Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[B&I]

Are you aware of the various local authority bodies who have a financial stake in Manchester Airport? Do you not feel that Manchester Airport has anything to do with car parking provision for a vast number of travellers to the airport, some of whom use the access road connections to and from the M56 and the recently new A555 road connection.

I am aware that Manchester Airport Group is a nice little earner for the coalition of local authorities which run it. This is presumably the main teason why they are obsessed with promoting its use and infrastructure links to it. It doesn't suggest that they are likely to take an objective approach to something they derive financial benefit from.

If you're worried about traffic on the roads surrounding the airport, I'd suggest that you start arguing for improved local transport links. Why are there better train services from Ringway to towns east of the Pennines than to many parts of Greater Manchester ?

 

[B&I]

It is quite a useful destination. 5m people used the station last year, so I suppose you must believe that the optimal number is somewhat north of that. Let’s extend your analogy further. Why bother going to Lime St? It has 15m passengers, which some may deem too small to bother with. Why bother with Hull? To small to clog up the ECML with a few services to Kings Cross.

If Liverpool want HS2, perhaps the local authority should pay for it? It is the same argument that is said for extending HS2 to Scotland.

Careful with your blue sky thinking. Would the authorities of Greater Manchester be able to afford to pay for the proportion of the cost of HS2 necessary to bring it to central Manchester ?

A persistent rhetorical tactic of the Fellowship seems to be to suggest that anyone who questions whether quite so much of the current limited capacity around Manchester should be used for direct services to the airport must be involved in a covert plan to dynamite the tracks at Styal and reduce Ringway to the status of Teeside. So I'll repeat: in a world without capacity constraints, I'd like to see a smorgasbord of services to.Manchester and every other airport. However, we don't live in that world, and in the short term I'd rather see scarface capacity used on services between the north's large cities and better commuter services into Manchester itself.

While we're on the subject repetition I'll repeat myself. If Manchester Airport is capable of supporting by itself the range of direct services it currently has, why are its owners not using some of their wealth to build the western rail access to enable standalone services to all the places which must currently be reached via central Manchester ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

9am start?? You lightweight!! If I'm working from home I'm on at 6am!!! I'd log on earlier but our network servers have an annoying restart just before, as I have found out to my cost....

Replied here:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/remote-working-vs-being-in-the-office.198377/

 

[Meerkat]

But whilst as a team spread out practically around every part of the country we do work remotely, it is noticeable that telekits / Skype calls are far more frequent and frankly less productive than when we travel to meet or workshop

dragging people into a physical meeting raises the stakes so has a higher “is this really necessary” bar, and because of the time taken people are more motivated to make it worthwhile, and more motivated to duck out if they don’t really need to be there. Their concentration is also visible to all.
It’s too easy to knock up a Skype meeting in and drag in everyone available, most will dial in however worthy they think it is, some will dial in just to show they still exist, and there is less hurry and far less attention because most participants will be on mute whilst they carry on working, watch TV, play with their phones.

 

[B&I]

When you are actually "on site", physically evaluating machinery and possible upgrades that could improve production efficiencies, site engineers under ones "jurisdiction" and those of other countries whose products all went towards the master working plan have to be there in person. I am not just making reference to financial and commercial matters.

Look at the number of Chinese business visitors who have visited the area of the Manchester Airport business park developments that are on part of the future Manchester Airport site expansion plans. If as one particular contributor to this thread seems unwilling to accept the reality of globalised business in relation to Manchester Airport, not your good self may I add, then I am indeed sad.

Engineers needing to visit the site of a construction project is hardly evidence that the current degree of international business travel across all fields is necessary or justifiable.

