Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[158756]

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.

Isn't this whole discussion rather academic though, as Northern will(hopefully) have 319s in service in a few months, and the TOCs have committed to something very similar to the current service in their franchise agreements.
The 9tph could be reduced in the next franchises, but it seems more likely that trains reversing at Piccadilly will simply be replaced by those using the Ordsall Chord instead. You could make a couple of through trains stoppers, but that wouldn't help with the DMU shortage.

 

[tbtc]

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

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.

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.

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.

I'm not bothered about the range of destinations that you can fly to, I'm bothered about whether the train service is appropriate.

Stansted may be about budget flights for poor people, rather than the grand range of business options for Manchester, but the important facts are...

...that Stansted sees around half a million *railway* passengers more per year...

...that Manchester Airport's nine trains an hour into Piccadilly mean an average load of thirtysomething per service (at a time when plenty of other routes in northern England are crying out for stock).

What justification is there for nine trains an hour to Manchester Airport (mainly DMUs on this electrified line) when there are better uses for DMUs elsewhere?

A lot has changed in 10 years. Have Northern experienced no growth since 2004 as originally anticipated? No

Have Northern experienced no growth in the number of trains/seats since 2004 as originally anticipated? No (but I still see people banging on about 'no growth')

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

Half two fast services an hour from Sheffield to Doncaster (stopping only at Meadowhall) and two slow services an hour from Sheffield to Doncaster (Meadowhall, Rotherham, Swinton, Mexborough, Conisbrough) = a better spaced four trains an hour than the current five trains an hour give us.

Could be done - e.g. make one of the Hull or Cleethorpes services "slow" and make the Doncaster - Adwick service a stand alone EMU? Combine the Hull and Cleethorpes services into one train which splits at Harfield?

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

You could cut the Bradford services north of Keighley off-peak without hurting passenger numbers significantly - decent enough connections at Shipley.

Otherwise that's sixteen coaches an hour from Keighley to Skipton (plus the Lancaster and Carlisle services) which seems overkill on a franchise that loses so much money every day.

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'm not saying that we scrap all services to the Airport, just that we use some of the stock better elsewhere.

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.

Yes - put scarce units where the passenger demand is.

What's the alternative? Keep putting resources where they aren't needed (because that's the service pattern that we had in the past)?

Is it right that people stand from Halifax to Leeds whilst the nine trains an hour from Manchester Airport to Manchester Piccadilly have an average load of thirtysomething?

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.

Simple question - do the 3,163,000 journeys to/from Manchester Airport each year require nine trains an hour, or could some of those units be used elsewhere to better result in northern England?

If you'd rather that we keep running nine trains an hour, for an average load of thirtysomething then fair enough, but I think there are better uses of resources.

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

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.

I don't know why Manchester Airport passengers won't be able to cope with units that have served Luton and Gatwick perfectly well.

 

[edwin_m]

You could cut the Bradford services north of Keighley off-peak without hurting passenger numbers significantly - decent enough connections at Shipley.

Otherwise that's sixteen coaches an hour from Keighley to Skipton (plus the Lancaster and Carlisle services) which seems overkill on a franchise that loses so much money every day.

I think we came in on this as a way to release DMUs for use elsewhere. This proposal won't do that because (1) it only releases EMUs of which there is no shortage, and (2) it only releases them off-peak when units aren't needed anywhere else anyway. The only saving would be a bit of mileage cost, and if they had to go back to Neville Hill during the interpeaks this would cancel out much of the saving as well as probably exacerbating capacity problems through Leeds.

 

[Hophead]

At the risk of mentioning the "319 cascade to Northern", a subject which seems less popular these days, what is the current status of the units? Way back (say 3,000 posts ago, something like that), 1 or 2 units were being done up at Wolverton and were, apparently, ready for release to Atherton. Did they go? Has anyone seen them and, if so, would they like to comment on what's been done?

Or did the units take fright at their possible unwelcome reception and are currently sulking, Thomas the Tank Engine style, in Buckinghamshire?

Anyone?

 

[Techniquest]

At the risk of mentioning the "319 cascade to Northern", a subject which seems less popular these days, what is the current status of the units? Way back (say 3,000 posts ago, something like that), 1 or 2 units were being done up at Wolverton and were, apparently, ready for release to Atherton. Did they go? Has anyone seen them and, if so, would they like to comment on what's been done?

