• 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!

Manchester Airport railway station, discussion and ideas

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's an easy choice to make. Boost an airport in which you have a direct financial interest, ot promote local heavy rail services on one line into your city centre when you don't give a toss about local heavy rail generally ? Even the people of Manchester itself don't really benefit from thebway the airport is promoted above all other competing interests, which makes the obsessive, cultish devotion some display towards it even harder to understand

Quite. The disregard for the service at the run-down local stations on the Styal Line is a disgrace. Priority should be given to giving them a reliable "S-Bahn style" stopping service (I'd suggest 3 or 4tph) and promoting their use, and only then consider what you can squeeze in between for the Airport.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
Quite. The disregard for the service at the run-down local stations on the Styal Line is a disgrace. Priority should be given to giving them a reliable "S-Bahn style" stopping service (I'd suggest 3 or 4tph) and promoting their use, and only then consider what you can squeeze in between for the Airport.
I stand to be corrected but the Styal line services haven't been run down at all.
IIRC, I remember when they had 2 per hour in each direction, I think intitally Alderley Edge to Oxford Road which was then extended to Altrincham.
Now most stations have 3 per hour, not great I'd agree but not 'run down'.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Manchester has c 28m passengers
Liverpool has c 5m
Leeds/Bradford has c 4m
Newcastle c 5m

So Manchester is a lot larger by a factor of over 5

How many of those who go to Manchester do so because a more local airport has rubbish links?

The thing that's more interesting is in 2016 the average loading flights to and from Manchester was 140 passengers. In 2017 they saw an increase in passenger numbers by 2m, yet the average loading fell to 136 passengers, so unless the average plane size is reducing passenger numbers are increasing at a slower rate than the availability of seats. I'm aware Easyjet, Ryanair, Jet2, Thomas Cook and TUI (and probably others) are all replacing existing planes with newer larger planes over the next year so the average number of seats per flight will be increasing.

On the other hand Liverpool has gone from an average of 77 passengers per flight to an average of 87 passengers per flight in 12 months.
 

Amstel

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2018
Messages
31
Quite. The disregard for the service at the run-down local stations on the Styal Line is a disgrace. Priority should be given to giving them a reliable "S-Bahn style" stopping service (I'd suggest 3 or 4tph) and promoting their use, and only then consider what you can squeeze in between for the Airport.
It’s all right you guys pontificating about airport line stopping services, but my daughter lives at East Didsbury and says 3 trains, especially the fact that 2 are fast NON-STOP to Piccadilly is ideal (the only downside is spacing between services).
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
How many of those who go to Manchester do so because a more local airport has rubbish links?
I don't know but it is probably less than the number of Manchester residents who head to Heathrow and Gatwick because of Manchester's rubbish links.

The thing is, airports and airport expansion is not a vote winner. It is easier to concentrate everything in a few key locations.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
The thing is, airports and airport expansion is not a vote winner. It is easier to concentrate everything in a few key locations.

So are you saying overall it's better to really annoy a couple hundred thousand people in Greater Manchester and Cheshire, than to annoy tens of thousands in various locations across the North?
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
So are you saying overall it's better to really annoy a couple hundred thousand people in Greater Manchester and Cheshire, than to annoy tens of thousands in various locations across the North?
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that no politician will back an airport expansion in his constituency. Boris Johnson anyone.
Not sure where you get your figures of numbers 'annoyed' by the airport but I live about 3-miles away and am not annoyed by it, don't even notice it. There is more noise from our local road. However, I wouldn't want to live in Knutsford.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Not sure where you get your figures of numbers 'annoyed' by the airport but I live about 3-miles away and am not annoyed by it, don't even notice it. There is more noise from our local road. However, I wouldn't want to live in Knutsford.

I don't think he means the actual airport, I think he means annoyed by his public transport service being affected adversely by its priority over all else.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that no politician will back an airport expansion in his constituency. Boris Johnson anyone.
Not sure where you get your figures of numbers 'annoyed' by the airport but I live about 3-miles away and am not annoyed by it, don't even notice it. There is more noise from our local road. However, I wouldn't want to live in Knutsford.

