Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway

[stephen rp]

I’m starting to think this is a wind up. So people in and visiting Liverpool should expect to change trains if they’re travelling anywhere except Warrington, Manchester or Manchester Airport?

On another thread there is a frequent suggestion of splitting Manchester’s XC services to increase capacity and end diesel running under wires. There is always mass outrage at the suggestion that Manchester doesn’t need a direct service to every corner of the country, but Liverpool should accept losing even more of its direct routes.


While this is a speculative thread, we are discussing the (admittedly vague) scheme proposed by Mayors Burnham and Rotheram, not our personal high speed line ideas.

Not much can be done to increase line speed between Lime Street and Ditton Junction, which as others have said takes 15 minutes. You can, at great expense, straighten out the kinks on the Fiddler’s Ferry line, but by then you have little time to accelerate before slowing down again to stop at Bank Quay. 18 minutes seems unrealistic, then throw in potential stops at Liverpool South Parkway and/or a new parkway in Halton. You might get to Manchester Airport in 30 minutes, but the full route to Piccadilly will not beat the current 36 minute TPE service to Victoria.

TPE Lime St to Piccadilly now could be 33 mins now with a stop at Oxford Road.

NPR via Warrington made some sense when it was new high speed line Liverpool to Leeds using HS2. Using existing lines Liverpool to Warrington and Marsden to Leeds meant most of any capacity improvements wouldn't happen (and wouldn't serve Bradford). From somewhere the government thinks they can now add a line taking 30 mins Manchester to Bradford (how, where, how much?).

Admittedly, the thread would be thin if it was confined to what we know about the topic, but that www.enroutecic.com site (who they?) is asking the right questions (and the Castlefield Relief tunnel under Manchester might be worth its own thread).

 

[Grimsby town]

It seems like a lot of people are missing that the NPR line is about capacity as HS2 is/was. Yes you could theoretically get a faster service from Manchester Piccadilly or Victoria on the Chat Moss line, but it's going to be difficult to path one non-stop service, never mind 4 that are being proposed as part of NPR.

At 35 minutes, the journey between Manchester and Liverpool is already relatively competitive with the car. ~30 minutes seems to be ideal journey time to aim for between major cities. Liverpool and Manchester already have a decent journey time, the issue is that only one or two services achieve that journey time every hour. So they key issue between Liverpool and Manchester is more frequent fast services which the line solves.

Journey time is an issue between Liverpool and South Manchester. Realistically it's not attractive to commute from South Manchester to Liverpool/Warrington via rail. This is shown by the number of coach services between Liverpool and Manchester Airport. The scheme improves journey times between South Manchester, Warrington, Liverpool.

Finally, Warrington offers far better connections than Newton-le-Willows or Lea Green (both rail and bus). Running via Warrington Bank Quay provides connectivity to the WCML and North Wales allowing for significantly better services between Chester and Manchester Airport for example.

 

[GJMarshy]

The concern is if a new line is no faster than the existing route, people will continue to use the existing route (even if it is all-stop) as door to door journey times will in most cases be better than a 35min HSR line, which leaves you having to make the "Last Mile" at either end. Then your new line is a bit pointless. It's not relieving any capacity as people aren't drawn to using it.

Compare this to HS2. Some might say it was excessively fast, but it every case journeys from one city region to another via HS2 will always be quicker than an existing stopping service, regardless of where you are going from/to in each conurbation. The door-door journey times are quicker. People making inter-city journeys will make the obvious choice to use the new line.

Let's imagine you live in a residential area of Liverpool near Wavertree or Huyton and you're going to Manchester City Centre. What's going to be more convenient? A journey into Lime St/Central, then a change to a 35min train to Piccadilly OR Get on a direct stoping service at Wavertree/Huyton and stay on to Oxford Road or Victoria?

The only beneficiaries of this new line are Liverpool/Warrington to Manchester Airport passengers. That's a fraction of passenger flows.

