Liverpool Lime Street to Euston

[tbtc]

You would be surprised how many people travel by LM all the way from Liverpool to London. Whenever I get off at Stafford (from Crewe) there's always a good few transferring to the xx21 LM to Euston.

Fair enough, but if my return journey is taking around three hours longer than the Pendolino (seven hours vs four hours) then I'd be wanting quite a discount!

 

[Holly]

... Lastly, any LM service from London to Liverpool would be around three and a half hours in duration (on a 350), versus around two hours on a 390 for the Virgin service. Maybe you can flog a few £5 tickets to the student market, but it wouldn't be much use for 95% of London - Liverpool passengers

The existing 1tph Virgin service is fine for frequency, the issue is capacity other than first class.
There are two primary unmet needs
(1) A parkway station with good, free or low cost and safe parking.
(2) Discount fares
Intermediate between (one way) £10 and six hours on National Express coach and £100 two hours plus on Virgin. LM £40 (each way, round trip) and three to four hours fills the niche somewhat. But there is room for more and better compromises.

And a service that had comfortable seats and spacious luggage (on a par with Mk 2 coaches) would be attractive on that score too.

On a side note, refurbishing Hooton station as a terminus would be a lot cheaper than reinstating Stanlow-Mouldsworth (which was traditionally a freight line anyway). Edge Hill as a terminus is another possibility (you could build another car park there).

 

[tbtc]

The existing 1tph Virgin service is fine for frequency, the issue is capacity other than first class.
There are two primary unmet needs
(1) A parkway station with good, free or low cost and safe parking.
(2) Discount fares
Intermediate between (one way) £10 and six hours on National Express coach and £100 two hours plus on Virgin. LM £40 (each way, round trip) and three to four hours fills the niche somewhat. But there is room for more and better compromises.

And a service that had comfortable seats and spacious luggage (on a par with Mk 2 coaches) would be attractive on that score too.

The points about more seats/ a parkway station/ plenty luggage space/ bargain fares... could be said of any main line though, they're not specific to the Liverpool service.

I should also point out that, whilst Sheffield gained a second London train recently, this is a slower service which only leaves Sheffield eight minutes after the "normal" service (certain hours). Any additional Liverpool service would invariably be a slower affair.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

On a side note, refurbishing Hooton station as a terminus would be a lot cheaper

I agree with Hooton. The old main platform is still useable as a bay.
I have a theory that Virgin would get a bigger load from there than at Wrexham on the early train that combines at Chester.
Plenty of well-heeled Wirral residents would find it much more convenient than travelling via Liverpool or Chester with their poor access.
Trouble is its politicians/lobbyists are no match for the Welsh or Merseyside lot.

 

[northwichcat]

i expect it's probably due to Politics, as Manchester likes to think of itself as the capital of the North, so the Westminster government is trying to ingratiate itself as much as possible for when the North becomes "independent" following devolution in a similar fashion to Scotland.

George Osborne was strongly behind an enhanced London train service for Wilmslow. As his 'consistency home' is near Macclesfield (even though it's not in his consistency) he wasn't going to back more Wilmslow trains at the expense of losing Macclesfield trains.

Osborne failed to realise that in backing an enhanced London service for Wilmslow that many other towns and villages in his consistency would suffer a reduction in peak time time frequency due to a lack of paths. Lostock Gralam, Plumley, Knutsford, Mobberley and Chelford all lost out.

 

[Gareth]

Why is there only one train an hour? Every other major city (some considerably smaller than Liverpool) have at least two. Leicester has four!

As a couple have rightly suggested, politics has a lot to do with it. It's been a trend in the last 30/40 years to run down Liverpool and big up Manchester. The reasons are various and multi-tiered but the regionalising of England into 'regions' has a lot to do with it. Essentially, if you're not the designated capital of said region, there's not much down for you. So, in the North West, if you're not Manchester, forget it. That's where the regional government offices are and most British institutions follow their lead, from the BBC to the NHS. It's the same everwhere else in England. It's great to be Newcastle in the North East. Kinda sucks to be Sunderland though. You'd think Leeds was the only place in Yorkshire sometimes, the way the BBC and the likes go on. I mean, the government announced the Manchester-York electrification as Manchester-Leeds, because Leeds was better known apparently, I'm pretty sure York's world famous in a way Leeds just isn't, but it just goes to show how Whitehall looks at its empire and how its mind is focused on its adopted capitals in each area.

