Manchester Recovery Taskforce (timetable) consultation

[daodao]

Those off peak passengers might not care which Manchester station they travel to, but going home they want to know which station to travel from for the quickest journey. Preferably without having to interrogate an app or study a timetable, then trying to decide "should I risk a dash for the 1612 from Victoria, knowing if I miss it I've got to wait till 1712, or should I amble over to Piccadilly for the 1643?"

For the occasional traveller, much better to have a train every 30 minutes from one station than 1tph from each of two.

Post-Covid, the railway should aim to make the timetable more attractive (=simple) for such leisure travellers, rather than for the (ex-)daily commuters who know the times of their regular trains by heart but have now got used to WFH.

One of the few things that detracts from option C is the peak hour variations. They complicate matters and this option would be improved if they were removed, for example, all trains from Southport and Wigan should run to Victoria.

 

[northernchris]

Having the Newcastle terminate at Piccadilly rather than Victoria would be much more beneficial to most passengers, notably Airport pax. Especially as you're either cramming everyone onto the Redcar service or asking people from the NE to change at Huddersfield or Leeds, putting them onto stopping services through to Piccadilly and then making them change at Piccadilly for the Airport.

I'd agree this is more logical than terminating at Victoria. Wouldn't the set have to shunt out of the station too in to the sidings before returning for it's northbound working, adding to the performance risk of other services? If paths between Stalybridge and Piccadilly are an issue, reroute the Hull in to Victoria along with the Huddersfield stopper and remove one of the Stalybridge - Southports to compensate.

 

[Purple Orange]

One of the few things that detracts from option C is the peak hour variations. They complicate matters and this option would be improved if they were removed, for example, all trains from Southport and Wigan should run to Victoria.

This bit is the key part for me. I hate it when services are split between termini, which essentially halves the frequency in the city centre given that you have to pick between two or more locations to start your journey. It is the same with Liverpool & Leeds services. Either all should be from Victoria or all from Piccadilly, but not both. If that means some city pairs are lost, then so be it.

With that in mind, I’d do the following:

• Hull & Huddersfield TPE services go to Victoria, along with the Newcastle, Scarborough, Middlesbrough & Redcar TPEs.
• The Hull & Huddersfield being the services that continued around the chord, calling at all stops to the airport using 185s.
• All other TPE services from across the Pennines continue to Liverpool.
• Switch the TPE Scotland train to terminate at Victoria.
• Terminate the Nottingham and Cleethorpes services at Piccadilly

The upshot is that West Yorkshire keeps it’s connection to the airport, but the service is operated by a train more appropriate for the chord and stopping pattern needed on the airport line. All Liverpool, Leeds, North East and Scotland services are now centred on Victoria rather than Piccadilly, giving a consistent offering to passengers.

Taking it all a step further post HS2/NPR I’d then switch.

• HS2/NPR is assumed to be:
  • HS2 western branch is built
  • 6-platforms at a Piccadilly surface station
  • No NPR line is built through Warrington to Liverpool
  • We only see Trans Pennine Route upgrade and electrification between Manchester & York
  • A junction from Piccadilly HS2 to the trans pennine line is built.
  • Assuming 6 tph across the Pennines is possible following full TPRU & electrification.
• NE-SW & Manchester XC services are merged in to HS2/NPR and terminate at Birmingham, given that this would be the fastest route from Leeds & Newcastle to Birmingham.
  • A service from York to the south coast & Cornwall via New Street continues on the classic lines for connectivity within regions.
• 4 HS2/NPR services from Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh to Piccadilly then to Birmingham.
• Liverpool goes back to 2 tph to Leeds & beyond giving the following:
  • TPE Newcastle services are replaced by the HS2/NPR services to Birmingham.
  • Huddersfield stopper continues to Liverpool via Victoria, but rather it starts at Leeds
  • Hull service also continues to Liverpool via Victoria
  • Scarborough and Middlesbrough services are scrapped and become a Liverpool-Manchester Victoria shuttle.

 

[Philip]

This bit is the key part for me. I hate it when services are split between termini, which essentially halves the frequency in the city centre given that you have to pick between two or more locations to start your journey. It is the same with Liverpool & Leeds services. Either all should be from Victoria or all from Piccadilly, but not both. If that means some city pairs are lost, then so be it.

