Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[Greybeard33]

Given that you've got East Mids services from Cleethorpes to Barton and Lincoln, it's almost worth just letting East Mids have Cleethorpes and Notts to Liverpool using a fleet of 3-car 170s (doubled up, of course).

The report does say:

Finally, changes in rolling stock intended to improve performance, are
expected over the next couple of years. Both Transport for Wales and East
Midlands Railway are planning to replace trains with doors at the end of
carriages with those that have doors along the carriage. This will help
speed up passenger boarding and alighting, which can sometimes
contribute to delay on very busy services.

 

[Jack Hay]

Uggh

But it gives a second hourly train to the principal stations on the Mid Cheshire Line, which they were supposed to get in 2017, and it's the only option that does. Expect Option C to get wide support in Cheshire and Altricnham for that reason.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2021 ==

My choice would be Option C, especially since it would improve the service on my local line (the Mid Cheshire)

But I think it will encounter a lot of political opposition, because of the large number of users who would lose direct services and/or have increased journey times. In timetable recasts, the loud complaints from losers always drown out the faint praise from gainers.

I have tried to summarise below all the losers, line by line:
CLC line:
• Loss of direct service Liverpool – Airport (change at Oxford Road)
• Loss of direct cross-Warrington service for the lesser stations (change at Warrington Central)
• Some lesser stations have increased journey times to Manchester (all shacks)
Chat Moss line:
• Loss of direct service Liverpool – Piccadilly & Airport (change at Oxford Road)
Wigan lines:
• Off peak, reduction from 3tph to 2tph on the Atherton line (already cut from 4tph!)
• Loss of direct service Southport – Piccadilly & Stockport (change at Bolton or Salford Crescent, and at Piccadilly for Stockport)
• Off peak, loss of direct service Southport – Oxford Road
• Off peak, loss of fast service Wigan NW – Piccadilly & Airport via Chat Moss
Bolton - Chorley - Preston line:
• Loss of direct service Blackpool – Stockport (change at Piccadilly)
• Off peak, loss of direct service Preston – Salford Central & Victoria (change at Salford Crescent)
Blackburn – Clitheroe line:
• Increased journey times to Manchester via Bolton due to calls at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley (DMU stoppers on electrified line!)
Hazel Grove line:
• Loss of direct service Hazel Grove – Bolton, Preston & Blackpool (change at Piccadilly, main shed to P13/14, or at both Stockport and Piccadilly)
• Off peak, reduction from 3tph to 2tph (wires to Hazel Grove only used in peaks!)
Stockport – Crewe line:
• Loss of direct stopping service Stockport/Cheadle Hulme/Handforth – Chelford/Goostrey/Holmes Chapel/Sandbach/Crewe (change at Wilmslow)
Sheffield via Hope Valley line:
• Loss of direct service Cleethorpes/Sheffield – Airport (change at Piccadilly)
Huddersfield - Leeds line:
• Increased journey time Piccadilly – Hull (all shacks Stalybridge – Huddersfield)
• Peak only, reduction from 2tph to 1tph on Ordsall Chord (Victoria – Piccadilly & Airport)
Chester & N Wales lines:
• Increased journey time N Wales – Manchester (slower direct service to Piccadilly via Northwich, or change at Chester for Victoria via Warrington)
• Loss of direct services N Wales & Chester – Oxford Road or Airport (large increase in journey times)

Altogether that is going to add up to a lot of aggrieved users kicking off!

Although the whole point of this report is that there have to be a lot of aggrieved users because of the necessary cuts to the number of trains pe rhour through the Castlefield Corridor, so that's a given. If a sufficiently regular interval and reliable timetable can be built then making connections should become much easier.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

But it gives a second hourly train to the principal stations on the Mid Cheshire Line, which they were supposed to get in 2017, and it's the only option that does. Expect Option C to get wide support in Cheshire and Altricnham for that reason.

I was about to say - Knutsford and Northwich are going to bite the hands off for this. Decent, new trains...

 

[Jack Hay]

I don't entirely understand why they need to do that. Presumably on the Liverpool side there is space for 2tph of stoppers as I think was what operated before the services were joined - surely one of them can run through.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2021 ==



Or just space them out to a perfect 15 minute clockface, and people will use whatever?

