How could rail services be improved in the Manchester area?

[Roast Veg]

Regarding the final point, it is noted that Newcastle and Leeds/Bradford already have their own airports, so should not be too controversial if there were no direct airport trains to Manchester.

Accessing Leeds Bradford airport is harder than Manchester airport for most of West Yorkshire.

 

[Greybeard33]

It feels like very little difference because there is very little difference between them, at least if the calling patterns listed on Wikipedia are correct. The Newcastle, Middlesbrough (Redcar) and Hull services (and even the Scarboroughs) all have exactly two intermediate stops between Manchester and Leeds. Only the Edinburgh service is listed as having just the one stop (at Huddersfield).

In the original MRTF consultation, Options B and C both had the Hull - Piccadilly service calling at all stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge. Together with the Huddersfield - Piccadilly stopper, this would give the local stations a 2tph service.

The four fasts (Newcastle - Liverpool, Saltburn - Airport, Scarborough - Liverpool and York - Victoria) would all run non-stop between Huddersfield and Victoria to give a clockface timetable.

The stopping pattern for Option B+ has not been spelled out, but it is a reasonable assumption that it would be the same as Option B in this regard.

 

[andyj158]

Northern drivers no longer sign via Diggle

It looks like some still do. There appears to be a daily weekday return empty stock Manchester Piccadilly - Huddersfield - Newton Heath T.M.D working:

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L10751/2021-07-21/detailed#allox_id=0

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L10751/2021-07-22/detailed#allox_id=0

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:L10751/2021-07-23/detailed#allox_id=0

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Regarding the final point, it is noted that Newcastle and Leeds/Bradford already have their own airports, so should not be too controversial if there were no direct airport trains to Manchester.

Travelling all the way to Manchester when there are already airports in Yorkshire and the North East would be like me going to Sydney to do a weekly shop when I already have retail outlets a ten minute walk from me or a short bus ride into town.

Does Manchester Airport with its two runways offer a far bigger range of both middle distance and long distance flight destinations than the two airports of Newcastle and Leeds/Bradford that you mention above?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2021 ==

The passage I quoted in my previous post indicates that the TfW service cannot be rerouted before 2023 because of TfW driver training issues, irrespective of the level crossings.

It appears that the Task Force regards implementation of Option B+ in December 2022 as a stepping stone, not necessarily the final solution for the timetable. It will not disadvantage the Mid Cheshire stations compared with continuation of the status quo.

Knutsford and Northwich might be better served by a second Northern local service, rather than a long distance service that might import delays and suffer from overcrowding.

Perhaaps this may have been mentioned previously, for which I apologise if that be the case, but would a considerable amount of the Mid-Cheshire trackwork be in need of total upgrading if services of a higher status were to use that particular line?

 

[daodao]

You're constraining the Hull services to 3 cars, which provides an overcrowding risk and the wrath of Hull stakeholders. Plus reducing connectivity from Yorkshire into Piccadilly. Just no.


And the problem with this post is

1) Lack of capacity at Piccadilly
2) Platforms 1/2 at MCV don't have the length required for TPE services that aren't 3 car 185's
3) Northern units don't have the performance to compete with 185s and provide more capacity risk on the Via Diggle route and Northern drivers don't sign that route anymore.
4) Failure to connect direct to the Airport from Yorkshire/North East, which would be panned by all stakeholders

None of the above are insurmountable, by re-arranging Manchester stations at which particular services call and reorganising the Northern/TPE franchise split and the trains available. However, while I could explain in detail about how these issues could be overcome, that would be speculative and outside the scope of this thread, which is about the proposals that are actually on the table. FYI, I have not suggested removal of all trains from West Yorkshire into Piccadilly, which in any case are retained in option B+.

My concern about option B+ is that it won't solve the reliability issues with the Castlefield line, because it persists with:

• retaining long-distance non-Northern services on the Castlefield line
• Hourly services on certain routes and splitting of Manchester termini for certain destinations, e.g. Southport.

The way to solve the Castlefield line problems is to keep services on it simple, regular interval and local, apart from the Sheffield-Liverpool service that has no alternative practical route. IMO, continuing to run trains from places like Edinburgh to Manchester Airport via the Castlefield line is a recipe for persistence of these problems. So-called "stakeholders" from outside North-West England should have minimal say on the solution to the Castlefield line problems and train services to a north-west regional airport.

