Confused by TPE Rolling stock strategy?

[Bantamzen]

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).

<bangs head on desk, repeatedly>

This argument has been going around in circles for goodness knows how long. What you continue to ignore that Manchester Airport is not just some bucket and spade destination serving airport, but is a rapidly growing international airport serving a widening market. This is why the owners are investigating over a billion on adding considerable capacity, and when available will need effective ways of getting that additional flow to the airport. Part of that strategy, and increasingly so due to very limited road capacity potential, is the rail network, particularly that delivered by TPE who have been trying to build that market.

That one line suffers slightly compared to others in Greater Manchester in terms of not having the much desired S-Bahn style, clockface service is easily offset by the financial benefits having an expanding, international airport within it's boundaries and drawing much of the employment from it. Cut the long distance offerings and you will increase the footfall at the main stations, helping to increase the overcrowding and dwell times for all travelling through Manchester. Or worse still the demand falls off, moves to the road network and companies like TPE dial back their Manchester serving services in the long run.

I do get the impression that you would like Manchester airport be for Manchester people only, so maybe you need to take that issue up with their owners, which include the boroughs of Greater Manchester. In the meantime having direct services from those little hamlets like West Yorkshire & the
North East to the airport are actually quite useful, and despite the wishes of a handful on here seem set to continue. It is clearly a key part of TPE's strategy, and a key driver in their rolling stock decisions moving the franchise from a regional commuter to more full inter city one.

 

[Killingworth]

<bangs head on desk, repeatedly>

This argument has been going around in circles for goodness knows how long. What you continue to ignore that Manchester Airport is not just some bucket and spade destination serving airport, but is a rapidly growing international airport serving a widening market. This is why the owners are investigating over a billion on adding considerable capacity, and when available will need effective ways of getting that additional flow to the airport. Part of that strategy, and increasingly so due to very limited road capacity potential, is the rail network, particularly that delivered by TPE who have been trying to build that market.

That one line suffers slightly compared to others in Greater Manchester in terms of not having the much desired S-Bahn style, clockface service is easily offset by the financial benefits having an expanding, international airport within it's boundaries and drawing much of the employment from it. Cut the long distance offerings and you will increase the footfall at the main stations, helping to increase the overcrowding and dwell times for all travelling through Manchester. Or worse still the demand falls off, moves to the road network and companies like TPE dial back their Manchester serving services in the long run.

I do get the impression that you would like Manchester airport be for Manchester people only, so maybe you need to take that issue up with their owners, which include the boroughs of Greater Manchester. In the meantime having direct services from those little hamlets like West Yorkshire & the
North East to the airport are actually quite useful, and despite the wishes of a handful on here seem set to continue. It is clearly a key part of TPE's strategy, and a key driver in their rolling stock decisions moving the franchise from a regional commuter to more full inter city one.

In an ideal world every train would run to time and we'd not be disagreeing about this.

However, almost every time I'm at Piccadilly for my train to Sheffield there seems to be an Airport train being announced as X minutes late, delayed or cancelled. My journeys to and from the Airport this week, specifically to see what happens, resulted in having to change trains rather than taking the direct trains booked. And almost every Airport train listed on the boards was either late, delayed or cancelled. Piccadilly reflected the same for longer distance trains to the airport.

If we are to capture the full benefits of all these services feeding into the Airport hourly they have to become a lot more reliable.

It is not correct to say people will only book direct trains. A TPE direct service to Piccadilly may take 50 minutes from my station (currently only 3 services a day), yet for the rest of the day many take the Northern service taking over 70 minutes and change at Piccadilly where there's a frequent service to the Airport. Unfortunately they are not at regular 10, 15 or 20 minute intervals but at quite arbitary times as the timetable and knock on events combine to frustrate such a coherent and slick clock face operation.

We all know a big part of the problem is capacity throughout the rail network generally, but a lot is in the 10 miles around Piccadilly. Piccadilly can become congested now so when more trains are doubled in length and run late that's going to get worse. Through Platforms 15 and 16 seem to have been terminated.

