Liverpool Lime Street to Euston

[northwichcat]

But travelling c15 miles and paying peanuts.

Most inaccurate comment of the day.

Given that most fares on the Mid Cheshire line are not PTE subsided they are actually some of the highest local fares paid in the North of England.

The Mid-Cheshire line is a more of a feeder service in to other regional and intercity services than other local services. You're more likely to hear someone at Knutsford ticket office ask for a London/Birmingham ticket over a Chester ticket or a Leeds/Huddersfield ticket over a Delamere ticket or a Salford/Bolton/Preston/Blackpool ticket over a Hale ticket.

The people travelling on the Virgin only tickets for Crewe-Manchester, Macclesfield-Manchester etc. and the people travelling on Virgin Advances to London are the ones who are really paying peanuts.

 

[tbtc]

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

When I was listing "Cross Country" services, I was talking in terms of the old British Rail part of Intercity routes radiating from Birmingham / the Cross Country franchise we currently have.

Liverpool - Norwich was part of "Provincial", and so not a "Cross Country" route (in the railway definition), in the same way that Transpennine services were Provincial routes (and not part of the Intercity "Cross Country" brand).

I only mentioned Liverpool - Norwich to show that a direct link from Merseyside to East Anglia remained (despite the cutting of the old Central Trains service via Birmingham).

I wouldn't describe the EMT service as "Cross Country" (in capital letters) because it wasn't Cross Country under BR and it has never formed part of the XC franchise (post privatisation).

I'm in agreement about the Marches line being suitable for longer distance services between English cities (e.g. Liverpool/Manchester - Shrewsbury - Hereford - Bristol), though in railway terms that wouldn't be a "Cross Country" route. Sadly politics mean that this line is being used for Holyhead services (to help "nation building, I am assured...).

 

[Kier]

Speaking of Cross Country and Liverpool, didn't Liverpool used to have an regular service to the south via Birmingham under BR?

As a youngster I'm sure I used to get on a Liverpool bound train coming from Devon.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Indeed it did, they survived until Operation Princess flopped in the early 2000s.

 

[tbtc]

Speaking of Cross Country and Liverpool, didn't Liverpool used to have an regular service to the south via Birmingham under BR?

As a youngster I'm sure I used to get on a Liverpool bound train coming from Devon.

Yes, to the West Country (as you describe) and to the South Coast (e.g. Portsmouth).

Regular, as in daily, but not "frequent" (compared to the hourly/ half hourly services on the XC routes nowadays)

 

[Kier]

Indeed it did, they survived until Operation Princess flopped in the early 2000s.

The voyagers have to be amongst the most unsuitable trains on the whole network. When travelling south to the Midlands from Newcastle I always ensure I get on a train starting at Newcastle.

Getting a seat when its come in from Glasgow or Edinburgh is a challenge to say the least!

 

[Bald Rick]

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?

I should have said it was study (6 years ago) that helped to start the debate into what was to become HS2. It used confidential data from CAA and the Rail ticket database (both 2004 vintage) which gave precise point to point passenger numbers. Checking the numbers, the combined air/rail market for Manchester (area) - London was 4.6m pa, air had 43% market share; quite a target for the rail industry to go for. The combined air/rail market for Merseyside (area) - London was 1.1m pa, with air having a 6% market share, i.e. somewhat less for the rail industry to chase. I used the number of flights above simply as an illustration, that as domestic air travel is pretty much unregulated from an economic perspective, that it a fair assumption that airlines will chase demand to make the greatest profit.

I think the current state of the airport at Liverpool is a bit of a red herring, the fact is that it is more than capable of accommodating London flights. The good people of Merseyside / Lancashire / Cheshire did have the choice of flying to London, and the fact that easyjet pulled out suggests that not enough of them did.

 

[Pumbaa]

Going back to the main topic in hand, a few myths and a few good points bandied around. Also nice to see local defence from Gareth. I'll attempt to clear some matters up and put across some of Merseytravels aspirations to DfT.