Stockport, Wythenshawe and Knutsford are all adversely affected by noise pollution of runway 2, while the building of runway 2 on the home of an endangered species and the demolition of listed buildings annoyed other groups even if you ignore the environmental protesters who would protest at any airport expansion. Manchester Airport have spent months this year doing what they call is 'essential maintenance' on runway 1 meaning they were allowed to 'temporarily' suspend the ban on using runway 2 overnight. (They seem to be doing 'essential maintenance' every year and each year it's lasting for longer and longer.) One woman who lives 3 minutes walk from my house got a decibel reader and put it in the bedroom where her baby was sleeping and it recorded noise levels of up to 100dB in the middle of the night. The airport is turning in to the equivalent of a local council who sends out workers with pneumatic drills to dig up the road outside your house at 3am in the morning.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
I have yet to see any evidence at all that anywhere other than Manchester Airport and its owners benefit from its growth. Repetition of mantras is not evidence
The Manchester Hub Study Phase One report originally documented the evidence base for the economic benefits, to the whole of the North, of direct trains to Manchester Airport. The report, "Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement", was published by the Northern Way in 2009 and included detailed economic modelling. (The Northern Way was a partnership led by the three erstwhile Regional Development Agencies, One North East, Yorkshire Forward and the Northwest Development Agency. Its transport team was based in Leeds. Its website is archived at http://webarchive.nationalarchives....p://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/default.asp?id=2)

The report cited academic research and consultancy studies that demonstrated the importance of direct services to airports generally and Manchester in particular:
2.31 The importance of direct services has been quantified by Lythgoe and Wardman (2002), who demonstrated that air passengers using rail to access an airport have a greater value of time than other rail passengers and also that they place a greater penalty on interchange than other types of rail passenger.
...
The finding on interchange has been reinforced by work by consultants LEK (2003) in a study commissioned jointly by Manchester Airport Group, the DfT, the Strategic Rail Authority and Network Rail to develop rail options for Manchester Airport, in turn to inform the 2004 Airports White Paper. This work concluded that the city centre catchment area is much less important to Manchester Airport, than the centre of London is to the London airports. Using 2001 data it showed that rail’s market share is highest in the areas served by North Trans Pennine services (13.9%) and the Lancaster/Windermere/ Barrow services (15.4%), compared with the then average rail share of 5.3%. This work reported statistical analysis which showed that whether or not locations were linked by direct services to Manchester Airport was a significant explanatory variable for rail mode share, with those locations with direct services having a higher mode share.

2.32 ... The importance of direct rail services to airports has also been demonstrated in DfT-commissioned qualitative research on air passengers’ journey experiences by Sykes and Desai (2009:17) which reported, “where available, trains were regarded as a good alternative to road travel by some respondents, especially where the train route was straightforward and services frequent and reliable. However, participants also worried about unscheduled cancellations of train services, delays and missed connections over which they had little control.”
It concluded:
2.33 The evidence that direct and reliable rail services to the airport maximise rail mode share is very strong.

Manchester Airport delivers substantial economic benefits to the North which will grow as the Airport grows. Surface access capacity is the most significant constraint to the Airport’s future growth. Increasing public transport mode share is the preferred way to overcome these constraints.
The growth of the Airport in the subsequent 9 years can only have reinforced these conclusions.

Furthermore, the report recorded the aspirations of high level stakeholders from across the North's city regions, which show that it is a myth that Greater Manchester is the only city region that promotes direct services to Manchester Airport:
4.1 ... [The] Northern Way undertook a high level consultation across the North’s city regions to establish what would have to be considered when defining the economic challenge that needs to be addressed. This work led to the identification of four objectives.

4.2 These objectives were subsequently discussed and validated at the Phase 1 stakeholder workshop held on 29th July 2008.

4.3 The four objectives are:
Objective 1: faster, more reliable and additional direct rail links to Manchester Airport
● Objective 2: improved journey times and reliability for inter-regional and commuter journeys
● Objective 3: increased capacity for inter-regional and commuter journeys
● Objective 4: maintain and enhance capacity for rail freight
The report defined ten "Conditional Outputs" from the study, which fed into the subsequent Network Rail Manchester Hub Phase Two Rail Study. This proposed appropriate infrastructure interventions, including the Ordsall Chord, that subsequently became part of the Northern Hub programme. Conditional Output 7 concerned Manchester Airport services:
1.18 The requirement is for direct services of at least hourly interval service frequency in each of the principal corridors (30 minutes in the case of the Yorkshire and the Humber and North East via Leeds corridor) on a 7 day/week basis with service start and finish time giving 95% of air passengers the option of using rail for their inbound and outbound legs connecting the Airport with each of the Northern city regions.
The seven "principal rail corridors" into Manchester were defined as:
  • Bolton/Chorley line, serving Preston and beyond (1tph to the Airport)
  • Calder Valley line, serving Bradford/Halifax (1tph)
  • Diggle line, serving Newcastle/Tees Valley/Hull/Leeds (2tph)
  • Hope Valley line, serving Sheffield, South Humber Bank and the East Midlands (1tph)
  • Stoke and Crewe lines, serving London/Birmingham (1tph)
  • CLC line, serving Liverpool (1tph)
  • Chat Moss line, serving Chester/North Wales and Liverpool (1tph)
The report also recognised "longer term stakeholder ambitions" that the Hope Valley and Crewe corridors should get direct services to the Airport without the need to pass through central Manchester - so far only achieved for Crewe.

