Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway

The Planner · 24 Jun 2025

daodao said:
There is already a 4tph Liverpool to Manchester intercity service, with 2tph to Victoria and 2tph to Oxford Rd/Piccadilly. The Victoria service time can easily be cut to 30 minutes by removing the intermediate stop, and an 8-10 coach train could be used. The CLC line service time can be reduced to 35-40 minutes by electrification and reduction in the number of intermediate stops. There should also be capacity for a 2tph stopping service on each line, provided emus are used, with 2tph extending non-stop from Piccadilly to Manchester Airport.

I remain to be convinced that these service improvements, which would be much less costly, would be inadequate for the next 20-25 years at least.

How are you fitting in 2 stoppers and 2 fasts when a stopping service takes 58 minutes from Liverpool South Parkway to Castlefield? You have sections of absolute block and 6 minute headways. An EMR service takes 34 minutes. For it to not catch up the stopper if that left at xx.00 and gets to Castlefield at xx.58, it would have to pass Liverpool South Parkway 27 minutes later than the stopper at xx.27 to be 3 minutes behind it at Castlefield at xy.01. Your next stopper then goes at xy.30 and gets to Castlefield at xz.28. You need significant improvements to make that work robustly, probably to the requirement of taking 8 minutes out of the stopper. OLE isn't doing that on its own.

RailUK Forums

daodao · 24 Jun 2025

The Planner said:
How are you fitting in 2 stoppers and 2 fasts when a stopping service takes 58 minutes from Liverpool South Parkway to Castlefield? You have sections of absolute block and 6 minute headways. An EMR service takes 34 minutes. For it to not catch up the stopper if that left at xx.00 and gets to Castlefield at xx.58, it would have to pass Liverpool South Parkway 27 minutes later than the stopper at xx.27 to be 3 minutes behind it at Castlefield at xy.01. Your next stopper then goes at xy.30 and gets to Castlefield at xz.28. You need significant improvements to make that work robustly, probably to the requirement of taking 8 minutes out of the stopper. OLE isn't doing that on its own.

Thanks for your comments. It would probably be necessary for some of the less important stations between Irlam and Hunt's Cross, outwith the metropolitan conurbations, such as Glazebrook, to only have 1tph, unless faster emus with more powerful acceleration were available.

Another option would be to leave the faster trains as semi-fasts, with 1 or 2 additional stops.

BrianW · 24 Jun 2025

The Planner said:
How are you fitting in 2 stoppers and 2 fasts when a stopping service takes 58 minutes from Liverpool South Parkway to Castlefield? You have sections of absolute block and 6 minute headways. An EMR service takes 34 minutes. For it to not catch up the stopper if that left at xx.00 and gets to Castlefield at xx.58, it would have to pass Liverpool South Parkway 27 minutes later than the stopper at xx.27 to be 3 minutes behind it at Castlefield at xy.01. Your next stopper then goes at xy.30 and gets to Castlefield at xz.28. You need significant improvements to make that work robustly, probably to the requirement of taking 8 minutes out of the stopper. OLE isn't doing that on its own.

That is QUITE close though to being possible, though clearly not close enough with current technologies, track configurations, station stops, brakings etc etc, and 'improvements' may not be worth the expenditure.
The aim of a northern powerhouse of linked towns and cities with frequent, regular, reliable services allowing a huge travel-to-work area is a significant ojective and may be be 'worth it'.

frodshamfella · 24 Jun 2025

daodao said:
It really doesn't matter if it takes a handful of overseas passengers 30-60 minutes longer to reach Scouseland by public transport from Manchester Airport. For destinations other than central Liverpool it will remain much easier to travel by private car or taxi using the M56. A dedicated motorway coach service would be much cheaper than this proposed new line.

One of the issues with using rail to travel between the Greater Manchester and Merseyside conurbations is their relative proximity and dispersed nature, so private transport enables much shorter end-to-end journey times. The advantages of rail, particularly higher speed, are only significant over much longer distances, such as from NW England to London, where in addition the larger central area tends to be the predominant destination.

I just don't know what the deal is for a high speed from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, between cites of the north ...yes, but as you say most passenger go from their home anyway to reach an airport. Before another Manchester Airport station, something for Liverpool Airport ought to come first to improve transport access to there .

Zomboid · 24 Jun 2025

Though that does show that it's the maximum that might be doable without significant intervention.

