Which trains should serve Manchester Airport?

[PrinceBishop]

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.

Yes but one of those goes via Warrington. I believe I am correct in saying it only has one via the Chat Moss currently. When this is increased to 2tph via Chat Moss it will free up a path through Warrington Central that can be used for another Manchester to Liverpool service. Thus, there will be an increase in Manchester to Liverpool services.

Piccadilly does indeed provide access to both lines to Liverpool. Access that will continue to be utilised in future by the Norwich-Liverpool and Airport-Liverpool services. What will change however is that there will no longer be trains that cross from the line from Guide Bridge (which is where services from Leeds come from) across to the line to Oxford Road for the routes to Liverpool. This is because these trains have to cross the whole throat of Piccadilly and therefore hold up lots of other services. This is why services from Leeds to Liverpool or North Wales will have to go via Victoria and therefore cannot provide a direct link to Piccadilly, Manchester's main station.

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 am fully aware of that which is why I said if you ran all services to Liverpool you would lose all services to Piccadilly, because they'd all be going via Victoria.

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.

As I said, we'll agree to differ on that point. I don't believe an additional two TransPennine Express trains per hour on the Chat Moss, in addition to the two there would already be, could be absorbed. Not without a reduction in stopping services to the many stations and towns along the route. Most of which are in Merseyside, meaning it would be local connectivity in Merseyside that suffered. I have said that a Leeds - Wales service would be desirable, but I read somewhere there were political reasons for that not happening anytime soon. I also don't believe that 2tph is necessary and not at the expense of Picc/Airport. As I said previously, there will be a new West Yorkshire to Chester service.

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.

I'm beginning to worry that we're talking at cross purposes here. Firstly, Liverpool is being prioritised for service level improvements. That's why, as I understand it, it'll see an extra train per hour over the Chat Moss. This is the maximum I think is required or can be offered without adversely affecting stopping services. If that still isn't enough capacity, I would suggest lengthening trains would be a better option than adding more services.

Secondly, as I have said numerous times, the airport service is as much, if not more, to serve Piccadilly, as it is to serve the airport. It makes sense to make the short hop to the airport if you're going to Piccadilly anyway. Also, for the record, the airport station is used by more passengers than many other stations that TransPennine Express serve.

If it were the case that there were currently no services to Liverpool, in order that everything could serve the airport, I might understand your argument. But in reality, there will be services to both. Your argument could just as easily be used to say that all Virgin trains services from London Euston to Manchester and Liverpool should instead go to Glasgow and people can change onto local services at Crewe. Or all East Coast services should run to Edinburgh and people for Leeds can change at Doncaster. But why do that when it's possible to provide all destinations with a direct service? And remember this is about serving Piccadilly, not just the airport.

 

[tbtc]

To take the OP’s question at face value, the answer is that services from Manchester Airport should be at a frequency appropriate to the passenger numbers on the branch and should go to the kind of places where the most regular passenger demand is likely to be.

Whilst I’m sure people have anecdotes about folk travelling all the way from Barrow/ Cleethorpes (etc) who might use the Airport once a year, I’d be more interested in the everyday “travel to work” area. That means places like Stoke and Warrington.

I’m sure a day trip to Durham/ Windermere would be nice for those with free parking at the Airport, but the reality is that demand for direct services to these places is occasional rather than frequent.

Realistically, the passenger loadings at the Airport are only around 10% of capacity (the average train has thirty three passengers alighting or boarding at Manchester Airport – thirty three passengers - consider against the number of seats on all of those 185s/323s as well as 350/4s and doubled up units – would you justify nine services an hour with such passenger numbers and would you justify a tenth or even more services on that line – when plenty of other lines are short of seats?).

So I’d suggest that frequency should be roughly four or five an hour in future (still only around sixty passengers per train, a 153 could comfortably cope with most departures!), which would free up a number of units for other services. Maybe two an hour from the Ordsall Chord and two an hour from the Salford line? We’re talking under three hundred passengers in a typical hour after all.

