Should there be more Liverpool to Scotland services?

[Topological]

Many of the visitors come from further afield that the "other North West cities" (presumably you are referring to Manchester, Chester and (I guess) Preston). Connectivity with all of them is okay and is not really the issue at all. The issue is more with the (around) three direct trains a day to Scotland and the (around) one direct train a day to Wales, which is pathetic really.

I am presuming the visitors are coming from places even further than Scotland, hence the most relevant connection being Manchester Airport.

Connecting effectively with Preston means that Scotland is covered with 1 change and an effective connection.

Connecting effectively with Crewe means that many more places are covered with 1 change and an effective connection.

As I also noted though, there is a second Birmingham train per hour to return and HS2 will help Liverpool.

Liverpool needs to market its strengths as a global destination, which it is becoming, and that means focusing capacity on the destinations that facilitate growth. Connecting its own airport better would help more than more Glasgow trains. We can look out beyond the borders of GB.

On Wales, Liverpool is sadly suffering from TfW syndrome. Apparently, it will all be good one day and then Liverpool may get its Cardiff and North Wales trains. Someone really needs to get a bigger 197 order in, but that is for a different thread. At least the plans are in progress.

 

[driverd]

I am presuming the visitors are coming from places even further than Scotland, hence the most relevant connection being Manchester Airport.

Connecting effectively with Preston means that Scotland is covered with 1 change and an effective connection.

Connecting effectively with Crewe means that many more places are covered with 1 change and an effective connection.

Unfortunately connections deter many from using rail. Its the simple things, like being unable to get a seat or having to wrestle luggage onto a busy train that put folk off. Often these aren't the lived experience of connecting, but it's enough to deter sizable portions of the market.

Liverpool needs to market its strengths as a global destination, which it is becoming, and that means focusing capacity on the destinations that facilitate growth. Connecting its own airport better would help more than more Glasgow trains. We can look out beyond the borders of GB.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment, there isnt really a comparison between improving rail links to the airport and more trains to Scotland. Specifically, in terms of cost, complexity, timescale and the sheer size of the challenge.

It's relatively straight forward to uplift 3 trains to, say, 4 or 5, (by which point you're nearing 2 hourly frequency), and the cost would be relatively low (assuming suitable rolling stock is available, which, with some reliability work taken to perform, it is).

 

[Djgr]

Liverpool needs to market its strengths

I don't Liverpool needs to market anything. It is more trying to cope with the existing influx, week in week out.

 

[Topological]

I don't Liverpool needs to market anything. It is more trying to cope with the existing influx, week in week out.

I hope for Liverpool's sake that is not how the leadership of Liverpool see things.

Surely it is better to promote the place, encourage demand and form a solid business case for capacity on transport?

Whilst an idealist may say build the transport first, the realist will always respond that the business case needs strengthening.

Manchester has obtained a virtuous circle of development and yet, ex ante, you could argue Liverpool was better placed as a port. I am not well enough versed in how Manchester was able to gain the advantage it has, but the GDP figures up thread confirm that any battle to be the capital of the North West moved inland a long time ago.

I fear Liverpool is somewhat of a lost cause if it is not thinking strategically within the North West agenda (the mayoral unity on things like the high speed link maybs says all is not lost though)

 

[Djgr]

Nobody is talking about the "capital" of the North West, as if anyone cared.

What we are clearly talking about is that the existing transport infrastructure serving Liverpool cannot properly serve the EXISTING demand.

The solution for this is not, as you suggest, to try to generate even more demand.

 

[Topological]

Optimising infrastructure for higher demand gives the ability to cope with existing demand by definition.

Fiddling around with infrastructure to match existing demand fails to provide for the bigger demand and uses valuable resource in the process.

Two trains per hour with good connections into higher capacity services at Preston* will provide much better inward investment into Liverpool than one direct train to Glasgow or Edinburgh every 2 hours. No matter how much it might seem nice to see names on a departure board. I do find this is an area where there is a lot of disagreement though, hence the longing for the old Cross Country network (for example)

I like the way the mayors work together on things like the high speed link, concepts that provide far greater inward capacity to Liverpool.

Meanwhile adding more carriages to the Northern trains for Manchester and Liverpool would be useful, but that does not involve Scotland.

