Platform 15 and 16 project at Manchester Piccadilly.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yeah, I am not sure how the third largest airport in the UK can be considered small within the context of UK transport policy!

At least Manchester Airport does have two runways, unlike some other ones.

 

[LowLevel]

Absolutely! Just look at the performance recently on the Piccadilly - Nottingham leg. And that's after some have missed out Sheffield altogether by using the Dore curve, or been diverted off their booked route via Beighton to the east of Shefield onto the mainline to Chesterfield to pick up time. They're averaging more than 10 minutes late. Maybe now that Lime Street is getting back to normal things will start to improve.

I think I could speak for most of the traincrew when I say December 2021 cannot come soon enough. It's absolutely appalling. We and the passengers are sick of not knowing what hour we will land let alone which minute.

Lime Street isn't really the problem. You have a good run. The brakes go in. You sit at Castlefield. And you sit. And you sit. And you sit. Then a late TPE that was at Salford or even Victoria when you stopped gets routed in front of you then cancelled in platform 13 at Piccadilly so you sit some more. Got a margin to sneak through? Nope. Booked order. Then you get stuck behind the Hope Valley stopper or a freight. Then the Cheshire Lines stoppers are stuffed and it all collapses.

Screw Rail North and the rest of their silly games - they can give the lot to TPE and their empire building. I'll stick to mostly wombling around on local trains with half the hassle while the penny pinching collapses the corridor.

 

[PR1Berske]

Following recent posts, I'm going to start a new thread to allow detailed discussion about connections into and for Manchester Airport

 

[sprunt]

Unfortunately, Manchester's rulers, while demanding that vast sums be spent to get people to and from their shiny metropolis, don't seem very worried about the people who have to travel through it.

You're not wrong, but why should they be? People just passing through on a train are neither their constituents, nor generating any financial activity for the benefit of their constituents. It's a case for a wider strategic approach to transport issues in the north of England perhaps, but it's unreasonable to criticise Manchester's rulers for being primarily interested in Manchester.

 

[B&I]

You're not wrong, but why should they be? People just passing through on a train are neither their constituents, nor generating any financial activity for the benefit of their constituents. It's a case for a wider strategic approach to transport issues in the north of England perhaps, but it's unreasonable to criticise Manchester's rulers for being primarily interested in Manchester.

Fairly dos. I'd be extremely happy if we reverted to the previous solution and reinstated main lines avoiding central Manchester. In my case, a re-opened L&Y line from Liverpool via Bolton and Rochdale to west Yorkshire, and via Stockport to Sheffield (particularly if a stop at Bredbury was installed near to Mrs B&I's gaff) would be wonderful.

However, all of this is pure fantasy, as the north's railway links were concentrated decades ago on 2 lines through central Manchester. These are to.Manchester's benefit as it improves the city's transport links. The least the city can do is safeguard a bit of land for improvements, rather than throwing up flats on every postage stamp-sized plot of land. After all, travel out a mile or two and you will find acres of wasteland for new residential property to be built on

 

[Senex]

However, all of this is pure fantasy, as the north's railway links were concentrated decades ago on 2 lines through central Manchester. These are to.Manchester's benefit as it improves the city's transport links. The least the city can do is safeguard a bit of land for improvements, rather than throwing up flats on every postage stamp-sized plot of land. After all, travel out a mile or two and you will find acres of wasteland for new residential property to be built on

Trouble is that we don't have any sort of long-term planning for railways (or roads) that identifies routes for growth that may need more facilities and then protects the corridor and certainly no procedures to give adequate protection to railway rights of way that have become disused but might be needed once again. And when we do build something, we build just for the needs of today, with no future-proofing — the Ordsall Chord being a good example of something that can't even deliver on the needs for today!

 

[B&I]

Yes, all the moaning about the Ordsall Chord being a failure does forget the extra capacity and reduced conflicts for platforms 1-12. The chord has been blamed for problems that are partly occuring due to increasing the frequency of service on the Castlefield corridor from 8/10tph to 12/15tph.

But the Chord is itself the reason for those additional services on the Castlefield corridor.