However most debates about Manchester Airport tend to get distracted by whether it has superior flights compared to other airports like Liverpool/ Newcastle or sniffy responses along the lines of “oh, I suppose you’d scrap all services and force people to use other Airports”. The range of flights is irrelevant – the number of railway passengers is what matters.

For example, the range/ frequency of flights from Manchester is exponentially better than what you get from Robin Hood Airport (outside Doncaster) or Humberside Airport (near Scunthorpe/ Grimsby), but if there are only a handful of people travelling from Doncaster/ Scunthorpe/ Grimsby all the way to Manchester Airport on a typical day then it’s hard to justify retention of a direct service every hour.

If you want a Crayonista option then one service unmentioned so far is the Trent Valley Stopper from Euston to Crewe – extending it to the Airport (possibly to replace existing Northern service from Crewe to the Airport). Places like Stoke, Stafford, Tamworth and Nuneaton aren’t *that* far from Manchester Airport (compared to all of the debate about further away places like Edinburgh/ Durham etc) so may see more regular demand – not sure why we only tend to debate Manchester Airport in terms of places in “the north” and ignore the millions in the Midlands? The current track layout at Crewe means any service onto the Shrewsbury/ Chester lines are probably a non-starter though (dunno if HS2 will help this?).

The impact of running Manchester Airport trains can ripple out in consequences for many miles beyond the airport itself

Agreed – running services from Edinburgh/ Barrow/ Middlesbrough/ Cleethorpes (etc) over the busy flat junction at Slade Lane and along a congested line (nine trains per hour) to serve the Airport carries the risk of disrupting services all over northern England –I don’t think it is always worth that risk.

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.

Agreed. There seems too much focus on “services to Manchester Airport” rather than “services through Manchester”.

It's all adding up to low frequencies between major cities, and sub-optimal interchange options

Agreed.

The obsession with everywhere having a direct hourly service to the Airport has created a Gordian Knot of a timetable across northern England, with many awkwardly co-ordinated services remaining (because the need to slot into a certain path to/from the Airport constrains the whole timetable).

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.

Agreed again.

Sadly, we have the tail (the handful of passengers continuing to the Airport) wagging the dog (the bulk of passengers getting off in central Manchester).

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.

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?"

Agreed.

The Airport’s employment catchment area is places like Stoke and Warrington (which have virtually no direct services, despite the fact that someone working at the Airport may live there) and not places like Durham/ Windermere/ Barrow/ Cleethorpes.

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

The people of places like Warrington are more likely to commute to the Airport than those of Preston/ Lancaster/ further afield, therefore there are people in Warrington who might make a couple of hundred journeys a year to the Airport, compared to people in Lancaster who might find a direct service handy once a year for a holiday.

In that case, a Warrington link is more important. Whether people “like” direct services matters less than in what number they’d actually use them.

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

The idea of a Birmingham – Birmingham Airport – Milton Keynes – Watford – West London Line – Gatwick – Brighton service is one I keep coming back to – shame it’ll never get off the ground (for various reasons).

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?

It’s *true*, but how many passengers are we talking about in a typical day?

It’s also true to say that a family considering a holiday in Blackpool would be more likely to use the train for all of their luggage/ children if there were a direct service, but nobody is demanding a direct train every hour from Glasgow/ Newcastle/ Sheffield/ Chester etc to Blackpool.

(see also “people in Rotherham wanting a holiday at Cleethorpes”/ “people in Bradford wanting a holiday in Scarborough” etc)

Is extending the hourly service from Cleethorpes beyond Piccadilly to the Airport (at the cost of one additional DMU) worthwhile for the number of people who’d use it in a typical hour (who wouldn’t be prepared to change at Piccadilly)? We’re not talking about extending a handful of services a year to the Airport to coincide with school holidays (when there’s a jump in the number of families with children getting flights).

You would also make the Ordsall Chord something of a white elephant.

