Which trains should serve Manchester Airport?

[Camden]

There's a big difference between travelling with a suitcase which isn't small enough to class as cabin luggage and taking enough for 2 weeks on a cruise ship.

Metrolink to the Airport will suit the Airport employees, people going to the Airport on holiday should use trains, coaches and private vehicles.

There's a big difference between the thousands of people who will want to travel to/from a city, versus the handful that will want to travel to an airport. Is the national railway really to be run to prioritise the comfort of these few?

Did you know that in London taking luggage on the tube is not uncommon? That changing lines is not uncommon? And that getting a cab when you have lots of heavy items is not uncommon?

What makes manchester airport so special that all lines must lead there, even when it costs other cities services? Ending many national rail services at Manchester airport defies logic even for airport connectivity itself.

 

[martynbristow]

There's a big difference between the thousands of people who will want to travel to/from a city, versus the handful that will want to travel to an airport. Is the national railway really to be run to prioritise the comfort of these few?

Did you know that in London taking luggage on the tube is not uncommon? That changing lines is not uncommon? And that getting a cab when you have lots of heavy items is not uncommon?

What makes manchester airport so special that all lines must lead there, even when it costs other cities services? Ending many national rail services at Manchester airport defies logic even for airport connectivity itself.

Very good point.
Also Manchester Airport has ample parking, albeit a rip off and sufficient short stay for drop offs.
The city centre doesn't have this luxury.

 

[northwichcat]

What makes manchester airport so special that all lines must lead there, even when it costs other cities services?

I've made a number of unrelated points in response to different posts but I get the impression you see them combined as my view.

Metrolink bye-laws forbid large luggage items to be carried. Fact, not opinion.

NRCoC allows 2 suitcases per person. Fact, not opinion.

Apparently, larger items of luggage are allowed on the Underground which makes it non-comparable to Metrolink when talking about travelling with larger luggage items.

Therefore Victoria-Airport by train would suit more Airport passengers than by Metrolink.

Victoria-Airport services will need to originate from somewhere beyond Victoria - Rochdale, Blackburn (via Todmorden), Leeds (via Huddersfield), Leeds (via Bradford) and Stalybridge would all be possible origins.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that an hourly service to the Airport from somewhere like Warrington (which is within a commutable distance of the Airport) is more important than an hourly service from Carlisle. A commuter can make over 200 return trips per year, a holiday maker may just make 1 return trip per year.

 

[martynbristow]

I've made a number of unrelated points in response to different posts but I get the impression you see them combined as my view.

Metrolink bye-laws forbid large luggage items to be carried. Fact, not opinion.

NRCoC allows 2 suitcases per person. Fact, not opinion.

Apparently, larger items of luggage are allowed on the Underground which makes it non-comparable to Metrolink when talking about travelling with larger luggage items.

Therefore Victoria-Airport by train would suit more Airport passengers than by Metrolink.

Victoria-Airport services will need to originate from somewhere beyond Victoria - Rochdale, Blackburn (via Todmorden), Leeds (via Huddersfield), Leeds (via Bradford) and Stalybridge would all be possible origins.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that an hourly service to the Airport from somewhere like Warrington (which is within a commutable distance of the Airport) is more important than an hourly service from Carlisle. A commuter can make over 200 return trips per year, a holiday maker may just make 1 return trip per year.

So your argument is only referring to people with 2 items of luggage? Thus your now only really considering holiday makers.
Which we now will restrict to single-couple holiday makers travelling a fair distance.
Families will be better off in a taxi/lift, its cheaper and easier.
Now your talking a handful of people a day at best.

Potentially there are people who would commute from warrington except I doubt its feasible. Airlines have limits on the travel time to and from the place of work, and the staff within the airport won't necessarily be able to afford to commute from Warrington. I'm not saying people don't, just it won't be enough to merit extra consideration over other areas. Providing a through service to Preston and on is a good start, I don't know how many people carry on but it does expand the airports catchment area. I don't think an hourly service is too much.

Anyway there potentially will be 2 Warrington-Airport trains soon. There is already sufficient connections.

 

[Camden]

I've made a number of unrelated points in response to different posts but I get the impression you see them combined as my view.

Metrolink bye-laws forbid large luggage items to be carried. Fact, not opinion.

NRCoC allows 2 suitcases per person. Fact, not opinion.

Apparently, larger items of luggage are allowed on the Underground which makes it non-comparable to Metrolink when talking about travelling with larger luggage items.

Therefore Victoria-Airport by train would suit more Airport passengers than by Metrolink.