 

[Djgr]

Optimising infrastructure for higher demand gives the ability to cope with existing demand by definition.

Fiddling around with infrastructure to match existing demand fails to provide for the bigger demand and uses valuable resource in the process.

Two trains per hour with good connections into higher capacity services at Preston* will provide much better inward investment into Liverpool than one direct train to Glasgow or Edinburgh every 2 hours. No matter how much it might seem nice to see names on a departure board. I do find this is an area where there is a lot of disagreement though, hence the longing for the old Cross Country network (for example)

I like the way the mayors work together on things like the high speed link, concepts that provide far greater inward capacity to Liverpool.

Meanwhile adding more carriages to the Northern trains for Manchester and Liverpool would be useful, but that does not involve Scotland.

I think most people would be happy with a few more direct trains.

Perhaps a couple more daily direct to Scotland and at least turn westbound a few of the thirty or so Wales to Manchester direct daily trains at Frodsham or Crewe?

(I am imaging that you have not experienced the Saturday Chester to Liverpool Merseyrail crushloaders, full of travellers from North Wales? Nor the 100 or so leaving the Borderlands train at Bidston for the Merseyrail going party-party)

 

[Some guy]

I won’t be surprised if successful the Liverpool-Glasgow could eventually become 2 hourly if paths were available it’d be a huge relief on northern services towards Preston as there’s only the 1 service per hour

 

[frodshamfella]

The Manchester urban area is more populous than Liverpool's though, and includes Salford, which is 106,074 people (2021 Census Data). It is also more economically active (various measures), has a busier airport, has more major stadia (including Old Trafford cricket ground, whereas Liverpool only really has the two football stadia), more concerts, more universities. It is, by almost every measure, the 'capital' of the north west.

You would expect more inbound and outbound rail services. I say this without any bias, as a Liverpool supporter!

That said, Liverpool is poorly served in many ways for a major city. The London services really highlight this. I am sure it also used to have a few Bristol services a day back in 80s?

Also Cardiff. Which still waiting for TFW to return.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2024 ==

Wigan is also on the WCML.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Feb 2024 ==


More likely it's because Liverpool is a terminus station in reality with limited onward connections, whereas Manchester is much more of a hub with onward (or incoming ) passengers from the east of the Pennines, Nottingham etc.

Not really, when you consider the Merseyrail network.

 

[mpthomson]

Also Cardiff. Which still waiting for TFW to return.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2024 ==


Not really, when you consider the Merseyrail network.

That covers a FAR smaller population than Manchester acts as a central hub for in terms of connections.

 

[frodshamfella]

I think Liverpool is a probably a bigger tourist destination than Manchester, there's more to see and do. Therefore it really does deserve more direct trains. There were more in the past when it wasn't such a popular visitor destination. Even just to reduce car mileage there should be better connectivity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2024 ==

That covers a FAR smaller population than Manchester acts as a central hub for in terms of connections.

Never the less it's not insignificant. LCR is over 2 million, and not all of it gets Merseyrail. The fact Piccadilly is a hub, and a bottle neck, doesn't mean Liverpool which is also a hub should not have improved connectivity, it should.

 

[Djgr]

I think Liverpool is a probably a bigger tourist destination than Manchester, there's more to see and do. Therefore it really does deserve more direct trains. There were more in the past when it wasn't such a popular visitor destination. Even just to reduce car mileage there should be better connectivity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jul 2024 ==


Never the less it's not insignificant. LCR is over 2 million, and not all of it gets Merseyrail. The fact Piccadilly is a hub, and a bottle neck, doesn't mean Liverpool which is also a hub should not have improved connectivity, it should.

I struggle to understand the logic which says that just because Manchester is "bigger" than Liverpool it has to have ALL the trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I struggle to understand the logic which says that just because Manchester is "bigger" than Liverpool it has to have ALL the trains.

It's normally the case that places of higher demand get more trains. This makes sense. With Liverpool being out on a sort of peninsula, it has a much smaller connectional hinterland than Manchester. For instance I often use the TPEs between north Lancs/the Lakes and MKC, changing at Manchester but not specifically going there. Liverpool isn't as useful for that.

