No Welsh Trains to Manchester Airport (Now approved until December 2017)

[LNW-GW Joint]

Is there any more news on a direct ATW service to Manchester Airport, and is platform 4 at MIA now finally in use?

Looks like ATW's application was refused.
Paths being reserved for a Calder Valley service apparently, after the Ordsall Chord opens.
Might clarify when the new franchises are awarded.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Paths being reserved for a Calder Valley service apparently, after the Ordsall Chord opens.

Based upon the knowledge of recent events, how long will it be before those paths are actually used?

 

[snowball]

Based upon the knowledge of recent events, how long will it be before those paths are actually used?

I think the Chord and the Preston, Blackpool and Stalybridge electrifications are still deliverable by December 2017.

 

[northwichcat]

Looks like ATW's application was refused.
Paths being reserved for a Calder Valley service apparently, after the Ordsall Chord opens.
Might clarify when the new franchises are awarded.

Northern ITT requires a Leeds-Bradford-Airport service to be introduced no later than December 2019. Bidders were also instructed to leave a path for ATW to either:
1. Terminate services from Wales at Manchester Victoria
2. Run a service to the Airport.

Network Rail are unable to guarantee ATW use of a path for the forseeable future until they know the proposed December 2017 and 2019 timetables.

TPE ITT requires bidders to start using the Ordsall Chord as soon as practically possible if it's not open by December 2017.

 

[geoffk]

I doubt if ATW will be happy with those arguments. It's four years minimum before a Calder Valley Airport service starts (and I live in the CV so must be in favour of it!)

 

[mwmbwls]

Forgive me if this has been raised before but many of the capacity issues at the airport could be relieved by reviving the proposals for the western access link to the CLC line - dwell times would be reduced if spliced Calder Valley/Chester trains could be turned/serviced at Chester. Steve Broadbent writing in the current edition of Rail Magazine reports that there has been blow back from the mid Cheshire Rail Users Group on this point who point out that in 2008 Manchester Airport Group wrote to the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee advocating these benefits.

 

[po8crg]

Network Rail are unable to guarantee ATW use of a path for the forseeable future until they know the proposed December 2017 and 2019 timetables.

I think you mean ORR. NR determine how many paths, but ORR determine which operator they're allocated to.

 

[northwichcat]

I think you mean ORR. NR determine how many paths, but ORR determine which operator they're allocated to.

No I mean Network Rail. ATW never submitted an application to the ORR for additional Manchester Airport paths, they submitted one to Network Rail who rejected it.

 

[The Planner]

So they didnt go for a supplemental on their track access contract then by the sounds of it.

 

[Greybeard33]

Forgive me if this has been raised before but many of the capacity issues at the airport could be relieved by reviving the proposals for the western access link to the CLC line - dwell times would be reduced if spliced Calder Valley/Chester trains could be turned/serviced at Chester. Steve Broadbent writing in the current edition of Rail Magazine reports that there has been blow back from the mid Cheshire Rail Users Group on this point who point out that in 2008 Manchester Airport Group wrote to the House of Commons Welsh Affairs Committee advocating these benefits.

Previously discussed in early June in the Fourth Platform thread here. The MCRUA's comprehensive and cogently argued response, dated 20th June, to the Airport's Sustainable Development Plan is at http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/MCRUA-response-to-MIA-Sustainable-Devt-Plan.pdf and captures the points previously made on this forum. The related blog page on the subject is at http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansblog/2015/06/11/airport-expansion-western-link-still-needed/. This says that MCRUA also submitted the document to the Transport Select Committee's inquiry into surface transport at airports:

I am pleased to attach MCRUA’s response to Manchester Airport’s Sustainable Development Plan consultation carried out over the summer months. The Airport is proposing to remove the protected line of rail route for access from the south/west, apparently on the basis that HS2 will render this unnecessary. We believe HS2 makes this more necessary.

Of particular relevance to your inquiry are:

– Range and Capacity. Rail connections to the South and West of the Airport are poor as acknowledged by the Airport. Details are provided in our submission.

– DfT’s involvement. It is not clear to us whether DfT are involved in the development of the Airport’s revised plan.

 

[northwichcat]

I doubt if ATW will be happy with those arguments. It's four years minimum before a Calder Valley Airport service starts (and I live in the CV so must be in favour of it!)