Victoria-Airport services will need to originate from somewhere beyond Victoria - Rochdale, Blackburn (via Todmorden), Leeds (via Huddersfield), Leeds (via Bradford) and Stalybridge would all be possible origins.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that an hourly service to the Airport from somewhere like Warrington (which is within a commutable distance of the Airport) is more important than an hourly service from Carlisle. A commuter can make over 200 return trips per year, a holiday maker may just make 1 return trip per year.

Luggage is irrelevant, it really is. If you've got more luggage than you can take on a tram, then it's a taxi for you. I wouldn't think the national rail network should be held hostage to the T&Cs your tram set up elects to use, any more than it should be by the handful of people who will want to get to your airport.

As it happens, though, I've got the Metrolink terms here http://www.metrolink.co.uk/using-the-network/Documents/Conditions of Carriage.pdf and the "fact" you claim doesn't appear anywhere. It actually refers to luggage being your responsibility and simply, very reasonably, asks that you keep it out of the way. It would certainly seem an odd turn of events for so much money and effort to be spent building a metrolink line to your airport, only to tell people they can't take luggage on it...

I don't really understand the relevance of your point about Warrington. I would say that a Warrington enjoying four trains an hour through Manchester city centre (where they can change for frequent local services to Manchester airport if they on rare occasion need to) en route to other places is an obviously far superior set up than Warrington having two (or less) trains an hour to Manchester and the occasional "direct" service to the airport.

 

[martynbristow]

Luggage is irrelevant, it really is. If you've got more luggage than you can take on a tram, then it's a taxi for you. I wouldn't think the national rail network should be held hostage to the T&Cs your tram operator elects to use, any more than it should be by the handful of people who will want to get to your airport.

As it happens, I've got the Metrolink terms here http://www.metrolink.co.uk/using-the-network/Documents/Conditions of Carriage.pdf and the "fact" you claim doesn't appear anywhere. It actually refers to luggage being your responsibility and very reasonably asks that you keep it out of the way. It would certainly seem an odd turn of events for so much money and effort to be spent building a metrolink line to your airport, only to tell people they can't take luggage on it...

I don't really understand the relevance of your point about Warrington. I would say that a Warrington enjoying four trains an hour through Manchester city centre (where they can change for frequent local services to Manchester airport if they on rare occasion need to) is an obviously far superior set up than Warrington having two (or less) trains an hour through Manchester and the occasional "direct" service to the airport.

Its in the Bye-Laws, buts its stupid and may get updated soon given they serve the airport and the network is not what it used to be:
BICYCLES AND LUGGAGE
9. 1) NO person shall cause or permit to be brought onto, or permit to remain upon any Vehicle or any Station: -
a) any bicycle or other wheeled vehicle (save for wheelchairs, pushchairs and prams) unless authorised by the Conditions of Carriage.
b) any luggage or other article which by reason of its nature could be reasonably expected to cause or does cause obstruction, inconvenience or danger to any Person (whether a passenger on the System or not) or damage to any property (including but not limited to the System)

They ban cycles for very little reason other than they take up space. Banning them on peak I can accept but they replaced a number of rail lines so you can't do much with a bike these days.

 

[Camden]

Its in the Bye-Laws, buts its stupid and may get updated soon given they serve the airport and the network is not what it used to be:
BICYCLES AND LUGGAGE
9. 1) NO person shall cause or permit to be brought onto, or permit to remain upon any Vehicle or any Station: -
a) any bicycle or other wheeled vehicle (save for wheelchairs, pushchairs and prams) unless authorised by the Conditions of Carriage.
b) any luggage or other article which by reason of its nature could be reasonably expected to cause or does cause obstruction, inconvenience or danger to any Person (whether a passenger on the System or not) or damage to any property (including but not limited to the System)

They ban cycles for very little reason other than they take up space. Banning them on peak I can accept but they replaced a number of rail lines so you can't do much with a bike these days.

That doesn't say you can't take large luggage, it just says you can't take something which "could be reasonably expected to cause or does cause obstruction, inconvenience or danger to any Person".

I recall they also used to ban motorised wheelchairs, which take up far more space than anyone's suitcase, but that they don't any more.

No one wouldn't take their ordinary luggage on metrolink as a result of that.

18. The safety and security of any luggage, pushchair etc, is the responsibility of the
passenger to whom it belongs, and Metrolink RATP Dev UK will not accept any liability or
accountability for loss or damage unless such a loss or damage is caused by negligence of
person(s) acting on behalf of Metrolink RATP Dev UK.
19. Passengers shall ensure that any luggage, pushchair, etc, does not obstruct any door,
compartment, passageway, or cause any inconvenience to other passengers

 

[martynbristow]

Yeah that doesn't say you can't take large luggage, it just says you can't take something which "could be reasonably expected to cause or does cause obstruction, inconvenience or danger to any Person".