With that in mind, I’d do the following:

• Hull & Huddersfield TPE services go to Victoria, along with the Newcastle, Scarborough, Middlesbrough & Redcar TPEs.
• The Hull & Huddersfield being the services that continued around the chord, calling at all stops to the airport using 185s.
• All other TPE services from across the Pennines continue to Liverpool.
• Switch the TPE Scotland train to terminate at Victoria.
• Terminate the Nottingham and Cleethorpes services at Piccadilly

The upshot is that West Yorkshire keeps it’s connection to the airport, but the service is operated by a train more appropriate for the chord and stopping pattern needed on the airport line. All Liverpool, Leeds, North East and Scotland services are now centred on Victoria rather than Piccadilly, giving a consistent offering to passengers.

Taking it all a step further post HS2/NPR I’d then switch.

• HS2/NPR is assumed to be:
  • HS2 western branch is built
  • 6-platforms at a Piccadilly surface station
  • No NPR line is built through Warrington to Liverpool
  • We only see Trans Pennine Route upgrade and electrification between Manchester & York
  • A junction from Piccadilly HS2 to the trans pennine line is built.
  • Assuming 6 tph across the Pennines is possible following full TPRU & electrification.
• NE-SW & Manchester XC services are merged in to HS2/NPR and terminate at Birmingham, given that this would be the fastest route from Leeds & Newcastle to Birmingham.
  • A service from York to the south coast & Cornwall via New Street continues on the classic lines for connectivity within regions.
• 4 HS2/NPR services from Leeds/Newcastle/Edinburgh to Piccadilly then to Birmingham.
• Liverpool goes back to 2 tph to Leeds & beyond giving the following:
  • TPE Newcastle services are replaced by the HS2/NPR services to Birmingham.
  • Huddersfield stopper continues to Liverpool via Victoria, but rather it starts at Leeds
  • Hull service also continues to Liverpool via Victoria
  • Scarborough and Middlesbrough services are scrapped and become a Liverpool-Manchester Victoria shuttle.

Is there capacity on the Chat Moss line west of Earlestown for an extra two services? Also that removes the faster services between Warrington and Manchester and cuts the Liverpool-Sheffield connection, in fact Liverpool-Sheffield would be quite difficult with that as it'd require two changes. With so many trains running through Victoria, I think it would be difficult to terminate the Scotland there.

There is no need to focus the TPE stopping services on Victoria to make it more uniform, as the majority of Hull/Huddersfield train users will be for the stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, and to Hull. Whereas the faster TPE trains will cater for the Huddersfield, Leeds, York passengers.

 

[peters]

That'll at most shave 5 minutes off the journey time and remove the ability for passengers to get to Old Trafford.

That's optimistic considering the track leaving Altrincham for Hale is very curvy so trains can't go that fast through Altrincham even if they don't stop.

 

[Rail Ranger]

Especially when the entire Metrolink fleet has been replaced relatively recently with 750v only vehicles.

TfGM would need to buy a fleet of new tram-train vehicles to operate their proposed tram-train services. I suspect that Network Rail would insist on 25kv AC capability if the vehicles are to be used on any line which may be electrified at 25kv AC in the future.

 

[Purple Orange]

Is there capacity on the Chat Moss line west of Earlestown for an extra two services? Also that removes the faster services between Warrington and Manchester and cuts the Liverpool-Sheffield connection, in fact Liverpool-Sheffield would be quite difficult with that as it'd require two changes. With so many trains running through Victoria, I think it would be difficult to terminate the Scotland there.

There is no need to focus the TPE stopping services on Victoria to make it more uniform, as the majority of Hull/Huddersfield train users will be for the stations between Stalybridge and Huddersfield, and to Hull. Whereas the faster TPE trains will cater for the Huddersfield, Leeds, York passengers.

That just perpetuates a poor rail service in Manchester.

 

[Dspatula]

This bit is the key part for me. I hate it when services are split between termini, which essentially halves the frequency in the city centre given that you have to pick between two or more locations to start your journey. It is the same with Liverpool & Leeds services. Either all should be from Victoria or all from Piccadilly, but not both. If that means some city pairs are lost, then so be it.

With that in mind, I’d do the following:

• Hull & Huddersfield TPE services go to Victoria, along with the Newcastle, Scarborough, Middlesbrough & Redcar TPEs.
• The Hull & Huddersfield being the services that continued around the chord, calling at all stops to the airport using 185s.