With the Blackpool services being 6.331, and 331s having nice interiors (provided you're not bothered about looking out of the window) I'm not sure people will jump to the fast trains with an identical journey time, they'll spread out. It's also less of an issue with the longer TPE trains; there was a much bigger issue when it involved crowding 3.185 or 4.350 out.

It's not possible for any trains to run through on the CLC if they call at all stations, between a two trains per hour semi fast service. There are too many stations so if the stopper calls at all of them, the following semi-fast catches it up. Either locals have to do skip-stop, like today, or if they call at all stations they have to be split at Warrington Central (which was the traditional service).

 

[4-SUB 4732]

It's not possible for any trains to run through on the CLC if they call at all stations, between a two trains per hour semi fast service. There are too many stations so if the stopper calls at all of them, the following semi-fast catches it up. Either locals have to do skip-stop, like today, or if they call at all stations they have to be split at Warrington Central (which was the traditional service).

I think you can get all stations done.

Assume a service leaving Warrington Central (a fast one) at XX00 and XX30. If one stops at Birchwood, one does Urmston; Irlam hardly needs more than half-hourly at an average of 600 people going out and back a day even at peak), it hits Castlefield Jn at XX19 and XX49.

Bring a unit out of Central sidings, into the platform at XX03 and away at XX07 (and XX37), and they hit Castlefield at XX42 and XX12. You therefore can add some recovery time, but it is clear that the trains need to follow each other within minutes westbound out of Deansgate and will need to be reasonably tight at Central eastbound.

One assumes the Liverpool to Warrington Central services will also be shunted into and off the sidings - good thing there’s two of them...

 

[Purple Orange]

According to the franchise TSRs, the Manchester peaks are 0700 - 0959 and 1600 - 1859 (arrival/departure times at Victoria, Oxford Road or Piccadilly).

Thanks. So for a significant portion of the day, the Newcastle services will continue to the airport.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

But it gives a second hourly train to the principal stations on the Mid Cheshire Line, which they were supposed to get in 2017, and it's the only option that does. Expect Option C to get wide support in Cheshire and Altricnham for that reason.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Jan 2021 ==


Although the whole point of this report is that there have to be a lot of aggrieved users because of the necessary cuts to the number of trains pe rhour through the Castlefield Corridor, so that's a given. If a sufficiently regular interval and reliable timetable can be built then making connections should become much easier.

Selfish i know , but the Welsh government are very unlikely to care what cheshire and Altrincham want, more where welsh passengers want to go, ie, Manchester airport and Warrington and Crewe for changes. None of which will be served directly or frequently using option C

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

If i book a train somewhere i want a direct, or change with the minimum amount of fuss when travelling which is frequently, i dont want to end up looking for a bus in an unknown town.

Currently, Manchester , Cardiff , Birmingham are all direct, Warrington is an easy change for Scotland. These chamges could make journeys much more time consuming, difficult and stressful. Possibly even making the car a better option.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

If i book a train somewhere i want a direct, or change with the minimum amount of fuss when travelling which is frequently, i dont want to end up looking for a bus in an unknown town.

Currently, Manchester , Cardiff , Birmingham are all direct, Warrington is an easy change for Scotland. These chamges could make journeys much more time consuming, difficult and stressful. Possibly even making the car a better option.

I have to admit if I was someone who lived in, I don’t know, Colwyn Bay and went on holiday a whopping twice a year out of Man Air, I’d be rightly told by people that my needs are nowhere near the needs of almost everyone else who uses the route daily.

But, on top of that, knowing the train is regularly sha**ed going through Manchester and that I will probably get to the Airport a few minutes later than planned, if someone offered me a train to Knutsford and then a direct, luxurious connecting bus to the terminal door (not messing about with the walkways and what not), I’d probably be just as happy.

 

[tpjm]

For me, I would have to argue that until some further infrastructure improvements are brought into play, option C is the most workable solution.

Ordsall Curve
The Newcastle service should terminate at Victoria at all times

Not great - requires customers from MIA to DAR, DHM, NCL, etc, to change twice, firstly at MAN (crossing from the junction to the shed on a 5 min connection) and again at Huddersfield or Leeds - not great if you have luggage.

In that case, nothing at all would have been preferable. The Chord has been almost entirely negative in its effect; removing the Airport extensions of the Picc TPE terminators would have solved the "crossing the throat" issue and saved two 185 diagrams to double something else up.