Or did the units take fright at their possible unwelcome reception and are currently sulking, Thomas the Tank Engine style, in Buckinghamshire?

Anyone?

Love the image that put in my head!

Also, it's Allerton not Atherton that's getting the 319s

Not a clue if the refurb 319s are up there, so much other discussion on this thread it could have been mentioned and missed. Either way, as far as I know training of drivers is still going well and it should only be a couple more months until we get the 319s in passenger service in Liverpool and Manchester

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Simple question - do the 3,163,000 journeys to/from Manchester Airport each year require nine trains an hour, or could some of those units be used elsewhere to better result in northern England?

If you'd rather that we keep running nine trains an hour, for an average load of thirty something then fair enough, but I think there are better uses of resources.

At the risk of repeating myself, these nine trains are those coming from a wide range of different destinations. The undeniable fact is that the end parts of those journeys are only those from Piccadilly to Manchester Airport. Perhaps you would prefer all the York to Leeds services should be cut short at Cross Gates?

I have already made one "tongue in cheek" suggestion (Not to your good self) as to disposing of all but the York to Manchester Airport service, the Manchester to Crewe service and the Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport shuttle. Perhaps National Express may well consider making coach replacement services for some of the rail services that people far more knowledgeable than I in both Northern Rail and First TPE have still decided to run in the knowledge of the rolling stock problems. There is a very recent precedent for this in a regular rail service provision from a large city to Manchester Airport being withdrawn, that being the one from Newcastle on Tyne which now runs to Liverpool. Having divested themselves of that particular Manchester Airport route, First TPE should also repeat the procedure and divert the Middlesbrough services to Liverpool.

Why does the website not make representations to both Northern Rail and to First TPE to demand the cuts in services to Manchester Airport discussed on this particular thread stating the oft-repeated point of the rolling stock shortage provision. They are the people that your argument lies with as they are the ones who actually run the services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At the risk of repeating myself, these nine trains are those coming from a wide range of different destinations. The undeniable fact is that the end parts of those journeys are only those from Piccadilly to Manchester Airport. Perhaps you would prefer all the York to Leeds services should be cut short at Cross Gates?

Cross Gates being such a massive metropolis, I guess. That's a stupid suggestion.

A more sensible suggestion is, say, cutting the Barrow-Manchester Airport services back to Preston at certain times, because you can always change there for Manchester, and quite a lot of people are going to Preston anyway. Funnily enough, they actually did that for Sunday services, or at least most of them. Same with the Windermeres. Or XC pulling out of Liverpool and Brighton. It's annoying, I agree, but if there's a stock shortage it can at least solve some of it for now.

People are capable of changing trains; changing trains is the basis of a railway network (as we have) rather than a set of separate and disparate routes (like a low-frequency country like the US has). Particularly if they are capable of negotiating an airport, which has a whole lot more in the way of walking with your trolley bag (does anyone other than for specialist uses not use a trolley bag for heavy luggage these days?) than a change at Manchester Piccadilly which might, if you come in on platform 14 anyway, even be same-platform.

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Cross Gates being such a massive metropolis, I guess. That's a stupid suggestion.
Neil

Some people immediately recognise intelligently used sarcasm for what it is in postings without the need for emoticons...whilst others find it difficult to comprehend, even with emoticons. I make a statement and it is up to other forum members to judge it in their own way.

Perhaps my somewhat quirky "post-stroke" way of thinking can make this difficult for some people who have only known me for a short period of time and who are not fully cognisant of my way of thinking at times when I need to stray outside my normal boundaries of considered post crafting.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People are capable of changing trains; changing trains is the basis of a railway network (as we have) rather than a set of separate and disparate routes (like a low-frequency country like the US has). Particularly if they are capable of negotiating an airport, which has a whole lot more in the way of walking with your trolley bag (does anyone other than for specialist uses not use a trolley bag for heavy luggage these days?) than a change at Manchester Piccadilly which might, if you come in on platform 14 anyway, even be same-platform.

Neil

I am sure that there will be those rail passengers with sizable luggage (have you seen the sizes of some holiday luggage on the carousels at airports?) to bring on holiday would be somewhat querulous of the need for boarding a train with their holiday luggage, that is stored in the available racks that will not need unloading from those said racks until they reach the airport destination, who will then be absolutely delighted to be told that before they reach their airport destination, they will have to manhandle the said luggage off the racks, collect all their smaller items that they have kept with then for the journey, notwithstanding fractious offspring who can reduce some parents to a stage of frustration, fight their way off that first train to go to another platform to board another train where they will have to join in the scrimmage with other passengers to try to put their luggage in any spare space left in the luggage racks then try to re seat the family once again.

