Manchester Airport railway station, discussion and ideas

[Killingworth]

It does have a lot of space around it, well for now at least, but that doesn't mean that it's owners are going to be able to convince NR for am ECML spur to it. The position of the airport and the alignment of the ECML means it would have to be a considerable curved spur to get anywhere close to the terminal building then back to the main alignment. This means slower speeds through any such spur, and so its almost impossible to see most ECML services calling at it. Peel may be making the right noises for such an extension, but its a whole other issue getting it built. Unlike Manchester, which has services from a large portion of the catchment area for the airport, Doncaster is really only served by a small proportion of the kind of catchment area it would need to become the North's second airport.

Stuck out there in the south east of the county, it can really only ever realistically hope to serve South Yorkshire & Lincolnshire. There would be little to no demand from further south as Birmingham & the South East airports would soak up most of that, the North West would continue to be served by Manchester so the only possible market might be West & North Yorkshire, and they'd have a fight on to wrestle the 4 million plus using LBA. In all honesty I can see Doncaster being more useful for cargo than as a major passenger airport.

Follow the links, they've planned the line and Sheffield City Region are seriously looking at it. The route joins the Doncaster-Lincoln line. Rather a shame the newly opened airport link road was built across the line of the rail route without making provision to go over it! An expensive extra cost if the rail scheme ever does go ahead.

 

[Bantamzen]

Follow the links, they've planned the line and Sheffield City Region are seriously looking at it. The route joins the Doncaster-Lincoln line. Rather a shame the newly opened airport link road was built across the line of the rail route without making provision to go over it! An expensive extra cost if the rail scheme ever does go ahead.

I've been following this story on the Skyscraper City forums for a while, and to be honest its far more of an aspiration of the Peel Group than something being really seriously considered. A ECML spur is out of the question, way too expensive for way too little gain, Doncaster Airport simply doesn't have the routes to even begin to justify this. The alternative is a "community" stop along the Gainsborough line, the word community thrown in by Peel to make it sound like there's so much wider gain. But a stop some distance from the terminal building, on a line served by only a handful of services to relatively small communities each day really isn't going to cut a great business case I'm afraid.

It all comes down to this, there are simply not enough passengers that would use a DSA stop, too few services to catchment areas served in the area, and nowhere near enough trains to make it viable. Lets face it if LBA is struggling to get a parkway station off the ground on a line that will have up to 4tph, serving a large city & acting as a parkway station for the growing number of local communities in the area, then DSA really isn't going to be seen as an engineering priority.

Peel are much more interested in getting the land around the airport into commercial and housing use, talking of rail spurs just adds interest to this when selling the idea. Maybe in 20 years times the Gainsborough line stop might gain enough potential if lots of new housing developments go in, so long of course that someone could convince the respective TOCs to run regular enough services to make it worthwhile!

 

[edwin_m]

Perhaps a more rational planning policy would have resulted in a single airport for Yorkshire and the North East, where stopping trains that pass already (as per Gatwick) would bring all the main centres be within an hour or so. This might create enough local catchment to justify a decent selection of flights as well. Church Fenton or perhaps Sherburn-in-Elmet might fit the bill.

 

[xotGD]

Perhaps a more rational planning policy would have resulted in a single airport for Yorkshire and the North East, where stopping trains that pass already (as per Gatwick) would bring all the main centres be within an hour or so. This might create enough local catchment to justify a decent selection of flights as well. Church Fenton or perhaps Sherburn-in-Elmet might fit the bill.

Doesn't Durham Tees Valley also fit the bill? Midway between Newcastle and Leeds Bradford, rail line with a frequent service, plenty of space to expand.

 

[DarloRich]

Perhaps a more rational planning policy would have resulted in a single airport for Yorkshire and the North East, where stopping trains that pass already (as per Gatwick) would bring all the main centres be within an hour or so. This might create enough local catchment to justify a decent selection of flights as well. Church Fenton or perhaps Sherburn-in-Elmet might fit the bill.