 

[frodshamfella]

I struggle to understand the logic which says that just because Manchester is "bigger" than Liverpool it has to have ALL the trains.

Well quite, especially when there were more direct trains from Liverpool in past years, it's a much busier city these days. It's ridiculous there is still only 1 per to London.

 

[Djgr]

It's normally the case that places of higher demand get more trains. This makes sense. With Liverpool being out on a sort of peninsula, it has a much smaller connectional hinterland than Manchester. For instance I often use the TPEs between north Lancs/the Lakes and MKC, changing at Manchester but not specifically going there. Liverpool isn't as useful for that.

More and All are different words.

More is fine. All is not.

It's like saying Bristol is bigger than Cardiff (or vv) and so ALL trains go to Bristol and Cardiff passengers have to change at Bristol Parkway.

 

[Topological]

More and All are different words.

More is fine. All is not.

It's like saying Bristol is bigger than Cardiff (or vv) and so ALL trains go to Bristol and Cardiff passengers have to change at Bristol Parkway.

Slightly strange comparison, Cardiff is the capital of Wales.

However, there are plenty of places where there are trains from Bristol that do not run from Cardiff (and vice versa). Scotland being an apt example, but closer places include Leeds, York, Newcastle and all on the North East axis.

Cardiff does have some excellent connections in from Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads, something which helps a lot when noting how poor the services in to Cardiff from anywhere North (Manchester and Birmingham included) are.

It all comes back to whether the best thing for promoting travel is the knowledge that you have a regular single connection journey (at least one option every 30 minutes) or an irregular direct journey.

The only evidence really is that Operation Princess was a victim of its own success.

 

[Djgr]

Slightly strange comparison, Cardiff is the capital of Wales.

However, there are plenty of places where there are trains from Bristol that do not run from Cardiff (and vice versa). Scotland being an apt example, but closer places include Leeds, York, Newcastle and all on the North East axis.

Cardiff does have some excellent connections in from Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads, something which helps a lot when noting how poor the services in to Cardiff from anywhere North (Manchester and Birmingham included) are.

It all comes back to whether the best thing for promoting travel is the knowledge that you have a regular single connection journey (at least one option every 30 minutes) or an irregular direct journey.

The only evidence really is that Operation Princess was a victim of its own success.

I think Operation Princess was the first major disaster from privatisation.

Perhaps we should have taken the hint then?

 

[Nottingham59]

Passenger numbers Liverpool-Glasgow (46/day) are significantly less than Manchester-Glasgow (MAN119, MCV28, MCO17). So I wouldn't expect Liverpool-Glasgow to be worth it as a stand-alone service (if the stats can be believed).

But Liverpool-Edinburgh (191/day) and Manchester-Edinburgh (MAN171 ,MCV56, MCO37) are more comparable. So there may be a demand for faster direct Liverpool-Edinburgh services via the West Coast?

Interestingly, Liverpool-Edinburgh passenger numbers (191) are twice those of Birmingham New St-Edinburgh (92). And Birmingham-Glasgow is too small to appear in the lab data. I wonder if Avanti should be running Glasgow-Liverpool-Euston services instead of Glasgow-Birmingham-Euston? They might even be quicker if they avoid the crawl through Wolverhampton.

Also I notice Liverpool-Scotland services are comparable to Liverpool-Sheffield (160) and Nottingham (79), but are far longer journeys. So I think there's a good case for prioritisng direct Liverpool-Scotland services over the South Pennine route, if the issue is capacity out of Lime Street, rather than capacity elsewhere. And terminating the Norwich-Liverpool services in the main shed at Piccadilly would stop it introducing delay and congestion onto the Castlefield corridor.

What do others think?

 

[yorksrob]

I think Operation Princess was the first major disaster from privatisation.

Perhaps we should have taken the hint then?

They had half of the right idea - more frequent services will encourage more travel- they didn't count on it generating more demand !

An answer would be increasing frequency whilst increasing capacity at the same time.

 

[Peter0124]

The 12:04 Glasgow to Liverpool TPE looked pretty full leaving Glasgow. Though that doesn't mean much considering most of the pax are probs going shorter.

 

[The Puddock]

The 12:04 Glasgow to Liverpool TPE looked pretty full leaving Glasgow. Though that doesn't mean much considering most of the pax are probs going shorter.

