Should there be more Liverpool to Scotland services?

[biggerisbetter]

That is true but also the size difference in Manchester's urban area and Liverpool makes no sense to me it'd make a lot more sense to compare Merseyside/LCR and Greater Manchester/Urban Area

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Feb 2024 ==

But the populations of he respective city regions is too simplistic an approach. What ultimately matters based on how the railway is currently run is where the greatest ticket revenue will be but also how this can be obtained in the most efficient way.

Obviously there will be a correlation to population but other factors will be areas outside of those city regions that would also connect via a service to that city region. For Liverpool this will be fairly minimal as lots of places such as North Wales and Chester would travel to Scotland via Crewe but for Manchester there is a fair population in places outside of the city region such as Buxton, Wilmslow, Glossop etc. that would connect to services to Scotland via Manchester and even Huddersfield for Glasgow services. When you add in that Manchester has more tourist visitors, a larger service sector economy generating business trips, more students and an international airport it becomes evident that there will be a much greater demand from the city than Liverpool. Running a service to Manchester also allows serving Bolton (3m passengers per year) compared to St Helens (0.5m passengers per year) again adds another benefit in Manchester's favour.

You obviously also need to consider the logistics and practicalities of running the service. Where are the depots based? How much ECS running would be needed to provide additional services? When considering this and that passengers will change trains for the most part is there is no direct service, does the loss of revenue resulting from requiring passengers from Liverpool to change outweigh the additional cost of running more direct services, if you do have the rolling stock and staff to provide additional services and if you don't, the loss of revenue from reducing services to Manchester. A slightly simplistic approach I appreciate but more complex than providing services proportionate to a city's population

On that basis you can start to see why there is the current disparity in services. Don't get me wrong, I do think Liverpool would benefit from additional services but simply comparing the populations of the city regions is too simplistic an approach.

The way I would like to see this done is through a nationalised railway that can take a more holistic approach to the provision of services working more closely with local authorities and/or through a larger West Coast operation including the Transpennine Scottish services and West Midlands Trains London Euston and Liverpool to Birmingham services allowing a greater base of units and crew at Liverpool for potential additional Scottish services.

 

[Sorcerer]

I can't speak for the Manchester services, but having finally had the opportunity to ride a 397 on one of the two daily trains from Liverpool to Glasgow yesterday, in my anecdotal experience there doesn't seem to me much demand for more Liverpool to Scotland services. It was a little busy southbound, but at no point was the carriage cramming up, and on both occasions I had an entire table to myself with several available seats all around. On what is simply a twice daily service in a five car train, one of which was during the morning peak, I think it's safe to say the trains would be much emptier during the day. Plus, Manchester Airport is an international hub of the north so tourists travelling up to Scotland or the Lake District might land there and take a train since it's right next door. However, I must again be clear that my experience is merely anecdotal.

 

[cle]

I don't see why Manchester has to play a part here (and I love Manchester and am very fond of it) - the comparison isn't needed. It has its own hourly service to Scotland, that is settled.

This is about Liverpool - Scotland, and to a degree, demand for another service up and down the Northern WCML from Wigan up, and the value of that.

Put another way, from a Scotland down perspective; if there was a need for a Scotland-Preston additional hourly (with whichever stopping pattern) - Liverpool as a spur might be the easiest place to terminate it. Preston is full, Manchester is messy re Castlefield (Victoria might work) - another place would be Crewe.

But Liverpool has additional value, being a large place with plenty of in and outbound demand. And likely suppressed demand for better direct services, which has also proven correct on the Halton Chester service, and I imagine, will explode with the direct North Wales extension, and probably Cardiff access too. And Manchester (and its airport) is nothing to do with any of that.

 

[BeijingDave]

Manchester's GDP is £28.2 billion (2021)
Liverpool's GDP is £14.2bn

The data is from the city's own councils

Investing In Success - Manchester's new economic strategy unveiled | Manchester City Council

Investing In Success - Manchester's new economic strategy unveiled - Manchester City Council has announced its latest economic strategy.

www.manchester.gov.uk

To say, "I certainly would suggest Manchester caters for more people staying overnight etc but that is down to three things only, the entertainment industry (concerts / theatre shows etc), the two football clubs and the Airport too rather than anything else" is not accurate. Manchester is a massive business city.