Do we need to look at building Platforms 15 and 16 as East facing terminal platforms only, offering more options? Including an airport shuttle could be just one of them.

 

[Greybeard33]

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.

The May 2018 timetable introduced three extra hourly paths through Piccadilly P13/P14, a 33% increase from 9tph to 12tph including freight. And two of the additional trains were the TPE Middlesbrough - Airport and Newcastle - Airport services, which greatly increased the exposure of the corridor to imported delays. The current TPE mitigation measures are a temporary bodge, dependent on continued use of 3-car 185s to work Airport services, as I have previously pointed out on another thread:

The 10 minute turnrounds at the Airport, as implemented between May and December 2018, did not require double occupancy of platforms. A train arrived from Middlesbrough then departed back to Middlesbrough 10 minutes later. After another 20 minutes a train arrived from Newcastle, then departed back to Newcastle 10 minutes later, 20 minutes before the next arrival from Middlesbrough. So between the two services, a platform was only occupied for 20 minutes in every hour.

Now a unit arrives from Middlesbrough and occupies the inner half of a platform for 40 minutes before departing to Newcastle. Meanwhile a unit arrives from Newcastle and occupies the inner half of a different platform for 40 minutes before departing to Middlesbrough. So two platforms are each half-occupied for 40 minutes in every hour, and there are 10 minute overlaps when a Middlesbrough and Newcastle service are both in the station at the same time.

This only works because both services are being operated by 3-car 185s, leaving space for other short trains to use the outer half of the 200m platform during the turnround. The May 2018 timetable was designed to allow Mk5As to take over the Middlesbrough services and 802s to take over the Newcastles, but that is no longer possible under the current timetable.

TPE has not committed to retain the 40 minute Airport turnarounds and the split Leeds stopper beyond the December 2019 timetable change.

In the meantime having direct services from those little hamlets like West Yorkshire & the North East to the airport are actually quite useful, and despite the wishes of a handful on here seem set to continue. It is clearly a key part of TPE's strategy, and a key driver in their rolling stock decisions moving the franchise from a regional commuter to more full inter city one.

If TPE is to continue running its 4tph to the Airport using longer trains with single occupancy of platforms and intercity turnaround times, as far as I can see the Northern services to the Airport will have to be reduced to free up platform space. That will mean that some closer places, such as Liverpool, Preston, Lancaster, Blackpool, Chester and Crewe, will have to lose their direct Airport services in favour of the TPE services from Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland.

For the intercity portions of its Airport routes, TPE needs the higher capacity, intercity type, trains. But between Piccadilly and the Airport, these will just cart more fresh air to and fro and clog up the Airport platforms. Whereas Northern can work its Airport services with shorter trains and quicker turnarounds, so making better use of the limited platform capacity.

Given the current infrastructure limitations, both in the Castlefield corridor and at the Airport, might not the travelling public be best served overall if Northern provides all the services to the Airport, including direct services from Merseyside, Lancashire and Cheshire, with connections to TPE services at Piccadilly and Victoria?

 

[LittleAH]

<bangs head on desk, repeatedly>

This argument has been going around in circles for goodness knows how long. What you continue to ignore that Manchester Airport is not just some bucket and spade destination serving airport, but is a rapidly growing international airport serving a widening market. This is why the owners are investigating over a billion on adding considerable capacity, and when available will need effective ways of getting that additional flow to the airport. Part of that strategy, and increasingly so due to very limited road capacity potential, is the rail network, particularly that delivered by TPE who have been trying to build that market.

That one line suffers slightly compared to others in Greater Manchester in terms of not having the much desired S-Bahn style, clockface service is easily offset by the financial benefits having an expanding, international airport within it's boundaries and drawing much of the employment from it. Cut the long distance offerings and you will increase the footfall at the main stations, helping to increase the overcrowding and dwell times for all travelling through Manchester. Or worse still the demand falls off, moves to the road network and companies like TPE dial back their Manchester serving services in the long run.

