Manchester Intercity Services...

[WestCoast]

This is a tangential point, but I am firmly of the opinion people are pushing HS2 through as they are isnt to have a third direct rail link between Birmingham and London, its to have a journey time of about 40 minutes between Birmingham airport and London. It's a very clever way of getting another airport serving the capital.

It's a very good point, as Birmingham could become the London area's sixth major airport - which you could probably access in the same time as Luton/Stansted by HS2.

 

[tbtc]

It's a very good point, as Birmingham could become the London area's sixth major airport - which you could probably access in the same time as Luton/Stansted by HS2.

I find it an interesting new angle - who needs a new runway at Heathrow when Birmingham (by HS2) will be closer to central London than Heathrow (via LUL) = plenty capacity there

 

[Striker]

I find it an interesting new angle - who needs a new runway at Heathrow when Birmingham (by HS2) will be closer to central London than Heathrow (via LUL) = plenty capacity there

Because the majority of passengers using Heathrow are transferring and have no desire to go into London. A new runway at Heathrow is very much needed!

 

[WestCoast]

Because the majority of passengers using Heathrow are transferring and have no desire to go into London. A new runway at Heathrow is very much needed!

You're right to say that Heathrow does need a third runway to ease high levels of air traffic congestion. However, the current Environmental policies are favouring not building the runway.

However, you're wrong on the first point. According the British Airports Authority, who manage Heathrow, only 35.4% of passengers in 2010 were transferring. Heathrow isn't like Dubai, where about 80% transfer.

Heathrow has a very strong level of Origin & Departure (O&D in aviation terms) traffic with 64.6% starting or ending their air journey at the airport. This is because of the high population of the area combined with the fact that Heathrow is the only option for many long-haul flights. Plus, Heathrow is the main airport for incoming tourists (and we all know there are loads of them in London) from non-budget airlines.

So, Birmingham could help with the situation.

 

[LE Greys]

Because the majority of passengers using Heathrow are transferring and have no desire to go into London. A new runway at Heathrow is very much needed!

Surely a connection to Reading for stations west is even more needed, saves people having to get into a coach and get stuck in the traffic jams around Slough.

 

[Lampshade]

With a new curve towards the west from Heathrow, would a Paddington - Reading stopper via Heathrow work? :?

 

[MCR247]

No it wouldn't

 

[Striker]

I do work in the industry so I'm well aware of everything you say. Maybe I exaggerated when I said "majority" but that's still more than a third who do transit. The reason it's as low as that is because BA have had to give up on any transfer traffic because they just don't have the room to expand, which is why they merged with Iberia recently because Madrid DOES have room to expand.

Either way, the idea that Birmingham could become some kind of overflow for Heathrow is completely absurd. People will just fly on services which operate into Heathrow. Reason? Cost for one. The tube is what, 6 quid into LOndon? Even if transit time from Birmingham airport to central London is the same as the tube, do people honestly think it's going to cost 6 Pounds for a walk up fare on HS2 to London?! It would have to be a walk up fare for a start and they're not going to be cheap.

You're right to say that Heathrow does need a third runway to ease high levels of air traffic congestion. However, the current Environmental policies are favouring not building the runway.

However, you're wrong on the first point. According the British Airports Authority, who manage Heathrow, only 35.4% of passengers in 2010 were transferring. Heathrow isn't like Dubai, where about 80% transfer.

Heathrow has a very strong level of Origin & Departure (O&D in aviation terms) traffic with 64.6% starting or ending their air journey at the airport. This is because of the high population of the area combined with the fact that Heathrow is the only option for many long-haul flights. Plus, Heathrow is the main airport for incoming tourists (and we all know there are loads of them in London) from non-budget airlines.

So, Birmingham could help with the situation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What have all the recent postings got to do with the original question posed on this thread about Inter City services from Liverpool and Manchester to Scotland.:roll:

By all means, open a new thread about air travel and discuss it to your hearts content.

But in the meantime, let us get back to the point, PLEASE!!!

 

[Striker]

Maybe all that can be discussed about the original topic has been discussed?

 

[tbtc]

Maybe all that can be discussed about the original topic has been discussed?

There's not really a lot to say - Manchester - Glasgow/ Edinburgh clearly isn't "Intercity" enough for people's liking, there's no spare stock to make it so or scope for it in the short term, maybe the new EMUs will resolve this in the medium term. Not the first thread on here to end up discussing other things...

