Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It has been established (a) that there are 9tph, and (b) that TPE have a problem with a shortage of units.

Reducing that to say 6 or 7tph and redeploying the units on overcrowded services elsewhere would be extremely sensible. The journey opportunities would still be there, just they'd be connectional.

Neil

Your reply does not appear to have understood matters as to why direct rail services run from Cleethorpes, Middlesbrough, York, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Blackpool and Southport to enable airline passengers to and from Manchester Airport without the need for luggage transhipment en route. I did try to help matters by citing direct rail services to and from Stansted Airport as a comparative matter. No-one appears to suggest cutting short the Stansted Airport rail services at stations such as Elsenham or Bishop's Stortford to cater for rolling stock problems. Passengers do actually use these direct rail services directly to airports, where there are facilities laid on for luggage to be moved easily. Have you ever been into Manchester Airport and seen how easily rail passengers can access the airport elevated walkways from the railway station

Those services are there for catering for rail served demand to one of Britain's largest airports and not for the benefit of rolling stock provision.

 

[Class 170101]

Whilst agreeing that Dft in their wisdom made the current franchise a no growth one, it is not necessarily correct to assume that a 67% growth means that 67% more seats are required
Surely this would only apply if 100% seats were occupied in every train at the beginning of the franchise
Brian

It probably should be noted at this point that suppression of growth as far as a leisure users does not begin when seats on trains are 100% full, its nearer 70%, for commuters its somewhat higher around 80 to 90% but still suppression of growth is not occurring at 100%.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by LNW-GW Joint
Standard pattern is:
5xTPE (Blackpool/Cumbria, Scotland, York, Middlesbrough, Cleethorpes), all 185s except Scotland (350)
4xNT (Piccadillyx2 (323), Liverpool, Southport (DMU))

That adds up to 26 cars an hour Piccadilly-Airport. Too many seats for the traffic on offer.
All non-stop except the two NT 323s (all stops), and the TPE Blackpool calls at Heald Green.
One of the NT 323s runs on to Crewe.
But trains routed via the South Junction have to go somewhere.

Indeed. The main reason for so much going to the Airport is that there is only one reversing siding at Picc that can be used to reverse trains coming from the west, and Arriva Trains Wales already use it. Stockport would be another option, I suppose, though it already has plenty of services to/from Picc so there'd be little to gain from clogging the WCML up with yet more trains.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


That it might be, but as I mention it has little to do with passenger demand and more to do with places where trains can be reversed after Picc.

Neil

One could argue that it should be one of the TPE trains that goes in the siding at Manchester Piccadilly rather than the ATW service to Chester.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

One could argue that it should be one of the TPE trains that goes in the siding at Manchester Piccadilly rather than the ATW service to Chester.

Where do you then propose the ATW service should be stabled, noting the direction that it uses?

Also which Manchester Airport-bound service are you considering being cut short? Perhaps the Southport ones, as this will remove the Class 142 Pacers from spoiling the modern ambiance of Manchester Airport station, let alone having people confuse them with the Manchester Metrolink trams that will start their new services tomorrow...

 

[tbtc]

Planned electrification IS fast enough to replace non compliant Pacers but of course it depends on what happens to cascaded stock from Scotrail, Crossrail, GTR, FGW etc and anyhow there is still the possibllity that 143s and 144s will be made compatible by 2020

I thought that the CP5 electrification plans would free up enough units to allow all 142s to be replaced, but some 143/1443 (and 153s etc) would have to be retained until some time in CP6.

However, the Scottish franchise's plans to introduce 27x 1970s HSTs to replace 158/170s will mean thirtysomething additional DMUs freed up (on top of the stock available after EGIP wiring is completed), so maybe all Pacers will be freed up earlier than I was expecting

Whilst agreeing that Dft in their wisdom made the current franchise a no growth one, it is not necessarily correct to assume that a 67% growth means that 67% more seats are required
Surely this would only apply if 100% seats were occupied in every train at the beginning of the franchise
Brian

Good point.