As I have said since the start of this thread, Liverpool has significant attractions and its service to Scotland and London is poor for a big city, but those who suggest it would be equal to Manchester in terms of demand to go there are delusional. Unfortunately nowadays it is 'junior partner' to Manchester's de facto (if not official) capital of the North West status.

 

[Ellis101]

Liverpool as a spur might be the easiest place to terminate it. Preston is full, Manchester is messy re Castlefield (Victoria might work) - another place would be Crewe.

But Liverpool has additional value, being a large place with plenty of in and outbound demand. And likely suppressed demand for better direct services, which has also proven correct on the Halton Chester service, and I imagine, will explode with the direct North Wales extension, and probably Cardiff access too. And Manchester (and its airport) is nothing to do with any of that.

Liverpool would definitely be the easiest place to terminate it.
I think what Liverpool is crying out for and the WCML in general is a Lumo style service to Edinburgh running along the 3tpd to Glasgow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2024 ==

I can't speak for the Manchester services, but having finally had the opportunity to ride a 397 on one of the two daily trains from Liverpool to Glasgow yesterday, in my anecdotal experience there doesn't seem to me much demand for more Liverpool to Scotland services. It was a little busy southbound, but at no point was the carriage cramming up, and on both occasions I had an entire table to myself with several available seats all around. On what is simply a twice daily service in a five car train, one of which was during the morning peak, I think it's safe to say the trains would be much emptier during the day. Plus, Manchester Airport is an international hub of the north so tourists travelling up to Scotland or the Lake District might land there and take a train since it's right next door. However, I must again be clear that my experience is merely anecdotal.

That is not surprising and although you could just say I'm just doing a "trust me bro" perspective here a lot of people still don't know the Glasgow service exists at all because they just barely see the service its self, plus I cant ever recall TPE ever directly advertising the service. So people just continue to go to Scotland the traditional way like me using Avanti because it's extremely useful having the ability to somewhat choose what timeframe you want to be back within a 1/2hr period instead of 4/5hr (exactly why I dont and cant use the direct service)

 

[yorksrob]

So essentially, the metrics being pointed out seem to suggest that the Liverpool catchment has about two thirds of the population, half of the economic clout etc.

This seems to suggest that a four carriage portion attached to the Manchester service every two hours would be about right.

 

[Djgr]

Manchester's GDP is £28.2 billion (2021)
Liverpool's GDP is £14.2bn

The data is from the city's own councils

Investing In Success - Manchester's new economic strategy unveiled | Manchester City Council

Investing In Success - Manchester's new economic strategy unveiled - Manchester City Council has announced its latest economic strategy.

www.manchester.gov.uk

To say, "I certainly would suggest Manchester caters for more people staying overnight etc but that is down to three things only, the entertainment industry (concerts / theatre shows etc), the two football clubs and the Airport too rather than anything else" is not accurate. Manchester is a massive business city.

As I have said since the start of this thread, Liverpool has significant attractions and its service to Scotland and London is poor for a big city, but those who suggest it would be equal to Manchester in terms of demand to go there are delusional. Unfortunately nowadays it is 'junior partner' to Manchester's de facto (if not official) capital of the North West status.

I don't think that anybody has claimed that Liverpool is equal to Manchester from a numbers point of view (obviously the beaches in Manchester are pretty lame!).

Assuming the numbers you quote are accurate (and they appear to relate only to the city councils rather than meaningful economic/political regions e
g. Liverpool City Region), it suggests that for every two trains Manchester has Liverpool should have one.

I don't think anyone in Liverpool would object to that...and this is generally a million miles away from the current provision e.g. Scotland, London, Cardiff, Bristol

 

[Krokodil]

but those who suggest it would be equal to Manchester in terms of demand to go there are delusional

Could you provide any direct quotes where posters have said that? Most posts I can see are asking for two-hourly at best - half of what Manchester gets.

 

[Djgr]

Liverpool would definitely be the easiest place to terminate it.
I think what Liverpool is crying out for and the WCML in general is a Lumo style service to Edinburgh running along the 3tpd to Glasgow.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Feb 2024 ==


That is not surprising and although you could just say I'm just doing a "trust me bro" perspective here a lot of people still don't know the Glasgow service exists at all because they just barely see the service its self, plus I cant ever recall TPE ever directly advertising the service. So people just continue to go to Scotland the traditional way like me using Avanti because it's extremely useful having the ability to somewhat choose what timeframe you want to be back within a 1/2hr period instead of 4/5hr (exactly why I dont and cant use the direct service)

I'm not sure Lumo is the long term solution for anything

 

[wilbers]

I'm not sure Lumo is the long term solution for anything

There is this which is being discussed on another thread.

