Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

HSTEd · 11 Jun 2019

tbtc said:
Spend hundreds of millions of pounds on additional infrastructure (not just 15/16 but you also need more platform capacity at the Airport if you want to provide suitable facilities for all of the terminating services, given that the 130m long 802s laying over for forty minutes every half hour - or the six coach 185s or the five coach 397s - aren't going to be able to share platforms with anything else), which will probably mean sending even more services down the Airport branch, because we never learn our lessons?

You can somewhat reduce the layover issues by slowing down trains to the airport by making every train stop every station to the airport.
Then these trains which are currently just moving vast quantities of air around would actually serve a purpose in providing bulk passenger transport.

Bantamzen said:
Especially as those "thirty somethings" are likely to, and indeed are growing year on year?

Great, they only have to increase by 3-400% for it to actually be worth it!
How many years will that take at current rates?

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen · 11 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
But if they don't run through the corridor, where do they go?

According to others on here, they get split between Piccadilly terminators (providing enough bay platform capacity could be released for the longer trains), or just not call through the corridor and tip punters out at Victoria to make their own way across, because that's what they do in London. A perfect way for companies like TPE to grow their business as capacity grows to pay for the leasing of the new stock, not!!

Now I know there are problems, but they are not as some would have us believe insurmountable. I've travelled a few times in the last few months through the corridor on Yorkshire / North East airport services without a hitch, so it can work. But what it really needs is the longer trains to help reduce dwell times (on their way soon), and more platform capacity so that more passengers can be handled safely. This is currently still sitting on the Minister's desks some five years (I can't believe its been that long) since the plans were drawn up.

So now its time to deliver, not make excuses anymore!

HSTEd said:
Great, they only have to increase by 3-400% for it to actually be worth it!
How many years will that take at current rates?

So you are expecting all trains to be rammed to full to "be worth it"? Is that how all services should be run? Do you include all the fresh air that is carted around daily right around the country in this?

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
But if they don't run through the corridor, where do they go?

As per my other thread, you reduce them or you portion-work them with splitting and joining occurring well away from Manchester.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

Bantamzen said:
So you are expecting all trains to be rammed to full to "be worth it"? Is that how all services should be run? Do you include all the fresh air that is carted around daily right around the country in this?

Depends on how inconvenient they are to the greater good. With Class 185s at a premium, sending any of those to the airport is a waste of units.

The one that gets me flummoxed is that 15/16 is proposed as a means of upping services through the corridor even more. What happened to resilience?

Esker-pades · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
As per my other thread, you reduce them or you portion-work them with splitting and joining occurring well away from Manchester.

So a rammed 2-4 car service because a rammed 4-8 car service?
There needs to be increasing capacity, not stangnant capacity, possibly with a less frequent service from some destinations.

Killingworth · 11 Jun 2019

At present demand is being restricted by lack of supply.

As an example, it's ridiculous that South Yorkshire and Manchester, both with populations in excess of a million, are connected by a meandering line adding over 10 extra miles to the 32 as the crow files between Sheffield and Piccadilly. The best journey time is 48 minutes in the middle of the night, but 60 minutes is more usual and delays average 4 minutes Monday-Friday. Many of those delays are the fault of Manchester rail congestion.

OK - drill a tunnel dead straight between the two city centres and you could do the journey in 20 -25 minutes. The Peak Tube, Cross North, Roses Connect, call it what you will. No gradients, cuttings, embankments, bridges, stations, visual encroachment in the Peak District (apart from well hidden air shafts after construction completed) or weather to contend with. It would refocus the north as the two conurbations worked so much closer together. Cost about £100billion? Who cares, just do it. Think of all the jobs created to build it.

Ah, I hear the cries, that wouldn't be practical. Geology. No demand. Woodhead. But no, let's spend a few millions to work out plans. Then the best bit. We scrap the whole idea and say it can't be afforded - what most will say now.

BUT, with the billions 'saved' from cancellation we can spend a much lower sum on 15 and 16. We can also spend more on modern resignalling across the north to allow more trains to run. Add more carriages and we can offer travellers the luxury of seats, to some lengthened platforms to take them.

