Liverpool Lime Street to Euston

[ivanhoe]

A regular half hourly service to London is not going to generate any additional revenue unless it stops at places such as Tamworth, Lichfield and Nuneaton. Whether the extra revenue from Tamworth, Lichfield and Nuneaton is at the expense of London Midland is another matter. Overall, how many trains are going up and down the WCML with lots of fresh air?

 

[Holly]

A regular half hourly service to London is not going to generate any additional revenue unless it stops at places such as Tamworth, Lichfield and Nuneaton. Whether the extra revenue from Tamworth, Lichfield and Nuneaton is at the expense of London Midland is another matter.

The biggest gains will be the substantially untapped markets.
Examples:
Something more comfortable and faster than National Express coach but slower and cheaper than Virgin Pendolino.
Longer day trip to/from London, this mostly means trains departing later in the evening than at present. Albeit at trailing off frequency.
Through trains from two or three parkway stations in the NorthWest that have good motorway connections and truly excellent parking (cheap, not too much walking, good security with fencing and patrols, on-site fuss-free car hire for arriving passengers).
An overnight train that travels slowly, takes forever and stops everywhere. (Midnight:30 depart, 6am arrive). For theatre-goers and the like.
Onboard ticketing at reasonable prices on the stoppers (but still allows gouging the walk-up business traveller on the expresses).

 

[Mutant Lemming]

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.

..there are far more journey opportunities to other towns and cities from the places with the 20 or 30 min frequencies. Tickets form London to Bolton or Rochdale and even Huddersfield and Morecambe may involve travel through Manchester - journies to Shropshire, Worcestershire, Mid-Wales through New Street. Apart from the Merseyside conurbation I see very few other through journey opportunities that you get at Lime Street as opposed to the locations where there is a 20 or 30 minute frequency to London.

 

[Nym]

Well, when HS2 happens, as a general response to this thread, it could herald the start of 2 or even 3tph to Liverpool when open as far as Rugley...

I'd expect services to be able to split at Crewe.

So off Euston...

Liverpool & Chester
Liverpool & Blackpool via Preston
Liverpool & Manchester via Crewe & Wilmslow

Shorter units though, but 2tph or 3tph wouldn't be too hard within the HS2 timetables...

And when it reaches Manchester West Parkway...

1tph Chester / Holyhead & Liverpool via Crewe and Runcorn (leaving HS2 at Rugley)
1tph Liverpool L St & Blackpool via MWP & St Helens Jcn / Wigan NW
1tph Liverpool L St & Glasgow Central via MWP

The latter two services both splitting at MWP, one portion onwards via the Chat Moss, the other via Wigan North Western. All using HS2CC Stock (Loco Haulable) would work out as (with MWP (HS2bL) complete) as roughly half hourly via MWP, with the via Crewe and Rugley running in a gap somewhere, also serving Stafford.

So from Liverpool would call at: Liverpool S Parkway, Runcorn, Crewe, Stafford, OOC, Euston.

That could possibly get pushed up to 2tph, running 2tph via Crewe and 2tph via MWP to Euston from Liverpool, would be as a result of jumping to 2tph to Chester rather than a demand for services to Liverpool though, and the 2nd Chester path could then run as a WCML semi fast up to Preston. With the 2nd path from Stafford running as:
Stafford - Crewe (Split) - Warrington - ?Earlstown - ?Newton - Wigan - ?Euxton - Preston - Blackpool / Blackburn & Chester.

Meaning HS2 ends up with:
Birmingham 3tph
Manchester 3tph
Liverpool via Crewe & Chester via Crewe (Calling Stafford) 1tph
Liverpool & Preston & Beyond via MWP 2tph

As a standard pattern, extensions to Blackpool, Holyhead, Blackburn, Lancaster, Glasgow and Edinbrugh are all possible.
So 9tph to Birmingham Delta for HS2W, HS2E will be looking at 2tph Leeds and 2tph ECML CC (At a rough guess) making 13tph, 1 spare international path? 14tph, thats the inital timetable full.
It can jump to 18tph core (Heathrow Jcn - Birmingham Delta) so thats the Heathrow services accounted for there. (Off topic allarm)

 

[Jonny]

All down to the DfT, they think Manchester warrants 3tph, although it's good for the people of Macclesfield, Wilmslow and Stoke-on-Trent who get cheap VT-only fares to Manchester. There is a path for a second Liverpool service, it just hasn't been taken up due to the (until now) lack of a 53rd Pendolino.

