Those are very small passenger numbers. Edinburgh and Glasgow have both not justified dedicated rail investment, after plans were killed. Birmingham is lucky, like Gatwick. So the points remains - it's the only true airport of scale/significance outside of the London ones.
-
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
- Thread starter Rhydgaled
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Glenn1969
Established Member
Leeds/Bradford Airport has pushed for a rail link for some time but building a new line has been dismissed as too expensive. The latest proposal is for a parkway station 1 and a half miles away on the Harrogate line linked to the airport by bus
Greybeard33
Established Member
To clear Airport platform space for all four TPE trains to become 5- or 6-car, retaining the current turnaround times, it will be necessary to evict the TfW North Wales service as well as the Northern Liverpool via Warrington Central. The other Northern Airport services (Crewe, Blackpool and Barrow/Windermere), can timeshare platforms with the TPE trains.
The TfW could reverse in the Mayfield Loop, as it already does in the peaks, giving a same platform change for the Airport at Piccadilly.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
As in the old Longsight station platform? Or do you mean the short "staff platform" by the depot?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It did that all the time up to a few years ago.
Greybeard33
Established Member
There was a hard fought campaign to get Chester and N Wales direct services to the Airport, which eventually resulted in the ORR overruling the objections of Network Rail and TPE. Northern sided with ATW, as a sister Arriva company.
I thought the Wales trains only had a temporary agreement to run to the airport until some other planned changes happened at which point they would need to revert to Piccadilly
tbtc
Veteran Member
You don't need to make petty political points about tax cuts to win the argument.
But the current infrastructure around Manchester isn't being used efficiently.
I'm not talking about "scaling down" rail capacity around Manchester, just using the lines that we have to provide much better capacity than we currently have.
Why are we running so many short DMUs from the west into central Manchester, when we could be using the recent electrification expenses to insist that everything on the Preston - Manchester corridor is at least 150m long (say doubled up EMUs for a half hourly Blackpool - Manchester service as capacity busters, enabling some of the current Wigan/ Blackburn services to terminate at Bolton, given the frequent EMUs we'd have from Bolton to Manchester).
That's still no reason to run the Cleethorpes service through to the Airport every hour - when the service is lengthened later this year that'll be at least six coaches tied up (the current arrival at Piccadilly is seventy eight minutes before the same DMU departs Piccadilly back towards Cleethorpes). That's part of the problem that I have with the Airport - it's not "a convenient place to terminate trains" (as some people try to justify the lightly loaded services), it takes over an hour for some services to do the round trip and depart Piccadilly again.
The easy answer is that we should be running fewer trains (longer trains, but fewer trains). There's little benefit to putting a two coach DMU on a Manchester - Blackburn service if it gets overloaded by short distance Bolton passengers so that the Blackburn passengers struggle to get on board.
Eight coach trains on the Preston - Manchester corridor should be able to soak up large numbers of passengers, instead of all of the thirty/forty metre long services we currently have arriving into Manchester.
But why not run some services into Newton Heath to terminate (like currently happens at Mayfield sidings)? It's less than ten minutes beyond Victoria, you could do the staff swaps there, there's surely PNB facilities etc.
Same goes on the Stockport corridor btw - instead of running so many short services over the viaduct we should be looking at how to use the scarce paths best.
Gets my vote.
If the whole argument in favour of the plethora of Airport services is that "passengers prefer direct trains" then adding on a couple of minutes to provide the local stations on the branch with a reasonable level of service is a small price to pay. There's certainly spare seats on the Airport services (spare carriages at some times of the day!), the current local stations would get a better level of service if the line wasn't crowded with non-stop Airport services - I'd be happier if the services stopped at all of the local stations.
Agreed on both points. I'd rather that we terminated the Cleethorpes services at Piccadilly - it'd be annoying for people on their once-a-year-holiday but of genuine benefit to large numbers of daily commuters if the spared resources were used to increase the length of peak Sheffield - Manchester services.
Services around Manchester seem locked in a spiral of "asking for additional infrastructure to cope with an existing messy service pattern" and "using the capacity generated to throw even more short trains into the mix, thus making the timetable even less resilient".
If we built 15/16 then, once Bradford got its Airport service (the tenth on that corridor) there'd then be demands for Southport to get its one back, then Windermere and Barrow to each get a more regular one... nobody seems to want to tackle the actual root cause, just create even messier networks.
Good for them - they can pay for the necessary infrastructure improvements if they want their Airport to keep getting its three hundred-ish passengers per hour spread out over nine services per hour.