How could Lumo expand/develop/improve?

I did actually wonder about that - I couldn't remember if they had 'last mile' diesels or not. Definately just battery, but I am not sure if they can move far or if they is just to keep the lights on so to speak. I am not sure for example if the power failed, if the batteries would have enough...

www.railforums.co.uk

MSN

A new train service between London and Glasgow could be launched next year.

Transport company FirstGroup announced its plan for some London-Edinburgh services run by its Lumo brand to be extended to and from Glasgow.

Direct trains between London and Glasgow are currently operated by Avanti West Coast.

 

[urbophile]

We could, in our haste to look at reasons to visit Liverpool, be looking at this the wrong way.

Maybe there just isn't as much demand from people in the Liverpool area to travel outwards to other parts of the country, for business and leisure reasons? (except Chester and North Wales, which seem to attract a lot of leisure travel from Merseyside)

I would be interested to see how frequently the average Liverpudlian makes a trip to London or Scotland compared to the average Mancunian. I bet it's less on average, even before factoring in availability of trains.

How would you find that out? What is an 'average' Mancunian (bearing in mind it also includes Boltonian, Oldhamian, Rochdalian, Stockportian etc)? Possibly Manchester has a rather higher proportion than Liverpool of business-type people who would travel fairly regularly to the capital... though only relatively, as Liverpool has many. Be that as it may, the need for Liverpool to have more London trains has already been accepted by the PTB (powers that be); as for Scotland, the more trains there are the more people are likely to travel.

 

[mpthomson]

Yet Manchester gets 300% more direct Scottish services. Definitely worth doing some rebalancing. Not that hotel bedroom numbers are of any use to us unless we know how many of the occupants are Scottish. I suspect that the airport may distort the figures too, can you really count someone as a visitor to Manchester if all they are doing is booking into an airport hotel before a morning flight?

Again, because Manchester is a hub for rail, with services coming in from all directions from all over the country. Liverpool is essentially a terminus and not used for connections in the same way.

 

[Manutd1999]

I had a go at a mini re-cast of the north WCML and I reckon the following pattern would work, keeping the current freight paths and timings south of Preston more or less unchanged:

Hour 1:
(Manchester ) - Preston XX02 - Lancaster --------------- Penrith - Carlisle - Lockerbie - Edinburgh
(Liverpool ) - Preston XX06 - Lancaster - Oxenholme ----------- Carlisle --------------- Glasgow
(London ) ---- Preston XX37 - Lancaster -------------------------- Carlisle --------------- Glasgow
(Manchester ) - Preston XX41 - Lancaster - Barrow
(Birmingham) - Preston XX53 - Lancaster - Oxenholme ----------- Carlisle --------------- Edinburgh

Hour 2:
(Manchester ) - Preston XX02 - Lancaster --------------- Penrith - Carlisle - Lockerbie - Glasgow
(London ) ---- Preston XX37 - Lancaster -------------------------- Carlisle -------------- Glasgow
(Manchester ) - Preston XX41 - Lancaster - Oxenholme - Windemere
(Birmingham) - Preston XX53 - Lancaster ---------------- Penrith - Carlisle -------------- Glasgow

• Faster express to London, skipping both Oxenholme and Penrith.
• 2-hourly service from Manchester-Windemere, alternating with Barrow.
• Oxenholme stops removed from the Manchester-Scotland service, as these are covered by the Windemere 1p2h.
• 1p2h Liverpool-Glasgow.
• Reasonably well balanced timings given the constraints posed by the freight paths.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

How would you find that out? What is an 'average' Mancunian (bearing in mind it also includes Boltonian, Oldhamian, Rochdalian, Stockportian etc)?

The demonyms for persons from Oldham and Stockport are, in turn, Oldhamers and Stopfordians, aren't they?

