Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[Bletchleyite]

Those take much longer to type than their modern names

And unlike Ringway (and Speke, for that matter) they are not used in local parlance.

 

[Purple Orange]

And unlike Ringway (and Speke, for that matter) they are not used in local parlance.

I never hear Ringway in reference to the airport. I just read it on here.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And unlike Ringway (and Speke, for that matter) they are not used in local parlance.

It is noticable that the person seemingly living in the past on this thread who is constantly referring to Ringway does not also refer to Manchester London Road station...

 

[Roast Veg]

To my mind the temporary solution is, although deeply unpleasant, reasonably straightforward.

1a) Turn back the Norwich service at Sheffield - saving Dore and Castlefield both a path. Advise travellers from/to Derby and Nottingham to go via Crewe for/at both Manchester and Liverpool, and bolster the service between Derby and Crewe with the units freed from curtailing the Norwich to Liverpool service.

1b) Turn back one of the two TPE airport services in one of the bays at Manchester Victoria. Our delightfully important airport passengers still get a service from York onwards, albeit at a reduced frequency.

2a) Approve Package C, and build it (allowing this thread to run its course at last). Consider introducing a replacement fast service between Manchester and Liverpool to supplement the missing EMR service once the ability to turn back at any of the Manchester stations is possible. If the EMR service has already been reintroduced as part of 2b, then consider extending the TPE service onward as appropriate.

2b) Progress the Hope Valley improvements. If double tracking the Dore curve is enough to reintroduce the EMR service reliably on its own, then do so.

3) Relieve congestion at the throat of Manchester Piccadilly with HS2.

 

[Killingworth]

Oslo is about 28 miles from the airport. Trains are roughly every 10 minutes and it takes about 20 minutes. Oslo is smaller than Greater Manchester and Norway's population is about 2/3 of the North - West. OK they've got oil, hydro-electricity and fish, but also a spirit to get things done!

Manchester Airport is about 11 miles from Piccadilly and it takes as long. Gatwick is about the same distance from London as Oslo Airport is from the city, but it takes nearer 30 minutes than 20.

 

[Killingworth]

2b) Progress the Hope Valley improvements. If double tracking the Dore curve is enough to reintroduce the EMR service reliably on its own, then do so.

Totally agree with first sentence, but it won't be completed until 2023 at best. That's how slow even modest infrastructure can be improved on our modern railways - and most of that is just reinstating what was there until 1985. The Liverpool connection can't be axed until then.

 

[Roast Veg]

It can, and unfortunately it very well might. There have to be winners and losers when employing a contingency, and unless there's a better way to resolve the issues in both locations then I'm not sure what else can be done.

 

[B&I]

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.

Yes, I can imagine that by searching 'why Manchester Airport is vital to the economy of the north west' it is fairly easy to find a report stating this, produced by the airport, which will.not doubt take an entirely neutral perspective on the issue

 

[B&I]

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.



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.

When aviation actually does drop down the list considerably, perhaps we can resume this discussion.

As for the discussion re the actual state of the railways, it's clear that you are not prepared to even contemplate the possibility that there are any priorities for any rail travellers in the north of England apart from getting to and from Manchester Airport, or to offer any actual evidence justifying your position, so I think I shall leave it there.

 

[Roose]

Personne n'aime un cul intelligent

Intelligent? Merci.

 

[B&I]

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.

Thanks for your contribution.

I have spent a reasonable time commuting in the fairly recent past in Greater Manchester. Perhaps I'm more difficult to satisfy in my definition of good quality public transport.

Not entirely sure what my 'agenda' is, beyond having an opinion which differs from that of some other people on this forum. Do those who will not countenance any question about the importance of Manchester Airport, or its role in the current rail system, also have an 'agenda' ?

 

[B&I]

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.

I'm not disputing that a respectable number of people use the airport station. What I am questioning is whether its use as such to justify it being prioritised over intercity and commuter links when capacity is limited.

Hopefully in 50 years time there will be sufficient rail infrastructure to allow us to serve all major areas of demand and make this debate academic, though I'm not holding my breath

 

[B&I]

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 !