(I mean, surely all train services are going to help generate jobs and drive the economy)
IMHO Liverpool has a much better local rail network, because Liverpool has a much simpler set of timetables - nobody is trying to force through direct Ormskirk/Kirkby services to John Lennon Airport - the infrastructure is therefore used much more efficiently.
Agreed.
One of the themes in these threads is that people seem to want to complain about London dominating the rest of the UK but then come up with "solutions" that mean Manchester dominates the entire north instead.
I could understand the "everywhere must have a direct Manchester Airport link" if we closed all of the other airports in northern England (and central belt Scotland), but otherwise it just seems to be "we don't want London dominating us, but it's okay for Manchester to have all of the northern investment".
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Southport could have a Piccadilly service easily enough without any extra paths by reinstating what it had for years. Extend the hourly Wigan NW-Alderley Edge via Westhoughton service back to Southport and send the Victoria service to Kirkby instead of the present shuttle. I suspect were you to ask most Sandgrounders they would take just that hourly service on its own over 2tph to Victoria, and Kirkby line passengers would be happy too. Not doing this is just because of a stubborn desire to create a service for the Class 769s when there's plenty else they'd work for e.g. Buxton.
Barrow/Windermere should be served by a pair of 3-car 195s or 158s (absent bi-modes for which it'd be perfect) running hourly from the Airport to Lancaster and splitting/joining there. No extra path needed.
The long platform which I presume was the old Longsight platform. It's the one of the right hand side as you leave Piccadilly, which spans the full length of the CAF green building. I'll try and get a photo later....
Jozhua
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2019
- Messages
- 1,856
How about instead of forcing passengers to change, perhaps 2 carriage DMUs from two different services are coupled together into 4 carriage formations at stations like Bolton before heading into Manchester.
Could do the same for TPE services at Victoria, although the fact they will soon have a large veriaty of stock probably doesn't help with that idea, unless they can be coupled together.
Could do the same for TPE services at Victoria, although the fact they will soon have a large veriaty of stock probably doesn't help with that idea, unless they can be coupled together.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Petty political points? Are you serious? We are talking about a failure of this government to deliver a much needed infrastructure scheme, one that most in the industry clearly agree is urgently needed!
Do you ever absorb what others actually say on this? The ten Greater Manchester boroughs have a large stake in the Manchester Airport Group, well over 50% in fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAG_(airport_operator)
So Greater Manchester does pay for it, through taxation & central funding. I thought after making the ownership point goodness knows how many times over a myriad of threads this might have sunk in by now. Clearly not!!
But regardless, Greater Manchester is heavily invested in it's airport, has invested further and/or attracted additional external investment in a large scale expansion designed to increase traffic by anything up to 40%. And TPE with their extra capacity coming online soon will be focusing more effort on getting even more than that kind of growth onto their airport services. So like it not, the long distance airport services will continue because the major stakeholders need them to, and no amount of RUK complaining that it should be only served by some neat little local network will not change this. The daft thing in all this is that efforts to pressure the Minister into authorising the Castlefield corridor improvements seem to almost have scorn poured on them because some members here are so focused on getting their own way on the matter! Crazy!
cactustwirly
Established Member
Forgive me for being ignorant, but why is it actually needed?
Stations like St Pancras LL, manage ok, and that's far busier.
Seems like a waste of money to me, which could be better used finishing the GW electrification, quadrupling Wigston - Syston junctions, MML electrification etc
Stations like St Pancras LL, manage ok, and that's far busier.
Seems like a waste of money to me, which could be better used finishing the GW electrification, quadrupling Wigston - Syston junctions, MML electrification etc
We told were a month or so ago by that it was being done so that units could be stabled here overnight. Gone quiet since so dunno if that still stands
Killingworth
Established Member
The Manchester Airport destination issue is a difficult one to resolve now so many have got used to through trains. It would have been better to have this debate 10-20 years ago in the knowledge of how things have gone
I speak from Sheffield and my nearest station is Dore & Totley. The 4th most popular destination, after Piccadilly, Sheffield and Leeds, is the Airport. We only have 3 TPE direct trains to the Airport at morning commuting times (none on Sundays), but 6 to come back, 5 of those in the evenings (which is why Manchester is top).
I use the Northern stopping services most. Currently Northern are undercutting TPE on fares to Manchester for most of the day, especially at weekends when TPE can charge 4 times the Northern fare for a train departing 3 minutes later and taking 20 minutes longer. The result is that a significant number of stopping service users are accompanied by large suitcases clearly destined to or from the airport. This somewhat irritates walkers and cyclists for the Hope Valley, particularly all those struggling to get into weekend Pacers.