 

[Rhydgaled]

In the original MRTF consultation, Options B and C both had the Hull - Piccadilly service calling at all stations between Huddersfield and Stalybridge. Together with the Huddersfield - Piccadilly stopper, this would give the local stations a 2tph service.

The four fasts (Newcastle - Liverpool, Saltburn - Airport, Scarborough - Liverpool and York - Victoria) would all run non-stop between Huddersfield and Victoria to give a clockface timetable.

In which case I don't think much of those proposals. It would be a substantial downgrade of the Hull service while York retains four fast trains each hour to Manchester. A better way to give the local stations a 2tph service in my opinion (assuming the Liverpool-Edinburgh is going to be cut back to York-Victoria anyway as you suggest) would be to add the stops to the York-Victoria service (and re-route it to terminate at Piccadilly instead of Victoria so that the service isn't limited to 3-car 185s until electrification) and keep the Hull as a semi-fast. York would still have 3 fast trains per hour to Manchester, whereas in the MRTF plans as you outlined Hull would lose its only reasonablly fast service to Manchester.

 

[Watershed]

In which case I don't think much of those proposals. It would be a substantial downgrade of the Hull service while York retains four fast trains each hour to Manchester. A better way to give the local stations a 2tph service in my opinion (assuming the Liverpool-Edinburgh is going to be cut back to York-Victoria anyway as you suggest) would be to add the stops to the York-Victoria service (and re-route it to terminate at Piccadilly instead of Victoria so that the service isn't limited to 3-car 185s until electrification) and keep the Hull as a semi-fast. York would still have 3 fast trains per hour to Manchester, whereas in the MRTF plans as you outlined Hull would lose its only reasonablly fast service to Manchester.

The addition of 4 stops in the Hull services makes very little difference to journey time - you're talking about, at most, 10 minutes in a journey that is ~2 hours either way.

Yes, it "feels" like less of an express service, but ultimately it's the least worst option when you consider the alternatives.

It might sound logical to have the York-Manchester Vic service carry those extra stops, but to do so would mess up the clockface 4tph service between Manchester and Leeds and would require a significant rewrite of the timetable on both sides of the Pennines.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The addition of 4 stops in the Hull services makes very little difference to journey time - you're talking about, at most, 10 minutes in a journey that is ~2 hours either way.

Yes, it "feels" like less of an express service, but ultimately it's the least worst option when you consider the alternatives.

It's not four additional stops unless you are only giving the local stations west of Huddersfield a 2tph service. If the Hull service were to call at all stations served by the Huddersfield to Leeds stopper as well as the Manchester to Huddersfield wouldn't that be 12 more stops than a 'fast' (Huddersfield only) and 10 more than a 'semi-fast' (Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Dewsbury)?

Even if the MRTF are only proposing that the Hull service call at the local stations west of Huddersfield, that is likely to mean the Hull service is stuck with class 185s (with double-width doors at thirds, toilets in the saloons etc.) and would miss out on being upgraded to 802s following TransPennine electrification (my asumption is that additional 397s would be ordered for the Edinburgh/Newcastle/York services freeing up 802s for Redcar, Hull and some of the Scarboroughs (the latter releasing some mark 5 sets and 68s for the Cleethorpes route). It may only be 10 minutes slower, but if it means the rolling stock has to be basically a suburban bodyshell instead of an intercity train that is still quite a downgrade (leaving aside the awful Sophia seats on the 802s (which I'm assuming are the same as on GWR's 800s) which GBR will hopefully get round to phasing out at some point).

It might sound logical to have the York-Manchester Vic service carry those extra stops, but to do so would mess up the clockface 4tph service between Manchester and Leeds and would require a significant rewrite of the timetable on both sides of the Pennines.

Why couldn't the Hull service be part of the clockface 4tph between Manchester and Leeds? I don't see why the times of the fasts from Liverpool/Manchester to Leeds would need to change, wouldn't you just need to swap the destinations east of Leeds around?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Does Manchester Airport with its two runways offer a far bigger range of both middle distance and long distance flight destinations than the two airports of Newcastle and Leeds/Bradford that you mention above?

As no-one who really knows about this has responded, let's try.

