• 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!

Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

Status
Not open for further replies.

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
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.


I wonder how everyone manages on their way to Heathrow and Gatwick. Though using the logic applied on this forum, I'm surprised we haven't seen demands for the LU subsurface lines to be repurposed to allow direct services to London's airports from Banbury or Norwich
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I wonder how everyone manages on their way to Heathrow and Gatwick. Though using the logic applied on this forum, I'm surprised we haven't seen demands for the LU subsurface lines to be repurposed to allow direct services to London's airports from Banbury or Norwich

There has already been a lot of discussion on future possible Heathrow heavy rail links, from the west, the south, HS2, and then there's Crossrail.....

The point being is that just because the solution is used in & around London, doesn't mean its right for Manchester. Indeed there are plenty of arguments that London's solution isn't right for London, and that will grow if the third runway and additional terminal get off the ground.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
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.

What proportion of travellers ro central Manchester have to use anything other than Shanks' pony to reach their destination ? The entire city centre is eminently walkable for any of the main stations for an able bodied person. And who said anything about having to use trams to reach the airport ? I specifically suggested having local services running along the Victoria-Ordsall-Castlefield-Piccadilly corridor and on to the airport, connecting to all the main lines into Manchester.


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...

The heavy rail network doesn't really serve anywhere properly, thanks in part to the fixation with direct trains to Ringway. Have you any evidence that a single penny in MAG profits has found it's way to any public transport improvements anywhere ? And if access to Ringway is so vital to so many people, why do you and the rest of the Fellowship keep ignoring my suggestion that MAG should use some of its profits to build infrastructure allowing trains to serve the airport directly without going through central Manchester ?


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).

I think you are confusing 'respected members' with 'people who are bored arguing with the Fellowship'. I thought this forum was designed for debate, rather than for the acclamation of received 'wisdom'. As I said earlier, it seems odd that, in a discussion about resolving lack of capacity round Manchester, a major reason for this is apparently off-limits for discussion
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
There has already been a lot of discussion on future possible Heathrow heavy rail links, from the west, the south, HS2, and then there's Crossrail.....

The point being is that just because the solution is used in & around London, doesn't mean its right for Manchester. Indeed there are plenty of arguments that London's solution isn't right for London, and that will grow if the third runway and additional terminal get off the ground.


No, the question was how have long-distance rail travellers bound for Heathrow and Gatwick coped all these years despite having to change to tube an local rail to complete their journeys. The obvious answer is 'pretty well', inconvenient as this may be for the Fellowship's argument
 

GRALISTAIR

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2012
Messages
7,806
Location
Dalton GA USA & Preston Lancs
Are you seriously expecting Sid and Doris to have to change trains on their way from Slagborough-on-Sea ?

Keep 'em coming. This thread is outstandingly entertaining if nothing else and shows how complex it is. So with us rail enthusiast experts not able to agree - how on gods green earth can we expect the civil servants at the DaFT to come up with a solution never mind a politician?.
So far we have had
1) Fellowship of the Ringway
2) Slagborough-on-Sea

Mods please preserve this thread for posterity if nothing else.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
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.


It's called 'disagreement'. For example, you think that Manchester Airport is of vital economic importance to the country. I disagree.

Before painting me as an obsessive, I suggest that you have a look back through the posts. Anyone like me who makes the slightest suggestion that, until the capacity problems bringing most of the north of England's rail system to a halt on a frequent basis are solved, then services to Manchester Airport should not be prioritised, brings down upon his head the full wrath of the Fellowship. It is astonishing, and slightly disturbing, that quite so many people rise to such levels of passion and vituperarion in defence of a piece of transport infrastructure.