That removed one of four crossing movements (Liverpool - Scarborough). Airport-Newcastle/York and Airport-Middlesbrough conflicting moves have been resolved by the chord, leaving only Airport-Cleethorpes services crossing the station throat.

The only reason why those services had to cross the throat is because of the insistence of certain people that Manchester Airport must have direct services to everywhere, even from large cities 100 miles away with their own internationally served airports. Those services could have been diverted to Victoria and carried on to terminate somewhere west of Manchester.

 

[B&I]

Trouble is that we don't have any sort of long-term planning for railways (or roads) that identifies routes for growth that may need more facilities and then protects the corridor and certainly no procedures to give adequate protection to railway rights of way that have become disused but might be needed once again. And when we do build something, we build just for the needs of today, with no future-proofing — the Ordsall Chord being a good example of something that can't even deliver on the needs for today!

Quite. And successive governments' niggardly approach to investing in rail, particularly in the north, doesn't help

 

[B&I]

Sadly some people are so entrenched in their view they cannot comprehend the notion that someone travelling from Yorkshire or the North East change trains when travelling to a relatively small airport.
Some of us are fully aware that the issues at the Piccadilly throat (caused by the two Liverpool Trains crossing over and the Middlesborough train reversing) could have been solved, for zero cost, simply by diverting them via Victoria and sending the Middlesborough service through to Chester.

Access to the airport would still have been maintained by a single interchange at Manchester Piccadilly. And would be significantly more reliable than the current mangle of services passing through the Castlefield corridor. Reliability which is an order of magnitude more important than direct connectivity when you are trying to catch that important flight.

However someone decided it was more important to be seen spending money on Infrastrucutre in the North (something I fully agree with) than it was to actually spend it on the right things.

You're doing that 'questionning the unquestionned importance of Manchester Airport' thing again

 

[B&I]

Terminating at Piccadilly 1/2 would destroy the frequent Transpennine service, clearly contrary to any aims for connecting the North. This could be solved of course - by withdrawing TPE services to Liverpool. Alternatively you could terminate the trains currently heading to the Airport at Victoria, but dumping TPE at the arse end of the city with no onward rail connections to anywhere anyone wants to go isn't going to increase usage.

So Victoria is good enough for Liverpool's 2 trains an hour, but not for any of the 6 an hour to Leeds, despite passenger flows from Manchester to Liverpool being far heavier than passenger flows across the Pennines ? Yet it is the latter that is somehow more important, despite experience showing that it is completely unworkable. And when numerous people point out the obvious alternative to wrecking the whole network to over-serve Manchester Airport, your suggestion is to cut off rail services to a region of over 1.5 million people instead.

It is unfortunate that this complete lack of logic seems as prevalent in officialdom as it does on this forum

 

[B&I]

In this regard they quite self evidently didn't.



By not doing 15/16 first it clearly was.

What they should have known, and told the government (and the authorities of Greater Manchester), was that the Ordsall Chord without platforms 15 and 16 was a recipe for disaster. That'a not admitting defeat. That's doing your job properly by telling those in power what can be done, and what needs to be done. Sadly, political daydreams of various sorts seem to have overriden any consideration of what's actually physically possible with the railway network we have

 

[Bletchleyite]

So Victoria is good enough for Liverpool's 2 trains an hour, but not for any of the 6 an hour to Leeds, despite passenger flows from Manchester to Liverpool being far heavier than passenger flows across the Pennines ? Yet it is the latter that is somehow more important, despite experience showing that it is completely unworkable. And when numerous people point out the obvious alternative to wrecking the whole network to over-serve Manchester Airport, your suggestion is to cut off rail services to a region of over 1.5 million people instead.

Eh? When the Liverpool TPEs switched over to Vic, a Class 319 substitute service was added at Picc. OK, not as posh, but I'll take a Class 319 with a seat over anything else without one.

 

[Killingworth]

We can thank the Victorians of the Manchester South Junction and Altrincham Railway and later railway developers who have bequeathed us a real headache by building some 2 miles of viaducts. Looking at things flat on a simple railway map doesn't show the challenges of interweaving canals, roads and rivers. Those who can see them can't see the difficulties of interweaving rail routes and paths - and that's before we get to train types and ultimate destinations.

