Haha! But the view from Manchester hey?
The subject was brought up though in relation to the spending of 50 odd bill on HS2. Rather than just rationalising services and using the line capacity better. I really disagree that three trains an hour is the right level for Manchester, I really don't think it is, especially if there are able to be interchange options from better service patterns.
If the average Liverpool train is 75% full and the average Manchester train is 50% full there are TWICE the number of passengers travelling to Manchester as to Liverpool (3tph vs. 1tph). Making each service 2tph would make Liverpool trains 37.5% full and Manchester trains 75% full.
As pointed out by other posters there is no airline operating between Liverpool and London. National Express list 11 daily trips. Between London and Manchester there are 8 flights per day to Heathrow and National Express list 13 daily trips. I interpret this as meaning that the scope for a reduced Manchester service to lose traffic to other modes is significant, whilst there is little scope for additional Liverpool services eating into traffic currently using other modes.
You suggest that Wilmslow could do without its hourly train. Your posting (@#166) "With respect to Wilmslow, a small town doesn't necessarily warrant a direct link to London" ignores that this small town of more than 30,000 people acts as a railhead for a whole sweep of South Manchester and North Cheshire. It is an area disproportionately populated by those more likely to switch to airline rather than catch the local to Crewe and to change there. Passengers lost would be disproportionately first class ticket holders (George Osbourne seemingly excepted!). Wilmslow is also the natural point at which business traffic from 'Airport City Manchester', "a £800 million expansion of Manchester Airport currently under construction. The plan will follow an airport city model with the aim of stimulating the Greater Manchester economy by creating on-site logistics, manufacturing, office and leisure facilities" would most easily access the main line to London.
At posting #175 you make the comment that "but less explainable are large numbers of people going to Preston from London. Could it be used as a railhead for north Manchester and Liverpool areas? Where do they all disperse to if they are not still on the train when it departs Preston?" Perhaps they go to the Fylde or East Lancashire or even Preston itself? Why would people travel via Preston, on a train which will have called at Wigan if their destination is North Manchester or North Liverpool? Again "High numbers at Preston for Scotland has got to be Liverpool passengers who don't have a direct service" - why wouldn't they change at Wigan, unless they are all cramming onto the Ormskirk shuttle?
There may be a case for enhancing service provision to Liverpool but doing this at the expense of Manchester would be wrong. The railway geography, the competitive situation and the overall level of demand argue against it. I suspect that those specifying and providing services will continue to agree with me for a long time to come.
If the words "Haha! But the view from Manchester hey?" are indicative of this thread (which was originally about the GNWR development) descending into a sterile Merseyside versus Greater Manchester spat then count me out!
) if I lived at Blackpool and wanted a fast cheap ticket service to the London area, I would not care twopence if the train got me to Euston or Queens Park. The Bakerloo is at hand and buses, so good enough. I presume that NWR, or whatever they will be called, has done the market research?