Petition for Manchester Piccadilly platforms 15 & 16

[Bletchleyite]

Who's going to explain to passengers why the cuts are necessary ? The politicians, local or national, who've spent years not making the necessary improvements to infrastructure ?

We are where we are.

Even if the infrastructure improvements are all signed off tomorrow, there is a choice that will apply to the next 5-10 years while they are constructed. That choice is:

1. Cut the service with fewer but longer trains.
2. Put up with the service being unpunctual and unreliable as it presently is.

It's a Hobson's choice. It's unpalatable. But they are the only two choices. The right noises are coming out at the moment suggesting that cuts may well be applied to sort things out in the short term - they are needed. And, no, I'm not just applying it to lines I don't use - I would rather LNR cut their service frequencies down if it meant they could operate reliably again.

 

[Senex]

Those are the choices, though there can be considerable disagreement about which services should be the ones to be cut. But don't you think that whichever "solution" is chosen, Westminster politicians and DfT civil servants will then just say that the railway in the North is managing to make do with what it's got and the infrastructure investment still won't come? We desperately need some proper long-term infrastructure planning (and not just for the railways).

 

[Bantamzen]

We are where we are.

Even if the infrastructure improvements are all signed off tomorrow, there is a choice that will apply to the next 5-10 years while they are constructed. That choice is:

1. Cut the service with fewer but longer trains.
2. Put up with the service being unpunctual and unreliable as it presently is.

It's a Hobson's choice. It's unpalatable. But they are the only two choices. The right noises are coming out at the moment suggesting that cuts may well be applied to sort things out in the short term - they are needed. And, no, I'm not just applying it to lines I don't use - I would rather LNR cut their service frequencies down if it meant they could operate reliably again.

There's one small problem with option 1, it assumes that any cuts will be made until P15/16 are built. But the government may see option 1 as an alternative to building P15/16, and so all that would happen would be a permanent cut in services. Even with longer trains, and assuming that the government didn't use this cut to move stock to elsewhere on the network, the reduction in services would be the headline story, and would probably convince more people to abandon the train and clog up the roads some more.

Those are the choices, though there can be considerable disagreement about which services should be the ones to be cut. But don't you think that whichever "solution" is chosen, Westminster politicians and DfT civil servants will then just say that the railway in the North is managing to make do with what it's got and the infrastructure investment still won't come? We desperately need some proper long-term infrastructure planning (and not just for the railways).

Exactly. The DfT's default position is the easiest, cheapest way out, even if that doesn't actually solve anything. People who are calling for the Ordsall Chord to be mothballed don't realise that this would be used as an excuse not to invest further, as would simply cutting services. The government needs to be pressured into solving the problems, not given "Get out of jail" cards.

 

[B&I]

There's one small problem with option 1, it assumes that any cuts will be made until P15/16 are built. But the government may see option 1 as an alternative to building P15/16, and so all that would happen would be a permanent cut in services. Even with longer trains, and assuming that the government didn't use this cut to move stock to elsewhere on the network, the reduction in services would be the headline story, and would probably convince more people to abandon the train and clog up the roads some more.



Exactly. The DfT's default position is the easiest, cheapest way out, even if that doesn't actually solve anything. People who are calling for the Ordsall Chord to be mothballed don't realise that this would be used as an excuse not to invest further, as would simply cutting services. The government needs to be pressured into solving the problems, not given "Get out of jail" cards.

All this is true. But it should not distract us from the fact that the Ordsall Chord is being used to transport piddling numbers of people very long distances to an airport for their holidays once or twice a year in preference to what its function should be, as part of the core of the local transport system of a conurbation of 3 million people.

 

[Bantamzen]

All this is true. But it should not distract us from the fact that the Ordsall Chord is being used to transport piddling numbers of people very long distances to an airport for their holidays once or twice a year in preference to what its function should be, as part of the core of the local transport system of a conurbation of 3 million people.

You mean the airport that plans to ship 50 million passengers a year? The one that employs close to 25,000 people? The one that is owned by Greater Manchester councils? I ask only because Manchester Airport has long since shed it's parochial image as a bucket & spade airport, and is now a key part of Greater Manchester's economy as well as a rapidly growing international airport. So I just need to confirm that we are talking about the same place.

