How do you figure this? The Wikipedia article on HS2 says Birmingham to Liverpool will be 1:46 after Phase 2, exactly the same as the current time.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why is Manchester-Brum IC but Liverpool-Brum Regional Express?
- Thread starter Bletchleyite
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Manchester to Birmingham will be 35 minutes.
My bad. It says Manchester to Birmingham will take 41 minutes.
Liverpool to Birmingham will only become an hour and 5 minutes slower!!!!
Last edited:
Johnny Lewis
Member
Simple answer: the then Strategic Rail Authority hated Liverpool. They saw it as "a declining city" in 2003. There was a deliberate policy of running down the train service to and from Liverpool, leading to withdrawal of direct services to Edinburgh (Virgin XC), South Wales (Arriva Trains Wales) and, of course, removal from the larger Virgin XC network with all remaining trains diverted to Manchester. The lower-quality Central Trains services between Liverpool and Stansted Airport were also pruned to no longer run east of Birmingham, with that leg given over to XC. The SRA also seriously considered truncating the Norwich - Liverpool service at Manchester, due to congestion in the south Manchester area. I'm genuinely not sure how the Liverpool to London hourly service survived in their plans(!) All this took place at a time when Liverpool was about to be voted European Capital of Culture and a growing re-emergence of the city as a genuine and leading tourist destination.
It's taken some 15 to 20 years for the rail operators to finally recognise this, with the development and re-introduction of more frequent inter-city services to new destinations: TPE to Scotland via two different routes; LNWR to Birmingham International, Coventry and Northampton; TfW to Chester and soon back into both North and South Wales; and Avanti's plans to run 2 trains per hour to London from 2022. Maybe even restoration of the Northern Connect service to Bradford via the Calder Valley too, although this is looking less and less likely as time goes on.
Unfortunately, I can't see XC or their successor giving up one of their 2 trains per hour to Manchester to give Liverpool back its direct XC services (or, for that matter, other places in North West England that aren't Manchester! Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle etc. all used to have long-distance services to the South Coast and South West). I can't see any easy solution to this really, unless regular portion working became a thing again.
At least when LNWR's new trains come into service, they should provide a better quality of accommodation than the 350/2s, although it would be nice to see a more limited-stop pattern on at least one of the half-hourly Liverpool - Birmingham - London services to give a more attractive and "Inter-city" feel to the service, whatever that actually means these days!
It's taken some 15 to 20 years for the rail operators to finally recognise this, with the development and re-introduction of more frequent inter-city services to new destinations: TPE to Scotland via two different routes; LNWR to Birmingham International, Coventry and Northampton; TfW to Chester and soon back into both North and South Wales; and Avanti's plans to run 2 trains per hour to London from 2022. Maybe even restoration of the Northern Connect service to Bradford via the Calder Valley too, although this is looking less and less likely as time goes on.
Unfortunately, I can't see XC or their successor giving up one of their 2 trains per hour to Manchester to give Liverpool back its direct XC services (or, for that matter, other places in North West England that aren't Manchester! Warrington, Wigan, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle etc. all used to have long-distance services to the South Coast and South West). I can't see any easy solution to this really, unless regular portion working became a thing again.
At least when LNWR's new trains come into service, they should provide a better quality of accommodation than the 350/2s, although it would be nice to see a more limited-stop pattern on at least one of the half-hourly Liverpool - Birmingham - London services to give a more attractive and "Inter-city" feel to the service, whatever that actually means these days!
Thank you for a comprehensive and highly believable post. (I spent the whole day today in Liverpool amidst a swarm of tourists, who probably wonder why the trains don't go where they want to go)
Except that the North West Development Agency came up with a blinder: Liverpool was to give up competing with Manchester or, indeed, do anything economically significant thence forth. In return, it would be supported in the Capital of Culture bid and specialise in tourism.
The city's Lib Dem administration were all over this, of course; being Eurofederalists who saw the North West as a future province in that new nation, complete with provincial parliament in Manchester.
And tourism is not economically significant?
And it's that kind of attitude that lets people in power do things which are wrong. I found the summary informative.
We could always talk about how to improve the connection between Liverpool and Birmingham, particularly in respect of HS2?
Last edited:
It's not a thread about this per se. A reasonable question was raised and a reasonable answer has been provided.
Yes, it's almost as predictable as someone from another, non-Liverpool part of the northwest moaning about any discussion of Liverpool on here at all, no doubt as a prelude to the thread being locked because, it seems, certain people associated with this forum are incapable of tolerating the mere mention of Liverpool
Last edited by a moderator:
Practically speaking, is there anything (apart from the usual reliability issues re joining services on congested lines) which would prevent longer XC trains from the south coast and south Wales splitting at Stafford or Crewe to serve Liverpool and Manchester ? This might do something about the chronic overcrowding on XC services through Birmingham.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
There are only three platforms at Crewe with access towards Manchester so blocking them for longer periods for splitting and joining probably won't work. Stafford might be more realistic.
frodshamfella
Established Member
I use Acton Bridge, and we have a few more trains now at last ( but still inadequate amount of car parking ) , I'm going back many years but there was once a Liverpool to Crewe only local service, presumably all the Birmingham services then went Runcorn to Crewe non stop.
frodshamfella
Established Member
I don't fancy that much would take much longer to reach Liverpool, plus I use the train to get to Liverpool Airport, Although must say now have Frodsham with a Liverpool service, so maybe.