I do get the impression that you would like Manchester airport be for Manchester people only, so maybe you need to take that issue up with their owners, which include the boroughs of Greater Manchester. In the meantime having direct services from those little hamlets like West Yorkshire & the
North East to the airport are actually quite useful, and despite the wishes of a handful on here seem set to continue. It is clearly a key part of TPE's strategy, and a key driver in their rolling stock decisions moving the franchise from a regional commuter to more full inter city one.

There's a massive office, manufacturing and even some residential development penciled in at the airport and rail is going to be highly used if it fills up. There will need to be some extra development at MIA to accommodate the trains needed to link the people who will work there.

 

[Killingworth]

There's a massive office, manufacturing and even some residential development penciled in at the airport and rail is going to be highly used if it fills up. There will need to be some extra development at MIA to accommodate the trains needed to link the people who will work there.

Fair enough, but does that require services to places like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Middlesbrough, and Cleethorpes? Surely Greybeard's suggestion of local Northern services to the airport has merit rather than adding extra long and almost empty trains into congested space, resulting in more delays?

It's not an easy debate when distant city rivalry plays a part.

 

[Bantamzen]

In an ideal world every train would run to time and we'd not be disagreeing about this.

However, almost every time I'm at Piccadilly for my train to Sheffield there seems to be an Airport train being announced as X minutes late, delayed or cancelled. My journeys to and from the Airport this week, specifically to see what happens, resulted in having to change trains rather than taking the direct trains booked. And almost every Airport train listed on the boards was either late, delayed or cancelled. Piccadilly reflected the same for longer distance trains to the airport.

If we are to capture the full benefits of all these services feeding into the Airport hourly they have to become a lot more reliable.

It is not correct to say people will only book direct trains. A TPE direct service to Piccadilly may take 50 minutes from my station (currently only 3 services a day), yet for the rest of the day many take the Northern service taking over 70 minutes and change at Piccadilly where there's a frequent service to the Airport. Unfortunately they are not at regular 10, 15 or 20 minute intervals but at quite arbitary times as the timetable and knock on events combine to frustrate such a coherent and slick clock face operation.

We all know a big part of the problem is capacity throughout the rail network generally, but a lot is in the 10 miles around Piccadilly. Piccadilly can become congested now so when more trains are doubled in length and run late that's going to get worse. Through Platforms 15 and 16 seem to have been terminated.

Do we need to look at building Platforms 15 and 16 as East facing terminal platforms only, offering more options? Including an airport shuttle could be just one of them.

I disagree, many people traveling to an airport will be put off by having to make multiple changes. Not only does it add time and hassle, but it adds extra risk in getting there in good time. Manchester Airport serves a very wide area of the country, much of which has frequencies of half hourly or less making time critical journeys more prone to risk of serious delay. The last thing people want in the case of delay is having to rush through a very busy station like Piccadilly.

The May 2018 timetable introduced three extra hourly paths through Piccadilly P13/P14, a 33% increase from 9tph to 12tph including freight. And two of the additional trains were the TPE Middlesbrough - Airport and Newcastle - Airport services, which greatly increased the exposure of the corridor to imported delays. The current TPE mitigation measures are a temporary bodge, dependent on continued use of 3-car 185s to work Airport services, as I have previously pointed out on another thread:

TPE has not committed to retain the 40 minute Airport turnarounds and the split Leeds stopper beyond the December 2019 timetable change.

If TPE is to continue running its 4tph to the Airport using longer trains with single occupancy of platforms and intercity turnaround times, as far as I can see the Northern services to the Airport will have to be reduced to free up platform space. That will mean that some closer places, such as Liverpool, Preston, Lancaster, Blackpool, Chester and Crewe, will have to lose their direct Airport services in favour of the TPE services from Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland.

