MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Warning - this message contains lots of information about trains and the relevance of the new franchises from 2016 on services to Manchester Airport. People who think rail connectivity at the Airport is b*gger all to do with the prospects of the Airport should look away now....
Bagso
Any current flapdoodle about train services to / from the Airport comes as a result of the just completed consultation on the re-letting of the Northern and TPE franchises. Here's the link
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nsultation.pdf
I'm assuming you have had your say
and I'm sure the airport have done likewise, considering there are threats but also opportunities to enhance not only the range of destinations to / from the Airport, but the service quality and capacity of the trains in use..And if the Airport haven't responded 
Bagso, what you describe are some of the questions asked in the consultation and are about what routes should be specified in the Invitation to Tender for the two franchises. In an unbelievable moment of joined up thinking, DfT are looking at route swops etc between franchises and letting them both at the same time.
In respect of the South Transpennine /Cleethorpes service I recommend you read paras 5.6 -5.16. I have reproduced paras 5.12 and 5.13 below.
These are all still ideas on which everyone was asked to give their views and we will know the franchise spec soon enough when the Invitation to Tender is issued in December 2014. So the Airport to Cleethorpes service could terminate at Doncaster, or be extended to Hull, which would be a new direct train connection for the Airport.
It is also suggested that TPE could operate all the fast Sheffield - Manchester services taking over the current East Midlands Liverpool - Nottingham train. In addition, a third frequency could be added from Dec 2018 when capacity enhancements in the Hope Valley allow. The report says
This means that all three trains from Sheffield could go in theory to the Airport if the franchisee wishes although I wonder whether the paths are available. Most likely that one will remain to Liverpool and the other is up for grabs.
In respect of the Airport - Windermere and Barrow, the situation is more complex and is covered in paras 5.18 - 5.32. Barrow currently has 5 through trains a day to the airport; Windermere only has one. Both these routes plus Airport - Blackpool could be transferred to Northern. Northern would use 4 coach electrics on Blackpool instead of TPE's 3 coach diesels; there is no guarantee that Northern would run Airport - Windermere or Barrow although the consultation asked the question as to which destinations should be served.
I should add that when Northern introduce their "new" 4 coach electric units (cast offs from Thameslink) in the December 2014 timetable change, the first route is almost certainly to be Manchester Airport - Liverpool via Earlestown; so faster journeys and more capacity...
It is suggested that North Transpennine service patterns should be left to the bidders in the same way as South Transpennie because-
Paras 3.62 and 3.63 of the consultation say
I would hope that the Airport will work with the bidders and others to ensure a maximisation of relevant services to and from the Airport. There once used to be a very clued up Ground Transport Team but I'm not sure how it is handled nowadays
As far as Northern are concerned, the consultation remains silent on all routes and specifications apart from the potential route swops, so we shall have to see what comes out in the ITT specification - See Section 6 of the report if you are interested.
So there you have it. Plenty to think about.
Bagso
Any current flapdoodle about train services to / from the Airport comes as a result of the just completed consultation on the re-letting of the Northern and TPE franchises. Here's the link
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...nsultation.pdf
I'm assuming you have had your say
and I'm sure the airport have done likewise, considering there are threats but also opportunities to enhance not only the range of destinations to / from the Airport, but the service quality and capacity of the trains in use..And if the Airport haven't responded Bagso, what you describe are some of the questions asked in the consultation and are about what routes should be specified in the Invitation to Tender for the two franchises. In an unbelievable moment of joined up thinking, DfT are looking at route swops etc between franchises and letting them both at the same time.
In respect of the South Transpennine /Cleethorpes service I recommend you read paras 5.6 -5.16. I have reproduced paras 5.12 and 5.13 below.
5.12 In the case of South Humberside services, stations between
Doncaster and Cleethorpes currently have an hourly TPE
service from Manchester Airport. Passenger loadings are
relatively high between Manchester Airport and Doncaster but
low between Doncaster and Cleethorpes. The majority of
passengers from Cleethorpes, Grimsby and Scunthorpe are
travelling only as far as Sheffield or connecting at Doncaster or
Sheffield for onward services, rather than travelling over the
Pennines.