Just to repeat myself, again, I have no problem with there being as many train services to Manchester Airport as the infrastructure can handle. What I do have a problem with is the rail network of much of the country being left in a dysfunctional state, major cities being left without connections, and a conurbation of over 3 million having no proper commuter rail, because (in part) any available capacity is being thrown at services to the airport.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Keep 'em coming. This thread is outstandingly entertaining if nothing else and shows how complex it is. So with us rail enthusiast experts not able to agree - how on gods green earth can we expect the civil servants at the DaFT to come up with a solution never mind a politician?.
So far we have had
1) Fellowship of the Ringway
2) Slagborough-on-Sea

Mods please preserve this thread for posterity if nothing else.


We aim to please
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
What proportion of travellers ro central Manchester have to use anything other than Shanks' pony to reach their destination ? The entire city centre is eminently walkable for any of the main stations for an able bodied person. And who said anything about having to use trams to reach the airport ? I specifically suggested having local services running along the Victoria-Ordsall-Castlefield-Piccadilly corridor and on to the airport, connecting to all the main lines into Manchester.

And yet the very prospect of moving a couple of services from Castlefield to Victoria has people on here up in arms. But you are deliberately missing the point, Manchester has an option. When I fall out of Leeds at 6:30 in the morning, if one of the handful of buses that pass my office aren't due, then its Shank's Pony for 15 minutes. And there are plenty of large places of employment further out than that.

Manchunians have the tram....

The heavy rail network doesn't really serve anywhere properly, thanks in part to the fixation with direct trains to Ringway. Have you any evidence that a single penny in MAG profits has found it's way to any public transport improvements anywhere ? And if access to Ringway is so vital to so many people, why do you and the rest of the Fellowship keep ignoring my suggestion that MAG should use some of its profits to build infrastructure allowing trains to serve the airport directly without going through central Manchester ?

The owners of MAG have used at least some of the profits to enable an enlargement of the tram network for the commuters of Greater Manchester. It is up to Network Rail to enable the enlargement of the heavy rail network for all heavy rail users.

I think you are confusing 'respected members' with 'people who are bored arguing with the Fellowship'. I thought this forum was designed for debate, rather than for the acclamation of received 'wisdom'. As I said earlier, it seems odd that, in a discussion about resolving lack of capacity round Manchester, a major reason for this is apparently off-limits for discussion

There has been plenty of debate on this subject, and I'm sorry to say that it is a relatively small minority that insist on living in the 1980s or earlier & continuing to pretend that Manchester Airport isn't a key driver of Manchester's economy, and that it's continued growth projections of up to another 40% on top of the 30% or so achieved in the last decade don't need flows from outwith The Land of Mordor.... Sorry, I mean Manchester....

Sadly to help sustain Manchester's growth, it can a) Suck up the need to handle through, long distance passengers quickly and efficiently, or b) Dump them on the wrong side of the city centre, and watch as the same quickly revert to the roads and cause even more congestion than Greater Manchester already has. It what it is, and if the people of Manchester want improvement they are going to have to pressure Whitehall to get on with the improvements that hould already be well under way, if not completed instead of moaning about airport punters.

Like I said, bigger picture and all...

No, the question was how have long-distance rail travellers bound for Heathrow and Gatwick coped all these years despite having to change to tube an local rail to complete their journeys. The obvious answer is 'pretty well', inconvenient as this may be for the Fellowship's argument

No they haven't coped with, they have put up with. And many more have opted for alternative routes, see the M25 for examples.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
No, the question was how have long-distance rail travellers bound for Heathrow and Gatwick coped all these years despite having to change to tube an local rail to complete their journeys. The obvious answer is 'pretty well', inconvenient as this may be for the Fellowship's argument

Ahem. Heathrow and Gatwick? I think you mean Great West Aerodrome and Tinsley Green thank you very much.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
It's called 'disagreement'. For example, you think that Manchester Airport is of vital economic importance to the country. I disagree.

