Northern timetable changes May 2019

[Glenn1969]

Is one remedy to that just to not send the Cleethorpes train to the Airport and run it as a 6 car from Piccadilly? Which might also provide Northern with a path for a Calder Valley service which wouldn't necessarily be a 6 car train?

 

[Killingworth]

Is one remedy to that just to not send the Cleethorpes train to the Airport and run it as a 6 car from Piccadilly? Which might also provide Northern with a path for a Calder Valley service which wouldn't necessarily be a 6 car train?

Possibly as many as 10% of passengers from Sheffield are going through to the Airport, passengers to far flung parts, but also pilots, cabin crew and ground staff commute. Breaking that link would go down very badly now it's well established.

 

[Glenn1969]

In that case either you are going to have to put up with short DMUs ad infinitum or they are going to have to lengthen platforms at the Airport. Would there be room for a fifth platform?

 

[Mathew S]

In that case either you are going to have to put up with short DMUs ad infinitum or they are going to have to lengthen platforms at the Airport. Would there be room for a fifth platform?

I doubt there would be any work to extend/remodel the airport station pre-HS2.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In that case either you are going to have to put up with short DMUs ad infinitum or they are going to have to lengthen platforms at the Airport. Would there be room for a fifth platform?

The current four Manchester Airport platforms are bounded by the two Manchester Metrolink platforms on one side and hotel complexes set high above the running lines on the other side.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The current four Manchester Airport platforms are bounded by the two Manchester Metrolink platforms on one side and hotel complexes set high above the running lines on the other side.

Perhaps the Metrolink ought to give up a platform then - I've never seen both platforms occupied. Do they ever use the second platform?

 

[Killingworth]

The current four Manchester Airport platforms are bounded by the two Manchester Metrolink platforms on one side and hotel complexes set high above the running lines on the other side.

Money (and disruptive time) could resolve that quite easily. Most simply, on the Metrolink side there's adequate level ground to extend after resiting the signal gantry and all associated works dependent thereon.



On the hotel side the high retaining wall could be continued. The non-public footbridge would have to be moved. That would be more challenging, ensuring the foundations of the embankment and buildings weren't destabilised, but there looks likely to be just enough length for 2 more cars on both sides. I sense the monetary and disruption costs outweigh the perceived benefits.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps the Metrolink ought to give up a platform then - I've never seen both platforms occupied. Do they ever use the second platform?

Is it not the case that the Manchester Metrolink system is to due be extended onwards from the current terminus at Manchester Airport? I am sure there are those on this website who can give you detailed information on this matter and of any tunnels. Only having a single Metrolink platform at Manchester Airport would surely not be a good thing, noting the situation that occurs at the Newton Heath and Moston Metrolink station, where one running line serves the containerised refuse compaction heavy rail trains and the other line serves the Manchester Metrolink system, causing trams either side of this Metrolink station to be held at signals.

 

[Mathew S]

Is it not the case that the Manchester Metrolink system is to due be extended onwards from the current terminus at Manchester Airport? I am sure there are those on this website who can give you detailed information on this matter and of any tunnels. Only having a single Metrolink platform at Manchester Airport would surely not be a good thing, noting the situation that occurs at the Newton Heath and Moston Metrolink station, where one running line serves the containerised refuse compaction heavy rail trains and the other line serves the Manchester Metrolink system, causing trams either side of this Metrolink station to be held at signals.

TfGM have stated an unfunded aspiration, and it's nothing more than that, in their vision for 2040 to create a Wythenshawe loop, and extend Metrolink beyond the airport to Wilmslow (amongst other things). This is shown in the map attached.
While this would have enormous implications for what is now Northern, if the franchise (or even franchising at all) still exists in 2040, it's all a bit beyond solving the immediate problem of where to terminate all these trains when there's so little terminal capacity in/around Manchester.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

TfGM have stated an unfunded aspiration, and it's nothing more than that, in their vision for 2040 to create a Wythenshawe loop, and extend Metrolink beyond the airport to Wilmslow (amongst other things). This is shown in the map attached.
While this would have enormous implications for what is now Northern, if the franchise (or even franchising at all) still exists in 2040, it's all a bit beyond solving the immediate problem of where to terminate all these trains when there's so little terminal capacity in/around Manchester.