If the line were <25mins and HS2 was back in scope, maybe this route would still make some logical sense. Right now it's not really doing anything particularly useful. It isn't relieving the Castlefield bottleneck (only 1 service taken off), and it isn't delivering on the needs of the majority of people.

 

[frodshamfella]

Another problem is the lack of catchment area at Liverpool John Lennon. There's river to the west and south and not much directly to the east. The only population is to the north and most of that is better served by Liverpool South Parkway. On the other hand, a Manchester Airport station would act as hub for south Manchester as well as the airport.

There's nothing stopping NPR services calling at Liverpool South Parkway if needed. A tram service would be cheaper and a better option to serve Liverpool Airport. That could be achieved by taking over two of the heavy rail tracks between South Parkway and Edge Hill.

I think you underestimate the catchment area. The river is not a barrier ( 2 bridges and a railway) and although it's not anywhere near as busy as Manchester, it's the second busiest in the north with 5 Million passengers arriving from all directions . I agree a tram situation would work from South Parkway plus something from the proposed Parkway Station in the Halton . However a spur from the mainline would also give rail transport to Speke which is poorly connected as well as the airport.

 

[Senex]

If a new line's to be built simply as some sort of regional-express route with stops every dozen miles or so (and presumably with a miserably slow alignment through Warrington) rather than as a genuinely fast inter-city route, then does it need to be built to high-speed standards at all? Wouldn't a perfectly conventional 90-mph line do quite well?

Or get the fast service by doing what the LNER did with the York-Scarborough line in the thirties — just close all the intermediate stations on the Chat Moss line, spend a fraction of all those billions on minor improvements through Edge Hill and on the Manchester approaches, and make to with that. (And forget all about the fact that Manchester and Liverpool once had three genuinely fast (by the standards of the day) services competing to connect them, not stopping off at Warrington or Newton-le-Willows or Wigan en route.)

 

[frodshamfella]

Same as Luton airport who for years had a dedicated shuttle bus from the nearby rail station (every 10 mins or more frequent) and eventually had enough numbers to justify a 'rail' link to replace the busses. Would something like this not work from Liverpool South Parkway?

I think it probably would, as an interchange station this is where it should originate from.

 

[MarkyT]

The concern is if a new line is no faster than the existing route, people will continue to use the existing route (even if it is all-stop) as door to door journey times will in most cases be better than a 35min HSR line, which leaves you having to make the "Last Mile" at either end. Then your new line is a bit pointless. It's not relieving any capacity as people aren't drawn to using it.

Compare this to HS2. Some might say it was excessively fast, but it every case journeys from one city region to another via HS2 will always be quicker than an existing stopping service, regardless of where you are going from/to in each conurbation. The door-door journey times are quicker. People making inter-city journeys will make the obvious choice to use the new line.

Let's imagine you live in a residential area of Liverpool near Wavertree or Huyton and you're going to Manchester City Centre. What's going to be more convenient? A journey into Lime St/Central, then a change to a 35min train to Piccadilly OR Get on a direct stoping service at Wavertree/Huyton and stay on to Oxford Road or Victoria?

The only beneficiaries of this new line are Liverpool/Warrington to Manchester Airport passengers. That's a fraction of passenger flows.

If the line were <25mins and HS2 was back in scope, maybe this route would still make some logical sense. Right now it's not really doing anything particularly useful. It isn't relieving the Castlefield bottleneck (only 1 service taken off), and it isn't delivering on the needs of the majority of people.

If NPR is no slower than the fastest non-stop today yet has two or three useful and lucrative stops, runs at 10-minute or smaller intervals, never gets delayed by local or freight trains in front, and serves the 3rd busiest airport in the UK, the north's major international hub, that will be vastly more convenient and popular than today's ragtag of fast services via various routes. That and other measures will help simplify service patterns on existing routes and allow stopping train frequency to be increased. If someone finds a journey on one of the existing lines more convenient on improved locals rather than backtracking first into Liverpool or Manchester for a fast, that is a success, because the overall network has provided an alternative. There will still be plenty of others who could not do this who will want to ride this new fast train. While there are no concrete plans to complete HS2 at the moment, a nanosecond is an eternity in current politics and world affairs so I can't see it a major failure to provide a potential future southern access route into Manchester that would be the obvious new target and tie in point for some future relaunched HS2 link project. It's not a compromise, it's a feature, a little like some trunk road town bypasses in the 1960s later becoming parts of the long-distance motorway network. Funny how they had hard shoulders right from the start.