The currently-proposed post-electrification timetable (now put back to May 2019), would provide direct services from all these corridors to the Airport. However, for a mix of technical reasons (e.g. electrification and the end of portion working) and political reasons (reluctance to withdraw an existing direct service from anywhere), the 1tph requirement from the Chat Moss corridor has grown to 3tph (Chester/North Wales, Liverpool stopper and Lancaster/Barrow/Windermere via Wigan NW) and the 1tph requirement from the Chorley corridor has grown to 2tph (Glasgow/Edinburgh and Blackpool North).

It is perhaps worth debating the feasibility of going back to the originally-proposed 1tph of direct Airport services on those two corridors, which could reduce congestion through Castlefield and/or release paths for local services on the Ordsall Chord and Styal line. Options might include diverting the N Wales service or the Liverpool stopper to Victoria, and 8-car EMUs to the Airport from Glasgow/Edinburgh, with high quality connections at Oxenholme, Lancaster and Preston.
 
Last edited:

frodshamfella

Established Member
Joined
25 Sep 2010
Messages
1,659
Location
Frodsham
I’m sorry, but how are Leeds, Liverpool and (maybe) Newcastle major airports in comparison to Manchester? None of them have the capacity that Manchester offers, nor the capabilities (LBA/LPL can’t take anything larger than a 767, a 777 at a push)

5 M passenger from LPL and NCL , and 4M from LBA are still sizeable operations . They are not operating in Long Haul markets in general , so aircraft of 767, 777 size are rarely needed. This doesn't mean these airports shouldn't be developed, particularly with their surface access with car alternatives (Newcastle has this already). The north should be planning for well into the future and Manchester Airport is not the answer to the whole of the North's flying requirement .
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
I don't think he means the actual airport, I think he means annoyed by his public transport service being affected adversely by its priority over all else.
The only people blaming the Airport for the North's transport woes seem to be 3 or 4 people on this forum.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that no politician will back an airport expansion in his constituency. Boris Johnson anyone.
Not sure where you get your figures of numbers 'annoyed' by the airport but I live about 3-miles away and am not annoyed by it, don't even notice it. There is more noise from our local road. However, I wouldn't want to live in Knutsford.

Out of interest are you in one of the new postcode zones allowing you to get a pass to drop off/pick up passengers at Manchester Airport station without paying £3 each time? I recall some of the Hale area postcodes are included but it doesn't include Mobberley or Knutsford.
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
Out of interest are you in one of the new postcode zones allowing you to get a pass to drop off/pick up passengers at Manchester Airport station without paying £3 each time? I recall some of the Hale area postcodes are included but it doesn't include Mobberley or Knutsford.
No, not heard about that, I didn't know about a 'free' residents pass. I don't fly that often, although I will be doing later this month.
BUT I did use the airport station to start journeys to Scotland and recently Newcastle quite a lot. Not sure it is worth £3, although easier than getting to Piccadilly or Victoria.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
The Manchester Hub Study Phase One report originally documented the evidence base for the economic benefits, to the whole of the North, of direct trains to Manchester Airport. The report, "Manchester Hub Conditional Output Statement", was published by the Northern Way in 2009 and included detailed economic modelling. (The Northern Way was a partnership led by the three erstwhile Regional Development Agencies, One North East, Yorkshire Forward and the Northwest Development Agency. Its transport team was based in Leeds. Its website is archived at http://webarchive.nationalarchives....p://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/default.asp?id=2)

The report cited academic research and consultancy studies that demonstrated the importance of direct services to airports generally and Manchester in particular:

It concluded:

The growth of the Airport in the subsequent 9 years can only have reinforced these conclusions.

