Confused by TPE Rolling stock strategy?

Philip said:

I guess the Buxton and Chester services could utilize 11 and 12, with the Cleethorpes on 10.

Is it known which 185s are going to Ireland yet and will their FC be retained?

Click to expand...

We don't know if any will be going to Ireland yet. The IR tender for secondhand DMUs seems to be tailored for the 185s, which supports forum and industry rumours. IR want 20 units so there would be two spare. In addition the franchise agreement tapers down the minimum number required. On 8th December its 39 units, 5th January 33 units, 2nd February 32 units, 1st March 30 units and 1st April 29 units. This means that IR can take all 20 units by 3rd February.

Incidentally, the clause for releasing a further 15 x 185s can be used no earlier than 1st January 2022, is subject to approval by the secretary of state and the number of vehicles (but not units) cannot be reduced. This means that 15 x 185s would have to be replaced by 9 x 5 coach units despite both 5 coach 802s and Mark V sets having a similar capacity to double 185s due to the latters lower number of seats per coach. If TPE had a particular upgrade in mind e.g. 802s for Liverpool-Scarbrough to release Mark Vs for Piccadilly-Hull then they could hand

bengley said:

Would have to be 10. 11 and 12 do not fit 6 coaches.

Click to expand...

Cleethorpes - Airport services mostly reverse in Piccadilly Platform 9 or 10, in both directions. These are long enough for 6 cars.

If the Cleethorpes service terminated in one of these Piccadilly platforms, instead of continuing to the Airport, it would save a diagram. But the turnaround time would be only 17 minutes, versus the current 27 minutes at the Airport. That might worsen punctuality performance.

Greybeard33 said:

Cleethorpes - Airport services mostly reverse in Piccadilly Platform 9 or 10, in both directions. These are long enough for 6 cars.

If the Cleethorpes service terminated in one of these Piccadilly platforms, instead of continuing to the Airport, it would save a diagram. But the turnaround time would be only 17 minutes, versus the current 27 minutes at the Airport. That might worsen punctuality performance.

Click to expand...

If the service was running very late would it not be possible to terminate it at Stockport where there are many other services to Piccadilly to change on to?

Greybeard33 said:

Cleethorpes - Airport services mostly reverse in Piccadilly Platform 9 or 10, in both directions. These are long enough for 6 cars.

If the Cleethorpes service terminated in one of these Piccadilly platforms, instead of continuing to the Airport, it would save a diagram. But the turnaround time would be only 17 minutes, versus the current 27 minutes at the Airport. That might worsen punctuality performance.

Click to expand...

Surely 17 minutes is plenty of time to turn around? The London trains don't get a huge amount more even.

Philip said:

Surely 17 minutes is plenty of time to turn around? The London trains don't get a huge amount more even.

Click to expand...

I find the Cleethorpes services run relatively well and rarely rack up major delays.

Indeed, usually during a block between Piccadilly and Airport, the Cleethorpes services simply just run using a 17-minute turnaround at Piccadilly, usually to no detrimental impact to the service.

Greybeard33 said:

Cleethorpes - Airport services mostly reverse in Piccadilly Platform 9 or 10, in both directions. These are long enough for 6 cars.

If the Cleethorpes service terminated in one of these Piccadilly platforms, instead of continuing to the Airport, it would save a diagram. But the turnaround time would be only 17 minutes, versus the current 27 minutes at the Airport. That might worsen punctuality performance.

Click to expand...

Indeed, I sign Piccadilly so am aware of the platforms which can take 6 cars. 11 and 12 cannot and I was just pointing this out to the person I quoted.

ForTheLoveOf said:

It seems a great waste to be potentially sending 185s over to Ireland

Click to expand...

The way I see it is that we'll have a number of 158/170/175s looking for homes over the next couple of years, so probably have sufficient 90/100mph DMUs to run the services that require 90/100mphDMUs, so not the end of the world if twenty 185s go to Ireland.

What we don't have enough of is the fast accelerating DMUs that are cheap to operate for simple/ marginal lines currently operated by Pacers/153s - Turbostars struggle with stop/start services and 185s are far too thirsty/expensive for such routes.

quantinghome said:

If they're designed for hills, why not use them on Settle-Carlisle? Personally I'd like to see a new Leeds-Carlisle-Glasgow service, which they'd presumably be well suited for given they used to work Carlisle-Glasgow.