Just checking what was said and TPE said more services on the Airport-Piccadilly between the morning and evening peaks pre-Ordsall Chord could have a negative effect on punctuality on North TPE services and Network Rail agreed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Previously discussed in early June in the Fourth Platform thread here. The MCRUA's comprehensive and cogently argued response, dated 20th June, to the Airport's Sustainable Development Plan is at http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansblog/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/MCRUA-response-to-MIA-Sustainable-Devt-Plan.pdf and captures the points previously made on this forum. The related blog page on the subject is at http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansblog/2015/06/11/airport-expansion-western-link-still-needed/. This says that MCRUA also submitted the document to the Transport Select Committee's inquiry into surface transport at airports:

This part is interesting

The “Economy and Surface Access document of the Development Plan analyses journeys to and
from the airport. Page 22 says that 7% of the airport's passengers come from Cheshire and 4% from
Wales. Also of interest is that 1% come from Blackpool, 2% from Cumbria, and 2% from the
North East region.

So a question to ask is do we really need 1tph from Blackpool to the Airport, as well as services from Cumbria to the Airport?

 

[button_boxer]

So a question to ask is do we really need 1tph from Blackpool to the Airport, as well as services from Cumbria to the Airport?

Not based on end to end passengers only, but presumably we do need a decent service from Blackpool to Manchester Piccadilly. Such a service has to run into platform 13/14 and can't turn back there so it has to go somewhere beyond Piccadilly. The airport is the obvious place, particularly as that avoids having to cross the whole station throat.

 

[northwichcat]

Not based on end to end passengers only, but presumably we do need a decent service from Blackpool to Manchester Piccadilly. Such a service has to run into platform 13/14 and can't turn back there so it has to go somewhere beyond Piccadilly. The airport is the obvious place, particularly as that avoids having to cross the whole station throat.

Is there actually a need for Blackpool to have a service to Manchester Piccadilly? One of the main benefits of services to Piccadilly opposed to Victoria is better connections to long distance services but from Blackpool it's possible to pick up regular Birmingham and London services from Preston and Victoria will have a lot more Yorkshire services in the coming years.

A service from the North arriving at Piccadilly doesn't have to go to the Airport to avoid crossing the throat - it could continue down the WCML towards Crewe/Stoke, go towards Sheffield or down other lines which branch off the WCML.

 

[PHILIPE]

Not based on end to end passengers only, but presumably we do need a decent service from Blackpool to Manchester Piccadilly. Such a service has to run into platform 13/14 and can't turn back there so it has to go somewhere beyond Piccadilly. The airport is the obvious place, particularly as that avoids having to cross the whole station throat.

You could say the same for an ATW Llandudno to Manchester Picc but, apart from the odd couple that do go to the Airport, they have to turn back at Mayfield.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You could say the same for an ATW Llandudno to Manchester Picc but, apart from the odd couple that do go to the Airport, they have to turn back at Mayfield.

Out of interest, for how long has that situation now been the case?

 

[Greybeard33]

Is there actually a need for Blackpool to have a service to Manchester Piccadilly? One of the main benefits of services to Piccadilly opposed to Victoria is better connections to long distance services but from Blackpool it's possible to pick up regular Birmingham and London services from Preston and Victoria will have a lot more Yorkshire services in the coming years.

A service from the North arriving at Piccadilly doesn't have to go to the Airport to avoid crossing the throat - it could continue down the WCML towards Crewe/Stoke, go towards Sheffield or down other lines which branch off the WCML.

Of course a few of the Blackpools are still portion workings, with a portion to/from Barrow or Windermere detaching/attaching at Preston. These extend the directly served airport catchment to include the 2% from Cumbria as well as the 1% from Blackpool. However, since the TPE 170 debacle more Cumbria services terminate at Preston, with passengers having to change to an ex-Blackpool double 156 at Preston.

Is it really fair for York and Middlesbrough each to keep 1tph direct to the Airport, rather than N Wales and Chester, which provide more Airport-bound passengers, getting one of the paths? Pending the Ordsall Chord, the TPE North services have to cross the Fasts between Piccadilly and Slade Lane, conflicting with Stockport line services, whereas an ATW service would stay on the Slows.

 

[northwichcat]

Out of interest, for how long has that situation now been the case?

I think since TPE services started running from Piccadilly. Prior to that there were North Wales to Yorkshire services via Victoria.

Under FNW there was a Chester-Warrington-Manchester-Stockport-Chester working and a Chester-Altrincham-Manchester-Warrington-Llandudno working in the morning peak to prevent the need for reversals, which even continued after the Manchester-North Wales services transferred to the Wales & Border franchise. The latter meant most Manchester commuters from the Mid-Cheshire line with 9am starts got to travel in to work on a 175.

