Future services for Liverpool Lime Street?

[driver_m]

If you want Gatwick from the North West it's as quick to go via London. But really why fly from Gatwick from the North West? If you want legacy airline long haul you can connect at Heathrow, and if you want easyJet there are other options more locally - even Luton (by car) is much easier.

Going through London's a nightmare with bags though. The amount of people that complain about having to cross London is considerable. Also until very recently, using Virgin Atlantic meant using Gatwick until the recent expansion at Manchester. So there is probably less reason.l now maybe though. Cost is still a Biggie though if you're using the price comparison sites and it's still cheaper via Gatwick than elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Going through London's a nightmare with bags though.

If that bothers you you have the option of Reading.

 

[Great_Western]

Leicester seems to suffer for XC type services due to its good main line services. Indeed it has poor links to the North East and the North West. At least Derby has a major XC presence, and Nottingham has services to Leeds and Manchester too. Leicester- Manchester for me would be a good route, including Derby to Manchester in that flow helps the case. However, taking it to Liverpool probably is a step too far. Just makes it way more difficult to path and crew etc. Whether it turns round at Sheffield or takes the curve is a question, probably Sheffield to provide a 3rd fast train. However paths into the South at Sheffield are now going to be in short supply seen as HS2 is going to come on the classic lines.

Perhaps the Derby - Crewe stopper could be extended at either end to provide an additional cross country service. You could run it semi fast to Derby calling at Loughborough, East Mids Parkway and Long Eaton. Then after Crewe it could continue to Liverpool stopping at South Parkway and Runcorn. Is something like this viable?

 

[HowardGWR]

A lot of these through services were achieved 80 years ago by attaching and detaching coaches by the big four companies to each others' trains. Would it not be a good idea to look more into joining and attaching voyager type units? Yes I know there aren't enough to do that at present, but the next franchise ITT should include these possibilities perhaps. I think it's a typical drawback of separate franchises that cross-franchise initiatives are not explored.

 

[YorkshireBear]

A lot of these through services were achieved 80 years ago by attaching and detaching coaches by the big four companies to each others' trains. Would it not be a good idea to look more into joining and attaching voyager type units? Yes I know there aren't enough to do that at present, but the next franchise ITT should include these possibilities perhaps. I think it's a typical drawback of separate franchises that cross-franchise initiatives are not explored.

I think the network is just too busy for that now a days. It works in some places but for xc i think not. Even realistically for gwr they are not splittin services on route. Simply leaving 5 behind and picking 5 up on the way. Very different to adding complexity to an already capaxity xc network.

 

[Class 170101]

Perhaps the Derby - Crewe stopper could be extended at either end to provide an additional cross country service. You could run it semi fast to Derby calling at Loughborough, East Mids Parkway and Long Eaton. Then after Crewe it could continue to Liverpool stopping at South Parkway and Runcorn. Is something like this viable?

I would agree with this idea. Why not extend it west to Liverpool and east to Nottingham to link with the Skegness service?

I expect the big problem would be crossing the Junctions at Crewe.

As for Leicester I have already suggested diverting the proposed second Corby service to Manchester with a shuttle between Kettering and Corby instead.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Liverpool doesn't even have decent connections to Bradford and Hull, let alone through workings, particularly in the evenings.

It would have taken me 5.5 hrs to get from Little Sutton to Ferriby last Saturday due to lousy connections at Leeds (where I had a 58 minute wait) and a 7-minute connection at Brough which was not held when the TPE was late. So I gave up on the train and caught the infrequent EYMS 155 bus. It thus took 5 hrs all told (4 hrs from Lime Street). It was just as quick coming back the pretty way via Goole and Castleford.

 

[Nean]

Liverpool doesn't even have decent connections to Bradford and Hull, let alone through workings, particularly in the evenings.

