Should there be more Liverpool to Scotland services?

[dk1]

When it comes to Liverpool warranting more rail services Virgin used to state that it did in-fact offer two services each hour to London Euston all day just that one of them was from Chester and that for large areas such as the Wirral, this was far more convenient.

 

[A0wen]

The football stadia and the Tate/Albert Dock are at least as popular as the Beatles stuff.

And on a global scale, both of Manchester's football teams are bigger than Liverpool's.

Disclosure, I have no personal interest in football, so it's not a view from a personal loyalty. Sites like this https://jobsinfootball.com/blog/mos... thought that the,entire world is Real Madrid. provide information on global support numbers.

Presumably you've never been to Liverpool at the weekend?

I've been to both cities at the weekend. And I maintain Manchester probably has more tourists and more attractions, for both day trippers and overnight stays.

Here's a really simple measure - within 3 miles of their main station, Liverpool has 4 Premier Inn's, one of which is on the other side of the Mersey. Manchester has 6 within the 'inner ring road' (Mancunian Way / Trinity Way /Ancoats Street). There are a further 3 in the Salford Quays area which is about 3 miles away. On the basis each site has similar capacity, it means Premier Inn alone easily has 50% more rooms in Manchester than Liverpool.

 

[Djgr]

When it comes to Liverpool warranting more rail services Virgin used to state that it did in-fact offer two services each hour to London Euston all day just that one of them was from Chester and that for large areas such as the Wirral, this was far more convenient.

I mean fine. But blatantly not really true.

 

[yorksrob]

When it comes to Liverpool warranting more rail services Virgin used to state that it did in-fact offer two services each hour to London Euston all day just that one of them was from Chester and that for large areas such as the Wirral, this was far more convenient.

In the good old days they would have ended up at Birkenhead Woodside.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

When it comes to Liverpool warranting more rail services Virgin used to state that it did in-fact offer two services each hour to London Euston all day just that one of them was from Chester and that for large areas such as the Wirral, this was far more convenient.

That's just the sort of chutzpah you'd have expected back in the day from Virgin Trains.

 

[dk1]

That's just the sort of chutzpah you'd have expected back in the day from Virgin Trains.

They were excellent at spin. I do miss them more than any other of the original TOCs.

 

[Djgr]

In the good old days it wouldn't have been Avanti or Virgin!

 

[mpthomson]

I expect when someone suggested expanding the three 158's a day between Manchester and Scotland, the same sentiments were expressed !

But that demand was always there (and known), preveiously people changed at Wigan/ Preston

Or it could simply be that more tourists go to Manchester than Liverpool. It really could be that simple.

On balance Manchester probably has more attractions of wider appeal, whereas much of Liverpool's is based on the music / Cavern Club / Beatles.

Indeed

 

[urbophile]

The discerning tourists come to Liverpool. It's just that there are a lot more of the other kind.

 

[Djgr]

But that demand was always there (and known), preveiously people changed at Wigan/ Preston

Indeed

And according to these figures Birmingham has far more tourists than Oxford or Cambridge.

Fun question: Where actually are they?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fun question: Where actually are they?

Almost certainly the vast majority of them are at the NEC, National Indoor Arena and the likes.

 

[Djgr]

Almost certainly the vast majority of them are at the NEC, National Indoor Arena and the likes.

Ahh. So primarily business travellers and not tourists at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ahh. So primarily business travellers and not tourists at all.

No, not at all. It's not just shows for the trade.

 

[Djgr]

No, not at all. It's not just shows for the trade.

So what else are people from overseas coming to do there?

 

[Krokodil]

I've just looked at the 21/22 Origin/Destination Matrices for Piccadilly and Lime Street (22/23 one not yet uploaded to the Railway Data Centre). For each of London and for Scotland the journeys made to/from Liverpool are half of those made to/from Manchester (this trend seems consistent even glancing at the pre-pandemic figures). Yet Liverpool gets a third of the frequency of London services, and an eighth (soon to be a quarter) of the frequency of direct Scotland services. Yes, other journeys are possible by changing trains (not just for the Scottish passengers, a number of London passengers go via Warrington and Newton-le-Willows) but in my view the planned increase in the London trains to half-hourly will be well patronised, and so would a two-hourly Scottish service.

 

[Djgr]

I've just looked at the 21/22 Origin/Destination Matrices for Piccadilly and Lime Street (22/23 one not yet uploaded to the Railway Data Centre). For each of London and for Scotland the journeys made to/from Liverpool are half of those made to/from Manchester (this trend seems consistent even glancing at the pre-pandemic figures). Yet Liverpool gets a third of the frequency of London services, and an eighth (soon to be a quarter) of the frequency of direct Scotland services. Yes, other journeys are possible by changing trains (not just for the Scottish passengers, a number of London passengers go via Warrington and Newton-le-Willows) but in my view the planned increase in the London trains to half-hourly will be well patronised, and so would a two-hourly Scottish service.