What makes Liverpool's situation even more accute is two-fold; firstly, it's comfortably the biggest non-regional capital in the country. This skewes its image and makes people (as is often evident on here) tend to think it's a lot smaller than it actually is. Indeed, it's bigger than most of the official regional capitals, be it Nottingham, Leeds, Bristol etc. The second aspect is the 'second city project' centred on Manchester (and Salford) that Labour tried to implement in their latter days in office. This will undermine Liverpool more than any other large city, due to geographical proximity, as well as already being subordinated to Manchester within the North West. This 'second city' project was Labour's final strategy to tackle the North-South divide. Their first stance, upon taking office in 1997 was to deny that the North-South divide existed. Then, they turned to regional assemblies, which were ahistorical and were not to actually have any significant powers inherited from the centre anyway. After hostile feedback in all regions, the assemblies idea was dropped and they decided that what the North needed to emulate the success of the South East was its own London, with Manchester being the nominated city. As this is a rail forum and not an economics forum, I'll not go into too much detail about how that model won't work either but I'll say this - putting BBC Breakfast in Salford Quays will do diddly squat to tackle the North-South divide.

So, getting onto the rail side of things (apologies for anyone who cares little for regional politics but believe me, it's very relevent to the issue the OP raised), it's hard to gauge demand for Liverpool-London trains without having some hard statistics at hand, but I will happily challenge any theory that suggests Manchester has three times the demand Liverpool does. It just doesn't seem credible to me. So, as far as I'm concerned, either Liverpool is under-served, Manchester is over-served, or both are factors. Again, myths have been, albeit quite innocently, perpetuated that Liverpool has no economy or business community. The fact people seem to genuinely believe this (as well as crap about no one in Liverpool being economically active anyway) is rather depressing. Most stats I see related to this tend to be loose predictions. 'By 2025, Manchester will have X demand to London', based on what, who knows? It seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy that the places with larger demand currently will have even larger demand in the future. Personally, I feel that they fail to take into account the idea that giving an area a superior service will encourage people in that area to use it more often, as well as encourage investment in that area, helping the economy, thus, reinforcing demand and the economic case for improving it futher, as does predicting a certain area will grow more than another.

A second Liverpool train to London via Warrington might make sense, if Warrington justifies the demand more than Runcorn. Warrington only has 1tph itself, if I recall correctly.; surprising considering its location on the WCML. I know this is a semi-official plan for when HS2 arrives but is there no reason why a train can't go that way today? As for HS2, it's a big, potentially fatal landmine on the horizon. If it puts Manchester an hour closer to London than Liverpool, as has been suggested, it will kill the city.

As for taking one of the two trains per hour from Birmingham, that's not going to solve much. For one thing, the London Midland proposed service would be much slower than Virgin's. It'd be more convenient for accessing inbetween destinations but I feel it's not worth sacrificing 2tph to Birmingham for. In a typically British way, Liverpool is pretty much the only major city not on the CrossCountry network. Most XC lines are a core 2tph. Not being on this network limits Liverpool as a direct destination. Having a 2tph London Midland to Brimingham service, albeit on nicer electric trains, so Liverpool passengers can connect with the hub of the CrossCountry network, is the minimum compensation. Anything less would be unacceptable.