May I nominate this proposal for entering into the next published edition of "Paradise Lost" ?... (Emoticon added, just in case)

 

[HSTEd]

If all that matters if the through connections, and not the speed, then perhaps we could stop these TPE trains at the local stations on the route to the airport so that they might at least pick up some custom there.
Stations like Mauldeth Road that would pick up a great deal of traffic but for the fact that all you see on the platform is TPE trains charging past at high speed, most of which are almost entirely empty.

Running through trains at enormous cost for the benefit of people too lazy to move their bags onto another train is ridiculously wasteful.
When you could run a dedicated subfleet on the Styal Line to handle airport services.
You can even put it into a dedicated pair of platforms at Picadilly complete with 'Airport Line' branding.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm not bothered about the range of destinations that you can fly to, I'm bothered about whether the train service is appropriate.

Actually you should be bothered. An airport with more long haul destinations tends to attract people with more luggage. Many people flying with budget airlines tend to keep luggage to a minimum, whereas a long haul flight people have much higher allowances and hence more or bigger suitcases.

Half two fast services an hour from Sheffield to Doncaster (stopping only at Meadowhall) and two slow services an hour from Sheffield to Doncaster (Meadowhall, Rotherham, Swinton, Mexborough, Conisbrough) = a better spaced four trains an hour than the current five trains an hour give us.

Could be done - e.g. make one of the Hull or Cleethorpes services "slow" and make the Doncaster - Adwick service a stand alone EMU? Combine the Hull and Cleethorpes services into one train which splits at Harfield?

So you are still effectively running 5 trains an hour with one splitting further up the line. That's just fiddling around the edges and offers no benefit other than a slightly neater timetable. Not to mention the train that splits is currently run by two different TOCs.

You could cut the Bradford services north of Keighley off-peak without hurting passenger numbers significantly - decent enough connections at Shipley.

Bradford Council would not be happy with that, especially when from next year they will be trying trying to attract people into the redeveloped city centre from late next year onwards. There's a lot of proposed housing developments planned right up the Aire Valley, so you would be cutting them off from a direct service to Bradford. Again, there's a bigger picture to look at.

If all that matters if the through connections, and not the speed, then perhaps we could stop these TPE trains at the local stations on the route to the airport so that they might at least pick up some custom there.
Stations like Mauldeth Road that would pick up a great deal of traffic but for the fact that all you see on the platform is TPE trains charging past at high speed, most of which are almost entirely empty.

Running through trains at enormous cost for the benefit of people too lazy to move their bags onto another train is ridiculously wasteful.
When you could run a dedicated subfleet on the Styal Line to handle airport services.
You can even put it into a dedicated pair of platforms at Picadilly complete with 'Airport Line' branding.

If you are going to have a dedicated "Shuttle" fleet for the airport, wouldn't it be better to refurb a few 319s with more luggage space for this use, at least in the short term? If you are going to have such a service it needs to be at least suitable for the job, not just a commuter train which will do nothing for increasing the passenger flow to the airport, which is really the whole point.

 

[Buspilot]

Running through trains at enormous cost for the benefit of people too lazy to move their bags onto another train is ridiculously wasteful.

As someone who suffers badly from arthritis and other rail travellers with disabilities, I find your above statement to be highly offensive HSTEd.

I look for direct services for the reason of not having to change trains, painfully lugging baggage about.

You would need to have sufficient people employed at each station to ensure all in need of assistance receive it for your idea to work, with compensation being paid if the assistance were not available. I think you will find the bean counters will tell you that is a No,No.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps my somewhat quirky "post-stroke" way of thinking can make this difficult for some people who have only known me for a short period of time and who are not fully cognisant of my way of thinking at times when I need to stray outside my normal boundaries of considered post crafting.