Click to expand...

185s would be fine on the S&C - the problem is that the bi-hourly nature of the route means that you only need three DMUs to operate it (a six hour cycle).

If you are running a number of 185s on Leeds - Calder Valley services or Carlisle - Middlesbrough services then I can see it making sense to also run them on the S&C but the low PVR of that route means that the S&C is almost a rounding error when talking about the future of a fleet of fifty one units.

Jonny said:

Perhaps because it was the fastest way to get the stock

Click to expand...

Other TOCs are content to wait for one bidder to build them a hundred new trains or more.

Other TOCs had deadlines for replacing non-compliant stock (Northern and Wales'n'Borders with their Pacers), whereas TPE had a nice modern fleet of 185/350s so there wasn't the same urgency to bring in new tock at all costs.

But then First sometimes order tiny fleets of trains that quickly become non-standard (175/180) - maybe we wouldn't be having these arguments if they'd ordered around seventy five 170s over the years instead of the 175/185s?

Wonder if Irish Rail will do a deal to also secure the 27 175s coming off lease in the next couple of years, to supplement/replace the 22000s? It's hard to see where these will go within the UK once Wales has finished with them.

Or could TPE themselves go for them and then send the whole batch of 185s to Ireland?

tbtc said:

185s would be fine on the S&C - the problem is that the bi-hourly nature of the route means that you only need three DMUs to operate it (a six hour cycle).

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't as they would be too heavy for the route and lose time over Sprinters.

Have we been able to discover if 6 coach TPE services hourly from Sheffield and Cleethorpes will be able to regularly fit in 3A at the same time as hourly Northern services from Liverpool Lime Street, even if they are only 2 coaches?

A typical hour is here; http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/MIA/2019/05/20/0925?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

1B67 is often standing room only from Sheffield and Dore & Totley so if 6 coaches aren't provided it will not go down well after being told they'd be coming from December 2018!!

Killingworth said:

Have we been able to discover if 6 coach TPE services hourly from Sheffield and Cleethorpes will be able to regularly fit in 3A at the same time as hourly Northern services from Liverpool Lime Street, even if they are only 2 coaches?

A typical hour is here; http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/MIA/2019/05/20/0925?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

1B67 is often standing room only from Sheffield and Dore & Totley so if 6 coaches aren't provided it will not go down well after being told they'd be coming from December 2018!!

Click to expand...

It is a racing certainty that 1H43, the 0816 Liverpool to Airport, will be booked as a 4-car 156, 92m long. So no way will it fit in a 200m platform at the same time as a 6-car 185 (143m).

1B67, the 0626 Cleethorpes to Airport, is booked to reverse in Piccadilly Platform 10 (0902-0907) on top of 2B09, the 0800 Buxton to Piccadilly (arr 0856). The Northern train then forms 5J09, the 0912 ECS from P10 to Newton Heath. See http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/MAN/2019/05/20/0856

P10 is only 177m long, so even if 2B09 is only a 2-car 150 (40m), a 6-car 185 would not fit at the same time.

Therefore it appears that 1B67 is booked as 3-car.

Greybeard33 said:

It is a racing certainty that 1H43, the 0816 Liverpool to Airport, will be booked as a 4-car 156, 92m long. So no way will it fit in a 200m platform at the same time as a 6-car 185 (143m).

1B67, the 0626 Cleethorpes to Airport, is booked to reverse in Piccadilly Platform 10 (0902-0907) on top of 2B09, the 0800 Buxton to Piccadilly (arr 0856). The Northern train then forms 5J09, the 0912 ECS from P10 to Newton Heath. See http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/MAN/2019/05/20/0856

P10 is only 177m long, so even if 2B09 is only a 2-car 150 (40m), a 6-car 185 would not fit at the same time.

Therefore it appears that 1B67 is booked as 3-car.

Click to expand...

Which explains the silence from TPE on this!

Greybeard33 said:

It is a racing certainty that 1H43, the 0816 Liverpool to Airport, will be booked as a 4-car 156, 92m long. So no way will it fit in a 200m platform at the same time as a 6-car 185 (143m).