Furthermore, the report recorded the aspirations of high level stakeholders from across the North's city regions, which show that it is a myth that Greater Manchester is the only city region that promotes direct services to Manchester Airport:



The report defined ten "Conditional Outputs" from the study, which fed into the subsequent Network Rail Manchester Hub Phase Two Rail Study. This proposed appropriate infrastructure interventions, including the Ordsall Chord, that subsequently became part of the Northern Hub programme. Conditional Output 7 concerned Manchester Airport services:

The seven "principal rail corridors" into Manchester were defined as:
  • Bolton/Chorley line, serving Preston and beyond (1tph to the Airport)
  • Calder Valley line, serving Bradford/Halifax (1tph)
  • Diggle line, serving Newcastle/Tees Valley/Hull/Leeds (2tph)
  • Hope Valley line, serving Sheffield, South Humber Bank and the East Midlands (1tph)
  • Stoke and Crewe lines, serving London/Birmingham (1tph)
  • CLC line, serving Liverpool (1tph)
  • Chat Moss line, serving Chester/North Wales and Liverpool (1tph)
The report also recognised "longer term stakeholder ambitions" that the Hope Valley and Crewe corridors should get direct services to the Airport without the need to pass through central Manchester - so far only achieved for Crewe.

The currently-proposed post-electrification timetable (now put back to May 2019), would provide direct services from all these corridors to the Airport. However, for a mix of technical reasons (e.g. electrification and the end of portion working) and political reasons (reluctance to withdraw an existing direct service from anywhere), the 1tph requirement from the Chat Moss corridor has grown to 3tph (Chester/North Wales, Liverpool stopper and Lancaster/Barrow/Windermere via Wigan NW) and the 1tph requirement from the Chorley corridor has grown to 2tph (Glasgow/Edinburgh and Blackpool North).

It is perhaps worth debating the feasibility of going back to the originally-proposed 1tph of direct Airport services on those two corridors, which could reduce congestion through Castlefield and/or release paths for local services on the Ordsall Chord and Styal line. Options might include diverting the N Wales service or the Liverpool stopper to Victoria, and 8-car EMUs to the Airport from Glasgow/Edinburgh, with high quality connections at Oxenholme, Lancaster and Preston.


That's a collection of non-sequiturs. What it shows is that people travelling to airports value direct services, not that those direct services, or the airport, bring about any wider economic benefits, except to the airport.

Btw as someone who lives on the Chat Moss line I appreciate your casual suggestion of removing the connection to Piccadilly, an essential link thanks to the paucity of long-distance services serving Liverpool, to clear the way for.... guess what.... more trains to Manchester Airport!!!! And then you wonder why some people aren't over the moon about one single airport dominating all transport thinking across about one third of England
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
That's a collection of non-sequiturs. What it shows is that people travelling to airports value direct services, not that those direct services, or the airport, bring about any wider economic benefits, except to the airport.

Btw as someone who lives on the Chat Moss line I appreciate your casual suggestion of removing the connection to Piccadilly, an essential link thanks to the paucity of long-distance services serving Liverpool, to clear the way for.... guess what.... more trains to Manchester Airport!!!! And then you wonder why some people aren't over the moon about one single airport dominating all transport thinking across about one third of England
Unbelievable, you asked for evidence; your were given extensive evidence and you just dismiss it as non-sequiturs
Let's follow your logic, if you stop all these trains from the west short of the airport where are you terminating them?
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
Let's follow your logic, if you stop all these trains from the west short of the airport where are you terminating them?
Services from the west terminating at the airport isn't an issue. After all, Manchester got rid of all but 1 of its west facing terminating platforms.
Services from the east, doubling back to terminate where services from the west should terminate is the issue.
There is capacity to the west of Manchester to terminate more services whilst serving more people at the same time.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Unbelievable, you asked for evidence; your were given extensive evidence and you just dismiss it as non-sequiturs
Let's follow your logic, if you stop all these trains from the west short of the airport where are you terminating them?