Some cities have less than 1tph, Sunderland, Bradford, Hull, Lincoln, Bangor, Carlisle, Glasgow and Aberdeen spring to mind. Wolverhampton, Preston, Lancaster and Chester only have 1tph, some arguably busier than Liverpool due to a larger catchment area.

Some (Bradford/Hull) do merit them, but Aberdeen and Glasgow are a bit far and there's nothing worthwhile in Sunderland. I know, I've been there recently.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I dare say Glasgow does warrant 1tph to London. Further, I would have though Bradford's close proximity to Leeds means that it doesn't.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

A more outlandish proposal -
Blackpool - Preston - Ormskirk - Liverpool Central - LSP - London services .
Would the dual voltage Eurostar trains fit in the tunnels though ?

Also would need a chord or link somewhere close to where that avatar pic was taken.

 

[Nym]

And have 73s or 37s hauling them between Preston and Omskirk?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

And have 73s or 37s hauling them between Preston and Omskirk?

Reindeers would be more seasonal

 

[tony_mac]

Glasgow gets roughly an hourly service anyway - it's 2 or 3 trains per day fewer than Liverpool gets.

Lancaster, Preston, Wolverhampton all get more services, yet none of them are close to Liverpool in terms of passenger numbers.
And Bangor? Seriously?

I'm sure that Bradford would get a much better service if it wasn't so close to a good connection at Leeds, the same could be said of Sunderland and Wolverhampton.

I do wonder if people could be persuaded to take connecting trains more often if there were decent interchange facilities (more like an airport lounge).
A winter evening at Wigan North Western isn't for the delicate, it puts me off heading north!

 

[northwichcat]

And Bangor? Seriously?

Bangor gets a few London services per day, a lot less than Liverpool.

 

[tony_mac]

Bangor gets a few London services per day, a lot less than Liverpool.

and Brighouse gets a lot less too, but I don't think that's a reasonable comparison either!

 

[Gareth]

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

Is that a question? Because if it is, I see no question mark. I'm not usually one to insist on perfect grammar on a web forum but when someone's being a wise ass, like you are being here, basic grammar mistakes make one look like an idiot. I see you posted that unconstructive prat comment on Christmas Day too. Clearly the turkey was off at your place. Shame.

 

[tbtc]

Glasgow gets roughly an hourly service anyway - it's 2 or 3 trains per day fewer than Liverpool gets.

Lancaster, Preston, Wolverhampton all get more services, yet none of them are close to Liverpool in terms of passenger numbers

Lancaster/ Preston etc are on the line to somewhere bigger (in the way that Retford gets a better London service than Bradford).

Liverpool isn't on the way to anywhere, so its London services are determined by actual demand between the cities, rather than having longer distance trains stop there (e.g. Doncaster is smaller, but is on the main line, so gets more London trains than it "deserves" based on passenger numbers alone).

 

[175001]

And Bangor? Seriously?

Passenger growth at Bangor, is accelerating due to the popularity of the university, and with a large chunk of the students from England and abroad, that number will increase in the coming years, as the University is currently expanding even further to deal with its popularity. I catch many a VT to and from Bangor, and they are very popular!

 

[Nym]

So we're going to change service patterns for a pax flow that only happens 4 times per year?

 

[175001]

So we're going to change service patterns for a pax flow that only happens 4 times per year?

Sorry you asking that to me?

I'm just saying the North Wales Coast warrants the VT service it currently has, anymore to London would be an overkill IMHO.

 

[Nym]

Ahhh... I was saying that to anyone who thinks that Bangor should have more services, and that the university should affect this, in any way.

 

[175001]

Ahhh... I was saying that to anyone who thinks that Bangor should have more services, and that the university should affect this, in any way.

No mate, all I was pointing out was that Bangor does warrant the 7 a day VT service it currently has, it compliments the ATW flows well. It could do with a later departure though, as the last Up train to London leaves the city around 14.30. Maybe one of the later Chester-Euston's could be started at Holyhead or Chester.

 

[Gareth]

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?

You should've just stopped on the comma. Does Manchester need thrice-hourly services, or is it some political 'second city' building project to the detriment of other cities in the north? See, you can add hyperbole on anything.