1B67, the 0626 Cleethorpes to Airport, is booked to reverse in Piccadilly Platform 10 (0902-0907) on top of 2B09, the 0800 Buxton to Piccadilly (arr 0856). The Northern train then forms 5J09, the 0912 ECS from P10 to Newton Heath. See http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/MAN/2019/05/20/0856

P10 is only 177m long, so even if 2B09 is only a 2-car 150 (40m), a 6-car 185 would not fit at the same time.

Therefore it appears that 1B67 is booked as 3-car.

Click to expand...

Platform numbers can be changed though and they can re-time the ECS departure so that it has cleared platform 10 by 09:02.

Just regarding the Airport platform; is it not possible that the 08:16 from Liverpool may be formed of a 150/156 joined up to a 153? And would a double 185 then fit on top?

Greybeard33 said:

1B67, the 0626 Cleethorpes to Airport, is booked to reverse in Piccadilly Platform 10 (0902-0907) on top of 2B09, the 0800 Buxton to Piccadilly (arr 0856). The Northern train then forms 5J09, the 0912 ECS from P10 to Newton Heath. See http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/MAN/2019/05/20/0856

Click to expand...

Philip said:

Platform numbers can be changed though and they can re-time the ECS departure so that it has cleared platform 10 by 09:02.

Click to expand...

The train would have reverse in three minutes including ensuring all passengers are off the train and doors lockied and driver changing ends at rush hour. A three minute turnaround at Manchester Piccadilly? No chance! Rules of the Plan doesn't allow for that on any station I know of. Train crew conditions wouldn't allow it either.

Greybeard33 said:

It is a racing certainty that 1H43, the 0816 Liverpool to Airport, will be booked as a 4-car 156, 92m long. So no way will it fit in a 200m platform at the same time as a 6-car 185 (143m).

1B67, the 0626 Cleethorpes to Airport, is booked to reverse in Piccadilly Platform 10 (0902-0907) on top of 2B09, the 0800 Buxton to Piccadilly (arr 0856). The Northern train then forms 5J09, the 0912 ECS from P10 to Newton Heath. See http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/MAN/2019/05/20/0856

P10 is only 177m long, so even if 2B09 is only a 2-car 150 (40m), a 6-car 185 would not fit at the same time.

Therefore it appears that 1B67 is booked as 3-car.

Click to expand...

Unless there is a big recast in December. Something needs to be done then anyway or it be 10 minute turnarounds for North TPE. I wonder what TPEs plan for introducing 6 car units was / is? Or did they not consider platform occupancy before making the commitment.

Chester1 said:

Unless there is a big recast in December. Something needs to be done then anyway or it be 10 minute turnarounds for North TPE. I wonder what TPEs plan for introducing 6 car units was / is? Or did they not consider platform occupancy before making the commitment.

Click to expand...

I believe the May 2018 timetable did provide enough Airport platform capacity for TPE South services to become 6-car, as well as for Mk5As to Middlesbrough and 802s to Newcastle. That is one reason why the TPE North turnarounds were so short. And that timetable had 1B67 booked to reverse in Platform 9 at Piccadilly, which did have room for a 6-car.

It is the extended TPE North turnarounds that have required both the Norths and the Souths to be squeezed into half a platform each at the Airport, which means all three services now have to be worked by single 185s.

Consequently TPE is stuck between a rock and a hard place, unless as you say there is a big recast in December.

Philip said:

Wonder if Irish Rail will do a deal to also secure the 27 175s coming off lease. It's hard to see where these will go within the UK once Wales has finished with them.

Click to expand...

The 3-car versions could go to XC to replace/suppliment their 2-car 170s.
But then again, why would they

Maybe Anglia or East Mids to replace their sprinter operation?
Northern to replace any sort of sprinter operation there?

Greybeard33 said:

I believe the May 2018 timetable did provide enough Airport platform capacity for TPE South services to become 6-car, as well as for Mk5As to Middlesbrough and 802s to Newcastle. That is one reason why the TPE North turnarounds were so short. And that timetable had 1B67 booked to reverse in Platform 9 at Piccadilly, which did have room for a 6-car.

It is the extended TPE North turnarounds that have required both the Norths and the Souths to be squeezed into half a platform each at the Airport, which means all three services now have to be worked by single 185s.