Any resolution overground is going to be hard to build. HS2 is supposedly going underground? Someone needs to get a grip!

Going eastwards that East Midlands interloper into our northern ants nest of rail tracks has negotiated Liverpool and Warrington. (Assuming it ever got as far as Liverpool and wasn't turned early at Warrington after previous incoming delays, or cancelled altogether.) Then its troubles start with freight from Trafford Park after which it can only get worse, and usually does, as services from left, right and centre converge. An on-time arrival in Norwich is a rare achievement, even after some long recovery times en route, possible diversions and a short blast down the ECML from Grantham to Peterborough. It's days are numbered, reliabilty already defeated by delays anywhere and everywhere, to be truncated to Liverpool - Nottingham from December 2021. That won't resolve the biggest barrier to that reliability - getting through Manchester.

Replicate this for every route through 13 and 14, and those that interact with them, and it's plain to see all these late running trains are knocking on delays across the nation causing difficulties for services hundreds of miles away. It's far from being just a Manchester problem. It's not a local northern problem. It goes beyond England into Scotland and Wales.

Manchester is the northern hub, like it or loathe it. At present a lot of people loathe it, passengers and rail staff alike!

 

[Greybeard33]

The only reason why those services had to cross the throat is because of the insistence of certain people that Manchester Airport must have direct services to everywhere, even from large cities 100 miles away with their own internationally served airports. Those services could have been diverted to Victoria and carried on to terminate somewhere west of Manchester.

The worst capacity killer under the old timetable was the Liverpool to Scarborough service, which weaved across the entire throat from Ardwick to P14, stopping all movements in and out of other platforms. That could have gone via Victoria, as it now does, without any effect on direct services from the Airport to anywhere. But without the Ordsall Chord that would have left Leeds services inconveniently split 3tph from Piccadilly and 2tph from Victoria.

If the Middlesbrough and Newcastle to Airport services were diverted to terminate "somewhere west of Manchester", instead of going round the Chord, passengers between Leeds and any destination south of Manchester city centre (not just the Airport) would be faced with the choice of trekking between Victoria and Piccadilly by tram, bus or on foot, or taking the 2tph semi-fast/stopper service to/from Piccadilly. But of course Liverpool would be sitting pretty, still with its 3tph service to Piccadilly, including 2tph direct to the Airport and 1tph direct to Sheffield/Nottingham. Plus at least 2tph to Victoria and Leeds (or 4tph if the diverted TPEs both went to Lime Street), with the Northern Connect to Leeds via Bradford due to be added next year.

 

[B&I]

The worst capacity killer under the old timetable was the Liverpool to Scarborough service, which weaved across the entire throat from Ardwick to P14, stopping all movements in and out of other platforms. That could have gone via Victoria, as it now does, without any effect on direct services from the Airport to anywhere. But without the Ordsall Chord that would have left Leeds services inconveniently split 3tph from Piccadilly and 2tph from Victoria.

If the Middlesbrough and Newcastle to Airport services were diverted to terminate "somewhere west of Manchester", instead of going round the Chord, passengers between Leeds and any destination south of Manchester city centre (not just the Airport) would be faced with the choice of trekking between Victoria and Piccadilly by tram, bus or on foot, or taking the 2tph semi-fast/stopper service to/from Piccadilly. But of course Liverpool would be sitting pretty, still with its 3tph service to Piccadilly, including 2tph direct to the Airport and 1tph direct to Sheffield/Nottingham. Plus at least 2tph to Victoria and Leeds (or 4tph if the diverted TPEs both went to Lime Street), with the Northern Connect to Leeds via Bradford due to be added next year.

Imagine my distress that Leeds passengers might have to check which station the next train goes from, as Liverpool passengers already have to. I mean, when you only have 6 fast trains an hour from Manchester, as opposed to the 4 Liverpool gets, that must make life oh so hard.

Note that I did not suggest that every train that reached Victoria went to Liverpool. Chester / North Wales and Preston / Blackpool are also alternatives.

