Liverpool Lime Street to Euston

[Waverley125]

Instead of / As well as, running extra services into Lime Street, how about serving the wirral direct itself. So take the Chester terminating voyager, and run north to Hooton (as has been suggested), then join the Merseyrail lines, and run north through Green Lane tunnels into the South-facing bay at Birkenhead Central?

 

[AlterEgo]

Instead of / As well as, running extra services into Lime Street, how about serving the wirral direct itself. So take the Chester terminating voyager, and run north to Hooton (as has been suggested), then join the Merseyrail lines, and run north through Green Lane tunnels into the South-facing bay at Birkenhead Central?

I can't see Merseyrail being happy with that proposal, although that is quite a nice idea, I'll admit. I'm just not sure there is the stock or elasticity in the timetable to extend the services that far...

 

[All Line Rover]

Instead of / As well as, running extra services into Lime Street, how about serving the wirral direct itself. So take the Chester terminating voyager, and run north to Hooton (as has been suggested), then join the Merseyrail lines, and run north through Green Lane tunnels into the South-facing bay at Birkenhead Central?

Alternatively, why can't people in Birkenhead take a Merseyrail service to Liverpool and get a connecting Virgin Trains service from there (10 minute connection) and people from Hooton take a Merseyrail service to Chester and get a connecting Virgin Trains service from there (5 minute connection)?

I don't understand why people want a direct service from London to almost every station in the UK! The current arrangement works fine, and the Merseyrail network itself is very efficient and has minimal delays.

 

[AlterEgo]

I do feel that if Manchester didn't have three trains an hour then Liverpudlians wouldn't be kicking up such a fuss about having only one, putting them in line with most other places with a similar passenger demographic.

Who cares what service Manchester has?

 

[Gareth]

Size of the market.

IF there was a market for more services, and/or 2tph Liverpool would make more cash than the 3tph Manchester, there would be 2tph Liverpool.

When doing an early HS2 study 6 years ago, we compared size of the competitive modes; e.g. flights:

Liverpool - London (all airports) 6 per day (none now)
Manchester - London was 44 per day (17 now)

Fairly plain (sorry about the pun) that the Manchester market is considerably larger, and indeed that that the West Coast upgrade has seen off the air competition to Liverpool with existing frequency.

Seriously? That was your research and conclusion? Don't take this as a personal attack on you as an individual, but if you and whoever you were working with used that primary school standard research to devise the current HS2 proposals; proposals which, if they come into fruition without significant change, will effectively end Liverpool as a major city in anyway; then this country and how it works is more looney than I initially thought it was.

As Holly correctly pointed out, a few pages back, Liverpool Airport was effectively smothered by the Ministry of Defence. They allowed Manchester and other airports to grow, yet kept Liverpool's in a sea of red tape. By the time they got bored and chucked it at the Merseyside local authorities, Manchester Airport had already steamed on ahead, taking advantage of the increasing affordability of flights to less afluent people, as well as being the only airport in the Liverpool-Manchester metropolitan belt. Other significant 'regional' stuff subsequently happened; namely, the government backing expansion at Manchester and opposing expansion at Liverpool, building a railway line to Manchester Airport and encouraging more services to go their instead of Lime Street. Where Liverpool did really well was with the lo-cos and that's only because they caught both Manchester and Whitehall sleeping. Quite simply, they never thought it'd be as big as it has become and I think there was an aspect of snobbery there too.

Have you ever thought that perhaps people would fly to London from Liverpool if they had the choice? Did it even occur to you that a lot of the demand from Manchester to London will be from people in Liverpool or various parts of Lancashire and Cheshire, who could as easily fly from Liverpool but who have no choice but to use Manchester? If you mothballed Manchester Airport, don't you think a lot of people who used that airport would then consider Liverpool or Leeds-Bradford?

 

[All Line Rover]

I do feel that if Manchester didn't have three trains an hour then Liverpudlians wouldn't be kicking up such a fuss about having only one, putting them in line with most other places with a similar passenger demographic.

Who cares what service Manchester has?

The Manchester services serve Stockport, Wilmslow, Crewe, Macclesfield, Stoke-on-Trent and Milton Keynes. There needs to be a minimum of two services per hour just to serve these places, never mind the additional passengers that they bring!