Exactly, so it's a far less pressing demand than the immediate congestion, delays and overcrowding caused by the lack of platform capacity in Manchester. What about having the platform as shared use? It works elsewhere (e.g. Sheffield TramTrain, and sort of for Altrincham in terms of signalling).

Certainly, if you shared the Metrolink platform with Metrolink, if necessary giving them priority when they needed it, and then used the excess space, you could squeeze out a further platform. So improvements are possible. It's just a question of whether anyone is willing to put in the money and undertake the collaboration.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

TfGM have stated an unfunded aspiration, and it's nothing more than that, in their vision for 2040 to create a Wythenshawe loop, and extend Metrolink beyond the airport to Wilmslow (amongst other things). This is shown in the below map:
[IMG=100x100]https://www.railforums.co.uk/attach...p_hash=92689018b2cf4f1884c5def6b38ecce4[/IMG]
While this would have enormous implications for what is now Northern, if the franchise (or even franchising at all) still exists in 2040, it's all a bit beyond solving the immediate problem of where to terminate all these trains when there's so little terminal capacity in/around Manchester.

One thing that Manchester Metrolink has in its favour is that all its platforms are the height of the heavy rail station as a result of the original Manchester to Altrincham and Manchester to Bury line heavy rail stations being the first conversions to the Metrolink system. Was it not the case that when the fourth heavy rail platform at Manchester Airport was constructed, it was done at the same time at Metrolink platform works, even though no services could use it as the associated heavy rail signalling, etc, was not even commenced?

Are there not different OHL voltages involved between Metrolink and heavy rail?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

One thing that Manchester Metrolink has in its favour is that all its platforms are the height of the heavy rail station as a result of the original Manchester to Altrincham and Manchester to Bury line heavy rail stations being the first conversions to the Metrolink system. Was it not the case that when the fourth heavy rail platform at Manchester Airport was constructed, it was done at the same time at Metrolink platform works, even though no services could use it as the associated heavy rail signalling, etc, was not even commenced?

Are there not different OHL voltages involved between Metrolink and heavy rail?

Surely you could just make the Metrolink platform diesel-only?

 

[Greybeard33]

Possibly as many as 10% of passengers from Sheffield are going through to the Airport, passengers to far flung parts, but also pilots, cabin crew and ground staff commute. Breaking that link would go down very badly now it's well established.

I daresay that at least as many passengers from Merseyside and Warrington travel through to the Airport, and will be unhappy with an enforced change in the scrum at Oxford Road or Piccadilly. But the TPE Airport services seem to be sacrosanct, so I would not be surprised if the Liverpool service is eventually booted out to Wilmslow all day long, so you can have your 6-car trains through the Hope Valley.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Surely you could just make the Metrolink platform diesel-only?

Has anyone looked at the line taken from the second Metrolink platform outwards actually runs? What infrastructural works will be required once the overbridge is reached and how will the line taken by heavy rail trains that use the second Metrolink platform join the current heavy rail running lines?

 

[Greybeard33]

The Metrolink platform is only 56m long - too short for heavy rail use. It cannot be extended because the centre abutment of the overbridge carrying Outwood Lane is in the way. This road is a major artery through the Airport and it was very disruptive when the bridge was modified during construction of the Metrolink line.

TfGM has plans for several near term "pathfinder" tram-train projects, one of which will be from the Airport to Wilmslow. I assume the tram-trains will be dual voltage and will use the second Metrolink platform, with a new crossover to the heavy rail line just past the end of P4.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The Metrolink platform is only 56m long - too short for heavy rail use.

You could fit in a two coach 150, 156, 158 etc. in there. So certainly not useless.

It's not necessarily about having a perfect additional platform. Any additional capacity would be a significant benefit.