No reason why *everything* on the new chord would have to go to the Airport. We could see Calder Valley – Victoria – Piccadilly – New Mills/ Buxton services, we could see Todmorden Chord– Victoria – Piccadilly – Knutsford/ Chester services...

...you’d get a Victoria – Piccadilly with those trains too (and therefore improve connections in Greater Manchester).

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

East Lancashire *needs* direct services to the airport? Okay then, tell me who should lose out to accommodate this, so that we can run DMUs on the electrified line to the Airport?

Or should your East Lancashire services be in addition to the existing nine services an hour from Piccadilly, two Calder Valley services extended via the Ordsall Chord, the new “Liverpool via Warrington service”, the increase in Barrow services...?

I might remind you that Manchester Airport is actually a useful destination for many people, including me, and I'm based in Durham

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

You’re mistaking “personal anecdote” for “data”.

Liverpool is being prioritised for service level improvements. That's why, as I understand it, it'll see an extra train per hour over the Chat Moss. This is the maximum I think is required or can be offered without adversely affecting stopping services. If that still isn't enough capacity, I would suggest lengthening trains would be a better option than adding more services

So the Airport is getting more and more services over the next few years (despite the thousands of empty seats heading there each hour already) but Liverpool should be grateful for just one extra service per hour?

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?

If you're going to serve Piccadilly, you might as well go on to the airport

as I have said numerous times, the airport service is as much, if not more, to serve Piccadilly, as it is to serve the airport. It makes sense to make the short hop to the airport if you're going to Piccadilly anyway

Extending services beyond Piccadilly to the Airport comes at the cost of additional units.

For example the 14:02 arrival from Cleethorpes/ Sheffield into Piccadilly could form the 14:20 departure for Sheffield/ Cleethorpes, but instead reverses to the Airport, gets there at 14:33... leaves at 14:55 and gets to Piccadilly in time to form the 15:20 – i.e. one extra diagram required to serve that one extra station. Who’s paying for that extra unit/ driver/ guard? Thirty three passengers?

Reduce those nine services an hour to something more appropriate (say five trains per hour? Still a “turn up and go” frequency) and you could save three or four units for use on other busier routes.

Pretending that running so many trains to the Airport is as simple as laying over at Mayfield is disingenuous, sorry, especially as most Airport services currently depart from the main shed at Piccadilly (the half hourly stoppers, the Middlesbrough service, the York service and the Cleethorpes service), compared to those using 13/14 (the Scottish service, the Blackpool service, the Southport service and the Liverpool service), so they’re certainly not *all* coming from the west anyway.

If you want to avoid terminating services at Piccadilly then why aren’t we talking about things like Cleethorpes – Southport? Contrary to Received Wisdom on here, the answer doesn’t always have to be “run a through service to Manchester Airport every hour”...

for the record, the airport station is used by more passengers than many other stations that TransPennine Express serve

Many other stations served by TPE get significantly fewer than ten departures an hour though (nine to Manchester, one to Crewe)...

I had a horrendous journey from Manchester to Edinburgh several years ago - due to bad traffic congestion in South Manchester I would have missed my planned through train from Piccadilly (then a diesel unit run by Virgin) so I went to Oxford Road, only to have it confirmed that it didn't stop there. I jumped on the next train to Bolton only to find that the Edinburgh train again trundled through the platform at five miles per hour without stopping. Damage limitation time - with no through train for several hours I caught the next train to Preston and didn't have too long to wait for a Glasgow train, although this was a bit delayed.

Now I recall the eminently sensible practice of splitting Anglo-Scottish trains at Carstairs, but under the bearded wonder this practice had ceased so still no Edinburgh connection but the train guard was on the ball - rather than travel all the way into Glasgow he advised me to decamp at Motherwell and await a connection on the newly electrified GNER Glasgow-Edinburgh-London route

I don’t know when this journey was, but if you are talking about Virgin running “units” rather than loco hauled/ HSTs“ (and “Beardie” / GNER) then it’d have been a few years since the Carstairs – Edinburgh line was “newly electrified”?