I was always firmly of the opinion that Liverpool deserved a second tph - untapped demand and all that, and the key services can be very busy as tony-mac pointed out.

The majority of travellers on the Liverpool service go only to/from Liverpool. Once you look at the loadings in a similar way for Manchester, ie removing the Stoke/Macclesfield/wilmslow/MK loadings, you often have a smaller end-end load off-peak. In this way, Liverpool fares better as its the way the timetable worked out. TOC input during the development of the new WC timetable wanted calls at Crewe and Rugby/Nuneaton with the Stafford call transferred to another service, but for whatever reason this didn't work and instead ended up being Stafford only. So to this end the addition of the one extra stop at Stafford is the apologetic present from the timetable, rather than an intended hindrance to loadings!

AlterEgo also alluded to the make-up of ticket sales. I am under the impression that leisure/standard class travellers account for the majority of passengers on the Liverpool services. For this reason, the Liverpool second service "isn't justified" as the big dollars that come from the first class fares aren't there. Virgin identified this as "untapped demand" way back when, and as part of their input on the WC timetable wanted the spare EPS slot to run the second Liverpool service. They were of the opinion that the timetable would best deliver benefits from a fast 2tph service to Liverpool than a full hourly service to Glasgow, reasoning that the journey times were relatively more unattractive to Scottish business travellers than the Liverpool enhanced service would be. DfT had other ideas, and Virgin lost the toss. I don't know if that's because DfT were genuinely right or difference in figures and accounting won the day. But left over is the xx33 path, which runs as the peak Liverpool service from Euston a few times a day, and the xx18 path from Lime St which runs a few times also (and early morning variation etc). These paths would allow calls at Rugby/Nuneaton and Tamworth/Lichfield, but not Crewe, and scupper the financial viability even further.

So the best solution is to run the 11-car Pendos (which is possible MattE2010) and I am under the impression like one of the earlier posters that they will be running Liverpool - Glasgow runs leaving key other diagrams to be covered. One reporter noted that they looked briefly at pooling common runs off-peak, but will re-diagram the whole thing anyway (I'm sure Virgins resident planner will be along shortly to shed light).

Merseytravel would like to see as part of the new TT the xx33 peaks workings extended either side by an hour, so 1633 1707 1733 1807 1833 1907 1933 then hourly in the second path at 2033 and 2133, giving an extra half hour in London, and avoids conflicts in the Liverpool area which often causes late arrival on the last working, caused by slow line running through the Ditton area for route retention. They also want 2 extra morning workings to give an earlier off-peak arrival in London and one after. They were in dialogue with DfT to have these included in the new TT but I have no idea if these were successful or when we would know if these are successful.

Finally I agree with others in here about how Liverpool is the poor WC relation. On a personal note, I know of contracts and firms that have gone to the Manchester area based solely on better air/rail travel options. I have no idea how that translates out into the bigger regional economies but I bet it's not helpful to a resurgent Merseyside economy.

And lastly, those who say the Crewe and Cheater services also serve Merseyside, it's a fallacy really. I sometimes go via Chester if I'm travelling in the middle of the day, but only if I'm alighting at MK. Chester serves the affluent(ish!) south of the Wirral and that's it. North of Rock Ferry, they'll go via Liverpool as its no quicker. And if you miss the xx48 from Liverpool, it's quicker only by about 10 minutes only and you have to suffer a change at Crewe by taking the xx04 from lime St and changing onto the xx56 from Crewe.

 

[merlodlliw]

Interesting, in the reverse way, On Sunday evening around 8pm, two pendos leave Euston for Liverpool within 3 minutes of each other, due I am told due to demand.

Had common sense prevailed 50 years ago,Liverpool could have been the key airport of the North West, not Ringway, it had at least two runways then, but Politics

wanted an airport at every city,perhaps Manchester was more far sighted.

