New platforms for Liverpool Lime Street

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Strictly speaking there are through services at Liverpool Lime Street; namely the Blackpool North to Liverpool South Parkway services.

I suppose the definition of "through" services will remain a matter of conjecture in the minds of some of the forum membership.

 

[Holly]

... Don't get me wrong, I wish to see new rail flows in and out of the Port and I really hope it does happen but the current vibes etc suggest otherwise. Sorry.

Port rail freight traffic will expand when the roads have no more capacity left.

I don't see that as being impossibly far away. Also a reopened Canada dock branch line for bulk cargoes once road is saturated.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also a reopened Canada dock branch line for bulk cargoes once road is saturated.

Was the matter of having this branch line made operational to serve the dock area discussed a few years ago in a RUS document ?

I wonder how Merseyrail now view the former railway stations on this line.

 

[8A Rail]

Port rail freight traffic will expand when the roads have no more capacity left.

How long is a piece of string???

Also a reopened Canada dock branch line for bulk cargoes once road is saturated.

Why? Have you forgotten all the main shipping is concentrated at Gladstone Dock, Royal Seaforth Dock and the new River Terminal when its opened therefore all the unloading is in those areas. To transport bulk from those area's would need to go by road either via an extended dock road closure (i.e. comes within an expanded Port area) or goes via the A565 road? Yes not impossible but not necessary as there are major under used rail facilities in the above area's anyway.

Not sure if you realise but Seaforth CT has three unloading rail lines only used for a once a week (exported) steel train. Also has had a connection for a fourth rail line since the early 90's but never got any further because the expanded traffic never arrived (it went the opposite way, all disappeared).

Then add to that, there is an unused rail connection serving Gladstone Steel Terminal as well as the one serving the Atlantic Terminal (opposite the power station). The only rail facilities being used regulary is Eon's Bulk Terminal (Coal/Biomass) and EMR Alexander Dk Sdgs (Scrap).

So any further expansion of the rail facilities is a long way off, if ever given the existing free capacity. Also dont forget the Bootle Branch line will be need to be upgraded too although in the grand scheme of things, its small fry.

However, we come back to Peel Holdings plans to transport things by water to other locations on the Mersey and Manchester Ship Canal which is already happening!

 

[Wavertreelad]

But which services would use an Edge Hill to Waterfront line ? The vast majority of passengers on the Huyton / St. Helens / Earlestown / Runcorn routes want to go to the city centre, not the Waterfront area. Forcing them to change at Edge Hill to get to Lime St. & the city centre would be hugely unpopular.

Totally agree, and perhaps the post could have been a little clearer. The LW HS2 captive station idea was one suggestion mainly because the site offered a location near the city centre, on the basis that as the city area expanded as it will inevitable do in the very long term. The problem of course is then linking it with other services and the rest of the city centre. The other suggestion was build the HS2 captive station on the south side of the existing Edge Hill Station.The problem remains of those HS2 passengers wishing to travel to the city centre, as they would have to change to local services.

For all these reasons my preferred option would be to use classic compatible stock using HS2 to Warrington and then running via an upgraded SC&RC route to Ditton and into Lime Street, avoiding the need for HS2 passengers to change trains to reach the city centre. This would potentially allow Merseyrail services to be extended to Warrington using the CLC route. If one of the Edge Hill tunnels was reopened and connected directly to the Merseyrail potentially some of the existing services into Lime Street could be diverted to an expanded Central relieving some of the pressure on Lime Street.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not quite true as most of the newer hotels were already completed before the CLT came into being. Cruise ships and new hotels are not linked in that context as you make think as until recently, with the exception of the few that departed /arrived at Langton Dock, no cruises began or finish at the CLT. Because of that extra hotel capacity had directly nothing to do with CLT. This I'm sure will change in the future as the major Cruise lines are now indicating they will commence to start / finish cruises to/from Liverpool. .