Like I've said before, people on here generally think Liverpool's a lot smaller and less important than it actually is (as neilmc innocently shows and I'll address him shortly). People also think Manchester's a lot bigger and more important than it actually is. So, Manchester getting three times the service to London is not seen as an anomoly, whereas I find it odd and difficult to believe such a difference in service is justified purely due to demand. Therefore, what I've been looking to seek out on here is whether Liverpool is under-served, Manchester over-served, or a bit of both. There appears to be no consensus, although there does seem to be a higher tilt towards Manchester being over-served for political reasons- though a few suggest Liverpool might be a little underserved too.

Note, I didn't start this thread and I'm by far not the only one who sees this as an anomoly. Indeed, even Network Rail identified it as a 'gap' in one of its research publications.

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.

The old 'Liverpool is far away and isolated' chesnut. No it isn't. Well, at least no geographically. If it is, then New York is also isolated. Liverpool's road links are decent enough and the rail infrastructure is too; it's just the services the statist Department or Transport decide should be run on them. And just how isn't Liverpool not a convenient place to fly into from anywhere other than the east of Ireland? That makes no sense to me at all.

Liverpool's isolation is political, not geographical.

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.

Manchester, in real terms, is the fourth largest city in the UK, after London, Birmingham and Glasgow (I consider Manchester to be Manchester City Council area, Salford, Trafford and perhaps a few ajoining areas of other boroughs). Liverpool is fifth. You can't use the size of Greater Manchester and Merseyside to compare the two cities. Greater Manchester covers places as far away and unmancunian as Wigan, whilst Merseyside doesn't cover much closer places like Widnes, Runcorn, Ellesmere Port, Skelmersdale or Ormskirk. Yes, the wider Manchester areaa has more sizeable towns such as Bolton, Bury etc (I've never disputed that), but the Liverpool area is not that small. The way some of you talk, you think the Wirral is a suburb of Chester, whilst anywhere north of, and possibly even including, Kirkby is Ribble Valley land.

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.

And what's the definition of 'England's second city'? As far as I know, it was always an informal thing given to Birmingham due to it being comfortably the second largest city in Britain (there's more of a gap between Birmingham and Manchester than between Manchester and Liverpool when it comes to size). Also, Birmingham was closer to London - the centre of the universe, so far as the establisment are concerned. If you're comparing effectively state-planted industry, such as an overly large airport, or overly large media sector, than it's Manchester by some way.

Liverpool is not comparable to Wolverhampton. Wolverhampton is a small city on the outer limits of a much larger city, Birmingham. It's totally inaccurate and insulting if you think Liverpool is the same, in its relationship with Manchester. Bradford and Leeds is less ridiculous but still totally wrong. Those two cities are much closer to each other than Liverpool and Manchester are. They are effectively the same conurbation in a way Liverpool and Manchester are not. That said, if they moved all the trains away from Leeds to Bradford and planted all the state institutions, such as the BBC and the regional civil service, then we'd soon see how amazing Leeds was compared to the other big Yorkshire cities. Same with all the other 'regional capitals'.

 

[Lampshade]

The thing is that compared with Manchester, Liverpool *is* isolated. Lime Street only really serves the City of Liverpool and Merseyrail destinations i.e. Sefton, Allerton, Maghull, Aintree and Birkenhead. Passengers for places further east such as Newton le Willows/Earlestown will use Warrington Bank Quay for Euston. I dare say Southport passengers would use Wigan North Western.

Merseyside is longer geographically than it is wide, so passengers in the east of the county are more likely to use WCML stations as opposed to Lime Street - look up Rainhill - London Euston, it sends you via Warrington BQ, not Liverpool, same with Kirkby, it sends you via Wigan. Passengers in the southern part of the Wirral are more likely to use Chester, leaving Lime Street with a rather small catchment area - people aren't going to travel WEST into Liverpool just to travel out EAST again.

Manchester Piccadilly serves not only the City of Manchester, but also Salford, Trafford, Bury, Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale, High Peak, westernmost Calderdale i.e. Todmorden/Walsden and Huddersfield to an extent. The point being, Manchester Piccadilly itself serves a much larger area than Liverpool Lime Street.

That said, Manchester is still over served, it needs something like 5 trains over two hours rather than 3tph as now.

 

[Gareth]

The thing is that compared with Manchester, Liverpool *is* isolated. Lime Street only really serves the City of Liverpool and Merseyrail destinations i.e. Sefton, Allerton, Maghull, Aintree and Birkenhead. Passengers for places further east such as Newton le Willows/Earlestown will use Warrington Bank Quay for Euston. I dare say Southport passengers would use Wigan North Western.