Before painting me as an obsessive, I suggest that you have a look back through the posts. Anyone like me who makes the slightest suggestion that, until the capacity problems bringing most of the north of England's rail system to a halt on a frequent basis are solved, then services to Manchester Airport should not be prioritised, brings down upon his head the full wrath of the Fellowship. It is astonishing, and slightly disturbing, that quite so many people rise to such levels of passion and vituperarion in defence of a piece of transport infrastructure.

Just to repeat myself, again, I have no problem with there being as many train services to Manchester Airport as the infrastructure can handle. What I do have a problem with is the rail network of much of the country being left in a dysfunctional state, major cities being left without connections, and a conurbation of over 3 million having no proper commuter rail, because (in part) any available capacity is being thrown at services to the airport.

I have not said it is of vital economic importance to the country. You must have read that somewhere else. If you do want me to comment, it is as important to the country as a 30m pax airport can be. If it was gone, would the economy of the north west be harmed? Yes, of course it would be.

Yet, the obsessive appearance does come through via the very large number of posts about the airport when it is only one of a number of issues relating to P15 & P16 at Mamucium London Road station. Oh and the archaic naming convention ;)

For what it is worth, I think a metro service along the styal line is what should be in place, but that will only come if HS2 and NPR are in situ. In the meantime, we will have to put up with long distance services to the airport, because it is a very useful destination from Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Blackpool and even Newcastle.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
And yet the very prospect of moving a couple of services from Castlefield to Victoria has people on here up in arms. But you are deliberately missing the point, Manchester has an option. When I fall out of Leeds at 6:30 in the morning, if one of the handful of buses that pass my office aren't due, then its Shank's Pony for 15 minutes. And there are plenty of large places of employment further out than that.

Manchunians have the tram....



The owners of MAG have used at least some of the profits to enable an enlargement of the tram network for the commuters of Greater Manchester. It is up to Network Rail to enable the enlargement of the heavy rail network for all heavy rail users.



There has been plenty of debate on this subject, and I'm sorry to say that it is a relatively small minority that insist on living in the 1980s or earlier & continuing to pretend that Manchester Airport isn't a key driver of Manchester's economy, and that it's continued growth projections of up to another 40% on top of the 30% or so achieved in the last decade don't need flows from outwith The Land of Mordor.... Sorry, I mean Manchester....

Sadly to help sustain Manchester's growth, it can a) Suck up the need to handle through, long distance passengers quickly and efficiently, or b) Dump them on the wrong side of the city centre, and watch as the same quickly revert to the roads and cause even more congestion than Greater Manchester already has. It what it is, and if the people of Manchester want improvement they are going to have to pressure Whitehall to get on with the improvements that hould already be well under way, if not completed instead of moaning about airport punters.

Like I said, bigger picture and all...



No they haven't coped with, they have put up with. And many more have opted for alternative routes, see the M25 for examples.


So, in order to bolster the economic growth of the city (which we are already required to assume in the absence of any evidence that there is any connection between them), the people of Manchester must put up with a third rate public transport system, all so people can continue to travel from Slagborough-on-Sea at all hours of the day (except in the early morning when it would be most useful).

I anticipate with interest how you will respond when the environmental madness of unlimited growth in aviation is brought to a forcible halt, and more sustainable ways of promoting economic growth have to be sought
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
I have not said it is of vital economic importance to the country. You must have read that somewhere else. If you do want me to comment, it is as important to the country as a 30m pax airport can be. If it was gone, would the economy of the north west be harmed? Yes, of course it would be.