 

[WestCoast]

What have all the recent postings got to do with the original question posed on this thread about Inter City services from Liverpool and Manchester to Scotland.:roll:

By all means, open a new thread about air travel and discuss it to your hearts content.

But in the meantime, let us get back to the point, PLEASE!!!

I think you'll find it is normal procedure on RailUK that once posters get bored of the original topic, they wander off and expand on strands that have been mentioned previously. Plus, it's what would happen in a normal conversation

Like tbtc says, we've pretty much exhausted all we can say about Liverpool/Manchester - Scotland until electrification is complete.

 

[bluenoxid]

For comparison, digging out a Summer 2000 timetable...

Northbound weekday services:

From Manchester Piccadilly, services to Lancaster or beyond on the WCML:

0619, 0811, 1011, 1211, 1411, 1611, 1911, 2151 NWT to Barrow
0911, 1111, 1311, 1511, 1711 NWT to Windermere
1811 NWT to Lancaster

0611 VT to Edinburgh, shown as having a trolley. Would this have been a 158?
1121 VT (ex-Bournemouth) to Glasgow Central
1303 VT (ex-Plymouth) to Aberdeen via Edinburgh
1521 VT (ex-Brighton) to Edinburgh
1904 VT (ex-Bristol TM) to Edinburgh


From Liverpool Lime Street, services to Lancaster and beyond on the WCML:

0832, 1032, 1905 NWT to Morecambe
1232 NWT to Lancaster
1432, 1632 NWT to Barrow

1700 VT to Edinburgh (fairly sure this was a 158- I used the reverse working a few times from Lancaster at about this time)

So Liverpool has lost one train per day and Manchester has gained several with the five in 2002 being null and void once the 158 and loco swaps are taken into account.

Just looking at the service from Manchester to Scotland and Glasgow is only 40 or so minutes longer than Newcastle.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think you'll find it is normal procedure on RailUK that once posters get bored of the original topic, they wander off and expand on strands that have been mentioned previously. Plus, it's what would happen in a normal conversation

Like tbtc says, we've pretty much exhausted all we can say about Liverpool/Manchester - Scotland until electrification is complete.

Consider me put in a dark corner in the "TRIPS AND NOSTALGIA" forum for the next 10 hours....without the ability to make a post

 

[HYPODERMIC]

I type out a whole bleedin' essay of a reply but of course by the time I'd finished I'd been logged out and my post was lost to the login screen. ARRRRGHHHHHHH-!

Long story short, Manchester's population is effectively undercounted as many new and existing suburbs are counted as part of separate Metropolitan Boroughs despite being very much part of Manchester in reality; swathes of Tameside and Trafford, for example, and even small southerly bits of Bury and Rochdale (ie. Middleton). These are not counted but if they were - as they really should be! - you'd see Manchester's population move to within the more accurate region of 700k-900k. It's a matter of civic pride, it is a great city (as is Birmingham too, it gets an unfair rap and is a genuinely nice place to be, I hope it can fix its image problem soon) but its official population makes it look much less significant than it really is because it is so undercounted.

I moved up here a few months ago from the south where we have a similar problem in Reading, held down as a mere "town" of grossly outdated and outgrown official boundaries. It is a disgrace but I can't say I'm surprised that these things go on as there are no votes to be won.

In times like these we need to be promoting our cities to the world and giving them every boost possible in securing international investment, not balkanising them and pegging them down as small provincial towns. As much as I'd love to see Central Government expand the boundaries of places like Manchester and Reading, and anywhere else that suffers the same problem, frankly I doubt it'll happen for many decades if indeed it ever gets a serious look in at all.

I genuinely think that Manchester has become the second city in the last decade, or the very least will become it within the next decade. Even if the city boundaries were redrawn its population would still be somewhat smaller than Brum's but I genuinely feel Manchester has elevated itself beyond this statistical disadvantage and in real terms has the edge. Punching well above its official weight in so many aspects. I mean, the fact we are even having this discussion, in spite of the population disadvantage, is evidence enough that it is doing something very right indeed - part of this down to arrogant Mancunian self-promotion perhaps () but when you see the BBC, newspapers, even Brummies themselves openly discussing this I think it speaks volumes for what the city has managed to achieve.