Quick answer: yes

Slightly longer answer: Per wikipedia, Manchester (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Airport): 'Manchester Airport (...) is an international airport at Ringway, Manchester, England (...) In 2019, it was the third busiest airport in the United Kingdom in terms of passenger numbers and the busiest of those not serving London. (...) (It) has flights to 199 destinations, placing the airport thirteenth globally for total destinations served.'

Leeds Bradford (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds_Bradford_Airport) - 'By the number of passengers handled in 2018, Leeds Bradford was the 15th busiest airport in the UK': destinations served (my manual count from wikipedia) = 84

Newcastle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcastle_International_Airport): 'Newcastle International is the 11th busiest airport in the United Kingdom and the second busiest in Northern England after Manchester Airport, handling just under 5.2 million passengers annually.' Destinations served (again, my manual count) = 108

 

[Watershed]

It's not four additional stops unless you are only giving the local stations west of Huddersfield a 2tph service. If the Hull service were to call at all stations served by the Huddersfield to Leeds stopper as well as the Manchester to Huddersfield wouldn't that be 12 more stops than a 'fast' (Huddersfield only) and 10 more than a 'semi-fast' (Stalybridge, Huddersfield and Dewsbury)?

TPE have never served the local stations east of Huddersfield with more than 1tph. That's not going to change with MRTF.

Those stations still mostly receive a service of at least 2tph, what with the Huddersfield-Bradford, Huddersfield-Castleford and Wigan-Leeds stoppers each calling at a few of the stations. Just not by way of two Huddersfield-Leeds stoppers.

Even if the MRTF are only proposing that the Hull service call at the local stations west of Huddersfield, that is likely to mean the Hull service is stuck with class 185s (with double-width doors at thirds, toilets in the saloons etc.) and would miss out on being upgraded to 802s following TransPennine electrification (my asumption is that additional 397s would be ordered for the Edinburgh/Newcastle/York services freeing up 802s for Redcar, Hull and some of the Scarboroughs (the latter releasing some mark 5 sets and 68s for the Cleethorpes route). It may only be 10 minutes slower, but if it means the rolling stock has to be basically a suburban bodyshell instead of an intercity train that is still quite a downgrade (leaving aside the awful Sophia seats on the 802s (which I'm assuming are the same as on GWR's 800s) which GBR will hopefully get round to phasing out at some point).

We are getting wildly off topic and into speculative territory here. The 185s are very good units in a lot of ways, and have a medium to long term future on the Hull service. Full Manchester-York electrification is not going to be completed for another 10 years, at the earliest, and I can foresee Hull taking even longer. MRTF is a timetable designed to deal with today's infrastructure and so the kind of trains that might operate the Redcar services in 10 years' time is not a consideration.

Why couldn't the Hull service be part of the clockface 4tph between Manchester and Leeds? I don't see why the times of the fasts from Liverpool/Manchester to Leeds would need to change, wouldn't you just need to swap the destinations east of Leeds around?

MRTF is designed to mostly leave paths intact outside of the Manchester area. You would need a significant recast to swap around destinations east of Leeds if what you're suggesting is a fast Victoria-Hull taking the place of the Victoria-York service, combined with a new semi-fast Piccadilly-York taking the place of the old Hull. That's a lot of upheaval for very little benefit.

 

[Rhydgaled]

TPE have never served the local stations east of Huddersfield with more than 1tph. That's not going to change with MRTF.

I wasn't aware that TPE had served the local stations west of Huddersfield with more than 1tph either, but thanks for the clarification that the extra stops proposed on the Hull service would only be west of Huddersfield.

Full Manchester-York electrification is not going to be completed for another 10 years, at the earliest, and I can foresee Hull taking even longer.

I agree that Hull would be done later, which is why I suggested it should get the 802s which could switch to diesel at the east end of the route. I won't speculate on when Manchester-York electrification might be completed, but in my view it is needed urgently.

MRTF is designed to mostly leave paths intact outside of the Manchester area. You would need a significant recast to swap around destinations east of Leeds if what you're suggesting is a fast Victoria-Hull taking the place of the Victoria-York service, combined with a new semi-fast Piccadilly-York taking the place of the old Hull. That's a lot of upheaval for very little benefit.