I'm a big boy and if you want to have a dig at me you can do it directly. I suspect the reason you didn't I'd because I will point out that 'Airport City' is a regressive and idiotic piece of planning. At a time when we should be trying to locate generators of travel demand around existing transport infrastructure (and, dare I sat it, trying to spread investment evenly across the economic desert of northwest England, rather than encouraging all activity in one or two locations), we have a glorified business park going up on a Greenfield site, and the national high speed network being distorted to serve it, even though most of its users will probably still travel by car because of its lack of links to the (admittedly paltry) local transport network in the surrounding area. Once again, the interests of an entire region are being subordinated to a commercial project being promoted by a handful of local authorities.

The extent to which certain members of this forum cherish daft ideas does not make those ideas any less daft.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect the reason you didn't I'd because I will point out that 'Airport City' is a regressive and idiotic piece of planning. At a time when we should be trying to locate generators of travel demand around existing transport infrastructure (and, dare I sat it, trying to spread investment evenly across the economic desert of northwest England, rather than encouraging all activity in one or two locations), we have a glorified business park going up on a Greenfield site

Is that not an example of something that is being built around existing transport provision, though? Shoving it in a field somewhere the other side of Altrincham (say) would be more like what you were thinking. The Trafford Centre was a prime example of such folly, though it is now (finally) getting a tram service.

 

[B&I]

I share your sadness. It is unfortunately the case that one obstacle to obtaining further financial commitments from central government towards projects in the north is the parochialism exhibited by some contributors to public discussions. It was to the credit of attendees to lasts week's TfN public board meeting that the need to avoid such narrow mindedness was so widely recognised.

Which is more parochial, I wonder ? Questioning why so much of a limited supply of rail capacity must be reserved for an airport which is run for the commercial benefit of a particular group of local authorities ? Or arguing that a long-distance service connecting 3 of the country's 10 biggest cities should be casually binned so that services to said airport can be maintained at their current level ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is more parochial, I wonder ? Questioning why so much of a limited supply of rail capacity must be reserved for an airport which is run for the commercial benefit of a particular group of local authorities ? Or arguing that a long-distance service connecting 3 of the country's 10 biggest cities should be casually binned so that services to said airport can be maintained at their current level ?

And nothing that an EMU shuttle can be provided from the Piccadilly main trainshed to replace it if that was considered necessary?

 

[B&I]

It certainly is. I rather get the impression that those who dismiss its value as a destination on the north's rail network are those who rarely or never fly themselves and don't believe anyone else should either. That view not only ignores the current trend in demand for air travel, environmental concerns not withstanding, but also underestimates the size of the Airport City development and its longer-term effect on travel to work demands across the region. In terms of what might be ideal we really need the full development of HSR but in the meantime there are other relatively expensive projects that will have to be undertaken if rail is to have a meaningful role in the rebalancing of the economy. The "Graylinging" of infrastructure projects needs to stop!

What proportion of the British population currently travel internationally for work ? What proportion actually need to do so ? Why is promoting air travel a good thing when its environmental costs are so great ? Similarly, why should anyone welcome an out of town business park with inadequate public transport bringing more wealth to one of the few existing pockets of wealth in the north west ? Are there really no other infrastructure projects you can think of that would benefit from having money spent on them, eg adequate commuter rail for Manchester itself ?

A certain number of posters clearly fund direct long distance services fo Manchester Airport very convenient. This does not translate to these being of any.importance to most of the population, and certainly not to them being as important as having frequent, reliable and capacious services to the places where most of them work already. The Council of Trent like fervour with which any heresy on this subject is denounced does not make the case for airport infallibility any stronger.

 

[B&I]

At 4.6 million passengers a year it is a fairly important station at a regional level. However when stations like Farnborough Main (iyd guess that few would even have heard of it compared to the numbers aware that Manchester Airport has a station) sees 3 million passengers a year with there being only 4tph (and with a fairly limited rage of destinations) then it does lead to the question of if there was something better which could be done without impacting on passenger numbers all that much?

Quite. Where are the calls on here for new lines and services to the airport bypassing central Manchester completely ?