It would have taken me 5.5 hrs to get from Little Sutton to Ferriby last Saturday due to lousy connections at Leeds (where I had a 58 minute wait) and a 7-minute connection at Brough which was not held when the TPE was late. So I gave up on the train and caught the infrequent EYMS 155 bus. It thus took 5 hrs all told (4 hrs from Lime Street). It was just as quick coming back the pretty way via Goole and Castleford.

Well it would be quite hard to hold a Ferriby connection at Brough when both the TPE and Northern services involved would be on the same platform!

But yes, annoyingly the 1 through Hull-Liverpool service per day ceased to exist a fair few years ago (I'm guessing because it was an additional train having to cross the Piccadilly throat).

 

[Bletchleyite]

But yes, annoyingly the 1 through Hull-Liverpool service per day ceased to exist a fair few years ago (I'm guessing because it was an additional train having to cross the Piccadilly throat).

Probably also because consistent clockface timetables are generally preferable to odd once a day through trains that suit very few people. Mind you, National Express seems to make quite a solid business out of running, er, once a day through coaches that on the face of it would suit very few people. Perhaps it's because most coach travellers tend to be students or retired people who have more time for such things.

I wouldn't be dead against TPE using portion working using 3-car units (meaning 6 on the core sections), but that isn't the plan, the 5-car sets will work alone and most of the remaining 185s just be doubled up throughout.

 

[notlob.divad]

Gatwick was pretty good from the north if you swapped at MK or Watford. Till someone decided it was a good idea to cut back the southern service to East Croydon and take away most of the VT Watford & MK stops. Another change that benefitted southern commuters but screwed up connections for the rest of us.

Fully agree with this. WCML to SWML transfers (Watford to Clapham) was a great connection to avoid having to pile through the middle of London on the Underground from Euston to Waterloo. Then they stopped stopping the trains at Watford and you are forced to use the underground. Anything bigger than a small rucksack and it is ridiculous.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fully agree with this. WCML to SWML transfers (Watford to Clapham) was a great connection to avoid having to pile through the middle of London on the Underground from Euston to Waterloo. Then they stopped stopping the trains at Watford and you are forced to use the underground. Anything bigger than a small rucksack and it is ridiculous.

I know you have to pay, but try the 59/68 bus. No walking through tunnels, rarely too busy, not that slow and really quite scenic in places.

 

[notlob.divad]

I think the network is just too busy for that now a days. It works in some places but for xc i think not. Even realistically for gwr they are not splittin services on route. Simply leaving 5 behind and picking 5 up on the way. Very different to adding complexity to an already capaxity xc network.

Yet that is exactly what is being proposed for Liverpool's 'HS2' connection, splitting it from the Preston train at Crewe. There would be nothing wrong with Manchester and Liverpool XC services joining somewhere like Crewe, doubling up the length and capacity through the 'core' and then splitting again south of Birmingham.

 

[notlob.divad]

I know you have to pay, but try the 59/68 bus. No walking through tunnels, rarely too busy, not that slow and really quite scenic in places.

Why on earth would I do that? I take rail based transportation to avoid the traffic jams and sitting on all stops buses. Plus leaving the rail/underground system would invalidate my through ticket if I missed my connection.

If I want to sightsee around London I'll have a day trip out to London, but when I am trying to get somewhere that isn't London and am being forced miles out of my way by the stupidity of the all trains go to London that we have in the UK, then all I want to do is get out the other side ASAP. Cutting a useful stop so that London bound commuters don't pile onto a long distance train is the ultimate in putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why on earth would I do that?

For the reasons I outlined.

I take rail based transportation to avoid the traffic jams and sitting on all stops buses. Plus leaving the rail/underground system would invalidate my through ticket if I missed my connection.

If I want to sightsee around London I'll have a day trip out to London, but when I am trying to get somewhere that isn't London and am being forced miles out of my way by the stupidity of the all trains go to London that we have in the UK, then all I want to do is get out the other side ASAP. Cutting a useful stop so that London bound commuters don't pile onto a long distance train is the ultimate in putting the cart before the horse.

