Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[notlob.divad]

I know travellers from Sheffield go to the University in Manchester and use the East Midlands trains because they stop at Oxford Road. Many wanting to travel back to Sheffield from other parts of Manchester used to catch the train at Oxford Road when space is available after lot havec left from Liverpool. That way they get a seat to Sheffield that they may not get at Piccadilly!

Quite, I have done it myself in reverse when I studied in Sheffield. But if the train length could be doubled by not stopping at O-Road, the risk of not getting a seat at Piccadilly would be reduced.

Currently the East Midlands service is so unreliable they must be in despair.

Agree and it is almost entirely caused by unnecessarily forcing the unreliable TPE services from Yorkshire through the Castlefield corridor in front of them.

More seats on the route are needed.

something we can definitely agree on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In all these arguments that we are running too many short trains you (and others) seem to miss the fact that running more (shorter) trains appears to have increased patronage

Has it? Or has a combination of increased quality, increased road congestion and a general anti-car trend done that?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I never said it wouldn't, I said that the congestion and pollution price of 1 car on the road taking a family on a return trip to the airport, os a price worth paying, if the benefit is the removal of 4 cars from the road everyday (of people who would take the train to work and back if the commuting and intercity connections were more reliable). The fact that you are taking 3/4 people on one car rather than 3/4 people in 3/4 cars, or the fact that it is 1 return journey in the week rather than 5 return journeys in the week, really should be obvious, even on this forum.

You're not wrong. A fully occupied (let's say 4 passengers rather than cramming someone into the middle seat) small modern petrol family car is a very efficient way of moving people. There's no reason (other than a commercial one) for the railway to specifically go after this market.

 

[a_c_skinner]

There are a limited number of paths for rail services across Manchester.

Thats the point though. We can have as many paths across whatever corridors in Manchester as we want (though not in my lifetime I fear). Look at Thameslink and Crossrail and Crossrail 2. There is however a general contentment with rail chaos and overcrowding in Manchester. Politicians like big announcements and clever names (like "Northern Hub") but the only thing that will solve this is a really big single project. All the Thameslink stuff was billed as a big single project, not the piecemeal way we've thought of cross Manchester (dating back to the Windsor Link as the first piece). I've rarely used peak time trains into Leeds and others, I suspect we could have the same debate about many Northern and Midlands cities.

 

[B&I]

Thats the point though. We can have as many paths across whatever corridors in Manchester as we want (though not in my lifetime I fear). Look at Thameslink and Crossrail and Crossrail 2. There is however a general contentment with rail chaos and overcrowding in Manchester. Politicians like big announcements and clever names (like "Northern Hub") but the only thing that will solve this is a really big single project. All the Thameslink stuff was billed as a big single project, not the piecemeal way we've thought of cross Manchester (dating back to the Windsor Link as the first piece). I've rarely used peak time trains into Leeds and others, I suspect we could have the same debate about many Northern and Midlands cities.

Yes, Leeda is persistently overlooked. Don't many of the delays afflicting westbound TPE services arise around Leeds ?

 

[B&I]

You're not wrong. A fully occupied (let's say 4 passengers rather than cramming someone into the middle seat) small modern petrol family car is a very efficient way of moving people. There's no reason (other than a commercial one) for the railway to specifically go after this market.

In an ideal world, I'd be happy to go after both markets, but it seems that present capacity won't allow us to do that

 

[Altfish]

Simple, don't stop them at Oxford Road. No other city in the country seems to need every intercity train stopping at 3 mainline stations in the city centre.

Again, restricting services to passengers to simplify train services. In rush hour, more people alight/board at Oxford Road than on 13/14 at Piccadilly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In an ideal world, I'd be happy to go after both markets, but it seems that present capacity won't allow us to do that

Yes, true. But until 100% of power generation is non-carbon-emitting, there is no good reason to cite environmental reasons to encourage rail over road for passengers in a fully occupied family car (or private hire taxi, most of which seem to be Priuses these days), as most likely the car actually has better emissions than 4 seats on the train (particularly something like a Voyager), and if it's fully occupied it makes excellent use of road space.