 

[B&I]

I suggest that a more meaningful footfall comparison is with the satellite towns in Greater Manchester, which are employment and shopping centres in their own right as well as serving flows to central Manchester.
Airport, 9tph to Manchester, 4.6m
Stockport, 15tph, 3.8m
Bolton, 7tph, 3.0m
Wigan (NW + Wallgate), 6tph, 3.0m

When we look at the stations that could turn back trains from the west, as an alternative to sending them to the Airport, the comparison is even more stark:
Rochdale 1.2m
Stalybridge 1.2m
Hazel Grove 0.7m
Alderley Edge 0.3m
Clearly services diverted to any of these would, on average, carry more fresh air than they currently do to the Airport. Plus, for services through Piccadilly, the Airport is a nearer terminus than Hazel Grove or Alderley Edge, and avoids conflicts with services to/from the main shed.

When the 2018-19 statistics are released tomorrow, I suspect we will find Airport footfall has increased further.

This is missing the point. Services to the airport are not being prioritised over second order towns in greater Manchester (though your figures do, perhaps inadvertently, illustrate that those towns are major travel destinations in their own right). They are being prioritised over links between major cities with passenger numbers several times Ringway's.

 

[B&I]

.Honestly, it would be nice to have early morning services that arrive about 5/6am to cater for the transatlantic and other early morning passengers, I end up using taxis quite a bit for those.

I've suggested ridding one of the Ordsall Chord services to help resolve capacity issues, so that'd be one of the airport trains gone. I don't quite know what other train would be reasonable to cut.

This is one of the ironies of this debate. The way services are currently managed doesn't serve much of the likely demand for rail travel to the airport, many of whose services go out very early. Why aren't the Fellowship demanding that something be done about that ?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Engineers needing to visit the site of a construction project is hardly evidence that the current degree of international business travel across all fields is necessary or justifiable.

I'm a big boy and if you want to have a dig at me you can do it directly. I suspect the reason you didn't I'd because I will point out that 'Airport City' is a regressive and idiotic piece of planning. At a time when we should be trying to locate generators of travel demand around existing transport infrastructure (and, dare I sat it, trying to spread investment evenly across the economic desert of northwest England, rather than encouraging all activity in one or two locations), we have a glorified business park going up on a Greenfield site, and the national high speed network being distorted to serve it, even though most of its users will probably still travel by car because of its lack of links to the (admittedly paltry) local transport network in the surrounding area. Once again, the interests of an entire region are being subordinated to a commercial project being promoted by a handful of local authorities.

The extent to which certain members of this forum cherish daft ideas does not make those ideas any less daft.

You say that you "suspect" that my reasons conflict with your personally-held "anti-Manchester Airport" beliefs, but my sole response to this view is that it totally ignores the globalised travel requirements in post-Brexit Britain. Your continued puerile reference to "Ringway" shows you in a poor light and it is indeed a wonder that you do not refer to the former named area of Northern Etchells in that respect.

From other postings made upon this thread, I see that I am by no means the only one to question the viewpoint that you hold.

 

[Bantamzen]

And nothing that an EMU shuttle can be provided from the Piccadilly main trainshed to replace it if that was considered necessary?

And so the circle completes.... Back to the "shuttle" option once more...

Of course to be frequent enough to be actually useful its going to need dedicated platforms at the southern end, otherwise it risks starting to trip up over all the other services arriving in the main shed, including those longer terminating TPE services soaking up even more of Piccadilly's limited platform capacity. And given that no reduction in capacity will be accepted along the Styal Line, they will probably need to be all stoppers to not trip up over the all important cross-Manchester services along the same. And they will need to be long enough to soak up the commuter and airport traffic, especially at peak times.

If not then the airport passengers will end up on P13/14, making dwell times even longer and negating any benefits derived by cutting TPE services forward to the airport. So then we will be back trying to decide what other services to slash until none are left, and all those 5 or so million people using the trains to the airport take to the their cars / taxis, and make life even more miserable for Manchester's commuters.