If a new line's to be built simply as some sort of regional-express route with stops every dozen miles or so (and presumably with a miserably slow alignment through Warrington) rather than as a genuinely fast inter-city route, then does it need to be built to high-speed standards at all? Wouldn't a perfectly conventional 90-mph line do quite well?

Or get the fast service by doing what the LNER did with the York-Scarborough line in the thirties — just close all the intermediate stations on the Chat Moss line, spend a fraction of all those billions on minor improvements through Edge Hill and on the Manchester approaches, and make to with that. (And forget all about the fact that Manchester and Liverpool once had three genuinely fast (by the standards of the day) services competing to connect them, not stopping off at Warrington or Newton-le-Willows or Wigan en route.)

I doubt they'll take the flood-prone old low level route under Bank Quay, then the twisty alignment over level crossings through Sankey Bridges. I expect they will fly over Bank Quay on a new viaduct instead, then build a new faster alignment to Fiddlers Ferry where they'll pick up the existing route through Widnes. Note even the WCML tracks are only around 9m above sea level through Warrington.

 

[Grimsby town]

I think you underestimate the catchment area. The river is not a barrier ( 2 bridges and a railway) and although it's not anywhere near as busy as Manchester, it's the second busiest in the north with 5 Million passengers arriving from all directions . I agree a tram situation would work from South Parkway plus something from the proposed Parkway Station in the Halton . However a spur from the mainline would also give rail transport to Speke which is poorly connected as well as the airport.

When I'm talking about catchment, I was more referring to a catchment for rail services rather than flights. Manchester Airport station doesn't just act as an airport station. Its also the main rail station for hundreds of thousands of residents (from places like Wythenshawe). A station at Liverpool Airport would draw in far less local residents to use the service and therefore the potential passengers are far lower.

The airport draws from a far wider catchment but even so, it limited by the location. Its as quick to get to Manchester Airport from Chester as it is Liverpool Airport for example. Liverpool Airport is always going to be significantly smaller than Manchester Airport because Manchester Airport is less space constrained and far more accessible from the rest of the north.

The concern is if a new line is no faster than the existing route, people will continue to use the existing route (even if it is all-stop) as door to door journey times will in most cases be better than a 35min HSR line, which leaves you having to make the "Last Mile" at either end. Then your new line is a bit pointless. It's not relieving any capacity as people aren't drawn to using it.

Compare this to HS2. Some might say it was excessively fast, but it every case journeys from one city region to another via HS2 will always be quicker than an existing stopping service, regardless of where you are going from/to in each conurbation. The door-door journey times are quicker. People making inter-city journeys will make the obvious choice to use the new line.

Let's imagine you live in a residential area of Liverpool near Wavertree or Huyton and you're going to Manchester City Centre. What's going to be more convenient? A journey into Lime St/Central, then a change to a 35min train to Piccadilly OR Get on a direct stoping service at Wavertree/Huyton and stay on to Oxford Road or Victoria?

The only beneficiaries of this new line are Liverpool/Warrington to Manchester Airport passengers. That's a fraction of passenger flows.

If the line were <25mins and HS2 was back in scope, maybe this route would still make some logical sense. Right now it's not really doing anything particularly useful. It isn't relieving the Castlefield bottleneck (only 1 service taken off), and it isn't delivering on the needs of the majority of people.

To the east of Liverpool and the west of Manchester, there'll be areas that are better served by the stopper. That might change slightly by going for a direct service that only takes 25 minutes but it's not going to be a significant difference. Those stations are might get a better stopping service between Manchester and Liverpool with a new NPR line so they benefit. Alternatively they might split the stopping service at somewhere like Newton-le-Willows, providing a far more frequent local service to the nearest larger cities but the need to change to the further away city.