We might even make it possible to get a train from Sheffield to Manchester that will guarantee a seat at any time of day, for it to be on time every time, and will get there in 45 minutes. And the same goes for those travelling to Manchester more quickly, reliably and in more comfort from Stoke, Chester, Liverpool, Blackpool, Wigan, Lancaster, Barrow, Windermere, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Middlesbrough, York, Scarborough, Hull, Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield, Cleethorpes, Doncaster, Norwich, Nottingham and elsewhere.

It's a miserable wet day. Just day dreaming.........

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
So a rammed 2-4 car service because a rammed 4-8 car service?

When we're talking about the Airport, you mean a service with 60 instead of 30 people on it?

In any case, if you make that 2 car service an 8 car service (2 portions of 4 joining/splitting) that's tons of extra capacity. Most trains through 13-14 are still quite short.

My preference is to build 15/16 and max out train lengths[1], but not to make any frequency increases. That would produce a highly resilient and punctual system, which is what is needed, as well as the capacity needed well into the future.

But if it is not built, we need to seriously think about designing a service pattern for resilience, which will still involve maxing out lengths but also involve frequency reductions.

[1] Including extending all the TPE new trains to 7 or 8-car; 5 will soon prove inadequate.

Bantamzen · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Depends on how inconvenient they are to the greater good. With Class 185s at a premium, sending any of those to the airport is a waste of units.

The greater good? Ye gods man, you are sounding like something out of Hot Fuzz! Yarp....!!

Seriously though I've been over this. Manchester Airport is heavily owned by GM councils, generates jobs, drives the economy, they (as in all stakeholders) are investing over £1billion to expand capacity by 40%, do I really need to spell it out?

Bletchleyite said:
The one that gets me flummoxed is that 15/16 is proposed as a means of upping services through the corridor even more. What happened to resilience?

We are not talking about just upping services with P15/16, with perhaps the exception of the Calder Valley services (which in all honesty can wait). Having two extra platforms means that two services in each direction can be unloaded / loaded with services alternating arrivals & departures. If all through platforms at Oxford Road were also made fully accessible and useable you replicate it there & improve the flow. Chuck in digital signalling to maximise capcity and the current flows can be better handled. You might even be able to handle a couple more each way. And of course more platform space means better circulation for passengers, less conflicting movements along them, better dwell times and so on.

Even without these upgrades, there could be better use of capacity especially at Oxford Road where, for example, a service scheduled to say call at P4 heading for Piccadilly can often be held at Deansagte even though P3 is free. If the service was moved into P3 to start unloading / loading, the next service in the queue could move up as the service in P4 is cleared.

Tomnick · 11 Jun 2019

Bantamzen said:
Even without these upgrades, there could be better use of capacity especially at Oxford Road where, for example, a service scheduled to say call at P4 heading for Piccadilly can often be held at Deansagte even though P3 is free. If the service was moved into P3 to start unloading / loading, the next service in the queue could move up as the service in P4 is cleared.

I understand that they're particularly reluctant to make late platform alterations at Oxford Road because of the low capacity of the footbridge and the steps leading to/from it - I've never used it personally, so I couldn't comment, but it certainly makes sense especially given the potential for crowding on the central island. The physical constraints of the layout don't help either - you can only signal a train halfway into 3 if you've got one occupying the full length of 4, and I certainly wouldn't be happy to get close enough to the mid-platform signal to fully platform a 4x23m train (you'd have to be pretty much under the signal - I've seen it done, but only with a movement that's reversing to go back west). Extending the station out to the west will help ease things here too, I'm sure.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

Bantamzen said:
The greater good? Ye gods man, you are sounding like something out of Hot Fuzz! Yarp....!!

Seriously though I've been over this. Manchester Airport is heavily owned by GM councils, generates jobs, drives the economy, they (as in all stakeholders) are investing over £1billion to expand capacity by 40%, do I really need to spell it out?

And Manchester city centre doesn't? Seriously, the Airport is tiny compared with the rest of the city. And yet the tail continues to wag the dog to the detriment of the whole city's appalling local rail service. It is absolutely outrageous.

We are not talking about just upping services with P15/16, with perhaps the exception of the Calder Valley services (which in all honesty can wait). Having two extra platforms means that two services in each direction can be unloaded / loaded with services alternating arrivals & departures. If all through platforms at Oxford Road were also made fully accessible and useable you replicate it there & improve the flow. Chuck in digital signalling to maximise capcity and the current flows can be better handled. You might even be able to handle a couple more each way. And of course more platform space means better circulation for passengers, less conflicting movements along them, better dwell times and so on.