Building a set of fast lines (the specific routing of these being unimportant) would allow a true turn up & go service on both the CLC and Chat Moss routes whist leaving space for freight and an amount of semi fast services too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2025 ==

frodshamfella said:
I just don't what the deal is for a high speed from Liverpool to Manchester Airport, between cites of the north ...yes, but as you say most passenger go from their home anyway. Before another Manchester Airport station, something for Liverpool Airport ought to come first to improve transport access .

Manchester Airport is a much more important destination, being one of the few non-London airports with scheduled long haul flights. And at the moment the train service there from Liverpool isn't great.

frodshamfella · 24 Jun 2025

Zomboid said:
Though that does show that it's the maximum that might be doable without significant intervention.

Building a set of fast lines (the specific routing of these being unimportant) would allow a true turn up & go service on both the CLC and Chat Moss routes whist leaving space for freight and an amount of semi fast services too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2025 ==

Manchester Airport is a much more important destination, being one of the few non-London airports with scheduled long haul flights. And at the moment the train service there from Liverpool isn't great.

But a station for there already exists, improve the service if need be. Liverpool is the second busiest airport in the North of England, transport to it needs improving firstly in my opinion.

Zomboid · 24 Jun 2025

Manchester airport isn't very well approached from the west though, you've got to get on the Styal lines which means via Crewe or Castlefield.

It's not necessarily an "or" thing, but the proposal for a station in the Manchester airport area is also to act as a railhead for southern Manchester as well as the airport, and it's clearly designed with a future connection towards Crewe/ HS2 in mind.

I don't know the area, but it looks from aerial photos that heavy rail to Liverpool airport is only going to be possible with a tunnel towards the city - is it busy enough with the kind of traffic that might use the airport for that to be viable? I could imagine an extension of the Hunts Cross Merseyrail service turning south at Halewood might be buildable without a huge tunnel, but would that be any better than the bus from South Parkway? Or a service from Lime St via the CLC to the junction, but is there capacity or demand for that?

MarkyT · 24 Jun 2025

frodshamfella said:
But a station for there already exists, improve the service if need be. Liverpool is the second busiest airport in the North of England, transport to it needs improving firstly in my opinion.

A 'Liverpool Gateway' station is proposed somewhere along the Widnes to Garston stretch. That could have a dedicated transit shuttle link to the air terminal. Think Birmingham, Luton, Gatwick N Terminal. Even Edinburgh, if the tram fare for that last half mile wasn't so expensive.

Nottingham59 · 24 Jun 2025

Zomboid said:
the bus from South Parkway?

How often does that run, and does it appear in the national rail timetable?

Zomboid · 24 Jun 2025

Nottingham59 said:
How often does that run, and does it appear in the national rail timetable?

Looking at the departure board on Google, the 86A seems to be every 6-7 minutes. South Parkway has a little airplane symbol next to it on the route map in the Northern timetable for the CLC, but not actual times.

frodshamfella · 24 Jun 2025

Nottingham59 said:
How often does that run, and does it appear in the national rail timetable?

every 10 mins.. you can by a through rail /bus ticket from some places at least.

TomTankEngine · 24 Jun 2025

Has it been discussed before the plan to use the style line instead of tunneling all the way under.

Metrolink extensions are already planned but a metrolink down Oxford road/Kingsway to replace the local services would be a whole lot cheaper than a tunnel.

https://image.jimcdn.com/app/cms/image/transf/dimension=1102x10000:format=jpg/path/sa40122f255ac625a/image/ia6295543a2585abd/version/1567794667/image.jpg

MANCHESTER AIRPORT TO MANCHESTER PICCADILLY

Proposes a surface route from the airport towards Piccadilly, and a new Metrolink line between Piccadilly and the airport together with other improvements

www.hs2issues.com

Not a perfect solution, but an affordable one that gets a fast direct connection from the airport to close to Piccadilly.

On top of the obvious new station costs, thus tunneling send to be the most expensive part of HS2/ Liverpool to Manchester railway.
Other than the tunnel, from the airport you've basically got open fields over to Liverpool, down to Crewe, and on to handsacre.

If the existing East West facing airport station could be rebuilt of built next to it could also just use the existing tight bend and include the junction to Stockport

frodshamfella · 24 Jun 2025

Zomboid said:
Manchester airport isn't very well approached from the west though, you've got to get on the Styal lines which means via Crewe or Castlefield.