5.13 We are therefore examining the option, subject to operational
constraints, of terminating the TPE service from Manchester at
Doncaster with a replacement Sheffield-Cleethorpes service
being operated by Northern, possibly as an extension of the
existing hourly Northern Sheffield-Scunthorpe service. A wider
package of changes could also feature the transfer of one of
Northern's two services between Doncaster and Hull in each
hour to TPE, allowing a through TPE service to Hull via the
South TransPennine route (i.e. via Sheffield)
Doncaster and Cleethorpes currently have an hourly TPE
service from Manchester Airport. Passenger loadings are
relatively high between Manchester Airport and Doncaster but
low between Doncaster and Cleethorpes. The majority of
passengers from Cleethorpes, Grimsby and Scunthorpe are
travelling only as far as Sheffield or connecting at Doncaster or
Sheffield for onward services, rather than travelling over the
Pennines.
5.13 We are therefore examining the option, subject to operational
constraints, of terminating the TPE service from Manchester at
Doncaster with a replacement Sheffield-Cleethorpes service
being operated by Northern, possibly as an extension of the
existing hourly Northern Sheffield-Scunthorpe service. A wider
package of changes could also feature the transfer of one of
Northern's two services between Doncaster and Hull in each
hour to TPE, allowing a through TPE service to Hull via the
South TransPennine route (i.e. via Sheffield)
It is also suggested that TPE could operate all the fast Sheffield - Manchester services taking over the current East Midlands Liverpool - Nottingham train. In addition, a third frequency could be added from Dec 2018 when capacity enhancements in the Hope Valley allow. The report says
Previous work carried out by Network Rail suggests that for most of the stations served by the TPE and EMT services the economic benefits of a direct service to Manchester Airport are similar to the economic benefits of a direct service to Liverpool. On this basis, we expect the ITT will not specify particular cross-Pennine linkages in these two cases but will instead leave bidders to make a commercial decision based on the relative strengths of the passenger flows.
In respect of the Airport - Windermere and Barrow, the situation is more complex and is covered in paras 5.18 - 5.32. Barrow currently has 5 through trains a day to the airport; Windermere only has one. Both these routes plus Airport - Blackpool could be transferred to Northern. Northern would use 4 coach electrics on Blackpool instead of TPE's 3 coach diesels; there is no guarantee that Northern would run Airport - Windermere or Barrow although the consultation asked the question as to which destinations should be served.
I should add that when Northern introduce their "new" 4 coach electric units (cast offs from Thameslink) in the December 2014 timetable change, the first route is almost certainly to be Manchester Airport - Liverpool via Earlestown; so faster journeys and more capacity...
It is suggested that North Transpennine service patterns should be left to the bidders in the same way as South Transpennie because-
Previous work carried out by Network Rail suggests that for
each of the eastern destinations (Newcastle, Middlesbrough,
York, Hull or Scarborough) the wider economic benefits of a
direct service to Manchester Airport are similar to the wider
economic benefits of a direct service to Liverpool.
each of the eastern destinations (Newcastle, Middlesbrough,
York, Hull or Scarborough) the wider economic benefits of a
direct service to Manchester Airport are similar to the wider
economic benefits of a direct service to Liverpool.
3.62 This means that we do not propose to specify a particular
timetable or service pattern for TPE, but instead to have a
more flexible train service specification which could include the
following service characteristics (note that these would be
specified separately for weekday, Saturday and Sunday
services):
Number of calls at each station per hour/per day
Specified first and last trains, including specific
consideration of Manchester Airport services
Certain calling patterns
3.63 This would give the franchisee the freedom to develop
services to respond to changes in passenger demand and to
grow the market in the areas where there are commercial
incentives to do so as well as protecting minimum service
levels for social and economic purposes on the remainder of
the TPE network.
timetable or service pattern for TPE, but instead to have a
more flexible train service specification which could include the
following service characteristics (note that these would be
specified separately for weekday, Saturday and Sunday
services):
Number of calls at each station per hour/per day
Specified first and last trains, including specific
consideration of Manchester Airport services
Certain calling patterns
3.63 This would give the franchisee the freedom to develop
services to respond to changes in passenger demand and to
grow the market in the areas where there are commercial
incentives to do so as well as protecting minimum service
levels for social and economic purposes on the remainder of
the TPE network.
As far as Northern are concerned, the consultation remains silent on all routes and specifications apart from the potential route swops, so we shall have to see what comes out in the ITT specification - See Section 6 of the report if you are interested.
So there you have it. Plenty to think about.