That's 7 years of misery. And lots more Pacers.

Neil

Yes. But what's the alternative (given that we are where we are)?

CP5 electrification is already behind schedule in areas, and little scope of any major extensions to that already committed (beyond short infiils).

Building new DMUs would mean them coming into service in maybe 2017 only to find a surplus of DMUs in the early 2020s - nobody is going to fund units that'll only be needed for less than a quarter of their life expectancy.

Ideally, we would have started electrification years ago - something I've always argued for - but... we have to deal with the reality of the mess that we area in.

i don't know, but i'm thinking even though the trains are shortish, its the frequency that probably attracts people to the service, if it was less frequent but with longer trains could that not turn some people away?

Simply cutting services, and lengthening those that survive the cull isn't going to solve the problem. In fact as Paul mentions above, reducing frequencies might actually make the services less attractive

It'll turn *some* people away, I'm sure, but you'll note that I've only chosen routes that already offer at least four trains an hour (which is essentially a "turn up and go" frequency on heavy rail).

At the moment, trying to cram in various extra services (without any timetable rewrite), we end up with pretty messy timetables.

For example, from Sheffield to Doncaster I could generally use:

xx:10
xx:24
xx:41
xx:47
xx:53

(i.e. two seventeen minute gaps in the hour, but three trains in twelve minutes between xx:41 and xx:51)

From Doncaster to Sheffield I've got:

xx:04
xx:26
xx:42
xx:49
xx:59

(i.e. over twenty minutes gap early in the hour, yet four services in twenty two minutes)

Split the timetable into a simpler four trains an hour (two fast, two slow via Rotherham) and you could have a straightforward fifteen minute timetable, rather than the current awkward gaps.

I've used this example as it's a cut to frequency in South Yorkshire - I'm not being a hypocrite asking for cuts elsewhere whilst trying to protect my own back yard.

they may get fed up with it but realistically what can they do? its not the 50s/60s/70s/80s now so i can't see a government simply going back to mass closures/removals of service that would surely not go down well (and shall we say) not help whatever parties chances at the next election? ah i don't know

We'll see the death of a thousand cuts to "provincial" services (with cuts in some hourly routes, some infrequent routes becoming daily routes, some more services slipping into "Parliamentary" territory), if we're not careful - there's going to be no big investment in basket case routes unless we can show some improvements.

Please can you give the breakdown of these nine trains into the actual service journeys that are included in this short part of their journeys, stating what the actual journeys are, the name of the TOC operating them and the actual service frequency of each service

Standard pattern is:
5xTPE (Blackpool/Cumbria, Scotland, York, Middlesbrough, Cleethorpes), all 185s except Scotland (350)
4xNT (Piccadillyx2 (323), Liverpool, Southport (DMU))

That adds up to 26 cars an hour Piccadilly-Airport. Too many seats for the traffic on offer.
All non-stop except the two NT 323s (all stops), and the TPE Blackpool calls at Heald Green.
One of the NT 323s runs on to Crewe

Thanks to LNW-GW Joint.

For the benefit of "forum members who reside very many miles away and have no real knowledge" of Manchester Airport (who Paul is clearly concerned about), Manchester Airport is a spur/ dead end/ branch - which means that any services serving it have to be extended/diverted to serve it (unlike Airport stations at Luton, Gatwick/ Birmingham/ Prestwick/ Southampton, where it's just a case of stopping a service that was passing through anyway).

Also, journey times from Piccadilly are around twenty minutes, so once you've factored in the recovery time and return journey, you are talking an extra unit required to extend any of these hourly services to Manchester Airport (i.e. the cost of serving Manchester Airport is generally one extra DMU/EMU).

So, if we are using nine trains an hour on the branch, you'd expect some pretty big passenger numbers.Manchester Airport station has 3,163,000 passengers per week, which sounds big.

But, that's 8,665 passengers per day. Call it 4,333 departing (and a similar number arriving, since the overall number of passengers is essentially double counting).

