Why is Manchester-Brum IC but Liverpool-Brum Regional Express?

[Bletchleyite]

This has gone well outside of our scope here, but it is very hard to see why Birmingham to Liverpool is so different from Birmingham to Manchester for the purposes of your special models.

I'm principally talking about the nature of the service which has ended up like that for various reasons.

Manchester-Brum has 2tph "IC" (XC) which does not serve intermediate local stations, these are picked up by other services.

Liverpool-Brum also has 2tph but these are skip-stop regional expresses which do serve the local stations. This was a change from the previous service which I believe was 1tph all stations to Crewe and 1tph "IC" (actually the CT Liverpool-Stansted service) which was faster.

The reasons for this include lower demand but also operational convenience, I'd imagine.

 

[33021]

Route did used to have inter-city XC services, these were replaced by City-Link run by Central Trains around the XC operation princess problems, these were operated initially by the 170/1 ex MML brought in with a trolley service, then moved to 350/1 with a trolley until LM but now downgraded to a run of the mill service often with 3+2 seating and no trolley (also rarely even litter picked)...
Inter-City in only the fact it connects two major cities ...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Route did used to have inter-city XC services, these were replaced by City-Link run by Central Trains around the XC operation princess problems, these were operated initially by the 170/1 ex MML brought in with a trolley service, then moved to 350/1 with a trolley until LM but now downgraded to a run of the mill service often with 3+2 seating and no trolley (also rarely even litter picked)...
Inter-City in only the fact it connects two major cities ...

The District Line is "inter-city", so are the Leeds-York via Harrogate stoppers - I think most of us know what is meant by "InterCity", though, as a brand or concept.

LM often used 350/2s, they are another TOC that has long operated a random unit generator. LNR are dire, but that doesn't mean the concept is flawed of having two reasonably fast regional expresses rather than one fast and one slow with the latter not useful for a through journey - there are other lines where I think this concept would work well.

Catering is not really here or there, it's a short journey and most buy before boarding.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You've essentially answered your own question there, in that it's down to which TOC operates the services and whatever rolling-stock that TOC has.

 

[Starmill]

I don't think this bears up to scrutiny at all.

The only reason that the services have more stops is because there has been a call to make 2tph from Hartford and Penkridge.

Before Hartford and Penkridge were added to the express Birmingham to Liverpool train, there was just one single stop that they made that Manchester services do not: Smethwick Galton Bridge.

What this actually is is new ideas coming along and slowing services down that were previously quite fast. The nature of the XC franchise means they've resisted it, the nature of the WMT franchise means they've embraced it. It has only changed in the last 5 years or so.

I would not wish to be in a position of cutting Hartford or Penkridge down from 2 to 1tph however.

CrossCountry have changed their timetable in order to add stops at Macclesfield on both services, too, and to remove the express trains which skipped Stafford and Stockport on Sundays. This was done without much fanfare though and has gone unnoticed by many.

 

[JonathanH]

I think that is right. The services aren't really that different but the Liverpool has to pick up a few more stops.

In the early 1990s, Penkridge was served by a Coventry to Stafford stopper. Putting the stops in something which reaches Birmingham quicker has stimulated demand for both WMT trains to call. It is difficult to justify a stopper over the Crewe to Liverpool stretch because the only places it needs to serve, apart from odd stops at Acton Bridge, are Winsford, Hartford, Runcorn and Liverpool South Parkway. On the other hand, Crewe to Manchester and Stoke to Manchester both have multiple stations to serve so there is segregation between a stopper and the XC services on these two routes.

 

[Starmill]

Catering is not really here or there, it's a short journey and most buy before boarding

Now that it has been so badly slowed down, it takes nearly as long to get from Liverpool to Birmingham as it does to get to London. There are always people buying things from the trolley too whenever I'm travelling on XC between Manchester and Birmingham.

 

[Camden]

The journey times are pretty poor for both Manchester and Liverpool trains, 1 hour 30 vs 1 hour 50 respectively. Not sure it's worth arguing the toss.