It's underoccupied cars we need to be going after.

 

[B&I]

And yet the services which have been increased in frequency (most notably cross-country, trans pennine and West Coast have all seen substantial increase in patronage - an increase which was expected and actively planned for.

Really ? Can you point to a specific long-distance route on which introduction of 4 TPH has seen a substantial increase in passenger numbers ?

 

[B&I]

Yes, true. But until 100% of power generation is non-carbon-emitting, there is no good reason to cite environmental reasons to encourage rail over road for passengers in a fully occupied family car (or private hire taxi, most of which seem to be Priuses these days), as most likely the car actually has better emissions than 4 seats on the train (particularly something like a Voyager), and if it's fully occupied it makes excellent use of road space.

It's underoccupied cars we need to be going after.

Or underefficient (ie unelectrified) trains

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really ? Can you point to a specific long-distance route on which introduction of 4 TPH has seen a substantial increase in passenger numbers ?

As I said there's also a "magic point" in frequency. I reckon going to half hourly would provide a publicity and passenger boost that going from half hourly to quarter hourly probably wouldn't.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Really ? Can you point to a specific long-distance route on which introduction of 4 TPH has seen a substantial increase in passenger numbers ?

From casual observation both Edinburgh-Glasgow and Leicester-London seemed to thrive after going up to 4 TPH. Swindon-London has done well too.

 

[notlob.divad]

Again, restricting services to passengers to simplify train services. In rush hour, more people alight/board at Oxford Road than on 13/14 at Piccadilly.

But restricting services to passengers to simplify train services is exactly what happens everywhere. Otherwise we would have the proverbial train from everywhere, to everywhere, that stops at every shack and station halt in between. Decisions have to be made, and if skipping Oxford Road allows longer length trains to run through Manchester in the short term - without the expense of remodelling the platforms then it should be considered.

 

[notlob.divad]

It's under-occupied cars we need to be going after.

Precisely. Specifically at 'peak' times, when the congestion on the roads caused by the under-occupied cars adds to inefficiency of those internal combustion engines and thus the concentrations of that pollution.

 

[sprunt]

Again, restricting services to passengers to simplify train services. In rush hour, more people alight/board at Oxford Road than on 13/14 at Piccadilly.

Okay, this is a bit of a fantasy idea and I'm sure people with more expertise will tell me why it's a bad idea, but how about:

1. Close platforms 13/14 (in an ideal world temporarily until 15/16 can be built). Passengers for the city centre to use Oxford Road.

2. A new station somewhere south of the city centre where there's a bit more space to handle the interchanges that the closure of 13/14 would affect.

 

[furnessvale]

Yes, true. But until 100% of power generation is non-carbon-emitting, there is no good reason to cite environmental reasons to encourage rail over road for passengers in a fully occupied family car (or private hire taxi, most of which seem to be Priuses these days), as most likely the car actually has better emissions than 4 seats on the train (particularly something like a Voyager), and if it's fully occupied it makes excellent use of road space.

It's underoccupied cars we need to be going after.

They would be the Prius cars with u/s batteries, popular with private hire firms in London because they avoid the congestion charge.

Hopefully the authorities will catch up on that particular scam before too long!

 

[notlob.divad]

From casual observation both Edinburgh-Glasgow and Leicester-London seemed to thrive after going up to 4 TPH. Swindon-London has done well too.

Yet equally we are told the WCML thrives on the London<->Birmingham and London<-Manchester routes both at 3tph.

I have no doubt increased frequency, increases patronage on all services, but as Bletchleyite says, each increase in frequency produces a reduced return.