That was not the reason for cutting it, as they weren't allowed on it anyway and that was and is (on the one remaining VT per hour) policed. The reason was to speed the service up and create more paths.

You can now change to/from the Southern service at MKC by the way.

 

[Ianno87]

Why on earth would I do that? I take rail based transportation to avoid the traffic jams and sitting on all stops buses. Plus leaving the rail/underground system would invalidate my through ticket if I missed my connection.

If I want to sightsee around London I'll have a day trip out to London, but when I am trying to get somewhere that isn't London and am being forced miles out of my way by the stupidity of the all trains go to London that we have in the UK, then all I want to do is get out the other side ASAP. Cutting a useful stop so that London bound commuters don't pile onto a long distance train is the ultimate in putting the cart before the horse.

Alternatively:
-Train to Euston
-Easy 10 minute stroll to St Pancras
-Thameslink direct to Gatwick.

Simple!

 

[Ianno87]

For the reasons I outlined.



That was not the reason for cutting it, as they weren't allowed on it anyway and that was and is (on the one remaining VT per hour) policed. The reason was to speed the service up and create more paths.

You can now change to/from the Southern service at MKC by the way.

Alternatively:
-Train to Euston
-Easy 10 minute stroll to St Pancras
-Thameslink direct to Gatwick.

Simple!

Edit: Good for Gatwick - not so good for SWML. But agree, the 59/68/168 buses are frequent, direct and quick. Not 'sightseeing' at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Edit: Good for Gatwick - not so good for SWML. But agree, the 59/68/168 buses are frequent, direct and quick. Not 'sightseeing' at all.

Indeed (and rarely hit serious traffic). And while not *for* sightseeing, Waterloo Bridge has views as good as any in London.

 

[driver_m]

Why on earth would I do that? I take rail based transportation to avoid the traffic jams and sitting on all stops buses. Plus leaving the rail/underground system would invalidate my through ticket if I missed my connection.

If I want to sightsee around London I'll have a day trip out to London, but when I am trying to get somewhere that isn't London and am being forced miles out of my way by the stupidity of the all trains go to London that we have in the UK, then all I want to do is get out the other side ASAP. Cutting a useful stop so that London bound commuters don't pile onto a long distance train is the ultimate in putting the cart before the horse.

Bus? No thanks. Couldn't agree more. The last thing you want after 2 or 3 hours on a train is to traipse onto a bus with a load of luggage. To then get another train. Joined up transport is exactly what we need on this country, but do a half-arsed job of it. To be able to either go directly by long distance train, or ideally at most a single change. The bus might be ok if you're in the home counties, but not any further. Too much mithering.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bus? No thanks. Couldn't agree more. The last thing you want after 2 or 3 hours on a train is to traipse onto a bus with a load of luggage. To then get another train. Joined up transport is exactly what we need on this country, but do a half-arsed job of it. To be able to either go directly by long distance train, or ideally at most a single change. The bus might be ok if you're in the home counties, but not any further. Too much mithering.

Before triggering a "by default" "buses are rubbish" rant, how about trying the one concerned? The 59/68 are about as integrated (other than ticketing, but it's a couple of quid well spent) as you get and are nice and quick. From right outside Euston to right outside Waterloo. You'd walk as far changing from VT to Southern at Watford then at Clapham.

 

[driver_m]

Before triggering a "by default" "buses are rubbish" rant, how about trying the one concerned? The 59/68 are about as integrated (other than ticketing, but it's a couple of quid well spent) as you get and are nice and quick. From right outside Euston to right outside Waterloo. You'd walk as far changing from VT to Southern at Watford then at Clapham.

I can walk quicker to Tavistock square than it takes for those buses to get there. Be realistic, if I said to my family, We do this and this, they're just going to pull their faces. People do not like crossing London if they're not used to it. Holds no fears for me but I know the system. Put yourself in the shoes of Mary & Nigel who've never been before. It's daunting, especially when your constantly fed tales of how miserable and ignorant people are on the transport

 

[6Gman]

Yet that is exactly what is being proposed for Liverpool's 'HS2' connection, splitting it from the Preston train at Crewe. There would be nothing wrong with Manchester and Liverpool XC services joining somewhere like Crewe, doubling up the length and capacity through the 'core' and then splitting again south of Birmingham.