I recall they also used to ban motorised wheelchairs, which take up far more space than anyone's suitcase, but that they don't any more.

Perhaps some might sweat about the measurements taking on a few suitcases, but I can assure you most people would just travel.

Taking a coat on is banned under the above :P It prevents the cramming in of another empty sole.

Given the lack of stowage I think it could be used against large hold bags if they are strict and at peak times. But theres nothing against two small bags. We don't need to take a kitchen sink away

 

[Camden]

Taking a coat on is banned under the above :P It prevents the cramming in of another empty sole.

Given the lack of stowage I think it could be used against large hold bags if they are strict and at peak times. But theres nothing against two small bags. We don't need to take a kitchen sink away

If someone got on to a tram with crates, then perhaps you might expect something to be said.

If your luggage isn't "industrial" then I think you can reasonably expect that you'll just be left alone.

 

[northwichcat]

No one wouldn't take their ordinary luggage on metrolink as a result of that.

I'm not sure if they have them on the new trams but on the old ones there were stickers on the windows which showed suitcases with a line through them, similar to no smoking signs.

The largest suitcase I've ever seen anyone take on Metrolink would be well below the size of the Ryanair would allow in a cabin.

I've heard that some RPIs tell passengers suitcases with wheels shouldn't really be taken on board trams.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Luggage is irrelevant, it really is. If you've got more luggage than you can take on a tram, then it's a taxi for you. I wouldn't think the national rail network should be held hostage to the T&Cs

So taking more than a cabin sized suitcase on National Rail should be banned in your opinion?

National Express and Megabus would love you for that. Many long distance rail travelers would switch to coaches instead.

 

[martynbristow]

If someone got on to a tram with crates, then perhaps you might expect something to be said.

If your luggage isn't "industrial" then I think you can reasonably expect that you'll just be left alone.

I'm not sure if they have them on the new trams but on the old ones there were stickers on the windows which showed suitcases with a line through them, similar to no smoking signs.

The largest suitcase I've ever seen anyone take on Metrolink would be well below the size of the Ryanair would allow in a cabin.

I've heard that some RPIs tell passengers suitcases with wheels shouldn't really be taken on board trams.

If they're taking crates ... I think ryanair would be saying something about this, as well as the train operators.

It maybe a feature of the new trams allowing more luggage carrying or because they now serve the airport they are tapping into that market who knows.

If I have a large amount of luggage I'd spend my money on a cab!
Anyway I get free lifts to/from the airport normally, from someone far to kind :P
I assume most people can get friends/family to help if need be for the short-semi distances such as warrington.

 

[Camden]

I'm not sure if they have them on the new trams but on the old ones there were stickers on the windows which showed suitcases with a line through them, similar to no smoking signs.

Yes, I know the stickers (and stickers, for future reference, don't constitute byelaws. I don't think society has de-evolved to pictogram level just yet).

You'd find those stickers above the well where the accessible area is. It means "please don't place luggage here", but could also mean please don't place luggage on seats.

The largest suitcase I've ever seen anyone take on Metrolink would be well below the size of the Ryanair would allow in a cabin.

Well nothing beats anecdotal evidence of course. I've personally been on one of your trams with quite a hefty suitcase. You must just not have seen me.

I've heard that some RPIs tell passengers suitcases with wheels shouldn't really be taken on board trams.

As above. Plus what suitcases don't have wheels these days? How do you know they weren't simply telling them not to wheel their suitcases, so that the wheels don't get wedged in the narrow gap between the tram and the platform edge?

So taking more than a cabin sized suitcase on National Rail should be banned in your opinion?

National Express and Megabus would love you for that. Many long distance rail travelers would switch to coaches instead.

No idea what you're talking about now. I hope you didn't try to misquote me by cutting off my sentence, but clearly my original post says that I wouldn't think the national rail network should be held hostage (as in provide a service to make up for) by the T&Cs operated by your tram set up. I then went on to show that the T&Cs operated by them didn't ban luggage anyway.

 

[hibtastic]

Albeit that this train continuing south may be logical in this case, how many were going all the way to Manchester Airport? Not many, I would wager.

Agreed, I would imagine most were heading to Manchester / Liverpool for the weekend. I cant imagine there are many that stay on to Manchester Airport.