Shed capacity becomes an issue when you start running 5/6 car services on top of Northern's stuff. Remember 142s are now a thing of the past. A 2 car Class 195 is equivalent to 3 cars of Class 142. The current timetable would have the Airports standing in the station for about 30 mins.

Erm, no it doesn't, it runs via North TPE?

It should also be binned off north of Newcastle as it's a waste of 802s. I suspect this will indeed happen.

Craigentinny is a key maintenance location for the fleet. The Edinburgh extensions were tied into this.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

For me, I would have to argue that until some further infrastructure improvements are brought into play, option C is the most workable solution.





Not great - requires customers from MIA to DAR, DHM, NCL, etc, to change twice, firstly at MAN (crossing from the junction to the shed on a 5 min connection) and again at Huddersfield or Leeds - not great if you have luggage.


Shed capacity becomes an issue when you start running 5/6 car services on top of Northern's stuff. Remember 142s are now a thing of the past. A 2 car Class 195 is equivalent to 3 cars of Class 142. The current timetable would have the Airports standing in the station for about 30 mins.


Craigentinny is a key maintenance location for the fleet. The Edinburgh extensions were tied into this.

Enough 802s exist anyway to run the service. Am I right in thinking that TPE is a key driver also in the axing of XC’s Newcastle service back to York; XC only going north of York every hour all the way to Scotland? Arguments in favour included Leeds to Scotland being served by TPE; therefore the XC Scotland could run via Donny and be more reliable. Conversely, the XC York would go via Leeds?

 

[Fokx]

Given that you've got East Mids services from Cleethorpes to Barton and Lincoln, it's almost worth just letting East Mids have Cleethorpes and Notts to Liverpool using a fleet of 3-car 170s (doubled up, of course).

Or just leave it with TPE who crew the Barton line and have traincrew depots at Cleethorpes, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool and have spare trains to run it (the 185’s)

 

[yorksrob]

Mid-Cheshire services only to Stockport isn't a good option, either for passengers or the signallers. The evening peak time extras leaving Stockport are much less well used than the services which start at Piccadilly. On one you get a choice of seats, on the other the choice may be stand in the doorway or don't get on.

Buxton services terminating at Stockport would be much more straight forward as they could use platform 0 at Stockport. Why someone decided more Buxton services northbound crossing every single line at Stockport is OK but more Mid Cheshire services doing it southbound isn't, is beyond me!

I'm guessing that you would get the same issue of people crowding onto the direct train for Buxton if their second train terminated at Stockport as you currently get with the mid-Cheshire ? Since the unfortunate closure of Central, we're inevitably going to have a crunch between Stockport and Piccadilly, so you would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Part of me thinks it's about giving people the opportunity of having a decent interval service. If more people cram onto the direct service, that's their choice. It leaves more room for those on the non-direct service (which I would probably be catching).

 

[daodao]

If i book a train somewhere i want a direct, or change with the minimum amount of fuss when travelling which is frequently, i dont want to end up looking for a bus in an unknown town.

Currently, Manchester , Cardiff , Birmingham are all direct, Warrington is an easy change for Scotland. These chamges could make journeys much more time consuming, difficult and stressful. Possibly even making the car a better option.

While option C is clearly a significant improvement over the current mess, and simplifies operations considerably, which should lead to a more reliable service, there are downsides, in particular:

• The Mid Cheshire line probably can't accommodate a really fast service with reliable operation, because of additional freight traffic and several single track sections. Diverting the N Wales service via this route is likely to lengthen the journey time and also destroys potential connections at Warrington BQ for Lancashire and Scotland. I don't see why it cannot run to M/c Victoria via Warrington BQ in lieu of one of the Leeds to Chester trains. The proposal for the North Wales service in option C clearly treats Gogs very shabbily.
• Diverting all trains from stations between Chelford and Sandbach to run via the Airport lengthens journey times from these places to central Manchester and removes potential connections at Stockport to Sheffield services. Only 1 of the 2 tph stopping trains to the Airport should be extended via Styal to Crewe, as at present, with one of the trains terminating at Alderley Edge extended as a stopping service to Crewe.
• There is insignificant improvement to the stopping services on the CLC line via Warrington Central and some stations on this line will see a service reduction. The stopping service really ought to be half hourly, at least within the Merseyside and Greater Manchester conurbations.
• The service to Hull should be semi-fast, and run as one of the 4 main Trans-Pennine services not calling at stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, with a separate half hourly stopping service from Manchester to Huddersfield. I would prefer the 2 tph TPE services not running to Liverpool to be diverted to Piccadilly platforms 1-3 and to terminate there.
• There is still a desire to run long distance services from Lancaster and beyond, and York and beyond through to the Airport. Other than the sensible suggestion of a half hourly fast service from Liverpool to Sheffield, which should all be run by Northern Rail with EMR withdrawing from this route, longer distance trains need to be removed from the Castlefield line.

