Should there be more Liverpool to Scotland services?

[urbophile]

I think these figures banded around for tourism include a lot of visitors who are really visiting friends and family rather than the sights.

That's irrelevant in this context isn't it? Travel is travel whatever the motives. In fact visits for family reasons probably provide a more stable market for public transport than tourists, who can be more fickle.

 

[mpthomson]

Of course you missed out the following from the report:

In 2022 Liverpool was the 5th most visited city in the UK for international visitors and 4th in England for domestic visitors for 2019

As had been said on this thread around a million times, just because Liverpool has fewer visitors than Manchester does NOT mean that Manchester should get ALL the trains. I would have thought it is pretty obvious that a city which is the 4th or 5th most visited city in the UK should be provided with a decent provision of direct trains in support of this.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2024 ==


I think these figures banded around for tourism include a lot of visitors who are really visiting friends and family rather than the sights.

There was no need to say it as the figures are correct and the claim was that Liverpool is popular as Manchester for visitors. It isn't. Manchester scores higher than Liverpool on both the meaures cited. Your last comment is pure unevidenced assumption which could apply equally to Liverpool (or not, as there's no evidence for it).

Manchester is a more central city and as such it has a greater role as a rail hub in a way that Liverpool doesn't, purely due to location. Hence it gets more trains. It's not about the value or worth of either city.

 

[The exile]

As people here will immediately reply that "the coach firms know their market" I must say that I find it hard to believe. I have seen a huge queue for a train to Liverpool at Glasgow, but recognise that doesn't mean that the service would be viable the all day long the whole week.

What you can’t tell from looking at the “huge queue” of course is how many of those people were actually bound for Liverpool. It might have been all of them; it might have been none. Where exactly along the continuum between those extremes the truth lay is the critical point. Other than the Wirral, there is very little (rail-served)hinterland for which a change at Lime Street would offer massive advantages over a change at Wigan or Preston. CLC-line stations that require a walk across Warrington perhaps….

 

[urbophile]

What you can’t tell from looking at the “huge queue” of course is how many of those people were actually bound for Liverpool. It might have been all of them; it might have been none.

There are few major towns or cities between Glasgow and Liverpool, and they are all served by many other trains during the day, Hence it is reasonable to expect that most of the people in this queue would be making the whole journey. I'd have thought it was easily proved one way or another anyway.
Few people are suggesting that there should be an equal number of trains from Scotland to Liverpool, as to Manchester. But more than the present offering is surely not an impossible ask.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

There are few major towns or cities between Glasgow and Liverpool, and they are all served by many other trains during the day, Hence it is reasonable to expect that most of the people in this queue would be making the whole journey. I'd have thought it was easily proved one way or another anyway.
Few people are suggesting that there should be an equal number of trains from Scotland to Liverpool, as to Manchester. But more than the present offering is surely not an impossible ask.

An equally plausible explanation would be that many in the "huge queue" were indeed travelling to intermediate locations but had ignored the Avanti services due to holding cheaper TPE-only Advances. If we're going to make anecdotally based judgements then there have been a number of comments suggesting these services are comparatively lightly loaded south of Wigan. Perhaps a period of time is necessary to see if the improved level of service does in fact generate growth in through passenger numbers.

 

[frodshamfella]

An equally plausible explanation would be that many in the "huge queue" were indeed travelling to intermediate locations but had ignored the Avanti services due to holding cheaper TPE-only Advances. If we're going to make anecdotally based judgements then there have been a number of comments suggesting these services are comparatively lightly loaded south of Wigan. Perhaps a period of time is necessary to see if the improved level of service does in fact generate growth in through passenger numbers.

We don't know , but regardless,.none of this should mean a city the size of Liverpool should be so poorly connected.

 

[cle]

I do think there should be an extra fast 'northbound' service out of Liverpool, per hour, which is Wigan-Preston-Lancaster and onwards. Even just to Lancaster some hours, Barrow others and Carlisle/Scotland some, would be useful to diversify the direct options a bit. If hourly or two hourly to Scotland isn't viable, this would at least be another Preston connection north - knowing that destination demand is spread anyway - also East Lancs, Morecambe, more Blackpool options inc South, etc etc

Or Liverpool takes up the Barrow service entirely, and Manchester Airport-Windermere is hourly, so both are standardized.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I do think there should be an extra fast 'northbound' service out of Liverpool, per hour, which is Wigan-Preston-Lancaster and onwards. Even just to Lancaster some hours, Barrow others and Carlisle/Scotland some, would be useful to diversify the direct options a bit. If hourly or two hourly to Scotland isn't viable, this would at least be another Preston connection north - knowing that destination demand is spread anyway - also East Lancs, Morecambe, more Blackpool options inc South, etc etc

Or Liverpool takes up the Barrow service entirely, and Manchester Airport-Windermere is hourly, so both are standardized.