Hanain (manchesternound)
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to your point about too much doom and gloom on various forums, I think it's important to get a balance
So yes, balance would be nice, I mean, look at the Hainan rumour. Barely been questioned or congratulated (regardless as to whether it comes off), yet loosing a train link or the prospect of less flights next summer, and hey presto 2-3 pages can be reeled off with no issue. Does that sound like balance? Any casual observers to this thread would think MAN was in dire straits?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not entirely fair comment IMHO. There is a big difference between a juicy rumour and a firm announcement. Hainan is a rumour. I honestly wouldn't rush to 'congratulate' a rumour. Most experienced contributors are very wary where rumours are concerned … too much can still go wrong. When Cathay Pacific was *confirmed*, pages of discussion rightly ensued. There was also healthy discussion of the Thomas Cook long-haul announcements. Confirmed positive developments generally do receive the attention they deserve on here. The main driver on this thread seems to be the perceived magnitude of the news item rather than whether it is perceived to be 'good' or 'bad'. That seems healthy to me. There are plenty of examples of 'bad news' stories receiving little or no attention on here as well as 'good news' items.
One example of bad news receiving no attention: Tripoli Airport was captured by Islamist extremist militia during the weekend. They burned down airport buildings and 'danced around wrecked airliners'. Charming and highly educated bunch. I think we can safely say Libyan's MAN-TIP schedule is a goner for the long term. Although in this case, our main concern has to be for the suffering of those innocent Libyan civilians who are not in thrall to barbarism reminiscent of the Middle Ages.
Meanwhile, on the subject of trains. Did anybody notice that the May 2014 timetable reorganisation left Manchester Airport with through-trains beyond York to Newcastle axed? Change at York … not good news for pax with luggage to consider. I didn't see 2-3 pages on that one either.
For me, this thread has it about right. Each discussion topic - positive and negative alike - receives the attention it merits. I have little interest in either moaning about or celebrating news snippets on here. I don't want to see the thread develop an irrational sunny / gloomy 'editorial slant'. My aim is to objectively assess and analyse developments at MAN with a view to forecasting future trends with some modicum of accuracy. Like most here, I welcome success at the airport. But for the emotional partisan cheerleading stuff it is far better to stick to the Etihad Stadium!
One example of bad news receiving no attention: Tripoli Airport was captured by Islamist extremist militia during the weekend. They burned down airport buildings and 'danced around wrecked airliners'. Charming and highly educated bunch. I think we can safely say Libyan's MAN-TIP schedule is a goner for the long term. Although in this case, our main concern has to be for the suffering of those innocent Libyan civilians who are not in thrall to barbarism reminiscent of the Middle Ages.
Meanwhile, on the subject of trains. Did anybody notice that the May 2014 timetable reorganisation left Manchester Airport with through-trains beyond York to Newcastle axed? Change at York … not good news for pax with luggage to consider. I didn't see 2-3 pages on that one either.
For me, this thread has it about right. Each discussion topic - positive and negative alike - receives the attention it merits. I have little interest in either moaning about or celebrating news snippets on here. I don't want to see the thread develop an irrational sunny / gloomy 'editorial slant'. My aim is to objectively assess and analyse developments at MAN with a view to forecasting future trends with some modicum of accuracy. Like most here, I welcome success at the airport. But for the emotional partisan cheerleading stuff it is far better to stick to the Etihad Stadium!
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 27th Aug 2014 at 02:19.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Shed for your comments, which I believe to be accurate, fair and 'balanced'.
Your point about rumours being just that until an official announcement is well taken and there have indeed been examples of strong rumours either proving to be incorrect or which originally had a sound basis but which for whatever reason didn't come to fruition. The recent story of a new long haul service, which was eventually confirmed as being DL to DTW, was apparently true but plans were aborted. It was only when I asked a second time about the status (on another forum) that we were told it wasn't happening. As you say, some of us are more wary about such rumours and I have to say when they turn out not to be happening, it's a pity they are not knocked on the head as quickly as they could be sometimes.
Back to trains, and thanks to Suzeman for the extracts from that report and the link. Have to admit I did spend half an hour scanning the more interesting bits. It seems to me this particular quote that Suzeman gave is of relevance to MAN and an example of where they should be responding with vigour. Maybe they have,
"Previous work carried out by Network Rail suggests that for each of the eastern destinations (Newcastle, Middlesbrough, York, Hull or Scarborough) the wider economic benefits of a direct service to Manchester Airport are similar to the wider economic benefits of a direct service to Liverpool".