The current timetable pretty much requires the Airports and the Piccadilly services to take different routes at Stalybridge. If you could fix that then using option C as a base I would go with your switch for Hull and Huddersfield as well as switching the Chester and Southport services which would give;

Manchester Airport to Huddersfield calling at Ashton, Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite and Huddersfield. 1tph

Manchester Airport to Hull calling at Ashton, Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Huddersfield and as normal after that. As per option C plus Ashton. 1tph

Chester to Newcastle calling at Helsby, Frodsham, Runcorn East, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Newton-le-Willlows, Manchester Victoria and then as normal to Newcastle. 1tph

Chester to Redcar as same as the Newcastle. 1tph

Southport to Leeds via Bradford Interchange. 2tph

This would have the advantage of removing all crossing moves at Manchester Victoria, however Leeds Southport trains were very unreliable last time this existed.



Other options based on C would be one to just swap the two so Hull and Huddersfield to Manchester Airport, and Redcar and Newcastle to Piccadilly.

And two to switch the two Leeds to Chester services with the TPEs to give Leeds, Bradford to Manchester Airport 2tph, and Redcar/Newcastle, York, Manchester Victoria to Chester 2tph.

 

[LOL The Irony]

That's optimistic considering the track leaving Altrincham for Hale is very curvy so trains can't go that fast through Altrincham even if they don't stop.

Exactly, Hale to Skelton Junction has too many turns to make skipping Altrincham that worthwhile.

 

[Jack Hay]

That's optimistic considering the track leaving Altrincham for Hale is very curvy so trains can't go that fast through Altrincham even if they don't stop.

Two minutes saving per station skipped is a pretty sound estimate. Hence 70 minutes for the journey Chetser-Piccadilly via Altrincham, compared to 62 via WBQ. Not that big a difference.

 

[Ianno87]

Two minutes saving per station skipped is a pretty sound estimate. Hence 70 minutes for the journey Chetser-Piccadilly via Altrincham, compared to 62 via WBQ. Not that big a difference.

Plus the time saved no longer walking to Platform 13/14.

 

[Purple Orange]

The current timetable pretty much requires the Airports and the Piccadilly services to take different routes at Stalybridge. If you could fix that then using option C as a base I would go with your switch for Hull and Huddersfield as well as switching the Chester and Southport services which would give;

Manchester Airport to Huddersfield calling at Ashton, Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite and Huddersfield. 1tph

Manchester Airport to Hull calling at Ashton, Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Huddersfield and as normal after that. As per option C plus Ashton. 1tph

Chester to Newcastle calling at Helsby, Frodsham, Runcorn East, Warrington Bank Quay, Earlestown, Newton-le-Willlows, Manchester Victoria and then as normal to Newcastle. 1tph

Chester to Redcar as same as the Newcastle. 1tph

Southport to Leeds via Bradford Interchange. 2tph

This would have the advantage of removing all crossing moves at Manchester Victoria, however Leeds Southport trains were very unreliable last time this existed.



Other options based on C would be one to just swap the two so Hull and Huddersfield to Manchester Airport, and Redcar and Newcastle to Piccadilly.

And two to switch the two Leeds to Chester services with the TPEs to give Leeds, Bradford to Manchester Airport 2tph, and Redcar/Newcastle, York, Manchester Victoria to Chester 2tph.

I’d keep the Newcastle services going to Liverpool and have the 68s going off to Chester given it’s not electrified. Keeps Liverpool at 2 tph across to Leeds, but it inevitably will if NPR is not built to Liverpool.

 

[Philip]

That just perpetuates a poor rail service in Manchester.

Why does it? In proposal C the TPE to Victoria is a nice uniform clockface quarter-hourly frequency of fast trains. Without the peak time Southport-Oxford Road then all of the Newcastle services could go round to the Airport; I would consider removing the peak time Southport-Oxford Road as it serves little purpose apart from clogging up Oxford Road and messing things up for TPE by having to terminate a Newcastle at Victoria to make room. If you start the TPE stoppers from Victoria then it spoils this neat and easy to understand frequency.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why does it? In proposal C the TPE to Victoria is a nice uniform clockface quarter-hourly frequency of fast trains. Without the peak time Southport-Oxford Road then all of the Newcastle services could go round to the Airport; I would consider removing the peak time Southport-Oxford Road as it serves little purpose apart from clogging up Oxford Road and messing things up for TPE by having to terminate a Newcastle at Victoria to make room. If you start the TPE stoppers from Victoria then it spoils this neat and easy to understand frequency.