Until one of them is running 20" late (for whatever reason) and then what happens? Leave the on-time portion sitting in Platform at Crewe for twenty minutes? Leave it outside for twenty minutes?

Resilience is a key word on our crowded railway and portion working introduces huge risk.

 

[6Gman]

Bus? No thanks. Couldn't agree more. The last thing you want after 2 or 3 hours on a train is to traipse onto a bus with a load of luggage. To then get another train. Joined up transport is exactly what we need on this country, but do a half-arsed job of it. To be able to either go directly by long distance train, or ideally at most a single change. The bus might be ok if you're in the home counties, but not any further. Too much mithering.

Given the choice between tube and bus I'd usually choose the bus. Less walking, less crowded, plenty of luggage space.

And a view!

 

[6Gman]

I would agree with this idea. Why not extend it west to Liverpool and east to Nottingham to link with the Skegness service?

I expect the big problem would be crossing the Junctions at Crewe.

As for Leicester I have already suggested diverting the proposed second Corby service to Manchester with a shuttle between Kettering and Corby instead.

And platforming.

 

[notlob.divad]

Until one of them is running 20" late (for whatever reason) and then what happens? Leave the on-time portion sitting in Platform at Crewe for twenty minutes? Leave it outside for twenty minutes?

Resilience is a key word on our crowded railway and portion working introduces huge risk.

So why is it being proposed for the brand shiny new HS2? Specifically for services that will be running off the classic network where they are most likely to be delayed.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The huge risks can be minimised by good diagramming. For example, if the same two units where scheduled to split and join with each other easy to timetable for something like Manchester and Liverpool where it takes similar times to go to and from each destination, then any prior delays are induced in both units, so only delays in the relatively short shuttle runs to the destinations.

 

[notlob.divad]

The reason was to speed the service up and create more paths.

And thats absolutly fine when you have a train from everywhere to everywhere. But as you suggest the and I agree, that clockface regular timetables makes train travel attractive, then you need to have the most comprehensive web of services possible which means not ignoring major interchanges stations just to focus on minimum 'to London' journey times.

You can now change to/from the Southern service at MKC by the way.

The train I get doesn't stop there anymore either.

 

[notlob.divad]

Before triggering a "by default" "buses are rubbish" rant, how about trying the one concerned? The 59/68 are about as integrated (other than ticketing, but it's a couple of quid well spent) as you get and are nice and quick. From right outside Euston to right outside Waterloo. You'd walk as far changing from VT to Southern at Watford then at Clapham.

If I was going to travel across between terminal rail stations London by any method other than rail based I would hire one of those blue bikes. But the point I was trying to make is that the only reason I have to travel across London at all is the stupid 'everyone change in London' mentality the UK posesses. Both fastest and cheapest routes of any significance, almost always involve changing in London, meaning we are force people to travel along the busiest routes of the country rather than finding ways of encouraging them to bypass London all together.

As this is a thread dedicated to Liverpool, I will say that the city gets an appauling service level for a city of it's size. There is 1 through train per hour south of Birmingham and the only place it stops is London Euston. The trains to Birmingham stop at every none suburban station. It currently has no service North (WCML) of Preston (and when it finally gets one reinstated it will only be 3 times a day not the regular hourly service that it needs), and absolutly no trains to Wales, despite having more Welsh people living there than the majority of other English cities combined (and a few Welsh ones). I fully agree that 1 XC service an hour should divert to Liverpool instead or as well as Manchester and give Liverpool an Express service to Birmingam that continues through to the South. There should also be regular hourly services to both Hull and Derby. That should be a minimum requirement.