For the intercity portions of its Airport routes, TPE needs the higher capacity, intercity type, trains. But between Piccadilly and the Airport, these will just cart more fresh air to and fro and clog up the Airport platforms. Whereas Northern can work its Airport services with shorter trains and quicker turnarounds, so making better use of the limited platform capacity.

Given the current infrastructure limitations, both in the Castlefield corridor and at the Airport, might not the travelling public be best served overall if Northern provides all the services to the Airport, including direct services from Merseyside, Lancashire and Cheshire, with connections to TPE services at Piccadilly and Victoria?

When the chord opened, TPE introduced two new trains per hour through the Castlefield corridor, and removed the Liverpool service diverting that via Victoria and Chat Moss. So in effect they took just one extra path in each direction every hour.

 

[Killingworth]

I disagree, many people traveling to an airport will be put off by having to make multiple changes. Not only does it add time and hassle, but it adds extra risk in getting there in good time. Manchester Airport serves a very wide area of the country, much of which has frequencies of half hourly or less making time critical journeys more prone to risk of serious delay. The last thing people want in the case of delay is having to rush through a very busy station like Piccadilly.

When the chord opened, TPE introduced two new trains per hour through the Castlefield corridor, and removed the Liverpool service diverting that via Victoria and Chat Moss. So in effect they took just one extra path in each direction every hour.

We don't disagree as much as you make out. I very clearly said that the long distance services need to be a lot more reliable. That's the problem. Too often travellers DO have to make unplanned changes at Piccadilly. That is stressful, especially when the train they're to change onto is probably also late.

Having TPE layovers at two different termini adds extra pressures, some of those planned and others ad hoc as situations develop. I don't have figures to prove anything, but every TPE service I've used at Piccadilly has had many more passengers boarding or leaving there than travelling through to, or from the airport. I've certainly seen large numbers boarding or leaving to and from the airport itself.

Organising things so level interchanges can be arranged between arriving long distance services and a fast airport shuttle would allow better use of inter-city stock and a dedicated regular shuttle. Having travelled between other city centres and their airports (like Oslo, Stockholm) by rail those recent successful transfer experiences leavecan impression.

But if reliability can be built in so that we can have a regular and punctual service that always gets all services to Manchester Airport when they're timetabled this becomes an academic debate.

 

[LittleAH]

Fair enough, but does that require services to places like Edinburgh, Glasgow, Middlesbrough, and Cleethorpes? Surely Greybeard's suggestion of local Northern services to the airport has merit rather than adding extra long and almost empty trains into congested space, resulting in more delays?

It's not an easy debate when distant city rivalry plays a part.

What about those in the future commuting to MIA from Preston, Leeds, Huddersfield etc? They'd want a direct express service.

Plus most Airport services are very busy to the airport at certain times of the day, coinciding with departures/arrivals. If anything you have to question if MIA needs so many Northern stoppers that don't serve the Styal line.

 

[kieron]

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.

175s don't use Sprinter differentials. There's a HST differential they can use between Rotherham and Swinton, but it's not long enough to make much difference. In any case, the original plan was that TfW were keeping the 175s until 2021, and I don't think they expect to lose them any sooner now. As Irish Rail are looking for trains in 2020, I don't think the 175s would help.

 

[Chester1]

175s don't use Sprinter differentials. There's a HST differential they can use between Rotherham and Swinton, but it's not long enough to make much difference. In any case, the original plan was that TfW were keeping the 175s until 2021, and I don't think they expect to lose them any sooner now. As Irish Rail are looking for trains in 2020, I don't think the 175s would help.

I meant if TPE trigger the option to replace 15 of the remaining 29, not the 22 going off lease between October this year and April next year. They are being replaced by the Mark Vs and 802s. The clause doesn't kick in until after the 175s go off lease. If they can't use sprinter differentials they won't be able to match 185 journey times. The other factor is whether TPE takeover Liverpool-Nottingham.