 

[calc7]

Merseytravel would like to see as part of the new TT the xx33 peaks workings extended either side by an hour, so 1633 1707 1733 1807 1833 1907 1933 then hourly in the second path at 2033 and 2133, giving an extra half hour in London, and avoids conflicts in the Liverpool area which often causes late arrival on the last working, caused by slow line running through the Ditton area for route retention. They also want 2 extra morning workings to give an earlier off-peak arrival in London and one after. They were in dialogue with DfT to have these included in the new TT but I have no idea if these were successful or when we would know if these are successful.

I think this is a very sensible suggestion.
And if it proves to serve the market, it could end up being rolled out all day. Half the reason the services may not be so well-utilised at the moment is the relatively poor options for returning from London later in the day.

 

[tbtc]

those who say the Crewe and Cheater services also serve Merseyside, it's a fallacy really. I sometimes go via Chester if I'm travelling in the middle of the day, but only if I'm alighting at MK. Chester serves the affluent(ish!) south of the Wirral and that's it. North of Rock Ferry, they'll go via Liverpool as its no quicker. And if you miss the xx48 from Liverpool, it's quicker only by about 10 minutes only and you have to suffer a change at Crewe by taking the xx04 from lime St and changing onto the xx56 from Crewe

Looking at the times I'm impressed with the timings for changing at Crewe.

Northbound there are two services (xx.10 to Chester and xx.40 to Manchester) that have roughly 2h30 journey times to Liverpool (including the change at Crewe).

Its longer than the 2h08 times that the direct London - Liverpool service, but it does mean that any "new" Liverpool service would need to still be fairly fast to beat 2h30 (e.g. not stop at every Trent Valley station some have suggested).

Even if Chester only attracts those from the posher parts of the Wirral (the ones paying the lucrative fares, presumably), there are still a good few parts of Merseyside where its easier to go to London via Wigan/Warrington than to head into Lime Street. A London - Liverpool service that is overtaken by the half hourly "change at Crewe" option is going to get a few passengers but struggle to justify a 390.

In comparison, very little of Greater Manchester would gravitate to these stations (it's about the same time for Bolton passengers to go to Piccadilly as it is to go to Wigan Wallgate and walk over the road).

 

[Pumbaa]

Looking at the times I'm impressed with the timings for changing at Crewe.

Northbound there are two services (xx.10 to Chester and xx.40 to Manchester)

Its longer than the 2h08 times that the direct London - Liverpool service, but it does mean that any "new" Liverpool service would need to still be fairly fast to beat 2h30 (e.g. not stop at every Trent Valley station some have suggested).

Take the xx40 and you may as well wait for the xx07 - you arrive only 4 minutes earlier. You'd only take the xx10 if you've missed the xx07.

They aren't well advertised and casual travellers certainly won't see it as an option. And as they don't work southbound, it still negates the point of a second Liverpool service an hour.

Crewe is the major whole-up in the timetable! Both the Liverpool and Glasgow services would stop there if they could wangle the platform space. For the Liverpool, the LM stoppers take up the platforms in the Up directions and for the Glasgow it has an LM stopper on the down and an ATW on the Up, and would get caught at Norton Bridge behind an XC. Hooray!

 

[Pumbaa]

And if the chord was improved in speed at Earlestown, and the second tph ran Warrigton BQ - St Helen's jct - Lime St, winner all round! Someone else mentioned it up thread, I've Lin thought this a really good idea.

 

[Gareth]

I should have said it was study (6 years ago) that helped to start the debate into what was to become HS2. It used confidential data from CAA and the Rail ticket database (both 2004 vintage) which gave precise point to point passenger numbers. Checking the numbers, the combined air/rail market for Manchester (area) - London was 4.6m pa, air had 43% market share; quite a target for the rail industry to go for. The combined air/rail market for Merseyside (area) - London was 1.1m pa, with air having a 6% market share, i.e. somewhat less for the rail industry to chase. I used the number of flights above simply as an illustration, that as domestic air travel is pretty much unregulated from an economic perspective, that it a fair assumption that airlines will chase demand to make the greatest profit.