If I understand correctly, the intention is that there would be a fully clockface fast or semi-fast service between Victoria and Leeds at 15min intervals, plus two slow services from Piccadilly to Huddersfield calling at Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaiteright with one continuing forward semi-fast to Hull, right? That adds up to five TPE services to Leeds, with all five sharing the same two-track railway between Leeds and Micklefield, right? It might not be the fast that originates at Victoria (it might be that the Liverpool-Edinburgh works best) but, if you have a regular interval pattern on the fasts, between Leeds and Micklefield the Hull service will be less than 15 minutes ahead/behind one of the services to York and would presumably not be running into Hull at the same times it currently does anyway due to the extra stops. So some services would need an extended dwell time at Leeds and/or Garforth stops would need to be shifted between services, or you might need a limited recast east of Leeds. But I still cannot see the need for a major recast 'on both sides of the Pennines' as you suggested would be necessary. The worst that could happen is that the effected service would lose it's path on the ECML - that might need a major recast on the east of the Pennines to resolve but one seems to be on the way anyway (the diagrams for options A, B and C all show that TPE would still be running to Edinburgh, Newcastle, Redcar and Scarborough, but you seem to be implying the Edinburgh would be cut back to York).

 

[Watershed]

I wasn't aware that TPE had served the local stations west of Huddersfield with more than 1tph either, but thanks for the clarification that the extra stops proposed on the Hull service would only be west of Huddersfield.


I agree that Hull would be done later, which is why I suggested it should get the 802s which could switch to diesel at the east end of the route. I won't speculate on when Manchester-York electrification might be completed, but in my view it is needed urgently.

If I understand correctly, the intention is that there would be a fully clockface fast or semi-fast service between Victoria and Leeds at 15min intervals, plus two slow services from Piccadilly to Huddersfield calling at Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden and Slaithwaiteright with one continuing forward semi-fast to Hull, right? That adds up to five TPE services to Leeds, with all five sharing the same two-track railway between Leeds and Micklefield, right? It might not be the fast that originates at Victoria (it might be that the Liverpool-Edinburgh works best) but, if you have a regular interval pattern on the fasts, between Leeds and Micklefield the Hull service will be less than 15 minutes ahead/behind one of the services to York and would presumably not be running into Hull at the same times it currently does anyway due to the extra stops. So some services would need an extended dwell time at Leeds and/or Garforth stops would need to be shifted between services, or you might need a limited recast east of Leeds. But I still cannot see the need for a major recast 'on both sides of the Pennines' as you suggested would be necessary. The worst that could happen is that the effected service would lose it's path on the ECML - that might need a major recast on the east of the Pennines to resolve but one seems to be on the way anyway (the diagrams for options A, B and C all show that TPE would still be running to Edinburgh, Newcastle, Redcar and Scarborough, but you seem to be implying the Edinburgh would be cut back to York).

I think there might be some confusion.

Just about the only changes that MRTF will cause to the TPE North timetable, as compared to December 19, will be the curtailment of the Newcastle-Manchester Airport service at Manchester Victoria. This is to reduce the number of paths through the Castlefield corridor.

At the same time, the Hull service will start to call at the 4 local stations west of Huddersfield throughout the day, 7 days a week - which it currently only skips on 6 off-peak services between 09:30 and 15:30, Mondays to Saturdays. At all other times and on Sundays it already calls at all these stations.

There is also an ECML recast which now looks set to happen at the same time as the new MRTF timetable. This will result in the curtailment of the Liverpool-Edinburgh service at Newcastle, and the curtailment of the Manchester Victoria-Newcastle service at York.

 

[Manutd1999]

Could it be an option to replace the Manchester-Leeds-Scarborough service with Manchester-Leeds-Hull?

That way, Hull would get a 'fast' service, and the 2ph stoppers could both terminate at Huddersfield (hopefully increasing reliability). There would be one less train crammed in through Dewsbury which can only help, and Manchester-Leeds would keep the 4ph clockface.

Obviously Scarborough is a big loser in this scenario, but it should be easy enough to replace the Leeds-Scarborough connection (e.g. extend Northern's Blackpool-York). A few Manc-Scarborough passengers would be disadvantaged, but my gut feeling is that Hull is a much bigger market, especially outside of the summer holiday season.

 

[adrock1976]

Being as the last few posts have been suggesting service patterns for the TPE route via Huddersfield, I have started a new thread in the Speculative Ideas section.