Yes, Gatwick does have some direct medium distance services, but none that I'm aware of terminating in a large city with its own airport 120 miles away and requiring stopping services to be displaced from the Thameslink core to facilitate them.

 

[B&I]

It can, and unfortunately it very well might. There have to be winners and losers when employing a contingency, and unless there's a better way to resolve the issues in both locations then I'm not sure what else can be done.

Surely there must be some slightly more sensible option than removing yet further rail services from what's already the second worst-served of Britain's largest cities. Is it really sensible, for example, that Liverpool-Nottingham becomes a 2 change journey taking about an hour longer ?

 

[Glenn1969]

I thought the plan was for Liverpool to Nottingham to remain as a through journey but passengers beyond Nottingham for Grantham, Peterborough and stations to Norwich would have to change at Nottingham?

 

[Esker-pades]

I thought the plan was for Liverpool to Nottingham to remain as a through journey but passengers beyond Nottingham for Grantham, Peterborough and stations to Norwich would have to change at Nottingham?

That is the long term plan.

However, short time, the argument is that it might make sense for it to be one of the services that doesn't go through Castlefield to ease the congestion through the area.

 

[Glenn1969]

I thought that applied to the Chat Moss Airport/Crewe stopper which could be terminated at Victoria. Given that the Nottingham is routed via Warrington it surely has no choice but to pass through Castlefield?

 

[B&I]

That is the long term plan.

However, short time, the argument is that it might make sense for it to be one of the services that doesn't go through Castlefield to ease the congestion through the area.

That is one argument. Another argument is that an intercity service connecting 3 of the 10 biggest cities in Britain should not be dismembered, even temporarily

 

[Greybeard33]

1b) Turn back one of the two TPE airport services in one of the bays at Manchester Victoria.

The bay platforms 1 and 2 at Manchester Victoria are only 111m and 98m long respectively. They are too short to take TPE's 5-car 802s or Mk5A+68 sets. It would be very difficult/costly to extend them into the station concourse.

 

[B&I]

I thought that applied to the Chat Moss Airport/Crewe stopper which could be terminated at Victoria. Given that the Nottingham is routed via Warrington it surely has no choice but to pass through Castlefield?

The 'choice' is for Liverpool passengers to make their way to Piccadilly and joint the EMR service there, despite there being 2 fewer services per hour between Lime Street and Piccadilly (if the Chat Moss is redirected to Victoria as well) to actually get them there.

Oddly, the space in the main shed at Piccadilly which absolutely, categorically , definitely doesn't exist when anyone suggests putting one of the TPE airport services into it magically becomes available for the EMR service.

 

[Esker-pades]

That is one argument. Another argument is that an intercity service connecting 3 of the 10 biggest cities in Britain should not be dismembered, even temporarily

Personally, that is the side I fall on.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I thought the plan was for Liverpool to Nottingham to remain as a through journey but passengers beyond Nottingham for Grantham, Peterborough and stations to Norwich would have to change at Nottingham?

That is the long term plan.

However, short time, the argument is that it might make sense for it to be one of the services that doesn't go through Castlefield to ease the congestion through the area.

Which way would it go - Liverpool- Crewe-Derby-Nottingham?

 

[AndrewE]

Which way would it go - Liverpool- Crewe-Derby-Nottingham?

I think when it was discussed before someone said it can't be pathed across Crewe station in the northbound direction.

 

[Purple Orange]

Yes, I can imagine that by searching 'why Manchester Airport is vital to the economy of the north west' it is fairly easy to find a report stating this, produced by the airport, which will.not doubt take an entirely neutral perspective on the issue

Perhaps you should follow the references in the report and fact check it for yourself. It’s all there to follow.

Back on topic of P15 & 16, I would split the Southport-Alderley Edge service and have them terminate at Piccadilly and go through Victoria respectively.

The Liverpool-Airport-Crewe service should stay as the airport is just absolutely vital to the economy of Liverpool. The city relies on Manchester airport way too much. Taking liberties.