There is one already: Manchester.

Doesn't Durham Tees Valley also fit the bill? Midway between Newcastle and Leeds Bradford, rail line with a frequent service, plenty of space to expand.

In an alternative reality Darlo International Airport is booming and is served by regular trains. Bloody Peel Group.

 

[Bantamzen]

Perhaps a more rational planning policy would have resulted in a single airport for Yorkshire and the North East, where stopping trains that pass already (as per Gatwick) would bring all the main centres be within an hour or so. This might create enough local catchment to justify a decent selection of flights as well. Church Fenton or perhaps Sherburn-in-Elmet might fit the bill.

That's another one that's been discussed over on Skyscraper City. Let's just sum up that discussion by saying take the cost of plugging Doncaster into the rail network, then add tens of billions more to the budget and that's Church Fenton (sorry Leeds East as they like to call themselves now) sorted. Or not....

As much as I'd love to see a Yorkshire International, the proximity & current expansion of Manchester Airport is going to have to do for the whole region, with the smaller ones filling in the gaps.

 

[DarloRich]

As much as I'd love to see a Yorkshire International, the proximity & current expansion of Manchester Airport is going to have to do for the whole region, with the smaller ones filling in the gaps.

Manchester is the third busiest airport in the country. Next comes Newcastle (11th), Liverpool (12th), East Midlands (13th) Leeds/Bradford (15th) Doncaster (21st) Humberside (33rd) & Teesside (37th)

 

[Bantamzen]

Manchester is the third busiest airport in the country. Next comes Newcastle (11th), Liverpool (12th), East Midlands (13th) Leeds/Bradford (15th) Doncaster (21st) Humberside (33rd) & Teesside (37th)

And set to become busier still. That is of course only until my plans to have LBA extended by levelling Yeadon & Guiseley to make way for several 5.5km long runways, five new terminal buildings, a national rail & bus bub, and my own personal door to dorr Premier Class, Heathrow style Pod serving canapés & cocktails as it trundles its way to the terminal of choice.....

Wibble...

 

[Killingworth]

There is one already: Manchester.



In an alternative reality Darlo International Airport is booming and is served by regular trains. Bloody Peel Group.

Yes, Durham Tees is not a very good example of a roaring success for an airport or a rail link. The eastern side of the Pennines has too many smaller airfields that could be developed, if only the roads, railways and population matched up. Shame all those bomber base planners didn't take that into account 70-80 years ago.

 

[snowball]

Humberside (33rd) & Teesside (37th)

To be honest I didn't realise we had as many as 37 airports in the UK.

 

[DarloRich]

And set to become busier still. That is of course only until my plans to have LBA extended by levelling Yeadon & Guiseley to make way for several 5.5km long runways, five new terminal buildings, a national rail & bus bub, and my own personal door to dorr Premier Class, Heathrow style Pod serving canapés & cocktails as it trundles its way to the terminal of choice.....

Wibble...

that was my plan for Teesside!

Yes, Durham Tees is not a very good example of a roaring success for an airport or a rail link. The eastern side of the Pennines has too many smaller airfields that could be developed, if only the roads, railways and population matched up. Shame all those bomber base planners didn't take that into account 70-80 years ago.

however it was a decent (and busy) small airport for many years when it was council run. Now it is moribund.

To be honest I didn't realise we had as many as 37 airports in the UK.

40 according to wiki!

 

[Greybeard33]

Peel are much more interested in getting the land around the airport into commercial and housing use, talking of rail spurs just adds interest to this when selling the idea.

When Peel was seeking planning approval for Port Salford, it dangled the carrot of a rail spur from the Chat Moss line. This could potentially alleviate rail congestion in the Castlefield corridor and release paths on the Airport line, by providing an alternative to the Trafford Park container terminals.

Fast forward a few years to 2015 and Peel obtained a variation to the Port Salford planning conditions, to enable warehouses to open before the rail link.