Still, worth remembering that for a few years under Virgin, there were no direct services from Manchester Airport to Carlisle/ Glasgow/ Edinburgh (Manchester – Edinburgh/ Glasgow services were an extension of Bristol/ Reading - Birmingham – Manchester services) and most people seemed to cope okay.

 

[martynbristow]

Thanks @tbtc for your summary it catches most of what is said.
To clarify my point above, you can't really commute from Warrington to the airport by train, because the terms and conditions of your contract prevent you from commuting that time frame, its sad but true. These people are forced to drive at least some of the time. I know Ryanair insist you can get from home to the airport within 1 hour, and this will include 5am.
HOWEVER you could extend the Oxford Road stopper, allowing the people of Irlam etc to commute in. They potentially could work the airport.
Unfortunately the other non-starter is the hours of operation the airport should consider a 24hr connection.

A Clethorpes-Southport . AHHH this sounds like Norwich to Liverpool

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

However most debates about Manchester Airport tend to get distracted by whether it has superior flights compared to other airports like Liverpool/ Newcastle or sniffy responses along the lines of “oh, I suppose you’d scrap all services and force people to use other Airports”. The range of flights is irrelevant – the number of railway passengers is what matters.

How can you possibly say that the range of flight patterns in and out of Manchester Airport is irrelevant? Manchester Airport exists to serve a vast number of airline passengers annually, who arrive by various modes of transport, of which rail is just one of these. Those charged with the running of Manchester Airport are only concerned with passenger numbers on flights, not rail.

Look at the number of passengers who use the airport annually and balance that against the number of these passengers who have travelled by rail annually. What percentage are those who have travelled by rail?

 

[PrinceBishop]

However most debates about Manchester Airport tend to get distracted by whether it has superior flights compared to other airports like Liverpool/ Newcastle or sniffy responses along the lines of “oh, I suppose you’d scrap all services and force people to use other Airports”. The range of flights is irrelevant – the number of railway passengers is what matters.

Yes, but would you not accept that there is a positive correlation between passenger numbers at an airport and the number of railway passengers? Difficult, therefore, to argue that it's irrelevant.

You’re mistaking “personal anecdote” for “data”.

No I'm not. I know the difference. I knew I was using personal anecdote. I wasn't aware it was banned. In fact I went out of my way to make clear that my personal circumstances don't apply to everyone and others would be happier with a direct service to Liverpool. Shame you chose not to quote that bit.

So the Airport is getting more and more services over the next few years (despite the thousands of empty seats heading there each hour already) but Liverpool should be grateful for just one extra service per hour?

The number of services to the airport is not relevant to the number of services needed to Liverpool. I don't see any "data" that suggests Liverpool would need more than 2tph to Leeds. Which stopping services would you like to scrap in order to add another service to Liverpool? I suspect the vast majority of people in Liverpool don't give a damn how many services the airport gets as long as they have enough services for themselves. Most people are mature enough to be concerned with whether they have an optimum service, not a willy waving contest with another station 30 miles away.

Extending services beyond Piccadilly to the Airport comes at the cost of additional units.

For example the 14:02 arrival from Cleethorpes/ Sheffield into Piccadilly could form the 14:20 departure for Sheffield/ Cleethorpes, but instead reverses to the Airport, gets there at 14:33... leaves at 14:55 and gets to Piccadilly in time to form the 15:20 – i.e. one extra diagram required to serve that one extra station. Who’s paying for that extra unit/ driver/ guard? Thirty three passengers?

Reduce those nine services an hour to something more appropriate (say five trains per hour? Still a “turn up and go” frequency) and you could save three or four units for use on other busier routes.

Don't particularly disagree with any of that. I'm not arguing that all services that go to the airport currently should continue to do so. I would extend your same logic to an additional two unnecessary TPExpress services per hour to Liverpool which would unnecessarily use up several units.