The real question is why it will still take 1 hour 50 to reach Liverpool when HS2 will reduce the Manchester journey to around 35 minutes... likewise for Sheffield and Leeds.

I understand that Liverpool overtook Manchester on Birmingham passengers a few years back. Sheffield and Leeds barely figure (source HS2!!!)

 

[JonathanH]

Now that it has been so badly slowed down, it takes nearly as long to get from Liverpool to Birmingham as it does to get to London. There are always people buying things from the trolley too whenever I'm travelling on XC between Manchester and Birmingham.

About 20 minutes slower between Liverpool and Birmingham than when XC ran every two hours in 2003.

 

[Greybeard33]

I would dispute that the XC Manchester to Birmingham service can properly be described as Inter-City either. A mix of 4- and 5-car Voyagers, overcrowded and cramped, making 5 intermediate stops, rammed with commuters from Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke into Manchester at one end, and with commuters from Wolverhampton and Stafford into Birmingham at the other.

Between cities yes, but Inter-City?

 

[73001]

Catering is not really here or there, it's a short journey and most buy before boarding.

...which would suggest that there is a requirement for catering but it's not catered for (). It's a sad thing really that unreliability and perception of higher costs has led to companies removing on board services across the country.

 

[jfollows]

In BR days, probably in around 1979 but that's a guess, an attempt was made to "improve" the Manchester-Birmingham services, which were at the time approximately one train every two hours (08:30, 10:23, 12:23, 14:23, 16:23 & 18:28 from Manchester from memory). Additional xx.27 services were added (odd hours from Manchester I think) which only called at Stockport and Wolverhampton. So more services, and faster ones. But they clearly didn't catch on, and didn't last for many years.

Clearly today's services are much better in terms of frequency. Until the catastrophic timetable change recently, I preferred the Birmingham-Liverpool services which were reliable, comfortable, only stopped a bit more.

Ultimately the question asked will be: what's the alternative? Apart from fixing the Liverpool timetable, of course.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I would dispute that the XC Manchester to Birmingham service can properly be described as Inter-City either. A mix of 4- and 5-car Voyagers, overcrowded and cramped, making 5 intermediate stops, rammed with commuters from Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke into Manchester at one end, and with commuters from Wolverhampton and Stafford into Birmingham at the other.

Between cities yes, but Inter-City?

This is true. The Reading-Newcastle service is probably the most Intercity like service that CrossCountry operate, it skipping the most stops (except on some services north of York). Most of the other CrossCountry services are really a little more Regional Railways Express/Alphaline than Intercity. Certainly the Turbostar routes don't justify the CrossCountry moniker, even though I don't think that means they need be separated from the CrossCountry franchise.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I would not wish to be in a position of cutting Hartford or Penkridge down from 2 to 1tph however.

Agree. The situation at Penkridge with a service twice as frequent in one direction as the other was always a bit silly even if timetablers give all sorts of reasons for it. Similarly at Winsford et al which long suffered from an irregular and infrequent pattern.

Really what is needed is a local service from Birmingham (or the Wolverhampton platform 6 bay if Stour Valley paths don't permit it) to at least as far as Wigan North Western, going via Stoke-on-Trent, Crewe and Earlestown, calling at all stations. A long service for a "stopper", true, but splitting it at Crewe or Stoke would mean unnecessary changes to do short journeys such as Kidsgrove to Winsford (though the numbers for this particular flow willl be tiny, it's just one example).

I doubt there's the paths to have locals from Hartford, Winsford and Acton Bridge to both Runcorn/Liverpool and Wigan though, so that would be a case of swapping one problem for another.

Eliminating the calls at small shacks from services that should be fast, e.g. Liverpool to Birmingham, is the only way to make journey times more attractive against the primary competition of the car. Unfortunately the capacity of our railways is really not up to the task of providing both local and long-distance services effectively. This struggle is seen on many other multi-use two-track lines - the GEML north of Shenfield, the Lea Valley lines, Hitchin to Cambridge, the Chiltern line south of Risborough, and arguably the trans-Pennine lines (in the wider sense).

