more while away because it's a lot cheaper than airport parking.

Major carriers choose to serve Manchester *because* it's so well-connected to virtually the entire north of England.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

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.

Oh dear, that's the same misconception that so many railfans have about long-distance trains, ie that an Aberdeen-Penzance train runs because there is significant demand for the end-to-end journey. The reality of transport systems is that they serve many diverse markets. Rail travel to/from Manchester Airport is *not* dominated by traffic to/from the city centre anymore than passengers flying in/out of the airport are all going to/from the city centre. In fact city centre demand is a minority of all airport traffic. Some of the inbound passengers will certainly be going to Manchester though increasing numbers are heading elsewhere in the north and rightly so: no need for all tourists visiting this country to be funnelled via London. But of the outbound passengers, who the airlines will tell you make up the majority of their passengers, only tiny numbers have their home in the city centre. Many are making journeys that only pass through Manchester due to geography and most will seek to avoid the city altogether if travelling by road. But if we want those people to avoid the roads then almost inevitably their alternative train journey will pass through Piccadilly: that is not at all the same as showing a demand for travel to/from the city centre. And I did mention that the airport necessarily has a policy, supported by the LAs, of encouraging the use of public transport.

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).

The Styal line has never had a particularly good local service dating back to since well before the airport line was opened. This is hardly surprising when so much of its catchment area is rather well served by the local bus network. Out as far as East Didsbury a bus to the city is very competitive with getting to the station and waiting for a train unless of course you live very close to the station itself. And for Didsbury residents there is also Metrolink. Yes the timetable could be better but to suggest that local demand is being suppressed by the level of service is somewhat wide of the mark. If the Picc-Vic scheme had gone ahead then things would likely be very different but we are where we are.

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?

The alternative is finding platform space at Piccadilly (or Victoria) to carry out turnround duties which include light cleaning and changing over refreshment trolley operators. The fact is that this is much more easily done at Manchester Airport where platform capacity is under much less pressure and there is much less pedestrian congestion than at the city terminals, a sad reality of our increasingly crowded rail network. The ideal solution would be quad-tracking but that is just pie-in-the-sky! However Platform 15/16 would certainly help to make operations more robust.

 

[HSTEd]

Why do trains to the airport have to run non-stop?

People take the direct train to avoid changing, does the journey taking a few minutes extra really make much difference?

You could make every train stop at all shacks between Picadilly and the Airport and not drastically reduce the usefulness of the services to the airport customer - but create a de-facto metro line in South Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why do trains to the airport have to run non-stop?

People take the direct train to avoid changing, does the journey taking a few minutes extra really make much difference?

You could make every train stop at all shacks between Picadilly and the Airport and not drastically reduce the usefulness of the services to the airport customer - but create a de-facto metro line in South Manchester.

Indeed. If somewhere else could be found to send the services which have a terminus of convenience of the Airport (e.g. the Scottish services) my preference would be for 4 or 6tph all stations EMU service running from a dedicated platform at Picc (12 maybe). But maybe stopping the existing services more would work too.

 

[Altfish]

Why do trains to the airport have to run non-stop?

People take the direct train to avoid changing, does the journey taking a few minutes extra really make much difference?

You could make every train stop at all shacks between Picadilly and the Airport and not drastically reduce the usefulness of the services to the airport customer - but create a de-facto metro line in South Manchester.

A few used to stop at Heald Green, not sure if they still do.
There are the Alderley Edge stoppers that use the Styal line.
There are also freight trains, approximately one in each direction per hour on the Styal line, too many stopping trains will mess with these.

 

[Killingworth]

Is it bad that more people are using the trains, after all, the more people use them, the less subsidy they need, the greater chance of investment

We seem to be drifting away from new platforms onto more general topics surrounding the purpose of railways and utilisation of 185s. However, I use the South Pennine route from Sheffield to Manchester and sometimes towards Cleethorpes.

The 3 coach trains are often standing room only between the two cities, even on a Sunday evening. Trains heading west have only stopped on Sunday evenings at Dore & Totley since May but 20 may spill out there, clambering over the heaps of luggage piled in the doorways. The 6 coach Manchester bound train ex Sheffield 7.09 may be standing from Dore where it normally takes 2-3 minutes to load against 1 minute allowed.

