Impact of platform staffing arrangements on performance of the 'Castlefield Corridor'

[Starmill]

some questions raised by above comments..
I thought the railway had a system that says what unit was on what working. TOPS & TRUST?
So the system knows the 0948 leeds-carlisle is worked by 158043 and 155005 (Made those numbers and times up.)
Does the system know if 155005 is leading or trailing?
And does it know which way round 158043 is? I would assume it will know that 158043's engine size, and other characteristics.. and whether its a 3 car unit.
It will also know that this train will form the 1106 from Carlisle, so all the data on the train is reversed.
If not this data isnt in the database, why not? Would this data be so hard to capture?
LT used to designate the ends of trains as A and B so they knew which way round they were. Is this done currently on National rail?

Once that data is available for each working, its not beyond the abilities of a software developer to have relevant formation data for the PIS for use of passengers and staff, and to signallers.

I am pretty sure that almost all of these data are already available for those granted access. Each vehicle number should be uploaded?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your revised service pattern proposal would reduce the frequency through P13/14 from 12tphpd to 10tphpd (including freight). Passenger flows from these platforms to Scotland, Chester/Wales, Sheffield/Nottingham and Wilmslow/Alderley Edge would be diverted to Victoria or the main shed. This would undoubtedly reduce the platform crowding.

You could add two more, or possibly even more than that (after all, Thameslink manages 1-2 minute headways at busy times, and the Tube copes) - the fundamentals of the idea weren't specifically which services were involved, but that all services using the platforms need:-

1. To be formed of the same type of stock with the doors in the same positions, so these can be marked on the platform. The length could vary (3 or 6 car) but the doors need to be in exactly the same places. 331 vs 195 doesn't matter as the bodies are the same.

2. To be formed of stock with standbacks at the doors etc and doors at thirds to allow for fast circulation.

3. To be formed of stock long enough for the loadings. Standees to be expected at busy times, but crush-loads slow things down too much and so are not acceptable. Dwells of shorter than one minute need to be achievable at 5:30pm - if they're not, redesign the stock having gone and stood at City Thameslink or St Pancras for a couple of hours around that time.

4. Not to have seat reservations, they cause faffing particularly if the formation is wrong.

5. Not to have First Class, or if it does have First Class for the position to be consistent and not possible to affect by a reverse formation, i.e. having it at both ends of each unit even if you declassify one end as Thameslink does.

Fundamentally, the only way to operate a high capacity, high frequency service through platforms like that is to make it like Thameslink, which achieves this in an exemplary manner.

Unfortunately, that means TPE and TfW are out - they are not compatible with this kind of operation. Northern Connect may also not be if they insist on having reservations, though at present while the kit is there they appear not to have.

 

[Ken H]

I am pretty sure that almost all of these data are already available for those granted access. Each vehicle number should be uploaded?

so how hard would it be to interface that to the PIS?

 

[Bantamzen]

Fundamentally, the only way to operate a high capacity, high frequency service through platforms like that is to make it like Thameslink, which achieves this in an exemplary manner.

Unfortunately, that means TPE and TfW are out - they are not compatible with this kind of operation. Northern Connect may also not be if they insist on having reservations, though at present while the kit is there they appear not to have.

I was going to comment on the rest of your points until I got to here, but then you completely spoilt it all. You can't just ignore TPE (or indeed any other long distance operator for that matter) just to satisfy your dream operation. Manchester's infrastructure is what it is, there is simply no chance of this ever happening without a new alignment, which in itself is very unlikely. Sorry to bring you back down to Earth with a bump, but that's how it is. Perhaps the Manc-Bahn suggestions ought to be confined to the Speculation sub-forum, because no-one away from this site, and perhaps Andy Burnham's office are even thinking along this line. There are often allegations of over use of Crayola on these forums, but this is like an explosion at the Crayola factory!