Assume that those passengers arrive over a twelve hour day (I know that Manchester Airport sees trains running through the night, but let's assume that the bulk of passengers are arriving between 07:00 and 19:00, i.e. when the nine trains an hour applies), and that's 361 passengers per hour.

Divide that by the nine trains an hour serving the branch and that's forty passengers per train (i.e. half a 153). Obviously when you factor in the fact that there are some passengers using Manchester Airport on the hourly service to Crewe (i.e. not toward Manchester), there are some people using it before 07:00, there are some people using it after 19:00... the average loading per daytime train towards Manchester goes down and down.

Now, if you are telling me that there's a scarcity of DMUs in northern England and that there's some overcrowded services in northern England then how do you justify taking up to nine units to serve an electrified branch that only sees threehundredandsomething passengers in a typical hour?

If you cut the frequency to six trains an hour (three non-stop and three stopping at Heald Green etc) then you'd free up some scarce DMUs (and save a few quid in staffing costs). Maybe even four an hour (two non-stop and two stopping at Heald Green etc)? Splitting the timetable out better to avoid the current muddle of "three minute gap then ten minute gap" may mean that the typical wait wouldn't go down much anyway.

I'm certainly not suggesting withdrawing every service (before I get the hysterical response...), just saying that there's a massive over provision at the moment.

I really don't understand why whenever this issue comes up some are so keen to simply go for a programme of cuts in the North. This region needs investment as well as others

The problem is that you can only spend each pound once. So a pound of investment cost the same as a pound of subsidy.

If you need a million pounds of subsidy per day then that's a million pounds that could have been spent on an additional carriage or for platform extensions.

The difference is that a million pounds of subsidy one day will require a million pounds of subsidy the next day, and a million pounds the day after... whereas buying a new carriage one day doesn't lock you into a perpetual cycle.

We are going to struggle to get much "investment" when the "subsidy" is so much.

Indeed, it's really frustrating in the evening seeing an empty 8 carriage 350 or 6 carriage 185 chugging through Piccadilly towards Manchester Airport closely followed by a rammed 4 carriage EMT 158 heading to Sheffield

Yup - far too many resources on the Airport route (that could be used on other lines)

I thank you for this information. I don't think that the soon to be opened fourth platform at Manchester Airport is there for its aesthetic complementation to the Manchester Metrolink platform opposite

It's probably because the nine services an hour currently arriving from Piccadilly are so awkwardly timed (gaps vary between three minutes and ten minutes) plus they all have different layover times that the current platforms are inefficiently used.

Plus, the eight coach Scotland services mean you can't put two services in that platform at the same time.

Indeed. The main reason for so much going to the Airport is that there is only one reversing siding at Picc that can be used to reverse trains coming from the west

I take your point, but of the current nine trains an hour we have

Blackpool
Edinburgh/Glasgow
Southport
Liverpool

York (reverses at Piccadilly)
Middlesbrough (reverses at Piccadilly)
Cleethorpes (reverses at Piccadilly)

Piccadilly (obviously terminates at Piccadilly)
Piccadilly (obviously terminates at Piccadilly)

...so that's only four trains an hour from the west that are looking for somewhere to terminate. I appreciate that the idea that "running them an extra twentyish minutes beyond Piccadilly at least gives them somewhere to terminate" applies to some services, but that argument only applies to a minority.

Five of the nine services are either just starting at Piccadilly or are reversing in the main "shed" to run back out to the Airport.

Just running the Liverpool/ Southport/ Blackpool/ Scotland services through to the Airport (i.e. four/ hour) would cope with demand on the Airport line perfectly well.

 

[Class 170101]

Where do you then propose the ATW service should be stabled, noting the direction that it uses?

I was thinking in lieu of the service I put in the Siding. In other words the ATW service goes to the Aiport.

 

[92002]

Whinging northerners won't get one penny more out of the south get over it!

Choice A take the 319s

Choice B keep your lovely Pacers

I'm at the point where I really don't care which you go for... in fact BoJo as PM just to screw you lot is looking more attractive by the second.....