It's not necessarily an "or" thing, but the proposal for a station in the Manchester airport area is also to act as a railhead for southern Manchester as well as the airport, and it's clearly designed with a future connection towards Crewe/ HS2 in mind.

I don't know the area, but it looks from aerial photos that heavy rail to Liverpool airport is only going to be possible with a tunnel towards the city - is it busy enough with the kind of traffic that might use the airport for that to be viable? I could imagine an extension of the Hunts Cross Merseyrail service turning south at Halewood might be buildable without a huge tunnel, but would that be any better than the bus from South Parkway? Or a service from Lime St via the CLC to the junction, but is there capacity or demand for that?

The airport handles over 5 million passengers now and is growing, it is a base for Easyjet, Ryanair and Jet2, plus other visiting airlines. The problem with South Parkway is the traffic that the bus link gets stuck in, its really becoming a problem. Passengers expect to get off a train and be at the terminal quickly otherwise the rail/bus link looses its appeal . I live in Cheshire and use the service frequently as I fly often from the airport. I rarely use Manchester Airport as i'm travelling to Europe. The ideal thing is a Merseyrail extension, that is the most logical .

Nottingham59 · 24 Jun 2025

frodshamfella said:
The problem with South Parkway is the traffic that the bus link gets stuck in, its really becoming a problem.

Are there no alternative routes that could be made bus only to avoid the traffic? How about King St - Blackburne Rd - Garston Shore Rd - then a new gate through the perimeter fence? 3 miles at 30mph would take 6 minutes. Much cheaper than building a heavy rail extension.

Or introduce bus lanes on the most congested sections of the current bus route.

Brubulus · 24 Jun 2025

The best solution for Liverpool airport is a Merseyrail extension that calls at Halewood, Liverpool Gateway, Speke East and Liverpool Airport. Airport-Central in 30 mins.

Or a bus priority route from South Parkway, which will have a similar end-end journey time if done properly, and be much cheaper.

I'm really not sure if Gateway is a good idea, unless there is a plan for some urban centre in that area, would much rather South Parkway is used instead.

Bletchleyite · 24 Jun 2025

Zomboid said:
I don't know the area, but it looks from aerial photos that heavy rail to Liverpool airport is only going to be possible with a tunnel towards the city

To attach it to the Northern Line would be difficult and costly. To take the WCML slow lines (barely used) down the road to the airport (either by rerouteing the road or by running a tram-train service) and run a shuttle to Lime St (finally giving Mossley Hill and West Allerton a decent service and potentially contributing to regeneration of Speke) would be relatively easy as it's at the right sort of level to do that - tram train would probably be the cheaper option. There have been threads on it in the past.

Shaw S Hunter · 24 Jun 2025

frodshamfella said:
But a station for there already exists, improve the service if need be. Liverpool is the second busiest airport in the North of England, transport to it needs improving firstly in my opinion.

Improving the Liverpool to Manchester Airport service currently relies on using the Castlefield corridor. It should be obvious by now that this will not provide any significant increase in capacity: Castlefield needs a "bypass" and that means a tunnel.

As to Liverpool Airport, busy as it may be, the passenger numbers currently fall well short of those required to justify a heavy-rail link. Experience globally shows the numbers needed are in the region of 9-12 million per annum, Liverpool's total for 2024 was just over 5 million.

So do we wait who knows how long for those passenger numbers to grow sufficiently (and it might never happen) or do we look at alternatives. In the short-term that means buses, the question is where from. Even in the medium and long terms buses are still likely to be part of the solution.

Long before Manchester Airport gained its heavy-rail connection it had a dedicated express bus service from the city centre. The capacity may have been rather small in the grand scheme of things but it was well known thanks to effective marketing, reasonably well used and established the idea in the region that getting to the airport didn't have to rely on the private car or taxi.

This may primarily be a rail forum but when discussing wider issues of connectivity we should not dismiss the bus as somehow not being good enough. In some situations it can be the best option.

Brubulus · 24 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
To attach it to the Northern Line would be difficult and costly. To take the WCML slow lines (barely used) down the road to the airport (either by rerouteing the road or by running a tram-train service) and run an shuttle to Lime St (finally giving Mossley Hill and West Allerton a decent service and potentially contributing to regeneration of Speke) would be relatively easy as it's at the right sort of level to do that - tram train would probably be the cheaper option. There have been threads on it in the past.

Aren't the WCML slow lines going to be used as part of the new line? I'd have assumed they would be used given their dive-under to the Fiddlers Ferry route.