Between the Altrincham-Manchester line being converted to Metrolink and the mid to late 90s there was an hourly Southport-Piccadilly-Altrincham-Chester service to prevent Southport services needing to reverse at Piccadilly and of course the Blackpool-Piccadilly-Buxton service which existed until 2008.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course a few of the Blackpools are still portion workings, with a portion to/from Barrow or Windermere detaching/attaching at Preston. These extend the directly served airport catchment to include the 2% from Cumbria as well as the 1% from Blackpool. However, since the TPE 170 debacle more Cumbria services terminate at Preston, with passengers having to change to an ex-Blackpool double 156 at Preston.

I was also thinking what's in the ITT for the next franchises which specifies hourly Airport to Scotland services, hourly Airport to Blackpool services, 8tpd between Barrow and the Airport and 2tpd between Windermere and the Airport. That's a lot of Airport provision for 3% of demand.

Is it really fair for York and Middlesbrough each to keep 1tph direct to the Airport, rather than N Wales and Chester, which provide more Airport-bound passengers, getting one of the paths? Pending the Ordsall Chord, the TPE North services have to cross the Fasts between Piccadilly and Slade Lane, conflicting with Stockport line services, whereas an ATW service would stay on the Slows.

In the case of York it of course gets 2tph by the time the Middlesbrough train stops there.

It would be interesting to see a more detailed breakdown of the 7% from Cheshire. Presumably they don't all come from the Wilmslow and Crewe areas even if those are the only two areas currently with proper public transport links to the Airport.

 

[PHILIPE]

Out of interest, for how long has that situation now been the case?

Many years now, probably around 2002. The general pattern during the day is to return in just under an hour and they sit in Mayfield Sidings until time to admit into Platform 14. There is a strange one at night for the balancing of units whereby a train from Llandudno arrives in Platform 13 then shunts to the Main part of the station to work a service to Shrewsbury and a train from Carmarthen with fine timing arrives in platform 14 and departs after 2 minutes dwell time as a fresh train at 22 12 to Chester.

 

[craigybagel]

Many years now, probably around 2002. The general pattern during the day is to return in just under an hour and they sit in Mayfield Sidings until time to admit into Platform 14. There is a strange one at night for the balancing of units whereby a train from Llandudno arrives in Platform 13 then shunts to the Main part of the station to work a service to Shrewsbury and a train from Carmarthen with fine timing arrives in platform 14 and departs after 2 minutes dwell time as a fresh train at 22 12 to Chester.

The unit that goes to Chester is a 175 and Shrewsbury a 158 - as the 175s are maintained in Chester its best for it to end the day there. That said I'm sure I read somewhere that Network Rail aren't keen on crew changes taking place on the through platforms at Piccadilly (TPE and Northern crews normally change over at Oxford Road I believe) so this job does seem to be an exception to the rule.

 

[northwichcat]

The unit that goes to Chester is a 175 and Shrewsbury a 158 - as the 175s are maintained in Chester its best for it to end the day there. That said I'm sure I read somewhere that Network Rail aren't keen on crew changes taking place on the through platforms at Piccadilly (TPE and Northern crews normally change over at Oxford Road I believe) so this job does seem to be an exception to the rule.

I can imagine. I've been on trains which have arrived on time but then departed late due to the new crew having been delayed.

 

[craigybagel]

I can imagine. I've been on trains which have arrived on time but then departed late due to the new crew having been delayed.

Exactly - and Platform 14 is possibly the worst platform in the country you could block waiting for a new crew. In this particular example the Driver who takes it forward to Chester travels on the unit as a passenger from Crewe which might be why it's exempt, but the guard doesn't.

 

[PHILIPE]

I remember when trains first using the new chord via Salford Crescent in the 90s and afterwards, trains from Scotland and the North West to the Midlands and South used the route. Traincrews had to travel to and from Stockport to effect relief there rather than Manchester Picc.

 

[geoffk]

ATW hopes to be running to Manchester Airport, but not from next month. They have won an appeal for paths from Network Rail.

MIA platform 4 is now in use (although no trains were using it during my short visit today).

 

[craigybagel]

ATW hopes to be running to Manchester Airport, but not from next month. They have won an appeal for paths from Network Rail.

MIA platform 4 is now in use (although no trains were using it during my short visit today).

They'd need time to train up more crews anyway I'd suspect. Most of the drivers and a large enough amount of the guards who work the current Manchester trains don't sign the airport.