The Hooton idea is interesting. I'm sure Hooton as a mainline terminus would be very popular with a lot of the southern part of the Wirral. Can't see any mainline trains running on the Wirral Line though. Essentially, Merseyrail is an island metro system with little to do with the rest of the national rail network. The line between Hooton and Chester already stuggles with capacity constraints, which is why 2 of the 4tph on the Wirral Line don't stop at Capenhurst. Line speed and signal improvements might alleviate this but the only way I can see Virgin Trains at Hooton is if Merseyrail is pegged back to Hooton from Chester. One thing that would do is help the case for re-instating the Halton Curve as the alternative way to travel from Chester to Liverpool. However, to get up the Wirral, Chester passengers would now need to change, where they didn't used to. Also, what effect would it have on Bache and Capenhurst? Would a short stopper service to Chester be needed? I doubt it would manage 4tph though, which Bache passengers are now used to. Perhaps the Crewe-Chester ATW shuttle could be extended. All in all, the Hooton idea might create more problems than it solves. Also, it'd seem weird seeing a train at Euston with 'Hooton' written on it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Size of the market.

IF there was a market for more services, and/or 2tph Liverpool would make more cash than the 3tph Manchester, there would be 2tph Liverpool.

When doing an early HS2 study 6 years ago, we compared size of the competitive modes; e.g. flights:

Liverpool - London (all airports) 6 per day (none now)
Manchester - London was 44 per day (17 now)

Fairly plain (sorry about the pun) that the Manchester market is considerably larger, and indeed that that the West Coast upgrade has seen off the air competition to Liverpool with existing frequency.

 

[YorkshireBear]

But is that due to a more established airport?

 

[ANorthernGuard]

But is that due to a more established airport?

On the services I do I tend not to drop many people off at Liverpool South Parkway for the Airport, actually its pretty rare, Now Manchester Airport that is constant.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I do think there is more demand from manchester than liverpool but... i think manchester airport is larger and more established therefore mroe airlines so it makes the comparrison less perfect in my opinion. Still true but the figures are not neccesarily true of demand.

 

[Bald Rick]

MAN is a more established airport, Liverpool airport probably has lower fees as a result as it has to compete.

Given that the internal european air market is one of the most cut throat competitive markets there is, if there was the faintest whiff of a profit to be had from a decent market for a regular air service from Liverpool to London, Messrs O'Leary* and Haji-Ioannou would have been there, no doubt. Aside from inter-lining long haul passengers I can't imagine many Liverpudlians trek to Ringway for a London flight.

The train has comfortably seen off the competition on the existing frequency, so there isn't much of market share left to go for at a sustainable price point.

*that's Michael O'Leary, not Dermot

 

[tbtc]

the regionalising of England into 'regions' has a lot to do with it. Essentially, if you're not the designated capital of said region, there's not much down for you. So, in the North West, if you're not Manchester, forget it. That's where the regional government offices are and most British institutions follow their lead, from the BBC to the NHS. It's the same everwhere else in England. It's great to be Newcastle in the North East. Kinda sucks to be Sunderland though. You'd think Leeds was the only place in Yorkshire sometimes, the way the BBC and the likes go on

I was nodding along to this bit, living in Sheffield and being married to a Mackem I appreciate that outsiders tend to treat a whole region as being just a city (people from County Durham are not Geordies in the way that people from Bradford are not Leodensians...).

they decided that what the North needed to emulate the success of the South East was its own London, with Manchester being the nominated city

Again, there's much I agree with here - the idea of turning Manchester into a northern equivalent of London (with all the imbalance upon the rest of "the North") won't work, but it does seem to be some people's idea.

Look at how 95% of the recent investment/planned investment in northern infrastructure is Manchester-related:

• Electrification of Manchester - Bolton - Preston - Blackpool
• Electrification of Manchester - Liverpool
• Electrification of Manchester - Leeds - York
• Electrification of Manchester - Oldham - Rochdale (converting it to Metrolink)
• New tram lines in southern Manchester and eastern Manchester

(there's also the short bit of electrification from St Helens to Wigan and from Tinsley to Rotherham - aka the Supertram "Tram Train" trial)

I will happily challenge any theory that suggests Manchester has three times the demand Liverpool does

I'm not sure I agree here though.

Bear in mind that the standard class capacity will be nothing like 3:1 once Liverpool gets eleven coach Pendolini (whilst Manchester still has nine coaches). Its around a thousand Standard Class seats an hour for the Manchester trains whilst the Liverpool trains should be over four hundred (but under five hundred) IIRC.