 

[Greybeard33]

I disagree, many people traveling to an airport will be put off by having to make multiple changes. Not only does it add time and hassle, but it adds extra risk in getting there in good time. Manchester Airport serves a very wide area of the country, much of which has frequencies of half hourly or less making time critical journeys more prone to risk of serious delay. The last thing people want in the case of delay is having to rush through a very busy station like Piccadilly.



When the chord opened, TPE introduced two new trains per hour through the Castlefield corridor, and removed the Liverpool service diverting that via Victoria and Chat Moss. So in effect they took just one extra path in each direction every hour.

Agreed TPE itself gained one net hourly path through the Castlefield corridor. But the two additional Northern paths were consequent to the TPE changes. The Chat Moss stopper was displaced from Victoria to make room for the three additional hourly TPE paths through that bottleneck. And an hourly service between the Airport and Preston via Golborne was added, to replace the Wigan North Western calls previously provided by the TPE Scottish service (this Northern service currently goes to Blackpool, but will switch to Lancaster/Barrow/Windermere from May).

So three additional paths through Piccadilly P13/P14 in total, as a consequence of the May 2018 Ordsall Chord changes.

 

[Greybeard33]

Plus most Airport services are very busy to the airport at certain times of the day, coinciding with departures/arrivals. If anything you have to question if MIA needs so many Northern stoppers that don't serve the Styal line.

Which "Northern stoppers"? From May the five hourly Northern services from the Airport will go to Liverpool via Warrington, Liverpool via Newton-le-Willows, Blackpool via Bolton and Preston, Lancaster/Barrow/Windermere via Wigan and Preston, and Crewe via Wilmslow. Is there evidence that any of these services carry fewer Airport passengers than TPE's?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about those in the future commuting to MIA from Preston, Leeds, Huddersfield etc? They'd want a direct express service.

Plus most Airport services are very busy to the airport at certain times of the day, coinciding with departures/arrivals. If anything you have to question if MIA needs so many Northern stoppers that don't serve the Styal line.

It's a terminus of convenience (Stockport being the only other possibility). The only ones I object to are the ones that don't need that as they could just terminate at Picc P1-4.

 

[Bantamzen]

We don't disagree as much as you make out. I very clearly said that the long distance services need to be a lot more reliable. That's the problem. Too often travellers DO have to make unplanned changes at Piccadilly. That is stressful, especially when the train they're to change onto is probably also late.

Having TPE layovers at two different termini adds extra pressures, some of those planned and others ad hoc as situations develop. I don't have figures to prove anything, but every TPE service I've used at Piccadilly has had many more passengers boarding or leaving there than travelling through to, or from the airport. I've certainly seen large numbers boarding or leaving to and from the airport itself.

I use them myself quite a bit too, and whilst you are right in that most people travelling in on TPEs leave in Manchester, my impression over the last few years is that there seem to be increasing numbers of people heading to & from the airport. Suitcases with 'MAN' labels on them are becoming much more common heading out of Manchester towards Yorkshire & the North East. The services might not be full to bursting arriving at & leaving the airport as some seem to demand to justify the service, but they are certainly not empty either.

Organising things so level interchanges can be arranged between arriving long distance services and a fast airport shuttle would allow better use of inter-city stock and a dedicated regular shuttle. Having travelled between other city centres and their airports (like Oslo, Stockholm) by rail those recent successful transfer experiences leavecan impression.

There's no doubt that some airports have really good, dedicated services for their associated cities. However as we all know, the UK isn't exactly a world leader in spending hundreds of millions in such a service. If anything we are moving in the opposite direction, with dedicated airport services slowly being made regional & commuter services that happen to also serve an airport. So there is in my opinion precious little chance of any TOC / ROSCO investing in a dedicated Manchester Shuttle. Goodness knows it has taken some 15 years to reach the point where the North's "inter city" service TPE is finally going to have stock that actually looks like an inter city service, and not just high powered regional DMUs. Plus as I've said previously, this is a new market that is being grown. Tipping people off at Piccadilly, or even worse Victoria to connect onto a dedicated shuttle no matter how nice isn't going to grow that market. And long distance growth, including airport travel is what TPE are going to need to pay for and justify the not inconsiderable investment they are making in agreeing to the leasing of the Nova classes.