See https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...r-leeds-via-huddersfield.220378/#post-5239170

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would there be any likelihood of certain known elements connected with the Treasury having any input into the result of the consultation, despite whatsoever seemed to be the preferred option being reached?

 

[Greybeard33]

Perhaaps this may have been mentioned previously, for which I apologise if that be the case, but would a considerable amount of the Mid-Cheshire trackwork be in need of total upgrading if services of a higher status were to use that particular line?

I do not understand why TfW rolling stock should need a higher grade of trackwork than that provided for the current mix of Northern and freight services. One early morning TfW service from Chester to the Airport already uses the Mid Cheshire line.

 

[sjm77]

I do not understand why TfW rolling stock should need a higher grade of trackwork than that provided for the current mix of Northern and freight services. One early morning TfW service from Chester to the Airport already uses the Mid Cheshire line.

All level crossings are risk assessed and the risk of an incident is proportional to the number of trains per day using said crossing. If you increase the number of trains per day by 50% then the risk of an incident increases by 50%. At some point an overall risk threshold is passed and an intervention is required. It could be;
-A foot crossing has to be upgraded and fitted with red/green lights for pedestrians
-A farm crossing is equipped with "please use phone and ask signaller for permission to cross'
-A half barrier road crossing needs to be upgraded to full barrier
etc etc

 

[Greybeard33]

All level crossings are risk assessed and the risk of an incident is proportional to the number of trains per day using said crossing. If you increase the number of trains per day by 50% then the risk of an incident increases by 50%. At some point an overall risk threshold is passed and an intervention is required. It could be;
-A foot crossing has to be upgraded and fitted with red/green lights for pedestrians
-A farm crossing is equipped with "please use phone and ask signaller for permission to cross'
-A half barrier road crossing needs to be upgraded to full barrier
etc etc

I know that, but my post was not about the level crossings. It was a response to a post that suggested that "a considerable amount of the Mid-Cheshire trackwork" might need "total upgrading".

 

[Ianno87]

I know that, but my post was not about the level crossings. It was a response to a post that suggested that "a considerable amount of the Mid-Cheshire trackwork" might need "total upgrading".

It would have an increase in tonnage, and trains non-stopping stations that most trains usually stop at today, so the maintenance regime may need to change slightly, or some planned renewals accelerated in readiness where practical.

 

[LittleAH]

None of the above are insurmountable, by re-arranging Manchester stations at which particular services call and reorganising the Northern/TPE franchise split and the trains available. However, while I could explain in detail about how these issues could be overcome, that would be speculative and outside the scope of this thread, which is about the proposals that are actually on the table. FYI, I have not suggested removal of all trains from West Yorkshire into Piccadilly, which in any case are retained in option B+.

My concern about option B+ is that it won't solve the reliability issues with the Castlefield line, because it persists with:

• retaining long-distance non-Northern services on the Castlefield line
• Hourly services on certain routes and splitting of Manchester termini for certain destinations, e.g. Southport.

The way to solve the Castlefield line problems is to keep services on it simple, regular interval and local, apart from the Sheffield-Liverpool service that has no alternative practical route. IMO, continuing to run trains from places like Edinburgh to Manchester Airport via the Castlefield line is a recipe for persistence of these problems. So-called "stakeholders" from outside North-West England should have minimal say on the solution to the Castlefield line problems and train services to a north-west regional airport.

Manchester Airport is not a North-West regional airport. it's an international airport that serves the North of England. Therefore, connectivity to Yorkshire, Lake District and beyond is mightily key to the longevity of not only the railway but tourism in the North of England.

Your speculative ideas are not remotely realistic. And reorganising operators solves nothing and creates significantly more problems.

 

[Ianno87]

Manchester Airport is not a North-West regional airport. it's an international airport that serves the North of England. Therefore, connectivity to Yorkshire, Lake District and beyond is mightily key to the longevity of not only the railway but tourism in the North of England.

Your speculative ideas are not remotely realistic. And reorganising operators solves nothing and creates significantly more problems.

Yep - Manchester is the North of England's Hub Airport with connections to North America and the Middle and Far East.. Not some grass runway with a couple of WW2 hangars, Tally Ho and Chocks Away as some people would have you believe.