Someone has made the political decision to run 4tph fast York<-> Manchester Victoria and force 2 of them back through the Castlefield corridor to the airport. The combination of these two things has had disastrous effects on the reliability of the rail networks across the north.
An alternative of 3 regularly spaced fasts (but maybe longer) along with 3 skip stop services to Piccadilly, (giving longer gaps for the skip-stoppers) would retain the 6tph, but a more reliable service.
Equally sending the 3rd transpennine fast onto Chester via Warrington and not doubling them back through the castlefield corridor would reduce the domino effect being produced across the north. In my opinion this should be done implemented as a matter of urgency. The new chord is a white elephant without the relief provided by extra platforms. (Not that I am convinced it wouldn't be a white elephant with them)

 

[Bletchleyite]

The new chord is a white elephant without the relief provided by extra platforms. (Not that I am convinced it wouldn't be a white elephant with them)

The Chord is actively bad without P15/16 (to the point I would suggest mothballing it, or maybe just putting a token 1tph through it for political reasons), and in my view if only one of the projects was possible it should have been P15/16 and not the Chord. With P15/16 I remain to be convinced, it might be slightly beneficial or it might be a white elephant.

 

[B&I]

As I said there's also a "magic point" in frequency. I reckon going to half hourly would provide a publicity and passenger boost that going from half hourly to quarter hourly probably wouldn't.

I'd agree. I'm also struggling to think of many long-distance destinations with 4 TPH fast trains between them, except Leeds and Manchester, and I think that's more part of a ludicrous pretence that the northern cities can be treated like different London neighbourhoods than a genuine reflection of demand

 

[Altfish]

I'd agree. I'm also struggling to think of many long-distance destinations with 4 TPH fast trains between them, except Leeds and Manchester, and I think that's more part of a ludicrous pretence that the northern cities can be treated like different London neighbourhoods than a genuine reflection of demand

Leeds to Manchester 'long distance'!!

 

[Altfish]

Yes, Leeds is persistently overlooked. Don't many of the delays afflicting westbound TPE services arise around Leeds ?

In my experience few. The biggest delays are caused by the TPE trains getting stuck behind stoppers.
There are fewer 'cross-overs' at Leeds causing conflict; London traffic has an elevated junction that flies over the Manchester traffic.

 

[Eccles1983]

Tpe getting stuck behind stoppers?

The only stoppers they get stuck behind is other TPE's.

They have made their own mess, they cant blame northern anymore and are being exposed for the shambles they are.

 

[Killingworth]

Leeds to Manchester 'long distance'!!

Fast?

 

[js1000]

Thats the point though. We can have as many paths across whatever corridors in Manchester as we want (though not in my lifetime I fear). Look at Thameslink and Crossrail and Crossrail 2. There is however a general contentment with rail chaos and overcrowding in Manchester. Politicians like big announcements and clever names (like "Northern Hub") but the only thing that will solve this is a really big single project. All the Thameslink stuff was billed as a big single project, not the piecemeal way we've thought of cross Manchester (dating back to the Windsor Link as the first piece). I've rarely used peak time trains into Leeds and others, I suspect we could have the same debate about many Northern and Midlands cities.

I'm not sure. For me, Manchester has sui generis problems when it comes to rail.

Rail demand from all directions into Manchester is strong - both locally (from commuter flows in Greater Manchester/North West) and nationally with services to Scotland and Euston. There is a great deal of logic to making Victoria the hub for east-west rail services even if it inconveniences many commuters who find Piccadilly more ideally suited.

The existing layout means trains have to cut across Manchester Piccadilly which is not ideal. Whereas Leeds has the benefit of six through platforms which are also subdivided to effectively filter services through - Piccadilly does not have this except for 2 platforms. If something happens on platforms 13/14, services waiting to pass through are screwed - Leeds station has the ability to filter more easily to prevent such delays.

Lastly, every town and city wants a direct train link to Manchester Airport. It's the golden carrot of the north. It puts a lot of pressure on the lines through Manchester city centre and the Styal Line where trains can often be delayed.

 

[Killingworth]

The A6 to Manchester Airport Relief Road Scheme will provide 10 kilometres of new 2-lane dual carriageway on an east-west route from the A6 near Hazel Grove (south east Stockport), via the 4 kilometres of existing A555 to Manchester Airport and the link road to the M56. It is programmed to open in late Summer 2018.

It remains to be seen what effect this will have but I'd estimate it will save me 10 minutes on my drive from Sheffield to the airport. I've always driven, even though there are trains from within a mile of my house. I'd rather have one change from car to airport car park shuttle bus than chance a train that may be cancelled, late, or misses a connection at Piccadilly.