Yet, the obsessive appearance does come through via the very large number of posts about the airport when it is only one of a number of issues relating to P15 & P16 at Mamucium London Road station. Oh and the archaic naming convention ;)

For what it is worth, I think a metro service along the styal line is what should be in place, but that will only come if HS2 and NPR are in situ. In the meantime, we will have to put up with long distance services to the airport, because it is a very useful destination from Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Blackpool and even Newcastle.
Amsterdam Schiphol to Central services mostly have one or two stops - and that is a far bigger airport. If all MAN services stopped once or twice, that would unlock a decent service to the stations on the route (but no consecutive calls, those journeys are for buses/by foot) - and still be acceptable. That would help with some of the fresh air aspersions.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
5,996
Location
Surrey
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.
They should be applauded for doing so especially as public transport penetration is pretty low compared to other rail connected airports in the UK. See https://assets.publishing.service.g...loads/attachment_data/file/761564/avi0107.ods but in summary Manchester rail usage in 2018 was 16% compared to 31% at Stanstead and 38% at Gatwick which have comparable airport stations.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater 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.
Piccadilly Platforms 1-3, the East line platforms, which are 10-car length, currently dispatch 11tph between them in the evening peak hours. 1 Hull, 1 Huddersfield, 3 Hadfield, 2 Rose Hill, 2 New Mills, 1 Sheffield and 1 Stockport/beyond (overspill from the Stockport line platforms). More services from three platforms than there are from the Airport's four.

How do you propose to fit in the two 5-car TPEs you propose to evict from P13/14? These would need 30 minute layovers to match their paths across the Pennines.

The Piccadilly trainshed is pretty much at capacity.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
I have not said it is of vital economic importance to the country. You must have read that somewhere else. If you do want me to comment, it is as important to the country as a 30m pax airport can be. If it was gone, would the economy of the north west be harmed? Yes, of course it would be.

Yet, the obsessive appearance does come through via the very large number of posts about the airport when it is only one of a number of issues relating to P15 & P16 at Mamucium London Road station. Oh and the archaic naming convention ;)

For what it is worth, I think a metro service along the styal line is what should be in place, but that will only come if HS2 and NPR are in situ. In the meantime, we will have to put up with long distance services to the airport, because it is a very useful destination from Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Blackpool and even Newcastle.


How do you know the north-wesr's economy would suffer, beyond the profits of MAG and its suppliers ? Most of it, despite the growth of Manchester Airport, is a disaster area. Manchester has been relatively successful in recent years, but how much of that growth has depended on the airport ? Why do you expect me to make these assumptions when there's no evidence for them ?

If we assume that having an airport is important, then yes, Manchester is important to much of the north because its growth has far outstripped its rivals'. However, if it is such a vital destination that the entire northern long-distance network must be managed with a view to serving it, why doesn't it use some of its income to build infrastructure to allow direct services bypassing central Manchester ? Why are none of you fellows of the Fellowship willing to answer this ?
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
So, in order to bolster the economic growth of the city (which we are already required to assume in the absence of any evidence that there is any connection between them), the people of Manchester must put up with a third rate public transport system, all so people can continue to travel from Slagborough-on-Sea at all hours of the day (except in the early morning when it would be most useful).

Once again you are projecting your decades old, parochial view on the airport's operations. There's really no point arguing any further at this point. Read the entire thread, its all been covered extensively.

I anticipate with interest how you will respond when the environmental madness of unlimited growth in aviation is brought to a forcible halt, and more sustainable ways of promoting economic growth have to be sought

Answer, it won't. The aviation industry is already adjusting to emissions challenges, with more efficient craft, point to point operations as opposed to hub to hub, and of course building a railway station to get more of their passengers out of their cars... Oops...

Of course when it becomes apparent that aviation was just a nice cover so that Western countries could hide in their cars, waste a third of their food, use vast amounts of resources on plastic, well aviation will drop down the list considerably.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
How do you know the north-wesr's economy would suffer, beyond the profits of MAG and its suppliers ? Most of it, despite the growth of Manchester Airport, is a disaster area. Manchester has been relatively successful in recent years, but how much of that growth has depended on the airport ? Why do you expect me to make these assumptions when there's no evidence for them ?

