• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Manchester Airport railway station, discussion and ideas

Status
Not open for further replies.

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
When you feel you have won the arguement by quoting a few paragraphs of a 9 year old 'report' by vested interests and think you can shut the conversation down rather than engaging with legitimate concerns.


When you set out with a 'vision' and then write a 'report' on that 'vision', the only thing that is certain is that your 'report' will prove that your original 'vision' was the correcct one. That report is so openly biased towards it's outcome from the start that from the opening paragraph they make it clear what they are trying to prove. They then continue by putting their conclusions aka aspirations, before any of the so called evidence. Through the entire report they conflate 'The Northern Way' and the Manchester Hub. As if they are they only option and the whole of the North supports it, however with no alternative or counter proposal to evaluate it against.

Then we will look at the Geographical regions that the report has defined. Central Manchester, Inner Manchester, The rest of Manchester. All the other Northern Cities combined. The rest of the country. - If that isn't biasing an 'investigation' to obtain the pre-determined result what on earth is.

Then we look at the way they identify the so called 'rail corridors'. Blackburn aparently has it's own dedicated corridor into Manchester that only serves Blackburn and nowhere else. The only place that can be served 'via wigan' is Southport. However Leeds and York have been pre-determined to be so important that they can be split into 3 seperate grouping (despite the total of all the corridors combined being a fraction of others. Meanwhile at the bottom relegated to an afterthought are the lines heading West.
- Liverpool via Irlam, (So not even Warrington the biggest place on the line) somehow generates less benefit per minute improvement than the line to Southport. Despite it serving the North Wests 2nd biggest airport. Laughable.
- The second and more major Liverpool line is then combined with Chester (remember Blackburn aparently has its own dedicted corridor serving no-where else)
So taking those two into account, the combined benefits of inter-corridor flows across Manchester without wanting to go there: from the entirity of Liverpool (with a bit of Chester and North Wales) is still deemed to be less than that of the Preston and 'the North' via Bolton. This all despite the fact that everyone from Liverpool - Chester and North Wales, have no choice but to Cross Manchester to go to anywhere in the North East and Yorkshire. Whilst people from the Preston and the North Corridor can avoid Manchester by going straight across the pennines or straight down the WCML.
It also has a combined total on just cross Manchester journeys of '1 benefit per minute' less than all of the flows to Manchester Airport combined.

Now we look at the interchange penalty, and conveniently, People on the Liverpool via Irlam and Liverpool / Chester via Warrington corridors have the two lowest interchange penalties. Massive negative number. The report specifically states, So effectively recognising that people on these corridors are the accepted collateral damage of this plan.

Nothing written in that report can vaguely be described as Evidence. It is just waffle and psuedo statistics to justify a pre-determined position. Its an embaressment that you have to rely on such an outdated biased document to justify flawed actions.



Meanwhile in the real-world this week during the evening peak through Manchester Oxford Road (1615-1800) we are averaging about 4 services keeping to their timetabled arrival and departure times. Some places in the world would be embaressed by 4 services across an entire day being late. Here we are supposed to rejoice, when 4 out of 53 manage to keep to time.



Thank you. You clearly have a lot more patience than I have, to sit and go through that pile of utter manure.

I don't know whom to feel more embarrassed for. The charlatans who actually billed (presumably) taxpayer-funded bodies for that nonsense; the taxpayer-funded bodies who can do nothing concrete to make most people's lives better; the people on here who somehow seem to derive a sense of self-worth by identifying with a fairly standard airport; or all the rest of us in the north, with the embarrassing rubbish we have to put up with instead of proper public transport, treated as collateral damage by the first three groups mentioned above
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Or go back to a previous debating point, which was already previously explained in the hope of keeping the argument alive. The "basket case" North has only just started to see improvements in links to Manchester as well as major improvements to the infrastructure (and so far mainly restricted to the North West), so economic benefits are only just starting to become visible (tourism is one area that this is starting to be evident).