 

[northwichcat]

I hope you didn't try to misquote me by cutting off my sentence, but clearly my original post says that I wouldn't think the national rail network should be held hostage (as in provide a service to make up for) by the T&Cs operated by your tram set up. I then went on to show that the T&Cs operated by them didn't ban luggage anyway.

No I quoted the relevant part of what you said. Quoting the whole post isn't good for people who may be accessing the thread using a screenreader.

It seems you can't even remember what you said 5 minutes ago and also can't be bothered going back to check.

You implied the bye-laws for Metrolink regarding luggage should apply to National Rail. If they did and were enforced (people can get away with bye-law breaches on some Metrolink services due to a lack of visible staff) that would for a start remove a lot of revenue particularly from the student market, which is important to operators like TPE.

 

[Camden]

No I quoted the relevant part of what you said. Quoting the whole post isn't good for people who may be accessing the thread using a screenreader.

It seems you can't even remember what you said 5 minutes ago and also can't be bothered going back to check.

I can recall clearly, given I just gave you a summary. You didn't need to quote my whole post, just the complete sentence.

You implied the bye-laws for Metrolink regarding luggage should apply to National Rail. If they did and were enforced (people can get away with bye-law breaches on some Metrolink services due to a lack of visible staff) that would for a start remove a lot of revenue particularly from the student market, which is important to operators like TPE.

No I didn't, you must have mis-read what I said as I quite clearly said the opposite (that Metrolink T&Cs should not impact on national rail services). And as it turns out there appears to be no such conflict in any case.

If this misunderstanding is because my post was too lengthy and you are using a screenreader whilst trying to struggle from manchester victoria to manchester piccadilly with several suitcases, I apologise and will try to be more concise in future.

 

[northwichcat]

I give up with both Camden and martynbristow. You're both reading too much in to things.

I say what the NRCoC conditions are for luggage and one of you automatically assumes I'm referring to Airport passengers with two pieces of luggage.

I say in my opinion saying towns within a commutable distance of the Airport should have priority for direct Airport links, giving Warrington as an example, in a thread discussing "Which trains should serve Manchester Airport?" and the other one of you questions the relevance of bringing it up! Obviously trying to bring the thread back on topic rather than carrying on with a Metrolink vs National Rail luggage debate wasn't allowed. Yet when I misinterpreted something that wasn't relevant to the post it was posted in response to, I get accusing of deliberately misquoting.

 

[martynbristow]

2-1 thinks to me your not reading into this enough.
Your refereeing to the Airport, and not a town. The people going to the Airport are going to be going to the Airport.

Are you basically saying you wants 2 trains per hour to the airport from Warrington?

The people of Preston, Lancaster and further afield like these connections to.
You can't base service patterns on a whim.

Manchester Airport had a massive catchment area!

I don't quite understand how some one would struggle to change platforms at Picadilly, potentially the same platform but would be able to cart there kitchen sink for the station to Departures. The issue i have with connecting trains is if there is a problem with the connections and the connections are awful. The physical change isn't much.

My point stands that if people can't use the train easily then people have cars.

 

[Class 170101]

The same discussion could be had about Heathrow. Nobody seems to be discussing the possibility of Cross Country services from the north to Reading being extended to Heathrow when the west-south curve is finally built. Even the HS2 spur to Heathrow has been cancelled.

I have been arguing on other threads arguing for Cross Country services to be extended to both Gatwick and Heathrow Airports.

The lack of direct services from the north to our biggest airport is a disgrace and I suspect has been influenced by the domestic airline lobby.

Maybe, but they are not much use of you are in the likes of Swindon, Oxford, Woking and countless other places

 

[richardio123]

Maybe because large items of luggage are banned from Metrolink and people travelling to the Airport for holidays may have large items of luggage?

NO they are not...

I use the Airport almost everyday and it has hundreds of holiday goers that use it with large luggage.

 

[northwichcat]

You'd find those stickers above the well where the accessible area is. It means "please don't place luggage here", but could also mean please don't place luggage on seats.

The stickers I was referring to also showed a hot drink with a line through and a bicycle with a line through. So all that time they actually meant don't put luggage, hot drinks or bicycles on seats. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

NO they are not...

I use the Airport almost everyday and it has hundreds of holiday goers that use it with large luggage.

What people do and what's permitted is not the same thing, especially where there's a lack of staff. Many people travel without tickets but it doesn't mean travelling without tickets is permitted.

It seems Metrolink have make the bye-laws more loose regarding luggage than they used to be but haven't publicised the change all that much.

 

[berneyarms]

2-1 thinks to me your not reading into this enough.
Your refereeing to the Airport, and not a town. The people going to the Airport are going to be going to the Airport.