 

[daodao]

Manchester Airport is not a North-West regional airport. it's an international airport that serves the North of England. Therefore, connectivity to Yorkshire, Lake District and beyond is mightily key to the longevity of not only the railway but tourism in the North of England.

Your speculative ideas are not remotely realistic.

The Lake District is in North-West England. Most of the tourist traffic through Manchester Airport is in any case outbound, not incoming.

I have not elaborated on my ideas in this non-speculative thread, so the last sentence is "out of order". However, retaining services that circle Manchester city centre, running from Stalybridge to Piccadilly via Victoria, is a profligate use of track capacity.

Yep - Manchester is the North of England's Hub Airport with connections to North America and the Middle and Far East.. Not some grass runway with a couple of WW2 hangars, Tally Ho and Chocks Away as some people would have you believe.

London Heathrow is the hub airport for the whole of England and Wales, the hub of the UK's flag carrier, and provides the vast majority of the inter-continental services to/from the UK. It doesn't have or seem to need long-distance trains running to it.

This thread is about proposals to resolve the Castlefield line issues. In the absence of significant infrastructure spending, the only way to do this is to cut one's coat according to one's cloth. IMO, this requires removing a significant number of long-distance train services from the Castlefield line to improve reliability, but the proposals on the table only do so to a limited extent. Manchester Airport is the tail that is wagging the dog.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester Airport is not a North-West regional airport. it's an international airport that serves the North of England. Therefore, connectivity to Yorkshire, Lake District and beyond is mightily key to the longevity of not only the railway but tourism in the North of England.

Your speculative ideas are not remotely realistic. And reorganising operators solves nothing and creates significantly more problems.

Gross hyperbole. People manage to change to a dedicated airport express the world over, including London.

 

[LittleAH]

London Heathrow is the whole of England's hub airport, the hub of the country's flag carrier, and provides the fast majority of the inter-continental services to/from the UK. It doesn't have or seem to need long-distance trains running to it.

This thread is about proposals to resolved the Castlefield line issues. In the absence of significant infrastructure spending, the only way to do this is to cut one's coat according to one's cloth. IMO, this requires removing a significant number of long-distance train service from the Castlefield line to improve reliability, but the proposals on the table only do so to a limited extent. Manchester Airport is the tail that is wagging the dog.

Given the fact I've been to America, Sydney and Dubai from Manchester, your view is simply wrong. The connectivity to the Airport from tourism hotspots such as the Lakes, North Yorkshire etc is far more important than Southport having a service to the Airport.

Gross hyperbole. People manage to change to a dedicated airport express the world over, including London.

Direct services are always more attractive, especially when they're travelling 100 miles and not simply into a city. That is a fact. But we know your views on how important Southport is...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Given the fact I've been to America, Sydney and Dubai from Manchester, your view is simply wrong. The connectivity to the Airport from tourism hotspots such as the Lakes, North Yorkshire etc is far more important than Southport having a service to the Airport.

Direct services are always more attractive, especially when they're travelling 100 miles and not simply into a city. That is a fact. But we know your views on how important Southport is...

I don't care about Southport having a service to Ringway - it's Castlefield that the locals want, Oxford Road will be fine. People wanting to go from there to the airport tend to drive, get relatives to drop them off, take a taxi - or fly from Liverpool in the first place!

 

[Killingworth]

Manchester Airport is not a North-West regional airport. it's an international airport that serves the North of England. Therefore, connectivity to Yorkshire, Lake District and beyond is mightily key to the longevity of not only the railway but tourism in the North of England.

First sentences are not either or, it's both.

However the concept of an airport railway station with direct connections to all corners of the north of Britain, built with platforms inadequate to handle all those long trains, carried there on congested tracks, was seriously flawed from the start.

Despite the fact that my local station had a through service to the airport I only use my car when taking flights! I've never taken my car when travelling to Manchester city centre. The tail does wag the dog too much.

A fast shuttle service from Manchester city centre offering good connections with all the long distance services is what's really needed. Too late now. That's where all the if onlys and buts come in. We're stuck with what we've got for decades. Unhelpfully sited and inadequate terminal platform capacity on heavily congested tracks all round Manchester!

Which brings us back to the here and now consultation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't care about Southport having a service to Ringway.....

How about Southport having a service to Manchester Airport railway station instead?

