Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[fowler9]

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?

Well we are now straying off topic in to discussing what off topic is. The title of the thread is open to fairly broad interpretation. Perhaps the mods should split the thread up so those who just want to know what the 319's are up to can easily find out. Understandably some would rather discuss the broader impact of what is going on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

Indeed mate, I think maybe it is time for a seperate discussion. I don't think anyone has done anything wrong but it may make sense for a new thread to be started.

 

[northwichcat]

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

If you want a thread just about stock movements relating to 319s would it not be better to have one in the "Allocations, Diagrams & Timetables" forum? The way it is this thread has been used for discussing everything relating to 319s from capacity to potential refurbishment and re-forming to how good their acceleration is to people's opinions on travelling on 319s etc.

 

[fowler9]

If you want a thread just about stock movements relating to 319s would it not be better to have one in the "Allocations, Diagrams & Timetables" forum? The way it is this thread has been used for discussing everything relating to 319s from capacity to potential refurbishment and re-forming to how good their acceleration is to people's opinions on travelling on 319s etc.

Yes to this. I'm not much interested in individual stock movements but I think it should be easily accessible for people who are.

 

[Wolfie]

How nice it is to see a well written and considered posting that puts its point, albeit differing from the point of view of mine, that I made in relation to one of the most "rudest in phraseology" postings by a forum member that it has been my unfortunance to read in the three and a half years since I have been a member of this forum.

I note your comments regarding the cyclical nature of all areas receiving better-quality rolling stock and would accept that view if cyclical were to remain the case and here in the northern reaches we currently took cascaded stocks of 1980s vintage to enable capacity to be retained in the interim period, but there has to be a time when those 1980s units also become life-expired.

The fear up here is that when that said life-expiration of the 1980s units occurs, instead of the cyclical nature referred to were then to bring new rolling stock to the northern areas, all that would occur is that further batches of new units for the southern areas at that point of time would once again see a repeat of 30 year-old cascaded rolling stock being offered to northern areas and this being the norm for years to come, instead of new units ever again being offered to the northern areas.

Paul I was doubtless the author of the rudest response and, on reflection, concede that you have a point. However, being harried by several posters who merely reiterate the same point over and over ad nauseam without even considering any of the counter-arguements does rather tend to have that effect. I had previously said I was bailing out of this thread only to be provoked into re-engaging; perhaps sticking to my initial decision would have been better.

With respect to your last para I must say that I think you make a very valid point. Until or unless the economics of "northern" TOCs improve, by whatever means (which might include some franchise remapping), that must be a real danger.

You're forgetting the north only got rid of slam door on local services completely in 2004. The last of which was only withdrawn when all the 175s were in service (which allowed the 101s to be withdrawn) and Central had received the ex-MML 170s and consequently cascaded a few 158s North (which allowed the mk2 sets to be withdrawn.)

You make it sound like the north west was the victim, yet again.

The midlands had slam door 121s until 2001, Scotland had slam door 117s until 2000, Yorkshire had slam door 308s until 2001, Wales had slam door 121s until 2013 (not including the fact that the midlands/ Scotland/ Yorkshire still see daily slam door HSTs from the 1970s on longer distance services) - so Manchester's 101s only lasted a couple of years beyond most other places (notwithstanding that the midlands still have 121 operation).

…and of course in the South East, that land of all new trains, the 4 CEPs were operated by SouthEastern into 2005…..

 

[tbtc]

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)

Who knows what cuts there may be in future - probably a gradual reduction in services, evening frequencies slowly thinned out, then when that means fewer daytime passeners (since they can't come home at a reasonable time in the evening) then that's an excuse to see the daytime frequencies cut too... no "big bang", more "death of a thousand cuts"?

Imagine if you were on Dragon's Den asking for investment in your "North of England railway"... they established that it was losing a million pounds a day, fair enough some loss making businesses have long term potential...

...but when they asked what efficiencies you proposed to make to the existing losses (in return for investment), and your answer was "I plan to continue running the efficient business that I currently have, no plans to deal with any of the worst performing areas"... do you think you'd get an investment?

Those who control the purse strings (rightly or wrongly) aren't going to spend vast sums investing in an area that loses a million pounds a day (if nobody is willing to look into the causes of those losses).

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

The "convertible" DMUs idea raises its head from time to time, as do "battery" trains (there was a thread on here recently IIRC), but it never seems to amount to much.