Sometimes, just sometimes, you have to look at the bigger picture. The problems are not insurmountable, in the short term some rationalisation of local GM services to reduce pinch points, longer term infrastructural improvements to increase capacity. As We've been discussing for what seems like ever...

 

[B&I]

Is that not an example of something that is being built around existing transport provision, though? Shoving it in a field somewhere the other side of Altrincham (say) would be more like what you were thinking. The Trafford Centre was a prime example of such folly, though it is now (finally) getting a tram service.

If your definition of accessible includes making your way across a mile or two of airport (including aprons, taciwats and runways) to reach it, then I suppose it's pretty accessible, yes.

 

[B&I]

And nothing that an EMU shuttle can be provided from the Piccadilly main trainshed to replace it if that was considered necessary?

Are you seriously expecting Sid and Doris to have to change trains on their way from Slagborough-on-Sea ? Or any of those Ringway-bound International Business Travellers who presumably live in invisible penthouses above Leeds, Sheffield and Redcar stations, and who will not have had to.experience the trauma of any change of vehicle during their trip ?

 

[B&I]

You say that you "suspect" that my reasons conflict with your personally-held "anti-Manchester Airport" beliefs, but my sole response to this view is that it totally ignores the globalised travel requirements in post-Brexit Britain.

If your view is that there are any economic benefits to be had from making trade more difficult with our nearest neighbours, and several of our major trading partners, I'm not sure that you're in a position to lecture me about economics.

Your continued puerile reference to "Ringway" shows you in a poor light and it is indeed a wonder that you do not refer to the former named area of Northern Etchells in that respect.

Which is less mature ? Sometimes using the original (and still colloquial) name for an airport to.avoid typing out the full thing, or investing so much if your sense of self in a place where aeroplanes park that you get upset by someone not using it's full title ? I'm surprised that you haven't demand that I be banished from the forum for the gross insult of not including 'International' every time I type 'Manchester Airport'.


QUOTE="Xenophon PCDGS, post: 4383966, member: 9957"]From other postings made upon this thread, I see that I am by no means the only one to question the viewpoint that you hold.[/QUOTE]

I will freely admit that there are people in addition to you who also lack a sense of perspective when it comes to the importance of Manchester International Airport to the wider economy and transport network

 

[B&I]

And so the circle completes.... Back to the "shuttle" option once more...

Of course to be frequent enough to be actually useful its going to need dedicated platforms at the southern end, otherwise it risks starting to trip up over all the other services arriving in the main shed, including those longer terminating TPE services soaking up even more of Piccadilly's limited platform capacity. And given that no reduction in capacity will be accepted along the Styal Line, they will probably need to be all stoppers to not trip up over the all important cross-Manchester services along the same. And they will need to be long enough to soak up the commuter and airport traffic, especially at peak times.

If not then the airport passengers will end up on P13/14, making dwell times even longer and negating any benefits derived by cutting TPE services forward to the airport. So then we will be back trying to decide what other services to slash until none are left, and all those 5 or so million people using the trains to the airport take to the their cars / taxis, and make life even more miserable for Manchester's commuters.

Sometimes, just sometimes, you have to look at the bigger picture. The problems are not insurmountable, in the short term some rationalisation of local GM services to reduce pinch points, longer term infrastructural improvements to increase capacity. As We've been discussing for what seems like ever...

Why not replace longer distance services to the airport with local services which use Castlefield, connect to longer distance services at Victoria and Piccadilly, provide better links to TPTIMNCR from the large urban area closest to it, and also have the useful side effect of allowing people to get to work in central Manchester ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If your definition of accessible includes making your way across a mile or two of airport (including aprons, taciwats and runways) to reach it, then I suppose it's pretty accessible, yes.

Presumably a dedicated shuttle bus from the main Airport station can be provided? Or would that take ages?

You do get that elsewhere even in the UK (not just Germany where it'd be the norm), such as Slough Estates Group provide one from the station to the Slough Trading Estate.