Agree there were several new hotels the LCT at the Pier Head started operations, and for that matter at the Langton Dock facility, partly because there was a shortage of quality facilities in the area in the first place. The trend has continued over recent years since it became clear the Langton Dock facility provided by Peel for Liverpool City Council was totally inadequate for the purpose and hence the latter's decision to use the Pier Head. This decision actually suited Peel because from their point of view the revenue from a cruise ship call is very small and certainly could not justify the building of a permanent facility as well all the hassle that the calls created. The other benefit was that Liverpool City Council could apply for government and EU grants for the scheme provided the Pier Head was not used as a turn round facility. The trick being simply first get the cruise operators interested in making the stop over call and building up the support to build up a business case for launching a turn round facility. The problem was they needed Peel's cooperation as they owned the adjoining land at St Nicholas Place that was needed to provide the marshalling area for the cars and customs/immigration facilities etc. Peel were unwilling to build a permanent facility on the site, so the temporary facility was provided. The timing of decision also suited Peel who had submitted their plans for LW, and so it was probably not a coincidence that both schemes moved forward. The recent decision by Liverpool City Council to restore Cunard Building to it's original purpose as the cruise terminal has been widely acclaimed and whilst it not without problems, it does suit both the Council and Peel from their respective "business" view points. Going back to the hotel issue, the point I was making was that ever since Liverpool City Council announced they intended to convert the Pier Head facility to a turn around terminal, it does seem the pace of new hotel builds and conversions has accelerated although I have no specific figures to prove it either way.

 

[eps200]

Captives into Liverpool is a non starter, only way to make space is to finish Merseyrail outer loops tunnelling from edge hill to central, then turning over the local platforms for mainline use.

 

[HSTEd]

Well my proposal was designed to produce a captive station in Liverpool at minimum cost.

And I am not sure 'Moorfields High Level' is going to be significantly harder to reach than Liverpool Lime street is, sure it loses the 'City Line' services but it is on both lines of the 'Merseyrail Electric' system instead of just one.

 

[Dunc108]

Strictly speaking there are through services at Liverpool Lime Street; namely the Blackpool North to Liverpool South Parkway services.

Yes but its a long & often very congested journey, often standing room only by St Helen's Central in a 2-car 156. The extension to Liverpool South Parkway (for Liverpool Airport), whilst better than nothing, almost looks like an afterthought compared to Manchester Airport's extensive through services. The reversal at Lime Street will also add to journey times & make's the Airport rail alternative (for Liverpool) look like a slog rather than a sprint.

A 6-car EMU direct to Liverpool South Parkway via Ormskirk from Preston would in my view be far superior, aswell as offering direct through City services aswell as Wirral line connections at both Moorfields & Central, oh, and serve the Airport more frequently aswell.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Quote:
It is also very likely the Port of Liverpool will have additional flows of bulk freight in the next few years as some existing facilities are converted to handle the flows all of which are likely to move by rail placing further pressure on the Chat Moss route.

Please tell me how you work that out? The traffic is already there but no one wishes to use the rail facilities hence why there is and especially NO intermodal / liner services in / out of the port. Some FOC's would like to operate these trains but there is no demand for them or not financially viable enough to make a complete liner in/out of the port. One of the reasons for this, is that any containers currently arriving / departing Port of Liverpool are being transported by road via the M57/A5300 to/from Garston FLT or Stobarts Terminal at Widnes. You may not realise this but "coal" rail traffic to/from the port is scheduled to drop off sometime in the future as it is planned to come from Scotland as well as possibily more from E/Port too. So the reality of the situation, is remarkably the Port is losing rail traffic and not actually gaining any.

Read the Peel Ports plans as a whole and you will note the idea of moving containers especially is via water to/from the Port to/from other locations especially on the Manchester Ship Canal. The new larger ships for the new river terminal will replace some of the existing flows already using Royal Seaforth Terminal. Yes there will be some new traffic but not as great as Peel Holdings are telling.

As I've said before, take some of Peel Holdings marketing statements as just publicity to make them look "friendly" to the outside world along with saying the "right" words to gain extra funds they need for particular projects.

Dont get me wrong I wish to see new rail flows in and out of the Port and I really hope it does happen but the current vibes etc suggest otherwise. Sorry
.