I still however suspect that the few members on here lamenting the airport links do so either because London doesn't have that kind of connectivity (well Heathrow at least as Gatwick seems to have links to quite a few places), or simply because they can't see past a clock face Manchester-Manchester Airport shuttle (all shacks for the Styal line) with lovely neat timetables for them to pour over and maybe using cascaded 332s, suitably downgraded for the Northern scuffers of course... ;)



Would you please stop pretending that the only reason abyone criticises Manchester Airport is because they're jealous southerners ? Multiple residents of the north - not just me - have explained why the distortion of the entire northern railway netwotk to benefit one airport does not benefit them, and in some cases disbenefits them.

And your claim that we should all wait for the wonderful economic prospects that Manchester Airport promises us all is no more conclusive now than it was several days ago. Traffic at Manchester Airport, and infrastructure at and associated with it (including train services) have been growing for decades. Why has the economic gap between north and south in England continued to widen over that time, if a single airport is so economically important ?
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
When you feel you have won the arguement by quoting a few paragraphs of a 9 year old 'report' by vested interests and think you can shut the conversation down rather than engaging with legitimate concerns.

When you set out with a 'vision' and then write a 'report' on that 'vision', the only thing that is certain is that your 'report' will prove that your original 'vision' was the correcct one. That report is so openly biased towards it's outcome from the start that from the opening paragraph they make it clear what they are trying to prove. They then continue by putting their conclusions aka aspirations, before any of the so called evidence. Through the entire report they conflate 'The Northern Way' and the Manchester Hub. As if they are they only option and the whole of the North supports it, however with no alternative or counter proposal to evaluate it against.

Nothing written in that report can vaguely be described as Evidence. It is just waffle and psuedo statistics to justify a pre-determined position. Its an embaressment that you have to rely on such an outdated biased document to justify flawed actions.
The conclusions of the 9 year old report underpinned many of the subsequent investment decisions regarding Manchester's rail network, and set the parameters for the timetable changes that are now being implemented. So I think it is entirely appropriate to critically re-examine the methodology of the analysis that led to those conclusions, as you have attempted to do.

But you have also tried to discredit the report's authors/sponsors through unsubstantiated allegations of vested interests and bias against Liverpool. I do not think these should be allowed to pass unchallenged.

The Northern Way's strategic Steering Group was chaired by Hugh Morgan Williams, from the North East. The other 20 members did include Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester City Council, but also Professor Michael Parkinson, of Liverpool John Moores University, and Robert Hough, who was chair of the NWDA but also a deputy chair of Peel Holdings. http://webarchive.nationalarchives....rnway.co.uk/memberprofile.asp?id=324&pageno=1

The Northern Way's Management Group was chaired by Alan Clarke, then Chief Exec of One North East.

The report was produced by the Northern Transport Compact, http://webarchive.nationalarchives....tp://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/page.asp?id=373. As far as I can see, none of its 16 members represented, or had any connection to, Greater Manchester or Manchester Airport. On the other hand, they did include Cllr Mark Dowd, then chair of Merseytravel; Cllr Ronnie Round, then leader of Knowsley Council; Brian Simpson MEP, whose previous roles included Merseyside County Councillor, Merseyside Police Authority member and deputy chair of Liverpool Airport; Cllr Tony McDermott, of Halton Council; and Geoffrey Piper, who had been a senior parther in Deloitte Liverpool before moving to the North West Business Leadership Team. The chair was Professor David Begg, a transport expert with no obvious connection to the North.

The Hub Conditional Output Statement report was accompanied by two consultants' reports, an Economics Study, by Experian, and a Transport Modelling and Benefit Assessment, by Steer Davies Gleave. It also drew upon the previous Northern Way report Airports, Ports & the Northern Economy (2008). These documents are all available to download from http://webarchive.nationalarchives....tp://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/page.asp?id=485
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
The problem with so many of these posts is the implication that the "other side " is completely wrong and that the writer is completely right. The report which was quoted does not make an absolute case justifying the importance of the airport - but it puts forward enough convincing arguments to at least make the ideas for improving rail services there worth considering.
The nub of most of the opposition to it is that either (a) Nobody wants to go to the airport (self evidently rubbish) or (b) that the increased complexity will cause disruption (which is obviously true) (or even (c) Liverpool is better than Manchester ......).

Rephrase the discussion in real terms (ie Extra through services will tend to attract more passengers but at the cost of reduced reliability) and you get a conversation that does actually have a place outside an infants school playground.