 

[Bantamzen]

Why not replace longer distance services to the airport with local services which use Castlefield, connect to longer distance services at Victoria and Piccadilly, provide better links to TPTIMNCR from the large urban area closest to it, and also have the useful side effect of allowing people to get to work in central Manchester ?

For the same reasons you wouldn't want to do it at Piccadilly, increased dwell times. Commuter passengers battling with long distance & airport travellers is a recipe for an even bigger platform nightmare than you have at Piccadilly P13/14. And besides, airport travellers are specifically going there, Manchester commuters will likely not end their journeys at Piccadilly or Victoria, but walk or use the tram. So an much more preferable solution would be sort out cross-ticketing, for example a "Manchester Stations" ticket or season could include tram use from Piccadilly or Victoria for the whole of the city centre network. That would be beneficial to commuters and longer distance travellers alike.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not replace longer distance services to the airport with local services which use Castlefield, connect to longer distance services at Victoria and Piccadilly, provide better links to TPTIMNCR from the large urban area closest to it, and also have the useful side effect of allowing people to get to work in central Manchester ?

That's one suggestion I have made in the thread at various points, e.g. get on with the wires to Rochdale or Stalybridge and running a half hourly stopping EMU service from one of those to Ringway (sorry, I now can't resist) with the two Chord TPEs reverting to the Picc trainshed? They could use long EMU formations designed for luggage and standees.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So an much more preferable solution would be sort out cross-ticketing, for example a "Manchester Stations" ticket or season could include tram use from Piccadilly or Victoria for the whole of the city centre network. That would be beneficial to commuters and longer distance travellers alike.

FWIW that's already true if you travel within Greater Manchester and has been for years - about 2000 ish I think.

 

[Bantamzen]

FWIW that's already true if you travel within Greater Manchester and has been for years - about 2000 ish I think.

Well I must admit I didn't know that, is it true for all tickets / seasons then?

But notwithstanding, Manchester has a bespoke city centre transport solution, paid in part by us pesky not-locals daring to use the airport....

 

[Bantamzen]

Having just seen the ORR estimates this morning, Manchester Airport entrances/exits are up from 4,644,526 in 17/18 to 5,707,542 in 18/19, that's a significant increase of close to 19%. So despite protestations, there clearly is a market for it.

 

[B&I]

For the same reasons you wouldn't want to do it at Piccadilly, increased dwell times. Commuter passengers battling with long distance & airport travellers is a recipe for an even bigger platform nightmare than you have at Piccadilly P13/14. And besides, airport travellers are specifically going there, Manchester commuters will likely not end their journeys at Piccadilly or Victoria, but walk or use the tram. So an much more preferable solution would be sort out cross-ticketing, for example a "Manchester Stations" ticket or season could include tram use from Piccadilly or Victoria for the whole of the city centre network. That would be beneficial to commuters and longer distance travellers alike.

I think I need to check that I am not misunderstanding your argument. Because some travellers within Manchester will need to change to another mode of transport after taking a train to the city centre, this is a reason to force local travellers to change trains, or to change from train to tram, while crossing the city centre, so as to enable airport passengers (despite being much fewer in number, and on average using the particular infrastructure much less in the course of an average year) ?

I'm starting to wonder what the point of this thread is. I had assumed that it was to discuss answers to congestion in the central Manchwster area with the intention of improving the transport system for Manchester and the surrounding area. However, it seems that, for the Fellowship, those goals do not matter, and that the only thing which does is ensuring access to their precious airport. So long as this mentality persists (and in particular, for so.long as it persists at TfGM), Greater Manchester (and the north of England generally) will continue to have one second rank international airport, and an utterly dysfunctional transport system which doesn't serve the needs of most of its population.

 

[B&I]

Having just seen the ORR estimates this morning, Manchester Airport entrances/exits are up from 4,644,526 in 17/18 to 5,707,542 in 18/19, that's a significant increase of close to 19%. So despite protestations, there clearly is a market for it.