Three more years on, the first warehouse is now operational and others are under construction. But still no news from Peel about the construction schedule or contracts for the rail link....

 

[snowball]

When Peel was seeking planning approval for Port Salford, it dangled the carrot of a rail spur from the Chat Moss line. This could potentially alleviate rail congestion in the Castlefield corridor and release paths on the Airport line, by providing an alternative to the Trafford Park container terminals.

Fast forward a few years to 2015 and Peel obtained a variation to the Port Salford planning conditions, to enable warehouses to open before the rail link.

Three more years on, the first warehouse is now operational and others are under construction. But still no news from Peel about the construction schedule or contracts for the rail link....

A minor curiosity is that one bit of the rail link exists - the abutments of the bridge that would take it over the A57. They have been there since 2014. After many delays (partly resulting from the collapse, during construction, of the nearby lifting bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal) the road was diverted to pass between the abutments at the end of last year, but the superstructure of the bridge shows no sign of being built, nor does the rest of the rail link.

 

[Greybeard33]

A minor curiosity is that one bit of the rail link exists - the abutments of the bridge that would take it over the A57. They have been there since 2014. After many delays (partly resulting from the collapse, during construction, of the nearby lifting bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal) the road was diverted to pass between the abutments at the end of last year, but the superstructure of the bridge shows no sign of being built, nor does the rest of the rail link.

Hochtief, which built the A57 diversion in a joint venture with Buckingham, boasts that:

Through value engineering and working collaboratively with suppliers and the designer, we removed the requirement for a costly reinforced underpass where a future railway link to the Port of Salford will cross.

http://176.32.230.3/hochtief-construction.co.uk/case-studies/wgis/

I think this speaks for itself!

 

[snowball]

Off topic for a railway forum, but there is also no sign of the promised second stage of roadworks starting.

 

[Bantamzen]

Hochtief, which built the A57 diversion in a joint venture with Buckingham, boasts that:

http://176.32.230.3/hochtief-construction.co.uk/case-studies/wgis/

I think this speaks for itself!

To be fair, the Port Salford FAQs do state that negotiations continue with NR about the link (although it doesn't indicate at what stage these are at) & that any rail link would use a bridge over the A57, which might be linked to the removal of the requirement for an underpass.

What is happening with the rail link? . . .
The proposed warehouses at Port Salford are planned to be connected to the national rail network via a new link to the Manchester – Liverpool line at Chat Moss. The proposed new rail link, will carry freight trains to and from the West Coast Mainline. Planning and discussion with Network Rail is ongoing.

How will the new rail link cross the A57 Liverpool Road? . . .
The proposed new rail link will cross over the top of the new dual carriageway on a new bridge.

http://www.portsalford.co.uk/news/

So it seems the possibility remains, however given all the other problems you'd think NR would be pushing at bit harder to get this underway?

 

[Altfish]

I see that one of the Middlesbrough to Airport services (1P67) has been turned back at Oxford Road this morning! Not seen that happen before, although I'm sure it will have.
I'm just imagining the chaos of those on Piccadilly platform 14 piling on a Pacer to get to Oxford Road, not to mention those scrambling from the Airport

 

[M60lad]

I can only guess that the Middlesbrough to Manchester Airport service being turned back at Oxford Road is due to the problems on Airport Line apparently the Airport Line suffered a loss of power to the overhead lines and virtually everything into/out off Manchester Airport station is either delayed or turnback short at the moment, already a Cleethorpes service left an hour late and had to turn at Sheffield.

 

[Greybeard33]

To be fair, the Port Salford FAQs do state that negotiations continue with NR about the link (although it doesn't indicate at what stage these are at) & that any rail link would use a bridge over the A57, which might be linked to the removal of the requirement for an underpass.

http://www.portsalford.co.uk/news/

So it seems the possibility remains, however given all the other problems you'd think NR would be pushing at bit harder to get this underway?