Pretty much every other area of the Liverpool City Region or Greater Manchester (excluding Wigan) will travel via the new NPR line and likely have better generalised journey times due to the far more frequent fast service.

 

[CdBrux]

Finally, Warrington offers far better connections than Newton-le-Willows or Lea Green (both rail and bus). Running via Warrington Bank Quay provides connectivity to the WCML and North Wales allowing for significantly better services between Chester and Manchester Airport for example.

plus an opportunity to redevelop the former Unilever site right next to the station in Warrington which could become a prime site if on this line.
We should await some more details on the Manchester end as clearly this should link into the Transpennine line(s) so the service doesn't just end in Manchester but goes to Leeds & York and preferably also to Sheffield and beyond to give proper connectivity

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's amazing how a simple rail aspiration from two politicians can generate so many thread postings where fertile minds are free to express their own particular views on not just rail matters, but on associated other matters economical.

 

[Grimsby town]

plus an opportunity to redevelop the former Unilever site right next to the station in Warrington which could become a prime site if on this line.
We should await some more details on the Manchester end as clearly this should link into the Transpennine line(s) so the service doesn't just end in Manchester but goes to Leeds & York and preferably also to Sheffield and beyond to give proper connectivity

Yes the economic development aspect is a big part of NPR as it is with HS2. You only have to look at Birmingham to see the impact HS2 is having on developing brownfields into dense, sustainable neighbourhoods. Manchester Airport has loads of parking space that could be developed too.

There's no way this scheme will just end in Manchester. It will either be connected into the existing lines in the Ardwick area or join a new cross-pennine tunnel too. It's incredibly likely that some sort of connection will be added to get trains to Crewe and onward to London/Birmingham too.

 

[GJMarshy]

Yes the economic development aspect is a big part of NPR as it is with HS2. You only have to look at Birmingham to see the impact HS2 is having on developing brownfields into dense, sustainable neighbourhoods. Manchester Airport has loads of parking space that could be developed too.

There's no way this scheme will just end in Manchester. It will either be connected into the existing lines in the Ardwick area or join a new cross-pennine tunnel too. It's incredibly likely that some sort of connection will be added to get trains to Crewe and onward to London/Birmingham too.

I really hope all of that comes true!

I suppose we can only sit and wait.
We'll find out properly after the general election if Labour are serious or not.

 

[stephen rp]

It seems like a lot of people are missing that the NPR line is about capacity as HS2 is/was. Yes you could theoretically get a faster service from Manchester Piccadilly or Victoria on the Chat Moss line, but it's going to be difficult to path one non-stop service, never mind 4 that are being proposed as part of NPR.

At 35 minutes, the journey between Manchester and Liverpool is already relatively competitive with the car. ~30 minutes seems to be ideal journey time to aim for between major cities. Liverpool and Manchester already have a decent journey time, the issue is that only one or two services achieve that journey time every hour. So they key issue between Liverpool and Manchester is more frequent fast services which the line solves.

Journey time is an issue between Liverpool and South Manchester. Realistically it's not attractive to commute from South Manchester to Liverpool/Warrington via rail. This is shown by the number of coach services between Liverpool and Manchester Airport. The scheme improves journey times between South Manchester, Warrington, Liverpool.

Finally, Warrington offers far better connections than Newton-le-Willows or Lea Green (both rail and bus). Running via Warrington Bank Quay provides connectivity to the WCML and North Wales allowing for significantly better services between Chester and Manchester Airport for example.

Unless you work in Warrington town centre (not many do) you're not going to park at the airport to get a train to Bank Quay to get a bus to an out of town office near a motorway, and pay £6 a day to park (which will be the charge needed to deter parking at the station to drop off or pick up airline passengers).

It's amazing how a simple rail aspiration from two politicians can generate so many thread postings where fertile minds are free to express their own particular views on not just rail matters, but on associated other matters economical.

I'd have said febrile rather than fertile.