In the long term, assuming that complete four-tracking of these areas is too expensive as it inevitably will be, and that a timetable where all services call at the same stations delivers an unattractive service proposition, the only other options are to add passing loops and use stock that's faster to accelerate.

 

[Djgr]

To be honest for non local services, wherever you look Manchester is over-provided and Liverpool under-provided.

 

[urbophile]

Why not have one regular train from Birmingham that splits at Crewe for Manchester and Liverpool?

 

[Class83]

The problem with the Liverpool-Birmingham services is not as much the time taken, while faster would be preferable, people in Hartford etc need a train service. It is the rolling stock used. The 350/2s which appear all to often have 3+2 seating with no tables/trays. The 350/4s with 2+2 standard, 2+1 first, tables and a trolley would be quite suited to this service.

 

[mmh]

...which would suggest that there is a requirement for catering but it's not catered for (). It's a sad thing really that unreliability and perception of higher costs has led to companies removing on board services across the country.

One higher cost, at least, isn't perceived but real. It's inevitably cheaper to buy food and drink off the train. The only disadvantage is not being able to buy, or keep, something hot, which is why regardless of the belief of some tea and coffee are the biggest sellers on trains.

When it comes to hot food, there seems to be a strange obsession over bacon butties. So it feels like there's actually no real demand for cordon bleu food, even among enthusiasts.

 

[childwallblues]

I have always thought that you could speed up LIV-BHM services by extending the LIV-WBQ to CRE. Remove the stops at ACB, HTF and WSF from the direct LIV-BHM trains and put them on the new service. Whilst this would mean RUN losing its local services the mid-Cheshire stations these would gain access to Warrington and St Helens. Runcorn would still have four trains an hour into Liverpool.

 

[Scott M]

I would dispute that the XC Manchester to Birmingham service can properly be described as Inter-City either. A mix of 4- and 5-car Voyagers, overcrowded and cramped, making 5 intermediate stops, rammed with commuters from Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke into Manchester at one end, and with commuters from Wolverhampton and Stafford into Birmingham at the other.

Between cities yes, but Inter-City?

Voyagers are intercity trains, and how busy a train may be doesn’t really determine whether or not it is intercity.

Worth noting that XC are the only TOC that run non-stop between Birmingham and Wolverhampton - even Virgin stop at Sandwell.

 

[I13]

Worth noting that XC are the only TOC that run non-stop between Birmingham and Wolverhampton - even Virgin stop at Sandwell.

Apologies for being pedantic and for going off topic but one of the two WMR Shrewsbury services is non stop Birmingham to Wolverhampton. Some of the non-standard Avanti services also run non-stop.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

[snip]
Eliminating the calls at small shacks from services that should be fast, e.g. Liverpool to Birmingham, is the only way to make journey times more attractive against the primary competition of the car. Unfortunately the capacity of our railways is really not up to the task of providing both local and long-distance services effectively. This struggle is seen on many other multi-use two-track lines - the GEML north of Shenfield, the Lea Valley lines, Hitchin to Cambridge, the Chiltern line south of Risborough, and arguably the trans-Pennine lines (in the wider sense).

In the long term, assuming that complete four-tracking of these areas is too expensive as it inevitably will be, and that a timetable where all services call at the same stations delivers an unattractive service proposition, the only other options are to add passing loops and use stock that's faster to accelerate.

You have just summarised the argument in favour of new build HSR!

 

[Camden]

You have just summarised the argument in favour of new build HSR!

Except:

The journey times are pretty poor for both Manchester and Liverpool trains. The real question is why it will still take 1 hour 50 to reach Liverpool when HS2 will reduce the Manchester journey to around 35 minutes... likewise for Sheffield and Leeds.

I understand that Liverpool overtook Manchester on Birmingham passengers a few years back. Sheffield and Leeds barely figure (source HS2!!!)