My only regret is that this debate always implies that Brum is a stagnant dump which is so far from the case. Like Manchester it has come a long way in curing itself of the brutalist hangover the 60s left us with and I think its image will take a while to catch up. In the end this is an unofficial title anyway and impossible to measure in so many ways.

I think Network Rail will play a big part in helping Brum get back on its feet again via the Gateway project regeneration of New Street. I'm seriously sceptical that it will look half as nice as the renders but even if that is the case it will be impossible to deny that Birmingham is a much nicer place than you'd think - Moor Street in fact is one of the nicest stations you'll find in the whole country. It'll be interesting to see what HS2 does for the city, but I fear it'll be a conduit dragging towards London rather than vice-versa.

 

[Striker]

On what grounds do you think Manchester deserves to be the second city over Birmingham?

People think just because it has the busiest airport outside of London it's the second city. Frankfurt is the busiest airport in Germany but it's nowhere near the biggest city in Germany.

 

[WestCoast]

On what grounds do you think Manchester deserves to be the second city over Birmingham?

People think just because it has the busiest airport outside of London it's the second city. Frankfurt is the busiest airport in Germany but it's nowhere near the biggest city in Germany.

Firstly, I'm neutral in this. I don't necessarily think to be the "second city" has to be second largest conurbation. This is despite the fact that Greater Manchester is only slightly less populous than the West Midlands conurbation.

I think it boils down to a few things. Image is a big factor, and Birmingham is not seen as "cool" or "trendy" by the media (rightly or wrongly) as Manchester is. The extensive 'regeneration' and 'gentrification' of Manchester City Centre is another factor. The development that is happening has created a buzz - expanding light rail, MediaCityUK and Salford Quays mirrors the London Docklands albeit on a much smaller scale. Additionally, Manchester is further away from London, so geographically it feels like the "capital of the North" to put it very simply.

In fact, to a certain extent, it's intangible. It's which city has the "London feel" - as all cities in the UK are constantly unfairly compared to and judged against the capital.

 

[HYPODERMIC]

On what grounds do you think Manchester deserves to be the second city over Birmingham?

People think just because it has the busiest airport outside of London it's the second city. Frankfurt is the busiest airport in Germany but it's nowhere near the biggest city in Germany.

I think WestCoast captures the general essence of what I'm about to say.

I think the infrastructure is much more impressive (ie the scope and success of the Manchester Metrolink vs the Midland Metro, the success of Manchester Airport, the ongoing improvements to Manchester's railway network ie. impending Northern Hub and Ordsall Chord), the regeneration has been much more impressive in scale (ie. Beetham Tower tallest outside London, Co-Op HQ NOMA masterplan, ongoing works at New Islington), the sporting culture is simply leagues ahead of Brum (the legacy of the Commonwealth Games, benefits of Old Trafford and Manchester United and the on-the-rise Manchester City, as well as the Great City Games such as the just gone Great Manchester Run), the industrial heritage has been better capitalised on IMO (in the preservation and transformation of Castlefield into a trendy area of industrial beauty, by transforming mills and warehouses into modern apartments and by turning others into city features), the Spinningfields project could become an important business hub if all goes to plan, the relocation of the BBC and the regeneration of the Salford Quays, the Trafford Centre as a rival to the Bullring (though I concede the regeneration of the latter has been a roaring success IMO), the political effort that has been made towards grabbing as much devolution as possible (Transport for Greater Manchester, Greater Manchester Combined Authority), the musical heritage (again, Brum has this too but I think Manchester edges it), the cultural significance (Corrie, Man U, Life On Mars) etc...

Birmingham has many of these things too, but I think Manchester has them to a greater extent and/or crucially has been much better at promoting and integrating them into the city "experience".

It's also about the vibe you get. Manchester feels like a counterbalance to London. Birmingham feels like the mid-way point and the link between the two. Manchester also feels more like a sprawling metropolis, the Deansgate-Piccadilly viaduct carrying trains overhead Oxford Street, between buildings and over canals, trams weaving directly through the city centre, some of the tallest buildings in the UK, etc... this is all purely my opinion but right from the start of living here I got a very metropolitan vibe that Birmingham also has but simply not the same extent. You'll probably disagree, fair enough, this one is as subjective as it gets.