AlastairFraser · 24 Jun 2025

MarkyT said:
That's precisely what I'd do; drop the road to ground level and build the new rail alignment over it. The steel truss Arpley Bridge, crossing the Mersey at a very low level would also be replaced by the new elevated route. Slutyers Lane overbridge would also be removed with the road dropping to ground level.

Seems counterintuitive to do that when the road bridge is relatively new, perhaps the viaduct could return to ground level before the Mersey crossing (especially if the bulk of the Liverpool to Manchester HS platforms at Bank Quay were west of the existing station).

MarkyT said:
Not sure why a tunnel would be necessary there. I think the route would more likely follow the old surface alignment, gradually climbing through Latchford, then crossing the ship canal via the old viaduct (no doubt at least partially renewed).

I would expect a tunnel in the Latchford area pre-viaduct is the only reasonable solution - the viaduct will probably need complete replacement and you avoid the almighty fight to relocate the TransPennine trail off the trackbed through Thelwall/Grappenhall and Lymm. A tunnel wouldn't need to be too long to reach Rostherne.

MarkyT said:
Makes sense. More pax per flight at Manchester.

Indeed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2025 ==

TomTankEngine said:
Metrolink extensions are already planned but a metrolink down Oxford road/Kingsway to replace the local services would be a whole lot cheaper than a tunnel.

Not feasible. Traffic is absolutely evil down those roads in the peak (particularly as Kingsway abruptly ends and pours more traffic onto the A6 via Slade Lane). The service would be terribly unreliable.
If you wanted a premetro style tunnel using that alignment to the airport, it's possible, but I'm not sure it would be much cheaper, and it wouldn't necessarily attract that many people off the overcrowded Styal Line.

Brubulus · 24 Jun 2025

AlastairFraser said:
Seems counterintuitive to do that when the road bridge is relatively new, perhaps the viaduct could return to ground level before the Mersey crossing (especially if the bulk of the Liverpool to Manchester HS platforms at Bank Quay were west of the existing station).

I would expect a tunnel in the Latchford area pre-viaduct is the only reasonable solution - the viaduct will probably need complete replacement and you avoid the almighty fight to relocate the TransPennine trail off the trackbed through Thelwall/Grappenhall and Lymm. A tunnel wouldn't need to be too long to reach Rostherne.

Indeed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jun 2025 ==

Not feasible. Traffic is absolutely evil down those roads in the peak (particularly as Kingsway abruptly ends and pours more traffic onto the A6 via Slade Lane). The service would be terribly unreliable.
If you wanted a premetro style tunnel using that alignment to the airport, it's possible, but I'm not sure it would be much cheaper, and it wouldn't necessarily attract that many people off the overcrowded Styal Line.

Losing a couple miles of the Trans Pennine trail isn't the end of the world, the existing alignment will be used to the maximum extent possible, but with bridges and viaducts replaced. A tunnel would cost billions. Arpley Bridge will get a like for like replacement, no more. There isn't infinite money for this project and it must not fall into the HS2 fallacy of tunneling under everything.

Grimsby town · 24 Jun 2025

daodao said:
I would make my suggested improvements by 2030 and then monitor the situation for 5 years to 2035. If traffic growth was high at that time, suggesting the need for major new infrastructure in due course, a new line would need to be considered, but I would keep its alignment as short as possible and thus entirely north of the River Mersey.

And then wait 15 years for a line to be planned and built? No country is waiting for every train to be 100% full before starting to plan capacity enhancements, the UK shouldn't be either.

Some people in thus thread don't seem to understand the timescales involved here. The new line is a decade a way. The Chat Moss line has already been upgraded through electrification, four tracking, and more recent platform extensions/additonal rollingstock. Its not far off being as upgraded as it can be and 6x23m trains are the feasible maximum for most routes in the north which are already being operated on the line. There's little room for further growth. That's worrying given the significant development occuring at Eccles.

The CLC could be upgraded further through battery EMUs, electrification or turn back sidings to allow 2 trains per hour at all stations. That will have happened by 2032 and therefore you've likely reached maximum feasible upgrades at that point.