I've said this on here before, but like it or not the airport is key to Manchester's economy, and probably a key part of the TPE franchise. Manchester already has a much more developed public transport network than many other major cities, and the changes through the Castlefield Corridor needed can be achieved without cutting long distant services. Splitting daft services such as Liverpool - Crewe are much more preferable options, commuters are unlikely to actually finish their journeys in the shadow of the corridor, and so they can easily move onto Manchester's other modes of transport to complete their journeys. All that is needed is better cross ticketing arrangements, something I'm sure Mayor Burnham and his team could negotiate if they weren't so busy trying to score political points.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

All this is true. But it should not distract us from the fact that the Ordsall Chord is being used to transport piddling numbers of people very long distances to an airport for their holidays once or twice a year in preference to what its function should be, as part of the core of the local transport system of a conurbation of 3 million people.

Do you not think there are any business travellers who use flights to and from Manchester Airport?

 

[daodao]

Do you not think there are any business travellers who use flights to and from Manchester Airport?

Of course there are, but they will use private transport to get to their final destination, or at most a train from the airport to the city centre (Piccadilly). If they wish to travel to Scotland/Scouseland/Tykeland/Geordieland they will fly direct to the nearest airport (Abbotsinch/Turnhouse/Speke/Yeadon/Woolsington), rather than to Ringway and then catching a long-distance train to their final destination. If their chosen airport doesn't have a direct flight from their originating location, they will interline at a hub airport such as Doha, Dubai, Heathrow or Schiphol. That is the rationale for cutting all TPE (and TfW) services to the airport and via the Castlefield corridor. It'll only affect the bucket and spade riff-raff.

 

[js1000]

I've said this on here before, but like it or not the airport is key to Manchester's economy, and probably a key part of the TPE franchise. Manchester already has a much more developed public transport network than many other major cities, and the changes through the Castlefield Corridor needed can be achieved without cutting long distant services. Splitting daft services such as Liverpool - Crewe are much more preferable options, commuters are unlikely to actually finish their journeys in the shadow of the corridor, and so they can easily move onto Manchester's other modes of transport to complete their journeys. All that is needed is better cross ticketing arrangements, something I'm sure Mayor Burnham and his team could negotiate if they weren't so busy trying to score political points.

The traffic is horendous in Manchester. It is now a European city. Commuter trains (just like London) are one of the very transport modes that offer solutions to this if medium to long term planning is in place for platform extensions and increases in train carriages. Although I agree Manchester Airport is an important part of Greater Manchester's economy, so too is its city centre. Many TPE services carry air from Piccadilly to the Airport and with an overly generous between 7 to 9 tph to the Airport it's not surprising. This frequency is double both Gatwick Stansted Express! The over provision of trains from the city centre to the Airport is something that's needs to be reviewed.

I do not believe this cull in 2 services through Manchester is Hobson's Choice.

1. The Crewe to Liverpool via Manchester Airport. The worst is that this service is that this service is split as it was May 2018 with Manchester to Crewe shuttle and Southport to Victoria/Stalybridge. No one losing frequency into Manchester and Liverpool. And how mamy passengers west and east commute past Manchester to the other side for work? Probably very few because the route is ridiculuously slow with 29 stops. If they need to go to Manchester Airport then Victoria offers a half hourly connection.

2. Southport to Alderley Edge. Think this is unlikely to go but could move back to how it was pre May 2018.

The government (at the moment) don't want to fund the necessary infrastructure to support the increases in services and it's having a detrimental impact on the network. Network Rail are corect for stating the obvious that the only short term solution is to reduce services. Hopefully this will force the government to release funding as a result of the bsd PR that will inevitably arise from this.

 

[Bantamzen]

The traffic is horendous in Manchester. It is now a European city. Commuter trains (just like London) are one of the very transport modes that offer solutions to this if medium to long term planning is in place for platform extensions and increases in train carriages. Although I agree Manchester Airport is an important part of Greater Manchester's economy, so too is its city centre. Many TPE services carry air from Piccadilly to the Airport and with an overly generous between 7 to 9 tph to the Airport it's not surprising. This frequency is double both Gatwick Stansted Express! The over provision of trains from the city centre to the Airport is something that's needs to be reviewed.