Nothing to do with the economic benefits of Manchester Airport that, is it ?
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
Nothing to do with the economic benefits of Manchester Airport that, is it ?
Well, my previous post included a link to the full Conditional Output Statement report, but clearly you have not read it before dismissing it. The Evidence Base sections are far too long to quote in full on here, but here are a few more snippets:
2.16 The work of [Sustainable Urban and Regional Futures (SURF) et al (2006) in a study for NWDA] also led them to conclude:
● “The crucial importance, for … [the North West], of expanding the international linkages provided by Manchester Airport and further improving its accessibility along with that of the quickly-expanding John Lennon airport whose growth has underpinned recent economic improvement in the Liverpool cityregion....
2.18 IPEG et al (2008) concluded: ....
“This invites…a strategic approach to inter-city connectivity focused upon prioritising interaction between relative ‘equals’ (for instance Manchester and Leeds) or between centres which vary in their economic specialisms (for instance Liverpool and Manchester) which would also improve the labour market between them. There would appear to be particular value in developing this approach to promoting cross-Pennine links – including better access to Manchester Airport from Leeds – given that the Pennines continue to act as a barrier to realising the joint agglomeration potential of the North’s largest and most dynamic city regions”
International Links
2.26 Thus far we have summarised the evidence on the importance to future economic growth of links within and between city regions and links within city regions. Also of importance is international connectivity. York Aviation (2006) in their study of the economic importance of the Manchester Airport Group companies has identified the following economic impacts of air transport:
● Direct impacts: employment, income or outputs that are wholly or largely related to the operation of an airport and are generated either on-site or in the surrounding area
● Indirect impacts: employment, income or outputs that are in the chain of suppliers of goods and services to the direct activities
● Induced impacts: employment, income or outputs that are due to household spending resulting from direct and indirect employment
● Catalytic impacts: employment, income or outputs that are generated by new businesses locating to the region, inward investments and inbound tourism; and
● Productivity/competitive advantage impacts: employment, income or outputs gains amongst existing businesses in the economy due to increased export volumes and productivity improvements.
2.27 As York Aviation highlight, while challenging to quantify, the consensus is that the catalytic impacts and the productivity and competitive advantage impacts of air transport greatly outweigh the direct, indirect and induced impacts. These significant impacts come about because provision of international air services:
● is an important element in company location decisions. The presence of an international airport can be a important factor in:
● attracting new investment from outside the area, and especially companies from overseas;
● retaining existing companies in the area, whether they had previously been inward investors or indigenous operations;
● securing the expansion of existing companies in the face of competition with other areas;
● promotes the export success of companies located in the area by the provision of passenger and freight links to key markets;
● enhances the competitiveness of the economy, and the companies in it, through its fast and efficient passenger and freight services;
● attracts inbound tourism, including both business and leisure visitors, to the area.
2.28 Manchester Airport is the most significant airport in the North, catering for more passengers than all the other northern airports combined. It is the only airport in the North with a network of inter-continental scheduled services and the only airport in the North that caters for a substantial volume of air freight. It is the largest airport in the UK outside the South East and the only airport in the North identified in "Delivering a Sustainable Transport System as a key international airport gateway" (DfT, 2008a).
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
Well, my previous post included a link to the full Conditional Output Statement report, but clearly you have not read it before dismissing it. The Evidence Base sections are far too long to quote in full on here, but here are a few more snippets:


Well, if Manchester Airport is so wonderful, and such a self-evidently important part of the north's propserity, why the hell is most of the north still so poor ?
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
Well, if Manchester Airport is so wonderful, and such a self-evidently important part of the north's propserity, why the hell is most of the north still so poor ?
When you've lost the argument change the subject.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
When you've lost the argument change the subject.
When you feel you have won the arguement by quoting a few paragraphs of a 9 year old 'report' by vested interests and think you can shut the conversation down rather than engaging with legitimate concerns.


When you set out with a 'vision' and then write a 'report' on that 'vision', the only thing that is certain is that your 'report' will prove that your original 'vision' was the correcct one. That report is so openly biased towards it's outcome from the start that from the opening paragraph they make it clear what they are trying to prove. They then continue by putting their conclusions aka aspirations, before any of the so called evidence. Through the entire report they conflate 'The Northern Way' and the Manchester Hub. As if they are they only option and the whole of the North supports it, however with no alternative or counter proposal to evaluate it against.

Then we will look at the Geographical regions that the report has defined. Central Manchester, Inner Manchester, The rest of Manchester. All the other Northern Cities combined. The rest of the country. - If that isn't biasing an 'investigation' to obtain the pre-determined result what on earth is.