Yeah, but don't you understand how skewed the airline industry is in the North? I've already explained how it distorts demand and cannot be used as a yardstick to determine how many people are interested in taking a train, from either Lime Street or Piccadilly, to London. I really do dispair if that was the basis in determining where HS2 will go. Also, this doesn't address Leeds. As far as I can see, Leeds-Bradford has no flights to London either, yet will get a dedicated high speed line to London. Let's face it - it's political. Any suspect stats are merely to reinforce the result, not to formulate it.

I think the current state of the airport at Liverpool is a bit of a red herring, the fact is that it is more than capable of accommodating London flights. The good people of Merseyside / Lancashire / Cheshire did have the choice of flying to London, and the fact that easyjet pulled out suggests that not enough of them did.

The only two airlines that fly from Manchester to London are British Airways and BMI. I suggest that the majority of the traffic are people in the north of England using Heathrow as an onward connection. Seen as people can't fly to Heathrow via Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds-Bradford etc, they will use Manchester for this service. Again, this is a poor indicator on deciding demand for train services to London from any of those cities. As for Easyjet, I can't quite remember the service. In fact, I'm sure it was another budget airline (not Ryanair) and I think it was to London City. It's just not a comparable service. It isn't much use for onward connections, like a through-ticket. It's also not really cheaper than the train or faster, once you factor in getting to the airport early, messing about checking in your luggage and then doing the same thing at the other end. Liverpool, or Manchester for that matter, doesn't gravely need flights to access London itself. The only way a flight to London is useful is if it's a spoke service to hub operations at Heathrow (or perhaps Gatwick), allowing onward connections throughout the world. That's what Manchester has and that's why it's so well used (as well as there being no other airport in the North offering the same service other than distant Newcastle). Liverpool would really benefit from such a Heathrow service too, but being a typically British airline, BA will be the last on the planet to even consider it, so connections to other hubs in Europe would be more realistic in the medium term.

 

[johnnychips]

VLM used to fly from both LPL and MAN to London City. Both services have since been withdrawn because of train competition. KLM links Liverpool into Amsterdam, but this service has not proved a success and is being withdrawn.

 

[Gareth]

And if the chord was improved in speed at Earlestown, and the second tph ran Warrigton BQ - St Helen's jct - Lime St, winner all round! Someone else mentioned it up thread, I've Lin thought this a really good idea.

I was thinking maybe...

Liverpool Lime Street
Warrington Bank Quay
Tamworth*
Nuneaton
Rugby*
London Euston

I'm not sure about St Helens Junction. It's not that close the the bulk of St Helens, so I would imagine it'd still be just as easy for a lot of St Heleners to hop on a stopper to Liverpool Lime Street or Wigan North Western and change there. I'd love a direct train to Nuneaton. It's location makes it a very handy interchange station. The southern part of the Midlands is a bit of a blackhole for Liverpool at the moment and direct to Nuneaton would makes things a bit easier. Tamworth could also be hand and perhaps Rugby, though too many stops might slow the service down significantly and they may only be served occassionally.

Of course, it would not be possible to go via Warrington until the Chat Moss Line is electrified, unless they were willing to make it a diesel service. Also, stops at places like Nuneaton might trample on London Midland somewhat.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

VLM used to fly from both LPL and MAN to London City. Both services have since been withdrawn because of train competition. KLM links Liverpool into Amsterdam, but this service has not proved a success and is being withdrawn.

Apparently KLM didn't want any Liverpool service to eat into its existing Manchester service. A rather strange requisite and a totally naive and unrealistic one too, especially considering the current economic conditions.

