HS2 advert - red face!

[AndrewE]

Reported in Liverpool and manchester, but apparently not down south: (https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/sign-london-euston-corrected-after-30256855)

A sign at London Euston train station is set to be corrected after the wording was seen to ignore one of Liverpool's proudest achievements.

An eagle-eyed traveller contacted the ECHO to raise his concerns about the signage, which is advertising the High Speed 2 rail project at London Euston. HS2 will provide high speed rail connections between London and Birmingham - but not to the north of England after the previous Conservative government controversially scrapped the northern leg last year.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[DarloRich]

Liverpool to Manchester is a local train. It might be between two cities but isn't "intercity". By that definition the metro is an "intercity" service!

( tin hat on)

 

[cool110]

They could have at least capitalised InterCity to use the argument that Liverpool - Manchester was Regional Railways under BR sectorisation.

 

[AndrewE]

Liverpool to Manchester is a local train. It might be between two cities but isn't "intercity". By that definition the metro is an "intercity" service!
( tin hat on)

No, we can't possibly justify fast services between cities in the provinces, can we?

Whatever the quality of the current services you can't deny that back then Liverpool and Manchester were vital to the UK economy, even if Liverpool wasn't actually designated a city until later. (Was it half of all world trade went through Liverpool a few hundred years ago?)

 

[AlterEgo]

Neither Liverpool nor Manchester were cities when the line opened, but, happily, neither was Birmingham!

 

[renegademaster]

They could have at least capitalised InterCity to use the argument that Liverpool - Manchester was Regional Railways under BR sectorisation.

In 1838?

 

[zwk500]

Liverpool to Manchester is a local train. It might be between two cities but isn't "intercity". By that definition the metro is an "intercity" service!

( tin hat on)

Liverpool to Manchester can (and should) be served by trains continuing past Manchester to, e.g., Leeds, York and Newcastle or Sheffield and Nottingham. Both places are large enough and economically active enough to justify fast connections between the city centres.

 

[Howardh]

Do any timetables of the first "Intercity" services still exist? Love to see one of (around) the very first time you could get from Manchester to London direct!

 

[43066]

What a pathetic thing to get het up enough about to feel the need to ask for a correction. It seems a certain “eagle-eyed traveller” has too much time on their hands!

 

[Topological]

Is it now High Speed Two?

All the other numbers in the photo are written as numerals, where the High Speed Two is using words.

 

[AndrewE]

What a pathetic thing to get het up enough about to feel the need to ask for a correction. It seems a certain “eagle-eyed traveller” has too much time on their hands!

It's not really. If you live outside London you get sick of the Establishment's assumption that London is and always has been the centre of the world, which is why people are quick to call this sort of thing out! (Especially given the clear evidence that the establishment think that London is the most important place in the country to look after...)

 

[JordR]

(Especially given the clear evidence that the establishment think that London is the most important place in the country to look after...)

Almost like it's seven times larger than the next largest city in the country?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Do any timetables of the first "Intercity" services still exist? Love to see one of (around) the very first time you could get from Manchester to London direct!

A copy of the March 1850 Bradshaw has been re-printed. The Trent Valley Line opened in 1847, earlier 'through' services ran via Birmingham and reversed at Curzon Street where the former Grand Junction and London & Birmingham termini were adjacent. In 1850 there seems to have been one semi-fast 'day train' opportunity to Manchester from Euston, depart 10:00a.m., arrive at Manchester 4:45p.m. after a change at Crewe. This was a connection off the 'Scottish' day train. There is some suggestion in G P Neele's Railway Reminiscences that such through trains as there were tended to go to/from Liverpool. (Neele was the long-serving Superintendent of the Line for the L&NW and produced an amazing chronological narrative over more than40 years.)
Even at possibly slower speeds north of the West Midlands HS2 should be able to do better than that.

 

[edwin_m]

Not too sure why HS2 promotion is still present at Euston anyway, considering the uncertainty about whether and when it will get there.

 

[greatkingrat]

Neither Liverpool nor Manchester were cities when the line opened, but, happily, neither was Birmingham!

And Euston is not in either the City of London, or the City of Westminster!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Neither Liverpool nor Manchester were cities when the line opened, but, happily, neither was Birmingham!

In 1830 the Liverpool & Manchester Railway was the first main line passenger railway in the country/world.
By 1838 it became possible to travel from Euston to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool by train over the L&BR, GJR and L&MR.
To reach Liverpool and Manchester you had to change at Curzon St, and reaching Manchester involved reversal at Newton Jn (Earlestown), as the junction faced Liverpool.
All these railways were built with finance raised mostly in Liverpool.

 

[DarloRich]

It's not really. If you live outside London you get sick of the Establishment's assumption that London is and always has been the centre of the world, which is why people are quick to call this sort of thing out! (Especially given the clear evidence that the establishment think that London is the most important place in the country to look after...)

and if you live in London I am sure you get sick of the pointless, chippy, provincialism of the hicks in the sticks!

 

[AndrewE]

and if you live in London I am sure you get sick of the pointless, chippy, provincialism of the hicks in the sticks!

but you can ignore it: most will be completely unaware of the resentment (not 'pointless, chippy, provincialism') as they swan around with their £1.70 bus fares, Freedom passes at 60, a dense railway network with trains every few minutes on most lines...
meanwhile, out in the sticks I have an hourly bus on the few remaining routes - which are being whittled away almost weekly, our fares are going up to £3, Northern is so strapped for cash or ineptly managed that cancellations got onto the R4 Today programme...
Yet our taxes are the same or higher than Londoners... just as an example, remind me of the difference between Westminster and Cheshire East council tax?