 

[Ianno87]

• There is still a desire to run long distance services from Lancaster and beyond, and York and beyond through to the Airport. Other than the sensible suggestion of a half hourly fast service from Liverpool to Sheffield, which should all be run by Northern Rail with EMR withdrawing from this route, longer distance trains need to be removed from the Castlefield line.

...so where else do Scotland trains go? No space for them at Victoria.

 

[Ianno87]

It shouldn't take more than 12 months to build sidings on railway land.

Building them, yes.

Funding, designing them and booking possessions however....

 

[daodao]

Building them, yes.

Funding, designing them and booking possessions however....

Where there's a will, there's a way. The benefit of removing services from Lancaster and north thereof from the Castlefield line is worth the cost - it is investing to save.

 

[northernchris]

• The service to Hull should be semi-fast, and run as one of the 4 main Trans-Pennine services not calling at stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, with a separate half hourly stopping service from Manchester to Huddersfield. I would prefer the 2 tph TPE services not running to Liverpool to be diverted to Piccadilly platforms 1-3 and to terminate there.

At present the Hull service has a bit of a slack in it between Piccadilly and Leeds, so the 4 additional calls are unlikely to add more than 5 minutes on to the existing times. Although I think option C is the best option, many routes will have longer journey times so will be interesting to see the results of the consultation as to how much extra time passengers will tolerate on their journeys to achieve a more reliable service

With Preston - Manchester, the fast trains will be the Scotland and Cumbria to the Airport services, which will likely be busy before Preston anyway. Adding calls at Chorley and Bolton will only add to the crowding, and with the Blackpool - Airport service being slowed down by extra calls this could create uneven loadings. I'm also not keen on the Clitheroe service picking up the calls at Moses Gate, Farnworth and Kearsley, especially if they will be limited to 3 carriages due to platform lengths between Blackburn and Clitheroe.

 

[peters]

I'm guessing that you would get the same issue of people crowding onto the direct train for Buxton if their second train terminated at Stockport as you currently get with the mid-Cheshire ? Since the unfortunate closure of Central, we're inevitably going to have a crunch between Stockport and Piccadilly, so you would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Part of me thinks it's about giving people the opportunity of having a decent interval service. If more people cram onto the direct service, that's their choice. It leaves more room for those on the non-direct service (which I would probably be catching).

Yes there's a crunch, which is why it's good to see the government suggesting the additional Buxton service is being reviewed. I've actually heard complaints from people using the Buxton line, as a lot of the additional services carry very few passengers. However, having a half-hourly service from Piccadilly in the morning peak and one to Piccadilly in the evening can result in a train running almost empty in one direction, rather than being used to strengthen a busy service in the direction most people are travelling in.

From the trains I see I'd actually say peak time travelling against the peak flow is much more common on the lines to Wilmslow, Macclesfield, Northwich and Sheffield, than on the Buxton line.

 

[Ianno87]

Where there's a will, there's a way.

Or "easier said than done".

The benefit of removing services from Lancaster and north thereof from the Castlefield line is worth the cost - it is investing to save.

What benefits are those?

The report shows that the services can be accommodated in the robust capacity of the corridor in all 3 presented options.

 

[Watershed]

Where there's a will, there's a way. The benefit of removing services from Lancaster and north thereof from the Castlefield line is worth the cost - it is investing to save.

That may well be true - but the remit of the MRTF was to investigate timetable options based on the current infrastructure.

The lack of terminating capacity at Victoria, as well as the fact that Stalybridge still isn't electrified, are certainly limiting. But we don't want a repeat of May 2018 where the infrastructure wasn't ready.