Indeed so. And all those benefits would make the service punctual and reliable if they didn't whack another 4 paths an hour through (as I believe was the plan).

Punctuality and reliability is not sexy, but it is very much needed.

Even without these upgrades, there could be better use of capacity especially at Oxford Road where, for example, a service scheduled to say call at P4 heading for Piccadilly can often be held at Deansagte even though P3 is free. If the service was moved into P3 to start unloading / loading, the next service in the queue could move up as the service in P4 is cleared.

The trouble with this is that Oxford Road is side platforms, not islands, and the bridge and lifts are inadequate for quick platform alterations, hence why it is mostly operated as a 2-platform station. It would be sensible to rebuild it to a pair of islands, but the site is very constrained and it being listed will cause issues too, not to mention that a rebuild would likely mean the closure of the entire corridor for a year or more.

Indeed, you could do that instead of 15/16, I suppose, on the basis that a train will never be deliberately held at Picc except in emergency, and crew changes (if they have to have them in Manchester) could take place there instead.

Esker-pades · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
When we're talking about the Airport, you mean a service with 60 instead of 30 people on it?

I'm not talking about the Airport. I'm talking about all trains coming through the Castlefield Corridor.

In any case, if you make that 2 car service an 8 car service (2 portions of 4 joining/splitting) that's tons of extra capacity. Most trains through 13-14 are still quite short.

The shortest trains are 2 car, which there shouldn't be too many of now (3 per hour by my count):
One can't really combine the services from Liverpool which run via Warrington Central.
That leaves the Wigan North Western to Alderley Edge service and the Barrow/Windermere to Manchester service. They run to different destinations south of Piccadilly, so they couldn't couple up. The rest are electric (Preston/Blackpool/Liverpool via Chat Moss) or TransPennine or Transport for Wales. One can't couple the TfW service up to anything else, and the TransPennine services are due to get longer.
The electric services are 3 - 4 coaches long. That means 6/8 cars long when splitting/attatching, which means no additional capacity for those.

My preference is to build 15/16 and max out train lengths[1], but not to make any frequency increases. That would produce a highly resilient and punctual system, which is what is needed, as well as the capacity needed well into the future.

But if it is not built, we need to seriously think about designing a service pattern for resilience, which will still involve maxing out lengths but also involve frequency reductions.

[1] Including extending all the TPE new trains to 7 or 8-car; 5 will soon prove inadequate.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
That leaves the Wigan North Western to Alderley Edge service and the Barrow/Windermere to Manchester service. They run to different destinations south of Piccadilly, so they couldn't couple up.

What exactly is the point in a Wigan North Western to Alderley Edge service? This is not a pairing that specifically needs maintaining due to high demand. It's as useless as Liverpool to Crewe via absolutely everywhere is to anyone other than a track basher.

Split that up to a Picc-Alderley Edge EMU from P12 (very much underused) and a Wigan-Airport[1] DMU, joining at Bolton. Sorted. That's one path off Castlefield.

[1] Terminus of convenience, not because it's worth serving it with another train.

Esker-pades · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
What exactly is the point in a Wigan North Western to Alderley Edge service? This is not a pairing that specifically needs maintaining due to high demand. It's as useless as Liverpool to Crewe via absolutely everywhere is to anyone other than a track basher.

Split that up to a Picc-Alderley Edge EMU from P12 (very much underused) and a Wigan-Airport[1] DMU, joining at Bolton. Sorted. That's one path off Castlefield.

[1] Terminus of convenience, not because it's worth serving it with another train.

Yes! Oh wait, no.

The Barrow/Windermere to Airport service runs via Chat Moss
They run 23 minutes apart (XX:33 and XX:56)

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

FelixtheCat said:
Yes! Oh wait, no.

The Barrow/Windermere to Airport service runs via Chat Moss

They run 23 minutes apart (XX:33 and XX:56)

1. Aren't they returning to via Bolton at some point?
2. The timetable is not immutable (though clashes of path do need working around).

Esker-pades · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
1. Aren't they returning to via Bolton at some point?
2. The timetable is not immutable (though clashes of path do need working around).