 

[B&I]

Eh? When the Liverpool TPEs switched over to Vic, a Class 319 substitute service was added at Picc. OK, not as posh, but I'll take a Class 319 with a seat over anything else without one.

Not quite. The 319 is really a slowed-down replacement for tye semi-fast Liverpool-Mancairport service and the Liverpool-Victoria stopper, albeit now rammed through to somewhere in cheshire and continually late or cancelled. The real replacement for the TPE service via Warrington is the Northern Liverpool-Warrington-Aiport service, which seems to be slower. There may be an additional TPE service via Chat Moss which is faster than via Warrington (in theory, in practice it is late every time I take it), but the existing TPE service via Victoria has been slowed down. Quite apart from.the atrocious reliability of all these services at present, things have been swapped around with no enhancement since direct Newcastle services were reintroduced.

 

[Greybeard33]

Imagine my distress that Leeds passengers might have to check which station the next train goes from, as Liverpool passengers already have to. I mean, when you only have 6 fast trains an hour from Manchester, as opposed to the 4 Liverpool gets, that must make life oh so hard.

Note that I did not suggest that every train that reached Victoria went to Liverpool. Chester / North Wales and Preston / Blackpool are also alternatives.

There are only 4 fast trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester. The Hull - Piccadilly is now semi-fast, making 6 stops and taking an hour between Leeds and Manchester. The extra Leeds - Piccadilly makes 10 stops and is overtaken by one of the fasts in each direction. If you want to include slow services, there are currently 7tph between Liverpool and Manchester. The CLC Lime Street - Oxford Road stoppers are not normally overtaken en route, nor is the Chat Moss Lime Street - Airport - Crewe stopper.

Chester and Liverpool are both planned to get hourly Northern Connect services to Victoria and Bradford/Leeds via the Calder Valley next year. I doubt there is capacity on the eastern Chat Moss line for additional TPE services as well as these. Linking Northern Preston/Blackpool services through Victoria to TPE Middlesbrough/Newcastle services would involve a major timetable recast, franchise remapping and additional TPE rolling stock. Such services would link paths in the ECML and WCML timetables, posing an increased risk to reliability/resilience. They would replace EMUs on the Manchester - Bolton - Preston - Blackpool line with diesels/bi-modes, partly negating the benefits of the new wires.

 

[Bletchleyite]

4tph is over the top anyway. If we were a proper European railway we'd be operating 2tph but the trains would be something like 260m long. And we wouldn't have half the problems we do.

There is no point upping frequencies beyond 2tph on regional express routes until you've reached the maximum practical length. All it does is reduce reliability.

 

[Killingworth]

4tph is over the top anyway. If we were a proper European railway we'd be operating 2tph but the trains would be something like 260m long. And we wouldn't have half the problems we do.

There is no point upping frequencies beyond 2tph on regional express routes until you've reached the maximum practical length. All it does is reduce reliability.

Hear, hear. A half hourly service that's reliably on time, and maybe a litle quicker, would get my vote every time.

Sadly many platforms en route aren't long enough and each one that's currently proposed for lengthening seems to be delayed* as long as 15 and 16! There are platforms currently in use by these trains that take only 4 cars, and those that are to be lengthened will only be extended to 6 when 8 or more might be needed soon if growth can be maintained. Imagine a 9 coach 185 with 3 lots of cycle space, first class and refreshment trolleys! Nice enough trains, but operationally......? At least a 6 or 8 car 158 can be walked through.

Many of the trains we're talking about aren't all that express either for much of their routes thanks to power being wasted due to infrastructure issues.

Every solution brings so many more problems!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Ours is a Northern station where a 4 car 150 or Pacer combination may call 2 or 3 times a day. 4 car length is fine for them, although the platform took 6 until shortened in a short sighted move in 1985. TPE pick up more passengers, and a lot more revenue, and are now stopping some 6 car trains. In school term time Monday-Thursday even they are almost full, but it's not their station to extend. No money from Northern as not a priority. Network rail - maybe by 2021?