Are you basically saying you wants 2 trains per hour to the airport from Warrington?

The people of Preston, Lancaster and further afield like these connections to.
You can't base service patterns on a whim.

Manchester Airport had a massive catchment area!

I don't quite understand how some one would struggle to change platforms at Picadilly, potentially the same platform but would be able to cart there kitchen sink for the station to Departures. The issue i have with connecting trains is if there is a problem with the connections and the connections are awful. The physical change isn't much.

My point stands that if people can't use the train easily then people have cars.

I think that it is a fair comment that if you have luggage and/or are travelling with children, every time that a change of train is added into the equation it makes the journey less appealing and people will use the car.

Is that a good thing?

I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that there perhaps the range of destinations served directly from Manchester Airport could be reviewed and improved upon, given its status as the main international airport in the north.

 

[martynbristow]

I think that it is a fair comment that if you have luggage and/or are travelling with children, every time that a change of train is added into the equation it makes the journey less appealing and people will use the car.

Is that a good thing?

I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that there perhaps the range of destinations served directly from Manchester Airport could be reviewed and improved upon, given its status as the main international airport in the north.

Well its defiantly not a "good thing" but it happens and I don't think its going to change. For a family by train its not going to be cheap. But you can't offer a door-airport by train so the car has a head start. There is going to be some form of connection. Its minimising the number of people making them thats key.
But as I pointed out well earlier on that flights and trains don't always agree. Sunday afternoon flights home leave me virtually stranded at the airport for example. You need to consider the bigger picture unfortunately.

And to your last point I think they are reviewed periodically in context of other things such as the practicality of using Piccadilly.

 

[berneyarms]

Well its defiantly not a "good thing" but it happens and I don't think its going to change. For a family by train its not going to be cheap. But you can't offer a door-airport by train so the car has a head start. There is going to be some form of connection. Its minimising the number of people making them thats key.
But as I pointed out well earlier on that flights and trains don't always agree. Sunday afternoon flights home leave me virtually stranded at the airport for example. You need to consider the bigger picture unfortunately.

And to your last point I think they are reviewed periodically in context of other things such as the practicality of using Piccadilly.

Excuse me, but I think I am looking at "the bigger picture". That comment comes across as somewhat patronising I would suggest.

I'm not remotely suggesting that everywhere should have direct connections to/from the airport. But I think that the range of destinations served directly across the north should be looked at in the context of the additional platform being available, and most definitely could be improved upon from that currently on offer. That was the point of this discussion.

You're never going to please everyone or match everyone's requirements, but you could definitely improve what is currently offered.

 

[PrinceBishop]

As Manchester airport already has a high number of services connecting it, you could have four Liverpool - Leeds services and two Wales - Leeds services, each of which could be used to connect with the services to Manchester airport. That would provide for infinitely superior connectivity to those places, including for getting people to from the airport.

Given the significant investment being put into expanding the capacity and throughput of Manchester's railways, including new lines and platforms, I would hope that this is going to be put to better use than just pumping their own airport station full of trains.

Is it not the case that many of the services that run to the airport do so as much for operational convenience as anything else? Or would you terminate everything in the Mayfield loop? This isn't the first time you have expressed your annoyance at direct, regional trains going to Manchester Airport but I'm afraid I struggle to see the places that are being so deprived of services as a result.

What you have suggested above is almost certainly worse and provides less connectivity.

For a start, you don't need 4tph between Leeds and Liverpool. Two is sufficient. And if you were to have 4tph I presume you'd need to get rid of some stoppers on the Chat Moss. Still, at least people in Newton-le-Willows could rest assured that although their service has gone, so has Manchester Airport's.

The Leeds to Wales (I assume you refer to North Wales via Chester) service would be good, I agree, but here 1tph would be sufficient, 2tph is not needed. I also understand there's a difficulty with making that service happen due to objections from the Welsh Government. Don't forget that there will be a West Yorkshire to Chester service in future.

So taking out your unnecessary extra services which would involve 'pumping' Liverpool & North Wales with an unnecessary amount of trains, to coin a phrase, we are left with several services to path. You've talked before about running trains through Manchester city centre to mysterious 'proper' places.

I might remind you that Manchester Airport is actually a useful destination for many people, including me, and I'm based in Durham. Your proposed services would also mean losing a direct link to Piccadilly (they would have to go via Victoria to avoid crossing Piccadilly throat) from West and North Yorkshire which is extremely important. Presumably you think that 2tph to Llandudno is far more important.