I tend to fight sarcasm with sarcasm

I am sure that there will be those rail passengers with sizable luggage (have you seen the sizes of some holiday luggage on the carousels at airports?) to bring on holiday would be somewhat querulous of the need for boarding a train with their holiday luggage, that is stored in the available racks that will not need unloading from those said racks until they reach the airport destination, who will then be absolutely delighted to be told that before they reach their airport destination, they will have to manhandle the said luggage off the racks, collect all their smaller items that they have kept with then for the journey, notwithstanding fractious offspring who can reduce some parents to a stage of frustration, fight their way off that first train to go to another platform to board another train where they will have to join in the scrimmage with other passengers to try to put their luggage in any spare space left in the luggage racks then try to re seat the family once again.

They might be "querulous" of it (I love your wording!) - but not half as "querulous" as those who have to stand with their head in someone's armpit (or vice versa) because the limited available stock is being used to provide an airport service with capacity well in excess of demand.

IOW I'd rather change trains than stand, luggage or no.

That's my point - I don't see a massive issue with airport through services, but they aren't a good use of stock when it is limited in availability. Perhaps, as an alternative, if the airport likes its through services it could open its wallet and pay for some more rolling stock to operate them, such as by funding ATW or Chiltern to use more LHCS (more expensive than DMUs) thus releasing some DMUs to TransPennine to continue those services? Or perhaps the model of elsewhere could be adopted, and airport fares increased to a premium level? (more often than not these days - again including LHR)

Neil

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They might be "querulous" of it (I love your wording!) - but not half as "querulous" as those who have to stand with their head in someone's armpit (or vice versa) because the limited available stock is being used to provide an airport service with capacity well in excess of demand.

IOW I'd rather change trains than stand, luggage or no.

Time to call an end to our verbal jousting tournament, methinks. I do confess to letting verbosity enter into my postings on occasions...

However, did you see posting # 1751 by Buspilot which certainly addresses worries by travellers with ailments and disabilities and is most worthy of consideration.

 

[Techniquest]

I hear there's an HST running on a Penzance to London Paddington service this morning.

Oh, sorry, I must have thought this was the off-topic thread...

 

[northwichcat]

Have Northern experienced no growth in the number of trains/seats since 2004 as originally anticipated? No (but I still see people banging on about 'no growth')

Can you please read my posts in context, rather than reading one phrase and posting your usual generic reply. I was not banging on about no growth but referring to 'no growth' being seen as the trend in the early 00s in response to Neil Williams saying there would be no demand for an additional Crewe-Airport service because there wasn't any demand in 2003.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

and airport fares increased to a premium level?

All Airport fares or just long distance Airport fares? Should people working at the Airport see the cost of getting to work rapidly increase when their wages don't?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You would need to have sufficient people employed at each station to ensure all in need of assistance receive it for your idea to work, with compensation being paid if the assistance were not available. I think you will find the bean counters will tell you that is a No,No.

I think you will find that manned assistance is available at Manchester Piccadilly, the station in question.

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

All Airport fares or just long distance Airport fares?

The way it works for Heathrow Express is that a premium is charged on all tickets, be they through tickets or local ones.

Should people working at the Airport see the cost of getting to work rapidly increase when their wages don't?

An option there is for season tickets to remain heavily discounted.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

The way it works for Heathrow Express is that a premium is charged on all tickets, be they through tickets or local ones.

But don't forget there's the cheaper alternative of Heathrow Connect as well, apparently Heathrow Connect is around 50% cheaper than Heathrow Express. Heathrow Connect trains have similar interiors to the TPE interiors.

Likewise for Gatwick services there's the premium Gatwick Express services and also regular services.

 

[Class377/5]

But don't forget there's the cheaper alternative of Heathrow Connect as well, apparently Heathrow Connect is around 50% cheaper than Heathrow Express. Heathrow Connect trains have similar interiors to the TPE interiors.

Likewise for Gatwick services there's the premium Gatwick Express services and also regular services.

Connect is about 50% cheaper because it takes around three time as long as the non stop Express service.

Heathrow Connect uses 360/2 stock, four (of the five fleet) were actually built as class 350/0 hence the similarities to TPE stock.

 

[northwichcat]

Connect is about 50% cheaper because it takes around three time as long as the non stop Express service.

Just looked at Heathrow bound services.

Paddington to Terminal 5
Heathrow Express: 21 minutes
Heathrow Connect: 38 minutes

Paddington to Terminals 1-3
Heathrow Express: 15 minutes
Heathrow Connect: 32 minutes

So that's less than double for terminal 5 and just over double for terminals 1-3, unless you compare Heathrow Express to Terminals 1-3 to Heathrow Connect to Terminal 5.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Connect is about 50% cheaper because it takes around three time as long as the non stop Express service.