I cannot trace a Ringway railway station (nor one at Ringmer in East Sussex) despite poring over some most learned railway books in my railway archives. I did trace three closed stations whose station name began with "Ring..." as follows:-
Ringley Road (opened by the East Lancashire Railway) closed in 1953
Ringstead and Addington(opened by the Northampton and Peterborough Railway) closed in 1964
Ringwood (opened by the Ringwood, Christchurch and Bournemouth Railway) closed in 1964.

 

[LittleAH]

First sentences are not either or, it's both.

However the concept of an airport railway station with direct connections to all corners of the north of Britain, built with platforms inadequate to handle all those long trains, carried there on congested tracks, was seriously flawed from the start.

Despite the fact that my local station had a through service to the airport I only use my car when taking flights! I've never taken my car when travelling to Manchester city centre. The tail does wag the dog too much.

A fast shuttle service from Manchester city centre offering good connections with all the long distance services is what's really needed. Too late now. That's where all the if onlys and buts come in. We're stuck with what we've got for decades. Unhelpfully sited and inadequate terminal platform capacity on heavily congested tracks all round Manchester!

Which brings us back to the here and now consultation.

And my local station has a direct link to Manchester Airport and I've only ever used the train to get to/from there. And I much prefer flying from there than Leeds Bradford partially because of it. A fast shuttle to the City Centre doesn't encourage usage, although your point around the infrastructure is bob on.

The problem with this thread, is that it has turned into speculative nonsense - most of which is unworkable due to capacity/planning constraints.

 

[Killingworth]

And my local station has a direct link to Manchester Airport and I've only ever used the train to get to/from there. And I much prefer flying from there than Leeds Bradford partially because of it. A fast shuttle to the City Centre doesn't encourage usage, although your point around the infrastructure is bob on.

The problem with this thread, is that it has turned into speculative nonsense - most of which is unworkable due to capacity/planning constraints.

Which hits another nail on the head.

It depends how conveniently we live to a station with a direct service and the service frequency, as is the case for all public transport.

Manchester is my nearest major airport although I've used East Midlands and Newcastle. From my end of Sheffield EMA is easier to reach and would be my preference if flights, prices and timings fit. They often don't. Leeds/Bradford has never come close. The availability and convenience of my car wins any journey to these airports. For me a fast shuttle (or even regular hop on fast service) from Piccadilly might work if it was every 10 minutes and reliable. I'd still need to get to my local station with bags and chance an hourly train that's often late or cancelled. The same as it will be after the consultation findings are implemented. I'd rather not risk it.

The number of airport users travelling through Manchester has always seemed much lower than the number effectively using a shuttle whenever I've been on13/14 - with one exception. The South Pennine 5.09 from Sheffield dropped very few at Piccadilly on the one day I used it. Most remained aboard.

Indeed, this thread is now going round in ever decreasing circles, only to spin off once more into side tracks that have been explored before. No wonder the "let's just get on with it" faction so often triumphs, yet the "let's leave it as it is" lobby does no better. Whoever makes a final decision can't win.

 

[Glenn1969]

Which hits another nail on the head.

It depends how conveniently we live to a station with a direct service and the service frequency, as is the case for all public transport.

Manchester is my nearest major airport although I've used East Midlands and Newcastle. From my end of Sheffield EMA is easier to reach and would be my preference if flights, prices and timings fit. They often don't. Leeds/Bradford has never come close. The availability and convenience of my car wins any journey to these airports. For me a fast shuttle (or even regular hop on fast service) from Piccadilly might work if it was every 10 minutes and reliable. I'd still need to get to my local station with bags and chance an hourly train that's often late or cancelled. The same as it will be after the consultation findings are implemented. I'd rather not risk it.

The number of airport users travelling through Manchester has always seemed much lower than the number effectively using a shuttle whenever I've been on13/14 - with one exception. The South Pennine 5.09 from Sheffield dropped very few at Piccadilly on the one day I used it. Most remained aboard.

Indeed, this thread is now going round in ever decreasing circles, only to spin off once more into side tracks that have been explored before. No wonder the "let's just get on with it" faction so often triumphs, yet the "let's leave it as it is" lobby does no better. Whoever makes a final decision can't win.

Plus if you want a shuttle service you need platforms at Picc for both it and the TPE services it replaces between Picc and MIA to terminate at. I thought lack of those was why services went to the Airport in the first place?