 

[martinsh]

The only two airlines that fly from Manchester to London are British Airways and BMI. I suggest that the majority of the traffic are people in the north of England using Heathrow as an onward connection. Seen as people can't fly to Heathrow via Liverpool, Blackpool, Leeds-Bradford etc, they will use Manchester for this service. Again, this is a poor indicator on deciding demand for train services to London from any of those cities. As for Easyjet, I can't quite remember the service. In fact, I'm sure it was another budget airline (not Ryanair) and I think it was to London City.

Easyjet used to fly Liverpool - Luton in about 2002/3. I used the service (living in Crewe) because it cost £32 return against a railfare of about £150 at peak time (when I travelled). Mind you I was going to visit a customer in Dunstable !

Service lasted for about 18 months, and there was a definite suspicion of a deal being done between Easyjet and Virgin that saw it being cancelled.

 

[Pumbaa]

I'm not convinced personally by Liverpool - Nuneaton. I haven't seen anything to suggest the old timetables gave Nuneaton the Liverpool service because there was a market, it's simply because the timetable ended happening that way.

Nuneaton is 2 hours from Liverpool today, xx04 to Stafford, xx21 to Nuneaton. Or the xx52 to Nottingham/Grantham.

Manchester likewise, Crewe and Wigan/Warrington likewise.

 

[Gareth]

Easyjet used to fly Liverpool - Luton in about 2002/3. I used the service (living in Crewe) because it cost £32 return against a railfare of about £150 at peak time (when I travelled). Mind you I was going to visit a customer in Dunstable !

Service lasted for about 18 months, and there was a definite suspicion of a deal being done between Easyjet and Virgin that saw it being cancelled.

£32 return? Good times.

Luton barely qualifies as London though, even less so when we're talking about onward connections.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not convinced personally by Liverpool - Nuneaton. I haven't seen anything to suggest the old timetables gave Nuneaton the Liverpool service because there was a market, it's simply because the timetable ended happening that way.

Nuneaton is 2 hours from Liverpool today, xx04 to Stafford, xx21 to Nuneaton. Or the xx52 to Nottingham/Grantham.

Manchester likewise, Crewe and Wigan/Warrington likewise.

I'm not necessarily suggesting it's a massive stop but it'd be one of the more handy ones (from a Liverpool perspective at least) when it comes to intermediate destinations.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Service lasted for about 18 months, and there was a definite suspicion of a deal being done between Easyjet and Virgin that saw it being cancelled.

I recall getting one way flights for as little as £7. It's main purpose was to move aircraft from Easyjet's main base at Luton to operate the expanding services from Speke. I don't think there was an Easyjet Virgin deal though but if I recall rightly it's demise was something to do with a row over the landing fees and Luton airport wanting more for the Liverpool service than Easyjet were paying for continental slots.

I am not sure Liverpool would be able to support two trains an hour to Euston all day but maybe during the middle of the day and at peaks. Unlike Manchester, Birmingham and the other centres mentioned there aren't too many onward journies made by connecting trains from Liverpool. Apart from local Merseyrail journies (and Wirral can be reached via Chester as well, Southport and even Kirkby from Wigan) there aren't really enough services feeding in to an enhanced Lime Street-Euston service.

 

[Train Pilchard]

A wee bit bitter are we Gareth, bloody hell get over it.

 

[tony_mac]

Unlike Manchester, Birmingham and the other centres mentioned there aren't too many onward journies made by connecting trains from Liverpool

According to my reading of the ORR figures, more people travel by train to/from Liverpool than both Birmingham and Manchester.

(and, in fact, everywhere but London and Glasgow)

 

[IanXC]

According to my reading of the ORR figures, more people travel by train to/from Liverpool than both Birmingham and Manchester.

(and, in fact, everywhere but London and Glasgow)

Not exactly a surprise when you think of Merseyrail. There are plenty of larger cities who would surely have similarly high numbers with that kind of network in place.