Definitely some merit to these suggestions. The main limiting factor to service expansion on the northern WCML is the ability to maintain freight paths over Shap. But an additional electrically operated service diverging from the WCML south of that critical section might be possible. Although it's some years away the development of the Eden Project Morecambe could well help make a business case for electrifying the railway to that town with Liverpool being an obvious southern destination for such a service.

 

[Djgr]

We don't know , but regardless,.none of this should mean a city the size of Liverpool should be so poorly connected.

and I quote again:

In 2022 Liverpool was the 5th most visited city in the UK for international visitors and 4th in England for domestic visitors for 2019

 

[cle]

Definitely some merit to these suggestions. The main limiting factor to service expansion on the northern WCML is the ability to maintain freight paths over Shap. But an additional electrically operated service diverging from the WCML south of that critical section might be possible. Although it's some years away the development of the Eden Project Morecambe could well help make a business case for electrifying the railway to that town with Liverpool being an obvious southern destination for such a service.

That's why I thought at least to Lancaster is something, and peeling off to Barrow, Morecambe or even Blackpool if it had to be so, would be somewhat additive, but wouldn't take up huge WCML capacity, hopefully, re Shap. And could be flighted behind something faster at Wigan or Preston, if needed.

 

[urbophile]

suggesting these services are comparatively lightly loaded south of Wigan.

As are the Manchester Airport services south of Manchester Piccadilly. The train might as well go on somewhere.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

As are the Manchester Airport services south of Manchester Piccadilly. The train might as well go on somewhere.

The totality of services between Piccadilly and the airport is certainly an over-provision but given the need for services approaching Piccadilly from the north-west to terminate somewhere the airport is rather convenient and the Styal line has just about enough capacity to handle them all. Going somewhere else would either be an extension from the airport, which might not be too popular given the time needed for the reversal, or routed instead via Stockport to perhaps Stoke/Birmingham. But once again pathing is a difficult issue to overcome. I realise that many think HS2 going all the way to Manchester is an extravagance but it would free up an awful lot of very useful capacity which would be expensive to provide in any case. (And the same argument also holds for HS tracks as far into Liverpool as possible)

 

[The exile]

and I quote again:

In 2022 Liverpool was the 5th most visited city in the UK for international visitors and 4th in England for domestic visitors for 2019

Do the statistics give any indication of where these visitors come from or how they get there? Indeed, what is the definition of a “visit”?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jul 2024 ==

As are the Manchester Airport services south of Manchester Piccadilly. The train might as well go on somewhere

It does rather give the lie to the suggestion that there is massive demand to travel to / from Liverpool on these services.

 

[Djgr]

Do the statistics give any indication of where these visitors come from or how they get there? Indeed, what is the definition of a “visit"?

Don't know but the link is above if you are interested.

The general point is that lots of people are going to and fro to Liverpool, in a way that they weren't two decades ago.

This suggests that the current provision of rail services may require review, as much of their "specification" (i.e. around 1 train a day to Wales and around 3 trains a day to Scotland) dates back to the millennium.

It is difficult to understand which bit of this is unreasonable or hard to grasp.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I do think there should be an extra fast 'northbound' service out of Liverpool, per hour, which is Wigan-Preston-Lancaster and onwards. Even just to Lancaster some hours, Barrow others and Carlisle/Scotland some, would be useful to diversify the direct options a bit.

Every time I've caught the hourly Northern 'fast' from Liverpool to Preston it has been very very busy, so I think this would have a lot of merit. I can't see a reason why the line couldn't support 2tph stopper to Wigan, as now, and 2tph fast to Preston and beyond.

An hourly Barrow-Manchester and an hourly Windermere-Liverpool would do very nicely in principle, although the lack of wires between Oxenholme and Windermere would obviously be an issue in terms of finding rolling stock for it.

 

[Topological]

A controversial thought...

Could Liverpool gain a train to Lancaster, and then the Lancaster stop be removed from the fast London to Glasgow service? Some fast trains used to miss Lancaster.

IF there were wires to Windermere then that would also be an option as an extension from Lancaster.

The other fast can go to Blackpool as now, then the two fast Liverpool - Preston trains should offer all the connection options from the North without costing paths on the WCML, or requiring journeys to be taken away from Manchester.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nonsensical idea. Lancaster (and connections) to London demand is significant.

 

[cle]

A controversial thought...

Could Liverpool gain a train to Lancaster, and then the Lancaster stop be removed from the fast London to Glasgow service? Some fast trains used to miss Lancaster.

IF there were wires to Windermere then that would also be an option as an extension from Lancaster.