Thank you. Ditto I imagine Cardiff and Bristol.

 

[yorksrob]

But that demand was always there (and known), preveiously people changed at Wigan/ Preston

As they presumably do for Liverpool.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So what else are people from overseas coming to do there?

Who said overseas?

Lots of gigs and trade fairs aimed at the public.

 

[Djgr]

Who said overseas?

Lots of gigs and trade fairs aimed at the public.

The statistics quoted above in the thread forming the basis for much of this discussion refer to OVERSEAS visitors staying overnight.

Various people on the thread appear to be using these figures to say that Birmingham is a bigger tourist pull than Oxford and Cambridge. I am yet to be convinced (and I was born there!).

I am suggesting that the figures quoted reflect the fact that many of these overseas visitors are here to see and stay with family...and as such are picked up from the airport and never travel on a train the whole time.

This means that using these figures for any purpose to do with the discussion about why Manchester should have all of the train "eggs" and Liverpool precisely none is completely flawed.

 

[cle]

It's a shame that a thread about Liverpool always ends up with people bagging it. Yes it may be economically smaller these days than Manchester, but it's still an important place and deserves better service.

The Liverpool-Glasgow services are a good base to grow from. Ideally these could increase in number (I don't know if two-hourly would be doable) - possibly alternating with Barrow services (I would reallocate these from Manchester and make Manchester-Windermere hourly).

The question then becomes if Edinburgh is worthwhile exploring in an alternate fashion - and trying to synchronize with the Manchester service.

And finally, what collective stopping patterns could there be on the Preston-Carlisle/Carstairs trunk (plus Lakes services) to ensure local journeys and connections are well-catered for, but the highest priority longer distance ones can be sped up.

e.g. if Liverpool-Glasgow always calls at Wigan, does Wigan need a call on the Euston/Wolves service? Arguably it needs the Birmingham and Crewe connect. But there will be things like that to consider, especially with Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith.

 

[Krokodil]

And finally, what collective stopping patterns could there be on the Preston-Carlisle/Carstairs trunk (plus Lakes services) to ensure local journeys and connections are well-catered for, but the highest priority longer distance ones can be sped up.

The half-hourly HS2 Anglo-Scottish service was proposed to run non-stop to Preston (except that one service would call at Birmingham Interchange), then fast to Carlisle where it would split.

The other portion of one of the Liverpool trains was then supposed to cover the stops from Crewe to Lancaster. The two Lake District stations would have lost their direct London services, the only HS2 service calling would have been a Birmingham one, running hourly and alternating between the two Lake District stations.

What will happen if we never move past Phase 1 is anyone's guess.

 

[cle]

The half-hourly HS2 Anglo-Scottish service was proposed to run non-stop to Preston (except that one service would call at Birmingham Interchange), then fast to Carlisle where it would split.

I think a version of this could (should) exist again as an interim, or after HS2 phase 1 - when it could hit the magic 3h59/4h for Glasgow. Maybe with Lancaster retained. If demand grew as modal switch occurred, potentially it could drop one call or so, and become more P2P in nature.

 

[Ellis101]

What makes you describe them as "awfully inconvenient"?

By awfully inconvenient I mean the fact the fastest way to get to Scotland for me from Liverpool South Parkway is a 15-20 minute walking interchange from WAC to WBQ

The 2nd best is LPY - LIV and LIV - Wigan which seems to take forever

The 3rd best for me is LPY - Crewe which is fast and frequent but all down to cost as there is no advance fares

Also the fact its sometimes quicker by car

Obviously Wigan and Warrington are directly on the WCML themselves but it amazes me how they have much better north south transport connections than an entire city region

Whilst London is also the Capital and has 10x the people it's the same amount of time to get a London - Edinburgh LNER service as it is Liverpool/Glasgow/Edinburgh despite being 200 miles extra

I never usually have an issue with changing trains but after doing this journey a few times it really seems so inefficient and slow surely there must be a better way forward

I am slightly biased living in Manchester but I as well as as the central Greater Manchester area having a much bigger population, it is also much more central. E.g people are more likely to go into Manchester and change trains. In terms of the urban area population (this is in away what defines the city, rather than just administrative borders) the population of Greater Manchester is 2.5 million and Liverpool is 0.86 million.

List of urban areas in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fact that Manchester is more central and has a much bigger real population you can see why we get a lot more trains. The airport is probably a massive pull too being by far the most widely used outside of the London airports so many people that use the TPE Scottish services may not be going to Manchester at all, but to the airport.