The Liverpool services serve Runcorn and Stafford only. They are rarely packed, and during busy periods (e.g. the evening peak out of Euston) there are two services per hour. In addition, much of Merseyside is also served by the Chester service, as this has good connections with Merseyrail services. Liverpool does not need any additional services for the time being.

 

[AlterEgo]

But, Gareth, the million dollar question is this:

Right now, are there people lining up and trying to get on Virgin trains to and from Liverpool, with pockets full of money and buying open returns?

No, they aren't.

 

[Gareth]

I do feel that if Manchester didn't have three trains an hour then Liverpudlians wouldn't be kicking up such a fuss about having only one, putting them in line with most other places with a similar passenger demographic.

Who cares what service Manchester has?

Liverpolitans (Liverpudlians are LFC supporters, as far as I'm concerned) were kicking up a fuss when Manchester only had two trains an hour. You don't think what service Manchester has is relevent to Liverpool at all?

And still, whilst I think there's some merit in the arguements about Chester & Warrington taking some of the Liverpool regional traffic (the only remotely half decent explanation I've heard so far), I still find it too incredible that Manchester has three times demand for London services than Liverpool.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But, Gareth, the million dollar question is this:

Right now, are there people lining up and trying to get on Virgin trains to and from Liverpool, with pockets full of money and buying open returns?

No, they aren't.

Because the service isn't there? Just turning up at Lime Street to buy a ticket to London may well mean you're standing for the journey, or waiting an hour to board, if you've just missed the train.

Anyway, how do you know that? You have CCTV from Lime Street fed into your front room? I assume Piccadilly, therefore, does? What's the source of your statistics?

 

[tbtc]

Sorry for being OT, but I feel many issues here also relate to the Midlands.

To knowledge Coventry having 3tph hasn't really helped it, don't get me wrong it's a fantastic service but hasn't bought Coventry the "promised riches" some seem to claim a frequent railway service provides.

I'm not too sure how the South bound Birminghams loadings are, you can often leave Birmingham on a rammed Pendolino, only to get to Coventry and have a mass exodus of passengers. Also, routing the reading XC trains won't help the city much either, only really provide more capacity to the Airport and alleviate a change at Brum for some northern passengers. More important is KNUKLE line, which will aid the local economy, although if we could get this extended to Leicester This would be beneficial. Could Leamington Spa be bought into the WMPTE?

Interesting points Tom, especially as we have a poster on here who uses the argument that "HS2 will make Coventry an economic backwater, as it relies on its current London service for prosperity"...

Its frustrating when local authority boundaries don't tie up with travel demands (meaning PTEs don't match up with actual demand) - Leamington Spa may be part of the "Greater Birmingham" area in terms of where people travel, but as its "over the border" it doesn't get the service it maybe should (similarly I'm sure that Stratford would get more than one Birmingham train an hour if it were in the same PTE area).

As for Liverpool, I don't know how people count boundaries when they do comparisons, but for a good chunk of Merseyside its faster to go to Wigan/ Warrington/ Chester to get a London service. Whilst Liverpool's London service is no worse than its ever been, the city has lost some links that would be more useful (e.g. no Scottish services any more, no Welsh services any more), if you want to campaign for anything.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because the service isn't there? Just turning up at Lime Street to buy a ticket to London may well mean you're standing for the journey

No, it doesn't for the vast majority of the day.

Anyway, how do you know that? You have CCTV from Lime Street fed into your front room? I assume Piccadilly, therefore, does? What's the source of your statistics?

Manchester trains, as All Line Rover pointed out, serve many major towns, such as Crewe, Wilmslow, Macclesfield, Stockport, Stoke on Trent, Milton Keynes etc.

Liverpool trains run direct to Stafford and then to Runcorn.

I have a very good idea of how well loaded Liverpool trains are, and what tickets people buy to travel on them - although I'm not privy to tell you where my information comes from. (It's not information in the public domain, anyway)

 

[ValleyLines142]

I wouldn't be too sure about that!