I would contend it is likely to be the most popular peak train from Southport. But if you want the consistency, if you ensure a quality connection (no more than 5 minutes' wait in either direction) at Salford Crescent, then that would be acceptable, though OPSTA* will still kick up a stink.

* Ormskirk, Preston and Southport Travellers' Association

 

[Purple Orange]

Why does it? In proposal C the TPE to Victoria is a nice uniform clockface quarter-hourly frequency of fast trains. Without the peak time Southport-Oxford Road then all of the Newcastle services could go round to the Airport; I would consider removing the peak time Southport-Oxford Road as it serves little purpose apart from clogging up Oxford Road and messing things up for TPE by having to terminate a Newcastle at Victoria to make room. If you start the TPE stoppers from Victoria then it spoils this neat and easy to understand frequency.

Yes it’s still substandard, even if proposal C is an improvement.

In London, if you want to go to Newcastle, you go to Kings Cross. If you want to go to Manchester, you go to Euston. You don’t have a situation where some of the trains each hour leave from Kings Cross to Newcastle and some from Liverpool Street, even though it could happen. In Manchester if you want to go to Liverpool, you have to make a choice about which direction to head to either Piccadilly or Victoria. If you’re slightly late you have to wait half an hour, rather than have the full choice of trains between Manchester & Liverpool. With Leeds it’s a slightly smaller impact in that way, but it is still there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In London, if you want to go to Newcastle, you go to Kings Cross. If you want to go to Manchester, you go to Euston. You don’t have a situation where some of the trains each hour leave from Kings Cross to Newcastle and some from Liverpool Street, even though it could happen. In Manchester if you want to go to Liverpool, you have to make a choice about which direction to head to either Piccadilly or Victoria. If you’re slightly late you have to wait half an hour, rather than have the full choice of trains between Manchester & Liverpool. With Leeds it’s a slightly smaller impact in that way, but it is still there.

Actually you do. There are trains to Cambridge from all of Kings Cross, St Pancras Low Level and Liverpool Street. And south London is even more of a mess in that regard. And don't forget that we were very close to having WCML stoppers on Crossrail (not serving Euston) and fasts from Euston. And there are services to Edinburgh from both Kings Cross and Euston, though the latter are very slow. And you can go from Paddington or Marylebone to Oxford. And from Euston or Marylebone for Brum. And so on.

The thing about Manchester area services is that they are mostly not high frequency (TPE aside) and so you're going to look at a timetable and plan for a specific train anyway, so it matters less. Few people will just head to whichever station it is and be willing to hang around for half an hour. You really need to get to 4tph or better before you get the benefit of that.

 

[JonathanH]

In Manchester if you want to go to Liverpool, you have to make a choice about which direction to head to either Piccadilly or Victoria.

Not really. Victoria is the only place to go for a fast service now (or at least was until the Scarborough service was dropped). The CLC route is now slower.

Almost like no one in Glasgow goes to Central to get a train to Edinburgh, unless they have good cause to do so.

Actually you do. There are trains to Cambridge from all of Kings Cross, St Pancras Low Level and Liverpool Street. And south London is even more of a mess in that regard. And don't forget that we were very close to having WCML stoppers on Crossrail (not serving Euston) and fasts from Euston.

Even there, the services are different. You make a decision as to which one to go to.

People on the Southern destinations cope with it - in fact they would be in uproar if services were removed to their favoured choice of both London Bridge or Victoria - in fact they are generally a bit greedy in that regard about being able to travel to both. You generally know whether to aim for Victoria or London Bridge when travelling to a destination on the Southern network - of course, the ability to change at East Croydon helps.

 

[Ianno87]

Even there, the services are different. You make a decision as to which one to go to.

Yep, Cambridge, you don't generally sit in Central London and say "where's the next train from"? You have already "chosen" the route and head accordingly.

If you're in The City or have Greater Anglia ticket, you'll use Liverpool Street.

if you're in the West End or want the fastest train you'll use King's Cross/St Pancras (basically the same station to all intents and purposes)

 

[scrapy]

I would contend it is likely to be the most popular peak train from Southport. But if you want the consistency, if you ensure a quality connection (no more than 5 minutes' wait in either direction) at Salford Crescent, then that would be acceptable, though OPSTA* will still kick up a stink.