Merseyside is longer geographically than it is wide, so passengers in the east of the county are more likely to use WCML stations as opposed to Lime Street - look up Rainhill - London Euston, it sends you via Warrington BQ, not Liverpool, same with Kirkby, it sends you via Wigan. Passengers in the southern part of the Wirral are more likely to use Chester, leaving Lime Street with a rather small catchment area - people aren't going to travel WEST into Liverpool just to travel out EAST again.

Manchester Piccadilly serves not only the City of Manchester, but also Salford, Trafford, Bury, Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale, High Peak, westernmost Calderdale i.e. Todmorden/Walsden and Huddersfield to an extent. The point being, Manchester Piccadilly itself serves a much larger area than Liverpool Lime Street.

That said, Manchester is still over served, it needs something like 5 trains over two hours rather than 3tph as now.

Though it doesn't have much to do with 'isolation', I don't massively disagree with most of what you say; though I still doubt the difference in catchment areas is three times. Also, I'm not convinced that Wigan North Western is the automatic choice for Sandgrounders over Lime Street. For locations northbound, perhaps. I would've though most would prefer the quarter-hourly Merseyrail services to Liverpool rather than the less frequent Wigan ones. Maybe they don't.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not convinced that Wigan North Western is the automatic choice for Sandgrounders over Lime Street. For locations northbound, perhaps. I would've though most would prefer the quarter-hourly Merseyrail services to Liverpool rather than the less frequent Wigan ones. Maybe they don't.

Changing at Wigan gets you between London and Southport in around three hours, which is a good bit faster than changing at Lime Street and Liverpool Central/Moorfields.

Sorry, but for a decent part of Merseyside its faster to go to/from London via Chester/ Warrington/ Wigan. No getting away from this.

You are also ignoring the number of seats needed on Manchester - London services for Crewe/ Stoke/ Macclesfield etc.

I agree that there has been some "Manchester bias" (with Manchester dominating "the north's" infrastructure investment in the way that Mancunians dislike London dominating national investment), but I think Manchester - London needs more services than Liverpool - London does.

 

[Lampshade]

You are also ignoring the number of seats needed on Manchester - London services for Crewe/ Stoke/ Macclesfield etc.

This.

Liverpool services only serve Runcorn, and that's only because there's no local service, I'm pretty sure Virgin would cut Runcorn given half the chance, and Stafford, which is lucky as its Trent Valley neighbours have no express service to speak of.

 

[tony_mac]

Changing at Wigan gets you between London and Southport in around three hours, which is a good bit faster than changing at Lime Street and Liverpool Central/Moorfields.

I would expect it to take around 3 hours - journey planners will add on at least 20 minutes as the minimum connection times, when it's a 5-minute walk.
I think, in practical terms, this is more than outweighed by the benefits of not changing at Wigan and being able to board at the terminus.

Sorry, but for a decent part of Merseyside its faster to go to/from London via Chester/ Warrington/ Wigan.

Of course, it depends what you mean by 'decent part', but I would hazard a guess that is much less than 1/4 of the passengers.

 

[phil8715]

This is an interesting debate. But we all why Manchester gets 3 trains an hour to Liverpool's 1.

That is to get all the London based Man Utd fans back to the capital after a home match at Old Trafford as 95% of Man Utd fans are London based.

Seriously though Liverpool is as an important city as Manchester is. I suppose that some trains that should go to Liverpool go to Holyhead, in the evening I think there's 2 in an hour out of Euston to Holyhead which probably connects with the same boat. Why one of those trains can't go into Liverpool is beyond me.

Doesn't Glasgow & Carlisle only get one train to London an hour?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Lampshade]

Doesn't Glasgow & Carlisle only get one train to London an hour?

Off peak it's only every two hours, every other hour they terminate at Lancaster.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

... in the evening I think there's 2 in an hour out of Euston to Holyhead which probably connects with the same boat. Why one of those trains can't go into Liverpool is beyond me.

No, there's the 1610, 1710, 1810 and 1910...

 

[YorkshireBear]

The points raised directly above are my feelings about why liverpool gets less trains to london than manchester. Of course there are political reasons too...
Its only when you delve into information like tbtc and Lampshade that it becomes clear. On the face of it it seems drastically wrong but after that it doesn't seem so bad. Its not perfect but.... I think 1 tph off peak and 2tph peaks should do fine until the major recast that HS2 will bring.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think 1 tph off peak and 2tph peaks should do fine until the major recast that HS2 will bring.

Recast?! Downgrade more like!