Others are happy to plan differently, and by the numbers of heavy cases I see on our local station platform, many do. Increase the reliability and more will use the trains.

 

[cle]

Trains have to terminate somewhere - and Manchester Airport is as good a place as any. If every train called at one or two of the local stops, then perhaps a local service wouldn't be needed and frequency could remain high, with good airport journey times. Wilmslow could also potentially host 1-2tph more, just as another option.

Looking at best practice from Germany, Japan and so on - less and less trains terminate in city centres, and the cities themselves need more than one main station. Oxford Road should be encouraged, not vilified. P15/16 are essential for capacity, not for attracting more users to Piccadilly in itself. Salford Central needs to be re-energised too. Manchester is a larger city these days, with more disparate employment and inner city development - having the 'loop' is a good thing, if done properly. The job needs to be completed.

The argument about everywhere in the north (vs. everywhere in Greater Manchester or dedicated airport expresses) having an airport service is a trickier one. But as a status quo, both operationally and socially, it works. And the airport is a huge employer and due to be even more so - with the EZ coming. It's not all about bucket and spade flights.

And in business terms, MAN has never had more flights on higher-end airlines, and especially to Asia (whose populace use airport railways a lot) - and it should be encouraged. We always think about the home market, but not inbound passengers - who should be prioritized above outbound holiday-makers in terms of their experience, convenience and spend potential, be it inward investment, business trips or tourism spend.

 

[Altfish]

Tpe getting stuck behind stoppers?

The only stoppers they get stuck behind is other TPE's.

They have made their own mess, they cant blame northern anymore and are being exposed for the shambles they are.

I must be imagining those Piccadilly to Sheffield and Huddersfield to Leeds Northern services then.

 

[AndrewE]

Tpe getting stuck behind stoppers?
The only stoppers they get stuck behind is other TPE's.
They have made their own mess, they cant blame northern anymore and are being exposed for the shambles they are.

Is this really true? I thought the scandal was that the timetable catastrophe was the result of a DfT franchise "offer" (which can't be refused) and then Network Rail agreeing to an obviously unworkable timetable - and that everyone else (sorry, mainly just Northern) are being blamed for it. I agree it's wrong that Northern are getting all the flak, though.

 

[Greybeard33]

Many posts in this thread seem to be based on an assumption that the entire Northern Hub concept for Manchester, as developed over the past ten years, is misconceived and unworkable. So the money already spent on the Ordsall Chord, Castlefield Corridor resignalling, P4 at Manchester Airport and the turnbacks at Stalybridge and Rochdale has been wasted. Even if Piccadilly P15/16 were built, Oxford Road remodelled and NW electrification completed, the planned services still could not be implemented reliably. So the whole concept must be binned and we must start over.

But where is the analysis to support these assertions? Undeniably there are major problems with the rushed, interim May 2018 timetable. It seems possible (likely?) that at least some of these would still have occurred even if it had been possible to proceed with the originally-planned timetable, with the wires up in time. But clearly there are contributory factors related to traincrew training and rostering, and deficiencies in the timetable planning by both Network Rail and the TOCs, not inherent in the infrastructure itself.

Might it not be wise to "let the dust settle", wait for detailed analysis of what went wrong, and see how things improve with tweaks to the timetable and to operational procedures, as everyone progresses up the learning curve?

Both Northern and TPE reliability has started to recover this month, despite Northern reintroducing its full timetable through Piccadilly P13/14.

Let's not "throw out the baby with the bathwater", before we are certain that there is no hope for the Northern Hub baby.

 

[Eccles1983]

I must be imagining those Piccadilly to Sheffield and Huddersfield to Leeds Northern services then.

You must, as TPE have been ballsing up everything they touch without any help, dumping units at Victoria causes huge delays right across the network. Dumping them at piccadilly is even worse.

Sorry, but on the ground it is clear that whilst northern got the blame - the culprit was excused because the mayor who loves the limelight couldnt see past the end of his nose.