Re Chiltern - the received wisdom in the enthusiast community that "loco hauled operation has a future, look at how Chiltern have invested in it" took a bit of a battering when DB decided to take on additional DMUs instead of using the rakes of coaches that are already on their books.

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.

So Stansted has more railway passengers per year, but manages with just four trains an hour from London (and doesn't need a direct service to every large connurbation within a couple of hours drive)?

Case closed.

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

Paul - all we are talking about is reducing the wasteful "nine trains an hour" that currently use the line through Heald Green.

If there's a shortage of DMU stock in northern England (which I believe there is?) and there's overcrowding on some services in northern England (which I believe there is?) then surely it's not too radical to look at freeing up some resources from a branchline that currently has an average load of thirtysomething passengers per departure?

Nobody is talking about forcing Scottish passengers to use Prestwick, no need for the over-reaction, this is just a discussion about whether the abundance of resources currently used on the Manchester Airport branch could be shared out better on other lines (whilst retaining a relatively frequent service to Manchester Airport - e.g. Stansted manages four trains an hour)

So a *reduction* in direct Airport services is necessary, as they appear to be a complete waste of rolling stock

Yes.

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:

Sorry, I did try setting up a "North of England" thread to contain such debates, but the argument seems to have moved back to this one (which I am guilty of continuing, I appreciate)

 

[fowler9]

The market for Manchester Airport is completely different from that of Stansted. Stansted and its catchment area is within easily commutable distance of airports providing long haul flights across the planet. Manchester isn't. They are completely different airports.

To put it slightly differently Stansted is a slightly larger Liverpool John Lennon. Manchester is a slightly smaller Heathrow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To put it slightly differently Stansted is a slightly larger Liverpool John Lennon. Manchester is a slightly smaller Heathrow.

Which has 6tph to and from London plus the Piccadilly Line and buses, and no direct train services to anywhere else. And it's larger than Manchester by some margin.

6 trains per hour plus Metrolink (reduced from 9 by removing all the TPEs that reverse at Picc) would therefore seem more than adequate.

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

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.

It used to until the mid 2000s, and was withdrawn because nobody used it and it was a waste of DMUs. It still would be a waste of DMUs compared with using them on overcrowded routes, realistically.

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

The "convertible" DMUs idea raises its head from time to time, as do "battery" trains (there was a thread on here recently IIRC), but it never seems to amount to much.

Re Chiltern - the received wisdom in the enthusiast community that "loco hauled operation has a future, look at how Chiltern have invested in it" took a bit of a battering when DB decided to take on additional DMUs instead of using the rakes of coaches that are already on their books.

True - DMUs are cheaper provided you can get them. But if they can't be got, medium-term solutions need to be found - and they keep needing to be found, as it would appear passenger numbers are not going to go anywhere other than up.

As for battery EMUs, I believe Network Rail are going to do some testing on one down South somewhere (under the wires, so it can be shifted if it breaks)?

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

It used to until the mid 2000s, and was withdrawn because nobody used it and it was a waste of DMUs.

A lot has changed in 10 years. Have Northern experienced no growth since 2004 as originally anticipated? No. In fact on some lines passenger numbers have doubled.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A lot has changed in 10 years. Have Northern experienced no growth since 2004 as originally anticipated? No. In fact on some lines passenger numbers have doubled.

Is the existing Crewe to Manchester Airport service overcrowded?

If not, there is no justification for increasing it given the shortage of rolling stock.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Is the existing Crewe to Manchester Airport service overcrowded?

I'm not sure on that but I do know the Manchester to South Wales services get very overcrowded between Crewe and Manchester, so an extension of the Liverpool-Airport service to Crewe may help relieve overcrowding on the ATW service.

If not, there is no justification for increasing it given the shortage of rolling stock.

Based on that reasoning there wasn't justification for increasing the frequency of Manchester-London to 3tph all day and Chester-London to 1tph. It was busy TPE services that suffered as a result, by the time the 185s had to cover for the Voyagers which were taken off Manchester-Scotland to go on to North Wales/Chester-London services with the released Pendolinos (which were dragged to Holyhead) being used to enhance the Manchester frequency. (XC also had to release Voyagers to Virgin but they got HSTs as compensation.)

Sometimes the reason for an enhancement is to make the service more attractive and to get more people that way, opposed to try and reduce overcrowding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not sure on that but I do know the Manchester to South Wales services get very overcrowded between Crewe and Manchester, so an extension of the Liverpool-Airport service to Crewe may help relieve overcrowding on the ATW service.