But if reliability can be built in so that we can have a regular and punctual service that always gets all services to Manchester Airport when they're timetabled this becomes an academic debate.

I have to say that in the last few months, airport services that I have been on (albeit alighting in Manchester) have by & large passed through the Castlefield corridor just about on time & without any problems. That's not to say there are no problems remaining, clearly delays still occur. But even just from a casual observation some obvious solutions can be applied easily, such as longer units (which is on its way for many services) to reduce dwell time in the corridor and improving reliability away from Manchester such as splitting the Huddersfield stoppers. Others that would clearly help would be digital signalling, upgrading Oxford Road to four accessible platforms and using two in each direction permanently, and of course the upgrade to Piccadilly by building P15/16.

 

[Philip]

In terms of the market for Airport growth, this is very questionable in itself now with air pollution and climate change becoming ever increasing concerns. Direct Airport services from far away cities is a luxury in rail travel, not a necessity. It is a necessity to provide long enough trains in the peak time to allow people to get to work reliably, with as few instances of leaving passengers behind as possible and as little delay as possible.

If some strategic review of the whole situation found that rail congestion and capacity around Manchester would be greatly eased/improved by reducing or cutting all direct services to the Airport from beyond Manchester Piccadilly and replacing with say a half-hourly reliable Piccadilly-Airport shuttle, then it would be stupid not to at least consider going down this route. People couldn't reach Man Airport by train at all before 1995, never mind having to make an easy change, but they still managed!

 

[Bantamzen]

In terms of the market for Airport growth, this is very questionable in itself now with air pollution and climate change becoming ever increasing concerns. Direct Airport services from far away cities is a luxury in rail travel, not a necessity. It is a necessity to provide long enough trains in the peak time to allow people to get to work reliably, with as few instances of leaving passengers behind as possible and as little delay as possible.

If some strategic review of the whole situation found that rail congestion and capacity around Manchester would be greatly eased/improved by reducing or cutting all direct services to the Airport from beyond Manchester Piccadilly and replacing with say a half-hourly reliable Piccadilly-Airport shuttle, then it would be stupid not to at least consider going down this route. People couldn't reach Man Airport by train at all before 1995, never mind having to make an easy change, but they still managed!

Again, Manchester Airport (owned partially by the GM boroughs) is expanding. Reduce rail capacity, then passengers will take to the roads making the problem worse not better. Rail based solutions for moving quickly and effectively those passengers is the better approach than trying to suppress it. The road capacity towards Greater Manchester hasn't grown significantly and still suffers almost daily congestion problems meaning that increasing traffic for the airport will only make things worse still. So for those stakeholders in the GM area is which would you prefer, direct trains from around the North through to the airport, more traffic on the roads, or rip up the billion pound expansion & take the economic as well as job generation hit.

There are relatively simple ways to improve things, some of which h have been done or will be soon. Simply ripping up the investment into the Ordsall Chord and the plan of having long distance services operate to the airport, whilst a very British solution in the 21st century will not resolve the problems of getting anything up to 55 million* people a year to the airport. Encouraging more passengers to use the rail network will.

(* projected passenger figures pose expansion)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

For comparison, Munich Airport gets 6tph S-bahn services (3tph via two different routes).
All are stoppers with 8+ stations on each route.

Vienna Airport gets 8tph.
2tph are long distance RJ services from across Austria via Wien Hbf, 2tph are dedicated City Airport Trains, non-stop to the centre.
4tph are local S-bahn trains crossing Vienna on two different routes.

Both airports are, I suggest, more significant in regional and international passenger terms than Manchester.
You can get though tickets to the airports from all parts of Germany/Austria and beyond (usually the same fare as the city centre station).
All the trains are decent length electric services (6-8 car) - no pootling 2-car DMUs.
Manchester seems to have overcomplicated everything.