Yes the economic development aspect is a big part of NPR as it is with HS2. You only have to look at Birmingham to see the impact HS2 is having on developing brownfields into dense, sustainable neighbourhoods. Manchester Airport has loads of parking space that could be developed too.

There's no way this scheme will just end in Manchester. It will either be connected into the existing lines in the Ardwick area or join a new cross-pennine tunnel too. It's incredibly likely that some sort of connection will be added to get trains to Crewe and onward to London/Birmingham too.

And then we woke up, and cancellation of HS2b was but a dream.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not sure if this has been asked, but going back very many years ago, what were the fastest Liverpool to Manchester train services operated by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and the London and North Western Railway at the time of their coming together in 1922?

 

[daodao]

There's no way this scheme will just end in Manchester.

It is more likely to end in file 13. It is unnecessary and unaffordable. The weak case for it was undermined by the wise and logical cancellation of HS2 phase 2b. Alternative more realistic proposals are desirable.

IMO, the way forward is to lengthen fast trains on the 2 remaining main routes from central Liverpool to central Manchester and provide a half-hourly fast service on each route, with electrification of the ex-CLC line via Warrington Central as a through route using 25kV AC (both ends of it are already wired).

Not sure if this has been asked, but going back very many years ago, what were the fastest Liverpool to Manchester train services operated by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and the London and North Western Railway at the time of their coming together in 1922?

The April 1910 Bradshaw reprint shows that on Monday to Saturday:

• the LNWR ran hourly services taking 40 minutes, typically with one stop, from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Exchange via the Chat Moss route, many of which extended to Leeds (New station, now called City) via Standedge, with some further extended to Hull or Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
• the LYR ran hourly non-stop services taking 40 minutes, from Liverpool Exchange to Manchester Victoria via the (now abandoned) Wigan cut-off, many of which extended to Bradford Exchange/Leeds Central via Low Moor. Some others ran through to Hull or Newcastle-upon-Tyne, both via Wakefield Kirkgate.

The service is little better today, and the roundabout "NPR" proposal discussed in this thread won't improve the existing journey time from central Liverpool to central Manchester, the key yardstick for assessing fast train services from Liverpool to Manchester.

 

[Grimsby town]

I really hope all of that comes true!

I suppose we can only sit and wait.
We'll find out properly after the general election if Labour are serious or not.

I think they have to be serious. There's a serious need for some sort of tangible leveling up in the north. If labour don't do it, they'll likely end up being out of power again soon. One of their bigger pledges appears to be on house building too. There'll be a lot of pressure from their main voter base to build houses. Railways are a great way to facilitate and encourage dense house building.

Unless you work in Warrington town centre (not many do) you're not going to park at the airport to get a train to Bank Quay to get a bus to an out of town office near a motorway, and pay £6 a day to park (which will be the charge needed to deter parking at the station to drop off or pick up airline passengers).

And then we woke up, and cancellation of HS2b was but a dream.

I agree they won't do that. I'm not sure where I implied people would do that. I get the feeling that the out of town offices are slowly dying. My partner works at one on the edge of Warrington and hates it. Luckily her office is being moved to Manchester City Centre. NPR would facilitate more move to central locations, well connected by public transport, and with nearby leisure facilities.

There was no logical reasoning behind the cancellation of HS2 2b. The main organisations still support it and clearly there's going to be a good case for connecting a new Liverpool/Manchester route to Crewe, even if the scheme is different to HS2 2b.

IMO, the way forward is to lengthen fast trains on the 2 remaining main routes from central Liverpool to central Manchester and provide a half-hourly fast service on each route, with electrification of the ex-CLC line via Warrington Central as a through route using 25kV AC (both ends of it are already wired).

It's a sticking plaster solution and ignores the fact that train services are generally being lengthend anyway into the north's major cities. Lengthening is the short term solution. The long term solution is new infrastructure. You need to acknowledge how much the UKs cities have grown and how far northern cities are behind similar cities in other countries. Drastic solutions are needed, not tinkering with the existing system.

