Trains to airports. (Read 3,520 times)

[lysander]

I have just booked a couple of tickets to Manchester Airport. Doubtless, at the time I am going, the train will be full and made far worse by the numbers of suitcases blocking up the entrances, etc. The 185 was supposedly designed with the Airport run in mind and the 170 wasn't. Both, however, totally lack sufficient luggage space.

When I get to Toronto I may travel onward by Viarail... who don't accept more than 11kgs of baggage in the carriage...It has to go in the baggage car... (with no extra charge) How civilised. I wonder how FTP get away with it on safety grounds.

Sometimes,the old days were so much more civilised...when luggage could be left at the station the night before you travelled and then carried in the Guards compartment!...but, then again, trains had more than a few minutes at a stop!

[traction22]

I've never really got that with airport trains. You'd think they'd design them better for easier access and for people to keep luggage with them.

I mean, there are often notices on trains to "keep luggage and personal belongings with you at all times" and "not to block the aisles free from luggage".

So why aren't the seats a bit higher so small cases can fit underneath (this may not work), and luggage racks above you wider (they should cope with strength).

But most annoyingly of all, particularly when going from Sheffield to Manc Airport, why aren't there more carriages. It's always a scramble to find a seat.

[duncan]

One factor that does not help is that luggage os getting bigger all the time hence most coach operators going for rear engines to maximise luggage space.

There is no.easy answer. To create extra luggage space means losing seats or providing extra trucks. Both costing money. A luggage allowance may help but who polices it?

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2013 19:46:47 GMT traction22 said:

I've never really got that with airport trains. You'd think they'd design them better for easier access and for people to keep luggage with them.

I mean, there are often notices on trains to "keep luggage and personal belongings with you at all times" and "not to block the aisles free from luggage".

So why aren't the seats a bit higher so small cases can fit underneath (this may not work), and luggage racks above you wider (they should cope with strength).

But most annoyingly of all, particularly when going from Sheffield to Manc Airport, why aren't there more carriages. It's always a scramble to find a seat.

Firstly it wasn't many years ago the Transpennine Express was a 2 coach train with barely any room the current trains are nice and comfy compared to a lot of the older stock.

If you have used an ex London ALX400 you will know why they cannot higher the seats a lot of people complain there feet do not reach the floor on these so that idea will not work not everyone is 6ft or able to sit on high seats.

If you want a seat get stood in the right place on the platform I used to goto Manchester regularly and it was easy to know where the doors would be and as most people don't you get ahead of them in the scramble.

[lysander]

We are constantly told that we now live in a "service economy"... yet, self evidently, profit is far more important to operators than is the former.I recognise the need to keep costs under control but the "cattle-truck" experience that FTP sometimes offers is appalling.

I have been travelling to MAN Airport ever since the service was introduced and, having experienced 3 coach 158's, ( don't ever remember 2 coach units)I have to say how profoundly disappointing are the 185's...at busy times!

[Arriva Wakefield]

Aug 14, 2013 13:51:13 GMT lysander said:

We are constantly told that we now live in a "service economy"... yet, self evidently, profit is far more important to operators than is the former.I recognise the need to keep costs under control but the "cattle-truck" experience that FTP sometimes offers is appalling.

I have been travelling to MAN Airport ever since the service was introduced and, having experienced 3 coach 158's, ( don't ever remember 2 coach units)I have to say how profoundly disappointing are the 185's...at busy times!

Part of the problem is that the operators know that there isn't sufficient capacity, request that the government supply some more money for extra coaches and then get turned down and told there is enough capacity with the present trains.

I do believe that the York depot was built with sufficient space in the headshunt to allow 4 car 185s, but the bid for the money was rejected.

Why don't the government allow the operators to buy the stock themselves, and then write the cost into the value at the end when it's next re franchised?

[TC60054]

Aug 14, 2013 13:51:13 GMT lysander said:

We are constantly told that we now live in a "service economy"... yet, self evidently, profit is far more important to operators than is the former.I recognise the need to keep costs under control but the "cattle-truck" experience that FTP sometimes offers is appalling.

I have been travelling to MAN Airport ever since the service was introduced and, having experienced 3 coach 158's, ( don't ever remember 2 coach units)I have to say how profoundly disappointing are the 185's...at busy times!

If you managed to get 3-car 158s along the South TransPennine route every time you travelled along it then good grief you were lucky,

3 cars were rare on routes which didn't go to your main locations, like Leeds, York, Newcastle etc. South TransPennine was often a 2-car service and at first your 185s vastly increased capacity

Don't forget that passenger usage is forever on the rise, TransPennine only have 51 units and there is a requirement for 49 of those a day across their entire network, the 170s were put onto Sheffield and Cleethorpes services to help overcrowding...that worked out well when they're on the wrong diagrams.

But all that aside, its not the operators who buy stock - its the leasers. Operators lease the stock for the time of their franchise and I could get into this further but its late at night and that means effort.