I used it a couple of weeks ago and it was chockers. I went all the way through to Liverpool on it and so did around half the people in my coach.

 

[Sorcerer]

It's normally the case that places of higher demand get more trains. This makes sense. With Liverpool being out on a sort of peninsula, it has a much smaller connectional hinterland than Manchester. For instance I often use the TPEs between north Lancs/the Lakes and MKC, changing at Manchester but not specifically going there. Liverpool isn't as useful for that.

Geographically speaking Liverpool as a coastal city certainly won't have as much connectional hinterland as Manchester, but I think the orientation of routes heading into the city is also a big factor. Liverpool Lime Street is a terminus facing east through a series of tunnels a mile and a quarter long, so naturally there's only so many directions you can approach it from. I think if Liverpool had multiple stations like Manchester (such as Exchange which would've faced to the north) then it could theoretically have better connectivity. Passengers from Ormskirk, Preston or Wigan wanting to travel to Wales could change there more conveniently than they could with Manchester.

 

[frodshamfella]

Passenger numbers Liverpool-Glasgow (46/day) are significantly less than Manchester-Glasgow (MAN119, MCV28, MCO17). So I wouldn't expect Liverpool-Glasgow to be worth it as a stand-alone service (if the stats can be believed).

But Liverpool-Edinburgh (191/day) and Manchester-Edinburgh (MAN171 ,MCV56, MCO37) are more comparable. So there may be a demand for faster direct Liverpool-Edinburgh services via the West Coast?

Interestingly, Liverpool-Edinburgh passenger numbers (191) are twice those of Birmingham New St-Edinburgh (92). And Birmingham-Glasgow is too small to appear in the lab data. I wonder if Avanti should be running Glasgow-Liverpool-Euston services instead of Glasgow-Birmingham-Euston? They might even be quicker if they avoid the crawl through Wolverhampton.

Also I notice Liverpool-Scotland services are comparable to Liverpool-Sheffield (160) and Nottingham (79), but are far longer journeys. So I think there's a good case for prioritisng direct Liverpool-Scotland services over the South Pennine route, if the issue is capacity out of Lime Street, rather than capacity elsewhere. And terminating the Norwich-Liverpool services in the main shed at Piccadilly would stop it introducing delay and congestion onto the Castlefield corridor.

What do others think?

I wouldn't be happy terminating the Liverpool to Norwich, I use that quite often, it's.the only cross country service southward.out of Liverpool. However I do think Liverpool to Scotland services should be improved somewhat too.

Just a thought could the Liverpool to Norwich use Liverpool Central (.when it is expanded) to allow a bit more Lime.Street capacity.

 

[Topological]

I think Operation Princess was the first major disaster from privatisation.

Perhaps we should have taken the hint then?

My understanding is that it was a "disaster" because it made CrossCountry too busy? The additional regular services on a core network were much more popular than the irregular point to point that it replaced?

Yet here again is "Liverpool" arguing that regressing to a point-to-point irregular model is the best solution.

As Princess showed, people want higher frequency. Where Princess failed was the lack of capacity on the trains. That is where we should be learning lessons.

Unless you took Princess as failing because it cut Liverpool (Brighton and a few others) off from the CrossCountry network and NOT because of the voyagers lack of capacity to soak up the demand that the better connections unleashed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2024 ==

They had half of the right idea - more frequent services will encourage more travel- they didn't count on it generating more demand !

An answer would be increasing frequency whilst increasing capacity at the same time.

As @yorksrob also notes here

IF you could increase frequency AND maintain all the odd destinations (Liverpool, Brighton etc.) then great, but the whole point is that you cannot. Therefore you increase frequency on the core routes and provide increased frequency connections so that the number of trains through the pinch points is not impacted.

In this case maximise the frequency on Scotland to the South (which is currently done), keep the Scotland to Manchester Airport (the second largest market) and then ensure that 2 or 3 of these trains have connections to Liverpool every hour on trains that are long enough to soak up the demand.