Consequently TPE is stuck between a rock and a hard place, unless as you say there is a big recast in December.

Click to expand...

Got to say, unless there is a major development at the airport or timetable rewrite then MIA is going to cause a lot of problems and that's on top of the lack of extra capacity at MAN without 15/16.

In a way it is good that TPE's CAF trains are delayed as otherwise they'd be still turning plenty round at Victoria.

In regards to 185's going off lease, as TPE are keeping around 30, would they keep even more if TPE took on the EMT Liverpool trains?

TC60054 said:

I find the Cleethorpes services run relatively well and rarely rack up major delays.

Indeed, usually during a block between Piccadilly and Airport, the Cleethorpes services simply just run using a 17-minute turnaround at Piccadilly, usually to no detrimental impact to the service.

Click to expand...

Well it was chaos on trains to the airport this morning with all showing either late, delayed or cancelled. At least there was no platform congestion as only the 3 car Middlesbrough 185 and 2 car 156 from Lime Street made it through. Others seem to have been terminated short, including the train from Cleethorpes that was being commandeered to go back to somewhere else.

Killingworth said:

Well it was chaos on trains to the airport this morning with all showing either late, delayed or cancelled. At least there was no platform congestion as only the 3 car Middlesbrough 185 and 2 car 156 from Lime Street made it through. Others seem to have been terminated short, including the train from Cleethorpes that was being commandeered to go back to somewhere else.

Click to expand...

You say that, but I suspect that the Cleethorpes train was turned round at Piccadilly because there wouldn't have been a platform for it at the Airport after problems in the Castlefield corridor (not sure what caused that, whether it was just congestion or there was an incident of some sort) delayed all the services through Piccadilly P13.

naverag said:

You say that, but I suspect that the Cleethorpes train was turned round at Piccadilly because there wouldn't have been a platform for it at the Airport after problems in the Castlefield corridor (not sure what caused that, whether it was just congestion or there was an incident of some sort) delayed all the services through Piccadilly P13.

Click to expand...

No problem with lack of platforms at the Airport - just no trains! Apart from the forlorn 185 pictured lurking in the gloom all on it's own before an even more forlorn 2 car 156 arrived. Plenty of room for the Cleethorpes train but it was commandeered to be sent elsewhere to catch up on a service that had gone missing.

The truth is that sending so many trains to the airport isn't necessary to provide seating capacity between there and Piccadilly - that is beyond dispute. Most trains arriving at Piccadilly are very much lighter loaded from that point (unless there's been a disruption).

It does ensure frequency of services between the two, but doesn't provide reliable regularity, e.g every 5, 10 or 15 minutes. It's too prone to knock on delays accumulated across the north and into Scotland.

However, cities and large towns across the north and beyond all want direct services to the airport. If Middlesbrough has them Newcastle can't be left out, Llandudno or Scarborough, Cleethorpes or Windermere, Blackpool or Glasgow plus all the places in between.

Logically almost all should terminate at a platform at Piccadilly alongside a reliable, fast and regular shuttle service between the two. Please don't impose any change on platforms 13/14 because that would kill any such idea stone dead! It would be a brave manager who dared take that decision now all these places have got used to their direct services!

As an aside, those displays look very good - extremely clear and good information, even if it isn't what you wanted to read!

Bletchleyite said:

As an aside, those displays look very good - extremely clear and good information, even if it isn't what you wanted to read!

Click to expand...

I went to see what everyone is talking about. I certainly discovered part of the problem and saw very clearly that pushing so many lightly loaded long distance trains back and forth along a short section of track isn't.... ideal.

I see more clearly that overall reliability of service for more people may be best achieved by terminating longer distance trains at Piccadilly with a regular fast, frequent, spacious and reliable dedicated shuttle to the airport. As long as Sheffield keeps it's direct service (for Sheffield substitute the station of your personal preference) of course

Of course a TPE common fleet of interchangeable trains that could serve all destinations would greatly assist flexibility, allowing layovers to be minimised as trains were re-allocated at short notice across the franchise. Bi-modes!

Killingworth said:

No problem with lack of platforms at the Airport - just no trains! Apart from the forlorn 185 pictured lurking in the gloom all on it's own before an even more forlorn 2 car 156 arrived. Plenty of room for the Cleethorpes train but it was commandeered to be sent elsewhere to catch up on a service that had gone missing.