I don't know.
You've already spotted the flaw yourself. Clashes of path would require a lot of working around, which, given that one service runs through the already pretty congested Bolton to Salford bit, and the other runs down the WCML at a low speed, is going to be pretty hard.

EDIT: Will the Barrow/Windermere services go to 195 operation? If so, that make cause coupling problems with the Sprinters that run on the local service to Wigan.

HSTEd · 11 Jun 2019

Bantamzen said:
So you are expecting all trains to be rammed to full to "be worth it"? Is that how all services should be run? Do you include all the fresh air that is carted around daily right around the country in this?

3-400% increase on 30 people takes us to about 150 or so.
That is pretty far from rammed on a 3-4 coach train.......

If you want to have so many trains going to the airport you have to make them useful to far more people.
Stopping all shacks on the Styal Line out to the airport achieves that at a very small additional cost.

Bantamzen · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
And Manchester city centre doesn't? Seriously, the Airport is tiny compared with the rest of the city. And yet the tail continues to wag the dog to the detriment of the whole city's appalling local rail service. It is absolutely outrageous.

Pity poor Manchester eh? One, if not the best served cities in the North of England, and the infrastructure still growing/being upgraded. Chuck in the Castlefield corridor improvements sitting on Grayling's desk and a very large amount of money has been spent / promised. Make no mistake, Manchester is doing alright and will continue to do better.

We have already established that the real desire here is Manc-Bahn, but until something like NPR sees a new alignment through Manchester to handle inter-city traffic, that ain't happening. End of. The growing Metrolink network will be able to handle more of the local commuter demand, the heavy rail network has to balance local, regional and long distance traffic. And yes that includes the airport.

Of course if Manchester doesn't want the airport traffic, they could chuck the cash over the Pennines and we can use it here. But that definitely ain't going to happen!

Bletchleyite said:
Indeed so. And all those benefits would make the service punctual and reliable if they didn't whack another 4 paths an hour through (as I believe was the plan).

Punctuality and reliability is not sexy, but it is very much needed.

It is, but so is capacity and meeting actual demand.

"Bletchleyite said:
The trouble with this is that Oxford Road is side platforms, not islands, and the bridge and lifts are inadequate for quick platform alterations, hence why it is mostly operated as a 2-platform station. It would be sensible to rebuild it to a pair of islands, but the site is very constrained and it being listed will cause issues too, not to mention that a rebuild would likely mean the closure of the entire corridor for a year or more.

Indeed, you could do that instead of 15/16, I suppose, on the basis that a train will never be deliberately held at Picc except in emergency, and crew changes (if they have to have them in Manchester) could take place there instead.

Well a quick win if P15/16 did happen would be not to stop any long distance services at Oxford Road, use only P2 and P4 for stoppers allow the other two lines for passing services.

Mogster · 11 Jun 2019

Bantamzen said:
Of course if Manchester doesn't want the airport traffic, they could chuck the cash over the Pennines and we can use it here.

I seem to remember Leeds is in the middle of having its station upgraded costing 500m?

61653 HTAFC · 11 Jun 2019

Bantamzen said:
Well a quick win if P15/16 did happen would be not to stop any long distance services at Oxford Road, use only P2 and P4 for stoppers allow the other two lines for passing services.

There's a lot of long-distance travel to Oxford Road: the concert traffic could easily change at Piccadilly, less so the students with baggage and such.

Senex · 11 Jun 2019

Bantamzen said:
Well a quick win if P15/16 did happen would be not to stop any long distance services at Oxford Road, use only P2 and P4 for stoppers allow the other two lines for passing services.

And should you be stopping "fast" long-distance services twice half a mile apart in the same city in any case?

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

61653 HTAFC said:
There's a lot of long-distance travel to Oxford Road: the concert traffic could easily change at Piccadilly, less so the students with baggage and such.

The students will cope; they'll cope with getting the bus down to Fallowfield (or wherever) so they will cope with a change at Piccadilly to go back to Oxford Road (or just to walk down to Piccadilly Gardens). Just like the ones who come up on the VTWC and XC services terminating in the main trainshed.