I do not believe this cull in 2 services through Manchester is Hobson's Choice.

1. The Crewe to Liverpool via Manchester Airport. The worst is that this service is that this service is split as it was May 2018 with Manchester to Crewe shuttle and Southport to Victoria/Stalybridge. No one losing frequency into Manchester and Liverpool. And how mamy passengers west and east commute past Manchester to the other side for work? Probably very few because the route is ridiculuously slow with 29 stops. If they need to go to Manchester Airport then Victoria offers a half hourly connection.

2. Southport to Alderley Edge. Think this is unlikely to go but could move back to how it was pre May 2018.

The government (at the moment) don't want to fund the necessary infrastructure to support the increases in services and it's having a detrimental impact on the network. Network Rail are corect for stating the obvious that the only short term solution is to reduce services. Hopefully this will force the government to release funding as a result of the bsd PR that will inevitably arise from this.

I have to say whenever I've been on an TPE airport service, the fresh air was actually being occupied with airport-bound passengers. We keep getting told that no-one uses it yet they can be very busy when arriving at Manchester Airport. Someone's back of cigarette packet calculations that only a couple of dozen people use each service seems to have become RUK fact. I suspect strongly that the TPEs are likely to be the busiest of all airport services given the areas they serve. Cutting them will only add to Manchester's woes.

There is no doubt that the area needs more investment, lots more. But if you allow the government to cut today with the promise of jam tomorrow, they will happily make the cuts but then tell you the jam isn't worth it. So re-splitting some of the operationally convenient services like the above you mention is a happier compromise, it doesn't reduce services, just relieves a along the corridor pending a decision on the proposed works.

 

[Gareth]

What was Manchester before it was a European city? A South American one?

 

[Purple Orange]

Questions to those who believe the existing airport services should be curtailed:

What services would you replace them with on the Styal line?

I would have assumed an all stop shuttle from Piccadilly, but would this deliver 5m people in to Manchester Airport?

The 5m people who currently travel to/from the airport would need to make their journey somehow. If we assume they remain using rail and do not drive, how would they get to Piccadilly to continue on an airport shuttle?

To my mind, I can’t see how the numbers stack up to allow anything other than the service pattern as it is, because we don’t have the infrastructure in the city centre and I don’t see how P15 & 16 would address this.

 

[Trackman]

I don't know if this has been posted, is this something to do with the review of 'Package C' as mentioned previously or is it just a thing on its own?
edit :eeek. no small URL allowed.
https://cdn.networkrail.co.uk/wp-co...-Corridor-congested-infrastructure-report.pdf

 

[Mogster]

Are there any plans to build more platforms at the Airport?

 

[Killingworth]

All this is true. But it should not distract us from the fact that the Ordsall Chord is being used to transport piddling numbers of people very long distances to an airport for their holidays once or twice a year in preference to what its function should be, as part of the core of the local transport system of a conurbation of 3 million people.

As I've previously said, what's really needed is a network of tunnelled fast routes from the outer suburbs into the cente, beneath Victoria and Piccadilly. Suburban commuter routes can best use the slow surface lines that can't be speeded up significantly. I know this is looking too far into the future but fast routes can't be fast when threading their way through built up areas on Victorian infrastructure. Yes, I'm aware of the Crossrail costs!

On Airport services its a lot more than package tour holidaymakers and budget fliers. TPEs early morning services from Sheffield carriy business people heading around the globe. Some will be doing a day's work in a European city before returning to take an evening train back. True a much larger number are commuting into Manchester.

On suburban services I note that, whatever the line speed restrictions and unit capabilities, trains on the Manchester routes out of Sheffield to Dore do most of that section below 50mph, and it's much the same going into Manchester. A dedicated modern fast inter-city tunnelled route should be able to double those speeds through the suburbs - and further afield speed them by much more ..

 

[Roose]

La tradition en anglais était déjà occupé

'Traduction' peut-être?

Probably 'prise' for occupé?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

On suburban services I note that, whatever the line speed restrictions and unit capabilities, trains on the Manchester routes out of Sheffield to Dore do most of that section below 50mph, and it's much the same going into Manchester. A dedicated modern fast inter-city tunnelled route should be able to double those speeds through the suburbs - and further afield speed them by much more ..