The Department for Transport has announced that Blackpool will again have through services to London after the new InterCity West Coast franchise starts at the beginning of 2013 and once the Blackpool-Preston line is electrified. It is intended that this service would operate every two hours. Meanwhile, applications to operate London-Blackpool through trains, even without the line being electrified, have been lodged by open-access operators Alliance Rail Holdings (who would use dual-mode electric/diesel trains) and Grand Central Railway (using Mark 3 coaches hauled by Class 67 diesel locomotives)

 

[mountainmike]

The population of Merseyside is only about half that of Greater Manchester , despite that of Manchester being not that much different to Liverpool. As such at first glance the better service from Manchester would seem to be justified. As someone who has links to Southport far more frustrating has been the removal of through services to other parts of the country from Liverpool. When I wax a student in the 80s there were through services from Liverpool to Scotland , the North East ,the South West and the South Coast as well as London.

Liverpool is certainly the poor relation compared to Manchester for what you might describe as Inter City services but I have to agree with others who say that if the demand were there , and the paths available , which according to posts above they are , then the services would be instated. I suspect then with the extra capacity from the new Pendolinos the best Liverpool could hope for is a couple of extra peak hour services.
From a selfish point of view travelling to London from Southport , the existence of the 3 tph from Manchester means many more cheaper fares that way than via Liverpool and not too much of a time penalty.

 

[tbtc]

The Department for Transport has announced that Blackpool will again have through services to London

...has announced where?

Please give a source for your quote.

(not saying I doubt it, but it'd help establish the veracity...)

 

[IanXC]

Its frustrating when local authority boundaries don't tie up with travel demands (meaning PTEs don't match up with actual demand) - Leamington Spa may be part of the "Greater Birmingham" area in terms of where people travel, but as its "over the border" it doesn't get the service it maybe should (similarly I'm sure that Stratford would get more than one Birmingham train an hour if it were in the same PTE area).

I think just being in a PTE area would help, South and West Yorkshire PTEs seem to work well. Large swathes of the country loose out by not having PTEs at all!

 

[Lampshade]

The Department for Transport has announced that Blackpool will again have through services to London after the new InterCity West Coast franchise starts at the beginning of 2013 and once the Blackpool-Preston line is electrified. It is intended that this service would operate every two hours.

It's been said it will alternate with the Lancaster terminator i.e. one hour it will terminate at Lancaster as per now and will continue to Blackpool North in the second hour.

...has announced where?

Please give a source for your quote.

(not saying I doubt it, but it'd help establish the veracity...)

I too have heard it but I can't remember where :?

 

[All Line Rover]

People go on and on about the fact that Liverpool needs MORE London services, but in my opinion it's Manchester that needs LESS!

Stoke is a very well served station (all CrossCountry services to/from Manchester stop there), it and doesn't need 2tph to London (3tph if you count the London Midland service). There only needs to be 1tph to London via Stoke, calling at Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke and Milton Keynes.

I have travelled on numerous services between Crewe and Manchester (and Stoke and Manchester) during the early afternoon, and often there are only TWO (yes TWO!) people in the Quiet Coach.

Manchester only has 3tph because of the Daft's daft policy that "Manchester MUST have a turn up and go service no matter how much it costs." (And yes, Manchester certainly does have a turn up and go service, because by the time one train has left another is waiting at the platform). Manchester only needs 3tph in the peak - 2tph is sufficient during the Off-Peak.

I can't comment on EBW services as I rarely travel on them, but I do think Birmingham is also over-served with about 8tph to/from London! (Virgin wouldn't want to admit that, though. )

 

[stockport1]

seeing all those pacers and tired sprinters in liverpool is dreadful.
they are absolutely heaving with commuters in the morning.

liverpool needs new rolling stock for local services and glasgow and newcastle services would pick up over time.

manchester to derby doesnt exist but over time people start to commute when such a service appears. also the general population needs to get used to the service...in as much as it exists....and is worth using(not a crowded pacer)

your average joe wont consider the train when his experience is that of a packed pacer and this sentiment takes time to change.

ridiculous the stock northern has. an absolute disgrace.

 

[ValleyLines142]

seeing all those pacers and tired sprinters in liverpool is dreadful.
they are absolutely heaving with commuters in the morning.

liverpool needs new rolling stock for local services and glasgow and newcastle services would pick up over time.

manchester to derby doesnt exist but over time people start to commute when such a service appears. also the general population needs to get used to the service...in as much as it exists....and is worth using(not a crowded pacer)

your average joe wont consider the train when his experience is that of a packed pacer and this sentiment takes time to change.

ridiculous the stock northern has. an absolute disgrace.

And to make it all better Northern is due to have ex-FCC 319s.