 

[HSTEd]

Is using the Warrington Bank Quay Low Level platforms really very practical?
The line running west from the station goes straight through the middle of the now partially disused chemical works, with no less than three level crossings in a matter of a few hundred metres.

To escape that you look like you'd have to tear half the area apart. There appears to be numerous businesses active on the site however.

I can't imagine the ORR is going to be keen on piling a bunch of passenger trains through there unless you do though.

 

[daodao]

You need to acknowledge how much the UKs cities have grown

The population trends over the last 110 years do not suggest a massive increase in the Greater Manchester population over this period. The census figures are 2,617,598 in 1911 and 2,867,752 in 2021. Boundary changes with its formation in 1974 mean that similar figures over this period are not available for the Merseyside region, but its population has decreased from 1,522,000 in 1981 to 1,423,285 in 2021.

There were 3-4 fast trains per hour between the 2 cities in 1910 and there are only 1 fast and 2 semi-fast trains per hour today, of only 3-6 carriage length. This does not suggest any historic growth in travel between the centres of the 2 conurbations. My suggestion (for 4 fast tph, 2 by each existing line, of up to 6-8 carriage length) should cater for any likely future growth in inter-city travel over this route for the next 20-30 years. If in say 10 years, this growth exceeds historical trends to a massive degree, then I accept that a more radical solution merits consideration, but I don't think that demographic trends will warrant it.

 

[Grimsby town]

Is using the Warrington Bank Quay Low Level platforms really very practical?
The line running west from the station goes straight through the middle of the now partially disused chemical works, with no less than three level crossings in a matter of a few hundred metres.

To escape that you look like you'd have to tear half the area apart. There appears to be numerous businesses active on the site however.

I can't imagine the ORR is going to be keen on piling a bunch of passenger trains through there unless you do though.

There's plans to regenerate the whole area so I imagine they'll be fairly significant changes.

The population trends over the last 110 years do not suggest a massive increase in the Greater Manchester population over this period. The census figures are 2,617,598 in 1911 and 2,867,752 in 2021. Boundary changes with its formation in 1974 mean that similar figures over this period are not available for the Merseyside region, but its population has decreased from 1,522,000 in 1981 to 1,423,285 in 2021.

There were 3-4 fast trains per hour between the 2 cities in 1910 and there are only 1 fast and 2 semi-fast trains per hour today, of only 3-6 carriage length. This does not suggest any historic growth in travel between the centres of the 2 conurbations. My suggestion (for 4 fast tph, 2 by each existing line, of up to 6-8 carriage length) should cater for any likely future growth in inter-city travel over this route for the next 20-30 years. If in say 10 years, this growth exceeds historical trends to a massive degree, then I accept that a more radical solution merits consideration, but I don't think that demographic trends will warrant it.

Is 1911 really a valid comparison? Travel patterns will have been vastly different with very few people travelling intercity and most living and working where they were born. Obviously rail didn't have the competition provided by cars back then, but i doubt that offsets that so few people had access to longer distance travel.

There was also far more rail infrastructure in 1910s. It was possible to get a train from North GM to Liverpool without passing through Manchester City Centre. That's no longer the case.

It also takes no account for population distribution. City centres and other central areas around a station are seeing a boom in population. The population of Manchester City Centre is expected to be ten times higher in 2030 than it was 2000.

Eccles is expected to see a boom in population and has good onward connections to Media City. It needs more rail services but that requires slowing down intercity services unless a new line is built and those intercity services are diverted away.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Jet 2 moved into Liverpool Airport in March operating initially to 25 destinations with more to come in 2025. This has increased passenger numbers .

But only to the same beach destinations offered by easyJet and Ryanair.
No real improvement in wider connectivity.

I use both airports (sometimes out from one and back to the other, if the times/destinations are right).
But they are not comparable airports outside the short-haul beach destinations and a very few EU cities.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There's plans to regenerate the whole area so I imagine they'll be fairly significant changes.

Where might those "numerous businesses" referred to in the earlier posting be expected to relocate to?