 

[Ianno87]

But we don't want a repeat of May 2018 where the infrastructure wasn't ready.

^^^^^This!!!

Call it 'lessons learned'!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Currently, Manchester , Cardiff , Birmingham are all direct, Warrington is an easy change for Scotland. These chamges could make journeys much more time consuming, difficult and stressful. Possibly even making the car a better option.

You could take the Avanti service and change at Crewe for Scotland, though I don't know how good the connection is.

(Not with the current service, but this it's talking about the current service)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The Chester - Victoria - Leeds services do Chester-Victoria in 51-53 mins, with just the Warrington call.
The new route via Northwich will be a good 20 minutes longer. With four stops minimum (Northwich, Knuts, Alty, Stockport - but you know Hale will want in) and some slow sections, I can see it being 30 mins longer at times.
It may end up being quicker to grab the ex-Leeds to Chester and jump on another service heading west, coming from London/B'ham/Cardiff/Crewe/Halton one day or a Chester starter even, as mixed up as the North Wales timetable is... there is somewhere that needs a proper Taft!

Under Option C, the 2 Chester-Leeds services become stoppers as far as Victoria, so they will be slower than now.
The TfW Northwich services will be semi-fast but are going to take 15 minutes longer to reach Picc (and not serve Oxford Road) than now.
Getting to the Airport on either route will involve a messy change at either Victoria (2tph to the Airport) or Piccadilly (6tph).

Most tickets from North Wales to Preston and north are valid via Crewe (but we don't know what the service to Crewe will be like) as well as Warrington.
Many long-standing direct journeys via Warrington will be cut by Option C.
Under Option A, North Wales services get diverted to Vic/Stalybridge - maybe Rochdale would be a more useful place to reverse.

The plan definitely seems to have a Manchester/TfGM bias to it.
I can't believe TfW would just accept these changes without some remedy for cutting existing through links.

 

[Ianno87]

You could take the Avanti service and change at Crewe for Scotland, though I don't know how good the connection is.

(Not with the current service, but this it's talking about the current service)

Down side of the (pre-Covid) Avanti service is not running every hour beyond Chester. Could be fixed with extra stock, of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2021 ==

Many long-standing direct journeys via Warrington will be cut by Option C.

Would be interesting to get some stats on the current interchanges at Warrington for the proportion of passengers travelling west of Chester, or whether the greater proportion of passengers would still be catered for.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

Under Option C, the 2 Chester-Leeds services become stoppers as far as Victoria, so they will be slower than now.
The TfW Northwich services will be semi-fast but are going to take 15 minutes longer to reach Picc (and not serve Oxford Road) than now.
Getting to the Airport on either route will involve a messy change at either Victoria (2tph to the Airport) or Piccadilly (6tph).

Most tickets from North Wales to Preston and north are valid via Crewe (but we don't know what the service to Crewe will be like) as well as Warrington.
Many long-standing direct journeys via Warrington will be cut by Option C.
Under Option A, North Wales services get diverted to Vic/Stalybridge - maybe Rochdale would be a more useful place to reverse.

The plan definitely seems to have a Manchester/TfGM bias to it.
I can't believe TfW would just accept these changes without some remedy for cutting existing through links.

What is the realistic remedy?

I am looking at all the different possibilities but it just does not work - you will just have to get people in Option C to change at Chester and Warrington.

The only possibility is for the Northern Leeds - Chester service to be extended back to Llandudno or Bangor under a cooperating agreement. I don't see it.

The alternative, I suppose, is to run the Cardiff / Wrexham services to Liverpool via Halton (not Llandudno), run the Llandudno services to Manchester via Knutsford, and portion off a unit to run to / from Bank Quay Platform 1. But then that's a huge over-subscription of capacity between Chester and Warrington!

The way TfW are pitching their services, however, suggests they will operate two-hourly from Llandudno to Liverpool via Chester and Halton; and two-hourly from Cardiff to Liverpool via Chester and Halton. Shrewsbury is hourly; so it's basically going to be a splitting / attaching service every hour. TfW clearly thinks the action is at Liverpool and Manchester, not Warrington.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2021 ==

Down side of the (pre-Covid) Avanti service is not running every hour beyond Chester. Could be fixed with extra stock, of course.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2021 ==



Would be interesting to get some stats on the current interchanges at Warrington for the proportion of passengers travelling west of Chester, or whether the greater proportion of passengers would still be catered for.