 

[Waverley125]

the problem is simply the approach to liverpool, and how people from Merseyside get to the WCML, as opposed to Manchester.

If you live in GM, especially the north & East of the conurbation, you get to the WCML by going into Manchester, and then out again, via Piccadilly. However, if you live in most areas other than Liverpool proper, you head out to 'jumping off' points like Chester, Warrington and Wigan instead of to Lime Street.

Also, the VHF timetable means that places that used to sustain the liverpool service, i.e. Nuneaton, Rugby etc. now no longer have their services so aren't providing passengers.

With the Manchester-Liverpool line being wired, one option will be to run extra services into Liverpool calling at Warrington BQ & St Helens Junc., or to increase the calling points on Liverpool services via Runcorn in the Trent Valley, so running a Euston-Lime Street service as:

Milton Keynes Central
Rugby
Nuneaton
Tamworth
Lichfield TV
Stafford
Crewe
Runcorn North
Liverpool Lime St

with a 'fast' running

Crewe
Warrington Bank Quay
St Helens Junction
Liverpool Lime St

 

[markydh]

The DfT put in an application to the ORR on behalf of whoever the franchise holder may be upon renewal that proposed removing Lancaster, Warrington & Wigan from the Glasgow - London services and replacing them with an hourly semi-fast service from Preston to London that would start from Blackpool one hour and Lancaster the next. The application, like all the others that went in at the same time (LM, GC and Alliance), was turned down to the relief of pretty much everyone from Preston northwards as it would have cut Lancaster - London services, made journeys between the two a good 20 minutes longer and decimated Scotland - Cumbria - Lancaster - Preston services. I'm all for putting Blackpool back on the WC map, but NOT at the expense of the rest of the North West!

 

[tony_mac]

I don't think the current service to Liverpool is unreasonable, but only a very small number of trains are affordable and at a convenient time, so I am not surprised that many people think they are always packed (and that is the impression people are getting).

Try getting a reasonably-priced direct Advance ticket out of Euston between 13:10 and 20:05 - you can't, even with 3 months notice.

So, 'normal' people with mere off-peak tickets are left on the packed 14:07, 19:07 and 20:07.
A few lucky people will even manage to get cheap Advance tickets on the 20:07.
And some people can get the 21:07, but it arrives too late to make many onward connections.

Yes, there are some midday trains that are affordable and not busy, but taking one may well mean having to stay an extra night away from home, so it's hardly surprising.

 

[northwichcat]

People go on and on about the fact that Liverpool needs MORE London services, but in my opinion it's Manchester that needs LESS!

Stoke is a very well served station (all CrossCountry services to/from Manchester stop there), it and doesn't need 2tph to London (3tph if you count the London Midland service). There only needs to be 1tph to London via Stoke, calling at Stockport, Macclesfield, Stoke and Milton Keynes.

I have travelled on numerous services between Crewe and Manchester (and Stoke and Manchester) during the early afternoon, and often there are only TWO (yes TWO!) people in the Quiet Coach.

Manchester only has 3tph because of the Daft's daft policy that "Manchester MUST have a turn up and go service no matter how much it costs." (And yes, Manchester certainly does have a turn up and go service, because by the time one train has left another is waiting at the platform). Manchester only needs 3tph in the peak - 2tph is sufficient during the Off-Peak.

I can't comment on EBW services as I rarely travel on them, but I do think Birmingham is also over-served with about 8tph to/from London! (Virgin wouldn't want to admit that, though. )

As I've suggested before Manchester should have 2tph to London one via Wilmslow and the other via Macclesfield. One of the London-Wolverhampton services could be extended to Stoke and could terminate there.

The path taken up for the 3rd London service between Manchester and Stockport could much better be used for a Buxton, Chester or Crewe service.

 

[Waverley125]

running 3tph Manchester-London does seem excessive to me. Surely, it would be better use the second Stoke path to run an express Man Picc-Birmingham service, calling only Stockport, Stoke, Stafford & Wolverhampton, and allowing XC to fill in the gaps with the second hourly Manchester-Birmingham service?