 

[Killingworth]

I daresay that at least as many passengers from Merseyside and Warrington travel through to the Airport, and will be unhappy with an enforced change in the scrum at Oxford Road or Piccadilly. But the TPE Airport services seem to be sacrosanct, so I would not be surprised if the Liverpool service is eventually booted out to Wilmslow all day long, so you can have your 6-car trains through the Hope Valley.

All because someone didn't think all this fully through from the outset. All trains terminating at Piccadilly alongside a dedicated high quality shuttle service to the airport every 10 minutes would have been inconvenient for no more than 10% of through passengers, but probably have got a more reliably resilient end to end journey for most. Putting toothpaste back into tubes, capturing horses after they've bolted is where we are now. We can't make everyone happy with the rolling stock, platforms and tracks we've got. If we ever get to providing all the services set out in franchise agreements it's hard to imagine where all the trains are going to come from, and how they'll have space to run when they do.

However, Airport platforms could possibly take 2 x 4 car 15x trains? 185s fixed at 3 or 6 are a pain. Make the Airport - Cleethorpes 4 car 158s and put most of the 2 x 185s on Nottingham - Liverpool. But that would just upset someone else.

 

[Ianno87]

Surely you could just make the Metrolink platform diesel-only?

Also, the wires need to be high enough, and new-build (as opposed to ex-BR) tram platforms are designed to be 'flush' with trams so heavy rail trains may be out of gauge.

 

[Greybeard33]

You could fit in a two coach 150, 156, 158 etc. in there. So certainly not useless.

It's not necessarily about having a perfect additional platform. Any additional capacity would be a significant benefit.

I had nearly an hour to kill at the Airport station this afternoon - a Saturday, but the service pattern is similar to Monday - Friday. All the trains I saw were either 3-car (185s, a 323 and a 175) or 4-car (319s, double 156s and a 350). A 2-car platform would be useless. The shortest trains Northern is likely to use for Airport services going forward will be 3-car 195s, 323s and 331s.

The Lime Street via Warrington train was a 4-car 156 formation, which came into P3 on top of the Cleethorpes 185. If the latter had been 6-car, the Northern train could not have used any of the other three platforms instead. It would either have blocked in a train due to depart earlier, or been blocked in itself by a later arrival coming in on top.

 

[SteveyBee131]

...All trains terminating at Piccadilly alongside a dedicated high quality shuttle service to the airport every 10 minutes would have been inconvenient for no more than 10% of through passengers, but probably have got a more reliably resilient end to end journey for most...

Similar principle to Heathrow. It's so simple. It works. Nobody complains about changing at Paddington. Shame we can't turn the clock back and do the same for Manchester!

However, it might be digressing too far into different thread territory...

 

[NoMorePacers]

Similar principle to Heathrow. It's so simple. It works. Nobody complains about changing at Paddington. Shame we can't turn the clock back and do the same for Manchester!

However, it might be digressing too far into different thread territory...

The thing is Manchester Airport has been served by direct trains to/from many places for a long time so if they all of a sudden stopped doing that and requiring a change at Piccadilly then I'm sure many ordinary (that being the key word here) rail passengers would complain and possibly use their cars as a result. Heathrow has never had trains from anywhere other than Paddington so doesn't have this problem.

 

[SteveyBee131]

The thing is Manchester Airport has been served by direct trains to/from many places for a long time so if they all of a sudden stopped doing that and requiring a change at Piccadilly then I'm sure many ordinary (that being the key word here) rail passengers would complain and possibly use their cars as a result. Heathrow has never had trains from anywhere other than Paddington so doesn't have this problem.

Which is why I said "it's a shame we can't turn the clock back..."!

 

[Roose]

Nobody complains about changing at Paddington.

No need for them to complain - they just use the direct Underground service which is competitive on time due to not having to change.

Passengers prefer not to change.

On another topic: re the suggestions of terminating all services at Piccadilly with a shuttle to the airport, how would that work for present airport services from the north-west originating stations?