Realistically, Manchester has an extensive tram network and needs to move forward in expanding this to meet the needs of the local commuters. Then the heavy rail network needs some simple rationalisation, services from the north west of the city operate through Victoria towards Rochdale & Stalybridge (with the exception of the Scotland / Preston operations), & services from Merseyside & Wales to operate through Piccadilly to destinations beyond (some serving the airport obviously), and keep paths for the two (yes just your two which serve a number of large population areas beyond Manchester) TPEs to operate to the airport. At the same time sort out multi-modal ticketing so that a Manchester Stations ticket is valid on Metrolink throughout the central area of Manchester, allowing passengers travelling from beyond the light rail network to complete their journeys via it, rather than expecting every local all shack service serve every other part of Greater Manchester.

Manchester has had a pretty good deal public transport wise, but it still is a major thoroughfare for longer distance services. And the growing demand from those passengers passing through Manchester, be it to the small Aerodrome on the outskirts, to the village of the Pool of Liver, or to other tiny hamlets in Lancashire & Cheshire, needs to be met. Manchester for all it being the centre of the known universe (save perhaps places along the even more important Styal Line), can't dominate the rail infrastructure built for everyone. Sorry.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was going to comment on the rest of your points until I got to here, but then you completely spoilt it all. You can't just ignore TPE (or indeed any other long distance operator for that matter) just to satisfy your dream operation.

Then other than building platforms 15/16 or an alternative diversionary line (e.g. underground - a proper S-Bahn-Manchester!) then there is going to be no fixing it. Those principles (the ones used by Thameslink, which is quite a bit more than an S-Bahn given that the two ends of the route are well over a hundred miles apart) are the only way you can make that platform deal with the numbers of trains and people they have.

You surely can't prefer the present mess, if 15/16 is not approved?

You surely can't favour that mess over people having to make one simple change onto a Class 195 operated service at Victoria to get to the airport a couple of times a year? (Commuters to the Airport are of no relevance to TPEs from Newcastle - they might be from Stalybridge, but my proposal retained 2tph Class 195s from there to the Airport).

 

[hwl]

You could add two more, or possibly even more than that (after all, Thameslink manages 1-2 minute headways at busy times, and the Tube copes) - the fundamentals of the idea weren't specifically which services were involved, but that all services using the platforms need:-

1. To be formed of the same type of stock with the doors in the same positions, so these can be marked on the platform. The length could vary (3 or 6 car) but the doors need to be in exactly the same places. 331 vs 195 doesn't matter as the bodies are the same.

2. To be formed of stock with standbacks at the doors etc and doors at thirds to allow for fast circulation.

3. To be formed of stock long enough for the loadings. Standees to be expected at busy times, but crush-loads slow things down too much and so are not acceptable. Dwells of shorter than one minute need to be achievable at 5:30pm - if they're not, redesign the stock having gone and stood at City Thameslink or St Pancras for a couple of hours around that time.

4. Not to have seat reservations, they cause faffing particularly if the formation is wrong.

5. Not to have First Class, or if it does have First Class for the position to be consistent and not possible to affect by a reverse formation, i.e. having it at both ends of each unit even if you declassify one end as Thameslink does.

Fundamentally, the only way to operate a high capacity, high frequency service through platforms like that is to make it like Thameslink, which achieves this in an exemplary manner.

Unfortunately, that means TPE and TfW are out - they are not compatible with this kind of operation. Northern Connect may also not be if they insist on having reservations, though at present while the kit is there they appear not to have.

The best example to look at is the new P8/9 and P6/7 platform islands at London Bridge (the Charing Cross Platforms) each island handles 28tph (per direction) in the peak with just a single track away from the station and the trains are all 8-12car so the time taken to clear the platforms is longer than passenger services P13/14.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The best example to look at is the new P8/9 and P6/7 platform islands at London Bridge (the Charing Cross Platforms) each island handles 28tph (per direction) in the peak with just a single track away from the station and the trains are all 8-12car so the time taken to clear the platforms is longer than passenger services P13/14.

Agreed. The point is that it can be done (and compared to those examples 13/14 carry almost no passengers and have an infrequent train service) - but it simply will never work with inadequate capacity, stock not designed for fast circulation, seat reservations, formations all over the place and so on. Everywhere it works it follows those same basic principles.