If we assume that having an airport is important, then yes, Manchester is important to much of the north because its growth has far outstripped its rivals'. However, if it is such a vital destination that the entire northern long-distance network must be managed with a view to serving it, why doesn't it use some of its income to build infrastructure to allow direct services bypassing central Manchester ? Why are none of you fellows of the Fellowship willing to answer this ?

https://live-webadmin-media.s3.amaz...d-surface-access_online-2016-final-190716.pdf

Search engines are brilliant things don’t you agree? Took me no more than 5 minutes to find this.

Page 15 is interesting. On passenger numbers totalling 20.4m per annum it states £918m in GVA is generated by the airport. This increases to £1,573m on 35m passengers. So by extension, we could assume at current levels, GVA will be roughly £1,350m on 30m passengers.
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
So, in order to bolster the economic growth of the city (which we are already required to assume in the absence of any evidence that there is any connection between them), the people of Manchester must put up with a third rate public transport system, all so people can continue to travel from Slagborough-on-Sea at all hours of the day (except in the early morning when it would be most useful).

I anticipate with interest how you will respond when the environmental madness of unlimited growth in aviation is brought to a forcible halt, and more sustainable ways of promoting economic growth have to be sought

I'm going to limit myself to one comment ...and not respond any further.

Manchester does not have a third rate public transport system. It has both heavy and light rail provision at a reasonable level from satellite towns and suburbs into the city centre. It could always be better....but equally it could be a lot worse. I get the feeling that you are making increasingly outrageous claims to further your own agenda. (Incidentally - you aren't the same bloke as that guy from Liverpool who also had an issue with Manchester International Airport are you?) Whilst I agree with your sentiments about the sustainability of air travel in the long term I have to say as someone who is watching with this debate with interest (I am a GM resident) that your current debating style is not impressing me.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
Without diving in to this airport dog fight too deeply may I suggest we look at trends and see where travel patterns are finding their own levels?

Using the statistics and tools in the ORR's release we can see that almost every station in the north saw minimal or negative growth from 2017-18 to 2018-19. Manchester Airport bucks the trend by a big margin at approaching 20%. Looking quickly I may have missed one (probably a very small station) but I couldn't find one bigger. Very few others even get to 5% growth and a mere handful over 10%.

Any normal business would prioritise the growth areas.

Instead of continually patching up the Victorian past we need to think big, like they did, and look into the future. That might include looking at some of the ideas they had that have been left to one side.

But it's true. In 50 years time we may not be flying anything like as much and cruises may be outlawed. Cars may be rationed and we'll all be walking a great deal more, moderating our activities accordingly.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,419
I wonder how everyone manages on their way to Heathrow and Gatwick. Though using the logic applied on this forum, I'm surprised we haven't seen demands for the LU subsurface lines to be repurposed to allow direct services to London's airports from Banbury or Norwich
If you live in tube areas you probably don’t have much option but to get the train. If you have to get across London and/or can’t get a direct train you probably don’t have much luggage, would pick a nearer airport, or get a cab.
And you can’t have been to London much if you haven’t realised that people with significant luggage are a total nightmare at the Stations and on the tube (reaching dangerous on the escalators- “Don’t stop there!!!”)
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Without diving in to this airport dog fight too deeply may I suggest we look at trends and see where travel patterns are finding their own levels?

Using the statistics and tools in the ORR's release we can see that almost every station in the north saw minimal or negative growth from 2017-18 to 2018-19. Manchester Airport bucks the trend by a big margin at approaching 20%. Looking quickly I may have missed one (probably a very small station) but I couldn't find one bigger. Very few others even get to 5% growth and a mere handful over 10%.

Any normal business would prioritise the growth areas.

Instead of continually patching up the Victorian past we need to think big, like they did, and look into the future. That might include looking at some of the ideas they had that have been left to one side.

But it's true. In 50 years time we may not be flying anything like as much and cruises may be outlawed. Cars may be rationed and we'll all be walking a great deal more, moderating our activities accordingly.