Shed, it had vaguely registered that there were no longer direct trains from the airport to Newcastle, which presumably now start at Liverpool instead.
The report refers to previous work by National Rail showing that most pax from the airport only travel to Doncaster on the Cleethorpes service and I assume a similar conclusion was reached on the Newcastle service with most going no further than York. I had also referred to the issue of having to change trains with luggage and I also feel the type of passenger, not just the number, is important. For example, changing trains for an elderly couple with heavy luggage travelling to the airport is going to be more of a hassle than to say a student with a rucksack travelling to Liverpool or vice versa. I wonder if that analysis was done. In addition, Northern Rail will need better rolling stock with more luggage space if they are to run more of the airport services.
The bottom line is that Manchester Airport should be fighting hard, if not already doing so, to ensure maximum connectivity by rail from the wider region to support and grow its air services.
Your point about rumours being just that until an official announcement is well taken and there have indeed been examples of strong rumours either proving to be incorrect or which originally had a sound basis but which for whatever reason didn't come to fruition. The recent story of a new long haul service, which was eventually confirmed as being DL to DTW, was apparently true but plans were aborted. It was only when I asked a second time about the status (on another forum) that we were told it wasn't happening. As you say, some of us are more wary about such rumours and I have to say when they turn out not to be happening, it's a pity they are not knocked on the head as quickly as they could be sometimes.
Back to trains, and thanks to Suzeman for the extracts from that report and the link. Have to admit I did spend half an hour scanning the more interesting bits. It seems to me this particular quote that Suzeman gave is of relevance to MAN and an example of where they should be responding with vigour. Maybe they have,
"Previous work carried out by Network Rail suggests that for each of the eastern destinations (Newcastle, Middlesbrough, York, Hull or Scarborough) the wider economic benefits of a direct service to Manchester Airport are similar to the wider economic benefits of a direct service to Liverpool".
Shed, it had vaguely registered that there were no longer direct trains from the airport to Newcastle, which presumably now start at Liverpool instead.
The report refers to previous work by National Rail showing that most pax from the airport only travel to Doncaster on the Cleethorpes service and I assume a similar conclusion was reached on the Newcastle service with most going no further than York. I had also referred to the issue of having to change trains with luggage and I also feel the type of passenger, not just the number, is important. For example, changing trains for an elderly couple with heavy luggage travelling to the airport is going to be more of a hassle than to say a student with a rucksack travelling to Liverpool or vice versa. I wonder if that analysis was done. In addition, Northern Rail will need better rolling stock with more luggage space if they are to run more of the airport services.
The bottom line is that Manchester Airport should be fighting hard, if not already doing so, to ensure maximum connectivity by rail from the wider region to support and grow its air services.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Quote:
Back to trains
Oh dear.
Well Skip, if you'd rather discuss airline business models, cost benefit analysis and the advantages of LHR, fire away.
If someone could tell us how many passengers arrive/depart MAN by train, it might give a clue as to whether it's relevant in terms of connectivity and potential for further growth.
Edit: To partly answer my own question, an Airport fact sheet included the following:
"The number of passengers using the train has steadily risen as the Airport has grown and in 2007/08, around 2.5 million rail journeys were made to the Airport"
Sadly it is somewhat out of date, as it also forecasts 40m pax for MAN by 2015! If anyone has more current figures for train usage it would be helpful but even on those old figures, it's not insignificant. Aren't MAN/MAG due to produce a new long term plan?
And further, Wiki has this, based on estimated ticket sales for pax starting or ending their journeys at the airport:
"2011/12 pax 3.163 million"
Quote:
Back to trains
Oh dear.
Well Skip, if you'd rather discuss airline business models, cost benefit analysis and the advantages of LHR, fire away.
If someone could tell us how many passengers arrive/depart MAN by train, it might give a clue as to whether it's relevant in terms of connectivity and potential for further growth.
Edit: To partly answer my own question, an Airport fact sheet included the following:
"The number of passengers using the train has steadily risen as the Airport has grown and in 2007/08, around 2.5 million rail journeys were made to the Airport"
Sadly it is somewhat out of date, as it also forecasts 40m pax for MAN by 2015! If anyone has more current figures for train usage it would be helpful but even on those old figures, it's not insignificant. Aren't MAN/MAG due to produce a new long term plan?