The question is ...... how do you measure the costs and benefits? For either side to say to the other "Prove that you are right" is to miss the point - it can't be done in absolute terms. Even after the event it is difficult because as has been pointed out elsewhere a passenger increase could be down to other factors.

I don't know that two short trains are better than one long one; that a through train from Leeds to the airport is better than changing at Piccadilly; that freight is more important than passenger ....but we should all be receptive to the possibility that the opposite point of view has some merit.


Nobody on here, me included, has argued that services to the airport should be reduced for the sake of it.

In an ideal world, without our present infrastructure constraints, I'd be happy seeing as many trains per hour to Manchester Airport as there was demand to fill. After all, who wants to see people using the roads when it can be avoided ?

(Obviously, I would also like to see infrastructure in place for the north's various other airports to enable people to travel to them without cars too, something which the Manchester Airport Fan Club seems slow to promote. No doubt I'll be reminded in a moment that Manchester has 5 times the passengers of its nearest rival, but 1/5 of the amount of public transport infrastructure it has serving it is not zero.)

However, we do not live in an ideal world. Those of us who have to put up with Northern and Transpennine's dreadful services to the heart of our large cities - those places where many of us go every day, to work, not once or twice a year for our jollies - know this. Where we see on a daily basis a network which is in shambles, with passengers deserting it in droves because the services are so bad that people can't depend on them for their daily travel needs, and where a major reason for this is the re-arrangement of services to accommodate Manchester Airport, the evidence that the north somehow benefits from this state of affairs is going to have to be pretty strong to be persuasive
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
The conclusions of the 9 year old report underpinned many of the subsequent investment decisions regarding Manchester's rail network, and set the parameters for the timetable changes that are now being implemented. So I think it is entirely appropriate to critically re-examine the methodology of the analysis that led to those conclusions, as you have attempted to do.

But you have also tried to discredit the report's authors/sponsors through unsubstantiated allegations of vested interests and bias against Liverpool. I do not think these should be allowed to pass unchallenged.

The Northern Way's strategic Steering Group was chaired by Hugh Morgan Williams, from the North East. The other 20 members did include Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester City Council, but also Professor Michael Parkinson, of Liverpool John Moores University, and Robert Hough, who was chair of the NWDA but also a deputy chair of Peel Holdings. http://webarchive.nationalarchives....rnway.co.uk/memberprofile.asp?id=324&pageno=1

The Northern Way's Management Group was chaired by Alan Clarke, then Chief Exec of One North East.

The report was produced by the Northern Transport Compact, http://webarchive.nationalarchives....tp://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/page.asp?id=373. As far as I can see, none of its 16 members represented, or had any connection to, Greater Manchester or Manchester Airport. On the other hand, they did include Cllr Mark Dowd, then chair of Merseytravel; Cllr Ronnie Round, then leader of Knowsley Council; Brian Simpson MEP, whose previous roles included Merseyside County Councillor, Merseyside Police Authority member and deputy chair of Liverpool Airport; Cllr Tony McDermott, of Halton Council; and Geoffrey Piper, who had been a senior parther in Deloitte Liverpool before moving to the North West Business Leadership Team. The chair was Professor David Begg, a transport expert with no obvious connection to the North.

The Hub Conditional Output Statement report was accompanied by two consultants' reports, an Economics Study, by Experian, and a Transport Modelling and Benefit Assessment, by Steer Davies Gleave. It also drew upon the previous Northern Way report Airports, Ports & the Northern Economy (2008). These documents are all available to download from http://webarchive.nationalarchives....tp://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/page.asp?id=485


The issue isn't whether the people behind this report were biased. The issue is whether they were correct. If the current mess which passes for a railway system in the north is the outcome of their deliberations, I think that question answers itself
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
The issue isn't whether the people behind this report were biased. The issue is whether they were correct. If the current mess which passes for a railway system in the north is the outcome of their deliberations, I think that question answers itself
Well, no, the "current mess" is the outcome of a rushed, botched attempt to partially implement the Northern Hub timetable, without key pieces of the required infrastructure (Manchester - Euxton electrification, Piccadilly P15/16 and Oxford Road remodelling) and without adequate resources of either rolling stock or traincrew who sign the appropriate routes.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Why does the law tolerate this kind of falsehood in advertising?