Why don't places like Eccles, Urmston etc. deserve 4 trains per hour? The only difference between Manchester and Liverpool is that local rail operates at far higher levels. Eccles and Bootle are very similar places with similar population density, being a local shipping destination, and somewhat of an employment hub. Yet the two bootle stations have four times the usage that Patricroft and Eccles have due to the better service.

frodshamfella · 24 Jun 2025

Shaw S Hunter said:
Improving the Liverpool to Manchester Airport service currently relies on using the Castlefield corridor. It should be obvious by now that this will not provide any significant increase in capacity: Castlefield needs a "bypass" and that means a tunnel.

As to Liverpool Airport, busy as it may be, the passenger numbers currently fall well short of those required to justify a heavy-rail link. Experience globally shows the numbers needed are in the region of 9-12 million per annum, Liverpool's total for 2024 was just over 5 million.

So do we wait who knows how long for those passenger numbers to grow sufficiently (and it might never happen) or do we look at alternatives. In the short-term that means buses, the question is where from. Even in the medium and long terms buses are still likely to be part of the solution.

Long before Manchester Airport gained its heavy-rail connection it had a dedicated express bus service from the city centre. The capacity may have been rather small in the grand scheme of things but it was well known thanks to effective marketing, reasonably well used and established the idea in the region that getting to the airport didn't have to rely on the private car or taxi.

This may primarily be a rail forum but when discussing wider issues of connectivity we should not dismiss the bus as somehow not being good enough. In some situations it can be the best option.

I didn't say the bus is no good, I said the roads are too congested, and that will continue. So do we do nothing, because experience shows in the UK we build nothing fast. A Merseyrail extension would be the ideal thing, giving also Speke a railway station an area poorly served by public transport, taking an hour to reach the city centre. There is no reason not to expect passengers number not to continue to increase at Liverpool Airport, figures suggest moving towards 6M this year. If this can not be provided then the bus needs to segregated from the traffic or some sort of tram link. The current situation will not be fit for purpose in the near future.

Bletchleyite · 24 Jun 2025

Grimsby town said:
Why don't places like Eccles, Urmston etc. deserve 4 trains per hour? The only difference between Manchester and Liverpool is that local rail operates at far higher levels. Eccles and Bootle are very similar places with similar population density, being a local shipping destination, and somewhat of an employment hub. Yet the two bootle stations have four times the usage that Patricroft and Eccles have due to the better service.

Eccles has the tram, to be fair. Patricroft is perhaps the outlier - most local stations on Chat Moss are on the Liverpool side (but those definitely deserve 4tph).

The CLC has lots of useful local stations on both sides and those also deserve 4tph. Chassen Road is a bit like Aughton Park - yet one gets 4 and one gets 0.5!

AlastairFraser · 24 Jun 2025

Brubulus said:
Losing a couple miles of the Trans Pennine trail isn't the end of the world, the existing alignment will be used to the maximum extent possible, but with bridges and viaducts replaced. A tunnel would cost billions. Arpley Bridge will get a like for like replacement, no more. There isn't infinite money for this project and it must not fall into the HS2 fallacy of tunneling under everything.

The legal battles from residents alongside the line will drag it out so long that inflation will ensure that it does cost billions extra regardless if you chose that avenue of thinking.
Better to tunnel from the end of Latchford to just outside Lymm and dodge all the inquiries.

Brubulus · 24 Jun 2025

AlastairFraser said:
The legal battles from residents alongside the line will drag it out so long that inflation will ensure that it does cost billions extra regardless if you chose that avenue of thinking.
Better to tunnel from the end of Latchford to just outside Lymm and dodge all the inquiries.

You will get legal battles no matter what. Appeasement is not an option. Hopefully this government can use it's majority effectively to force this through, it's a minor local issue that affects a few constituencies at most and there are very few people who are affected yet don't benefit. Force it through, this time with no amendments and as few limitations as reasonably possible. Forcing through development is pretty much the best political confrontation this government could possibly get itself into.

AlastairFraser · 24 Jun 2025

Brubulus said:
Forcing through development is pretty much the best political confrontation this government could possibly get itself into

Haha good luck with that. This government wouldn't even stand up to the Yanks, a cabal of minted Cheshire NIMBYs can make it far more difficult.
If you tunnel from Latchford and at least clear the Warrington urban area, you avoid all the hassle.

Grimsby town · 24 Jun 2025

Bletchleyite said:
Eccles has the tram, to be fair. Patricroft is perhaps the outlier - most local stations on Chat Moss are on the Liverpool side (but those definitely deserve 4tph).

The CLC has lots of useful local stations on both sides and those also deserve 4tph. Chassen Road is a bit like Aughton Park - yet one gets 4 and one gets 0.5!