There seems to be this quaint idea on here about people with old style suitcases in tow, no doubt carried by a porter for a fee. This just isn't how things are any more[1]. People don't like changing trains because of the stress/unreliability, which doesn't really apply to this kind of quick hop at the far end. Luggage these days is mostly convenient trolley cases and carrying it between trains simply is not an issue.

[1] In 1999 I did, aged 20, carry two such large, old-style suitcases from Newton le Willows (on the FNW London service) to Hamburg via London, Dover, Oostende and Liege on the way to my year studying abroad. I coped (without porters) because young people can cope with that sort of thing, it just isn't a problem unless they have a disability. But it's not 1999 - can you even still buy that kind of suitcase? With two large modern upright trolleys (or better one trolley plus a 90 litre rucksack) it would have been easy.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

Senex said:
And should you be stopping "fast" long-distance services twice half a mile apart in the same city in any case?

The only "fast long distance services" going through there are the Edinburghs/Glasgows. Others are regional expresses which do justify two stops to take people closer to where they are going.

61653 HTAFC · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
The students will cope; they'll cope with getting the bus down to Fallowfield (or wherever) so they will cope with a change at Piccadilly to go back to Oxford Road (or just to walk down to Piccadilly Gardens). Just like the ones who come up on the VTWC and XC services terminating in the main trainshed.

There seems to be this quaint idea on here about people with old style suitcases in tow, no doubt carried by a porter for a fee. This just isn't how things are any more[1]. People don't like changing trains because of the stress/unreliability, which doesn't really apply to this kind of quick hop at the far end. Luggage these days is mostly convenient trolley cases and carrying it between trains simply is not an issue.

[1] In 1999 I did, aged 20, carry two such large, old-style suitcases from Newton le Willows (on the FNW London service) to Hamburg via London, Dover, Oostende and Liege on the way to my year studying abroad. I coped (without porters) because young people can cope with that sort of thing, it just isn't a problem unless they have a disability. But it's not 1999 - can you even still buy that kind of suitcase? With two large modern upright trolleys (or better one trolley plus a 90 litre rucksack) it would have been easy.

It was trolley cases I was thinking about. They may be convenient to their users but to everyone else they're a trip-hazard and a PITA.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jun 2019

61653 HTAFC said:
It was trolley cases I was thinking about. They may be convenient to their users but to everyone else they're a trip-hazard and a PITA.

How very dare people take luggage on a long distance train journey. Ban it at once!

61653 HTAFC · 11 Jun 2019

Bletchleyite said:
How very dare people take luggage on a long distance train journey. Ban it at once!

Please point out where I said that.

The pros and cons of various types of luggage might be better off in its own thread. I may start one if I'm bored later...

Bantamzen · 11 Jun 2019

Mogster said:
I seem to remember Leeds is in the middle of having its station upgraded costing 500m?

I'm not sure of the overall cost, but it will deliver one additional bay platform, a new clear roof & a redesigned concourse. A start but more is needed.

61653 HTAFC said:
There's a lot of long-distance travel to Oxford Road: the concert traffic could easily change at Piccadilly, less so the students with baggage and such.

To be honest given the complex journeys students make, getting a few hundred metres across Manchester isn't going to be the hardest of tasks. And they will only be moving with large items a few times a year.

Bletchleyite said:
The students will cope; they'll cope with getting the bus down to Fallowfield (or wherever) so they will cope with a change at Piccadilly to go back to Oxford Road (or just to walk down to Piccadilly Gardens). Just like the ones who come up on the VTWC and XC services terminating in the main trainshed.

There seems to be this quaint idea on here about people with old style suitcases in tow, no doubt carried by a porter for a fee. This just isn't how things are any more[1]. People don't like changing trains because of the stress/unreliability, which doesn't really apply to this kind of quick hop at the far end. Luggage these days is mostly convenient trolley cases and carrying it between trains simply is not an issue.

[1] In 1999 I did, aged 20, carry two such large, old-style suitcases from Newton le Willows (on the FNW London service) to Hamburg via London, Dover, Oostende and Liege on the way to my year studying abroad. I coped (without porters) because young people can cope with that sort of thing, it just isn't a problem unless they have a disability. But it's not 1999 - can you even still buy that kind of suitcase? With two large modern upright trolleys (or better one trolley plus a 90 litre rucksack) it would have been easy.