Then we look at the way they identify the so called 'rail corridors'. Blackburn aparently has it's own dedicated corridor into Manchester that only serves Blackburn and nowhere else. The only place that can be served 'via wigan' is Southport. However Leeds and York have been pre-determined to be so important that they can be split into 3 seperate grouping (despite the total of all the corridors combined being a fraction of others. Meanwhile at the bottom relegated to an afterthought are the lines heading West.
- Liverpool via Irlam, (So not even Warrington the biggest place on the line) somehow generates less benefit per minute improvement than the line to Southport. Despite it serving the North Wests 2nd biggest airport. Laughable.
- The second and more major Liverpool line is then combined with Chester (remember Blackburn aparently has its own dedicted corridor serving no-where else)
So taking those two into account, the combined benefits of inter-corridor flows across Manchester without wanting to go there: from the entirity of Liverpool (with a bit of Chester and North Wales) is still deemed to be less than that of the Preston and 'the North' via Bolton. This all despite the fact that everyone from Liverpool - Chester and North Wales, have no choice but to Cross Manchester to go to anywhere in the North East and Yorkshire. Whilst people from the Preston and the North Corridor can avoid Manchester by going straight across the pennines or straight down the WCML.
It also has a combined total on just cross Manchester journeys of '1 benefit per minute' less than all of the flows to Manchester Airport combined.

Now we look at the interchange penalty, and conveniently, People on the Liverpool via Irlam and Liverpool / Chester via Warrington corridors have the two lowest interchange penalties. Massive negative number. The report specifically states,
The negative values occur when journey time improvements have in part been made by reducing the number of stops on some routes or train routeing have been altered meaning that some passengers have to interchange when previously they did not.
So effectively recognising that people on these corridors are the accepted collateral damage of this plan.

Nothing written in that report can vaguely be described as Evidence. It is just waffle and psuedo statistics to justify a pre-determined position. Its an embaressment that you have to rely on such an outdated biased document to justify flawed actions.



Meanwhile in the real-world this week during the evening peak through Manchester Oxford Road (1615-1800) we are averaging about 4 services keeping to their timetabled arrival and departure times. Some places in the world would be embaressed by 4 services across an entire day being late. Here we are supposed to rejoice, when 4 out of 53 manage to keep to time.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
No, not heard about that, I didn't know about a 'free' residents pass. I don't fly that often, although I will be doing later this month.
BUT I did use the airport station to start journeys to Scotland and recently Newcastle quite a lot. Not sure it is worth £3, although easier than getting to Piccadilly or Victoria.

It's not free (I can't remember the exact cost) but it offers a significant discount for those who regularly use the airport station.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,670
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Well, if Manchester Airport is so wonderful, and such a self-evidently important part of the north's propserity, why the hell is most of the north still so poor ?

When you've lost the argument change the subject.

Or go back to a previous debating point, which was already previously explained in the hope of keeping the argument alive. The "basket case" North has only just started to see improvements in links to Manchester as well as major improvements to the infrastructure (and so far mainly restricted to the North West), so economic benefits are only just starting to become visible (tourism is one area that this is starting to be evident).

I still however suspect that the few members on here lamenting the airport links do so either because London doesn't have that kind of connectivity (well Heathrow at least as Gatwick seems to have links to quite a few places), or simply because they can't see past a clock face Manchester-Manchester Airport shuttle (all shacks for the Styal line) with lovely neat timetables for them to pour over and maybe using cascaded 332s, suitably downgraded for the Northern scuffers of course... ;)
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
5,757
Location
Wilmslow
It's not free (I can't remember the exact cost) but it offers a significant discount for those who regularly use the airport station.
The Station
We recognise that The Station serves as the main commuter station for people living in the surrounding neighbourhood. Therefore, users within a defined postal area have the opportunity to apply for an annual permit, giving them free drop-off and pick-up access for The Station, subject to payment of the application fee set out below.

The cost of the application is £30 for 12 months and will allow one free pick up and drop off per day. Drop off will be at the Ground Transport Interchange and pick up will be at T1 Arrivals (maximum waiting time 30 mins).

Application requirements:

  • Only 1 application per household and must fall within the catch area (M22, M23, WA15, WA16 and SK9)
  • Valid form of photographic ID (passport or diving licence and counterpart) plus utility bill with post code.
  • Vehicle insurance details
  • Maximum 2 vehicles per application
To apply for a card, please fill in this form.

Applications will be accepted from Wed 23 May 2018 and charged at £30 (incl. VAT); payment can be made with a debit or credit card. (Cheque or cash payments cannot be accepted.)