If you want to see more carriages then try writing to FTPE and with the arrival of the 350s shortly for Scottish services, have a try at getting them to put the extra carriages on here. They won't, there are busier routes than Cleethorpes. No-one's made of money to constantly increase capacity.

[lysander]

In truth, the railway system is fast becoming a nonsense. The highest fares in Europe and still increasing; gross, if not obscene, overcrowding on many services; public subsidy at a greater level , in real terms, than even in BR days, and the TOC's making considerable profits....One way or another, the whole thing is geared less at service to the customer and more on corporate profits.

As for 158's, indeed, from what you say I must have been lucky and as for who buys new stock doesn't the DfT has a role to play?

[dimtim]

Aug 14, 2013 16:21:32 GMT Arriva Wakefield said:

Aug 14, 2013 13:51:13 GMT lysander said:

We are constantly told that we now live in a "service economy"... yet, self evidently, profit is far more important to operators than is the former.I recognise the need to keep costs under control but the "cattle-truck" experience that FTP sometimes offers is appalling.

I have been travelling to MAN Airport ever since the service was introduced and, having experienced 3 coach 158's, ( don't ever remember 2 coach units)I have to say how profoundly disappointing are the 185's...at busy times!

Part of the problem is that the operators know that there isn't sufficient capacity, request that the government supply some more money for extra coaches and then get turned down and told there is enough capacity with the present trains.

I do believe that the York depot was built with sufficient space in the headshunt to allow 4 car 185s, but the bid for the money was rejected.

Why don't the government allow the operators to buy the stock themselves, and then write the cost into the value at the end when it's next re franchised?

Then there was me thinking the Government privatised the railways to attract outside investment.

Oh yes we'll buy IEP ourselves because no operator is keen on the idea.

Why are operators not increasing their rolling stock when there is a clear need.

[TC60054]

Aug 15, 2013 6:58:48 GMT lysander said:

In truth, the railway system is fast becoming a nonsense. The highest fares in Europe and still increasing; gross, if not obscene, overcrowding on many services; public subsidy at a greater level , in real terms, than even in BR days, and the TOC's making considerable profits....One way or another, the whole thing is geared less at service to the customer and more on corporate profits.

As for 158's, indeed, from what you say I must have been lucky and as for who buys new stock doesn't the DfT has a role to play?

Funding often comes from DfT. Train operators specify what they want and all that, leasing company buys it, leased out to operator

[lysander]

That's right .... We pay for the trackwork and signalling. We paid for the old rolling stock and we pay for for the new. We pay for many of the train services. We also pay extremely high fares. Meanwhile, for their "management skills", the TOC's and Leasing Companies(ROSCO's) make a profit whilst we pay more in subsidy than ever before... The Mad Hatter would be proud of the arrangement.

There are, however, signs that the Government is not entirely happy and they have entered talks with the Rail Delivery Group with a view to the TOC's , directly, purchasing new rolling stock. It is believed the DfT would guarantee TOC's to recover the residual value of such rolling stock when ( and if) new franchise contracts are let. The Government strongly believes that the ROSCO's have also grossly inflated leasing prices!

[waggy1]

Transpennine do very well with what they have. In no way was the Class 185 designed for airport use. It was designed for use on the Transpennine network which does in no way base its self around MIA however they do have extra luggage spare which becomes clear when you compare it with a standard Desiro (Class 350). A Class 185 has 181 seats and good standing space but the Hope Valley route is becoming popular as its quicker then driving these days. The Class 170 isn't ideal for the crowded trains and this is why the units run in pairs on weekends however the Class 170s are for the Hull services which use them as the Class 185 is too heavy to run that way. The south route was lucky enough to end up with 2 Class 170 diagrammed a day MTWTuO but non Fo and the units run in pairs SSuO.

This will all sort its self out as soon as the 10 Class 350s arrive next year and Transpennine have 9 extra Class 185s to play with for services however don't hold your breath about any benefit been felt this side of the Pennines.

[lysander]

Sorry, it must be an age thing...but when the 185's were introduced ...with something of a fanfare...I distinctly remember reading that they had been designed with the airport run in mind...hence, my disillusion with the space available for luggage.

If whoever acquired them wasn't aware that FTPE operated an airport service which implied extra luggage then they should be ashamed....or, more likely, they knew that the British travelling public puts up with all sorts of inconvenience anyway!

[manclad]

Whilst I don't doubt capacity issues with baggage and whilst FTP serves the airport to a considerable extent, the Transpennine network primarily feeds Central Manchester from other major Cities around the North as well as Glasgow and Edinburgh. These Cities themselves can generate lots of baggage without the airport. My point is that whilst greater space for luggage would be ideal it would be easy to go OTT just because it serves MAN.
FTP is far from being a dedicated airport route like the Gatwick or Stansted Express.

[lysander]

Nice to hear from you again, Manclad. I agree the whole FTP network is not a dedicated route but, on the other hand, the Cleethorpes to Manchester Airport route is!