Pretending that running so many trains to the Airport is as simple as laying over at Mayfield is disingenuous, sorry, especially as most Airport services currently depart from the main shed at Piccadilly (the half hourly stoppers, the Middlesbrough service, the York service and the Cleethorpes service), compared to those using 13/14 (the Scottish service, the Blackpool service, the Southport service and the Liverpool service), so they’re certainly not *all* coming from the west anyway.

I disagree. I think you're being disingenuous. I don't think there would be anything particularly simple about attempting to lay over ex Scottish, York (I'm talking post-chord), North Wales, Blackpool, Barrow, Windermere, Southport services etc. in the Mayfield loop, or even a fraction of that number of services. Yes you could run some of these services to Stockport and points beyond but some of them would, god forbid, probably have to be terminated at the airport.

If you want to avoid terminating services at Piccadilly then why aren’t we talking about things like Cleethorpes – Southport? Contrary to Received Wisdom on here, the answer doesn’t always have to be “run a through service to Manchester Airport every hour”...

Nice idea, no problem with that.

Many other stations served by TPE get significantly fewer than ten departures an hour though (nine to Manchester, one to Crewe)...

True. But again, I'm not lobbying for the airport to keep all of its current services, simply pointing out that it's a well used station.

While it's a pleasure to debate these points with you tbtc, I note that you have picked your way through my post and selected a few choice quotes while avoiding my central argument. I'd be interested to get your opinion on some of these points that I was debating with Camden:

• Do you think that 4tph Leeds - Liverpool and 2tph Leeds to North Wales is an optimum service pattern?
  
• If yes, which services should be removed to make room for them? The Chat Moss stopper?
  
• Do you believe that there is any use for direct services between West/North Yorkshire and Piccadilly?
  
• Do you believe that there is any use for a direct service between West and North Yorkshire and Manchester Airport?

I repeat my argument that I do not think 4tph Leeds-Liverpool/2tph Leeds-North Wales would be an optimum service pattern and I do believe that there is a demand for a direct service to Piccadilly and Manchester Airport from West and North Yorkshire.

I have no objection to diverting some services away from the airport if better destinations with more demand can be found. What I can't understand is diverting services away from the Airport based on the argument that it's over served, only to divert to other routes which would then also become over served, carry empty seats over far more miles, and have a detrimental effect on other local services. Sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face to me.

 

[Philip C]

The service patterns which are expected to prevail when the Northern Hub works are complete are to support, inter alia, expected FUTURE DEMAND at the Airport. Manchester Airport is currently used by somewhat more than 22m passengers per annum and is experiencing growth of about 7%. 7% annual growth, if sustained, leads to a doubling of traffic every ten years and there appears no indication that the growth rate will fall off anytime soon.

Manchester Airport performs a role which is not matched by any other airport outside the London area and good access is perceived as being economically important to a vastly larger area than Greater Manchester itself. For this reason even cities with their own airports, for example Liverpool and Leeds, whilst wishing their local airports to flourish, would not wish to lose direct connectivity into Manchester Airport. For the record 2014 data shows Manchester at 22.0m, Newcastle 4.5m, Liverpool 4.0m, Leeds/Bradford 3.3m, Doncaster/Sheffield 0.7m, Humberside 0.2m and Blackpool 0.2m.

The airport is majority-owned by the various Greater Manchester Metropolitan Boroughs and has shown consistent support for the development of public transport access. I cannot easily interpret the information to hand but it claims, alongside its partners, to have invested since 1993 over £100m in the public transport facilities that service the airport. By no means all of the money relates to heavy rail facilities but the airport authority has consistently recognized the role that good access plays in its success and "put its money where its mouth is" unlike some less successful regional airports.

The latest ORR statistics appear to show entrance and exit figures for the Airport Station of 3.3m per annum putting it on a par with Swindon, Doncaster or Derby. Growth in usage of the Airport Station is unlikely to be unaffected by the £800m development of Airport City Manchester, which has Chinese financial backing, and is projected to create 16,000 jobs. Now you may be sceptical about that figure but there is plainly plenty of scope for growth in rail travel. In short, significant further growth in station usage is reasonably in prospect.