The most recent figures show a 339,000 per year interchange. That doesn't tell you if any are:
- Local people from the Liverpool line going on to Chester, Frodsham, London, Birmingham and reverse.
- North Wales to Preston, Scotland and reverse.
- Earlestown folk changing onto/off longer distance.
- Any other appropriate connecting flows.

But, to have 928 people a day changing, of which arguably a maximum of 50% will be North Wales Coast (I bet it would be even less as its leisure flows), it probably doesn't stack up against the Mid Cheshire flows, the Manchester area commuting needs, etc.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Would be interesting to get some stats on the current interchanges at Warrington for the proportion of passengers travelling west of Chester, or whether the greater proportion of passengers would still be catered for.

I used to change regularly between WCML and Chester/NWales at Warrington, and usage is quite significant.
Changing at Crewe is an option, but extends journeys by half an hour, and through trains from North Wales are rare since ATW/TfW run them via Shrewsbury.
OK for Chester but a double change for further west.
Warrington itself is a significant work destination above the connections.
The links go back to 1850!

North Wales-Airport passengers will experience the paradox of passing within a couple of miles of Ringway at Baguley en route to Manchester via Altrincham, taking another hour or so to reach the Airport station after performing a long loop of south Manchester (with a change at Picc).
If only Metrolink hadn't stolen the direct route into Manchester...

Llandudno-Airport by car will take a lot more than an hour.
It takes me that long for half the distance.
Then you have to park, pay the exorbitant car park rates, and find a bus to the terminal.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

I used to change regularly between WCML and Chester/NWales at Warrington, and usage is quite significant.
Changing at Crewe is an option, but extends journeys by half an hour, and through trains from North Wales are rare since ATW/TfW run them via Shrewsbury.
OK for Chester but a double change for further west.
Warrington itself is a significant work destination above the connections.
The links go back to 1850!

North Wales-Airport passengers will experience the paradox of passing within a couple of miles of Ringway at Baguley en route to Manchester via Altrincham, taking another hour or so to reach the Airport station after performing a long loop of south Manchester (with a change at Picc).
If only Metrolink hadn't stolen the direct route into Manchester...

Llandudno-Airport by car will take a lot more than an hour.
It takes me that long for half the distance.
Then you have to park, pay the exorbitant car park rates, and find a bus to the terminal.

I think people massively overdo "quite significant" when trying to state their case. It's already confirmed that less than 1,000 people interchange at Wazza each day; so North Wales to Preston and Scotland is obviously not a significant flow.

But, the main thing is the very limited workplaces in Warrington. A change at Chester if connections are good (services from Chester to Warrington will be a solid half-hourly turn-up-and-go frequency) is perfectly good if the journey ends there.

If TfW offer a decent hourly service from North Wales to Crewe, that will provide the key connections needed. Plus, decent London, West Mids, East Mids connections too.

 

[Ianno87]

I used to change regularly between WCML and Chester/NWales at Warrington, and usage is quite significant.

But more or less "significant" than the various other flows around Manchester and the North West the railway has to cater for? The report suggests Option C, on balance, benefits more passengers than lose out in connectivity terms.

How "significant" are the passengers getting on at Warrington and remaining on board beyond Chester?

How does this "significance" vary by time of day and the week, is it just some busy trains at certain times rather than being busy every single hour?

North Wales-Airport passengers will experience the paradox of passing within a couple of miles of Ringway at Baguley en route to Manchester via Altrincham, taking another hour or so to reach the Airport station after performing a long loop of south Manchester (with a change at Picc).
If only Metrolink hadn't stolen the direct route into Manchester...

Llandudno-Airport by car will take a lot more than an hour.
It takes me that long for half the distance.
Then you have to park, pay the exorbitant car park rates, and find a bus to the terminal.

I wonder how many people do that anyway, given that direct via the M56 is more direct and faster than even the current rail service via Castlefield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But, the main thing is the very limited workplaces in Warrington.

Eh? Warrington is a significant business centre in the North West, suitable for such because of its location on the M6 and WCML. Though quite a lot of it is out of town, e.g. by Birchwood station, rather than in the middle. People going from the WCML to there via Central might be some of those interchanges perhaps?