Casting one's mind back many years, can anyone recall what was said to be the estimated time period for the construction of the fully operational use of the tunnelled "Picc-Vic" line proposals in Manchester?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I seem to recall 2 years but these days I suggest 3 years

 

[Jozhua]

After watching the Transport For North board meeting certain things are clear:

-A short term reduction in services is required for reliable running through Castlefield.
-Central Manchester is an important interchange point in the North.
-Delays through Castlefield ripple across a considerable amount of the country, other regional leaders admit it is noticeably one of the most congested areas.
-Three areas on the UK rail network are designated as 'congested', Castlefield being one of them. The other two are on the Brighton Mainline and works to resolve these issues are currently underway.

In regards to solving the issues:
-It is as yet undecided which services will be reduced, TFN board members are keen to establish a methodology to working out which services will be most fair to cut short. Approximately two trains an hour will be removed from the corridor. This will be very much a temporary solution, and leaders will not accept service reductions permanently.

-There is shorter and longer term solutions, as well as ones with smaller and larger costs. Bottlenecks and junctions around the whole of Manchester are also an issue too, especially when it comes to presenting trains to the oh so fragile corridor on time.

-Shorter term and cheaper solutions involve improvements to Victoria and some junctions.

-In the medium term, package C works which include 15/16 will be the most robust solution.

-These issues will likely continue for a while, there is no easy short term fix, unfortunately.

Some other points:
-The Sheffield Mayor correctly identified that Hope Valley line improvements will require extra capacity at Piccadilly to handle the extra trains.

-Passenger numbers have massively increased, however this increased fare income has been used to offset subsidy decreases. Trains are carrying a lot more people with the same operational budgets they had when passenger numbers were much lower. On top of this, they need to cater for future growth.

-Whilst projects like HS2 and NPR may offer a longer term solution, there are many issues on the 'classic' network that need resolving imminently.

 

[Killingworth]

The Hope Valley work, planned to be ready December 3 2018, won't be ready before December 2023. That's how long it seems to take because all the delays before and after the inquiry meant the work has had to be totally recosted. 15/16 work will cause disruption in itself so considerable readjustment is going to be needed unil about 2030, barring miracles .Even if it was given the go ahead today there'd be 2-3 years of preparation before work could start on the ground. Too much has changed already.

My personal view is that Hope Valley should be completed to improve reliability of current services before pushing an extra one through. Longer and more reliable trains so I can expect and get a seat and arrive on time. But hands-off the the through service to Liverpool. Potential delays at both ends and having to change in Manchester makes a bad journey at present on one train into a trip I'd avoid. The present 158/156/153 and frequent short forms are not too appealing either.

It will be interesting to see station passenger number statistics next week. Distorted by split ticketing, fare avoidance and strikes they should still give a guide as to how things have developed.

 

[Mogster]

I thought the Piccadilly 15&16 works as planned around 2014 would have caused little service disruption. The Oxford Road plans were another matter as they were to require closure of the existing platforms for a time.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The Hope Valley work, planned to be ready December 3018, won't be ready before December 2023.

You say that like being 995 years early is a bad thing .
On a serious note, why hasn't there been heads rolling for these massively delayed projects?

 

[158756]

You say that like being 995 years early is a bad thing .
On a serious note, why hasn't there been heads rolling for these massively delayed projects?

If heads rolled every time a project was delayed Network Rail would have run out of heads by now. This is how the railways work, if there's a budget or a timescale the one sure thing is that it won't be met.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Hope Valley work, planned to be ready December 3018....

The truth is now out of the bag.....

 

[Killingworth]

You say that like being 995 years early is a bad thing .
On a serious note, why hasn't there been heads rolling for these massively delayed projects?

Orignal corrected

Because delays are endemic with major construction projects. Rail isn't any different from elsewhere in that, but all the parties involved make it more likely.

 

[Killingworth]

The truth is now out of the bag.....

Maybe that's it! Original corrected

 

[B&I]

'Traduction' peut-être?

Probably 'prise' for occupé?