The pass costs £30 and allows one pick-up and drop-off a day. The word "free" is incorrect and spurious. The use of the term "application fee" is a means of misleading the customer; the simple fact is that the passes cost £30 each, and that is all that should be allowed to be said.

As my earlier post hints I agree with that. It's a season ticket allowing reduced price pick up/drop off for regular users living in certain postcode districts.

The word "free" is window-dressing and is a falsehood and should be illegal, same with "complimentary" things with something you pay for. They are not complimentary, they are part of the price. Something is only free/complimentary if you can have it without a purchase.

What category do the Waitrose coffees for cardholders fall in to? You have to buy something to get one but then is it any different to buy two get one free style offers? Saying that it's actually different to Booths supermarket's new scheme - a coffee costs £1.50, present a membership card and you get a 75p discount, present a membership card and a reusable cup and you get the coffee for free even if you don't make another purchase at the same time.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The pass costs £30 and allows one pick-up and drop-off a day. The word "free" is incorrect and spurious. The use of the term "application fee" is a means of misleading the customer; the simple fact is that the passes cost £30 each, and that is all that should be allowed to be said.
What I think it's trying to say, probably not very well, is that you have to pay the normal fee for the second and subsequent visits on the same day. This is something they would have to make clear to potential purchasers.
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
This thread began because some people had the temerity to suggest that the reason for the frankly crap current performance of railways around central Manchester was the result of trying to send more trains to Manchester Airport than the infrastructure could cope with. Since then, a certain numner of posters has revealed themselves to be considerably more upset about anyone saying anything nasty about Manchester Airport th
Not at all, but show me the analysis that backs up your hypothesis and maybe you'll change my mind.
Until then, it is just unfounded assertions and your dream of everyone going to the airport lugging their luggage across Manchester.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
everyone going to the airport lugging their luggage across Manchester.

I think instead of considering how many places are served by a direct train, the thing that should be considered is how many people do or would face an awkward journey to the airport. If everyone could get to the airport with one change at a station with moving walkways, lifts and staff available to assist and no-one had to change more than once, transfer between different stations in a city or change at inaccessible stations it wouldn't be a bad thing.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Not at all, but show me the analysis that backs up your hypothesis and maybe you'll change my mind.
Until then, it is just unfounded assertions and your dream of everyone going to the airport lugging their luggage across Manchester.


Why do you and the other airportcolytes keep trying to portray anyone who says anything not 900% supportive of your object of devotion as revelling in life being made more difficult for people using it (even though I said a few posts ago that in an ideal world I would like to see as many direct trains as possible to Manchester and other airports) ? That is not the same thing as asking for a more sensible distribution of limited rail resources between the airport and other destinations
 
Last edited:

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I think instead of considering how many places are served by a direct train, the thing that should be considered is how many people do or would face an awkward journey to the airport. If everyone could get to the airport with one change at a station with moving walkways, lifts and staff available to assist and no-one had to change more than once, transfer between different stations in a city or change at inaccessible stations it wouldn't be a bad thing.


Assuming it will never be possible to run direct services from everywhere to everywhere, the idea of 'one easy change' isn't a bad way to organise long-distance services generally
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Well, no, the "current mess" is the outcome of a rushed, botched attempt to partially implement the Northern Hub timetable, without key pieces of the required infrastructure (Manchester - Euxton electrification, Piccadilly P15/16 and Oxford Road remodelling) and without adequate resources of either rolling stock or traincrew who sign the appropriate routes.


And where are the extra services which someone is attempting to squeeze into this messy set-up, and in particular down the Castlefield corridor, going ? We can all agree that the government's approach to improving capacity has been lamentable, but while that remains the case, the choice is between having zillions of trains to the airport and having a workable north of England railway network
 