If we had to make a choice between serving Manchester Airport and Piccadilly or Liverpool then I might understand your annoyance. But happily, we don't have to make that choice because we can and do serve both. What you are proposing is to remove well used, some would say crucial, services to Piccadilly/Airport in order to have 4tph Leeds-Liverpool. That makes no sense to me. It certainly does not improve connectivity. You would also make the Ordsall Chord something of a white elephant.

 

[Camden]

Is it not the case that many of the services that run to the airport do so as much for operational convenience as anything else? Or would you terminate everything in the Mayfield loop? This isn't the first time you have expressed your annoyance at direct, regional trains going to Manchester Airport but I'm afraid I struggle to see the places that are being so deprived of services as a result.

What you have suggested above is almost certainly worse and provides less connectivity.

For a start, you don't need 4tph between Leeds and Liverpool. Two is sufficient. And if you were to have 4tph I presume you'd need to get rid of some stoppers on the Chat Moss. Still, at least people in Newton-le-Willows could rest assured that although their service has gone, so has Manchester Airport's.

The Leeds to Wales (I assume you refer to North Wales via Chester) service would be good, I agree, but here 1tph would be sufficient, 2tph is not needed. I also understand there's a difficulty with making that service happen due to objections from the Welsh Government. Don't forget that there will be a West Yorkshire to Chester service in future.

So taking out your unnecessary extra services which would involve 'pumping' Liverpool & North Wales with an unnecessary amount of trains, to coin a phrase, we are left with several services to path. You've talked before about running trains through Manchester city centre to mysterious 'proper' places.

I might remind you that Manchester Airport is actually a useful destination for many people, including me, and I'm based in Durham. Your proposed services would also mean losing a direct link to Piccadilly (they would have to go via Victoria to avoid crossing Piccadilly throat) from West and North Yorkshire which is extremely important. Presumably you think that 2tph to Llandudno is far more important.

If we had to make a choice between serving Manchester Airport and Piccadilly or Liverpool then I might understand your annoyance. But happily, we don't have to make that choice because we can and do serve both. What you are proposing is to remove well used, some would say crucial, services to Piccadilly/Airport in order to have 4tph Leeds-Liverpool. That makes no sense to me. It certainly does not improve connectivity. You would also make the Ordsall Chord something of a white elephant.

It's actually about providing more indirect services.

It's your opinion that 2tph from Liverpool is sufficient however as this route has double the passenger flows into Manchester than out the other side I would say you're wrong. The simple fact there is that useful trains from the east are not carrying on west with lots of passengers but heading down to Manchester airport with just a few.As new tracks have been built out of Liverpool specifically to provide more capacity, it would seem a bit strange not to make use of them (retaining, or increasing, services to Newton Le Willows).

Your argument seems centred around you in Durham would lose direct services to the airport, but this is exactly one of the problems being talked about where every small town and city from afar sees simply being on a direct destination board as somehow vital. It's not. No one is asking you to make a choice between Manchester and Liverpool, because the trains would obviously serve both. More throughput = more connectivity = more opportunity to get to/from the airport for more people not less.

Put it this way, you might value your direct service to Manchester airport from your small city of 90,000 or so people. But you've got a comment up there from someone who lives in a major city conurbation on the opposite side who is basically stranded at the airport if he arrives into manchester airport on a sunday evening.

I'm not dictating specific service patterns here, only suggesting levels and types of connectivity, but I am saying that starting from a perspective of "who should have direct trains to manchester airport" is completely the wrong way to determine service patterns and results in inefficiency and poor levels of connectivity all round. "Local or logistically sensible" should be the rule, with urban connectivity around hubs being prioritised.

 

[158756]

It's your opinion that 2tph from Liverpool is sufficient however as this route has double the passenger flows into Manchester than out the other side I would say you're wrong. The simple fact there is that useful trains from the east are not carrying on west with lots of passengers but heading down to Manchester airport with just a few.As new tracks have been built out of Liverpool specifically to provide more capacity, it would seem a bit strange not to make use of them (retaining, or increasing, services to Newton Le Willows).

Your argument seems centred around you in Durham would lose direct services to the airport, but this is exactly one of the problems being talked about where every small town and city from afar sees simply being on a direct destination board as somehow vital. It's not. No one is asking you to make a choice between Manchester and Liverpool, because the trains would obviously serve both. More throughput = more connectivity = more opportunity to get to/from the airport for more people not less.

Capacity is being increased on the Chat Moss route from a position where it had no TPE services. I very much doubt that a mile of four-tracking allows a jump from 0 to 4 fast trains per hour, and a stopper certainly couldn't do Huyton-Manchester without getting in the way of said fast trains.