The other fast can go to Blackpool as now, then the two fast Liverpool - Preston trains should offer all the connection options from the North without costing paths on the WCML, or requiring journeys to be taken away from Manchester.

I don’t know why this plan needs to be at the expense of the Lancaster stop on the London fast - which has more demand than Carlisle does, btw.

It’s a separate thing entirely.

 

[Topological]

I don’t know why this plan needs to be at the expense of the Lancaster stop on the London fast - which has more demand than Carlisle does, btw.

It’s a separate thing entirely.

I will confess to not knowing the demands from the respective places, just that Virgin used to skip Lancaster with their fastest services. Presumably this is why the stops got put back in when the train was slowed a little.

However, there must be limited demand between Preston and Lancaster to have 4 trains running in a small window. Of the three that currently run in that flight (The fast Avanti, the Avanti via Birmingham and the TPE from Manchester Airport) the fast Avanti is the only one which has any argument for being sped up.

The suggested answer would be to send both Liverpool fasts to Blackpool (or terminate one at Preston), but then you get accused of not giving Liverpool enough destinations.

The open question here is whether the Liverpool fast in the other half hour could go to Lancaster ahead of the fast Avanti, that would take a lot of the local demand off the Avanti, especially as the fast Avanti is the train which runs first of the flight of three. I get that the freights further north mean that the only slot north is at the back of the flight (about xx05 from Preston) but maybe a train around xx35 from Preston to Lancaster would fit and relieve the Avanti a little?

 

[The exile]

Every time I've caught the hourly Northern 'fast' from Liverpool to Preston it has been very very busy, so I think this would have a lot of merit. I can't see a reason why the line couldn't support 2tph stopper to Wigan, as now, and 2tph fast to Preston and beyond.

An hourly Barrow-Manchester and an hourly Windermere-Liverpool would do very nicely in principle, although the lack of wires between Oxenholme and Windermere would obviously be an issue in terms of finding rolling stock for it.

Indeed - my issue has been with the concept that “Liverpool gets a lot of visitors so it must have more through trains to Scotland”. Apparently the most visited attraction in the UK in 2022 was Windsor Great Park (how can they tell?) yet it gets through trains to nowhere further north than Slough.

 

[Djgr]

Indeed - my issue has been with the concept that “Liverpool gets a lot of visitors so it must have more through trains to Scotland”. Apparently the most visited attraction in the UK in 2022 was Windsor Great Park (how can they tell?) yet it gets through trains to nowhere further north than Slough.

I think that you are grossly simplifying the points being made.

 

[cle]

The suggested answer would be to send both Liverpool fasts to Blackpool (or terminate one at Preston), but then you get accused of not giving Liverpool enough destinations.

The open question here is whether the Liverpool fast in the other half hour could go to Lancaster ahead of the fast Avanti, that would take a lot of the local demand off the Avanti, especially as the fast Avanti is the train which runs first of the flight of three. I get that the freights further north mean that the only slot north is at the back of the flight (about xx05 from Preston) but maybe a train around xx35 from Preston to Lancaster would fit and relieve the Avanti a little?

If you are determined to keep this solely EMU, then I would say a two hourly Blackpool and Lancaster service - to give some variety in destinations - and the Lancaster extending to Scotland whenever it can be pathed further north, or even Carlisle, if useful at all. And yes that service could enable some others to drop stops, in theory.

I think the Barrow, Windermere and even Morecambe lines could give Liverpool more diverse destinations - but yes none are wired. Although certainly the last two are short and battery solves could work. And harmonizing some of the routes vs some of the Manchester ones into hourly would be useful too.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It used to have one an hour (from Southport). But it's an easy change at Oxford Road or Victoria (depending which timing suits). TBH it's not a well-off place so I suspect the low-costs at Liverpool Airport are preferred anyway.

Wigan (also helping Liverpool) was well-served by the Manchester-Scotland EMU services when they were routed via Chat Moss.
When they were diverted via Bolton the substitute via Wigan was the Airport-Cumbria DMU service.
Now that goes via Bolton as well, Wigan is left with a peak hour shuttle via Chat Moss.
Liverpool does have the hourly Blackpool EMU with a Wigan or Preston change for the north.
Capacity seems to limit what they can do via St Helens Central.
More trains from the south into Lime St won't help capacity there either.
NPR via Warrington will change the picture, but not necessarily towards Scotland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, if there was a good quality, fast 2tph EMU service from Liverpool to Preston(->Blackpool) that would be enough. Lots of connections at Preston. Very little gained by continuing it to Lancaster at the expense of a London service that Lancastrians value.

At present it's only hourly fast and unreliable.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Capacity seems to limit what they can do via St Helens Central.
More trains from the south into Lime St won't help capacity there either.