I believe that the intention was always that the A57 would pass under the rail link. That can be seen even in early plans of Port Salford, before Hochtief got involved. The "value engineering" was simply to build just the abutments of the underpass, with the costly reinforced deck to be added when/if the rail link is eventually built.

I do not see how or why Network Rail would "push" for the rail link, when it is an externally funded project. NR's role would be just to construct the junction with the main line and plan for the required train paths. It is for TftN/DfT to push for freight services to be diverted to Port Salford instead of Trafford Park, if they think that it is in the regional/national interest to run more passenger services through the Castlefield corridor to the Airport. But then Peel might well look for some public funding towards the construction cost of the rail link.

 

[snowball]

To be fair, the Port Salford FAQs do state that negotiations continue with NR about the link (although it doesn't indicate at what stage these are at) & that any rail link would use a bridge over the A57

Yes but how many years ago was that bit of the FAQ written?

,which might be linked to the removal of the requirement for an underpass.

Unlikely, as Greybeard has explained.

 

[Bantamzen]

I believe that the intention was always that the A57 would pass under the rail link. That can be seen even in early plans of Port Salford, before Hochtief got involved. The "value engineering" was simply to build just the abutments of the underpass, with the costly reinforced deck to be added when/if the rail link is eventually built.

I do not see how or why Network Rail would "push" for the rail link, when it is an externally funded project. NR's role would be just to construct the junction with the main line and plan for the required train paths. It is for TftN/DfT to push for freight services to be diverted to Port Salford instead of Trafford Park, if they think that it is in the regional/national interest to run more passenger services through the Castlefield corridor to the Airport. But then Peel might well look for some public funding towards the construction cost of the rail link.

Which is where NR *might* come into it. After all whilst it is not directly their responsibility for where the freight terminal might be, they do have to accommodate both the needs of freight & passenger traffic & with the growing demand around Manchester it would be in their interest to keep the discussion on the link alive.

 

[Greybeard33]

Well building an extra platform or 2 at Wilmslow would be easier and probably cheaper than extending or building new platforms at the airport. Also we probably need to start a thread at this point.

Resuscitating this thread to try to divert OT discussion from the Mk5A Coaching Stock thread.

It has often been noted on RailUK that most of the Airport trains are lightly loaded south of Piccadilly. Therefore it would seem to be a poor investment to build more platforms at the Airport or Wilmslow in order that longer trains can cart even more fresh air between Piccadilly and the Airport.

How about this for an off-the-wall idea? Divert the TPE Cleethorpes - Airport service to become Cleethorpes - Liverpool, using the CLC line path of the current Northern semi-fast Airport - Liverpool service. The timings at Piccadilly match - at present these two services chase each other up and down the Airport branch.

This would remove 2tph from the Airport, freeing up platform capacity and reducing congestion between Slade Lane and Piccadilly. The (relatively) small proportion of passengers from Liverpool or Sheffield who want to go to the Airport would have a same/cross platform change on Piccadilly Platform 13/14 to/from one of the remaining 7tph between Piccadilly and the Airport.

Secondary benefits:

• Platform capacity also freed up in Piccadilly main shed
• 2 direct tph between Sheffield and Liverpool
• Fewer diesels under the wires on the Airport line
• Northern 195s released to strengthen other services
• Continued employment for more of TPE's 185s
• All trains to the Airport would depart from Piccadilly P13 - more straightforward for passengers
• No additional services along the Castlefield corridor.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Resuscitating this thread to try to divert OT discussion from the Mk5A Coaching Stock thread.

It has often been noted on RailUK that most of the Airport trains are lightly loaded south of Piccadilly. Therefore it would seem to be a poor investment to build more platforms at the Airport or Wilmslow in order that longer trains can cart even more fresh air between Piccadilly and the Airport.

How about this for an off-the-wall idea? Divert the TPE Cleethorpes - Airport service to become Cleethorpes - Liverpool, using the CLC line path of the current Northern semi-fast Airport - Liverpool service. The timings at Piccadilly match - at present these two services chase each other up and down the Airport branch.