 

[The Planner]

I had a go at a mini re-cast of the north WCML and I reckon the following pattern would work, keeping the current freight paths and timings south of Preston more or less unchanged:

Hour 1:
(Manchester ) - Preston XX01 - Lancaster --------------- Penrith - Carlisle - Lockerbie - Edinburgh
(Liverpool ) - Preston XX05 - Lancaster - Oxenholme ----------- Carlisle --------------- Glasgow
(London ) --- Preston XX37 - Lancaster -------------------------- Carlisle --------------- Glasgow
(Manchester ) - Preston XX40 - Lancaster - Barrow
(Birmingham) - Preston XX53 - Lancaster - Oxenholme ----------- Carlisle --------------- Edinburgh

Hour 2:
(Manchester ) - Preston XX01 - Lancaster --------------- Penrith - Carlisle - Lockerbie - Glasgow
(London ) --- Preston XX37 - Lancaster -------------------------- Carlisle -------------- Glasgow
(Manchester ) - Preston XX40 - Lancaster - Oxenholme - Windemere
(Birmingham) - Preston XX53 - Lancaster ---------------- Penrith - Carlisle -------------- Glasgow

• Faster express to London, skipping both Oxenholme and Penrith.
• 2-hourly service from Manchester-Windemere, alternating with Barrow.
• Oxenholme stops removed from the Manchester-Scotland service, as these are covered by the Windemere 1p2h.
• 1p2h Liverpool-Glasgow.
• Reasonably well balanced timings given the constraints posed by the freight paths.

That xx05 catches the xx01 at Lockerbie, which in itself doesnt work if its ran early from Manchester as it catches the Northern Blackpool. You cannot retime the Euston Glasgow earlier to xx37 as it clashes south of Rugby and with the Chester at Crewe. The xx40 would have to go at xx42/43 or it catches up at Lancaster as the xx37 (which doesnt work) is in the platform. Even if it didn't it would have to be xx41 due to the headway. Its not easy recasting!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I had a go at a mini re-cast of the north WCML and I reckon the following pattern would work, keeping the current freight paths and timings south of Preston more or less unchanged:

I don't think having no Oxenholme <-> Penrith service at all would be acceptable. In rural areas where bus services are thin on the ground there will be people who've built their lives up around being able to do that journey.

 

[Manutd1999]

That xx05 catches the xx01 at Lockerbie, which in itself doesnt work if its ran early from Manchester as it catches the Northern Blackpool.

The Manchester service arrives at Preston ~XX59 (it varies between hours....), so departing at XX01 could be possible without re-timing. Maybe XX02 to be safe. Between Carlisle and Carstairs the Liverpool service could have a small pathing allowance added, or longer dwell at Carlisle etc.

You cannot retime the Euston Glasgow earlier to xx37 as it clashes south of Rugby and with the Chester at Crewe.

I forgot to add, my re-cast also envisages that this service alternately calls at either Wigan or Warrington, not both. Hence it arrives a bit earlier at Preston. General idea being that this becomes a proper express service with fewer calls.

 

[urbophile]

The demonyms for persons from Oldham and Stockport are, in turn, Oldhamers and Stopfordians, aren't they?

Thanks for the correction. Being an adopted scouser from Yorkshire I wouldn't know!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I forgot to add, my re-cast also envisages that this service alternately calls at either Wigan or Warrington, not both. Hence it arrives a bit earlier at Preston. General idea being that this becomes a proper express service with fewer calls.

Similarly not acceptable to have no Wigan <-> Warrington service (it's bad enough that it's only hourly!). I think you're forgetting that the WCML carries a fair bit in the way of local traffic, probably a bit more than the ECML.

 

[A S Leib]

Similarly not acceptable to have no Wigan <-> Warrington service (it's bad enough that it's only hourly!). I think you're forgetting that the WCML carries a fair bit in the way of local traffic, probably a bit more than the ECML.

I'm assuming distributions are wrong, so I'm combining the numbers for North Western and Wallgate; between Warrington Bank Quay and Wigan, there's 10,014 passengers per year; more than Edinburgh, and not massively far off the Warrington to Birmingham New Street figure (12,122). WBQ – Crewe's slightly higher than it is to Birmingham, and only very slightly below Glasgow Central (13,153 and 13,185). Oxenholme has more passengers to / from Penrith (4300) than to / from either Birmingham New Street (3013) or Liverpool Lime Street (2710).

On the ECML, for Morpeth and Alnmouth it's Newcastle, Edinburgh, King's Cross (in that order), York, Durham with no other stations reaching 10,000 per year; Berwick had a similar pattern but with Newcastle and Edinburgh swapping and Glasgow ahead of Durham, so no significant ECML flows north of Newcastle apart from to / from Newcastle and beyond, and Edinburgh and Glasgow. There are some strong local traffic flows further south though, such as Peterborough – Grantham (ahead of Peterborough – Manchester, Sheffield and Gatwick).