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Under Intercity the Liverpool route was always the poor relation to the Manchester route. Whilst in the early 1990s recession Manchester-Euston frequency never dropped below hourly, the Liverpools were cut to every 90 mins. Similarly, whilst the hourly Liverpool-Crewe stoppers were retained, the reasonably fast Liverpool-Birmingham trains were cut back to every 2-3 hours. Small surprise that these were reduced even more to about 3-4 per day at privatisation and the primary Liverpool-Birmingham service became the stopper extended southward semi-fast to New Street and operated by Regional Railways, often with whatever stock was available (it went through a bizarre sequence of 310-323-312-158-170 within 8-10 years before settling on the 350s.) The plus side was the Eustons were improved back to hourly, never beyond this frequency, although I gather Avanti intend to better this now.

Edit - also in my experience the Crewe to Stafford legs were usually timed for 75mph over the slow lines, which added about 8 mins to the running time compared to a fast line path. I can only think this was pathing reasons as it made no sense.

 

[43096]

I would dispute that the XC Manchester to Birmingham service can properly be described as Inter-City either. A mix of 4- and 5-car Voyagers, overcrowded and cramped, making 5 intermediate stops, rammed with commuters from Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke into Manchester at one end, and with commuters from Wolverhampton and Stafford into Birmingham at the other.

Between cities yes, but Inter-City?

XC hasn't been a proper IC operation for years. It's a jumped-up Sprinter railway.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

XC hasn't been a proper IC operation for years. It's a jumped-up Sprinter railway.

I don’t dispute your underlying point, but in BR days it was rarely anything better than an exceptionally slow and unreliable Intercity railway. Love or hate Voyagers, the journey times and frequencies are FAR beyond anything ICXC offered even with their limited number of HSTs.

 

[Greybeard33]

The 350/4s with 2+2 standard, 2+1 first, tables and a trolley would be quite suited to this service.

From the 350/4 thread today:

350404 is currently at Liverpool Lime Street, booked to work 1305 departure to London Euston (1W90)
350410 currently in Wolverhampton en route to Euston (1W16) before working 1549 to Liverpool (1F54)

 

[Grecian 1998]

In my experience of using both (admittedly mainly at off-peak times), Liverpool probably has better Brum services (when they actually run) than Manchester given the marginal time differential (fastest journey times 97 minutes v 87 minutes so far as I can see). A 350/1 has around 30 more seats than a 220 and is generally less crowded. If it is overcrowded, it's still preferable to a class 220 given the more spacious layout and wider loading gauge. A 350/2 has a fair few more seats but is obviously a lot less comfortable.

Use 350s with 2+2 seating and it's generally a lot more pleasant than an overcrowded Voyager.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Except:

I was of course making a general point. But if you want to be more specific I would add that when it comes to HSR in the north I would build HS3 before HS2b and that HS3 has a much better case for extending HS trackage just about all the way to Liverpool city centre. This would just happen to overcome any difficulties in making a case for a south facing HS connection for Liverpool as it would only require a junction with the Wigan bound arm of HS2b when that is built.

 

[Camden]

I was of course making a general point. But if you want to be more specific I would add that when it comes to HSR in the north I would build HS3 before HS2b and that HS3 has a much better case for extending HS trackage just about all the way to Liverpool city centre. This would just happen to overcome any difficulties in making a case for a south facing HS connection for Liverpool as it would only require a junction with the Wigan bound arm of HS2b when that is built.

And I appreciate that, but unfortunately you're not the DfT. From the launch of HS2 as a project to now, Liverpool is still in the buffers on this.

HS3 has been announced as being built between Leeds and Manchester, and yet again Liverpool has been cold shouldered.

As I say, a reason for the huge differential in the future I find a far more pertinent question to ask than why Liverpool's trains today are 15 minutes slower. When HS2 opens, Liverpool's direct service to Birmingham will be an hour and 10 minutes slower!!

I don't doubt that Manchester's cross country destinations creating off-putting overcrowding goes some way to explaining why Liverpool these days has more Birmingham passengers, but regardless of the reason the substantial difference in offer is still not on. There's never even been an attempt at an official reason to excuse HS2's very poor/absent offer. They just ignore it and carry on.