Not too many years ago, I would have said that Birmingham was quite secure in its status - the Big City Plan exceeded any Manchester project and potential Birmingham Grand Central station promised to usher in a new era for the city. Unfortunately, Grand Central never materialised (although HS2 may lessen the need for it) and the Big City Plan has faltered and crumbled somewhat. The farce around the naming of the Brum City Region has also been disappointing (Birmingham, Coventry and The Black Country City Region? Are they so insecure that they'd rather be seen as a joke than as part of Brum?) Manchester has been able to keep going with its ambition whereas Birmingham has not been as successful in regenerating and promoting itself for reasons unknown to me.

 

[RichW1]

In London, everyone I know or even people I don't seem to think (with a few exceptions admittedly) that Manchester is the 'second city' or maybe a better term might be preferred city. Manchesters status and perception has won out. Birmingham no-one here seems to think much about except to say that it's 'functional' to use one guys term. Think Birmingham's always had to shake off an image problem and the council hasn't done very well at promoting a very successful and ongoing Birmingham regeneration. Second city was a lot about population in the past and now with all those boundaries blurred it's not a measure much now as we all merge into a megalopolis! Manchester does have a far larger urban land area and population around it than Birmingham and so even if old definitions are used, it would be very hard for anyone to look at a google map or other map in detail and look at the massive northwest urban splodge and say Manchester's not the bigger place by some distance. Like I say though the whole north is joining up around the Peaks park so it's a little meaningless now in the 21st century as definitions become impossible in urban geography.

 

[Squaddie]

We mustn't be obsessed with direct services. That is the British disease.

And there's a good reason why it's a "British disease". In countries with a reliable rail network you can comfortably rely on a two-minute, cross-platform connection at major interchanges. In the UK, when trains are more often late than on time (and I mean "late" as in later than the scheduled arrival time, not the rail industry's definition), and your train is likely to arrive several platforms and footbridges away from the one you need to connect to, connections are frustrating and stressful.

I'm with the OP on this one. TPE's trains are not suitable for long-distance travel, and these routes should be operated by proper trains. Even the Pendolinos are barely fit for purpose.

 

[185]

Single-seat journeys were drummed into my head in 1996 at GMPTE as a great source of passenger growth - one of the very few sensible things I ever heard GMPTE say about rail.

Liverpool to Newcastle was a well used route murdered by First Transpennine. Bridlington and Beverley to Leeds was another. Their only thought in producing a timetable was about the final PPM / Performance statistics rubbish.

 

[WestCoast]

And there's a good reason why it's a "British disease". In countries with a reliable rail network you can comfortably rely on a two-minute, cross-platform connection at major interchanges. In the UK, when trains are more often late than on time (and I mean "late" as in later than the scheduled arrival time, not the rail industry's definition), and your train is likely to arrive several platforms and footbridges away from the one you need to connect to, connections are frustrating and stressful

I completely understand what your saying, however one point to pick up on these "cross-platform interchanges", they may exist in certain countries but I've rarely found this the case in mainland Europe. Indeed, changing at stations like Berlin Hbf (an extreme example) may take you a good while with different levels to negotiate over a wide area.

 

[Greenback]

I agree that the TPE units are not suited to long distance travel, but I disagree with Squaddie's rose tinted view of the European rial system.

The simple fact is that not all European trains run on time, not all connections are cross platform, and it only takes a few journeys on SNCF or FS to realise that!

 

[radamfi]

I completely understand what your saying, however one point to pick up on these "cross-platform interchanges", they may exist in certain countries but I've rarely found this the case in mainland Europe. Indeed, changing at stations like Berlin Hbf (an extreme example) may take you a good while with different levels to negotiate over a wide area.

Yes, cross platform changes are clearly ideal but people do seem to be quite prepared to make connections where the platforms are some distance apart. There isn't such a tendency to demand direct trains like we have in this country. There are a lot of passengers in this country who won't travel by train unless the service is direct.

If you get on a German long distance train they give you a little leaflet telling you the times of all the connections at each station you stop at and which platform they go from. Therefore there is an assumption that a lot of people will be making connections.

 

[WestCoast]

Yes, cross platform changes are clearly ideal but people do seem to be quite prepared to make connections where the platforms are some distance apart. There isn't such a tendency to demand direct trains like we have in this country. There are a lot of passengers in this country who won't travel by train unless the service is direct.

If you get on a German long distance train they give you a little leaflet telling you the times of all the connections at each station you stop at and which platform they go from. Therefore there is an assumption that a lot of people will be making connections.

