The Department for Transport has written to the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) noting how much competition there will be for free paths into Manchester Airport station, even though it now has four platforms (RAIL 788).
Arriva Trains Wales lodged a Track Access Application with the ORR in autumn 2015, to extend some off-peak services from North Wales to Manchester Piccadilly through to Manchester Airport starting with the May 2016 timetable change.
The DfT’s letter acknowledges that the ATW proposal offers passenger benefits, but also noted that “on conclusion of the Northern and TPE franchise competitions, there were likely to be other competing pressures for train paths on the route between central Manchester and the Airport,” Transport Minister Andrew Jones said in a Commons Written Answer on January 5.
“The purpose of the letter was to draw the ORR’s attention to the likelihood of such pressures emerging, and to observe that ATW’s application should be considered alongside the proposals from the successful Northern and TPE bidders to ensure that maximum passenger benefit is obtained from the train paths available,” said Jones, replying to Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham).
Comment as guest
Comments
Andrewjgwilt1989 - 14/01/2016 21:34
Plus there could be a new direct service between Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Victoria to Manchester Airport which a new train operator could be called "Manchester Express" connecting the 2 major stations in Manchester City Centre to Manchester International Airport which would take approximately 20 minutes just like Heathrow Express, Gatwick Express and Stansted Express that are train operators that goes from Central London to London's major airports.
Reply as guest
Jane, Mary, Mark, Pete, Sue, Helen,simon , Claire, Vic, Lisa & Lou. - 16/01/2016 09:58
When will there be better links & more regular trains on the Manchester Airport (all stops) to Crewe line. Crewe is a reasonably sized rail hub (Virgin seem to like it) and no further away from the Airport than Manchester Piccadilly but this part of the country is served badly, particularly between the hours of 6am & 9am for anyone travelling to the airport as a place of work on a week day morning. Frequently dependent on flight times passengers returning home can find they board the train at Manchester airport & 4 minutes later are having to change train & platform at Wilmslow complete with suitcases and families. Its not a good customer experience, and as has been mentioned now with the Airport having 4 platforms why can't the service on this line improve??
Reply as guest
BigTone - 17/01/2016 02:47
The problem with that is room at the airport. Plenty of services terminate at the airport, probably to save congestion at Piccadilly (Look at the title of the article)
Reply as guest
Rob Weller - 18/01/2016 11:14
There is enormous potential at Manchester Airport that even the expanded infrastructure will not be capable of meeting. An early concern would be capacity on single track section of the Chester route but potential offered by the Northwich to Sandbach link is enormous (Shrewsbury, Stoke and Stafford immediately come to mind as options). Maybe ATW would use some of the paths they seek to split service between Chester and Shrewsbury but they may also just block more worthy options.
Reply as guest
Rob Weller - 18/01/2016 11:17
There is enormous potential at Manchester Airport that even the expanded infrastructure will not be capable of meeting. An early concern would be capacity on single track section of the Chester route but potential offered by the Northwich to Sandbach link is enormous (Shrewsbury, Stoke and Stafford immediately come to mind as options). Maybe ATW would use some of the paths they seek to split service between Chester and Shrewsbury but they may also just block more worthy options.
Reply as guest
FrankH - 28/01/2016 15:46
The station is fairly busy as it is with 10 arrivals and departures per hour (15.10-16.10). Turnround times vary from 6 - 15 minutes so I imagine it will take some juggling to add extra paths from there.
Reply as guest