 

[Greybeard33]

Oddly, the space in the main shed at Piccadilly which absolutely, categorically , definitely doesn't exist when anyone suggests putting one of the TPE airport services into it magically becomes available for the EMR service.

It might be possible to find space for a 4-car EMR service from the Stockport lines to terminate in P11/12 instead of it running through P13/14. That is very different from terminating a 5- car TPE service from the East lines in P1-3.

But in any case I very much doubt that the EMR service is under threat of eviction from the Castlefield corridor, any more than the three Northern CLC line services or the three TPE services. Much more likely that DfT is looking at diversion to Victoria of Northern and/or TfW Chat Moss and/or Bolton line services for the short term "decongestant" timetable.

 

[Esker-pades]

Which way would it go - Liverpool- Crewe-Derby-Nottingham?

Short term it would be cut at Piccadilly.

 

[Bantamzen]

It might be possible to find space for a 4-car EMR service from the Stockport lines to terminate in P11/12 instead of it running through P13/14. That is very different from terminating a 5- car TPE service from the East lines in P1-3.

But in any case I very much doubt that the EMR service is under threat of eviction from the Castlefield corridor, any more than the three Northern CLC line services or the three TPE services. Much more likely that DfT is looking at diversion to Victoria of Northern and/or TfW Chat Moss and/or Bolton line services for the short term "decongestant" timetable.

Of those long distance services, I'd say the EMR is the most under threat, however what is more likely to happen is it being split at Nottingham. I'd also be tempted to have at least the Yorkshire TPE services skip Oxford Road to reduce their occupation time in the corridor. It wouldn't be by much, but even a couple minutes less dwell time would help.

As for the rest, it is the simplest and probably least disruptive option move/spilt a couple of Northern / TfW services to enter Victoria from the west, and for split services to start the south eastern routes in the main shed at Piccadilly. But that should be caveated with a full commitment from DfT to get on with planning, costing and starting the much needed Castlefield improvements.

 

[B&I]

Perhaps you should follow the references in the report and fact check it for yourself. It’s all there to follow.

Back on topic of P15 & 16, I would split the Southport-Alderley Edge service and have them terminate at Piccadilly and go through Victoria respectively.

The Liverpool-Airport-Crewe service should stay as the airport is just absolutely vital to the economy of Liverpool. The city relies on Manchester airport way too much. Taking liberties.

It might be possible to find space for a 4-car EMR service from the Stockport lines to terminate in P11/12 instead of it running through P13/14. That is very different from terminating a 5- car TPE service from the East lines in P1-3.

But in any case I very much doubt that the EMR service is under threat of eviction from the Castlefield corridor, any more than the three Northern CLC line services or the three TPE services. Much more likely that DfT is looking at diversion to Victoria of Northern and/or TfW Chat Moss and/or Bolton line services for the short term "decongestant" timetable.

'Might'

 

[Greybeard33]

Of those long distance services, I'd say the EMR is the most under threat, however what is more likely to happen is it being split at Nottingham.

The Liverpool - Nottingham service provides a direct link between four large cities, three of which have metro mayors who are highly influential stakeholders in the Rail North Partnership (RNP). Only a political masochist would choose to butcher this service.

The Liverpool-Airport-Crewe service should stay as the airport is just absolutely vital to the economy of Liverpool. The city relies on Manchester airport way too much. Taking liberties.

Notwithstanding this tongue-in-cheek comment, I suspect that political considerations might well ensure that both direct Liverpool - Manchester Airport services (CLC and Chat Moss) survive. Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham have been marching in lockstep on RNP issues.

 

[Bantamzen]

The Liverpool - Nottingham service provides a direct link between four large cities, three of which have metro mayors who are highly influential stakeholders in the Rail North Partnership (RNP). Only a political masochist would choose to butcher this service.

As I said, the more likely result would be a spilt of the current service at Nottingham. There is probably no need to terminate it at Manchester providing some of the Northern services through the corridor were rationalised.