* Ormskirk, Preston and Southport Travellers' Association

To me OPSTA seem to exist to pursue their own agenda rather than represent rail users on the line. Pre May 2018 when Arriva were planning to divert the Southport to Man Airport services to Victoria I was handed a survey by one of their representatives on a train. When I'd filled it in, in support of both going to Victoria I was as told by a very pushy woman that I was wrong and I should have been in favour of maintaining a direct Piccadilly/airport service. I would not be surprised if my survey ended up in the bin and was never sent to Arriva so OPSTA could only send those that agreed with them.

 

[Purple Orange]

The thing about Manchester area services is that they are mostly not high frequency (TPE aside) and so you're going to look at a timetable and plan for a specific train anyway, so it matters less. Few people will just head to whichever station it is and be willing to hang around for half an hour. You really need to get to 4tph or better before you get the benefit of that.

Yet that is going to be the case for Liverpool services. 4 fast tph, which should enable a turn-up-and-go service, but it’s split 2 at Piccadilly and 2 at Victoria. That is not good enough.

It wasn’t that long ago that there was talk of cutting the Nottingham train and terminating it at Piccadilly, therefore why shouldn’t 4 TPEs pass through to Liverpool and the two TPE stoppers go around the chord? Warrington fast services could be served by TfW in to Victoria too, but I’d also argue that the CLC should be a high capacity all stop line

 

[BrianW]

To me OPSTA seem to exist to pursue their own agenda rather than represent rail users on the line. Pre May 2018 when Arriva were planning to divert the Southport to Man Airport services to Victoria I was handed a survey by one of their representatives on a train. When I'd filled it in, in support of both going to Victoria I was as told by a very pushy woman that I was wrong and I should have been in favour of maintaining a direct Piccadilly/airport service. I would not be surprised if my survey ended up in the bin and was never sent to Arriva so OPSTA could only send those that agreed with them.

which says a lot about 'consultation', surveys, petitions, ... Why do people have to assume 'the planners', the professionals, know nothing and/or are self-serving pen-pushing bureaucratic jobsworths ...
It's about 'who shouts loudest' and has better middle-cless skills to buttonhole their MPs and Councillors. Just sayin' ...

 

[Bevan Price]

Those off peak passengers might not care which Manchester station they travel to, but going home they want to know which station to travel from for the quickest journey. Preferably without having to interrogate an app or study a timetable, then trying to decide "should I risk a dash for the 1612 from Victoria, knowing if I miss it I've got to wait till 1712, or should I amble over to Piccadilly for the 1643?"

For the occasional traveller, much better to have a train every 30 minutes from one station than 1tph from each of two.

Post-Covid, the railway should aim to make the timetable more attractive (=simple) for such leisure travellers, rather than for the (ex-)daily commuters who know the times of their regular trains by heart but have now got used to WFH.

I would agree with that, having found myself at Victoria (or Piccadilly), finding out that a train is cancelled, but with insufficient time to catch the next train from "the other" station.

 

[Purple Orange]

I would agree with that, having found myself at Victoria (or Piccadilly), finding out that a train is cancelled, but with insufficient time to catch the next train from "the other" station.

Even for seasoned commuters that is frustrating. The number of times I’ve left the office to catch a train from Deansgate only to miss it by a matter seconds, then I have to dash over to Piccadilly to catch the next train. A simple timetable is also a consistent one.

In each of the proposals, this is minimised to be fair, but only new infrastructure will assist in eradicating it. It’s what I hope NPR will be able to assist with.

 

[4-SUB 4732]

which says a lot about 'consultation', surveys, petitions, ... Why do people have to assume 'the planners', the professionals, know nothing and/or are self-serving pen-pushing bureaucratic jobsworths ...
It's about 'who shouts loudest' and has better middle-cless skills to buttonhole their MPs and Councillors. Just sayin' ...

Best comment of them all, and totally true.

 

[Killingworth]

Based on over 300 posts to date a lot of reasoned comments will be going in to the consultation.

I'll steer clear of detailed North Western issues, not least because they highlight the problem of tailoring 21st century needs into the much truncated 19th century railway infrastructure!

We on South Pennine lost our direct Airport link last March. Due to the situation it hasn't been greatly missed.

With 6 coaches it was difficult to operate given the lack of airport platforms to take them all. On paper the cross platform transfers onto frequent airport trains envisaged in Options B and C sounds fine. Many do that already from EMR trains. Quite a few holidaymakers use Northern from Sheffield because their fares can be cheaper and they're happy to change. Those who'd suffer most are the regular commuters - yes, there were a few. Air crew, and airport staff. The numbers of business travellers going through was not great - although they made up a goodly proportion of first class.