Moreover, the diagrams for the WCML need to account for services starting elsewhere than London. So, for instance, running hourly from Birmingham to both Edinburgh and Glasgow would give stations north of Preston extra services north, while maintaining their hourly southbound service to London, and would allow more 'express' journeys between those stations.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I agree with the posts saying liverpool should be omre worried about its lack of (in essence) XC services. Ie: No services to scotland, wales, North east, North west (ie lancaster and cumbria) or the south west. These would be much more useful to liverpool than an extra london service, which i have travelled on off peak and been 1 of 10 in a carriage, so clearly it doesnt need it during the day. The news of TPE electrification should be welcomed as it allows an EMU from liverpool to newcastle something that i think is more use than an extra london service.

 

[northwichcat]

I think the priorities for paths between on the WCML south of Manchester should be as follows:

1. Reinstate the peak time half-hourly Manchester-Altrincham-Chester service.
2. Extend the Manchester-Alderley Edge services to Crewe with less used stations being served by alternate trains meaning a faster and more frequent stopping service between Manchester and Crewe.
3. Make Buxton-Manchester every 20 minutes at peak times.

Maybe if you want a new fast Birmingham-Manchester service then extend the Blackpool-Manchester Airport service to Birmingham and also give Salford, Bolton and Blackpool direct Birmingham services in the process.

Network Rail have drawn up plans for sending the Manchester-Bournemouth service via Crewe and transferring the Manchester-Stoke stopper to the London Midland franchise and extending it to Birmingham via Stone. The Crewe-London stopper would be diverted away from Stone. I don't really know about passenger flows from Stone but I imagine a direct Birmingham service will be more useful than a direct London service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree with the posts saying liverpool should be omre worried about its lack of (in essence) XC services. Ie: No services to scotland, wales, North east, North west (ie lancaster and cumbria) or the south west.

One point related to that is that prior to the introduction of 350s Liverpool had quite a lot of services that continued beyond Birmingham, most notably an hourly Stansted Airport service.

Quite a few people who post on here seem more than happy to see services split up to make better use of overhead wires. Liverpool losing long distances services is a direct effect of that idea being implemented.

Although, saying that the loss of direct Liverpool-Cardiff services was down to political reasons: Manchester getting a frequency enhancement from 2 hourly to hourly and North Wales-South Wales services being introduced.

These would be much more useful to liverpool than an extra london service, which i have travelled on off peak and been 1 of 10 in a carriage, so clearly it doesnt need it during the day.

I've been on Manchester to London services off-peak and been one of three people in a carriage, so on that basis the justification for Liverpool having an additional service is more than 3 times the justification of Manchester having a 4th London service - which has been proposed.

 

[tbtc]

I think that the Cross Country aspiration is going to be impossible to resolve. There are too many "northern" XC destinations north of Birmingham

• Edinburgh via Leeds
• Newcastle via Doncaster
• Nottingham
• Nottingham
• Manchester
• Manchester
• Glasgow/Edinburgh via WCML
• Liverpool
• Liverpool

...and not enough southern ones to match up...

• Cardiff
• Bristol
• Plymouth
• Reading
• Bournemouth

(based on a standard offpeak hourly service - ignoring extensions to Cornwall etc)

So, if you give Liverpool a Cross Country service to the south then it has to be at the expense of somewhere else, its a zero sum game.

Adding a Liverpool portion to Scottish WCML services (as proposed, post electrification) and restoring Liverpool with some of the links lost when other services became diverted to Manchester Airport (e.g. Newcastle) sounds realistic though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People go on and on about the fact that Liverpool needs MORE London services, but in my opinion it's Manchester that needs LESS!

Fewer.

running a Euston-Lime Street service as:

Milton Keynes Central
Rugby
Nuneaton
Tamworth
Lichfield TV
Stafford
Crewe
Runcorn North
Liverpool Lime St

with a 'fast' running

Crewe
Warrington Bank Quay
St Helens Junction
Liverpool Lime St

That would give Runcorn a much slower service and give Crewe four trains an hour to London (if Manchester doesn't need three trains, in people's opinions, then giving Crewe four sounds overkill).

I like the idea of giving St Helens a direct service to London though,

As I've suggested before Manchester should have 2tph to London one via Wilmslow and the other via Macclesfield. One of the London-Wolverhampton services could be extended to Stoke and could terminate there

So Manchester would lose a third of its London services, Stoke would effectively lose half its London services - as the "via Birmingham" service would take almost an hour longer, so nobody would use it for London - Stoke journeys:

• London - Stoke = 85 minutes (roughly)
• London - Birmingham = 80 minutes (roughly)
• Birmingham - Stoke = 50 minutes (roughly)

Seems quite a big loss just to find space for more Manchester - Knutsford services IHO

running 3tph Manchester-London does seem excessive to me

...but they do cover stops like Crewe and Milton Keynes that allow other WCML services to be speeded up.