More importantly, the Manchester trains are also stopping at Stockport/ Macclesfield/ Stoke/ Wilmslow/ Crewe (replacing the stop in the Liverpool service), as well as Milton Keynes. Since Stafford is a fairly small place it's not taking many seats from Scousers.

Also, whilst parts of Merseyside are catered for by Chester (much of the Wirral) and Warrington (eastern Merseyside) Plus Southport - London is much faster by changing at Wigan (even though its over the border in Greater Manchester). Whereas most of Greater Manchester (Stockport, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury etc) would use the Manchester service (Bolton passengers can use either Wigan or Piccadilly, they both take around 2h50). The catchment areas are quite different.

So, not quite a 3:1 ratio.

 

[stockport1]

it would be nice if there was a manchester - altrincham - knutsford - northwich - crewe - london service.

wish list

electrify 25k
4 track throstles nest - altrincham.
redouble stockport - altrincham.
a connecting lline to manchester airport.
parkway built at northwich east (plumley)
4 track northwich - northwich west.
interchange at northwich west
(hartford - station moved north 500 yards)
redouble chester - mouldsworth

should only cost the taxpayer 1-2 billion :P
shame the mid cheshire line is seen only as a second rate line.

the a556/m56/washway road - traffic is silly. northwich and knutsford in particular are as big as wilmslow/macclesfield and cheshire rail travel is very poor.

 

[WatcherZero]

This old topic returns....

* Virgin investigated but decided an extra Liverpool service didnt make financial sense.
* Several OAO have applied to operate the service but ORR believes there isnt an available path until 2013 timetable recast at the earliest.
* Manchester is currently trying to fight off a fourth London service being forced on them because they dont believe the extra benefit would outweight the further butchering of local services.

 

[martinsh]

What makes Liverpool's situation even more accute is two-fold; firstly, it's comfortably the biggest non-regional capital in the country.

No it's not ! According to Wikipedia, Sheffield is bigger.

I would dispute there is such a thing as a "regional capital" in England anway.

 

[Polarbear]

Slightly off topic, but;

Back in the day, the Liverpool Pullman was the only (?) Pullman formed with second class coaches.

The only one on the WCML, yes, but on the East Coast, the Yorkshire, Hull & Tyne Tees Pullmans were 1st class pullman with 2nd class ordinary stock.

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, there are many reasons why Liverpool - London is only hourly; some political & some logistical.

For my part, I'd probably go for a "stopping" WCML service on a 2 hourly frequency between Liverpool & London to supplement the hourly express service.

Liverpool - Runcorn - Hartford - Crewe - Stafford - Lichfield or Tamworth - Nuneaton - Rugby - Northampton - Milton Keynes - London.

 

[tbtc]

No it's not ! According to Wikipedia, Sheffield is bigger

Did someone say Sheffield?

Sheffield - London is sometimes quicker to go via Doncaster/Retford (and its sometimes quicker to do London - Leeds/York than it is to do London - Sheffield - despite Sheffield obviously being further south).

Plus the five coach Meridians (compared to the 225s to Leeds/York etc leave some people here thinking we are the "poor relation". But then its all relative - everywhere thinks they get a rough deal in terms of their London service, just like everyone thinks their local line gets the worst attention from its TOC.

(off topic, I know)

 

[calc7]

For my part, I'd probably go for a "stopping" WCML service on a 2 hourly frequency between Liverpool & London to supplement the hourly express service.

Liverpool - Runcorn - Hartford - Crewe - Stafford - Lichfield or Tamworth - Nuneaton - Rugby - Northampton - Milton Keynes - London.

Run by LM or VT?

If run by VT, surely everybody would get the more glamorous "express" service. This one would take at least 45 minutes longer.
If run by LM, surely everybody would get the more glamorous "express" service. This one would take at least 75 minutes longer.

The way I see it, the VHF requires ideally 3tph (2 might suffice off-peak), with all taking the same length of time (as with Manchester and Birmingham ones). Otherwise, there is no market for those who want to "turn up and go".