As far as I see it, there are only 3 viable options, and making tweaks to how the shouters work will not make the blindest bit of practical difference. You can:

1. Change it to a Thameslink like high frequency regional service with appropriate, uniform rolling stock and routes. Classes 195 and 331 offer a unique opportunity here as the 3-car DMU and EMU versions are basically identical other than what's on the underframe and roof. Send the ICs somewhere else (Vic or the main trainshed).

2. Build 15/16 or some other parallel line that allows a significant service reduction on the line, perhaps to something like 6tphpd with trains scheduled for a 5 minute dwell time and a 5 minute gap between them. Edit: to be reliable, operation of 15-16 should follow this kind of principle - 6tph per direction per platform with 5 minute dwells scheduled.

3. Put up with the mess for another 20 years, and keep the car and diesel bus nice and popular because you can't accommodate the passengers you have, yet alone those driving along the Mancunian Way.

I'd prefer #2, but if that's out it has to be #1.

#3 cannot be the long-term choice. It is simply unworkable and destroys rail in Greater Manchester.

@Bantamzen can you propose a fourth option? It seems not?

 

[Bantamzen]

Then other than building platforms 15/16 or an alternative diversionary line (e.g. underground - a proper S-Bahn-Manchester!) then there is going to be no fixing it. Those principles (the ones used by Thameslink, which is quite a bit more than an S-Bahn given that the two ends of the route are well over a hundred miles apart) are the only way you can make that platform deal with the numbers of trains and people they have.

You surely can't prefer the present mess, if 15/16 is not approved?

You surely can't favour that mess over people having to make one simple change onto a Class 195 operated service at Victoria to get to the airport a couple of times a year? (Commuters to the Airport are of no relevance to TPEs from Newcastle - they might be from Stalybridge, but my proposal retained 2tph Class 195s from there to the Airport).

But this is not Thameslink. I do agree that P15/16 is a must, I just wish someone in power (<cough> Mr Burnham <splutter>) had the desire to really lobby and push for this. But tipping increasing numbers of long distance passengers, complete with luggage, kids etc on the wrong side of the city is not going to help matters. Quite the opposite, it is going to increase dwell times in Victoria, cause delays for local services across the chord and onto the Castlefield corridor. Remember, and goodness knows how many times I have raised this, the airport is aiming to massively increase it's flows from something like 30 million to 50 million. And a lot more of those people are going to arrive via rail, especially given that airport parking & drop off charges require a small mortgage taking out.

Meanwhile Manchester still has momentum on it's tram network, with further options to expand. So logically the best path forward is to get as much Metrolink expansion as possible, sort out mutli-modal ticketing for punters arriving on the heavy rail network, and use the latter to move more long distance punters into and through the city. Economically, having more "not local" people using the airport, or passing through the city to other destinations still helps the local economy. Think about all those lovely Yorkshire, Welsh, Scottish and North East pounds that can flow in, and help fund even more expansion for the city's rather extensive public transport network. Maybe it will even one day fund MancCrossRail & MancBahn! (Copyright pending)

Failing that, shut the airport, give Leeds & Bradford the cash so we can develop our little airport to take over from Manchester, and we'll build a West Yorkshire tram network! We'll snatch yer bliddy hand off!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

----- the airport is aiming to massively increase it's flows from something like 30 million to 50 million. And a lot more of those people are going to arrive via rail, especially given that airport parking & drop off charges require a small mortgage taking out.

EXACTLY. A new terminal is being built in Manchester and even if you cut short haul down traffic will grow. The Motorway is as congested as hell and picking up and dropping off is now expensive as you mention and also not convenient. Rail will feature and I am sure that is the policy. It does not matter if we like it or not, those trains in the main will go through the Castlefield corridor. Something needs to happen IF - we are serious about decarbonizing.

 

[Killingworth]

I'm sure the train makers will love the idea of all the orders to be placed by the current TOCs for new stock, all to be configured identically as we see on Thameslink, etc. That would be an enormously expensive project possibly taking 20 years. In the meantime there'd be need to redeploy a mixed bag of units, some of which have yet to be delivered.