urbophile

Established Member
Joined
26 Nov 2015
Messages
2,059
Location
Liverpool
Two facts which seem to me incontrovertible.
[1] The 'Manchester hub' sits in the middle of the North-west's railway system, so that any improvement is not just for the benefit of Greater Manchester but for the whole region. In particular that large and important city-region that lies some 30 miles to its west. For Liverpool to whinge about money being spent on Manchester, in this context, is to miss the point. Without an efficient way of getting trains through the city, Liverpool is going to be disadvantaged.
[2] The priority should be long distance services from Liverpool and other points west (Chester, N Wales, Preston etc) to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and the north east. If an efficient way of ensuring this is to incorporate through trains to Manchester Airport, well and good. If not, the airport should be served by a frequent shuttle with good cross-platform connections.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Two facts which seem to me incontrovertible.
[1] The 'Manchester hub' sits in the middle of the North-west's railway system, so that any improvement is not just for the benefit of Greater Manchester but for the whole region. In particular that large and important city-region that lies some 30 miles to its west. For Liverpool to whinge about money being spent on Manchester, in this context, is to miss the point. Without an efficient way of getting trains through the city, Liverpool is going to be disadvantaged.
[2] The priority should be long distance services from Liverpool and other points west (Chester, N Wales, Preston etc) to the east Midlands, Yorkshire and the north east. If an efficient way of ensuring this is to incorporate through trains to Manchester Airport, well and good. If not, the airport should be served by a frequent shuttle with good cross-platform connections.


Whilst there is a tendency on this forum to suggest that any comment questionning any part of the current relationship between Manchester and the rest of England is Scouse whingeing, when it isn't southern jealousy, no-one here is questionning that money needs to be spent in and around central Manchester to improve long-distance services across the north more generally.

This does not mean that the way money is being spent around Manchester should not be open to question. For example, because it has been decreed that it is absolutely vital that HS2 must enter Manchester via a field on the wrong side of the airport, HS3 trains from Liverpool (if they ever come into existence) will have to follow such an indirect route that they will be barely faster than TPE services via Chat Moss were until they were slowed down in May, ans any HS3 services from the east going past Piccadilly will have to reverse. An HS3 tunnel across central Manchester would be a better solution for all concerned, but once more the tail is wagging the dog
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
(Obviously, I would also like to see infrastructure in place for the north's various other airports to enable people to travel to them without cars too, something which the Manchester Airport Fan Club seems slow to promote. No doubt I'll be reminded in a moment that Manchester has 5 times the passengers of its nearest rival, but 1/5 of the amount of public transport infrastructure it has serving it is not zero.)
Huh? The second largest Northern airport in terms of passenger numbers is Newcastle, which has its own Metro station! I guess you meant Liverpool John Lennon, the third largest. But I understand that one reason for the investment in building South Parkway station was to improve public transport services to the Airport?

I would certainly like to see continued growth of Liverpool Airport. I believe it brings economic benefits to the wider North West, not just the Liverpool City Region, although obviously on a smaller scale than Manchester Airport. Although I live near Manchester Airport, I have flown from Liverpool when the destinations/schedules were more convenient. I find the train service from Manchester to South Parkway, and the bus shuttle to the Airport, reasonably quick, reliable and efficient. But, as discussed on previous threads, it would probably difficult to get the business case for a heavy rail extension to the Airport to stack up, with current traffic levels.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,668
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Until people stop blaming Manchester Airport bound services for the current problems around the North West & beyond, I fear this debate will keeping going around in circles. Over on the TPE May timetable thread it has been suggested that splitting the stoppers and reducing the number of calls for the Hull services, as well as one extra unit shows their focus is on the TP North core. And quite honestly it is as plain as the nose on one's face that this is at the heart of the problem, not services extending a bit past Manchester.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
And where are the extra services which someone is attempting to squeeze into this messy set-up, and in particular down the Castlefield corridor, going ? We can all agree that the government's approach to improving capacity has been lamentable, but while that remains the case, the choice is between having zillions of trains to the airport and having a workable north of England railway network
But is that the choice?

Between Manchester Airport and Piccadilly there are currently 9tph off-peak, 8tph peak (the N Wales trains terminate at Piccadilly in the peaks). Until May there were 10tph/9tph under the old timetable. But of those, all but 1tph now go through the Castlefield corridor, whereas 5tph used to use the Piccadilly terminal platforms. There are now 12tph total through Piccadilly P13/14, versus 9tph until May.

The only additional Airport train anyone is proposing to squeeze through P13/14 is a Northern service to Bradford and Leeds, via the Ordsall Chord and the Calder Valley. But it remains to be seen if that will make it into the May 2019 timetable. If not, the post-electrification timetable will have the same number of Airport trains as now, just some rearrangement of destinations and routes.