Applications are to be made at the Manchester Airport Car Park Administration Office, located at Staff East Car Park, M22 5YA. Opening times: 8am - 4.00pm. For queries, please email [email protected].

The accepted postcode areas are listed below.

  • M22 0
  • M22 1
  • M22 4
  • M22 5
  • M22 8
  • M22 9
  • M23 0
  • M23 1
  • M23 2
  • M23 9
  • SK9 4
  • SK9 5
  • WA15 0
  • WA15 7
  • WA15 8
  • WA16 6
  • WA16 7
I won't be applying for one even though I live in one of the "accepted postcode areas"
 

Altfish

Member
Joined
16 Oct 2014
Messages
1,065
Location
Altrincham
I won't be applying for one even though I live in one of the "accepted postcode areas"
I suppose I may be close enough to apply but I doubt I'll use it enough to justify buying a pass.

on edit. Just looked up the applicable post codes, mine isn't one of them.
 

keith1879

Member
Joined
1 Jun 2015
Messages
393
When you feel you have won the arguement by quoting a few paragraphs of a 9 year old 'report' by vested interests and think you can shut the conversation down rather than engaging with legitimate concerns.


When you set out with a 'vision' and then write a 'report' on that 'vision', the only thing that is certain is that your 'report' will prove that your original 'vision' was the correcct one. That report is so openly biased towards it's outcome from the start that from the opening paragraph they make it clear what they are trying to prove. They then continue by putting their conclusions aka aspirations, before any of the so called evidence. Through the entire report they conflate 'The Northern Way' and the Manchester Hub. As if they are they only option and the whole of the North supports it, however with no alternative or counter proposal to evaluate it against.



Nothing written in that report can vaguely be described as Evidence. It is just waffle and psuedo statistics to justify a pre-determined position. Its an embaressment that you have to rely on such an outdated biased document to justify flawed actions.

The problem with so many of these posts is the implication that the "other side " is completely wrong and that the writer is completely right. The report which was quoted does not make an absolute case justifying the importance of the airport - but it puts forward enough convincing arguments to at least make the ideas for improving rail services there worth considering.
The nub of most of the opposition to it is that either (a) Nobody wants to go to the airport (self evidently rubbish) or (b) that the increased complexity will cause disruption (which is obviously true) (or even (c) Liverpool is better than Manchester ......).

Rephrase the discussion in real terms (ie Extra through services will tend to attract more passengers but at the cost of reduced reliability) and you get a conversation that does actually have a place outside an infants school playground.

The question is ...... how do you measure the costs and benefits? For either side to say to the other "Prove that you are right" is to miss the point - it can't be done in absolute terms. Even after the event it is difficult because as has been pointed out elsewhere a passenger increase could be down to other factors.

I don't know that two short trains are better than one long one; that a through train from Leeds to the airport is better than changing at Piccadilly; that freight is more important than passenger ....but we should all be receptive to the possibility that the opposite point of view has some merit.
 

B&I

Established Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
2,484
When you've lost the argument change the subject.


Oh no, someone has referred to a few lines, from a summary of a consultant's report from 2006, commissioned by persons unknown, for reasons unknown, on the basis of unknown data. I'm SO defeated.

Clearly the actual poverty of much of the north of England is of less interest to you than your precious airport. This does not come as a surprise to me.

This thread began because some people had the temerity to suggest that the reason for the frankly crap current performance of railways around central Manchester was the result of trying to send more trains to Manchester Airport than the infrastructure could cope with. Since then, a certain numner of posters has revealed themselves to be considerably more upset about anyone saying anything nasty about Manchester Airport th
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The cost of the application is £30 for 12 months and will allow one free pick up and drop off per day

Why does the law tolerate this kind of falsehood in advertising?

The pass costs £30 and allows one pick-up and drop-off a day. The word "free" is incorrect and spurious. The use of the term "application fee" is a means of misleading the customer; the simple fact is that the passes cost £30 each, and that is all that should be allowed to be said.

The word "free" is window-dressing and is a falsehood and should be illegal, same with "complimentary" things with something you pay for. They are not complimentary, they are part of the price. Something is only free/complimentary if you can have it without a purchase.

It's as bad as "unlimited" broadband which in fact is not; indeed, it's impossible for it to be unlimited, as the maximum download is the bandwidth times the period of service, therefore the term is not applicable to any telecommunications package of any kind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top