Or we could change how we source our power and store it for use. This will be the big changer because travel is pretty much enshrined in our psyche in this millennium. I don't think travel will decrease, but how we power it and we do it will.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I wonder how many other stations would see an increase in passenger numbers with a substantial increase in direct train services.
There was no "substantial increase" in direct train services to the Airport.

The periods we are comparing are April 17 to March 18 and April 18 to March 19. The only significant change to Airport services during these periods was in the May 2018 timetable change.

The TPE Scottish and Cleethorpes services remained unchanged, as did the ATW N Wales service. The North TPE services to Middlesbrough and York were rerouted via Victoria instead of Guide Bridge, and more of the York services were extended to Newcastle, but the frequency remained 2tph.

The Northern service to Preston/Blackpool/Cumbria, which used to be portion worked to Preston, was split into separate Blackpool and Preston/Cumbria workings, giving double the frequency to Preston, but the direct Airport to Southport service was binned. The Liverpool semi-fast was rerouted from the Chat Moss line to the CLC line, while the Crewe to Piccadilly via Airport was extended to Liverpool via the Chat Moss, giving Liverpool a second, but slower, direct service. The Airport to Piccadilly shuttle was binned.

Overall, a net reduction of 1tph and no new long distance destinations to offset the loss of Southport. But also, the timetable chaos in 2018, and the Northern Saturday strikes, must have deterred many people who previously took the train to the Airport, particularly weekend leisure travellers. Yet, instead of falling, footfall increased by 19%!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I wonder how everyone manages on their way to Heathrow and Gatwick. Though using the logic applied on this forum, I'm surprised we haven't seen demands for the LU subsurface lines to be repurposed to allow direct services to London's airports from Banbury or Norwich

South coast services have long been diverted away from their old main line (via Dorking) to run via Gatwick. I've even been on a train that ran from Southampton, along the coast to Hove then up the BML.

We've also had refocusing of Reading - Tonbridge services on Gatwick, WCML services via Kensington Olympia and not to forget Thameslink !
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
For what it is worth, I think a metro service along the styal line is what should be in place, but that will only come if HS2 and NPR are in situ. In the meantime, we will have to put up with long distance services to the airport, because it is a very useful destination from Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Blackpool and even Newcastle.

We could have both.
Just make the long distance trains stop all shacks from Piccadilly to the Airport.
It won't substantially increase journey times for people going to the airport, who apparently only really care about a single seat ride, but it will make better use of those incredibly valuable paths.
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
We could have both.
Just make the long distance trains stop all shacks from Piccadilly to the Airport.
It won't substantially increase journey times for people going to the airport, who apparently only really care about a single seat ride, but it will make better use of those incredibly valuable paths.
And will the 2 freight each hour have to stop at each station too?
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
And will the 2 freight each hour have to stop at each station too?
The freight trains can reduce their speed such that it matches the average speed of the stopping services rather than the largely non stop ones.

EDIT:
Units can manage the stopping at all five stations in only 23 minutes
THe fastest train I can find takes 17 minutes

It is hardly a catastrophic change.
 

Purple Orange

On Moderation
Joined
26 Dec 2019
Messages
3,438
Location
The North
We could have both.
Just make the long distance trains stop all shacks from Piccadilly to the Airport.
It won't substantially increase journey times for people going to the airport, who apparently only really care about a single seat ride, but it will make better use of those incredibly valuable paths.

Nah. An 802 at Mauldeth Road? May as well get tram-train in on the action...

...Welcome aboard this Transpennine Metrolink service from Edinburgh, calling at the following principle stations: Newcastle.... Leeds.... Manchester Piccadilly, Piccadilly Gardens, St. Peter’s Sq, Deansgate-Castlefield (where you can change for national rail services), Cornbrook.... Wythenshawe Town Centre.... and eventually Manchester Airport.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Nah. An 802 at Mauldeth Road? May as well get tram-train in on the action...
If it had regular services to across the North, a lot of people would use it rather than taking the bus to Oxford Road/Piccadilly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top