 

[B&I]

There are only 4 fast trains an hour between Leeds and Manchester. The Hull - Piccadilly is now semi-fast, making 6 stops and taking an hour between Leeds and Manchester. The extra Leeds - Piccadilly makes 10 stops and is overtaken by one of the fasts in each direction. If you want to include slow services, there are currently 7tph between Liverpool and Manchester. The CLC Lime Street - Oxford Road stoppers are not normally overtaken en route, nor is the Chat Moss Lime Street - Airport - Crewe stopper.

Chester and Liverpool are both planned to get hourly Northern Connect services to Victoria and Bradford/Leeds via the Calder Valley next year. I doubt there is capacity on the eastern Chat Moss line for additional TPE services as well as these. Linking Northern Preston/Blackpool services through Victoria to TPE Middlesbrough/Newcastle services would involve a major timetable recast, franchise remapping and additional TPE rolling stock. Such services would link paths in the ECML and WCML timetables, posing an increased risk to reliability/resilience. They would replace EMUs on the Manchester - Bolton - Preston - Blackpool line with diesels/bi-modes, partly negating the benefits of the new wires.

If we're going to count stoppers, throw in the Calder Valley too. Isn't that another 3 TPH between Manchester and Leeds ? Plus, the 4 TPH fast between Liverpool and Manchester are split between 2 stations. Are Loiners unable to find their way round central Manchester as well as Scousers can ?

As for the rest, you've not said a single thing that convinces me that we should maintain the unworkable, chaotic status quo. If TPE trains continued to Chester, the need for the Northern Connect services would be reduced and the route's diesel anyway. Even if they went to.Blackpool, and bi-modes were required, so what ? It would not be possible to sod up any modified timetable any further than the existing service patterns do, and if there's difficulty on the east coast, then maybe it's time for portion working to places like Middlesbrough and Scarborough.

Seems to me that certain people would prefer the entire north of England network to remain in a state of chaos rather than see any of those precious Manchester Airport trains given up.

 

[158756]

4tph is over the top anyway. If we were a proper European railway we'd be operating 2tph but the trains would be something like 260m long. And we wouldn't have half the problems we do.

There is no point upping frequencies beyond 2tph on regional express routes until you've reached the maximum practical length. All it does is reduce reliability.

There's no point running long trains if the demand isn't there to fill them. We currently complain the frequent trains are very crowded, but there's nowhere near enough passengers on them to justify a 260m train, and reducing the frequency will only further reduce demand, however long the trains are.

 

[B&I]

There's no point running long trains if the demand isn't there to fill them. We currently complain the frequent trains are very crowded, but there's nowhere near enough passengers on them to justify a 260m train, and reducing the frequency will only further reduce demand, however long the trains are.

Is there any basis whatsoever for thinking that people would prefer to stand on a train which runs ebery 15 minutes, rather than sit on one which runs every half an hour ?

 

[Altfish]

Is there any basis whatsoever for thinking that people would preder to stand on a train which runs every 15 minutes, rather than sit on one which runs every half an hour ?

How does that work?
What you are saying is double the size, half the frequency and thus reduce the demand?
Of course, nothing greater than 6 coaches can stop at Oxford Road, we need the reconfiguration to solve that problem.

"There's a hole in my bucket...."

 

[a_c_skinner]

The actual issue is that this is a crucial double track railway crossing the heart of a big city that needs considerable expenditure to improve it, or perhaps a whole new railway in a tunnel? Now I can think of one place where that has happened, both actually, and while that inequality is tolerated all we can do is rail, if you'll forgive the pun. Demolition of property, new track, even the listed Borough Market altered all seem feasible and affordable if the will exists. No one who has ridden trains in the North West can fail to believe that ridership is suppressed and car travel promoted hugely by overcrowding.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The only reason why those services had to cross the throat is because of the insistence of certain people that Manchester Airport must have direct services to everywhere, even from large cities 100 miles away with their own internationally served airports. Those services could have been diverted to Victoria and carried on to terminate somewhere west of Manchester.

If I had to ask you one question, it would be do you hate flats being made available to prospective residents in the Manchester city core area more than rail service provision to Manchester Airport?

 

[CdBrux]

The only reason why those services had to cross the throat is because of the insistence of certain people that Manchester Airport must have direct services to everywhere, even from large cities 100 miles away with their own internationally served airports. Those services could have been diverted to Victoria and carried on to terminate somewhere west of Manchester.