 

[Ianno87]

The thing is Manchester Airport has been served by direct trains to/from many places for a long time so if they all of a sudden stopped doing that and requiring a change at Piccadilly then I'm sure many ordinary (that being the key word here) rail passengers would complain and possibly use their cars as a result. Heathrow has never had trains from anywhere other than Paddington so doesn't have this problem.

Greater Manchester and the North West have (believe it or not) a good motorway network, with Manchester Airport directly off it. Removing direct trains will just drive people to road instead.

Manchester Airport has had through trains since Day 1 - originally 1tph each to Blackpool North and Scarborough.

 

[SteveyBee131]

On another topic: re the suggestions of terminating all services at Piccadilly with a shuttle to the airport, how would that work for present airport services from the north-west originating stations?

As others have mentioned up-thread, it wouldn't, because there have been services from further afield from year dot. But this is the subject of another thread, so we should probably get back on track to keep the moderators happy

 

[Deerfold]

I hadn't realised that Northern currently operated a handful of services over the Chord at the moment. One falls well tomorrow letting me get to Bradford from Manchester Airport for under £8 (getting a TPE service from Picc to Vic nearly doubles that). If that becomes common from May, I'll be happy.

 

[js1000]

The reason for this is, when the 195 start service it will be a 2x3 car 195

EDIT.

 

[js1000]

Likewise, the Airport platform is not long enough to be occupied by a 6-car 0750 (2*195/1) to Lime Street at the same time as the 0753 to Cleethorpes. Hence the change to start from Wilmslow and bypass the Airport.This change will leave the Airport with a 3 hour gap between direct services to Lime Street via Warrington (0653 to 0953). And the first arrival from Lime Street via Warrington will become 0928. Clearly Northern is prioritising commuter capacity over early morning airline passengers.

Doesn't surprise me. Northern have been haemorrhaging passengers on the Styal Line since the new timetable last year. Although surprising to hear Northern wants to operate that service with 6 carriages?

 

[js1000]

The Metrolink platform is only 56m long - too short for heavy rail use. It cannot be extended because the centre abutment of the overbridge carrying Outwood Lane is in the way. This road is a major artery through the Airport and it was very disruptive when the bridge was modified during construction of the Metrolink line.

TfGM has plans for several near term "pathfinder" tram-train projects, one of which will be from the Airport to Wilmslow. I assume the tram-trains will be dual voltage and will use the second Metrolink platform, with a new crossover to the heavy rail line just past the end of P4.

Outwood Lane bridge is a problem, in an ideal world it would span the 50 metres across the station to allow for rail expansion. The other abutment between platforms 3&4 is awkwardly placed as well. You could potentially slot another platform there - potentially 2 with some creative realignment.

 

[Greybeard33]

Outwood Lane bridge is a problem, in an ideal world it would span the 50 metres across the station to allow for rail expansion. The other abutment between platforms 3&4 is awkwardly placed as well. You could potentially slot another platform there - potentially 2 with some creative realignment.

Huh? Do you mean the abutment between P1 and P2? The P3 and P4 tracks are immediately adjacent to each other.

We are where we are, due to decisions that made sense at the time. Originally Manchester Airport station had only two platforms, now P2 and P3, either side of the large central island. When the third platform (now P1) was constructed in 2008, an additional pre-cast bridge span, complete with abutments, was constructed to the side of Outwood Lane and then slid into place adjoining the original southern abutment, to minimise the road closure time. Then, when the Metrolink line and P4 were later constructed on the northern side of the station, the original bridge span and northern abutment were demolished and replaced by a longer span, supported by a new abutment between P4 and the Metrolink tracks, and by the pillars on the P2/3 island. The original southern abutment and the P1 span were left unchanged. Again this construction method minimised the road closure time.

During both construction projects the existing platform alignments were kept unchanged, to minimise disruption to rail services.

If the station and bridge were completely demolished and remodelled, clearly more platforms could be fitted into the existing footprint and the timetable conflicts eliminated. But the disruption, and cost, would be horrendous.