Perhaps what is needed is Choice C.

Devolve the adminsatration of the English Regions from Westminster and give the local Areas a choice of how and what they want from a Transport prespective and what they want to spend their cash on. If that means new EMUs well so be it. They could even open up the Hunslet factory in Leeds again and produce more 323s. Now there's a thought.

It seems to work quite well in Scotland, with ongoing new lines being built and Electrification in progress.

They even have decided to buy new Hitachi EMUs. Being assmbled in Darlington. No hand me downs from anybody there. Only a few to keep them going till the brand new trains arrive.

Could well make a few Civil Servants in London and the South East redundant, but they don't really appear to be earning their keep.
Or being particularly un-biased.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your reply does not appear to have understood matters as to why direct rail services run from Cleethorpes, Middlesbrough, York, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Blackpool and Southport to enable airline passengers to and from Manchester Airport without the need for luggage transhipment en route.

I do understand it fully. However with a shortage of rolling stock decisions must be made that not everyone will like. It is surely better that more people can get a seat (or at least the standing environment might become less oppressive) than a few people avoid a change of train at a station with lifts/travelators. I would suspect few people travel by train to airports without wheeled luggage, which would be easy to manage for that change.

I did try to help matters by citing direct rail services to and from Stansted Airport as a comparative matter. No-one appears to suggest cutting short the Stansted Airport rail services at stations such as Elsenham or Bishop's Stortford to cater for rolling stock problems.

I'm not familiar with these. But if they are using DMUs, and there is significant overprovision of capacity (comparable with 9tph Manchester to Airport, not 1tph or thereabouts), there is a case for the same, yes.

Passengers do actually use these direct rail services directly to airports, where there are facilities laid on for luggage to be moved easily. Have you ever been into Manchester Airport and seen how easily rail passengers can access the airport elevated walkways from the railway station

Yes.

Those services are there for catering for rail served demand to one of Britain's largest airports and not for the benefit of rolling stock provision.

With a limited commodity (rolling stock), you have to use it in the most efficient way, and to me that's the way that will result in most seats being filled. 9tph Manchester Pic-Airport is excessive. 4tph would be entirely sufficient, particularly with Metrolink starting to serve it as well, though I concede 6 is probably easier operationally.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Where do you then propose the ATW service should be stabled, noting the direction that it uses?

ATW apparently want, and have the stock to, extend to the Airport. TPE don't. Not a bad swap, really.

Neil

 

[DT611]

We'll see the death of a thousand cuts to "provincial" services (with cuts in some hourly routes, some infrequent routes becoming daily routes, some more services slipping into "Parliamentary" territory), if we're not careful

maybe. but could it not be the case that unlike the rounds of mass closures years ago, the government may potentially have more of a fight on their hands over such proposals now? and might find it more difficult to implement such service cuts? (i'm talking about the worse case that you have suggested and not small decreases to ballence the time table)

there's going to be no big investment in basket case routes unless we can show some improvements.

one could put the argument that without some help or small investment improvements can't be made to attract people to use the service. whether that is right or wrong i don't know but its worth thinking about all be it maybe for another thread?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Building new DMUs would mean them coming into service in maybe 2017 only to find a surplus of DMUs in the early 2020s - nobody is going to fund units that'll only be needed for less than a quarter of their life expectancy.

Has the idea of DMUs with removable power rafts been considered, which could convert into EMUs later?

Converting some long distance services to LHCS to free up DMUs might also be an option. I'm sure I read either here or on uk.r that Chiltern were happy to do this but the funding was not available.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps what is needed is Choice C.

Devolve the adminsatration of the English Regions from Westminster

There was a referendum on that, was there not? And the vote, I recall, was a fairly definite "no".

Neil

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Those services are there for catering for rail served demand to one of Britain's largest airports and not for the benefit of rolling stock provision.

Stansted Airport station manages with 4tph from London, plus 2tph from the Cambridge direction (one XC from Birmingham).
Stansted has 17m airline passengers a year, Manchester has 20m.
Stansted has 3.7m rail passengers a year, Manchester has 3.1m.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was thinking in lieu of the service I put in the Siding. In other words the ATW service goes to the Aiport.