That's a positive development, I've not used the service for a while, if the extension through to London was stopped then 8 of those units would be enough to provide a half hourly service between New Street and Lime Street, maybe 9 if you want to put some slack in the timetable, which given there are 10 seems reasonable if they could be allocated to this. Then the 350/2s could be concentrated on commuter routes which they are better suited to.
Grecian 1998
Member
If 350s served Manchester-Brum but nowhere south on the XC network, whilst 220s and 221s ran XC services from Liverpool to Bristol and Southampton, then we might be reading a thread about how there was a clear bias against Liverpool because Manchester got shiny new electric trains with plenty of capacity whilst Liverpool got older overcrowded Voyagers running under the wires...
Purple Orange
On Moderation
It really grates on me how much diesel running under wires exists. We need our transport network to be as clean as possible.
JamesRowden
Established Member
My first thought would be that the reason for the better level rail of service at Manchester compared to Liverpool is simply due to both:
- The location of the cities
- The railway lines
TiedUpInNotts
Member
I agree. Virgin/Avanti were/are terrible for this. Richard Branson with his supposed stance on climate change and his ecology summits had years to stop running diesels under the wires and never did. The Euston - Chesters are bad enough with 150+ miles under the wires just to cover the last twenty odd to Chester, but the insistence on continually running some Scotland to Euston services as diesels is inexcusable, especially for a guy claiming to care about the environment.
Mind you, Branson also runs an airline so his public mutterings on environmental issues clearly lack any kind of integrity.
I'm pleased to see that Avanti are addressing the Voyager issue with the procurement of bi-modes and I'd very much like to see XC do the same. Short of further electrification (something I wouldn't hold my breath for), bi-modes are the next best thing. The days of unnecessary diesel working under the wires really needs to become a thing of the past.
Kettledrum
Member
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 790
New bi-mode stock for XC would enable XC to address this problem and provide Liverpool with a proper intercity service to Birmingham. It would need "portion working" whereby XC trains operate as 2x5 car units though the Birmingham part of the core network, and then split at Stafford, with one 5 car unit going on to service Liverpool and one going on to serve Manchester
The Liverpool to Birmingham services are every half hour ain't they?
I know some extend to London Euston as well,but I wouldn't fancy getting there eventually.com lol
With all of those intermediate stops,I wouldnt class it as an inter city service and by no means an Express.
Strange too is the fact that it's not always the cheapest option
Purple Orange
On Moderation
Why the need to split north of Birmingham? I don’t know Liverpool so well, but 5 car out of Manchester is not enough.
Personally I would prune XC, with Edinburgh & Newcastle as the east coast terminus in North with 1tph Bristol as the end point in the South West and 1tph to Reading in the South (east). All four points can act as an interchange for onward connections. On the West coast a similar operation, with Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow in the north and Bristol and Reading in the South. Doesn’t need to be the same TOC, just as is not the same TOC today.
Yes, any sensible person would much rather have a 350 than a Voyager, so the better quality of trains serving Liverpool does enter into the balance against the slightly (but unnecessarily) slower journey times to Brum, and the lack of direct services beyond Brum. The solution seems to me to be to replace Voyagers on XC with bi-modes, properly fitted out for long-distance comfort, running to both Liverpool and Manchester from points south of Brum. The underlying problem here is the DfT's indifference to the whole XC system (and to the broader concept of long distance rail travel which does not start or end in London)
Except that Liverpool is a large city, generating substantial travel.demand (particularly among tourists and atudents), with a large conurbation surrounding it. And that the role of hub for the north west was traditionally filled by Crewe. Given the poor quality of many regional services into Manchester, the alternative connections to most of the other large places in the north west which are connected to Manchester (eg via the WCML from Crewe northwards), the difficulty of.improving this without major investment of the sort that the government seems dead set against, and the demands for inbound travel which Manchester itself generates, you might question whether promoting Manchester as a rail hub for the entire region is sensible
Ah, the "I don't use trains at the extremities of the country, therefore people who do don't matter" approach. Other than to satisfy an ideological belief that these routes shouldn't exist, what benefit would scrapping them give?
Purple Orange
On Moderation
No, that is not my opinion. I said Bristol and Reading should be hubs for interchange. Same with north of Edinburgh. XC offering at the extremes is fairly poor and surely it would better for GWR, Scotrail and South West Rail to be able to offer a more reliable and frequent services from say Penzance to Bristol than the poor XC service.
What makes the offering 'poor'? XC run hourly to Bournemouth and additionally to Southampton in some hours. XC run hourly to Plymouth and additionally to Exeter in some hours. Now that GWR run half hourly from Plymouth to Penzance, Plymouth is a suitable hub to turn the XC service.
Bournemouth and Plymouth (and indeed Southampton and Exeter) both have appropriate facilities to turn back the XC service reliably, turnback sidings at Bournemouth, plenty of platforms at Plymouth, sidings beyond Southampton and platform 2 at Exeter.
Similarly, to keep this on topic, Manchester has appropriate turn back facilities for the Cross Country service and is an appropriate end point. When planning railway services, they have to look at where there is capacity to terminate trains.
Last edited:
- Status