Liverpool also has 2 fast tph via Warrington to Manchester. Why does Liverpool need an increase to 6tph to Manchester from an already frequent 4tph, at the expense of local services and connections from Yorkshire and the North East to Manchester's main station? Would the people of Yorkshire find Manchester Piccadilly and Airport or Llandudno and Holyhead more useful destinations?

Durham has no daytime service to Manchester Airport at present anyway. Running all TPE trains to Liverpool/Wales would mean no direct services from the east(or Wales) to Piccadilly, and consequently having to change twice to reach any destination south of Manchester, using infrequent stopping services for part of the journey.

All TPE trains could be diverted to Victoria today if desired, but evidently there are problems with that approach which merit spending millions on the new chord.

 

[martynbristow]

Capacity is being increased on the Chat Moss route from a position where it had no TPE services. I very much doubt that a mile of four-tracking allows a jump from 0 to 4 fast trains per hour, and a stopper certainly couldn't do Huyton-Manchester without getting in the way of said fast trains.

Liverpool also has 2 fast tph via Warrington to Manchester. Why does Liverpool need an increase to 6tph to Manchester from an already frequent 4tph, at the expense of local services and connections from Yorkshire and the North East to Manchester's main station? Would the people of Yorkshire find Manchester Piccadilly and Airport or Llandudno and Holyhead more useful destinations?

Durham has no daytime service to Manchester Airport at present anyway. Running all TPE trains to Liverpool/Wales would mean no direct services from the east(or Wales) to Piccadilly, and consequently having to change twice to reach any destination south of Manchester, using infrequent stopping services for part of the journey.

All TPE trains could be diverted to Victoria today if desired, but evidently there are problems with that approach which merit spending millions on the new chord.

Durham lots it's airport train to Liverpool. It no longer serves the airport at all. You now need to change at Leeds. Yes it's inconvenient that way, but honestly the new service suits me better and plenty of others. It's unfortunate that people have lost out but potentially more people have gained.

The number of trains on the chat moss is uncertain, we shall have to wait and see.

The numbers of train to Manchester from Liverpool should increase to reflect the increased usage it gets. There are currently 2tph (effective), by 4 trains. This should become 4 trains under the new timetable with 2+2. The route is often really busy and people pour off it at peak times so I can't see why it shouldn't increase.

 

[muddythefish]

East Lancashire needs direct services to the airport, so extending the Clitheroe trains or some of the forthcoming Todmorden circulars would be good.

If the aim is eventually to have many Manchester services going to the airport wouldn't it make sense and provide more capacity to make the airport line a loop (either back to Manchester or to another destination) instead of a terminus ?

 

[PrinceBishop]

It's actually about providing more indirect services.

It's your opinion that 2tph from Liverpool is sufficient however as this route has double the passenger flows into Manchester than out the other side I would say you're wrong. The simple fact there is that useful trains from the east are not carrying on west with lots of passengers but heading down to Manchester airport with just a few.As new tracks have been built out of Liverpool specifically to provide more capacity, it would seem a bit strange not to make use of them (retaining, or increasing, services to Newton Le Willows).

Yes it is my opinion, so we'll agree to differ on that point. We should remember that the trains going east of Manchester are not just serving Leeds. They are serving the busy Huddersfield to Leeds corridor and multiple destinations beyond Leeds. Therefore, even if they left Manchester empty (which they're not) they would still be serving passengers further down the line. Fast trains going west over the Chat Moss are only serving Liverpool, not a multitude of destinations beyond.

It's certainly my opinion that numerous other services shouldn't be axed in order to make way for more than two fast trains per hour on the Chat Moss. As 158756 pointed out, that doesn't include other fast(ish) trains between Manchester and Liverpool via Warrington. I think it's worth pointing out that at the moment there is one TransPennine Express service between Manchester and Liverpool over the Chat Moss. I believe the plan is to have two TransPennine Express trains per hour in future so they will be making use of the improved infrastructure and this will do much to meet demand. To go straight from 1tph to 4tph seems excessive. To do so at the expense of a link to Piccadilly and Manchester Airport seems a retrograde step.

Your argument seems centred around you in Durham would lose direct services to the airport, but this is exactly one of the problems being talked about where every small town and city from afar sees simply being on a direct destination board as somehow vital. It's not. No one is asking you to make a choice between Manchester and Liverpool, because the trains would obviously serve both. More throughput = more connectivity = more opportunity to get to/from the airport for more people not less.