But that achieves absolutely nothing at all. You still have a train in the siding outside platforms 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly and the other in the terminal platform at Manchester Airport railway station. All you have done is swap around one train from ATW for one from FTPE...and vice-versa.

 

[DT611]

But that achieves absolutely nothing at all. You still have a train in the siding outside platforms 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly and the other in the terminal platform at Manchester Airport railway station. All you have done is swap around one train from ATW for one from FTPE...and vice-versa.

the ATW service would give a direct service from wales to the airport though. maybe swapping with the least used TPE service?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that achieves absolutely nothing at all. You still have a train in the siding outside platforms 13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly and the other in the terminal platform at Manchester Airport railway station. All you have done is swap around one train from ATW for one from FTPE...and vice-versa.

TPE have more of a stock problem than ATW, and I think it sits there for a long time anyway.

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Stansted Airport station manages with 4tph from London, plus 2tph from the Cambridge direction (one XC from Birmingham).
Stansted has 17m airline passengers a year, Manchester has 20m.
Stansted has 3.7m rail passengers a year, Manchester has 3.1m.

As has been posted earlier, Manchester Airport railway station is served by services from a greater number of destinations than that of Stansted Airport railway station. Looking at the areas that have direct rail services to and from Manchester Airport, I cannot see a conjoining of any of them to make a reduction in number, unless the Middlesbrough services (like the former Newcastle services) are made to go to Liverpool instead. This may well encourage people from the North-East to use their own regional airport, without any bleating about that airport not having the same number of served flight destinations as Manchester Airport. tbtc and I had a debate on that particular matter in 2013.

I feel that it is time for a "fantasy" solution to be sought to this problem so allowing myself free unhindered and creative flights of fancy, one may well ask "So what do we do with the Liverpool and Southport services to and from Manchester Airport?" The quick and most obvious answer is the people from that area of the Merseyside region should be "encouraged" to use the John Lennon Airport for all their business and leisure flights. Glasgow and Edinburgh airline passengers should be "encouraged" to use Prestwick International Airport in the same way. The Cleethorpes airline passengers should be exhorted to use an airport much nearer to them or to go and spend their holidays in Skegness. The Blackpool airline passengers should be told how wonderful their resort is and not to go anywhere else on holiday.

So these plans of mine cut down the services using Manchester Airport to those from York, which caters for the Leeds and Huddersfield travellers, the Manchester to Crewe services and the Piccadilly -Airport shuttle service. This will have the benefit of allowing some of the existing heavy rail platform faces converted to those of the Manchester Metrolink system in readiness for the future southern-area expansion of that system.

 

[Olaf]

The people proposing to shorten them to three cars are their owners Porterbrook.

http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/319 Brochure.pdf

That only mentions a feasibility study, with the wording suggesting that it was initiated internally rather than specifically from an external body.

 

[507 001]

Another 156 from Huyton to Man Vic was equally lightly loaded which probably allowed for a spirited run from Newton to Patricroft well in excess of the unit official speed limit before braking for Chat Moss.

Now why do I find that hard to believe??

 

[northwichcat]

OK, if you are relying on quotes, the 'Network RUS Passenger Rolling Stock' in its executive summary

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/network/working%20group%203%20-%20passenger%20rolling%20stock%20and%20depots/network%20rus%20-%20passenger%20rolling%20stock.pdf

says:

"A large proportion of the fleet, however, is
considerably older. Historically the railway has
considered commercial asset life as a nominal 30
years for diesel trains, and 35 years for electric trains.
In theory, over the next ten years a quarter of the
fleet would need to be replaced on this basis. Recent
technical research suggests that the life of some
rolling stock can be extended considerably. Where this
is possible, meets customer expectations and makes
sense commercially, life extension of rolling stock may
be a better whole life cost solution than purchasing
new rolling stock in the short term. However, even if
the life of much of the stock were to be extended for
five years, 12 per cent of the fleet would still need to
be replaced in that period."