I doubt it, because the service via the Airport would be slower (as it would have to reverse), so passengers would avoid it. There's a Northern stopper 3 minutes after the ATW and they don't take that. You could solve that one by putting a "u" southbound and "s" northbound on the ATW service, I suppose - while some would ignore it, it would at least stop it appearing in journey planners and on platform displays.

Based on that reasoning there wasn't justification for increasing the frequency of Manchester-London to 3tph all day

I don't believe there was, FWIW. I think 2tph would have been more sensible, and south Manchester local services and south WCML commuter services would not have suffered as a result.

Chester-London to 1tph.

For Crewe-London that would have been justified - it is a key connectional service for Milton Keynes passengers and loads heavily south of Crewe. You could argue that the bit to Chester is wasted, but it might well be it is at marginal cost and doesn't require an extra unit.

Sometimes the reason for an enhancement is to make the service more attractive and to get more people that way, opposed to try and reduce overcrowding.

It is silly to make a service more attractive if there is no willingness to spend money on new rolling stock.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

I doubt it, because the service via the Airport would be slower (as it would have to reverse), so passengers would avoid it. There's a Northern stopper 3 minutes after the ATW and they don't take that. You could solve that one by putting a "u" southbound and "s" northbound on the ATW service, I suppose - while some would ignore it, it would at least stop it appearing in journey planners and on platform displays.

Would make Crewe-Manchester by train unattractive with only one semi-fast train an hour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would make Crewe-Manchester by train unattractive with only one semi-fast train an hour.

Not half as unattractive as long-distance passengers pushed off their trains by short-distance overcrowding.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Not half as unattractive as long-distance passengers pushed off their trains by short-distance overcrowding.

Neil

Some of the passengers changing at Crewe will be long distance passengers, not passengers making local journeys.

For instance, the Derby arrival at Crewe is xx:04 and the official connection for Manchester would be the xx:30 (from South Wales) getting you in to Manchester at xx:15. If, however, Crewe passengers were forced on to the xx:33 stopping service, that would add 25 additional minutes to the journey time.

 

[PHILIPE]

Well we are now straying off topic in to discussing what off topic is. The title of the thread is open to fairly broad interpretation. Perhaps the mods should split the thread up so those who just want to know what the 319's are up to can easily find out. Understandably some would rather discuss the broader impact of what is going on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Indeed mate, I think maybe it is time for a seperate discussion. I don't think anyone has done anything wrong but it may make sense for a new thread to be started.

It is so easy to stray off topic not only with this but with almost any thread.
A post can be made in regard to a perfectly relevant issue but perhaps a side issue which people then reply to and comment on this issue and the next thing we are discussing that rather than the main issue.
This thread now covers over 100 pages when the original intention was to discuss 319 deployment to Northern so if one wants to track back on 319s it becomes more difficult if other points are being discussed

 

[fowler9]

It is so easy to stray off topic not only with this but with almost any thread.
A post can be made in regard to a perfectly relevant issue but perhaps a side issue which people then reply to and comment on this issue and the next thing we are discussing that rather than the main issue.
This thread now covers over 100 pages when the original intention was to discuss 319 deployment to Northern so if one wants to track back on 319s it becomes more difficult if other points are being discussed

Well you have just decided that you know exactly what the OP was thinking and that you know exactly what should be allowed as going a bit off topic. I have seen nothing on here which isn't related to the cascade of 319's to Northern. As I say I think perhaps the thread should be thinned out as it is a bit broad, as such I'm not sure why you picked on what I said.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Which has 6tph to and from London plus the Piccadilly Line and buses, and no direct train services to anywhere else. And it's larger than Manchester by some margin.

6 trains per hour plus Metrolink (reduced from 9 by removing all the TPEs that reverse at Picc) would therefore seem more than adequate.

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


It used to until the mid 2000s, and was withdrawn because nobody used it and it was a waste of DMUs. It still would be a waste of DMUs compared with using them on overcrowded routes, realistically.

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


True - DMUs are cheaper provided you can get them. But if they can't be got, medium-term solutions need to be found - and they keep needing to be found, as it would appear passenger numbers are not going to go anywhere other than up.

As for battery EMUs, I believe Network Rail are going to do some testing on one down South somewhere (under the wires, so it can be shifted if it breaks)?

Neil

Manchester is an airport used by major long haul airlines and is a key point in the north of England for this, hence people from all over the north head there, requiring trains from multiple origins. Stansted is on the edge of a large conurbation and whilst it may be used by more people than Manchester it is used by a lot more local people. Indeed you could live right by Stansted and in fact end up using Manchester or Heathrow to get to Dubai for example.