Northern Hub, and recent proposals for service increases, seem to be built around the proposition that conflicts in South Manchester are to be significantly reduced. Thus trains approaching Piccadilly from the Ashburys side will terminate. Those from Stockport will mainly terminate with a few going on via Oxford Road. Those from the Airport will generally slip round the corner via Oxford Road. Thus, I imagine, that through the Longsight area the western pair of tracks will carry trains from the Airport with those going via Stockport being on the eastern pair of tracks. Exceptions to this will exist but be few. It is the minimisation of exceptions to these rules which will yield the capacity for stations such as Poynton and Knutsford and Disley to have two trains an hour. Can anyone imagine Herbert Walker when he was electrifying the Southern thinking that an hourly off-peak service to Twickenham or Sidcup was going to cut the mustard?

Where trains from the Airport end up is a game to play but, so long as they conform to the rules for minimising conflicts, and recognize that international connectivity is a big business selling point for every town that hopes to thrive, then Peter can only be paid if Paul is robbed and both are unlikely to be satisfied!

For what it may be worth I think the present plans aren't that wrong. If I had a bit of extra money to spend I'd run a couple of Blackpool/Preston services each hour to Stockport via Victoria and Denton (instead of going via Oxford Road en route to Hazel Grove) thus reducing further the number crossing from western side to eastern side in the Piccadilly-Slade Lane Junc section and I'd push the Airport locals on to a turn back siding at Irlam (perhaps Warrington Central). Both of these would work best under wires and are unlikely to happen in my lifetime. I also fancy that a half-hourly Liverpool-Warrington-Piccadilly-Sheffield service might be worth considering with Cleethorpes trains no longer going to the Airport and Liverpool-Airport being served as now.

But I'm not going to fall out with anybody over this!

 

[pemma]

I disagree. I think you're being disingenuous. I don't think there would be anything particularly simple about attempting to lay over ex Scottish, York (I'm talking post-chord), North Wales, Blackpool, Barrow, Windermere, Southport services etc. in the Mayfield loop, or even a fraction of that number of services. Yes you could run some of these services to Stockport and points beyond but some of them would, god forbid, probably have to be terminated at the airport.

Prior to franchise re-organisation we had services like Chester-Altrincham-Manchester-Warrington-Llandudno and Birmingham-Manchester-Edinburgh in the morning peak to prevent services terminating on Piccadilly platform 13 and starting from Piccadilly platform 14.

 

[martynbristow]

Prior to franchise re-organisation we had services like Chester-Altrincham-Manchester-Warrington-Llandudno and Birmingham-Manchester-Edinburgh in the morning peak to prevent services terminating on Piccadilly platform 13 and starting from Piccadilly platform 14.

But these were booked as 2 separate trains weren't they?
The airport extension can iften be chopped if the service is late, so the train can get back to its core route. Not the best idea but ..

 

[pemma]

To clarify my point above, you can't really commute from Warrington to the airport by train, because the terms and conditions of your contract prevent you from commuting that time frame, its sad but true. These people are forced to drive at least some of the time. I know Ryanair insist you can get from home to the airport within 1 hour, and this will include 5am.

The likes of Huddersfield and Sheffield have overnight services which can get you there for a 5am start and with 6am flight departures from Manchester Airport there's no reason why there shouldn't be 4am arrivals from the main towns and cities within a commutable distance of the Airport.

Of course it's not just airline employees and staff directly employed by the Airport who work at the Airport. There's also the retail staff employed by companies such as WH Smith, Boots etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But these were booked as 2 separate trains weren't they?

No.

The Virgin Birmingham-Edinburgh train was advertised as Edinburgh at Stockport.

The Chester-Altrincham-Manchester-Warrington-Llandudno service was advertised as a Manchester Oxford Road service with a footnote in timetables that it continued to Llandudno. As it was booked as a 175 ideally the PIS should have been programmed to say 'Manchester Oxford Road' as the destination and then changed to 'Llandudno' before arriving at Stockport, similar to what Merseyrail do with the Chester-Chester/Ellesmere Port workings.