However the lack of the extra Piccadilly platforms for us means that when the East Midlands Liverpool-Norwich is delayed, as it often is, it may be better to opt for the following TPE service which will be catching up. It's a lottery which platform to head for. Finding a 2 car short formed EMT or a 3, possibly 6, car TPE adds to the excitement

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

Longer term, would the platforms in the Piccadilly main shed have the capacity to terminate these three additional TPE services, as well as the Hull service and the Leeds stopper? Plus the three new Northern services, to Buxton (which already started in May), to Greenbank and to Hazel Grove? And after allowing for the planned longer trains, on the Marple line as well as the TPE services, which will reduce the scope for multiple occupancy of the platforms?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Longer term, would the platforms in the Piccadilly main shed have the capacity to terminate these three additional TPE services, as well as the Hull service and the Leeds stopper? Plus the three new Northern services, to Buxton (which already started in May), to Greenbank and to Hazel Grove? And after allowing for the planned longer trains, on the Marple line as well as the TPE services, which will reduce the scope for multiple occupancy of the platforms?

Remember that HS2 will use platforms outside the present shed, so that'll be two more platforms available in the shed for other services (assuming one remains in use for the residual hourly classic line London service).

 

[Greybeard33]

Remember that HS2 will use platforms outside the present shed, so that'll be two more platforms available in the shed for other services (assuming one remains in use for the residual hourly classic line London service).

By longer term, I meant 2020, not 2032!

 

[Bletchleyite]

By longer term, I meant 2020, not 2032!

Ah, I'd call that short to medium term - it's 2018 now!

 

[Bantamzen]

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).

Maybe that's what you want to believe, but the chord was not built purely for the benefit of airport passengers, as well you know.

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.[/QUOTE]

It is a big airport, and no matter how you try to dress up it's train services being empty traffic through the station has grown 25% in just a few years. That points to far more growth, and the airport is a key part of the North's transport infrastructure which in itself is growing with far more long haul plans. The near hysterical obsession from some on here about removing through trains & replacing them with clock-face "Manchester Express/Connect" type services ignores the benefits that using the Ordsall Chord & through services from various parts of the region has.

For a start, and now seemingly long forgotten is the removal of the cross-throat services that often parked at Ardwick & Piccadilly waiting for a chance to dash across to and from the Guide Bridge line. Then there are faster services between Yorkshire & The North East & Liverpool through Victoria, plus with services now using three Manchester stations people have the option of getting off closer to the retail area (Victoria), cultural sector (Oxford Road) & the major hub at Piccadilly. Plus passengers falling off flights at Manchester Airport & not have to board trains for onward connections in scrum-like conditions with luggage (because few will complete their journeys from airport services in reality).

That there are problems right now is not solely because of the airport services, or even frankly primarily because of them. It ought to be obvious to anyone reading these various forums that the franchise commitments the DfT have asked of TPE, i.e. the combination of fasts, semi-fasts & stoppers through the North TP core are a key issue in what happens elsewhere on the network. Add into the mix the delays with wiring in the North West and you have the makings of the perfect storm. But hey, let's ignore all that and blame airport traffic, because, well, you know.....??!!??

The reality is that a severe lack of long term investment over the decades, combined with what is so far a convoluted & scaled back investment programme now is the real cause. There is no reason, none whatsoever why the airport can't be served by services from various parts of the region. Long term it makes economic sense to do so, creating a local hub that can receive passengers from around Europe and beyond & get them well on their way without too much fuss. However the plans for better servicing the airport did not simply include the Chord, the P15/16 project was a key part of the improvements, as was wiring towards Preston and York. But as usual for this region, the moment something doesn't go to plan politicians panic and cancel with impunity. If you are after a scapegoat, look no further than the Right Honourable Secretary of State for Transport and ask him why key improvement projects still sit awaiting his approval years after they landed on his desk.

 

[B&I]

There is nothing stopping local people getting on all these 'empty' trains. In fact many do.
Manchester Airport Group employs more than 3000 people, then there all the subcontractors, hotel staff, train staff, etc., etc., These numbers are growing by the week.
A dedicated tram route has been put in, with early starts for staff.
So there is no priority given to 'outsiders' - it is a busy place, an economic driver, it needs connections, as many as possible

There is a powerful disincentive if getting there imvolves a long, expensive and convoluted journey into central Manchester first. Why, for example, is there no Airport-Stockport service ?

 

[B&I]

Saying Liverpool has an airport station is stretching it TBTC. It needs a dedicated one, not one a few miles away with an attached bus service . But they're in a chicken and egg situation. Expand to justify a line, or line first to help build traffic. Its a great airport and I much prefer using it to Manchester but the public transport connections are rubbish in comparison to Manchester. The best setup besides Manchester is probably Birmingham International though. Extremely well connected in its own right from all points barring East.

A US-style people mover from South Parkway would do the job, with the big advantage that you xould continue to serve the airport via normal calls at thay station, rather than sodding up the whole regional network for the airport's benefit

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is a powerful disincentive if getting there imvolves a long, expensive and convoluted journey into central Manchester first. Why, for example, is there no Airport-Stockport service ?

Because there is no convenient route to offer such a thing by rail?

There is however this:
http://www.highpeakbuses.com/skyline 199