To expand on this Stansted is a very big budget airline hub. Manchester is to but Manchester also has the likes of Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, PIA, Singapore, Air Transat, United, US Airways etc. flying out on a daily basis. Stansted doesn't.

 

[Techniquest]

Manchester also has a better range of flight options than Birmingham, which is why I've used it a few times as well. Birmingham's great if you want to fly to Dublin, Glasgow or Edinburgh, or Amsterdam I suppose, but I can't seem to fly from Birmingham to Stockholm (hence why I'm going to Stansted for that next week), or from Birmingham to virtually anywhere in Spain it appears (I've yet to have much luck finding a flight from Birmingham at least!), or from Birmingham to anywhere I want to go! Considering Birmingham's supposed to be a major airport, you can't get to as many places as you would expect!

And yes, I'm going off-topic but if everyone else can, so can I!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester is an airport used by major long haul airlines and is a key point in the north of England for this, hence people from all over the north head there, requiring trains from multiple origins.

Heathrow is an airport used by major long haul airlines and is a key point in the South East of England for this, hence people from all over the South East and beyond head there, requiring trains from multiple origins, all of which arrive in London and then they change for onward travel to Heathrow.

Why should Manchester be any different in the context of a severe DMU shortage, where Airport shuttles could be operated using EMUs which are far easier to obtain?

Neil

 

[Bantamzen]

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.

The services you quote there are a mix of fast / semi fast & stoppers. Would you cut one of these, or would you cut one of the two stoppers both of which go beyond Doncaster in one direction, and one goes through Sheffield in the other. So it's really not as simple as saying there's too many trains on that section, you have to also ask how many are going through & beyond.

Another example you quoted was between Keighley & Skipton. Now on the face of it 4tph using mainly 4 car 333s with the occasional 4 car 321/322. Now that may seem like overkill at off peak times (although not so at peaks), but you again have to look at the bigger picture. Break down those services and you have 2tph to Leeds and 2tph to Bradford. So your options for reducing the service would be stop 1 of each at Keighley, or reduce the over service from both cities to 1tph. The latter would not go down well, as there is considerable movement between both cities and at least Keighley. And even the former would leave a big gap in services as many passengers travel the full length of the line.

Either option would drive people away from the line, starting the death by a thousand cuts as you mention. And the traffic wouldn't even move across to the bus services, as travel between Keighley & Leeds/Bradford is problematic at best, and from Skipton there is one bus per hour & none to Bradford. So all you would achieve is yet more congestion all along the Aire Valley, at the considerable cost to tax payers in the long run (probably at lot more than the subsidies to Northern). You see you cannot simply look at the rail network in isolation, well certainly not if you are a politician or public department. Cutting rail services might please some parts of the private sector, but it shifts the problem from a to b. And sometimes b is far more costly in the long run than a.

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.

Now I'll admit that at the moment, the 9tph into Manchester airport is excessive considering the numbers of passengers actually using this mode to the airport. And maybe the introduction of the 319s might mean that some services can be cut for the time being. But the whole point of having a rail connection at an airport is for people to use it. I'll be honest here, the wife and I flew from here a few weeks ago and I did consider using the train to get there. However, even though there are currently 2tph from Leeds during the day, as our flight was due to land at 01:30 :eek: and with no viable connections back we opted to book a local taxi firm in our area to pick us up (for the flight out we stayed with some family just down the M56 in Cheshire). Had there been a rail option, we might well have considered it especially given that T2 is notorious for passenger pick ups.

And this is where the integration aspect comes in. What point is there having a partial services if it doesn't meet the needs of the passengers. Perhaps once the sparks go live, and the Ordsall Chord is up and running Manchester Airport services need to be aligned to passenger requirements. In the short term, a handful of 319s will give that extra capacity to some of the North West's towns and cities, but they are not the only places that the airport serves. Ultimately services from there will have to serve far and wide, and be operated by units that can cope with large numbers of passengers with luggage. The 319s are a welcome addition to the Northern fleet, and they will be used extensively during their time in the North West. But they are not a long term solution. The North, as with most other regions is going to need more capacity and the stock suitable for the types of routes run. Yes this will cost money, and yes it will have to come at least in part from the taxpayer. But it's needed.