The tram is pretty useless for travelling to central Manchester though. 7 minutes on the train vs 29 minutes on the tram. If anything, Eccles would likely out perform Bootle due to people using it as an interchange to access Salford Quays. I'm confident that usage ay Eccles would top 1 million within 5 years of introducing 4 trains per hour.

Both lines definitely need improved local services. As you say the CLC mainly runsn through a urban areas. There's potential developments around Old Trafford to consider too.

MarkyT · 24 Jun 2025

AlastairFraser said:
Seems counterintuitive to do that when the road bridge is relatively new, perhaps the viaduct could return to ground level before the Mersey crossing (especially if the bulk of the Liverpool to Manchester HS platforms at Bank Quay were west of the existing station).

The railway is still fairly low at this point (7m above sea level), and demolishing a road bridge to be replaced with a surface road, however new, is not a huge or difficult endeavor. With an elevated alignment around this area, road layouts might be reconsidered with extra links being punched through an embankment or under a viaduct. This could open up the area to the south of the railway to denser, more valuable development, along with the soap factory site to the west of the WCML, expanding the town around Bank Quay station.

AlastairFraser said:
I would expect a tunnel in the Latchford area pre-viaduct is the only reasonable solution - the viaduct will probably need complete replacement and you avoid the almighty fight to relocate the TransPennine trail off the trackbed through Thelwall/Grappenhall and Lymm. A tunnel wouldn't need to be too long to reach Rostherne.

The old rail alignment on the western approach is unobstructed, albeit very overgrown, and the viaduct might be reconstructed as necessary, perhaps reusing the abutments and foundations if suitable, likely much cheaper than a tunnel. East of there, I would only use the old alignment for 1km or so to Thelwall where I would diverge to the south-east on the surface to cross the M6 then meet the M56 corridor, avoiding the Lymm area, then broadly following that motorway towards the airport. The trail could be relocated over this 1km length to a new path constructed alongside and a little below the railway on the slope of the wide embankment as it descends from the viaduct, and the trail might be extended across the rebuilt viaduct to the north bank of the canal.

The Planner · 24 Jun 2025

daodao said:
Thanks for your comments. It would probably be necessary for some of the less important stations between Irlam and Hunt's Cross, outwith the metropolitan conurbations, such as Glazebrook, to only have 1tph, unless faster emus with more powerful acceleration were available.

Another option would be to leave the faster trains as semi-fasts, with 1 or 2 additional stops.

You still can't do a 1tph all stations as you still end with the same issue, you'll need some sort of skip stop on both services to balance it out whereupon you'll lose some station to station connectivity as a trade off. Either that or do some wacky thing where you split the service and run Liverpool Warrington and Warrington Manchester as separate services hiding in the carriage sidings for a while similar to how the current Liverpool Warrington does now.

BrianW said:
That is QUITE close though to being possible, though clearly not close enough with current technologies, track configurations, station stops, brakings etc etc, and 'improvements' may not be worth the expenditure.
The aim of a northern powerhouse of linked towns and cities with frequent, regular, reliable services allowing a huge travel-to-work area is a significant ojective and may be be 'worth it'.

Doesn't matter, you need it to work robustly. No good doing it so its consistently timed for a fast to catch the stopper up as soon as possible twice an hour or any small delay on the stopper makes it all go down the toilet rapidly. You need lower utilisation of the track/ timetable buffer to absorb some minor delay.

WAO · 24 Jun 2025

The Planner said:
Only for a Skelmersdale service. The route has never been intended as a Liverpool Manchester route. Its too slow for a start and would run in to Merseyrail services at one end. How anyone can accuse Manchester Airport as having headline grabbing glamour is beyond me.

I am happy to concede that you are quite right in pointing out that MIA is an important economic magnet and merits very serious rail investment. (By the way, both Gatwick and Stansted retain their RAF names whereas "London Airport" was downgraded after 20 years to "Heathrow", the original hamlet on the site!).

My concern (having many relatives in Lancs and Yorks) is that there needs to be complementary improvement across the board as very many are excluded socially and economically by the unreasonably poor rail service compared to in (my experience) the South East. I think that politicians and bureaucrats will ignore the commonplace in favour of the spectacular.

Both NWEP and TPU are excellent moves in the right direction but Headbolt Lane and Skelmersdale are a very sorry tale. Maghull North has probably achieved more for the New Town (car owner).

WAO

Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member