I wonder how many other stations would see an increase in passenger numbers with a substantial increase in direct train services.

 

[Meerkat]

this is a reason to force local travellers to change trains, or to change from train to tram, while crossing the city centre, so as to enable airport passengers (despite being much fewer in number, and on average using the particular infrastructure much less in the course of an average year) ?

Locals will know their way around, have less luggage and be dispersing. How many need to cross the city centre rather than go somewhere in between?
Better than having a group of non-locals ambling confused around a station clogging up lifts and stairs with suitcases.

 

[Bantamzen]

I think I need to check that I am born misunderstanding your argument. Because some travellers within Manchester will need to change to another mode of transport after taking a train to the city centre, this is a reason to force local travellers to change trains, or to change from train to tram, while crossing the city centre, so as to enable airport passengers (despite being much fewer in number, and on average using the particular infrastructure much less in the course of an average year) ?

Airport passengers will have a very specific destination, i.e. the airport. So chucking them off at Victoria onto the tram for another change at Piccadilly impacts significantly on journey time and convivence. Whereas commuters into Manchester aren't in general completing their commute at either station, most will have an additional journey onwards to their destination in the centre. Therefor Metrolink better serves commuter flows, TPE Airport service better serve the airport punters.

I'm starting to wonder what the point of this thread is. I had assumed that it was to discuss answers to congestion in the central Manchwster area with the intention of improving the transport system for Manchester and the surrounding area. However, it seems that, for the Fellowship, those goals do not matter, and that the only thing which does is ensuring access to their precious airport. So long as this mentality persists (and in particular, for so.long as it persists at TfGM), Greater Manchester (and the north of England generally) will continue to have one second rank international airport, and an utterly dysfunctional transport system which doesn't serve the needs of most of its population.

The heavy rail network doesn't just serve Manchester. If that is what Manchester wants, then Manchester taxpayers rather than all taxpayers can pay for it. I'd suggest using the potential additional revenue from MAG, but you want to curtail this...

I wonder how many other stations would see an increase in passenger numbers with a substantial increase in direct train services.

Probably lots, but in the space of a decade the flows to the airport have doubled. And if you are a TOC, or indeed the owners of the airport / local councils, those numbers cannot be ignored. So as with other respected members on this forum, its time to accept that the TPEs are there to stay. Manchunians will just have to burn off a few more calories walking between modes (it'll save on gym fees though).

 

[Purple Orange]

Careful with your blue sky thinking. Would the authorities of Greater Manchester be able to afford to pay for the proportion of the cost of HS2 necessary to bring it to central Manchester ?

A persistent rhetorical tactic of the Fellowship seems to be to suggest that anyone who questions whether quite so much of the current limited capacity around Manchester should be used for direct services to the airport must be involved in a covert plan to dynamite the tracks at Styal and reduce Ringway to the status of Teeside. So I'll repeat: in a world without capacity constraints, I'd like to see a smorgasbord of services to.Manchester and every other airport. However, we don't live in that world, and in the short term I'd rather see scarface capacity used on services between the north's large cities and better commuter services into Manchester itself.

While we're on the subject repetition I'll repeat myself. If Manchester Airport is capable of supporting by itself the range of direct services it currently has, why are its owners not using some of their wealth to build the western rail access to enable standalone services to all the places which must currently be reached via central Manchester ?

Christ, you’ve been busy today. I think you have not understood my point. I am not advocating for Liverpool or Manchester or anywhere to individually pay for their section of infrastructure, when the benefit to the country is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Purple Orange]

I wonder how many other stations would see an increase in passenger numbers with a substantial increase in direct train services.

Your argument here would ring true perhaps if Stockport had a significant number of passengers. Surprising that only 4.4m given the number of services it has.

I’ll tell you what I’m reading here. I think you have an odd obsession with Manchester Airport. Perhaps some people may think my specialist subject on Master Mind would be ‘stating the bleeding obvious’ after stating that revelation.