Personne n'aime un cul intelligent

 

[B&I]

You mean the airport that plans to ship 50 million passengers a year? The one that employs close to 25,000 people? The one that is owned by Greater Manchester councils? I ask only because Manchester Airport has long since shed it's parochial image as a bucket & spade airport, and is now a key part of Greater Manchester's economy as well as a rapidly growing international airport. So I just need to confirm that we are talking about the same place.

I've said this on here before, but like it or not the airport is key to Manchester's economy, and probably a key part of the TPE franchise. Manchester already has a much more developed public transport network than many other major cities, and the changes through the Castlefield Corridor needed can be achieved without cutting long distant services. Splitting daft services such as Liverpool - Crewe are much more preferable options, commuters are unlikely to actually finish their journeys in the shadow of the corridor, and so they can easily move onto Manchester's other modes of transport to complete their journeys. All that is needed is better cross ticketing arrangements, something I'm sure Mayor Burnham and his team could negotiate if they weren't so busy trying to score political points.

You have posted all of this before, and it was incorrect then too. The airport is simply not as important as some people on here think it is.

 

[B&I]

Do you not think there are any business travellers who use flights to and from Manchester Airport?

Yes, which is why I did not say there weren't any. However, IIRC they are about 20% of its users. Many of them probably don't need to be making their international journeys in the first place.

I suspect that I could kill certain forum members' close relatives and receive a less outraged response than I receive when I question the importance of Manchester Airport.

 

[B&I]

The traffic is horendous in Manchester. It is now a European city. Commuter trains (just like London) are one of the very transport modes that offer solutions to this if medium to long term planning is in place for platform extensions and increases in train carriages. Although I agree Manchester Airport is an important part of Greater Manchester's economy, so too is its city centre. Many TPE services carry air from Piccadilly to the Airport and with an overly generous between 7 to 9 tph to the Airport it's not surprising. This frequency is double both Gatwick Stansted Express! The over provision of trains from the city centre to the Airport is something that's needs to be reviewed.

I do not believe this cull in 2 services through Manchester is Hobson's Choice.

1. The Crewe to Liverpool via Manchester Airport. The worst is that this service is that this service is split as it was May 2018 with Manchester to Crewe shuttle and Southport to Victoria/Stalybridge. No one losing frequency into Manchester and Liverpool. And how mamy passengers west and east commute past Manchester to the other side for work? Probably very few because the route is ridiculuously slow with 29 stops. If they need to go to Manchester Airport then Victoria offers a half hourly connection.

If the overconcentration of services on Manchester Airport had anything to do with the people of Greater Manchester, there would be a direct shuttle from Stockport, a major town within a few miles of the airport, looping round to join the Styal line from the south. This is all about trying to crowd out every other airport in the north, and sadly the entire rail network is being distorted to facilitate it. I wouldn't mind so much if Manchester Airport Group actually put hand in pocket and paid for some of the necessary infrastructure work.

You are however falling victim to the mentality you criticise by talking about alternative journeys to the airport from the Chat Moss line if the stopper is redirected. Pre-2018 the stopper to Victoria was usefully supplemented by the semi-fast to Piccadilly, which is still an important link for onward travel east and south of Manchester. The long wait at and slow journey from Victoria to get to Piccadilly, or the crawl by tram, are less attractive for most people than walking between the two. If the government won't sort Castlefield out, and if the stopper is moved back to Victoria, they should at least do the infrastructure work necessary to run the stopper round to Victoria via Phillips Park (maybe doing something similar with the Southport service).

 

[B&I]

Questions to those who believe the existing airport services should be curtailed:

What services would you replace them with on the Styal line?

I would have assumed an all stop shuttle from Piccadilly, but would this deliver 5m people in to Manchester Airport?

The 5m people who currently travel to/from the airport would need to make their journey somehow. If we assume they remain using rail and do not drive, how would they get to Piccadilly to continue on an airport shuttle?

To my mind, I can’t see how the numbers stack up to allow anything other than the service pattern as it is, because we don’t have the infrastructure in the city centre and I don’t see how P15 & 16 would address this.

If the passenger flows to the airport are so colossal, MAG should fund the infrastructure necessary from their massive turnover to allow direct services to it, bypassing central Manchester. Odd how the Fellowship of the Ringway goes quiet whenever this suggestion is made.