And further, Wiki has this, based on estimated ticket sales for pax starting or ending their journeys at the airport:
"2011/12 pax 3.163 million"
Last edited by MANFOD; 27th Aug 2014 at 10:32.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I would probably side with World Rep's comments, but everyone is allowed their opinions.
On the subject of trains, I was on the train from Newcastle yesterday which does indeed terminate in Liverpool and passengers for the airport were advised we had overtaken a train near Thirsk so they would be able to connect at Picadilly for the airport.
Finally in the FT we are advised that FR will introduce 'business class' which we could probably see at MAN I would think.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/360ac340-2...#axzz3BaRN3SCC
On the subject of trains, I was on the train from Newcastle yesterday which does indeed terminate in Liverpool and passengers for the airport were advised we had overtaken a train near Thirsk so they would be able to connect at Picadilly for the airport.
Finally in the FT we are advised that FR will introduce 'business class' which we could probably see at MAN I would think.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/360ac340-2...#axzz3BaRN3SCC
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you any indication on how forward bookings are looking and whether they are up to CX expectations?
While they would never tell us the true figure, fares have been quoted as 'comparable' to LHR.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, thanks LAX. That looks pretty encouraging given that we're still over 3 months from the start date.
Is the configuration 40 / 32 / 268 or have I got the wrong version of the B777?
Is the configuration 40 / 32 / 268 or have I got the wrong version of the B777?
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Skip … a bit more on the airport trains! They are really important at MAN (really!) and further significant changes are on the way.
With respect to the Transpennine routes serving Manchester Airport, the Train Operating Companies seem to plan on an 'all or nothing' basis. On the Newcastle - York - Leeds - NW corridor there is an hourly service and the eventual ambition is to increase this. There is a strong case for Newcastle - Liverpool, but there is also a strong case for Newcastle - Manchester Airport. But apparently ALL trains must run exactly the same route! Is it beyond the wit of TPE to ALTERNATE these trains with a two hourly service to each destination? And in conjunction with this, alternate the corresponding hourly York - Manchester Airport service with Liverpool as well? This seems a far more sensible way to service the demand and keep everybody happy. And, by the way, the new set-up also means there is now NO link between Manchester Piccadilly and Newcastle / Durham / Darlington [Newcastle - Liverpool ops via Victoria] … also important for many transfers.
MAG does have a role to play in knocking some heads together at TPE, Northern Trains and the Office of the Rail Regulator. Northern is currently proposing to introduce an 'evening peak period' rule which will destroy the utility of most Ranger/Rover tickets too. Inspired thinking out of these companies of late. What price creativity and common sense?
With respect to the Transpennine routes serving Manchester Airport, the Train Operating Companies seem to plan on an 'all or nothing' basis. On the Newcastle - York - Leeds - NW corridor there is an hourly service and the eventual ambition is to increase this. There is a strong case for Newcastle - Liverpool, but there is also a strong case for Newcastle - Manchester Airport. But apparently ALL trains must run exactly the same route! Is it beyond the wit of TPE to ALTERNATE these trains with a two hourly service to each destination? And in conjunction with this, alternate the corresponding hourly York - Manchester Airport service with Liverpool as well? This seems a far more sensible way to service the demand and keep everybody happy. And, by the way, the new set-up also means there is now NO link between Manchester Piccadilly and Newcastle / Durham / Darlington [Newcastle - Liverpool ops via Victoria] … also important for many transfers.
MAG does have a role to play in knocking some heads together at TPE, Northern Trains and the Office of the Rail Regulator. Northern is currently proposing to introduce an 'evening peak period' rule which will destroy the utility of most Ranger/Rover tickets too. Inspired thinking out of these companies of late. What price creativity and common sense?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed on a pole
I agree trains are very important part of any integrated transport policy particularly at an international airport like MAN
i 'm surprised that you can't do the airport to NCL though? i would have thought you could change at Leeds for York and onto NCL or do you mean without changing trains, frequency is important of course and given the variable nature of luggage retrieval a frequency of less than hourly is unacceptable unless less its to somewhere off the beaten track (no pun intended)
i 'm surprised that you can't do the airport to NCL though? i would have thought you could change at Leeds for York and onto NCL or do you mean without changing trains, frequency is important of course and given the variable nature of luggage retrieval a frequency of less than hourly is unacceptable unless less its to somewhere off the beaten track (no pun intended)
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some absolute classics in this thread recently. Talk about glass half empty syndrome.