 

[frodshamfella]

Geographically speaking Liverpool as a coastal city certainly won't have as much connectional hinterland as Manchester, but I think the orientation of routes heading into the city is also a big factor. Liverpool Lime Street is a terminus facing east through a series of tunnels a mile and a quarter long, so naturally there's only so many directions you can approach it from. I think if Liverpool had multiple stations like Manchester (such as Exchange which would've faced to the north) then it could theoretically have better connectivity. Passengers from Ormskirk, Preston or Wigan wanting to travel to Wales could change there more conveniently than they could with Manchester.

It's quite easy for Ormskirk, Southport , Preston and Wigan to change in Liverpool, indeed it's a missed opportunity not extending Merseyrail beyond Headbolt Lane to Wigan, then giving a more frequent and reliable service to Rainford, Upholland etc plus a benefit to Skelmersdale. The real problem is we are still waiting for TFW to begin the promised Liverpool to N and S Wales direct services. It's quite ridiculous the biggest city to North Wales and no direct services. The demand is certainly there.

 

[Topological]

It's quite easy for Ormskirk, Southport , Preston and Wigan to change in Liverpool, indeed it's a missed opportunity not extending Merseyrail beyond Headbolt Lane to Wigan, then giving a more frequent and reliable service to Rainford, Upholland etc plus a benefit to Skelmersdale. The real problem is we are still waiting for TFW to begin the promised Liverpool to N and S Wales direct services. It's quite ridiculous the biggest city to North Wales and no direct services. The demand is certainly there.

To go to where?

These stations have Warrington for North Wales, Crewe for Central and South Wales and Manchester for everything else (they have direct London and Birmingham)

Ormskirk lacks a connection to Wigan, but is pushing it since Burscough does have and that then offers all of the connectivity through Wigan mentioned previously. Southport connects to Wigan for Birmingham, London etc.

If you have 3 paths on the WCML between Preston and Scotland then I am afraid you always come back to the current use as being optimal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you have 3 paths on the WCML between Preston and Scotland then I am afraid you always come back to the current use as being optimal.

If it was justified (and I'm really not sure it is) it could be done by way of portion working. It has been in the past, e.g. the 1990s Class 158 XC services.

 

[Topological]

If it was justified (and I'm really not sure it is) it could be done by way of portion working. It has been in the past, e.g. the 1990s Class 158 XC services.

The TPE could be, but likewise I do not see the value in introducing risk to the timetable.

Having the Liverpool portion turn up early / depart after would be no different to a good connection at Preston really (save people would not need to physically get off the train)

* Liverpool is assumed to be the first to arrive Northbound, last to leave Southbound, because the Manchester half has an existing path through Castlefield to maintian.

 

[frodshamfella]

To go to where?

These stations have Warrington for North Wales, Crewe for Central and South Wales and Manchester for everything else (they have direct London and Birmingham)

Ormskirk lacks a connection to Wigan, but is pushing it since Burscough does have and that then offers all of the connectivity through Wigan mentioned previously. Southport connects to Wigan for Birmingham, London etc.

If you have 3 paths on the WCML between Preston and Scotland then I am afraid you always come back to the current use as being optimal.

As I said to go to North and South Wales. If you go to Crewe you just end up on the already overloaded service out of Manchester. Not forgetting Northern is hardly reliable .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2024 ==

I really think Liverpool should have better, Scottish connections particularly considering the popularity of the city for visitors .

 

[Topological]

As I said to go to North and South Wales. If you go to Crewe you just end up on the already overloaded service out of Manchester. Not forgetting Northern is hardly reliable .

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jul 2024 ==

I really think Liverpool should have better, Scottish connections particularly considering the popularity of the city for visitors .

Still cannot see why you would go through Liverpool. There is nowhere from Preston where you would travel via Liverpool (except the immediate Liverpool city region). Preston is simply not in the connection set of Liverpool for any other destination.

The fact that Manchester trains are "overcrowded" says the Manchester train needs more carriages. Resolving that resolves your objection to using the Warrington connection for North Wales (or Crewe for South Wales) when travelling from Preston/Wigan/anywhere that connects neatly to these places.

Liverpool requires new paths, which in the case of Scotland are hard to find.

All I see are arguments why Northern needs to improve its offering on connecting services that give the frequent options from Scotland to reach Liverpool. Firstly in length and secondly in reliability.