 

[Manutd1999]

Similarly not acceptable to have no Wigan <-> Warrington service (it's bad enough that it's only hourly!).

An hourly connection would be continue to be provided by the Avanti Birmingham service. If more than this is required then it should really be covered by additional Northern services, maybe a Preston-Crewe stopper?

I don't think having no Oxenholme <-> Penrith service at all would be acceptable. In rural areas where bus services are thin on the ground there will be people who've built their lives up around being able to do that journey.

Fair point, this could be covered by the 1p2h Liverpool service. See V2 below:

Hour 1:

			London		Birmingham
Warrington BQ		Liverpool	xx		xx
Wigan NW	Manchester	xx	-	Manchester	xx
Preston	xx02	xx06	xx37	xx41	xx53
Lancaster	xx	xx	xx	xx	xx
Oxenholme	-	xx	-	Barrow	xx
Penrith	xx	xx	-		-
Carlisle	xx	xx	xx		xx
Lockerbie	xx	-	-		-
	Edinburgh	Glasgow	Glasgow		Edinburgh

Hour 2:

		London		Birmingham
Warrington BQ		-		xx
Wigan NW	Manchester	xx	Manchester	xx
Preston	xx02	xx37	xx41	xx53
Lancaster	xx	xx	xx	xx
Oxenholme	-	-	xx	-
Penrith	xx	-	Windemere	xx
Carlisle	xx	xx		xx
Lockerbie	xx	-		-
	Glasgow	Glasgow		Glasgow

 

[cle]

I would think in the 'other hour' - a Liverpool to either Barrow or Windermere service mightbe useful too. Although there is Liverpool-Blackpool of course.

I'd prefer sending all Barrow to Liverpool and all Windermere (hourly) to Manchester Airport and simplify it.

I don't think having no Oxenholme <-> Penrith service at all would be acceptable. In rural areas where bus services are thin on the ground there will be people who've built their lives up around being able to do that journey.

The Birmingham should cover this call - and W/W. At least Brummies in a hurry can fly to Scotland, unlike Mancs.

I forgot to add, my re-cast also envisages that this service alternately calls at either Wigan or Warrington, not both. Hence it arrives a bit earlier at Preston. General idea being that this becomes a proper express service with fewer calls.

If you want an earlier arrival, I would say we need non-stop Euston-Preston here.

Is there a world where the second Euston-Liverpool ran via Warrington BQ ever? Would it be much slower? Hartford and/or St Helens call worthwhile?

 

[stevieinselby]

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?

Another factor is that Manchester is a more convenient hub for a lot of people ... draw a circle around Manchester and there are several sizeable towns ... draw the same circle around Liverpool and half the population are fish

Yes, I would definitely like to see Liverpool be better served by cross-country type services – at the moment, it does get a really poor deal for the size of the city, with an hourly AWC London train and an hourly TPX Newcastle train being the only regular intercity services (plus the couple a day to Glasgow).

 

[The Planner]

Is there a world where the second Euston-Liverpool ran via Warrington BQ ever? Would it be much slower? Hartford and/or St Helens call worthwhile?

Only for engineering works.

 

[cle]

Another factor is that Manchester is a more convenient hub for a lot of people ... draw a circle around Manchester and there are several sizeable towns ... draw the same circle around Liverpool and half the population are fish

I do think that the Liverpool TTW area suffers from bad trains. For example, if the Borderlands train was direct (and quicker) - the catchment is there. Similarly, the North Wales Coast is heavily connected to Liverpool, but the direct trains haven't come about yet. So I do think there is some suppressed demand for the Liverpool area's rail usage and catchment (re the fish).

Manchester's commuter rail is very poor too, on many radiuses. But at least direct.

 

[The Ham]

Again, because Manchester is a hub for rail, with services coming in from all directions from all over the country. Liverpool is essentially a terminus and not used for connections in the same way.

Another factor is that Manchester is a more convenient hub for a lot of people ... draw a circle around Manchester and there are several sizeable towns ... draw the same circle around Liverpool and half the population are fish.

Neither of these things are wrong, however it's using a flawed logic, in that it assumes that Manchester is getting the right number of services and therefore Liverpool also therefore must have the right number services.