 

[Grimsby town]

Where might those "numerous businesses" referred to in the earlier posting be expected to relocate to?

Birchwood Park or somewhere similar. A lot of the business in the bank quay area is completely unsuited to such a location. It's a similar case across UK cities and is likely due to industry relying on rail or rivers historical, or because city centres were historically undesirable so property prices were lower.

Low density employment is far better suited to being located motorway junctions. Trades, logistics, and industry are massively car dependent anyway so it's not like it staff are generally reliant on public transport either. It also removes lorries from central areas.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Relocating industrial estates just costs money. It's far easier than relocating homes, as businesses aren't sentimentally attached to their premises - as long as they're paid the full cost of relocating they won't mind. Indeed new premises might be an upgrade for them.

I've said the same before about the businesses in the way of a Denbigh Hall Curve to bring the Marston Vale Line and future Cambridge services into Milton Keynes Central without a reverse.

 

[frodshamfella]

When I'm talking about catchment, I was more referring to a catchment for rail services rather than flights. Manchester Airport station doesn't just act as an airport station. Its also the main rail station for hundreds of thousands of residents (from places like Wythenshawe). A station at Liverpool Airport would draw in far less local residents to use the service and therefore the potential passengers are far lower.

The airport draws from a far wider catchment but even so, it limited by the location. Its as quick to get to Manchester Airport from Chester as it is Liverpool Airport for example. Liverpool Airport is always going to be significantly smaller than Manchester Airport because Manchester Airport is less space constrained and far more accessible from the rest of the north.



To the east of Liverpool and the west of Manchester, there'll be areas that are better served by the stopper. That might change slightly by going for a direct service that only takes 25 minutes but it's not going to be a significant difference. Those stations are might get a better stopping service between Manchester and Liverpool with a new NPR line so they benefit. Alternatively they might split the stopping service at somewhere like Newton-le-Willows, providing a far more frequent local service to the nearest larger cities but the need to change to the further away city.

Pretty much every other area of the Liverpool City Region or Greater Manchester (excluding Wigan) will travel via the new NPR line and likely have better generalised journey times due to the far more frequent fast service.

Actually Liverpool Airport available expansion space available to ,it Manchester is rather hemmed in now. I live near Chester , and travel from Liverpool Airport because it's easier to reach, two stops from Frodsham then short bus transfer, so I find it easier.

 

[Topological]

Actually Liverpool Airport available expansion space available to ,it Manchester is rather hemmed in now. I live near Chester , and travel from Liverpool Airport because it's easier to reach, two stops from Frodsham then short bus transfer, so I find it easier.

You do know Manchester has 2 runways from which A380 can take off and land? I am not sure how much more land is needed really.

There is room for capacity increase by adding a taxi way to fully enable two runway operation in both directions, but the airport is far from needing that at current usage. Building the necessary taxiway would go through SSIs (These sites of special scientific interest will never have anything else built on them) so may not be that easy, but the option is there.

Manchester will also have a large amount of land left for terminal expansion once most flights switch to Terminal 2. The expansion plans have been rationalised of late, but the plans exist.

If the problem is that there are too many small planes then that is easily solved.

Geographically the Mersey will always make access to Liverpool Airport harder, if you have to travel in one direction to cross the river then come back (e.g East to Runcorn then back West) then it will always feel bad. As others have said the M56 does an excellent job of taking people to Manchester.

All that is a little off topic though. People in Liverpool want a Dubai flight and at the moment that means Manchester Airport, so why not a train that gets there much faster than current trains?

 

[frodshamfella]

You do know Manchester has 2 runways from which A380 can take off and land? I am not sure how much more land is needed really.

There is room for capacity increase by adding a taxi way to fully enable two runway operation in both directions, but the airport is far from needing that at current usage. Building the necessary taxiway would go through SSIs (These sites of special scientific interest will never have anything else built on them) so may not be that easy, but the option is there.

Manchester will also have a large amount of land left for terminal expansion once most flights switch to Terminal 2. The expansion plans have been rationalised of late, but the plans exist.