That is true but also the size difference in Manchester's urban area and Liverpool makes no sense to me it'd make a lot more sense to compare Merseyside/LCR and Greater Manchester/Urban Area

Or it could simply be that more tourists go to Manchester than Liverpool. It really could be that simple.

On balance Manchester probably has more attractions of wider appeal, whereas much of Liverpool's is based on the music / Cavern Club / Beatles.

More tourists most definitely do go to Manchester because of the long haul airport and the fact its transport connections are immense compared to Liverpool

Trying to be as neutral here as possible but Liverpool's museums themselves completely blow most of Manchester's attractions out of the water in terms of appeal

National Museums Liverpool is the only English national collection based wholly outside London and the 2nd most visited

 

[8A Rail]

And on a global scale, both of Manchester's football teams are bigger than Liverpool's.

Disclosure, I have no personal interest in football, so it's not a view from a personal loyalty. Sites like this https://jobsinfootball.com/blog/most-supported-football-clubs-in-the-world/#:~:text=1.,Real Madrid&text=It's generally thought that the,entire world is Real Madrid. provide information on global support numbers.

You are so amusing to say the least, the basis of support is not based on media clicks, good god I could go click on any club but it don't mean I support or interested in it! I have no doubt that Man Utd have world wide appeal, the proof is in the pudding but to even suggest that Man City (never mind Chelsea) is bigger / more popular than Liverpool FC in the world, you (& 'jobs in football')are just being silly indeed! Have you any ideal how many supporters in the world that support Liverpool FC, clearly not. The support base for both Man Utd and Liverpool is huge and on par with each other depending of which country you are in, although Man Utd I would acknowledge have the edge and say that as a LFC supporter. The other only other clubs that do exceed them is Real Madrid and may be Barcelona too. Man City don't even come close and will edge out Everton FC. Bottom line 'Jobs in Football' are providing a false picture I'm afraid to say.

I've been to both cities at the weekend. And I maintain Manchester probably has more tourists and more attractions, for both day trippers and overnight stays.


Here's a really simple measure - within 3 miles of their main station, Liverpool has 4 Premier Inn's, one of which is on the other side of the Mersey. Manchester has 6 within the 'inner ring road' (Mancunian Way / Trinity Way /Ancoats Street). There are a further 3 in the Salford Quays area which is about 3 miles away. On the basis each site has similar capacity, it means Premier Inn alone easily has 50% more rooms in Manchester than Liverpool.

I know both cities very well indeed especially Liverpool as I live there but do visit Manchester on numerous occasions over the years and as for attractions, Liverpool has far far more to say the least and that is now't to with including the Beatle themes into the mix either. I think if you check 'visitor' numbers, Liverpool (are) is one of the top destinations in the UK, more so than Manchester. Again, I do like Manchester but when it comes to comparing attractions with Liverpool there is no contest, sorry.

As for hotels for both cities, the fact that Premier Inn's may have more within a certain area, may be you forgotten there are numerous other national / independent hotel chains in both cities so your 'guide' is flawed to begin with. I certainly would suggest Manchester caters for more people staying overnight etc but that is down to three things only, the entertainment industry (concerts / theatre shows etc), the two football clubs and the Airport too rather than anything else.

 

[A0wen]

As for hotels for both cities, the fact that Premier Inn's may have more within a certain area, may be you forgotten there are numerous other national / independent hotel chains in both cities so your 'guide' is flawed to begin with. I certainly would suggest Manchester caters for more people staying overnight etc but that is down to three things only, the entertainment industry (concerts / theatre shows etc), the two football clubs and the Airport too rather than anything else.

Well - it's not a bad guess and was a 'wet finger in air' to start.

However - as you'd prefer something with more credibility - Liverpool Business News from 2018 https://lbndaily.co.uk/liverpool-hotel-sector-booming-bookings-revenues-rise/

In 2008 Liverpool had 37 hotels, apart hotels and guesthouses with a total of 3,481 bedrooms. That has now risen to 67 new locations offering a total of 6,600 bedrooms.

Also from 2018 https://confidentials.com/mancheste...ill-a-whopping-1-7m-extra-room-nights-by-2020

HOTEL INDIGO opens this month, bringing a further 187 bedrooms into the city centre. Last year we had 9,420 rooms in the city centre. In 2018 that figure has grown again and is set to jump even further in the next couple of years - estimates say by up to 4000.

So back in 2018, Manchester had almost 50% more hotel rooms than Liverpool.

Hotel chains only build where there is demand - clearly there is much higher demand in Manchester than Liverpool.