Click to expand...

From RTT, the 0626 Cleethorpes to Airport on 03 April was cancelled between Piccadilly and the Airport "due to unknown cause". The unit then appears to have languished in Piccadilly P9 from 0906 to 0947, when it departed working 1K13 to Hull.

That service is normally worked by the rear unit off the (6-car) 0738 Hull to Piccadilly, but the latter service did not arrive at Piccadilly until 1022, 42 late. Its rear unit instead formed the 0953 Airport to Cleethorpes, which was cancelled between the Airport and Piccadilly and departed Piccadilly at 1027, 8 late, eventually arriving at Cleethorpes on time.

The unit swap at Piccadilly thus enabled recovery of a long delay on the Hull route, at the cost of a short working on the Cleethorpes route.

I do not know the cause of the concurrent disruption in the Castlefield corridor, which caused severe delays to other services to the Airport. The first service badly affected was the 0622 Middlesbrough to Airport, which lost 18 minutes between Victoria and Piccadilly.

Direct trains to airports from as many destinations on 'regular' basis is whats wanted but provides a negative against reliability. A shuttle service to the Airport would see limited use as people would not want to change at Manchester Piccadilly. So whilst a shuttle would be reliable there would only be a small number on board. Even more people would seek other ways to the Airport than the train.

Greybeard33 said:

From RTT, the 0626 Cleethorpes to Airport on 03 April was cancelled between Piccadilly and the Airport "due to unknown cause". The unit then appears to have languished in Piccadilly P9 from 0906 to 0947, when it departed working 1K13 to Hull.

That service is normally worked by the rear unit off the (6-car) 0738 Hull to Piccadilly, but the latter service did not arrive at Piccadilly until 1022, 42 late. Its rear unit instead formed the 0953 Airport to Cleethorpes, which was cancelled between the Airport and Piccadilly and departed Piccadilly at 1027, 8 late, eventually arriving at Cleethorpes on time.

The unit swap at Piccadilly thus enabled recovery of a long delay on the Hull route, at the cost of a short working on the Cleethorpes route.

I do not know the cause of the concurrent disruption in the Castlefield corridor, which caused severe delays to other services to the Airport. The first service badly affected was the 0622 Middlesbrough to Airport, which lost 18 minutes between Victoria and Piccadilly.

Click to expand...

The cause of the terminating incoming Cleethorpes service was explained by the guard as being a latte redeployment to cover a missing train - that Hull working.

The return working 1B72 from the Airport is the one I'd thought of using back to Sheffield. In the event I took the Northern Lime Street service back as there was nothing more to observe at the Airport. I could have caught that Cleethorpes train at Piccadilly. It was being held for something unknown, possibly to cover other missing trains. I used a smart Northern unrefurbished ex-GWR 150 - a contrast with the refurbished 156 from the Airport which had very many soiled seat covers.

As I said, I'm now thinking a reliable, quick and regular Airport-Piccadilly shuttle may be better to connect with the many longer distance trains, often arriving late, most of them to terminate at Piccadilly.

Class 170101 said:

Direct trains to airports from as many destinations on 'regular' basis is whats wanted but provides a negative against reliability. A shuttle service to the Airport would see limited use as people would not want to change at Manchester Piccadilly. So whilst a shuttle would be reliable there would only be a small number on board. Even more people would seek other ways to the Airport than the train.

Click to expand...

That would be true to a point,but what proportion of through passengers are there? My previous observations on leaving ex-Cleethorpes trains at Piccadilly has been of swarms of people trying to pile in for the Airport preventing us from getting off as quickly as we'd like! However, I concede if given the choice I'd rather stay on the same train - but currently prefer to use my car rather than risk cancelled and/or late trains.

Philip said:

Wonder if Irish Rail will do a deal to also secure the 27 175s coming off lease in the next couple of years, to supplement/replace the 22000s? It's hard to see where these will go within the UK once Wales has finished with them.

Or could TPE themselves go for them and then send the whole batch of 185s to Ireland?

Click to expand...