I can't see a reason why the line via St Helens Central couldn't accommodate 2x fast and 2x stopper. It does in the hours when the Liverpool-Scotland TPE operates.

Very little gained by continuing it to Lancaster at the expense of a London service that Lancastrians value.

Agreed. If the Windermere branch were electrified I'd run it there, assuming there's the capacity between Preston and Oxenholme, but otherwise an extra Liverpool-Preston 'fast' would be plenty sufficient. All this talk of cutting London services to accommodate it seems a bit off.

 

[frodshamfella]

To be honest, if there was a good quality, fast 2tph EMU service from Liverpool to Preston(->Blackpool) that would be enough. Lots of connections at Preston. Very little gained by continuing it to Lancaster at the expense of a London service that Lancastrians value.

At present it's only hourly fast and unreliable.

I can vouch for that, Northern out of Lime Street is unreliable. If you want to go to Scotland by train or anywhere on Northern, you are best to go earlier than the connection advises, otherwise your whole plans go up the swanny.

a few more direct Scottish services would make a big difference for passengers.

 

[The Ham]

There was no need to say it as the figures are correct and the claim was that Liverpool is popular as Manchester for visitors. It isn't. Manchester scores higher than Liverpool on both the meaures cited. Your last comment is pure unevidenced assumption which could apply equally to Liverpool (or not, as there's no evidence for it).

Manchester is a more central city and as such it has a greater role as a rail hub in a way that Liverpool doesn't, purely due to location. Hence it gets more trains. It's not about the value or worth of either city.

The slight issue with Manchester is the hub so gets more trains is that whilst that's reasonable, that's not a reason to restrict Liverpool from having more train services.

Taking it to a slightly extreme example, a new line is built which would allow 16tph from Manchester or Liverpool, based on the above that's a good enough reason to give Manchester all 16 services and leave Liverpool as it is.

Taking that example of 16 paths becoming available, I get the impression that many on here wouldn't even be asking for it to be split 9:7 in favour of Manchester, yet alone 8:8. Rather they would like something better than 13:3 in favour of Manchester (which is comparable to the current services towards Scotland).

Much is said about there's services if you change, well if the timings were such that the Scotland bound services from Liverpool were quite separate from the time of those from Manchester, then those willing to change trains who are travelling from Manchester could also use those services.

Whilst direct trains will normally win out over changing, there will some who would change if it means a better arrival/departure time (even if the travel time is longer, just as long as the arrival time is earlier than waiting for the next direct service) and so even if that's 5 people an hour, that's 5 people an hour more that you can fit on the direct services from Manchester.

 

[mpthomson]

The slight issue with Manchester is the hub so gets more trains is that whilst that's reasonable, that's not a reason to restrict Liverpool from having more train services.

Taking it to a slightly extreme example, a new line is built which would allow 16tph from Manchester or Liverpool, based on the above that's a good enough reason to give Manchester all 16 services and leave Liverpool as it is.

Taking that example of 16 paths becoming available, I get the impression that many on here wouldn't even be asking for it to be split 9:7 in favour of Manchester, yet alone 8:8. Rather they would like something better than 13:3 in favour of Manchester (which is comparable to the current services towards Scotland).

Much is said about there's services if you change, well if the timings were such that the Scotland bound services from Liverpool were quite separate from the time of those from Manchester, then those willing to change trains who are travelling from Manchester could also use those services.

Whilst direct trains will normally win out over changing, there will some who would change if it means a better arrival/departure time (even if the travel time is longer, just as long as the arrival time is earlier than waiting for the next direct service) and so even if that's 5 people an hour, that's 5 people an hour more that you can fit on the direct services from Manchester.

I never said it was a reason to restrict trains to Liverpool. My point was to explain why it is that Manchester has more trains. More visitors and its a transport hub in a way that Liverpool simply can't be due to geography.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I never said it was a reason to restrict trains to Liverpool. My point was to explain why it is that Manchester has more trains. More visitors and its a transport hub in a way that Liverpool simply can't be due to geography.

The latter is probably the key reason. Liverpool isn't much use to connect to anywhere that isn't in the Liverpool City Region or West Lancashire (and many of those will choose to drive to Wigan or Preston if going to Scotland), whereas Manchester is a key connectional hub where people will use the Scotland services to go to all manner of places (including as far away as Milton Keynes, where the WCML stopping patterns often make this the most advantageous connection point, plus the civility of boarding at a terminus).

 

[frodshamfella]

Liverpool is a very popular visitor destination, that goes without saying. What isn't known is how many more would come if trains connections were better, plus those who would leave their cars at home should they have a better rail alternative. Surely this is what we should be promoting for the future, if nothing else.