I think the Chester-Warrington-Manchester-Altrincham-Chester service which left Chester at a similar time was advertised as two separate services.

 

[martynbristow]

The likes of Huddersfield and Sheffield have overnight services which can get you there for a 5am start and with 6am flight departures from Manchester Airport there's no reason why there shouldn't be 4am arrivals from the main towns and cities within a commutable distance of the Airport.

Of course it's not just airline employees and staff directly employed by the Airport who work at the Airport. There's also the retail staff employed by companies such as WH Smith, Boots etc.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No.

The Virgin Birmingham-Edinburgh train was advertised as Edinburgh at Stockport.

The Chester-Altrincham-Manchester-Warrington-Llandudno service was advertised as a Manchester Oxford Road service with a footnote in timetables that it continued to Llandudno. As it was booked as a 175 ideally the PIS should have been programmed to say 'Manchester Oxford Road' as the destination and then changed to 'Llandudno' before arriving at Stockport, similar to what Merseyrail do with the Chester-Chester/Ellesmere Port workings.

I think the Chester-Warrington-Manchester-Altrincham-Chester service which left Chester at a similar time was advertised as two separate services.

It's good that TPE run these late trains but Northern should run more too
If it's not a continuous service and is listed as a footnote it's potentially easier to modify in the event of delay.
The running if through trains caused issues with Liverpool - Stansted years ago.

 

[pemma]

The running if through trains caused issues with Liverpool - Stansted years ago.

Various operators including split through services in the case of severe late running. Hopefully that means passengers who are disadvantaged are properly informed of what to do.

The problem with the CT Stansted-Liverpool services was that those were the ones which stopped at intermediate stations between Crewe and Runcorn and there were terminated at Crewe when there was severe late running.

 

[martynbristow]

Various operators including split through services in the case of severe late running. Hopefully that means passengers who are disadvantaged are properly informed of what to do.

The problem with the CT Stansted-Liverpool services was that those were the ones which stopped at intermediate stations between Crewe and Runcorn and there were terminated at Crewe when there was severe late running.

Yes of course, thats the beauty of doing it. A LIV-MIA train can terminate at Piccadilly potentially with no ill effects. This provides an optional slack so its not a critical journey. A Liverpool to Scarbrough has to be careful because cancelling it at Piccadilly (towards Liverpool) could cause a 30 minute + wait and serious overcrowding.
What I mean by the CT is that the journey time to lay over ratio was too tight, and it would fall out of its service pattern. Good idea! But didn't work :/
It inconvenienced me many a time :P

 

[kermit]

Apparently 106 people live in the Parish of Ringway; don't forget them.........

 

[backontrack]

RUS studies say that this pattern gives too many services to Glasgow and too few to Edinburgh.
However, they haven't worked out a pattern suitable to VT and TPE to rebalance the services.
Meanwhile, Edinburgh remains underserved.

The reason for this is the same reason as to why services from King's Cross to Glasgow have dwindled. Moderation of Competition.

In operators' eyes, the 'main' route from London to Edinburgh is the ECML, the 'main' for Glasgow is the WCML. Stations from Crewe-Lockerbie are still served by services from Birmingham and Manchester (and York-Dunbar by XC from Plymouth) but it just isn't enough.

 

[edwin_m]

The reason for this is the same reason as to why services from King's Cross to Glasgow have dwindled. Moderation of Competition.

In operators' eyes, the 'main' route from London to Edinburgh is the ECML, the 'main' for Glasgow is the WCML. Stations from Crewe-Lockerbie are still served by services from Birmingham and Manchester (and York-Dunbar by XC from Plymouth) but it just isn't enough.

I can't see how Moderation of Competition came into it, since the ECML trains were running prior to the VT franchise. More to do with the Pendolino service becoming faster and more frequent, so that there was basically no market between Glasgow and London via the ECML. XC do still provide an equivalent service between Glasgow and the intermediate stations as far south as York.