Let's cut all bar Manchester direct airport trains, including Liverpool as of course Liverpool does have it's own airport and thus does not need a direct link to Manchester as all Liverpudlians should use Liverpool airport, just as all those from Newcastle should use their own airport.

Manchester airport for Mancunians!

 

[Altfish]

Imagine my distress that Leeds passengers might have to check which station the next train goes from, as Liverpool passengers already have to. I mean, when you only have 6 fast trains an hour from Manchester, as opposed to the 4 Liverpool gets, that must make life oh so hard.

Note that I did not suggest that every train that reached Victoria went to Liverpool. Chester / North Wales and Preston / Blackpool are also alternatives.

I can't express strongly enough how important direct trains to the airport are. As a regular user of TPE trains, I get into conversations with people from Leeds, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Preston, etc., etc. and unfailingly they are extremely grateful for the direct services to the Airport.
When you see the amount of suitcases/hand luggage they have, you can understand that crossing Manchester or even just trying to get from 13/14 at Piccadilly to one of the terminal platforms often with two kids in tow is stressful and can be the difference between driving and getting the train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's no point running long trains if the demand isn't there to fill them. We currently complain the frequent trains are very crowded, but there's nowhere near enough passengers on them to justify a 260m train, and reducing the frequency will only further reduce demand, however long the trains are.

I'm talking a 260m train (say) every half hour in preference to a 70-something-m train every 10 minutes. It'd get filled. I'm unconvinced that half hourly on the core would scare people off; it doesn't in countries like Switzerland that operate exactly the kind of services I'm proposing - long trains on a half hourly base which allows for adequate layover for quality connections and a high level of punctuality. And down here on the south WCML the smaller stations basically operate on a half hourly base with long trains, and we cope.

Portion working would be an excellent way to do it; TPE might for instance have a fleet of ~130m trains, and would for instance run a pair of units hourly from Liverpool to York (the busier stretch) where they'd split for Newcastle(->Edinburgh) and Middlesbrough. Another pair of units could run from Manchester Airport via Castlefield and Ordsall (if we must have the infernal thing we might as well use it) to Leeds, where they'd split for Middlesbrough and Hull. A further pair could run from Liverpool in the opposite half hour to Sheffield and split for Nottingham and Cleethorpes.

Another set could run hourly from the Airport to Carstairs and divide for Glasgow and Edinburgh. Same from Liverpool at whatever frequency they're doing.

That way you get a very high capacity at a sensible but marketable frequency in the core and a more reliable service than trying to run a load of 3-car sets around at silly frequencies.

The same model would, as I've said many times, be perfect for the Lakes and Furness lines - a pair of bi-mode units (about 80-100m each would do for this case) run hourly from the Airport via Manchester to Lancaster where they split for Barrow and Windermere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I can't express strongly enough how important direct trains to the airport are. As a regular user of TPE trains, I get into conversations with people from Leeds, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Preston, etc., etc. and unfailingly they are extremely grateful for the direct services to the Airport.
When you see the amount of suitcases/hand luggage they have, you can understand that crossing Manchester or even just trying to get from 13/14 at Piccadilly to one of the terminal platforms often with two kids in tow is stressful and can be the difference between driving and getting the train.

And yet they pull their oversized suitcases through the elevated tunnels to the terminals quite happily. What gives?

 

[Camden]

I can't express strongly enough how important direct trains to the airport are. As a regular user of TPE trains, I get into conversations with people from Leeds, York, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Preston, etc., etc. and unfailingly they are extremely grateful for the direct services to the Airport.
When you see the amount of suitcases/hand luggage they have, you can understand that crossing Manchester or even just trying to get from 13/14 at Piccadilly to one of the terminal platforms often with two kids in tow is stressful and can be the difference between driving and getting the train.

Given the considerable distance between Manchester Airport station and the airport's terminal buildings (10 minute walk), with little escalators, the slow lifts, the confusing layouts and the long corridors, what part of a less than 2 minute numbered platform interchange at Manchester Piccadilly do you think would confound most members of the public heading there?...