What you seem to be proposing is a "rationalisation" of the existing services, moving units around to busier services whilst chopping back on the less busy. Well thanks but no thanks, we've seen enough of that with the big bus companies who have been consolidating their efforts onto the more high frequency, high density routes whilst giving away lesser ones. The big difference here is that there will be fewer / no smaller rail companies to pick up the dropped routes, which in the long run will mean many more routes will be lost for good and the traffic simply transferred to road.

 

[HSTEd]

So you want the high intensity, lightly used services that are bleeding Northern/TPE dry, but you also want the investment that is only justifiable if it is actually going to make a return?

I am afraid you can only have one, not both.

Perhaps they should just truncate all the TPE and similar long distance trains to the Airport at Picadilly and run a 4tph Airport Express shuttle with 319s.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

The big difference here is that there will be fewer / no smaller rail companies to pick up the dropped routes, which in the long run will mean many more routes will be lost for good and the traffic simply transferred to road.

Who's dropping routes? We are only considering the idea of reducing the Manchester Airport service from 9tph (better than Heathrow gets) to 6tph (still better than Heathrow gets, as it only has services to/from London).

As for 319s, they're basically 4-car electric 150s. So they are perfectly suitable for anything a pair of 150s would presently do.

Neil

 

[Bantamzen]

Who's dropping routes? We are only considering the idea of reducing the Manchester Airport service from 9tph (better than Heathrow gets) to 6tph (still better than Heathrow gets, as it only has services to/from London).

I was referring to the earlier discussion about losing services on lower frequency services, which could lead eventually lead to the loss of all services if passengers numbers fall away as a result. I've seen this happen to a lot of bus services in my area, so it's possible on the rail network too. It's axing by stealth. First Bus are particularly skilled in this process, so maybe some TOCs will follow their example.

As for 319s, they're basically 4-car electric 150s. So they are perfectly suitable for anything a pair of 150s would presently do.

Neil

But with limited amount of luggage storage space, not ideal for encouraging extra usage to Manchester Airport. I know what it's like travelling with a couple of suitcases on a short section on a 333 (Shipley - Leeds), it's quite a challenge when the loadings are heavy. So longer proposed routes using 319s isn't going to be much more popular with airport bound passengers. Don't get me wrong, the 319s will be useful and they are needed in the light of no possible new orders for some years. But they cannot offer a longer term solution, sooner or later money is going to have to be spent. Better to start planning for it before much of the fleet literally starts to fall apart.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So you want the high intensity, lightly used services that are bleeding Northern/TPE dry, but you also want the investment that is only justifiable if it is actually going to make a return?

I am afraid you can only have one, not both.

Perhaps they should just truncate all the TPE and similar long distance trains to the Airport at Picadilly and run a 4tph Airport Express shuttle with 319s.....

Refurb some of them with extra luggage space around the doors and you might be onto something there. But perhaps some would run from Victoria too, once the chord is open?

 

[fowler9]

Heathrow is an airport used by major long haul airlines and is a key point in the South East of England for this, hence people from all over the South East and beyond head there, requiring trains from multiple origins, all of which arrive in London and then they change for onward travel to Heathrow.

Why should Manchester be any different in the context of a severe DMU shortage, where Airport shuttles could be operated using EMUs which are far easier to obtain?

Neil

Manchester is an Airport used by major long haul airlines and aside from that as I previously mentioned if you fly long haul with BA you can pretty much fly Manchester to Heathrow free. Hence people from all over the North use it. Indeed yesterday after a trip to Newcastle for the footy my mate was on business in Eindhoven he got the train from Newcastle to Manchester Airport. Stansted is not an airport used by major long haul airlines and is a very bad comparison to Manchester even if it is busier by head of passenger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester is an Airport used by major long haul airlines and aside from that as I previously mentioned if you fly long haul with BA you can pretty much fly Manchester to Heathrow free. Hence people from all over the North use it. Indeed yesterday after a trip to Newcastle for the footy my mate was on business in Eindhoven he got the train from Newcastle to Manchester Airport. Stansted is not an airport used by major long haul airlines and is a very bad comparison to Manchester even if it is busier by head of passenger.

I was, as you will see if you look at my quote, referring to Heathrow not Stansted.

Heathrow has 6tph to London Paddington (4tph fast, 2tph slow), LU and buses/coaches, which would be comparable with a reduced Manchester Airport service almost exactly - apart from that Manchester's service is dirt cheap. And a cross-London change is far more hassle than a change at Manc Picc.

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

I was referring to the earlier discussion about losing services on lower frequency services, which could lead eventually lead to the loss of all services if passengers numbers fall away as a result. I've seen this happen to a lot of bus services in my area, so it's possible on the rail network too. It's axing by stealth. First Bus are particularly skilled in this process, so maybe some TOCs will follow their example.