There's no magic fix. Network Rail and the TOCs live with it every day and should already be aware of the options that might help. Like some of the following;

• Platforms 15/16 would reduce, but not totally eliminate, the long term issue because traffic levels are increasing
  
• We need to reduce the number of trains when possible, but avoid starting any more services at peak times.
• Add more carriages. Crowded units take longer to load and unload. Carriages with spare seats load and unload more quickly than sardine cans. A current feature is trains with users standing by the doors having to get out to allow others off, then having to get back in again. That also happens at Oxford Road, Stockport and elsewhere adding further delays through the core.
  
• Signalling and control. Work on ways so one train can be followed more closely by the next, almost bumper to bumper to add more line capacity.
  
• More space needed on trains to position large items of luggage, other than blocking doorways! Airport bound trains in particular.
  
• Make sure more trains arrive on time and in the right order
  
• Make franchises longer and give TOCs incentives for longer term planning.
• We're getting rid of Pacers, now concentrate on units having walk through connectivity the full length of the train.

Of course simplifying loads so all passengers were slim, nimble, well informed, wide awake, focussed on trains, electronic devices out of hands, earphones removed and stood away from doors to allow others to alight would be great.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure the train makers will love the idea of all the orders to be placed by the current TOCs for new stock, all to be configured identically as we see on Thameslink, etc. That would be an enormously expensive project possibly taking 20 years.

Yer wot? By using Classes 195 and 331 on these services and using other classes on services not passing through there (e.g. Class 158 on non-Castlefield Northern Connect services) I reckon there's already enough, or at most you'd want to extend the 2-car 195s to 3, that's not that much stock. With doors at thirds and wide circulation areas Classes 193 and 331 are already pretty much suitable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

More space needed on trains to position large items of luggage, other than blocking doorways

The largest item of luggage I own, a 120 litre rucksack (think Army Bergen size), fits easily on the overhead of a Class 195 - also deeply enough that there's no risk of it falling on peoples' heads. Perhaps it's time we made more of a point that people should actually be using this space - rarely is it full, but the luggage is instead found blocking standbacks, door areas and the cycle space, on seats and in front of peoples' knees in table bays blocking the person opposite's leg and foot room - all the places where it should not be.

Having said that, Thameslink 700s have a vertical rack in every other standback, this would be a sensible retrofit to the Northern units.

 

[Killingworth]

The largest item of luggage I own, a 120 litre rucksack (think Army Bergen size), fits easily on the overhead of a Class 195 - also deeply enough that there's no risk of it falling on peoples' heads. Perhaps it's time we made more of a point that people should actually be using this space - rarely is it full, but the luggage is instead found blocking standbacks, door areas and the cycle space, on seats and in front of peoples' knees in table bays blocking the person opposite's leg and foot room - all the places where it should not be.

Having said that, Thameslink 700s have a vertical rack in every other standback, this would be a sensible retrofit to the Northern units.

The size of some of the cases being lugged around by air travellers is massive. Rigid 4 wheels and frequently taking up half a 185 doorway. Should have to pay a surcharge and put it in the guards van - ah, we don't have them any more. No way they'll go overhead or in the racks provided either.

 

[timothyw9]

Platform 14 -Generally speaking is largely only affected by Styal line issues (signal/points failure, trespass/suicidal individuals etc) and congestion at Slade Lane Jn/services from Stockport having to cross the throat of Piccadilly to join 13/14. This platform is generally very busy and rather poorly laid out. I personally agree with the positioning of the red line as it allows for passengers alighting trains to have space to actually get off and for wheelchair users to be able to get down the platform safely (given the uncertainty of where the door for the ramp will be on any given service). The location of the stairs is somewhat a nightmare as when the platform is crowded with passengers wishing to board services and a large amount of passengers alighting the train they will invariably end up walking behind them on Platform 13b, often over the yellow line - with many people oblivious to the fact there may a train hurtling towards them at 20mph towards Platform 13.
Whilst the trains definitely need a larger capacity to reduce dwell times, 2-3 minutes is achievable fairly easily - longer dwell times are more often caused by passengers dwindling at a busy door when others are empty or standing near the train when they do not wish to board (blocking the dispatch corridor).