This would remove 2tph from the Airport, freeing up platform capacity and reducing congestion between Slade Lane and Piccadilly. The (relatively) small proportion of passengers from Liverpool or Sheffield who want to go to the Airport would have a same/cross platform change on Piccadilly Platform 13/14 to/from one of the remaining 7tph between Piccadilly and the Airport.

Secondary benefits:

• Platform capacity also freed up in Piccadilly main shed
• 2 direct tph between Sheffield and Liverpool
• Fewer diesels under the wires on the Airport line
• Northern 195s released to strengthen other services
• Continued employment for more of TPE's 185s
• All trains to the Airport would depart from Piccadilly P13 - more straightforward for passengers
• No additional services along the Castlefield corridor.

As someone who lives in Cleethorpes and uses the Manchester Airport-Cleethorpes service I cannot see a need for a Liverpool to Cleethorpes service. The Manchester Airport-Cleethorpes is well used particularly for those at Sheffield and Doncaster (possibly changing trains). Just an opinion though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As someone who lives in Cleethorpes and uses the Manchester Airport-Cleethorpes service I cannot see a need for a Liverpool to Cleethorpes service. The Manchester Airport-Cleethorpes is well used particularly for those at Sheffield and Doncaster (possibly changing trains). Just an opinion though.

I have never seen any service between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport which could be described as "well used" when compared to the same service the other side of the stop at Picc.

 

[frodshamfella]

Resuscitating this thread to try to divert OT discussion from the Mk5A Coaching Stock thread.

It has often been noted on RailUK that most of the Airport trains are lightly loaded south of Piccadilly. Therefore it would seem to be a poor investment to build more platforms at the Airport or Wilmslow in order that longer trains can cart even more fresh air between Piccadilly and the Airport.

How about this for an off-the-wall idea? Divert the TPE Cleethorpes - Airport service to become Cleethorpes - Liverpool, using the CLC line path of the current Northern semi-fast Airport - Liverpool service. The timings at Piccadilly match - at present these two services chase each other up and down the Airport branch.

This would remove 2tph from the Airport, freeing up platform capacity and reducing congestion between Slade Lane and Piccadilly. The (relatively) small proportion of passengers from Liverpool or Sheffield who want to go to the Airport would have a same/cross platform change on Piccadilly Platform 13/14 to/from one of the remaining 7tph between Piccadilly and the Airport.

Secondary benefits:

• Platform capacity also freed up in Piccadilly main shed
• 2 direct tph between Sheffield and Liverpool
• Fewer diesels under the wires on the Airport line
• Northern 195s released to strengthen other services
• Continued employment for more of TPE's 185s
• All trains to the Airport would depart from Piccadilly P13 - more straightforward for passengers
• No additional services along the Castlefield corridor.

Not a bad idea since they moved a number of services to go via Earlestown. South Parkway and Warrington Central could do with a boost in services.

 

[Killingworth]

Resuscitating this thread to try to divert OT discussion from the Mk5A Coaching Stock thread.

It has often been noted on RailUK that most of the Airport trains are lightly loaded south of Piccadilly. Therefore it would seem to be a poor investment to build more platforms at the Airport or Wilmslow in order that longer trains can cart even more fresh air between Piccadilly and the Airport.

How about this for an off-the-wall idea? Divert the TPE Cleethorpes - Airport service to become Cleethorpes - Liverpool, using the CLC line path of the current Northern semi-fast Airport - Liverpool service. The timings at Piccadilly match - at present these two services chase each other up and down the Airport branch.

This would remove 2tph from the Airport, freeing up platform capacity and reducing congestion between Slade Lane and Piccadilly. The (relatively) small proportion of passengers from Liverpool or Sheffield who want to go to the Airport would have a same/cross platform change on Piccadilly Platform 13/14 to/from one of the remaining 7tph between Piccadilly and the Airport.