I have boldened key parts of the text in case you had not noticed them. So the life figures so often stated in this forum are nominal. The industry rightly recognises that life of any given design is determined by a number of criteria. Passenger satisfaction is but one of them and it is not necessarily directly related to the absolute age of the stock.
Far more important is safety, route compatibility, commercial operating costs and reliability. The latter (reliability) has far more impact on actual passenger satisfaction than cosmetics anyway.

I'm sure they said somewhere 25-30 years for DMUs and 35-40 for EMUs. Maybe if they trying to justify the high costs of electrification they wanted to make it sound like it's 10 extra years an EMU lasts for compared to a DMU.

As has been pointed out before the 2019 deadline for accessibility was decided on because by that date it was anticipated the 15x series would have been replaced and if not a life extension program would have included accessibility improvements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For the benefit of "forum members who reside very many miles away and have no real knowledge" of Manchester Airport (who Paul is clearly concerned about), Manchester Airport is a spur/ dead end/ branch - which means that any services serving it have to be extended/diverted to serve it (unlike Airport stations at Luton, Gatwick/ Birmingham/ Prestwick/ Southampton, where it's just a case of stopping a service that was passing through anyway).

Also, journey times from Piccadilly are around twenty minutes, so once you've factored in the recovery time and return journey, you are talking an extra unit required to extend any of these hourly services to Manchester Airport (i.e. the cost of serving Manchester Airport is generally one extra DMU/EMU).

If I mention the solution to that problem (of the Airport only being a terminus) I'm probably going to be told by someone I'm only looking at my own local area. If the solution was implemented the TPE consultation wouldn't need to talk about Liverpool or Chester or Manchester Airport as the final destination for Sheffield services, as Sheffield-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Chester or Sheffield-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Liverpool would be possible with no reversal at Piccadilly and hence could increase the number of places with a direct Airport link without introducing yet more Piccadilly-Airport services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I mention the solution to that problem (of the Airport only being a terminus) I'm probably going to be told by someone I'm only looking at my own local area. If the solution was implemented the TPE consultation wouldn't need to talk about Liverpool or Chester or Manchester Airport as the final destination for Sheffield services, as Sheffield-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Chester or Sheffield-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Liverpool would be possible with no reversal at Piccadilly and hence could increase the number of places with a direct Airport link without introducing yet more Piccadilly-Airport services.

Not unless someone buys more DMUs. Which they aren't doing. So a *reduction* in direct Airport services is necessary, as they appear to be a complete waste of rolling stock.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I feel that it is time for a "fantasy" solution to be sought to this problem so allowing myself free unhindered and creative flights of fancy, one may well ask "So what do we do with the Liverpool and Southport services to and from Manchester Airport?" The quick and most obvious answer is the people from that area of the Merseyside region should be "encouraged" to use the John Lennon Airport for all their business and leisure flights. Glasgow and Edinburgh airline passengers should be "encouraged" to use Prestwick International Airport in the same way. The Cleethorpes airline passengers should be exhorted to use an airport much nearer to them or to go and spend their holidays in Skegness. The Blackpool airline passengers should be told how wonderful their resort is and not to go anywhere else on holiday.

That's a very sarcastic representation of a viable solution (in terms of which services to remove). A change at Picc from the main station to 13/14 is really no different from leaving Manchester Airport station and walking along the walkway to a terminal. Anyone who can't make that change onto a frequent airport shuttle (Heathrow Express is every 15 minutes, and most think that's frequent enough) is going to take a taxi to the airport anyway.

Yes, everyone likes direct services from their local station to the local station of their destination - but you can't operate a railway like that, even less so if it's wasting scarce DMUs. Were it not for the lack of enough reversing capacity at Picc, I'd say it should be a shuttle only using EMUs (and calling at all stations - it doesn't add much and it would improve those local stations' services a lot and thus usage) - perhaps a dedicated fleet of spare 313s or something for now. As it needs to be used for a reversing siding, I'd just remove anything that has to reverse in the main station to get there other than the dedicated EMUs, and so far as feasible rejig other services to ensure the timetable is reasonably well spread.