 

[northwichcat]

They have won an appeal for paths from Network Rail.

Do you have a source for that?

As Northern bidders were instructed to either leave a path available for a North Wales-Manchester Airport service OR a North Wales-Manchester Victoria service I'm surprised a decision has been made ahead of the winning bid being announced by DfT, unless ALL the bidders opted to leave a path for a North Wales-Manchester Airport service.

EDIT: I think you're mistaken. I've just noticed on the Network Rail website a new application has been submitted by ATW

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse... - closes 3 december 2015/atw 73rd form p.pdf
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse... 22a - closes 3 december 2015/atw 73rd sa.pdf

Network Rail will close the consultation on that application on Thursday 3rd December.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Do you have a source for that?
EDIT: I think you're mistaken. I've just noticed on the Network Rail website a new application has been submitted by ATW

It's on the Rail web site, and relates to the application you linked: http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2015/11/10/atw-seeks-extension-of-off-peak-airport-services
It's turning into a silly industry spat.
Network Rail has been two-faced. When P3 at the airport was opened, it originally asked for applications to use it, only to reject ATW's application.
At one point (responding to Northern/TPE objections) it said that ATW turning a train in Mayfield Siding generated more congestion than if it ran to the airport.
Now we have P4, and the same charade is being played out - "No room, no room", despite having spent a small fortune building P4.
I imagine ATW (and the Welsh Government) are just trying to make sure they are not squeezed out of the airport by back-stairs decisions elsewhere (by DfT/NR/Rail North).

From the track access application (my bold):

In December 2014 Network Rail’s Sale of Access Rights (SOAR) Panel decided that Network Rail would not support Arriva Trains Wales’ request for track access rights to underpin those validated Train Slots. The Train Slots were withdrawn from the May 2015 Timetable in February 2015. Network Rail subsequently rejected Arriva Trains Wales’ Access Proposal for identical Train Slots for the December 2015 Timetable. The Train Slots were bid for a third time for the May 2016 Timetable.
At a Timetabling Panel Hearing of the Access Disputes Committee on 6th October 2015, the Panel found that Arriva Trains Wales was entitled to have its Access Proposal for the December 2015 Timetable accepted by Network Rail, subject to the normal processes of the Network Code. Taking into consideration the short time before the start of the December 2015 Timetable, the Panel did not direct Network Rail to accommodate the Train Slots in the December 2015 Timetable but did direct Network Rail to accommodate the Train Slots in the May 2016 Timetable, again subject to the normal processes of the Network Code. This application is for track access rights to commence from May 2016

 

[northwichcat]

Now we have P4, and the same charade is being played out - "No room, no room", despite having spent a small fortune building P4.

I think the 'no room' comes from TPE's comments that maintaining punctuality since their May 2014 enhancements has been harder than expected and more services operating on the Airport-Piccadilly line ahead of the Ordsall Chord will only make the matter worse, which Network Rail seem to agree with.

Platform 4 and the Ordsall Chord were originally both supposed to come in to use at the December 2016 timetable change. Platform 4 got done ahead of schedule so it could be done alongside the Metrolink work, reducing the amount of disruption.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the 'no room' comes from TPE's comments that maintaining punctuality since their May 2014 enhancements has been harder than expected and more services operating on the Airport-Piccadilly line ahead of the Ordsall Chord will only make the matter worse, which Network Rail seem to agree with.

The once regular Manchester Airport to Newcastle service now runs from Liverpool Lime Street via Manchester Victoria and has been replaced by a Manchester Airport to York service, so that path status quo seems unaffected by that change. Surely the availability of an extra platform can only but help in the matter of maintaining punctuality, when one considers extra service provision.

 

[northwichcat]

The once regular Manchester Airport to Newcastle service now runs from Liverpool Lime Street via Manchester Victoria and has been replaced by a Manchester Airport to York service, so that path status quo seems unaffected by that change.

The problem is Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds is more congested so a delay on the Manchester Airport to York service now has a greater knock on effect than a delay on the old Manchester Airport to Newcastle service.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The problem is Manchester-Huddersfield-Leeds is more congested so a delay on the Manchester Airport to York service now has a greater knock on effect than a delay on the old Manchester Airport to Newcastle service.

I assumed that as there were only Manchester Airport to Newcastle and Manchester Airport to Middlesbrough services on the North Transpennine TPE routes, the replacement of the Newcastle service by a York one would have seen exactly the same number of services.

Or is it the case that there are now more services on the York replacement service than there were on the original Newcastle service?