And a premium is still charged for the last leg into the airport - Travelcards, for instance, are not valid.

Neil

 

[Wolfie]

Running through trains at enormous cost for the benefit of people too lazy to move their bags onto another train is ridiculously wasteful.
When you could run a dedicated subfleet on the Styal Line to handle airport services.
You can even put it into a dedicated pair of platforms at Picadilly complete with 'Airport Line' branding.

Hey, this seems like a plan. Offer the North West part of the South East experience and brand said trains as "Manchester Airport Express" and of course charge a suitably premium price a la Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Express services.....

In fact I am sure that with a few minor changes the 442s would be the ideal stock to work such a service

 

[Bletchleyite]

In fact I am sure that with a few minor changes the 442s would be the ideal stock to work such a service

What, a diesel locomotive on one end?

Neil

 

[Class377/5]

And a premium is still charged for the last leg into the airport - Travelcards, for instance, are not valid.

Neil

The premium is due to BAA having funding the extension to the airport.

 

[Wolfie]

In fact I am sure that with a few minor changes the 442s would be the ideal stock to work such a service

What, a diesel locomotive on one end?

Neil

Nah, a Class 86, 87 or 90!

The premium is due to BAA having funding the extension to the airport.

I agree if by that you mean the tunnel from Hayes and Harlington. What about that charged for the Gatwick and Stansted Express services?

Off topic but will Crossrail be using the BAA tunnels and if so will it be cahrging premium fares. It might just be cheaper to try and buy out BAA.....

 

[Class377/5]

Just looked at Heathrow bound services.

Paddington to Terminal 5
Heathrow Express: 21 minutes
Heathrow Connect: 38 minutes

Paddington to Terminals 1-3
Heathrow Express: 15 minutes
Heathrow Connect: 32 minutes

So that's less than double for terminal 5 and just over double for terminals 1-3, unless you compare Heathrow Express to Terminals 1-3 to Heathrow Connect to Terminal 5.

I mistakenly compared the full Connect to the T123 Express. So the 50% less cost makes sense in that sense. Still both services have premium into the Airport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The premium is due to BAA having funding the extension to the airport.

I know. A similar premium could be used to fund rolling stock (via a cascade) to continue the overprovision of services to Manchester Airport in a rolling stock shortage.

Neil

 

[Class377/5]

I agree if by that you mean the tunnel from Hayes and Harlington. What about that charged for the Gatwick and Stansted Express services?

Gatwick didn't require track to be built as it was already there. Stansted I'm not so familiar with.

Off topic but will Crossrail be using the BAA tunnels and if so will it be cahrging premium fares. It might just be cheaper to try and buy out BAA.....

The trip into will have Oyster but pricing hasn't been revealed but likely a premium.

There's talk of the Express service being taken over by TfL once BAA paths expire (think 2024).

 

[Wolfie]

Gatwick didn't require track to be built as it was already there. Stansted I'm not so familiar with.



The trip into will have Oyster but pricing hasn't been revealed but likely a premium.

There's talk of the Express service being taken over by TfL once BAA paths expire (think 2024).

I believe you have have misunderstood me. I know there was no new track built at Gatwick BUT the Gatwick Express service still charges a premium price....

Unless someone buys out BAA's interest in the tunnels it is an absolute certainty in my view that there will be a premium (likely to be exactly that charged on Heathrow Connect) involved in using Crossrail to Heathrow.

TfL may have aspirations to take over the Heathrow Express service and I believe that 2024 is about right for the time when BAA's extant GWML slots expire. However BAA do own both the HEX rolling stock and more importantly the tunnels. They will not relinquish the Heathrow Express service, which reportedly makes significant profits, without a fight. Unless TfL buys out the extant operation and tunnels (and that won't come cheap!) they would have to negotiate with both Network Rail for GWML slots and BAA to use the tunnels. The latter, if BAA's own attempts to continue operation have been rejected, would unlikely to be easy.......

 

[JamesRowden]

There's talk of the Express service being taken over by TfL once BAA paths expire (think 2024).

The Western Route Study draft suggests extending at least 1tph of the Express paths through to Basingstoke to provide the SWML with a through service to both Heathrow and Old Oak Common (for HS2). I doubt such services would be suitable for TfL operation.