The Secretary of State would probably agree to a variance of the franchise option to replace 15 of the remaining 29 X 185s. For instance maybe 8 X 802s and all 16 X 3 coach 175s (a net gain of one coach). They should be able to use sprinter differentials so the journey time difference compared with 185s should be negligible. They are reasonably reliable these days, would be cheaper to run and only require a refurb (including adding first class). The 185s are too heavy and short to be ideal for any route. As long as there is sufficient time for replacements to enter service then IR should be allowed to take as many as they want. Unfortunately I think the 185s will stay, perhaps 29 of them but hopefully the lack of work for Newton Aycliffe will make the price for 802s sufficiently low for TPE to trigger the clause to replace further 185s.

Class 170101 said:

Direct trains to airports from as many destinations on 'regular' basis is whats wanted but provides a negative against reliability. A shuttle service to the Airport would see limited use as people would not want to change at Manchester Piccadilly. So whilst a shuttle would be reliable there would only be a small number on board. Even more people would seek other ways to the Airport than the train.

Click to expand...

Exactly, what people calling for a Piccadilly-Airport shuttle only for longer distance passengers forget is that a change at Piccadilly may not be the first they have made. It is entirely possible for example for passengers travelling to Manchester Airport to have already made a couple of changes without having to do so at Piccadilly. This adds time and stress, and makes using the train less attractive for passengers with potentially long flights ahead of them. The London airports are often cited as reasons why only a shuttle service is needed, but this does not take into account the very different infrastructures between the capital and the North. For example about a third of Manchester's air passengers come from the east of the Pennines, with basically only two options to get to the airport, the TPE services or the M62. Make one less attractive and you put increasing pressure on the other, and the motorway doesn't need yet more pressure applied to it.

And it is worth pointing out, again, that the May 2018 meltdown was not purely down to what basically amounted to one extra path through Castlefield per hour. Many of the issues were away from Greater Manchester, and simply magnified themselves in the corridor. Simple changes to paths, longer turnaround times at terminals, splitting stopping services and so on have proved it is possible to drastically improve without having to cut long distance services. Plus as the longer units start to roll out, dwell times will improve & help further improve reliability in the corridor. This does also weaken the argument for a shuttle further, longer TPE / Northern units terminating in the bays at Piccadilly mean less capacity even before you factor in an airport shuttle.

Class 170101 said:

A shuttle service to the Airport would see limited use as people would not want to change at Manchester Piccadilly. So whilst a shuttle would be reliable there would only be a small number on board. Even more people would seek other ways to the Airport than the train.

Click to expand...

Limited use? My understanding is that the majority of Airport passengers are travelling to/from Manchester (and certainly Greater Manchester). And there are under thirty five passengers on board the average service at the Airport, in the first place.

Whilst you might inconvenience/lose passengers travelling from Middlesbrough/ Barrow/ Cleethorpes (by reducing/removing direct services), the number of such passengers is pretty insignificant compared to the millions using the Airport station each year.

Maybe there's an argument for some early morning arrivals at the Airport from such places (targeted to be attractive for holiday flights), the obsession with retaining all of these direct links means that the tail is wagging the dog - the Airport has nine Piccadilly services per hour but the need to accommodate all of these long distance services means that there are some huge gaps (since the timetable has to be partly written around the ECML and WCML) - for example whilst nine trains per hour might suggest a service every seven minutes, you've got an EIGHTEEN minute gap at Piccadilly (from the xx:33 ex-Liverpool service to the xx:51 ex-Newcastle).

The intermediate stations on the Airport branch therefore end up with a terrible service (compared to other suburban stations in Greater Manchester) because our focus is on long distance Airport passengers.

Then you've got to consider a future where long distance services will require significantly longer turnaround times at the Airport (e..g. the half hourly services from the York direction getting extended from a ten minute layover to a forty minute layover) AND the fact that these services are going to be a lot longer (5x26m rather than 3x23m) which means the platforms capacity at the Airport is going to be sorely tested.

Whilst I want to get cars off the road and want to encourage people to use trains, in the grand scheme of things I'm not losing much sleep over how someone from Middlesbrough gets to Manchester Airport for their summer holiday in the Med - we could make much bigger improvements by improving the reliability of shorter/medium distance services around Greater Manchester, rather than the vanity of direct Airport trains (whilst I appreciate that changing trains puts people off, it's a luxury to be worrying about all of these direct links whilst reliability around Castlefield is so dire).