Too often TPE trains are being terminated at Piccadilly, so the direct service can require a change anyway.
However, here on the Hope Valley route we need more 6 car TPE services to Piccadilly, AND we need more peak hour 4 car Northern services as well. That needs more platform and tracks somewhere. 13 and 14 aren't involved in those movements but they certainly are for the East Midlands (and their successors) Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich service. Those trains mess up the overall service between Sheffield and Manchester and that's not the fault of East Midlands, their staff or their intended timetable - although it would help if they all had 4 coaches.
This morning's 7.14 TPE service from Sheffield was 3 coaches although booked for 6 and was rammed full. At Dore 100 may have been waiting. Those with reserved seats must have found it hard to get in the train let alone get a seat. At Piccadilly that train would only have 50 through passengers at most for the airport. It would pick up more in Manchester but 6 cars there and back is extravagant. Detaching the (non-existent today) front unit at Piccadilly would make better use of available stock. This morning some airport bound passengers may have had to get out and back in again to let others out!
The current congestion is restricting demand for rail travel to and from Manchester from all directions. I'd always use my car to the airport as things stand at present. I'd avoid travelling to Manchester at all in the rush hour if rail weren't available, and I'd avoid that if I could. Give us services that leave and arrive on time, and provide us with seats and we will see a 50% increase in passenger numbers from this side of the Pennines within 5-10 years. More trains needed. Yet more platforms.
15 and 16 is only the tip of the iceberg if wanting to get more onto rail.
I speak from Sheffield and my nearest station is Dore & Totley. The 4th most popular destination, after Piccadilly, Sheffield and Leeds, is the Airport. We only have 3 TPE direct trains to the Airport at morning commuting times (none on Sundays), but 6 to come back, 5 of those in the evenings (which is why Manchester is top).
I use the Northern stopping services most. Currently Northern are undercutting TPE on fares to Manchester for most of the day, especially at weekends when TPE can charge 4 times the Northern fare for a train departing 3 minutes later and taking 20 minutes longer. The result is that a significant number of stopping service users are accompanied by large suitcases clearly destined to or from the airport. This somewhat irritates walkers and cyclists for the Hope Valley, particularly all those struggling to get into weekend Pacers.
Too often TPE trains are being terminated at Piccadilly, so the direct service can require a change anyway.
However, here on the Hope Valley route we need more 6 car TPE services to Piccadilly, AND we need more peak hour 4 car Northern services as well. That needs more platform and tracks somewhere. 13 and 14 aren't involved in those movements but they certainly are for the East Midlands (and their successors) Liverpool - Nottingham - Norwich service. Those trains mess up the overall service between Sheffield and Manchester and that's not the fault of East Midlands, their staff or their intended timetable - although it would help if they all had 4 coaches.
This morning's 7.14 TPE service from Sheffield was 3 coaches although booked for 6 and was rammed full. At Dore 100 may have been waiting. Those with reserved seats must have found it hard to get in the train let alone get a seat. At Piccadilly that train would only have 50 through passengers at most for the airport. It would pick up more in Manchester but 6 cars there and back is extravagant. Detaching the (non-existent today) front unit at Piccadilly would make better use of available stock. This morning some airport bound passengers may have had to get out and back in again to let others out!
The current congestion is restricting demand for rail travel to and from Manchester from all directions. I'd always use my car to the airport as things stand at present. I'd avoid travelling to Manchester at all in the rush hour if rail weren't available, and I'd avoid that if I could. Give us services that leave and arrive on time, and provide us with seats and we will see a 50% increase in passenger numbers from this side of the Pennines within 5-10 years. More trains needed. Yet more platforms.
15 and 16 is only the tip of the iceberg if wanting to get more onto rail.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A significant rebuild of Victoria to add more platforms there (or reopening of Exchange) might well also prove necessary. Shame the Arena is in the way, but if it's needed that much compulsory purchase and building a new one out of the way might make sense!
Bantamzen
Established Member
Car parking at Manchester Airport is another matter, it can sometimes cost more than the cost of a package holiday for one. And then there are the drop-off charges, not to mention the congestion, especially when travelling from any kind of distance. I predict with a high degree of confidence that as capacity is realised onto TPEs network, airport passenger flow will grow beyond the 25% in a few short years it has thus far.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It's quite possible it will, but I would suspect greater growth into the city centres it serves. I do think TPE has substantial suppressed demand due to using it being such an unpleasant experience and having been ever since the 185s were introduced, having as they do far less seated capacity than the 3-car 158s they replaced. I fear the 5-car formations will still be inadequate.