Major factors in the current unreliability are the unsatisfactory timetable through the TP North core, and the 10 minute turnround time of the TPE Middlesbrough and Newcastle services at the Airport (it was 20+ minutes under the old timetable). Until these issues are sorted out, I do not see how anyone can be certain that 12tph (+1tph freight) through P13/14 is unworkable.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,806
Location
Sheffield
Huh? The second largest Northern airport in terms of passenger numbers is Newcastle, which has its own Metro station!

And with one change at Central there are direct trains to places further afield than from Manchester, although I doubt anyone's going to consider travelling from Penzance, Inverness or Aberdeen for a flight! Metro trains every 12 minutes during the day and 15 minutes early and late.

Newcastle Airport has grown a lot since I was a lad! It may not be a hub, but nowadays has connections to many other hubs, a fact that's largely unknown outside the North-East.

img009.jpg
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
And with one change at Central there are direct trains to places further afield than from Manchester, although I doubt anyone's going to consider travelling from Penzance, Inverness or Aberdeen for a flight! Metro trains every 12 minutes during the day and 15 minutes early and late.

Newcastle Airport has grown a lot since I was a lad! It may not be a hub, but nowadays has connections to many other hubs, a fact that's largely unknown outside the North-East.

View attachment 50834



Not beyond the wit of man, I would have thought, to extend Transpennine or East Coast services which currently terminate at Central to the airport. After all, if it's so vital for Manchester, why not for the north's second busiest airport ?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Huh? The second largest Northern airport in terms of passenger numbers is Newcastle, which has its own Metro station! I guess you meant Liverpool John Lennon, the third largest. But I understand that one reason for the investment in building South Parkway station was to improve public transport services to the Airport?

I would certainly like to see continued growth of Liverpool Airport. I believe it brings economic benefits to the wider North West, not just the Liverpool City Region, although obviously on a smaller scale than Manchester Airport. Although I live near Manchester Airport, I have flown from Liverpool when the destinations/schedules were more convenient. I find the train service from Manchester to South Parkway, and the bus shuttle to the Airport, reasonably quick, reliable and efficient. But, as discussed on previous threads, it would probably difficult to get the business case for a heavy rail extension to the Airport to stack up, with current traffic levels.



I wonder how the argument on traffic levels stacked up for the Manchester Airport rail line in 1993.

But Liverpool doesn't really need a heavy rail line, just a people mover from South Parkway. The current bus service is atrocious, both in terms of speed and frequency. It is often quicker to take the 500 bus the whole way to the city centre rather than shuttling via South Parkway.

If Metro is adequate for Newcastle, why isn't Metrolink adequate for Manchester ? Surely extending long distance services which terminate at Central anyway would be justified ?
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Until people stop blaming Manchester Airport bound services for the current problems around the North West & beyond, I fear this debate will keeping going around in circles. Over on the TPE May timetable thread it has been suggested that splitting the stoppers and reducing the number of calls for the Hull services, as well as one extra unit shows their focus is on the TP North core. And quite honestly it is as plain as the nose on one's face that this is at the heart of the problem, not services extending a bit past Manchester.


Are you honestly saying that another 4 TPH via Castlefield, with precisely zero infrastructure improvements, has played no pary in causing the meltdown of train services in central Manchester ?
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,806
Location
Sheffield
Not beyond the wit of man, I would have thought, to extend Transpennine or East Coast services which currently terminate at Central to the airport. After all, if it's so vital for Manchester, why not for the north's second busiest airport ?

Love the idea but think it might just run into a few practical difficulties!

Digging in the archives I find a shot of a Class 40 hauling an ECML express through the site of what is now Ilford Road Metro station. The 3rd rail electrified line from Benton to Manors was used as an engineering diversionary route on Sundays. Very poor picture,film got exposed accidentally, but I haven't come across any others from steam days to prove Pacifics steamed through, but they did.

img017.jpg
In those days mineral trains slotted in around the electric trains, with coal deliveries to station yards, including up the Ponteland branch past the airport.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I wonder how the argument on traffic levels stacked up for the Manchester Airport rail line in 1993.