Take Manchester Piccadilly in it's current configuration. Now tip out all airport bound passengers, many onto P13/14 along with their luggage & add potentially 40% more (assuming the percentage of passengers using the train remains static, by no means certain) in the coming years, and finally add in all the commuters all trying to board or get off the trains, often in the peaks. Then explain how this will improve services with more people than ever battling to reach their services. Colour me cynical, but I see even more chaos, even more delays because of long dwells, more shouty red line misters, even more unhappiness than ever before. Surely given all the constraints, would it not be better to leave the wheelie suitcases on the trains rather than have them roaming free all around Piccadilly?

The reliability problems through Castlefield are not insurmountable. Admittedly it would probably be a good idea not to path any more services down there until further upgrades are in play, but just hoping you can pretend the problem will just go away because a couple of airport trains don't head that way is naive at best given all that we know. Manchester doesn't need the problem shifting from A to B, it needs more passenger capacity, longer trains, better use of the paths potentially available.

Bletchleyite said:
The only "fast long distance services" going through there are the Edinburghs/Glasgows. Others are regional expresses which do justify two stops to take people closer to where they are going.

And here again you are being naive. The reason TPE are going for the new units is to make their service much more of an inter-city one. Yes it will still carry regional commuters, but they will doubtless pitch their improved capacity, improved catering, First Class etc to longer distance passengers, in particular those heading to a certain airport you still convince yourself is just some glorified bucket & spade departure point. But don't take my word for it, watch this space!!!

option · 11 Jun 2019

cle said:
and at its end has the only major airport north of the M25 - a totally different purpose than Merseyrail, which is more like London Overground.

errrr

Edinburgh & Birmingham are >10m passengers
Glasgow is >9m
Newcastle is >5m
even Leeds-Bradford is 4m, & isn't far from a rail line

It's no good complaining about the over-dominance of London, if you then want to insist on Manchester doing the same to anywhere outside of the M25.

js1000 · 11 Jun 2019

The reality is that sooner or later the two platforms are going to have to be built to add resilience, even if the cost to benefit ratio isn't particularly high. Thankfully Network Rail have told Grayling that no feasible alternative exists and he should sign the TWAO forthwith.

js1000 · 11 Jun 2019

tbtc said:
We are in a strange position where there seems very little middle ground between the two solutions:

Spend hundreds of millions of pounds on additional infrastructure (not just 15/16 but you also need more platform capacity at the Airport if you want to provide suitable facilities for all of the terminating services, given that the 130m long 802s laying over for forty minutes every half hour - or the six coach 185s or the five coach 397s - aren't going to be able to share platforms with anything else), which will probably mean sending even more services down the Airport branch, because we never learn our lessons?

Stop obsessing with a lightly used (thirtysomething passengers per train) branch and instead tailor the services to match the infrastructure and everyday demand that we do have, so that we have fewer conflicting movements around Manchester and move to a simpler network of connecting services?

The Airport platform issue can be resolved by better management. Just run one Northern train past the Airport to Wilmslow then turn back at Wilmslow. The Northern 07:48 from Wilmslow to Liverpool already does this. If anyone wants to get to the airport they can change at Piccadilly or Heald Green and catch the next train which will be <10 minutes behind. I think 8tph could become 6tph quite easily if needs be as the TPE trains I see to the Airport are pretty light.

Although I have noticed they're building another excursion platform/siding opposite Longsight TMD so trains can turnback. Wouldn't surprise if this is in anticipation of increased cancellations for services to the Airport at Piccadilly due to insufficient platform capacity.

_toommm_ · 11 Jun 2019

js1000 said:
The Airport platform issue can be resolved by better management. Just run one Northern train past the Airport to Wilmslow then turn back at Wilmslow. The Northern 07:48 from Wilmslow to Liverpool already does this. If anyone wants to get to the airport they can change at Piccadilly or Heald Green and catch the next train which will be <10 minutes behind. I think 8tph could become 6tph quite easily if needs be as the TPE trains I see to the Airport are pretty light.

Although I have noticed they're building another excursion platform/siding opposite Longsight TMD so trains can turnback. Wouldn't surprise if this is in anticipation of increased cancellations for services to the Airport at Piccadilly due to insufficient platform capacity.

They're just resurfacing what was already there - it's being brought up to somewhat-near standard height with the yellow panels.

Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member