Edit: I realise that in being "clever" here I have not addressed the price sensitive market. However, I believe Virgin probably isn't interested in it. LM may be, but more likely to be an extension of another train (either EUS-CRE or EUS-BHM, the former is already heavily-loaded and the latter is rather slow).

 

[Lampshade]

Liverpool - Runcorn - Hartford - Crewe - Stafford - Lichfield or Tamworth - Nuneaton - Rugby - Northampton - Milton Keynes - London.

Wouldn't work for the reasons calc7 outlined.

The second Liverpool service should be:

Liverpool > Tamworth/Nuneaton alternating > Rugby > Watford Junction > London Euston

No point in a new VT service serving Runcorn or Crewe as they're served by both LM services.

 

[WCML]

Off peak services seem ok, but the peak services are a little crowded. I think there should be 2tph like there is in the evening peak for most of the day, other than what would effectively be super-off peak trains.

I've got to say though that the LIV-EUS service is very good for Stafford users, there could just be some additional morning services and maybe a later evening service like Birmingham gets.

Any extra services should retain the same calling pattern. Anything that stops south of the Trent Valley just attracts commuter traffic to the likes of Milton Keynes, Northampton, Tring etc which should be down LM to cater for. Anything that makes several stops in the Trent Valley would be too slown and would get too much like the LM CRE-EUS stopper service. Wouldn't they also have to be put on the slows to call at some of the Trent Valley stations?

I think there's definately a case for an LM stopper in addition to extra VT services starting at Liverpool and calling at the current London Midland LIV-STA stations as well as the Trent Valley stations. Calling anywhere south of Rugby would slow it down way to much - I can't imagine there'd be much demand for a 4 hour London service, whatever the price. Stops south of Rugby would lead to overcrowding issues as people would use it as an overspill for the Northampton/Tring cattle trucks.

 

[TomJ93]

Plus the five coach Meridians (compared to the 225s to Leeds/York etc leave some people here thinking we are the "poor relation". But then its all relative - everywhere thinks they get a rough deal in terms of their London service, just like everyone thinks their local line gets the worst attention from its TOC.

(off topic, I know)

Sorry for being OT, but I feel many issues here also relate to the Midlands.

To knowledge Coventry having 3tph hasn't really helped it, don't get me wrong it's a fantastic service but hasn't bought Coventry the "promised riches" some seem to claim a frequent railway service provides.

I'm not too sure how the South bound Birminghams loadings are, you can often leave Birmingham on a rammed Pendolino, only to get to Coventry and have a mass exodus of passengers. Also, routing the reading XC trains won't help the city much either, only really provide more capacity to the Airport and alleviate a change at Brum for some northern passengers. More important is KNUKLE line, which will aid the local economy, although if we could get this extended to Leicester This would be beneficial. Could Leamington Spa be bought into the WMPTE?

Why not extend a Brum service to Liverpool? 2TPH for Stafford and Wolves (sod Dudley!). It may be a bit slower, but would be more useful and is already pathetic up until Brum. Would also provide a speedy Liver-ham service that many feel the LM service just doesn't provide.

A major anomaly within the privatised railways that differs from other privatised industry's is the lack of competition. Surely If the WCML, ECML, MML and the Chilterns were owned by different operators they'd be interested in a race to London from the similarly distanced locations such as Leicester, Coventry (who could both compete for Nuneaton pax?), Peterborough and Leamington Spa, as for the London route, were XC to also have their interests vested in the GWML they could offer LMS/COV to London via a change at Oxford? Competition such as this would drive down prices as each tried to undercut one another.

Were an outfit to compete with VT on the Liverpool route it could help?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Sorry for being OT, but I feel many issues here also relate to the Midlands.
A major anomaly within the privatised railways that differs from other privatised industry's is the lack of competition. Surely If the WCML, ECML, MML and the Chilterns were owned by different operators they'd be interested in a race to London from the similarly distanced locations such as Leicester, Coventry (who could both compete for Nuneaton pax?), Peterborough and Leamington Spa, as for the London route, were XC to also have their interests vested in the GWML they could offer LMS/COV to London via a change at Oxford? Competition such as this would drive down prices as each tried to undercut one another.
Were an outfit to compete with VT on the Liverpool route it could help?