 

[tony_mac]

There are plenty of larger cities who would surely have similarly high numbers with that kind of network in place.

I agree (although GM and WM are larger networks than Merseyside).

The point was only in response to 'there aren't too many onward journies made', when there are many journeys made, however short they are.

 

[IanXC]

I agree (although GM and WM are larger networks than Merseyside).

The point was only in response to 'there aren't too many onward journies made', when there are many journeys made, however short they are.

Ooops! Completely forgot to agree with the original point of your post! Sorry!

 

[exile]

Why can't we have short-formation pendos? It would then be possible to run 2 tph without transporting large amounts of fresh air.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

You are probably well aware it is not as simple as that. Yeah, you could pop centre cars out and run shorter trains but you would still need driving cabs, traincrew, paths (etc) so its not the sort of thing that a bunch of strangers on a forum can all agree on and make happen tomorrow.

Does Liverpool really need a half hourly service, or is it just a case of regional pride because a certain city thirty miles down the road has more trains?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Most inaccurate comment of the day.

Given that most fares on the Mid Cheshire line are not PTE subsided they are actually some of the highest local fares paid in the North of England.

The Mid-Cheshire line is a more of a feeder service in to other regional and intercity services than other local services. You're more likely to hear someone at Knutsford ticket office ask for a London/Birmingham ticket over a Chester ticket or a Leeds/Huddersfield ticket over a Delamere ticket or a Salford/Bolton/Preston/Blackpool ticket over a Hale ticket.

The people travelling on the Virgin only tickets for Crewe-Manchester, Macclesfield-Manchester etc. and the people travelling on Virgin Advances to London are the ones who are really paying peanuts.

The impression I get (I use these services for variety now and again between Chester and Manchester) is that west of Greenbank they are largely empty, and then gradually fill to Altrincham where a good proportion pile off for Metrolink or are local.
I have never got the impression of a long-distance clientele and the peak loadings seem to be on the school run.
The stock used (mostly Pacers and the odd 150) and the journey time do not encourage use.
I didn't say they were paying cheap PTE fares, but the fare box from, say, Knutsford to Piccadilly on an hourly service can hardly compare with a decently loaded 390 every 20 minutes with a high proportion of premium long-distance fares.

Maybe if I commuted in the peak I would think differently.
I expect we would agree the route needs a major upgrade and decent stock, possibly running to Crewe via Sandbach.

 

[northwichcat]

The impression I get (I use these services for variety now and again between Chester and Manchester) is that west of Greenbank they are largely empty

Greenbank to Chester is the quietest section normally on weekdays during school term time. However, on Saturdays, Race Days and during School Holidays services can be quite busy between Greenbank and Chester. On an off-peak train I caught between Knutsford and Chester in school holidays the conductor was checking and selling tickets for almost the whole journey (obviously ignoring the time spent doing the doors.)

Certainly any proposals for extra services in RUS' or the Manchester/Northern Hub are for services starting/terminating at Northwich/Greenbank running towards Stockport, opposed to additional Chester-Greenbank services.

then gradually fill to Altrincham where a good proportion pile off for Metrolink or are local.

With the exception of a few peak services the number boarding a Manchester bound train at Altrincham is only slightly lower than the number alighting. You might get 25 alighting and 18 boarding.

The statistics for ticket sales show that less people board and alight at Altrincham than at Knutsford, despite what appears like a lot of people changing to the Metrolink at Altrincham on a few services.

I have never got the impression of a long-distance clientele

Before the December 08 timetable change there was a 09:30 Northwich-Blackpool service. I caught this service a few times and stayed on beyond Deansgate and everytime I did I noticed numerous people still on the train who had been on when the train departed Navigation Road and with it being booked for a 4 car 156 I certainly didn't see a lot of passengers who were travelling on the same train.