We'd gain a second service to Liverpool and Oxford Road, a station used by quite a few academics and students from Sheffield, so that's a plus.

The drawbacks for us? Waiting in the scrum on *** platform 13/14 for an airport train! (We do that to head for Glasgow or the Lakes.) At a theoretical 6 or 7 an hour it might be a shuttle every 10 minutes. I sense that in reality there'd be times when it could well be 30 minutes and then 3 in procession. However, if it all works as hoped the number of late trains will be significantly reduced.

 

[Ianno87]

The drawbacks for us? Waiting in the scrum on *** platform 13/14 for an airport train! (We do that to head for Glasgow or the Lakes.) At a theoretical 6 or 7 an hour it might be a shuttle every 10 minutes. I sense that in reality there'd be times when it could well be 30 minutes and then 3 in procession. However, if it all works as hoped the number of late trains will be significantly reduced.

The Airport-bound scrum on 13 (particularly for Airport trains) is nowhere near as bad as the northbound scrum on 14. It's not like it's far to the airport so folks aren't massively anxious about getting a seat etc.

 

[peters]

which says a lot about 'consultation', surveys, petitions, ... Why do people have to assume 'the planners', the professionals, know nothing and/or are self-serving pen-pushing bureaucratic jobsworths ...
It's about 'who shouts loudest' and has better middle-cless skills to buttonhole their MPs and Councillors. Just sayin' ...

Or perhaps which marginal seats the governing party has? Hazel Grove and High Peak (which includes Buxton) are marginal Conservative seats, while the Tories are unlikely to lose Altrincham & Sale West, Tatton (which includes Knutsford) or Macclesfield over failing to deliver the rail improvements they promised.

 

[peters]

To me OPSTA seem to exist to pursue their own agenda rather than represent rail users on the line. Pre May 2018 when Arriva were planning to divert the Southport to Man Airport services to Victoria I was handed a survey by one of their representatives on a train. When I'd filled it in, in support of both going to Victoria I was as told by a very pushy woman that I was wrong and I should have been in favour of maintaining a direct Piccadilly/airport service. I would not be surprised if my survey ended up in the bin and was never sent to Arriva so OPSTA could only send those that agreed with them.

Former Southport MP John Pugh did have a more reasoned view. He was of the opinion that the May 2018 service pattern had been decided on the basis that Wigan to Bolton to Manchester services would be electrified, which meant that diesel trains from Southport would go via Atherton to Victoria, so he questioned why the diversion was going ahead when the planned electrification had not been completed.

 

[peters]

The drawbacks for us? Waiting in the scrum on *** platform 13/14 for an airport train! (We do that to head for Glasgow or the Lakes.) At a theoretical 6 or 7 an hour it might be a shuttle every 10 minutes. I sense that in reality there'd be times when it could well be 30 minutes and then 3 in procession. However, if it all works as hoped the number of late trains will be significantly reduced.

You could instead alight at Stockport and catch the 199 bus to Manchester Airport, which runs express via the Motorway and takes 15 minutes (or 20 at peak times.) You would have to walk to the end of Station Rd to the bus stop but that's a much shorter distance than you'll have to walk from the airport station to any of the departure halls at the airport.

It may even be cheaper to buy a Stockport PlusBus ticket than to buy a ticket to Manchester Airport.

 

[StretfordEnd96]

The current timetable pretty much requires the Airports and the Piccadilly services to take different routes at Stalybridge. If you could fix that then using option C as a base I would go with your switch for Hull and Huddersfield as well as switching the Chester and Southport services which would give;

Manchester Airport to Huddersfield calling at Ashton, Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite and Huddersfield. 1tph

Manchester Airport to Hull calling at Ashton, Stalybridge, Mossley, Greenfield, Marsden, Slaithwaite, Huddersfield and as normal after that. As per option C plus Ashton. 1tph

How would we be able to fix that though - I didn't think there was a possible way of a Stalybridge - Piccadilly train to carry on to the Airport, unless it ran through Ashton and Victoria (or possibly even Phillips Park instead of Ashton, but this wouldn't be logical)

Also, as for having 2x trains per hour stopping at the Stalybridge - Huddersfield local stations - I thought there was simply not enough space on this line for this to happen. Unless something's changed?