Yes, you can see that UK rail travellers want direct services through the emergence of Open Access Operators.

The "Reiseplan" leaflet for the specific service is indeed very useful, as is the public train number system (something I'd personally like to see used in the UK). On approach to major stations, the guard will make announcements about connections and which platforms these will be leaving from. It's all very geared up for connections.

 

[tbtc]

Yes, you can see that UK rail travellers want direct services through the emergence of Open Access Operators

Of course people would prefer a direct service, but at what cost?

Hull Trains have found their niche, because they are the fastest way from London to Hull.

However it is faster to do London - Bradford by changing at Leeds (similarly it was faster to do London - Wrexham by changing at Chester, when WSMR ran). Open Access struggles in these conditions.

What kind of time penalty would be the difference between a direct (slower) service or a faster journey (involving one change)? I don't know the answer, and of course it'll differ depending on people's age/ luggage and the nature of their journey (business v leisure).

 

[radamfi]

I really think it is important for British people to get the same confidence in making connections as our European neighbours, and similarly our train companies and infrastructure needs to be geared up for it too. If you rely on direct trains only, you only have a very limited number of possible destinations available, meaning all other journeys are made by car. With connections, you can go anywhere to anywhere.

 

[tbtc]

I really think it is important for British people to get the same confidence in making connections as our European neighbours, and similarly our train companies and infrastructure needs to be geared up for it too. If you rely on direct trains only, you only have a very limited number of possible destinations available, meaning all other journeys are made by car. With connections, you can go anywhere to anywhere.

Its something we are getting worse at.

For example, under BR I could see connections to Sheffield for ECML journeys between Doncaster/ York and Edinburgh/Aberdeen.

But, although Sheffield is a big place, its not part of the ECML franchise, so GNER/ NXEC/ DOR haven't shown it in their timetable (same with Middlesbrough etc).

There must be a load of examples of this, where cities aren't being shown on timetables as connections meaning passengers don't realise journeys are available (e.g. WCML passengers not seeing Blackpool times if they change at Preston).

 

[telstarbox]

Good units yes, good intercity units? No

3 car trains without doors are the end of carriages and 100mph top speed are NOT satisfactory Intercity trains. And after less than an hour travelling on a 185, my orce starts to hurt

I am with Rich on this one

Some of us expect all long-distance services to be loco-hauled (preferably an HST) and will turn their noses up at a DMU doing a route like this but most "normals" won't care.

For example, on EMT's intercity (HST/Meridian) services you get the following, all of which are available on 185s:

• Refreshments trolley
• First Class section (with refreshments 7 days a week, nice big seats, curtains, etc)
• Luggage racks
• Seat reservations

Admittedly there's no quiet zone but this could be easily installed in the section of seats between First and the centre coach. Also, as has been discussed previously, they handle airport luggage much better than 158s due to the large doors which aren't at the ends of each coach.

Corridor connections would have been a good idea though!

 

[Gareth]

Only just hit me when I was in Manchester recently (not that I had to be there to notice this) and realised that both Manchester and Liverpool have no Intercity services to the north!!!!! You can go from the suburbs at Wigan, but the business district of both cities has no Intercity service at all going north to Glasgow OR Edinburgh. This is appalling for the 2nd largest metropolitan area in Britain and I wondered if anyone knows if this is likely to be sorted out with electrification et al or if anyone knows of any plans to rectify this crazy situation in future TOC's plans!!

I mean where else can you think of where 2 city centres close to each other supporting millions of people, don't have any Intercity's going over 200miles to somewhere as important as the Central Belt?! Compare that with Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham and Newcastle city centres - all have better links to Scotland by just having some and yet alongside Birmingham, Manchester is the next most important business district after London. Manchester isn't directly linked with the Northeast either!

As has been said, Manchester still does have connections to Scotland. Liverpool, as Johnny Lewis says, was systematically fudged by the SRA. The early noughties was the height of New Labour's North West Regionalism; Liverpool being seen as little more than the western fringe of Greater Manchester; ludicrous, seen as Liverpool's not really that much smaller. Those days are gone, but the legacy remains. Liverpool has no connections with Scotland or Wales (even more ridiculous, considering the proximity). Nowhere in the south proper either.

Still, Liverpool's not the junior partner of anyone. Trains or no trains.