People don't mind changing trains on principle, what puts them off is excessive changes, and changing in unfamilier places. Therefore a maximum of connecting in the closest city to the start and closest city to the destination should be the target. Meaning any major town in the country can access any other major town in the country with a Maximum of 2 changes. By definition therefore, every city should be connected by regular direct trains to every other city.

 

[notlob.divad]

Bus? No thanks. Couldn't agree more. The last thing you want after 2 or 3 hours on a train is to traipse onto a bus with a load of luggage. To then get another train. Joined up transport is exactly what we need on this country, but do a half-arsed job of it. To be able to either go directly by long distance train, or ideally at most a single change. The bus might be ok if you're in the home counties, but not any further. Too much mithering.

Agreed, in the joined up transport debate, buses should be focused on the start and ends of the journey, a bus from your local stop to the station and then the reverse at the other end. Using them as an intermediate step between 2 trains is a none starter.

 

[6Gman]

So why is it being proposed for the brand shiny new HS2? Specifically for services that will be running off the classic network where they are most likely to be delayed.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The huge risks can be minimised by good diagramming. For example, if the same two units where scheduled to split and join with each other easy to timetable for something like Manchester and Liverpool where it takes similar times to go to and from each destination, then any prior delays are induced in both units, so only delays in the relatively short shuttle runs to the destinations.

1. I have no idea. I wouldn't do it personally, but remarkably they haven't sought my advice.
2. What you describe is not "diagramming" and is a bit confused, but you seem to be saying that because Liverpool and Manchester are a similar distance from Crewe then any delays would be "induced" in both units. How? If somebody slips on the platform at Runcorn how does that delay the Manchester train? If the Manchester train is stuck behind a sick 175 at Wilmslow how does that induce a delay for the Liverpool?

 

[fowler9]

If I was going to travel across between terminal rail stations London by any method other than rail based I would hire one of those blue bikes. But the point I was trying to make is that the only reason I have to travel across London at all is the stupid 'everyone change in London' mentality the UK posesses. Both fastest and cheapest routes of any significance, almost always involve changing in London, meaning we are force people to travel along the busiest routes of the country rather than finding ways of encouraging them to bypass London all together.

As this is a thread dedicated to Liverpool, I will say that the city gets an appauling service level for a city of it's size. There is 1 through train per hour south of Birmingham and the only place it stops is London Euston. The trains to Birmingham stop at every none suburban station. It currently has no service North (WCML) of Preston (and when it finally gets one reinstated it will only be 3 times a day not the regular hourly service that it needs), and absolutly no trains to Wales, despite having more Welsh people living there than the majority of other English cities combined (and a few Welsh ones). I fully agree that 1 XC service an hour should divert to Liverpool instead or as well as Manchester and give Liverpool an Express service to Birmingam that continues through to the South. There should also be regular hourly services to both Hull and Derby. That should be a minimum requirement.

People don't mind changing trains on principle, what puts them off is excessive changes, and changing in unfamilier places. Therefore a maximum of connecting in the closest city to the start and closest city to the destination should be the target. Meaning any major town in the country can access any other major town in the country with a Maximum of 2 changes. By definition therefore, every city should be connected by regular direct trains to every other city.

I kind of broadly agree and I'm not entirely happy with it but I do understand the reasons. The only real Inter City trains we get are the ones to London which makes it feel a bit of a Branch Line, there are many cities that are broadly the same though. The only Inter City style trains that Manchester gets that we don't are Voyagers and they aren't exactly amazing. Liverpool and Manchester both get loads of jam packed Desiros. I think a massive problem is house prices and where jobs are situated and how the whole dynamic has changed. So many people having to make crazy commutes just so they can afford a house and have a job. And even that is a crazy simplification as of course people could uproot their entire family away from their support networks etc. as family and friends can provide a lot of support that the government would have to pay a fortune for. To simplify even further I don't think our current situation is a railway problem, it is a societal problem. I use Liverpool South Parkway most days around the commute time and the shear number of people commuting to Cheshire and Manchester to work is insane.