 

[tbtc]

At the risk of repeating myself, these nine trains are those coming from a wide range of different destinations. The undeniable fact is that the end parts of those journeys are only those from Piccadilly to Manchester Airport

Yes, nine trains an hour (with an average load of thirtysomething), six of which are non-stop from Piccadilly to the Airport, one of which only makes one stop.

Shall I remember this wasfefulness next time you complain about lack of spare DMUs for Todmorden?

Perhaps you would prefer all the York to Leeds services should be cut short at Cross Gates?

I don't know if you are trying to be clever there (?), but if we were running nine trains an hour from York to Leeds with an average of thirtysomething passengers (at a time when other routes are crying out for capacity) then I'd suggest that there were more efficient ways of using stock.

I've already said on this thread that the current practice of six relatively short trains from York to Leeds each hour on the Cross Gates route could be rationalised for longer trains running less often (e.g. a fifteen minute frequency would still be often enough to suit most passengers).

Perhaps National Express may well consider making coach replacement services for some of the rail services

National Express can sustain a route with an average load of thirtysomething (they have only one member of staff on board, they don't pay "track access charges", their coaches don't have a couple of hundred seats).

Heavy rail isn't the solution to every problem (despite what some on this Forum seem to think).

There is a very recent precedent for this in a regular rail service provision from a large city to Manchester Airport being withdrawn, that being the one from Newcastle on Tyne

I'm not aware of any significant drop in passenger numbers on the Newcastle - Manchester service, since it was diverted to Liverpool instead (?)

Other places have lost their direct links to Manchester Airport over the years (Nottingham, Derby, Hull, Sunderland, London), or significantly reduced (Windermere) some of the current links are fairly recent (e.g. Edinburgh and Glasgow used to have a direct link under BR, a link cut under Virgin, a link reinstated under TPE).

It's not the end of the world.

I think we came in on this as a way to release DMUs for use elsewhere. This proposal won't do that because (1) it only releases EMUs of which there is no shortage, and (2) it only releases them off-peak when units aren't needed anywhere else anyway. The only saving would be a bit of mileage cost, and if they had to go back to Neville Hill during the interpeaks this would cancel out much of the saving as well as probably exacerbating capacity problems through Leeds.

I was also talking about using the same number of seats on a route to provide a more efficient service, or generally looking at ways to reduce the "million pounds a day" of subsidy required.

Cutting the Bradford services at Keighley off-peak would free up a unit (with all of the staffing/ fuel costs that this entails) - the current provision north of Keighley is well above passenger demand.

Actually you should be bothered. An airport with more long haul destinations tends to attract people with more luggage. Many people flying with budget airlines tend to keep luggage to a minimum, whereas a long haul flight people have much higher allowances and hence more or bigger suitcases

Fact remains that Manchester Airport has roughly twice the number of services that Stansted does (despite Stansted attracting more rail passengers) - even if the suitcases at Manchester are bigger, that doesn't justify the status quo.

So you are still effectively running 5 trains an hour with one splitting further up the line. That's just fiddling around the edges and offers no benefit other than a slightly neater timetable

It'd be a more efficient timetable, it'd be cheaper to provide, it'd mean fewer paths over the flat crossing at Doncaster..

Bradford Council would not be happy with that, especially when from next year they will be trying trying to attract people into the redeveloped city centre from late next year onwards. There's a lot of proposed housing developments planned right up the Aire Valley, so you would be cutting them off from a direct service to Bradford. Again, there's a bigger picture to look at

Obviously Bradford Council wouldn't be happy at a plan that reduces the offpeak Forster Square service to stations north of Keighley, but then there's a bigger picture than "what do Bradford Council want" - but the current sixteen coaches (plus Carlisle/ Morecambe services) north of Keighley is an overprovision.

If you are going to have a dedicated "Shuttle" fleet for the airport, wouldn't it be better to refurb a few 319s with more luggage space for this use, at least in the short term? If you are going to have such a service it needs to be at least suitable for the job, not just a commuter train which will do nothing for increasing the passenger flow to the airport, which is really the whole point

I've wondered in the past about a dedicated "Airport Shuttle" from Mayfield (AIUI you can "check in" at Paddington before boarding a Heathrow Express service, maybe a dedicated departure area for all Airport services at Piccadilly could have similar facilities for flyers?).

However, the 319s do already service two of Britain's busiest airports.