Leeds is a very popular university choice for students from Cheshire and Huddersfield seems to get quite a few students from Cheshire. I'm sure a fast train every 15 minutes from Piccadilly makes Leeds an attractive option. If your local service in to Piccadilly is only hourly then it doesn't make Hull an attractive option.

For Chester to Sheffield/Doncaster the fastest journey option is usually changing at Stockport due to the connection times being better than with the ATW service via Warrington.

the peak loadings seem to be on the school run.

The busiest two services are the ones taking kids to and from Knutsford High School. However, by itself that doesn't mean a lot. If there's 180 passengers on the 15:49 Manchester service leaving Knutsford and 100 are school kids then it doesn't mean that's the most profitable train of the day. If there's 110 passengers on the 17:49 and 5 are under 16 then it's the latter that'll probably make more money.

The stock used (mostly Pacers and the odd 150) and the journey time do not encourage use.

I agree about the stock not encouraging use but it's not quite as bad as you're making out. Taking the afternoon departures towards Chester the booked stock is as follows:
12:17 Class 156
13:17 Class 150
14:17 Class 142
15:17 Class 150
16:17 Class 142
16:58 (from Stockport) Class 150

The lack of semi-fasts on the line also doesn't encourage use.

However, like I said the stations on the line do get a higher proportion of long distance travel compared to other lines. Better stock and running semi-fasts would build on this opposed to opening a completely new market.

I didn't say they were paying cheap PTE fares, but the fare box from, say, Knutsford to Piccadilly on an hourly service can hardly compare with a decently loaded 390 every 20 minutes with a high proportion of premium long-distance fares.

Why? As I pointed out a lot of advance tickets are sold for the Manchester-London services these sell from just £11.50 for Manchester-London, that's more than some singles on the Mid-Cheshire line for a 'local' journey. Also as I pointed out Virgin are uncutting Northern on a lot of local fares by selling Virgin Only local tickets such as Crewe-Manchester, Macclesfield-Stockport etc. Off-Peak Virgin are really providing a local service north of Crewe/Stoke with limited long distance travellers.

possibly running to Crewe via Sandbach.

You may be aware that a feasibility study in to running a Crewe service from the Mid-Cheshire line found the benefit:cost ratio to be 5:1, which is double what's required to actually reopen a line. However, a lack of funds due to the recession has seen no progress.

 

[neilmc]

Easyjet have a largeish base in Liverpool, however until recently they were constrained by an agreement with the airport owners Peel Holdings that they wouldn't move in on extra Manchester slots unless they took an appropriate number of Liverpool slots; however, by re-drafting the agreement so that "Liverpool slots" meant "slots at airports owned by Peel Holdings" and running new flights out of Robin Hood airport in Doncaster which was a costly nightmare for crewing, they were able to expand in Manchester which they continue to do now the agreement is past and they could withdraw again from Robin Hood.

This highlights the problem for Liverpool which is one of geography and economics - it is an excellent base for flights to Belfast and Dublin and that's about it, it's an excellent base for trains to hardly anywhere.

Whilst Manchester and Liverpool as cities are almost comparable in size and population (Manchester is only ninth largest city in population terms!), Greater Manchester contains ten boroughs whilst Merseyside has only five and thus its metropolitan area is actually much larger; of those ten, Wigan has a WCML station which will be a base for passengers in Wigan and possibly the western parts of Bolton but I guess will also be an attractive railhead for much of Knowsley and Sefton. In addition, London trains call at Stockport, a very busy and easy pick-up and drop-off point with the M60 going through the middle of the town, plus either Wilmslow or Macclesfield both of which are affluent towns with good commuter potential.

In terms of regional comparisons, Manchester and Birmingham compete to be England's second city with Leeds arguably going for fourth spot, whilst Liverpool is nowhere near in any comparison - if Manchester didn't exist it would have a greater importance in the same way as Bradford would be important if Leeds didn't exist and Wolverhampton would be the West Midlands hotspot if Birmingham didn't exist. But they do.