Platform 13 - Trains on this platform are severely affected by congestion along the Castlefield Corridor - with trains converging onto the double track section between Deansgate and Piccadilly from Cornbrook(Castlefield), Windsor Link, Irwell Street Junction/Ordsall Lane Junction and Water Street Junction (Ordsall Chord) inevatibly should a train be even slightly delayed, gridlock occurs and signalling trains from this rather dense area of multiple lines joining the Castlefield Corridor becomes quite a mess. This tends to lead to cumulative delays which begin to affect the wider network causing further delays. Today was probably a prime example as almost everything through Platform 13 between 3-7pm was delayed in the range of about 20-30 minutes. Ultimately these delays can then pass on to trains that work services back from the Airport due to late-turnaround, missed paths, missed breaks etc.

With regards to platform staff - the "shouters" - I believe are a necessary evil - as without them, the platform (14 in particular) can become very chaotic and unsafe - just visit Platform 14 on a Sunday around 9-10am when they aren't there, whilst some people use their common sense and stand/walk in a safe position, some will walk or stand near the edge of the platforms with no regard for their own safety.
Arguably the way Network Rail subcontracts for this role is completely inadequate. Whilst their have been some knowledgeable and sociable staff doing this role - the nature of using an agency to provide staff leads to poor training, poor work ethic, low morale and high turnover. If Network Rail were to hire and train staff themselves then it would be less of an issue. Having staff with a good knowledge of the timetable on the platforms and connections that can be made would more than likely lead to less confused and frustrated passengers on the platform, leading to a better customer experience.

I do personally believe 15/16 and better signalling would be essential in solving the issue of congestion along the corridor, with services being able to arrive in quick succession and depending on the line they use; depart at the same time- on one occasion the signaller has put the 47 Hazel Grove on 13 and the 51 Airport on 14b - both had the signal to depart at the same time as they were going on to different lines - this leading to reduced congestion on the corridor and minimised delays.

Four-tracking between Oxford Road and Piccadilly with P15/16 would be the perfect solution as this would ease the would ease the congestion around Cornbrook Jn & Water Street Jn.

On another note; with regards to the boards in the waiting lounge upstairs, Network Rail could really do with finding a solution to the way trains that depart from the "b" platforms are advertised as they say "go to Platform 14" when actually for a train that is departing from Platform 14b you would need to effectively be on Platform 13. The 0750 TPE service to Manchester Airport which is booked to depart from 14b and the 0750 TFW service to Holyhead is a prime example of this issue as invariably anyone who does not frequently use these services (tourists) will be stood on the wrong platform. Heck evening adding signage on the bridge level giving directions to the B platforms would be better than nothing.

 

[sheff1]

The largest item of luggage I own, a 120 litre rucksack (think Army Bergen size), fits easily on the overhead of a Class 195 - also deeply enough that there's no risk of it falling on peoples' heads. Perhaps it's time we made more of a point that people should actually be using this space - rarely is it full, but the luggage is instead found blocking standbacks, door areas and the cycle space, on seats and in front of peoples' knees in table bays blocking the person opposite's leg and foot room - all the places where it should not be.

I'm afraid I do not know how big an Army Bergen is, neither do I know what a Class 195 is. What I do know is that, for example, the Chinese students who travel in large numbers between Manchester Airport and their university accommodation in Sheffield cannot fit their luggage (which is of a size one would expect for people moving to the opposite side of the world for lengthy periods) into the vertical racks, never mind the overhead ones, on the current trains. If the Class 195s are the replacement trains and can accommodate these, and similar, passengers then that can only be an improvement.

Of course, if the direct trains between the Airport and Sheffield are truncated, which seems to be one suggestion on here, then more people with large luggage will be joining the throngs on P13/14.