I think the priorities for paths between on the WCML south of Manchester should be as follows:

1. Reinstate the peak time half-hourly Manchester-Altrincham-Chester service

I thought you would list that

One point related to that is that prior to the introduction of 350s Liverpool had quite a lot of services that continued beyond Birmingham, most notably an hourly Stansted Airport service.

Quite a few people who post on here seem more than happy to see services split up to make better use of overhead wires. Liverpool losing long distances services is a direct effect of that idea being implemented

Losing the Stansted service made sense, as it was never a big "end to end" route (Liverpool still has an hourly service to Peterborough and East Anglia, via Nottingham), and allowed 350s to run Liverpool - Birmingham, which gave greater capacity.

Liverpool losing services to Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Newcastle/ Cardiff etc (at the expense of Manchester getting improved services, in most cases) was nothing to do with electrification (as the services from Manchester to Glasgow/ Edinburgh/ Newcastle/ Cardiff etc were still diesel.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The DfT put in an application to the ORR on behalf of whoever the franchise holder may be upon renewal that proposed removing Lancaster, Warrington & Wigan from the Glasgow - London services and replacing them with an hourly semi-fast service from Preston to London that would start from Blackpool one hour and Lancaster the next. The application, like all the others that went in at the same time (LM, GC and Alliance), was turned down to the relief of pretty much everyone from Preston northwards as it would have cut Lancaster - London services, made journeys between the two a good 20 minutes longer and decimated Scotland - Cumbria - Lancaster - Preston services. I'm all for putting Blackpool back on the WC map, but NOT at the expense of the rest of the North West!

We will soon know what the DfT baseline is for the new franchise, when the ITT and the result of the recent consultation is published in January.
The draft ITT did not include Blackpool, but did invite bids to exploit the new infrastructure after electrification.
There are also choices to be made for improving frequencies to Liverpool/Preston/Glasgow using the extra 390s.

For Blackpool and elsewhere, a lot depends on the ORR attitude to Open Access on the WCML.
DfT will be dead against but might have to allow one hourly path to placate ORR.

 

[northwichcat]

I think that the Cross Country aspiration is going to be impossible to resolve. There are too many "northern" XC destinations north of Birmingham....and not enough southern ones to match up

Liverpool still has an hourly service to Peterborough and East Anglia, via Nottingham

So one minute only services via Birmingham are classed as "cross country" then the next minute Liverpool-Norwich is one. You really need a standard definition!

In my opinion there should be more "cross country" services that don't go via Birmingham. Manchester-Birmingham-Bristol is an indirect route, Manchester-Shrewsbury-Hereford-Bristol is more of a direct route.

So Manchester would lose a third of its London services, Stoke would effectively lose half its London services - as the "via Birmingham" service would take almost an hour longer, so nobody would use it for London - Stoke journeys

I didn't realise that despite Virgin operating 3tph between Birmingham and London they all have quite a few stops opposed to having express services in the same way Manchester and Liverpool has.

Instead I'd suggest Glasgow or Liverpool getting a second service in the standard hourly pattern routed via Stoke.

I thought you would list that...Seems quite a big loss just to find space for more Manchester - Knutsford services IHO

tbtc How would you feel if, despite rising passenger numbers some peak time services between Leeds/Huddersfield and Sheffield via Barnsley were made to start/terminate at Barnsley to allow EMT to extend some of their St Pancras services to Barnsley?

Without exaggerating there are more passengers on some of the 142/150/156s leaving Stockport for Chester then some of the Pendolinos leaving Stockport for London.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

In my opinion there should be more "cross country" services that don't go via Birmingham. Manchester-Birmingham-Bristol is an indirect route, Manchester-Shrewsbury-Hereford-Bristol is more of a direct route.

But via Hereford is 12 miles longer and a hell of a load slower!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Without exaggerating there are more passengers on some of the 142/150/156s leaving Stockport for Chester then some of the Pendolinos leaving Stockport for London.

But travelling c15 miles and paying peanuts.