The competition is at franchise-bid time (ie NOW for ICWC). You have a choice of 4 (VT, First, Keolis, Abellio).
Nothing to stop adjacent franchises ending up in the same hands (eg all First) eventually, so no competition there.
Current "competition" is only secondary, most of the revenue is pooled/split anyway.
Any new Open Access WC operator needs a fleet of 125mph tilting trains, and all the current ones are spoken for.

 

[142094]

and being married to a Mackem I

What did you do to deserve that?

 

[northwichcat]

What makes Liverpool's situation even more accute is two-fold; firstly, it's comfortably the biggest non-regional capital in the country.

No it's not ! According to Wikipedia, Sheffield is bigger.

I would dispute there is such a thing as a "regional capital" in England anway.

Liverpool is only slightly smaller than Manchester. When I've pointed this out before the defence people give for Manchester having 3x as many London services involves the towns south of Manchester having more demand for a London service compared to the towns south of Liverpool and Manchester being better for business.

IIRC Hartford (Cheshire) got more London passengers than Wilmslow when they both used to get a sufficient level of direct London services but for political reasons Wilmslow got a regular service reinstated and Hartford didn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For my part, I'd probably go for a "stopping" WCML service on a 2 hourly frequency between Liverpool & London to supplement the hourly express service.

Liverpool - Runcorn - Hartford - Crewe - Stafford - Lichfield or Tamworth - Nuneaton - Rugby - Northampton - Milton Keynes - London.

I think what calling points should be made for an additional London-Liverpool service would depend on:

a) Whether any new Blackpool-London services are introduced in the new WC franchise.
b) Whether any of the open access applications for additional London services are accepted.

If Grand Central introduce a Blackpool-London service calling at Hartford then there is little need for a Liverpool-London service to call there.

 

[ValleyLines142]

Blackpool to London services are being introduced and they could be routed the normal Blackpool-Liverpool Northern stopper via St Helen's and then call at Lime Street and South Parkway then through Hartford and down.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Blackpool to London services are being introduced ...

I wouldn't be too sure about that!

 

[142094]

Blackpool to London services are being introduced and they could be routed the normal Blackpool-Liverpool Northern stopper via St Helen's and then call at Lime Street and South Parkway then through Hartford and down.

No one in their right mind would use that service from Blackpool if it went via Liverpool - it would certainly add 30-60 minutes onto the journey time, when you could go via Preston quicker. Also, I doubt if the DfT would allow a service to operate calling at LIV due to the rules on competition.

 

[ValleyLines142]

No one in their right mind would use that service from Blackpool if it went via Liverpool - it would certainly add 30-60 minutes onto the journey time, when you could go via Preston quicker. Also, I doubt if the DfT would allow a service to operate calling at LIV due to the rules on competition.

Fair enough

 

[Gareth]

No it's not ! According to Wikipedia, Sheffield is bigger.

I would dispute there is such a thing as a "regional capital" in England anway.

Lol, yeah right. If you've ever been to both cities, you'll know it quite obviously is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This old topic returns....

* Virgin investigated but decided an extra Liverpool service didnt make financial sense.
* Several OAO have applied to operate the service but ORR believes there isnt an available path until 2013 timetable recast at the earliest.
* Manchester is currently trying to fight off a fourth London service being forced on them because they dont believe the extra benefit would outweight the further butchering of local services.

I'd like a link to any research Virgin did on a second Liverpool service, if that's possible.

Hilarious how Manchester is being force-fed services. It's like starving one kid and feeding the other to death.

 

[AlterEgo]

Liverpool may well be nearly as large as Manchester, but I'm yet to see any evidence of a real demand for a doubling in service to Lime Street.

Bearing in mind that the hourly Chester trains do take a portion of the Merseyside business anyway. I travel on Liverpool trains frequently and find loadings to be moderate most of the time.