That might free up two 185s for TPE to strengthen the overcrowded services their regular, day to day passengers are having to put up with. How's that not better overall?

Neil

 

[martynbristow]

I'm sure they said somewhere 25-30 years for DMUs and 35-40 for EMUs. Maybe if they trying to justify the high costs of electrification they wanted to make it sound like it's 10 extra years an EMU lasts for compared to a DMU.

As has been pointed out before the 2019 deadline for accessibility was decided on because by that date it was anticipated the 15x series would have been replaced and if not a life extension program would have included accessibility improvements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If I mention the solution to that problem (of the Airport only being a terminus) I'm probably going to be told by someone I'm only looking at my own local area. If the solution was implemented the TPE consultation wouldn't need to talk about Liverpool or Chester or Manchester Airport as the final destination for Sheffield services, as Sheffield-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Chester or Sheffield-Manchester-Manchester Airport-Liverpool would be possible with no reversal at Piccadilly and hence could increase the number of places with a direct Airport link without introducing yet more Piccadilly-Airport services.

The problem with MIA is how long it takes to get there.
Say I was on a flight at ~1500 I would need to leave my local station at ~10:47 to ensure I arrived in good time. Too often the last time I was flying trains were not continuing to the airport or running late.
Also on the return you need to be able to get home which isn't often possible. If I fly home in the afternoon then I may land after 8pm and I was stuffed.
But recently they've improved the timetable to get better connections.

If you want to boast rail travel to the Airport you need services fitting around flight times with a high level of resilience. A 1 tph service means you have to leave an hour insurance!

TBH its less hassle to beg a friend to drive you

 

[Bletchleyite]

TBH its less hassle to beg a friend to drive you

Or take a taxi, which isn't always that expensive. It can even be cheaper if there is a group of you (or a Railcardless family).

Neil

 

[fowler9]

It doesn't matter how much you try and encourage the people of Liverpool to use John Lennon Airport instead they will still need to use Manchester Airport as I can't see the likes of Qatar, Etihad, Emirates, Singapore or PIA flying from Liverpool any time soon. Also if you are flying BA long haul you can pretty much fly Manchester to Heathrow for free to connect with your flight, a train from Liverpool to Manchester Airport is pretty much always cheaper and more convenient than getting a train from Liverpool to Heathrow.

 

[northwichcat]

Not unless someone buys more DMUs. Which they aren't doing. So a *reduction* in direct Airport services is necessary, as they appear to be a complete waste of rolling stock.

You're missing the point.

The Northern Hub is proposing more Airport services e.g. Chester and Bradford getting direct Airport services, as well as proposing additional services on lines not being electrified.

What I'm suggesting is a solution which provides more Airport services but doesn't require more trains to run between the Airport and Piccadilly.

For instance, the existing Sheffield-Manchester Airport service could be extended to Chester via Northwich (via a new line), which then gives Chester a direct Airport service but doesn't use another path between Piccadilly and the Airport.

 

[deltic08]

Now why do I find that hard to believe??

Which bit, lightly loaded, speed above 75mph or both?

 

[fowler9]

After travelling from Liverpool to Preston early Friday afternoon and Wigan to Liverpool late Sunday afternoon and being stood up wedged in to a corner on both trains I now think any additional stock that is freed up is a bonus. I had a moan about us getting second hand 319's but after that I really don't care.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're missing the point.

The Northern Hub is proposing more Airport services e.g. Chester and Bradford getting direct Airport services, as well as proposing additional services on lines not being electrified.

Where do they think the rolling stock is coming from?

If it's "when all the electrification is complete and more EMUs are brought in", that's fine - but until then there is a problem, and two DMUs could, it seems, be released by losing those services *for now*.

What I'm suggesting is a solution which provides more Airport services but doesn't require more trains to run between the Airport and Piccadilly.