 

[coppercapped]

In terms of the market for Airport growth, this is very questionable in itself now with air pollution and climate change becoming ever increasing concerns. Direct Airport services from far away cities is a luxury in rail travel, not a necessity. It is a necessity to provide long enough trains in the peak time to allow people to get to work reliably, with as few instances of leaving passengers behind as possible and as little delay as possible.

If some strategic review of the whole situation found that rail congestion and capacity around Manchester would be greatly eased/improved by reducing or cutting all direct services to the Airport from beyond Manchester Piccadilly and replacing with say a half-hourly reliable Piccadilly-Airport shuttle, then it would be stupid not to at least consider going down this route. People couldn't reach Man Airport by train at all before 1995, never mind having to make an easy change, but they still managed!

If Britain were not an island, I might (only 'might', mark you!) agree with you concerning air traffic. Unless you are arguing that people shouldn't move around so much.

But it is an island - and air travel is the only effective way to reach places 'abroad' in a reasonable time and for a reasonable cost. Some understanding of the business is needed and one thing is clear, the volume of domestic air travel is small compared to that where planes puts water under their wings. This is why air traffic continues to grow. This being the case then making it possible for these passengers to reach the airport by train rather than road is to most people's benefit.

The supply of sufficient rail capacity to get people to work and back each day is a slightly different debate.

 

[mpthomson]

For comparison, Munich Airport gets 6tph S-bahn services (3tph via two different routes).
All are stoppers with 8+ stations on each route.

Vienna Airport gets 8tph.
2tph are long distance RJ services from across Austria via Wien Hbf, 2tph are dedicated City Airport Trains, non-stop to the centre.
4tph are local S-bahn trains crossing Vienna on two different routes.

Both airports are, I suggest, more significant in regional and international passenger terms than Manchester.
You can get though tickets to the airports from all parts of Germany/Austria and beyond (usually the same fare as the city centre station).
All the trains are decent length electric services - no pootling 2-car DMUs.
Manchester seems to have overcomplicated everything.

Munich is significantly larger in terms of passsenger than Mcr which is itself slightly larger than Vienna’s passenger numbers.

 

[coppercapped]

For comparison, Munich Airport gets 6tph S-bahn services (3tph via two different routes).
All are stoppers with 8+ stations on each route.

Vienna Airport gets 8tph.
2tph are long distance RJ services from across Austria via Wien Hbf, 2tph are dedicated City Airport Trains, non-stop to the centre.
4tph are local S-bahn trains crossing Vienna on two different routes.

Both airports are, I suggest, more significant in regional and international passenger terms than Manchester.
You can get though tickets to the airports from all parts of Germany/Austria and beyond (usually the same fare as the city centre station).
All the trains are decent length electric services - no pootling 2-car DMUs.
Manchester seems to have overcomplicated everything.

There are plans afoot to add new connections and chords to existing lines near the Munich airport to enable it to serve its hinterland more effectively by rail, rather than just the (painfully slow) S-Bahn to the city centre. (I used to work in Munich and the travel time by S-Bahn from the airport to the stop near my flat near Pasing - including one change - was /longer/ than the flight time from Heathrow... Ugh!).

The first of these new sections opened in December 2018, the so-called Neufahrner Kurve. See this report (in German - but Google is your friend!)

 

[hozza94]

There are plans afoot to add new connections and chords to existing lines near the Munich airport to enable it to serve its hinterland more effectively by rail, rather than just the (painfully slow) S-Bahn to the city centre. (I used to work in Munich and the travel time by S-Bahn from the airport to the stop near my flat near Pasing - including one change - was /longer/ than the flight time from Heathrow... Ugh!).

I was visiting Munich on holiday in September last year and was going from Frankfurter Ring U Bahn to the airport... MY GOD it was slow!