 

[DarloRich]

but you can ignore it: most will be completely unaware of the resentment (not 'pointless, chippy, provincialism') as they swan around with their £1.70 bus fares, Freedom passes at 60, a dense railway network with trains every few minutes on most lines...
meanwhile, out in the sticks I have an hourly bus on the few remaining routes - which are being whittled away almost weekly, our fares are going up to £3, Northern is so strapped for cash or ineptly managed that cancellations got onto the R4 Today programme...
Yet our taxes are the same or higher than Londoners... just as an example, remind me of the difference between Westminster and Cheshire East council tax?

I lived in North Yorkshire where the last bus left in 1963.................

(PS hook line and sinker)

 

[J-2739]

Liverpool to Manchester is a local train. It might be between two cities but isn't "intercity". By that definition the metro is an "intercity" service!

( tin hat on)

I guess 'locality' is just a function of time. With much slower journey times, I'm sure back then the Liverpool to Manchester felt just as intercity as a London to York service today.

When HS2 brings London-Birmingham journey times close to the current Liverpool-Manchester times, would you state that this journey would no longer qualify as intercity?

 

[JordR]

There's a "dense railway network" because there's a dense population. There are cheaper bus fares because there are greater economies of scale. If you choose to live "in the sticks" those are things you don't get.

 

[renegademaster]

with their £1.70 bus

Are busses being 30p cheaper where loading is substantially more than basically everywhere else in the country such an injustice?

 

[Indigo Soup]

And Euston is not in either the City of London, or the City of Westminster!

By an exceedingly pedantic definition, the District Line is an intercity railway, but the Great Western Main Line is only intercity from Bath to Bristol.

Though the pedantic view does do a pretty good job of capturing the benefit of the Highland Chieftain. It serves six cities that would otherwise require a change of trains, and incidentally also serves the Central Scotland to Southeast England market.

If you choose to live "in the sticks" those are things you don't get.

A city of over a million people is not 'in the sticks' by any reasonable definition. A combined population of at least five million in the four contiguous urban areas of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield is very considerable indeed.

 

[Crithylum]

By an exceedingly pedantic definition, the District Line is an intercity railway, but the Great Western Main Line is only intercity from Bath to Bristol.

Incorrect. Paddington is within the City of Westminster. Although Paddington isn't really within what most people will classify as Westminster; it just so happened that Paddington was merged with Westminster in the 60s

 

[matchmaker]

Liverpool to Manchester is a local train. It might be between two cities but isn't "intercity". By that definition the metro is an "intercity" service!

( tin hat on)

The 1970s push pull services between Edinburgh and Glasgow (similar distance) had the coaches branded "Inter City"...

 

[Howardh]

A copy of the March 1850 Bradshaw has been re-printed. The Trent Valley Line opened in 1847, earlier 'through' services ran via Birmingham and reversed at Curzon Street where the former Grand Junction and London & Birmingham termini were adjacent. In 1850 there seems to have been one semi-fast 'day train' opportunity to Manchester from Euston, depart 10:00a.m., arrive at Manchester 4:45p.m. after a change at Crewe. This was a connection off the 'Scottish' day train. There is some suggestion in G P Neele's Railway Reminiscences that such through trains as there were tended to go to/from Liverpool. (Neele was the long-serving Superintendent of the Line for the L&NW and produced an amazing chronological narrative over more than40 years.)
Even at possibly slower speeds north of the West Midlands HS2 should be able to do better than that.

Thanks - 6.5 hrs, I wonder what on-board facilities passengers had?! I expect third had to sit on benches in the open air, but what of the others?

 

[norbitonflyer]

Incorrect. Paddington is within the City of Westminster. Although Paddington isn't really within what most people will classify as Westminster; it just so happened that Paddington was merged with Westminster in the 60s

So it wasn't intercity when it opened

 

[RailWonderer]

No, we can't possibly justify fast services between cities in the provinces, can we?

Whatever the quality of the current services you can't deny that back then Liverpool and Manchester were vital to the UK economy, even if Liverpool wasn't actually designated a city until later. (Was it half of all world trade went through Liverpool a few hundred years ago?)

Liverpool - Manchester gets 3 fast tph, the TPE Liverpool - Cleethorpes and the Liverpool - Newcastle and the EMR Liverpool - Norwich. The issue is not speed (though I would say Birchwood, Irlam and Urmston should be removed from a fast TPE and served by a better local service) but the quality and capacity of these services.

 

[43066]

It's not really. If you live outside London you get sick of the Establishment's assumption that London is and always has been the centre of the world, which is why people are quick to call this sort of thing out! (Especially given the clear evidence that the establishment think that London is the most important place in the country to look after...)

This is just a bit of marketing puff about a new line from London to Birmingham, though. It isn’t intended for close scrutiny and indeed, if you really drill into it, it doesn’t make sense to refer to the 1838 train as intercity because, as noted above, it wasn’t between two cities at the time, and the BR InterCity brand being referenced only started in the latter part of the twentieth century. So it’s a little hard to see why people in Liverpool should feel slighted by something so obviously trivial.

and if you live in London I am sure you get sick of the pointless, chippy, provincialism of the hicks in the sticks!

I maintain this is a very odd thing to get annnoyed about!

They have a point about the poor transport options in many parts of the UK, but it’s also true that voters in the regions have consistently voted for politicians who have prioritised roads and car ownership over local integrated public transport networks.

 

[renegademaster]

What was the stopping pattern for the first London -Brum and Manchester-Liverpool trains, which one had limited stop services first?