The TPE timetable since May is the best thing to happen for a long while on that desperately overcrowded route. 20 mins off the journey to Liverpool from York and Leeds, doubled frequency on that run, direct to Victoria on a half decent train still with four an hour to Piccadilly. It's an improvement. OK if you're going from Newcastle to Mcr Airport you have to get off at Leeds and stand on platform 16 for 10 mins. Interworking the trains --all very well until something goes wrong, a cancellation happens, then it's a mess.
At least in Yorkshire the rover/ranger ticket validity other than the WY Day Rover is unaffected by the changes to off peak fares. (nothing whatever to do with air travel BTW).
One North---have you guys got any idea what lining up five different lots of politicians both local and central with subtly different priorities involves? The initial report was a good effort in the time and there is a lot going on. More important right now to get ducks in a row than make a lot of untargetted noise .
Moderator--sorry if this is insufficiently on message.
The TPE timetable since May is the best thing to happen for a long while on that desperately overcrowded route. 20 mins off the journey to Liverpool from York and Leeds, doubled frequency on that run, direct to Victoria on a half decent train still with four an hour to Piccadilly. It's an improvement. OK if you're going from Newcastle to Mcr Airport you have to get off at Leeds and stand on platform 16 for 10 mins. Interworking the trains --all very well until something goes wrong, a cancellation happens, then it's a mess.
At least in Yorkshire the rover/ranger ticket validity other than the WY Day Rover is unaffected by the changes to off peak fares. (nothing whatever to do with air travel BTW).
One North---have you guys got any idea what lining up five different lots of politicians both local and central with subtly different priorities involves? The initial report was a good effort in the time and there is a lot going on. More important right now to get ducks in a row than make a lot of untargetted noise .
Moderator--sorry if this is insufficiently on message.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anothertyke -
I'm glad you think this topic is a classic. The TPE timetable change is an overall improvement but there are winners and losers. Manchester Airport pax to / from the NE are clear losers. Luggage is a huge issue for holidaymakers changing at York … I've had to do this in the past and the number of times the onward reserved seats have been scrubbed is beyond a joke. TPE love scrapping the seat reservations on busy PH & Christmas trips. Stand York to Newcastle! Well, many can't / won't do this. Note that alternating the final destinations on the York - Airport and Newcastle - Liverpool runs would NOT require additional paths. The trains run already.
My future journeys on this route will be with National Express TFN … assured seats, cheaper too. But to show that the glass is 'half-full' elsewhere, services up the WCML from Manchester Airport to Edinburgh and Glasgow are significantly improved. Blackpool is well served too. We'll see what the fourth heavy rail platform brings to the airport when that comes on line.
By the way … the bit about local Ranger tickets not affecting the airport … ever heard of STAFF?
I'm glad you think this topic is a classic. The TPE timetable change is an overall improvement but there are winners and losers. Manchester Airport pax to / from the NE are clear losers. Luggage is a huge issue for holidaymakers changing at York … I've had to do this in the past and the number of times the onward reserved seats have been scrubbed is beyond a joke. TPE love scrapping the seat reservations on busy PH & Christmas trips. Stand York to Newcastle! Well, many can't / won't do this. Note that alternating the final destinations on the York - Airport and Newcastle - Liverpool runs would NOT require additional paths. The trains run already.
My future journeys on this route will be with National Express TFN … assured seats, cheaper too. But to show that the glass is 'half-full' elsewhere, services up the WCML from Manchester Airport to Edinburgh and Glasgow are significantly improved. Blackpool is well served too. We'll see what the fourth heavy rail platform brings to the airport when that comes on line.
By the way … the bit about local Ranger tickets not affecting the airport … ever heard of STAFF?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The TPE timetable since May is the best thing to happen for a long while on that desperately overcrowded route.
Oh wait. It's trains isn't it. Trains......still
Is the configuration 40 / 32 / 268 or have I got the wrong version of the B777?
B-KPY/Z
B-KQA/B/C/D/E/F/L +
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skip, thanks for that confirmation of the CX configuration. 340 is a lot of seats to fill but previous data from MAN has shown HK to be one of its most unserved routes. I guess selling a good proportion of those 40 J class seats at proper prices is key as I'd be very surprised if they don't get decent loads at the back.