 

[Starmill]

If the Class 195s are the replacement trains and can accommodate these, and similar, passengers then that can only be an improvement.

Class 195s, which work on Northern routes from Manchester Airport and elsewhere (that is, not towards Sheffield), don't have any luggage stacks.

 

[tomuk]

Network Rail have issued a report (first of two reports) into the congestion on the Castlefield Corridor and it basically says that the services as promised in the Northern and TPE franchises are impossible to run reliably.
Issues it identifies (aside from Piccadilly) are:

• Sectional Running times - are currently too short. Trains cannot run are quickly as timetabled - dwell times - defensive driving policy
• Oxford Road - If trains are longer than 4x20m ie 2x150 or 1x319 only two of four platforms can be used.
• Salford Crescent/Salford Central/Victoria - lack of lines/crossovers to allow parallel moves across junctions. Trains coming of Ordsall Chord can 'lock' up Ordsall Lane/Windors Bridge Jncs.
• Manchester Airport - Currently can serve more than one train (4x150) on same platform if train length increase not enough platforms

Aside from various infrastructure improvements (Rebuild Oxford road to 4 platforms with centre turnback, rebuild Salford Cresent to 4 platforms with four tracks to Victoria, extra crosovers east of Vic) the only other suggestions are to reduce Castlefield services by running Chat Moss eg TFW into Vic and Atherton/Bolton Line sevices through Vic to Rochdale/Caldervale.

I just seems to show that NR/DFT have completely botched the Northern Rail Hub/Northern/TPE franchise improvements.

 

[hwl]

The report mentioned by tomuk:
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

 

[The Planner]

I just seems to show that NR/DFT have completely botched the Northern Rail Hub/Northern/TPE franchise improvements.

That is a bit of a sweeping statement, it was the decisions made taking into account/ignoring the advice given by people developing it all.

 

[hwl]

That is a bit of a sweeping statement, it was the decisions made taking into account/ignoring the advice given by people developing it all.

DfT strikes again...

I feel your pain. [On a completely different matter I'm looking forward to my next few meetings at GMH (now that they have egg on face after ignoring some of my previous advice and ended up wasting lots of money!) and want me to start helping them fix the problem 18 months later it could have started]

 

[Mogster]

People seem to blame the DfT and NR for the ongoing lack of actions but I do feel Burnham has a hand in this as well.

In his dealings with Grayling he appears to have muddied the waters by suggesting light rail as a solution to Castlefields capacity problems. After their meeting Grayling mentioned light rail as being a cheaper solution even though it’s hard to see how it could have an impact. Burnham seems to have seen the pot of cash available for Castlefield heavy rail improvements and be attempting to repurpose it for his light rail projects. That’s my impression anyway.

Light rail has its place but not at the expense of heavy rail services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Class 195s, which work on Northern routes from Manchester Airport and elsewhere (that is, not towards Sheffield), don't have any luggage stacks.

No, but they do have the largest (both high and deep) overheads of any British train since the Mk1 coach, and possibly larger than those, too. The vast majority of luggage will fit on those if only people weren't too bone idle to put it up.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People seem to blame the DfT and NR for the ongoing lack of actions but I do feel Burnham has a hand in this as well.

In his dealings with Grayling he appears to have muddied the waters by suggesting light rail as a solution to Castlefields capacity problems. After their meeting Grayling mentioned light rail as being a cheaper solution even though it’s hard to see how it could have an impact. Burnham seems to have seen the pot of cash available for Castlefield heavy rail improvements and be attempting to repurpose it for his light rail projects. That’s my impression anyway.

Light rail has its place but not at the expense of heavy rail services.

I'm not sure how light rail would solve the Castlefield issue or indeed have any impact on it at all, as the services which could most logically be Metrolinked (Atherton, Hadfield, Marple/Rose Hill) all go from the main trainshed or Victoria.

 

[edwin_m]

No, but they do have the largest (both high and deep) overheads of any British train since the Mk1 coach, and possibly larger than those, too. The vast majority of luggage will fit on those if only people weren't too bone idle to put it up.