If you were to look at population, for example somewhere like Exeter (130,000, even if you look at the whole of Devon and Cornwall circa 1.4 million) then Manchester falls well short of service provision which could be expected (Exeter is also about 2 hours from London by train).

For example Exeter has 3tph to London, 2tph on the XC network, and several local services. Whilst the London services are typically total 17 coaches within the hour, so scale that up by (say) a factor of 5 and Manchester should have about 8tph with a mix of 9 and 11 coaches. Even in a post (full) HS2 works with 16 coach trains that's still 5tph, however then Manchester is "closer" to London as the journey time reduces.

That's just London services, XC type services would be about 10 services, even if you add in the TPE services do you get to that number?

By setting it at 5 times the size, I've allowed for the fact that Exeter is on the way to other places, whilst there's not the same through services at Manchester from London.

Having said that you'd struggle to get to that level of service even if you counted the trains through Crewe (so going elsewhere, and elsewhere with much larger populations than from Exeter).

Given that it's likely that Manchester could fairly easily support more services when compared to Exeter, then it's also reasonable to assume that Liverpool could as well.

The question then is, given that both cities probably need more rail capacity, where is there scope to provide it prior to bid infrastructure projects being built.

It's why whatever actually gets built from the "Network North" document (and I fear that the answer will be far far less than what had been promised, as the savings will be in, say, 2019 values, but the spending will be in 2030 values and other slight of hand to fully deliver the spending) should have been as well as HS2.

However by playing one of against the other (be that regions, cities or countries) the final outcome is much worse than what each actually should be getting, but one or other feels better as they have more than they had before (or worst they feel better because they have benefited at the expense of some rival).

I understand that money is finite (sort of, in that the reality is that good infrastructure spending by government isn't the same as personal finances when it comes to spending), however that can be managed by having a pipeline of projects which get delivered over time.

BTW, I also think that Exeter probably needs more services than it gets - so it's not even a case of Manchester should get more funding at the expense of the SW.

 

[glynmonhughes]

Or it could simply be that more tourists go to Manchester than Liverpool. It really could be that simple.

On balance Manchester probably has more attractions of wider appeal, whereas much of Liverpool's is based on the music / Cavern Club / Beatles.

You need to look a little further than you think. National Museums Liverpool have major art collections and fine museums. The UK’s oldest symphony orchestra is in Liverpool - the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic. Taylor Swift just performed three nights at Anfield. There’s two massive cathedrals, sporting events including the Grand National, the biggest Pride outside London. And an a lot more besides. Yet still train connections are poor. To get to Southampton, I’ve used LNWR to Birmingham and awaited the scrum for XC. I did have a reserved seat but the person sitting in that seat was clearly deaf. That’s the sort of service we have got used to from Liverpool.

 

[Djgr]

You need to look a little further than you think. National Museums Liverpool have major art collections and fine museums. The UK’s oldest symphony orchestra is in Liverpool - the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic. Taylor Swift just performed three nights at Anfield. There’s two massive cathedrals, sporting events including the Grand National, the biggest Pride outside London. And an a lot more besides. Yet still train connections are poor. To get to Southampton, I’ve used LNWR to Birmingham and awaited the scrum for XC. I did have a reserved seat but the person sitting in that seat was clearly deaf. That’s the sort of service we have got used to from Liverpool.

Try getting a seat on pretty much any train into Liverpool on a Saturday and you will see how overwhelmed services currently are.

 

[Topological]

Liverpool is doing well, and certainly should be on an itinerary to visit in the North West.

However, that means better connectivity with the airport and the other North West cities.

A lack of capacity into Liverpool suggests that longer trains are needed, whilst the return of the second Birmingham - Liverpool would be a welcome addition.

IF the high speed link is built that will help Liverpool a lot too.

I am not sure there is much to suggest a more regular Scotland service is needed, or that capacity on existing routes should be skewed more toward Liverpool over Manchester.

 

[Djgr]

Liverpool is doing well, and certainly should be on an itinerary to visit in the North West.

However, that means better connectivity with the airport and the other North West cities.

A lack of capacity into Liverpool suggests that longer trains are needed, whilst the return of the second Birmingham - Liverpool would be a welcome addition.

IF the high speed link is built that will help Liverpool a lot too.

I am not sure there is much to suggest a more regular Scotland service is needed, or that capacity on existing routes should be skewed more toward Liverpool over Manchester.

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.