 

[Krokodil]

So back in 2018, Manchester had almost 50% more hotel rooms than Liverpool.

Yet Manchester gets 300% more direct Scottish services. Definitely worth doing some rebalancing. Not that hotel bedroom numbers are of any use to us unless we know how many of the occupants are Scottish. I suspect that the airport may distort the figures too, can you really count someone as a visitor to Manchester if all they are doing is booking into an airport hotel before a morning flight?

 

[A0wen]

Yet Manchester gets 300% more direct Scottish services. Definitely worth doing some rebalancing. Not that hotel bedroom numbers are of any use to us unless we know how many of the occupants are Scottish. I suspect that the airport may distort the figures too, can you really count someone as a visitor to Manchester if all they are doing is booking into an airport hotel before a morning flight?

Not necessarily.

Manchester has the airport which is going to be used by people heading to / from Bolton, Preston, Lancaster, Penrith and Carlisle.

There are, of course, direct services from Liverpool to those stations, but I suspect the airport link is more valuable than more trains to Liverpool.

 

[The Ham]

As I said in the thread about where to put 400m platforms in Liverpool:

Generally I think that all places should be considered for more frequent services (be that the Southern Metro area or Liverpool or even Manchester).

Take for example the fact that Basingstoke sees at least 3tph between it and Reading, given that it had a population of 120,000 and has quite a lot of services on the "mainline" (whilst the mainline services are going between other places and being a junction does mean that there's quite a bit of churn between routes which does help, there is quite a flow of people leaving the station from Reading services) whilst those services are typically 3 coaches long, it shouldn't be impossible for somewhere 10 times the size to fill (at least enough to justify running them) trains 4 times that size. Especially if they served other places.

Given that both the population of Edinburgh and Liverpool are much higher than Reading and Basingstoke, it's not unreasonable to assume that there would (if the service was provided) be at least a reasonable flow between the two (obviously them being further apart would reduce the flow compared to two nearby places).

Whilst there are often complaints about train services which go on a mystery tour around the houses, sometimes such convoluted routes can work. For example, as long as the service leaves later than the previous and arrives before the next people will still use it end to end, especially if the price is right. Sometimes, as it's often the case for XC services, it's not really designed for A to D travel, rather it's just convenient that service for A to C is linked with service B to D, so you don't have to run two trains over a section of track (where XC fails with this is by not providing adequate capacity, but there's too many threads on that so we don't need this year to discuss that point).

I'm theory, it could be service from (say) Birmingham to Glasgow via Liverpool in 5:15, now would you get anyone from Birmingham using it to go to Glasgow - unlikely given the direct service is about an hour faster.

However it would likely see reasonably use as there would be some who would travel through Liverpool (even if that was a reverse), as well as those traveling to/from Liverpool.

Chances are, the reason is doesn't exist is because pathing it would be a challenge.

 

[BeijingDave]

We could, in our haste to look at reasons to visit Liverpool, be looking at this the wrong way.

Maybe there just isn't as much demand from people in the Liverpool area to travel outwards to other parts of the country, for business and leisure reasons? (except Chester and North Wales, which seem to attract a lot of leisure travel from Merseyside)

I would be interested to see how frequently the average Liverpudlian makes a trip to London or Scotland compared to the average Mancunian. I bet it's less on average, even before factoring in availability of trains.

 

[8A Rail]

Well - it's not a bad guess and was a 'wet finger in air' to start. However - as you'd prefer something with more credibility - Liverpool Business News from 2018 https://lbndaily.co.uk/liverpool-hotel-sector-booming-bookings-revenues-rise/
Also from 2018 https://confidentials.com/mancheste...ill-a-whopping-1-7m-extra-room-nights-by-2020

Credibility? The info is over five years old and so out of date!

So back in 2018, Manchester had almost 50% more hotel rooms than Liverpool. Hotel chains only build where there is demand - clearly there is much higher demand in Manchester than Liverpool.

Just go back to my first comment on my original post which you highlighted as part of your reply and quote - I certainly would suggest Manchester caters for more people staying overnight etc but that is down to three things only, the entertainment industry (concerts / theatre shows etc), the two football clubs and the Airport too rather than anything else. Nothing has changed with my thought.

Manchester is better served by trains from all directions because of the reasons I've stated in the above quote as well as stopping off point to go somewhere else, rather than an actual place to visit. Anyway, enough of this ramble and back to the original topic about 400m platforms in Liverpool and my answer to that is no where, because there is no location suitable not without costing mega amounts of money which ain't available and displacing people in consequence. Likewise why do we need 400m long trains anyway? I see no point given our present railway system and the way it's treated by successive Governments, which will continue in the future.