If the problem is that there are too many small planes then that is easily solved.

Geographically the Mersey will always make access to Liverpool Airport harder, if you have to travel in one direction to cross the river then come back (e.g East to Runcorn then back West) then it will always feel bad. As others have said the M56 does an excellent job of taking people to Manchester.

All that is a little off topic though. People in Liverpool want a Dubai flight and at the moment that means Manchester Airport, so why not a train that gets there much faster than current trains?

And yet I live near the M56, ( which is unpredictable) and choose Liverpool far more frequently because I find it less stressful. The point is the NW way big enough to support two airports, and both should be well connected, not just Manchester. Apart from that NPR was about connecting cities and the route via Manchester Airport ( which already has rail ) does nothing to speed this up.

 

[stephen rp]

You do know Manchester has 2 runways from which A380 can take off and land? I am not sure how much more land is needed really.

There is room for capacity increase by adding a taxi way to fully enable two runway operation in both directions, but the airport is far from needing that at current usage. Building the necessary taxiway would go through SSIs (These sites of special scientific interest will never have anything else built on them) so may not be that easy, but the option is there.

Manchester will also have a large amount of land left for terminal expansion once most flights switch to Terminal 2. The expansion plans have been rationalised of late, but the plans exist.

If the problem is that there are too many small planes then that is easily solved.

Geographically the Mersey will always make access to Liverpool Airport harder, if you have to travel in one direction to cross the river then come back (e.g East to Runcorn then back West) then it will always feel bad. As others have said the M56 does an excellent job of taking people to Manchester.

All that is a little off topic though. People in Liverpool want a Dubai flight and at the moment that means Manchester Airport, so why not a train that gets there much faster than current trains?

Back on topic. £17bn to enable people in Liverpool to catch a flight to Dubai?

 

[Topological]

Back on topic. £17bn to enable people in Liverpool to catch a flight to Dubai?

£17bn for a high speed line between Manchester and Liverpool, one of the benefits of which is enhancing the global connectivity of Liverpool.

Maybe Manchester should pull up the drawbridge and keep its connectivity to itself since obviously Liverpool is happy with what they get with John Lennon?

 

[fishwomp]

Back on topic. £17bn to enable people in Liverpool to catch a flight to Dubai?

It's so that they can get to check-in point 10 minutes quicker, and then spend 2 hours getting through security and hanging around before getting on a plane. I think the optimization of that is in the wrong place.

 

[Tremzinho]

£17bn for a high speed line between Manchester and Liverpool, one of the benefits of which is enhancing the global connectivity of Liverpool.

Maybe Manchester should pull up the drawbridge and keep its connectivity to itself since obviously Liverpool is happy with what they get with John Lennon?

A £17Bn scheme that will eat up all of Liverpool and Manchester's transport funding for decades and, let's be honest, most of it is intended to benefit Manchester in its bid to build HS2 by stealth. Liverpool to Manchester Airport is the cheapest bit, mostly using existing and disused railways.

It will be a high speed line, but only Manchester Airport passengers will benefit from shorter journey times. Liverpool to Manchester journey times will be no better than the current fastest times, with the added problem of landing many passengers further away from their final destination than currently with Victoria and Oxford Road. Therefore door to door journey times will be significantly slower for many people. They won't want these high speed trains to be running half empty, so services on the CLC and Chat Moss lines will be slowed or cut back to force people onto these new trains.

I'm all for finishing HS2, but the opportunity cost of doing it this way means there will be no funding for expanding Merseyrail or electrifying the CLC route. (Manchester will also miss out on other rail improvements, but that is for them to decide if this is worth it.)

Finally, there will be a significant cost to Liverpool Airport. Without its own rail link, journey times from Liverpool to John Lennon Airport will actually be slower than the high speed line from Liverpool to Manchester Airport. This will harm the airport's viability and jeopardise the jobs in the Liverpool City Region that depend on the airport. As previously stated, there will be no money to fix this as it will all have gone on the NPR line.