Put it this way, you might value your direct service to Manchester airport from your small city of 90,000 or so people. But you've got a comment up there from someone who lives in a major city conurbation on the opposite side who is basically stranded at the airport if he arrives into manchester airport on a sunday evening.

Actually my argument wasn't centred on that at all. It couldn't have been because, as others have pointed out, Durham has already lost that service. I was simply pointing out that I used to find that service useful, both for the airport, south Manchester and connections from Piccadilly, to challenge your assertion that there wasn't much demand for it. I also have no complaints that the service has gone. I personally found it more useful but I recognise that many others will find the direct service to Liverpool more useful.

You claim that we don't have to make a choice between Manchester and Liverpool because trains would serve both, which is true. However, you would have to make a choice between Man Piccadilly/Airport or Man Victoria/Liverpool. The current plans which allow both to be served seem the best solution to me.

I'm not dictating specific service patterns here, only suggesting levels and types of connectivity, but I am saying that starting from a perspective of "who should have direct trains to manchester airport" is completely the wrong way to determine service patterns and results in inefficiency and poor levels of connectivity all round. "Local or logistically sensible" should be the rule, with urban connectivity around hubs being prioritised.

You may not have been dictating service patterns, but you were certainly suggesting some, specifically 2tph Leeds - North Wales, 4tph Leeds - Liverpool. I was respectfully disagreeing with that suggestion for reasons I have made clear. I am still puzzled as to how you see axing all fast, direct links from West and North Yorkshire to Piccadilly and the Airport in order to quadruple the current service provision over the Chat Moss to Liverpool as improving efficiency and connectivity. You say urban connectivity around hubs should be prioritised. I agree. Which is why it's vital that Piccadilly retains a service. As I have already said, if you're approaching Piccadilly from the west, which some of these services will be, it would be odd not to continue the short distance to the airport and terminate there.

I think I should also point out that if you had 4tph Liverpool - Leeds you would use paths out of Lime Street that could be used to serve other destinations. Perhaps Scotland at some point in future. Everybody would therefore lose out.

Capacity is being increased on the Chat Moss route from a position where it had no TPE services. I very much doubt that a mile of four-tracking allows a jump from 0 to 4 fast trains per hour, and a stopper certainly couldn't do Huyton-Manchester without getting in the way of said fast trains.

Liverpool also has 2 fast tph via Warrington to Manchester. Why does Liverpool need an increase to 6tph to Manchester from an already frequent 4tph, at the expense of local services and connections from Yorkshire and the North East to Manchester's main station? Would the people of Yorkshire find Manchester Piccadilly and Airport or Llandudno and Holyhead more useful destinations?

Durham has no daytime service to Manchester Airport at present anyway. Running all TPE trains to Liverpool/Wales would mean no direct services from the east(or Wales) to Piccadilly, and consequently having to change twice to reach any destination south of Manchester, using infrequent stopping services for part of the journey.

Precisely. It would be ludicrous to sever all services to Piccadilly. If you're going to serve Piccadilly, you might as well go on to the airport. In future, services won't be able to cross the throat of Piccadilly from Guide Bridge to the through platforms so trains from West and North Yorkshire to Picc would be unable to continue to Liverpool/North Wales anyway.

 

[Camden]

Liverpool already has two trans-pennine trains an hour. It isn't the case that all east-west trains would need to switch from Piccadilly to Victoria just to go on to Liverpool. Piccadilly provides access to both the Warrington and NLW branches into Liverpool. Likewise for carrying on into Wales, via Manchester Piccadilly.

You don't seem aware that Liverpool's 2 trans-pennine trains will be calling into Manchester Victoria from 2017 (thus causing more issues to their passengers re airport connectivity) demonstrating what I mean when I say that not taking a holistic view of cross-urban connectivity on inter city railways results in sub-optimal connectivity.

I disagree that the routes couldn't absorb higher frequencies. Liverpool Lime Street station will next year undergo significant changes to accommodate more and longer trains, while the routes into Wales are crying out for new services.

It's an interesting position that you suggest that a major city shouldn't be prioritised for service level improvements, as it's end of the line and not en-route to anywhere else, while simultaneously suggesting that it's OK for trains to instead terminate at a lightly used airport station (ie. also not en-route to anywhere else), whilst trains heading into Wales don't reach terminus for another 120 miles.

Clearly, if there's any possibility of a train being able to pass through Manchester to serve these populations (and also enabling them to connect to the airport through interchange), rather than just coming to an abrupt halt and staring at them 30 miles distant, it should be taken, and wasteful for it not to. As I said "Local or logistically sensible" should be the rule, with urban connectivity around hubs being prioritised.