Secondary benefits:

• Platform capacity also freed up in Piccadilly main shed
• 2 direct tph between Sheffield and Liverpool
• Fewer diesels under the wires on the Airport line
• Northern 195s released to strengthen other services
• Continued employment for more of TPE's 185s
• All trains to the Airport would depart from Piccadilly P13 - more straightforward for passengers
• No additional services along the Castlefield corridor.

If this idea cuts the direct link between Sheffield and Manchester Airport it would be very stongly resisted by air travellers and airport workers alike. There are several regular commuters as well as travellers. Experience of the TPE service shows heavy suitcases on every trip, a confounded nuisance to those wanting to commute to Manchester! My last journey was ram packed to Piccadilly where about half got off. It was equally ram packed by the time it had taken aboard those waiting at Piccadilly. Just speaking from Dore & Totley I note our free car park is clogged with air travellers taking full advantage for up to 3 weeks while away. We see pilots and other air crew in uniform.

Many commuters are aiming for Manchester University, with Oxford Road the desired stop, so you can end up pleasing one group, but upsetting another.

I'll not start on ticketing, well not much. Suffice to observe that at present TPE is usually both quickest and cheapest between Sheffield and Manchester, but it's easier to book a seat on East Midlands. The stopper from Northern takes longer and is likely to cost more - unless you get a return to Grindleford or Hathersage and then buy a Manchester Wayfarer! TPE offer discounts to airport employees.

 

[si404]

How about this for an off-the-wall idea? Divert the TPE Cleethorpes - Airport service to become Cleethorpes - Liverpool, using the CLC line path of the current Northern semi-fast Airport - Liverpool service.

I like it, though I did suggest it myself in the Castlefield Corridor fantasy thread.

2tph Liverpool - Sheffield is a big boon to both cities, though I imagine both would moan about not having hourly direct service to Manchester Airport under this plan.

As someone who lives in Cleethorpes and uses the Manchester Airport-Cleethorpes service I cannot see a need for a Liverpool to Cleethorpes service.

It's not about Cleethorpes. And I imagine we'll be able to find someone who travels Liverpool-Cleethorpes and currently has to change who can't see the need for an Airport-Cleethorpes service.

 

[geoffk]

Quite, the fact that anything longer than 6 cars (or Loco plus 5) on the Ordsall Chord will overhang the overlap of the previous junction. Thus setting 6 car formations as the maximum length, in stone for all future generations.

Also platforms at Manchester Airport are used for "doubling up", e.g. a 185 plus a four-car Northern train (2x150 or 156). Once the new TPE stock arrives and it's five cars or five plus loco, doubling up in the platform will not be possible. Has anyone thought about the implications?

 

[Killingworth]

Also platforms at Manchester Airport are used for "doubling up", e.g. a 185 plus a four-car Northern train (2x150 or 156). Once the new TPE stock arrives and it's five cars or five plus loco, doubling up in the platform will not be possible. Has anyone thought about the implications?

Yes they must have, and the answer is that there are going to be more reasons for delays. Where is the space to hold extra rolling stock anywhere near the station, or to add extra platform length?

 

[Greybeard33]

Also platforms at Manchester Airport are used for "doubling up", e.g. a 185 plus a four-car Northern train (2x150 or 156). Once the new TPE stock arrives and it's five cars or five plus loco, doubling up in the platform will not be possible. Has anyone thought about the implications?

See my previous post below:

Looking at Manchester Airport platform allocations since the timetable change (see e.g. http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/MIA/2018/12/14/0600-2000?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt), it can be seen that the 40 minute turnrounds are being squeezed in by platform double occupancy. Another train comes in behind the 185 and departs first. But the Airport platforms are only 200m long, so a Mk5A set or 802 will need a whole platform to itself. This means it will be necessary to go back to 10 minute turnrounds as and when the new trains are introduced on the Airport services.

It appears TPE is "between a rock and a hard place". Either keep using overcrowded 3-car 185s with long turnrounds, or risk PPM nosediving again when the Mk5As start running to the Airport.