Greybeard33
Established Member
Northern has already caved to pressure from Southport users by extending the Alderley Edge service to Southport in the peaks, with the Leeds via Brighouse and Atherton service terminating at Wigan NW instead. There are rumours that more services will be extended in the December timetable.
Unfortunately this service pattern requires the Alderley Edge service to interwork with the Blackburn via Burnley and Atherton service at Southport. While the Leeds service interworks with the Stalybridge via Bolton service at Wigan NW. As you say, Northern will probably be reluctant to use 769s on these long, hilly diagrams where they would be on diesel most of the time. This would kill the business case for Bolton to Wigan electrification.
I suspect Northern may seek to return the 769s to Porterbrook, rather than try to use them on other diesel routes such as Buxton.
No chance that Southport will be reduced to 1tph.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Well that last point is certainly one where we can agree. You only have to tune into the almost daily reports of the M62 being at a standstill somewhere between Manchester & Leeds to come to the conclusion that there is potentially a lot of suppressed demand for rail services as a result of only 3 car 185s. Once the extra capacity is released I firmly suspect that demand for both city centre to city centre, and airport traffic will grow very quickly.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Though that of course also means DMUs under the wires to Alderley Edge for a fairly long stretch.
How would the timings work with terminating it in the Stockport bay (is it long enough?) and running a separate EMU Picc-Alderley Edge?
What's the expected life of the arena before it falls due for replacement or major re-building in any case?
It might be easier to go for more platforms on what's left of the railway land just west of Victoria, where Exchange was built when the LNW decided it needed its own station. There seems to be enough space there, although there might need to be quite a bit of bridge renewal to get the space for decently long and straight platforms.
Doesn't the flogging off of so much of the old Victoria site now look like one of the major mistakes of the Great Contraction phase?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Most probably. It could easily have become the Hauptbahnhof for services from the west, but it was being run down with Piccadilly taking on all the importance.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
The joys of hindsight.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Indeed so. It's by no means the only one that wouldn't have been done had we known years ago what we know now, and probably not even the highest-impact one.
Maybe we should regret even more that Manchester Trinity was never built and a proper Hbf created. (Or maybe a rather better Stadtbahn should have been built in the 1840s.)
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The issue is more platforms than paths - 6 through platforms at Picc would solve it for good!
Greybeard33
Established Member
The Stockport bay (P3A) is not regularly used for good reason. The only access is to/from the Fast lines, so terminating services would restrict capacity through the station northern throat. Therefore all suburban services from Piccadilly to Stockport continue at least as far as Hazel Grove or Alderley Edge (which both have layover sidings each side of the main line) to terminate, even though they may be lightly loaded south of Stockport.
To maximise track capacity south from Piccadilly, it is better still to send through services from P13/P14 (or P15/P16!) to the Airport rather than Stockport. Then they do not cross the Fast lines at all (and it is a shorter distance than Alderley Edge).
I think the Airport platform issue is easily solvable if a combination of the three is achieved.
- Run more stoppers to Manchester Airport - potentially even above TSR requirements & including TPE services which wouldn't normally stop at these commuter stations. This will logically transfer "padding time" to the journey rather than using that time clogging up the Airport platforms. If a train is running late it can skip these stations and make up lost time.
- A service which goes to Wilmslow and skips the Airport altogether freeing platform capacity up. Make passengers change at Piccadilly or Heald Green.
- An additional siding near Piccadilly for greater flexibility if platforms at the Airport are full
The solution from an operational perspective is simple. The problem is parochial Northern councils complaining about losing their direct link to Manchester Airport & why politicians and the like should be kept as far away from transport matters as is possible.
- Run more stoppers to Manchester Airport - potentially even above TSR requirements & including TPE services which wouldn't normally stop at these commuter stations. This will logically transfer "padding time" to the journey rather than using that time clogging up the Airport platforms. If a train is running late it can skip these stations and make up lost time.
- A service which goes to Wilmslow and skips the Airport altogether freeing platform capacity up. Make passengers change at Piccadilly or Heald Green.
- An additional siding near Piccadilly for greater flexibility if platforms at the Airport are full
The solution from an operational perspective is simple. The problem is parochial Northern councils complaining about losing their direct link to Manchester Airport & why politicians and the like should be kept as far away from transport matters as is possible.
Greybeard33
Established Member
The MEN ran a story yesterday that the Arena is likely to go bust because of a secret Manchester City Council plan to build a new venue in Eastlands:
https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...ews/one-venues-going-fail-manchester-16414492
An opportunity to restore Manchester Victoria to its former glory?
- Status