But Liverpool doesn't really need a heavy rail line, just a people mover from South Parkway. The current bus service is atrocious, both in terms of speed and frequency. It is often quicker to take the 500 bus the whole way to the city centre rather than shuttling via South Parkway.

If Metro is adequate for Newcastle, why isn't Metrolink adequate for Manchester ? Surely extending long distance services which terminate at Central anyway would be justified ?
Manchester Airport Terminal 2 also opened in 1993, doubling passenger capacity to 20 million per annum. So it was already bigger than John Lennon is today. But if a rail spur into John Lennon were as easy to build as the Manchester one, I reckon there would be a good case. The problem is the properties in the way.

The Airport bus service is adequate when arriving at South Parkway from the east. 15 minute journey time and wait generally no more than 20 minutes. Much better than going all the way into Lime Street to get a bus.

Metrolink to Manchester Airport takes nearly an hour from central Manchester - much longer than a bus all the way from Liverpool One to John Lennon. The zig-zagging Metrolink line is meant to serve the suburbs in between, especially for commuting Airport workers, not for end to end journeys.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Manchester Airport Terminal 2 also opened in 1993, doubling passenger capacity to 20 million per annum. So it was already bigger than John Lennon is today. But if a rail spur into John Lennon were as easy to build as the Manchester one, I reckon there would be a good case. The problem is the properties in the way.

The Airport bus service is adequate when arriving at South Parkway from the east. 15 minute journey time and wait generally no more than 20 minutes. Much better than going all the way into Lime Street to get a bus.

Metrolink to Manchester Airport takes nearly an hour from central Manchester - much longer than a bus all the way from Liverpool One to John Lennon. The zig-zagging Metrolink line is meant to serve the suburbs in between, especially for commuting Airport workers, not for end to end journeys.


Interesting. We can't possibly require people to change train to train to reach Manchester Airport, but travellers to Liverpool should be content with chuntering round industrial estates on a bus, bearing in mind they will have had to change trains already unless they were travelling from a local station, or from a station on the EMT Norwich or LNWR Brum service. And of course for Leeds-Bradford it is considerably worse. You'll forgive me if I don't exactly see the consistency of approach
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Are you honestly saying that another 4 TPH via Castlefield, with precisely zero infrastructure improvements, has played no pary in causing the meltdown of train services in central Manchester ?
There have been infrastructure improvements - the Castlefield corridor has been resignalled to reduce headways. Platforms 3 and 4 at Oxford Road can now be used alternately by eastbound trains.

The timetable change has increased the services through the corridor by 3tph not 4tph. From 11tph + 1tph freight to 14tph + 1tph through Deansgate, and from 9tph + 1tph to 12tph + 1tph through Piccadilly.
 

LOL The Irony

On Moderation
Joined
29 Jul 2017
Messages
5,335
Location
Chinatown, New York
Extend 2 platforms to take a 9 car Pendolino's and have the Mid-Cheshire line tunnel leave at the Knutsford Mobberly boarder come out just before Alderly Edge (and put an 1,000,000 year embargo on trams & tram-trains using the M-CL :p:lol:).
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,266
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
If Metro is adequate for Newcastle, why isn't Metrolink adequate for Manchester ? Surely extending long distance services which terminate at Central anyway would be justified ?

I am sure that there must be someone on this thread who can explain the raison d'etre as to why the Manchester Victoria to Manchester Airport Metrolink service takes the long and convoluted route it does, which does seem to have a transportation system for airport workers in the many districts of Wythenshawe incorporated in its routing.
 

Agent_Squash

Established Member
Joined
22 Jul 2016
Messages
1,231
If Metro is adequate for Newcastle, why isn't Metrolink adequate for Manchester ? Surely extending long distance services which terminate at Central anyway would be justified ?

Because the metro line is designed to serve the airport whereas the Metrolink route routes via every single suburb in-between?

Manchester Airport has more than 5 times the passengers Newcastle does. It wouldn't survive a service equivalent to Newcastle - it needs the capacity. The Castlefield corridor needs consistent rolling stock and then it will work.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,672
Location
Leeds
The Metrolink airport line is intended among other things to make it possible for people from Wythenshawe and other places to get to and from the airport and so benefit from the employment opportunities it offers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top