For instance, the existing Sheffield-Manchester Airport service could be extended to Chester via Northwich (via a new line), which then gives Chester a direct Airport service but doesn't use another path between Piccadilly and the Airport.

Edited: You mean a new line from the Airport to Northwich? Where's the money?

If there's demand for Airport-Crewe/North Wales, the Chester-Crewe shuttles could be extended to Manchester Airport via Styal without any big problem. Except for that there aren't enough spare DMUs to run what would be an incredibly lightly loaded service. A complete waste.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Where do they think the rolling stock is coming from?

If it's "when all the electrification is complete and more EMUs are brought in", that's fine - but until then there is a problem, and two DMUs could, it seems, be released by losing those services *for now*.

The rolling stock released by North West electrification was always supposed to remain in the North to allow service enhancements and new services, which is why when people say things like "319s will release x Pacers for withdrawal" they aren't aware of the wider picture.

The Airport changes aren't expected to happen until December 2016 (or when the Ordsall Chord is open if it's not open by Dec 2016.)

Edited: You mean a new line from the Airport to Northwich? Where's the money?

Network Rail have proposed extending the Airport spur to Mobberley in 'CP6 or later' so it would be a case of bringing the project forward, not being a new project.

If there's demand for Airport-Crewe/North Wales, the Chester-Crewe shuttles could be extended to Manchester Airport via Styal without any big problem. Except for that there aren't enough spare DMUs to run what would be an incredibly lightly loaded service. A complete waste.

Well actually the West Coast RUS identified a need for 2tph between Crewe and the Airport.

A bigger problem with your suggestion is a Chester-Crewe-Airport service would have to cross all the lines at Crewe. Extending the Euston-Crewe service to Derby-Crewe service to the Airport would probably be possible but not Chester-Crewe-Airport as a standard pattern service.

 

[Techniquest]

Interesting that there's very, very little complaining about this thread going way off-topic, yet when it happened on the Great Western Electrification thread there was a massive uproar!

I mean, come on, this isn't just a minor detour from the thread's topic, this has been going on for multiple days now!

Take your Manchester Airport discussion elsewhere please, I'm not entirely interested in that, and if I was I would not be looking for it in a thread on 319s moving to Northern! :roll:

 

[fowler9]

Interesting that there's very, very little complaining about this thread going way off-topic, yet when it happened on the Great Western Electrification thread there was a massive uproar!

I mean, come on, this isn't just a minor detour from the thread's topic, this has been going on for multiple days now!

Take your Manchester Airport discussion elsewhere please, I'm not entirely interested in that, and if I was I would not be looking for it in a thread on 319s moving to Northern! :roll:

Ha ha, good point mate. However I do think that services to Manchester Airport do have a relationship, they will be the first services operated by the 319's will they not?

 

[northwichcat]

Interesting that there's very, very little complaining about this thread going way off-topic, yet when it happened on the Great Western Electrification thread there was a massive uproar!

I mean, come on, this isn't just a minor detour from the thread's topic, this has been going on for multiple days now!

Take your Manchester Airport discussion elsewhere please, I'm not entirely interested in that, and if I was I would not be looking for it in a thread on 319s moving to Northern! :roll:

The problem is where do you draw the line?

Is discussing where released DMUs will go when 319s are introduced off-topic?

Is discussing whether extra capacity is needed on Manchester Airport-Liverpool off-topic when 319s will be going on to those services?

 

[Techniquest]

fowler9: That's the widely accepted situation, yes, but we're also now debating whether there is a need for a line from Northwich to Manchester Airport. Surely, this is a long way from "319 cascade to Northern"!

I would suggest also discussing DMUs displaced by the 319s is fair enough, but discussing the merits of 9tph to/from Manchester Airport and how many passengers use these services per hour, to also include in the posts debates over services across the Pennines and the merits of more than 4 tph, to even going onto the long-term possibility of a new railway line to Northwich is a bit much.

Surely, I'm not the only one who wants to read updates about 319s coming up north in this thread, not all the above?