Although if the overhead racks are too big there is a risk of someone trying to lift something really heavy and injuring themselves or the people sitting underneath it.

 

[Ianno87]

The NR report seems a little confused about how the TfW service terminating at Platforms 13/14 works....

Some services which would benefit from minor rerouting are the Transport for Wales services which do reverse moves in the Corridor, or terminate in Manchester Piccadilly platform 14 and then reverse to run as ECS to Mayfield loop or Longsight Excursion platform, where they recess before returning to platform 13 to commence another journey. Moving these reversals out of the Corridor and into the train shed at

Suggesting the ex-Chester/Llandudno service can (somehow) access the main train shed...

Getting it a bit mixed up with the ex-South Wales service, I think.



Otherwise, looks like a thorough report!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although if the overhead racks are too big there is a risk of someone trying to lift something really heavy and injuring themselves or the people sitting underneath it.

If people injure themselves lifting their own luggage that's their issue. The majority of bags I see, though, are hand luggage sized, and those fit easily and if they can't lift them up they should not be taking them to airports as hand luggage.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Having skimmed the report (and noting that it is only the first part of the congestion analysis) I was struck by how little it focuses on Manchester Piccadilly platforms 13 and 14. In the context of this particular thread it seems that ‘15 & 16’ on their own would actually achieve very little.

 

[keith1879]

Whilst it would be entirely possible to introduce a Thameslink style service through this corridor I really think that there is a danger that it would finish up as a reliable way to transport fresh air. Like it or not a strategic decision has been taken that the airport should have connectivity to the north of England as a whole....and this means through trains. If there has to be a reduction in trains through the corridor (and there must be one) then it makes far more sense to knock out some of the local trains. It's all very well having through services from Stockport (where I live) to Bolton and points north but in truth most people from Stockport get off at Piccadilly ....a service that terminates there is more reliable and gives us a shorter walk into town. Dedicate 13/14 to trains going to the airport and finish the job of getting rid of trains which cross the Piccadilly throat. There will still be conflicts at the West of the city but if all trains coming from Bolton run into Victoria then things can be further improved.

(Edit: When I say local trains I mean the locals that do not serve the airport...Hazel Grove to Blackpool for example)

 

[keith1879]

But this is not Thameslink. I do agree that P15/16 is a must, I just wish someone in power (<cough> Mr Burnham <splutter>) had the desire to really lobby and push for this. But tipping increasing numbers of long distance passengers, complete with luggage, kids etc on the wrong side of the city is not going to help matters. Quite the opposite, it is going to increase dwell times in Victoria, cause delays for local services across the chord and onto the Castlefield corridor. Remember, and goodness knows how many times I have raised this, the airport is aiming to massively increase it's flows from something like 30 million to 50 million. And a lot more of those people are going to arrive via rail, especially given that airport parking & drop off charges require a small mortgage taking out.

Meanwhile Manchester still has momentum on it's tram network, with further options to expand. So logically the best path forward is to get as much Metrolink expansion as possible, sort out mutli-modal ticketing for punters arriving on the heavy rail network, and use the latter to move more long distance punters into and through the city. Economically, having more "not local" people using the airport, or passing through the city to other destinations still helps the local economy. Think about all those lovely Yorkshire, Welsh, Scottish and North East pounds that can flow in, and help fund even more expansion for the city's rather extensive public transport network. Maybe it will even one day fund MancCrossRail & MancBahn! (Copyright pending)

Failing that, shut the airport, give Leeds & Bradford the cash so we can develop our little airport to take over from Manchester, and we'll build a West Yorkshire tram network! We'll snatch yer bliddy hand off!

Agree with all apart from your last paragraph .

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Edit: When I say local trains I mean the locals that do not serve the airport...Hazel Grove to Blackpool for example)

Which is the only train serving platform 13 that does not go to the Airport (if I recall correctly). Hardly going to cause masses of issues on its own, is it?

It also doesn't cross Piccadilly throat, both the WCML and the Styal line are on that side.

If you mean the TPEs reversing in 1/2, yes, can the Airport leg of those.