You can rest assured that there is absolutely no way that the Manchester Airport branch will be closed, nor any other railway with a "mere" 6tph.

But with limited amount of luggage storage space, not ideal for encouraging extra usage to Manchester Airport.

All the more reason to have a more dedicated service rather than a selection of TPEs, no?

I know what it's like travelling with a couple of suitcases on a short section on a 333 (Shipley - Leeds), it's quite a challenge when the loadings are heavy. So longer proposed routes using 319s isn't going to be much more popular with airport bound passengers. Don't get me wrong, the 319s will be useful and they are needed in the light of no possible new orders for some years. But they cannot offer a longer term solution, sooner or later money is going to have to be spent. Better to start planning for it before much of the fleet literally starts to fall apart.

If you mean the DMUs, yes, that's true. The 319s have at least 10 years in them, probably 20. But that still needs planning for.

Refurb some of them with extra luggage space around the doors and you might be onto something there. But perhaps some would run from Victoria too, once the chord is open?

Perhaps, if a solution is found to somewhere to reverse services terminating at Piccadilly from the west, a dedicated airport service of 6tph could be operated, with say 2tph of those originating at Vic and continuing to Crewe, and all other services withdrawn from the line, thus not wasting quite so many DMUs?

If they all served all stations, you'd have a metro style service from Mauldeth Road, Burnage, East Didsbury, Gatley and Heald Green, which would no doubt up patronage there as well.

Neil

 

[fowler9]

Apologies Neil. You were of course referring to Heathrow. I think the problem is that people are comparing these airports on a like for like basis perhaps on footfall and you just can't do that. Manchester Airport is nothing like Heathrow or Stansted. It has things in common with both but it would be far too simplistic to think its rail infrastructure should be the same. Unless of course any commenters think they know better than the people who actually plan the services going to Manchester Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The same, not necessarily. But the overcrowding in the North West is rapidly approaching being an emergency, and a temporary rejig would help a bit.

 

[fowler9]

Well I hope that the arrival of the 319's on the services to the airport will free up units to bolster the service from Liverpool to Wigan and Preston based on what I saw off peak on Friday and Sunday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's going to be wired and run with 319s itself I think?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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

Having been away all day on the first-day-of-service Manchester Metrolink Airport Line celebrations, I am now able to respond to you. The difference between your point of view and mine on the subject of Manchester Airport is that I see the airport itself as the main player in the equation, not that of a transport adjunct to it.

The airport is a major player in the airport structure of Britain and looks to keep passenger numbers as high as possible. Anything which helps towards this aspiration helps, such as the numbers of large hotel groups offering business and leisure airport users good facilities. It is a key element in the future growth potential of the Greater Manchester area and beyond, as the newly proposed international mega-business park provision that already has secured a major Chinese entity has proved

Though this might seem heretical to you, my contention that the rail services to the airport are just one adjunct to this, similar to the National Express coach services who also see no harm in making Manchester Airport a recognised stop in route timetabling. The M56 has motorway access into Manchester Airport by its dedicated link spur which caters in bringing very large numbers of road-user passengers to the airport.

One might very well ask if you have ever seen the HS2 Y--shaped axis route proposals which purports to aid in the growth of the northern regional economic belt. All I will say on that matter is whilst Manchester itself is a named railway station recipient, so is that of Manchester Airport.

So your parochial view that seems totally laughable to me in its inwardly-looking obsession that the rail provision to this airport is the major matter rather than seeing rail provision as just another facility to serve the airport such as the hotel groups, the airport business parks, etc, is definitely not something that looks to aid the future growth potential of the airport, but a matter that acts detrimentally.

 

[W230]

But with limited amount of luggage storage space, not ideal for encouraging extra usage to Manchester Airport. I know what it's like travelling with a couple of suitcases on a short section on a 333 (Shipley - Leeds), it's quite a challenge when the loadings are heavy. So longer proposed routes using 319s isn't going to be much more popular with airport bound passengers. Don't get me wrong, the 319s will be useful and they are needed in the light of no possible new orders for some years. But they cannot offer a longer term solution, sooner or later money is going to have to be spent. Better to start planning for it before much of the fleet literally starts to fall apart.

They seem to cope pretty well serving Gatwick for non Victoria travelling passengers and Gatwick to Luton transfers.

There'll be just fine for Manchester Airport in the interim and should be greatly appreciated.