To clarify a number of points as follows.
1. There are no intermodal (ie trains carrying containers) out of Seaforth for several reasons,
a) It is widely accepted within the shipping industry that rail/road deliveries and vice versa are not competitive under 100 miles, which due to Liverpool's geographic position means much of it's natural hinterland is best served by road. As a result only Scotland and the South West fall well outside this area.
b) Most container shipping lines operating into Seaforth operate into other UK ports so can position or reposition empties to either Felixstowe, Tilbury or Southampton and shortly London Gateway. Forget Thamesport, because as of next month the port will have no deep sea vessels calling at the port.
c) Due to EU competition rules the shipping lines all have separate haulage tariffs for each different UK Port, usually based on round trip back to the same port, which keeps the cost competitive with a shipper/consignee wishing to handle the movements themselves, although there are exceptions.
d) The majority of container traffic through Seaforth is destined for, or originates in North America a market which traditionally has never been a big user of rail transport in the UK, probably due to the rules that the lines have to follow to comply with their tariffs which are strictly monitored by the US authorities.
e) Freightliner, used to operate a service to and from Seaforth which was tripped to Garston, mainly for Scottish cargo. However, they withdrew the Seaforth train because the daily volume was not consistent to make the trip economical, although they still accept bookings for it and absorb the shunt movement by road to Garston.

2) When the riverside container opens (Liverpool2) the terminal will at least double the container capacity of the port, and more importantly will allow considerably larger vessels to operate into the port. Present limit is Panamax size or about 4000 teu dependent on tides and cargo deadweight. Liverpool2 will offer at least 14000 teu which will enable vessels from the Far East and Asia to call at the port. Of course some of these vessel calls could replace some of the traffic that currently moves on feeder vessels from Antwerp, Rotterdam, Le Havre and Southampton, but Peel will also be looking to attract new users as well developing the terminal into a hub with feeder vessels operating to other smaller ports in the Irish Sea. However, these 14000 teu plus vessels are unlikely to be involved in the North Atlantic trade as the main US Ports on the East Coast and Montreal are unable to handle them for several more years at least. Seaforth will also remain open and some of the container facilities will be upgraded. The introduction of larger vessels will inevitably alter the way some inland destination are served as it will simply not be possible to handle the increased volume by road on the existing road network, even with a planned new bypass to link the terminal to the motorway network. As a result, it may be some locations further afield may be better served by rail/road combination, but it is all a question of the shipping lines attracted to the terminal and their volumes. I also agree that Peel will continue to promote and gain revenue the feeder service up and down the Manchester Ship Canal and they are presently formulating plans to develop the site of the former Bowater Paper Mill into a freight village as well as planned facility Acton Grange Warrington both of which will be rail linked in addition to the existing facility at Irlam. To be fair the feeder on the Canal really is only viable when there importer or exporter is located alongside the Canal and has sufficient volume as the additional lifts to road vehicles and shunts soon negates the cost advantages over a direct road delivery over this distance.

3) As far as bulk flows are concerned, Peel are presently extending the animal feed facilities at Seaforth which will sheds and/or berths elsewhere in the port to be redeveloped to handle other bulk products. In addition the channel between Gladstone Lock and Seaforth is currently being widened to reduce the risk of damage to the increased number of bulk vessels that will be using the port. These bulk vessels up to a maximum of Panamax, (about 63000 tonnes) size will be capable of carrying all sorts of product from grain, coal, scrap, biomass etc to several refurbished berths in the port, whilst other bulk vessels will use the Langton Lock to access existing facilities to the south as far as Canada Dock which also could have it's rail connection restored.

4) As far as LBT coal berth at Gladstone Dock /Fiddlers Ferry movements is concerned, the last I heard was the terminal is leased by EON from Peel and as a result EON have to pay the operating costs even if no ship uses the facility. For this reason, the terminal has, in the past, often handled coal for other power producers so the terminal is certainly not dependant on Fiddlers Ferry as the only outlet. Ellesmere Port is restricted to the size of ship that can navigate the Manchester Ship Canal, which means a length of about 170 mtrs with a beam of 21 mtrs, and a draft of 8 mtrs. This is considerably smaller than the size able to enter Langton or Gladstone lock on the Liverpool dock system. Ellesmere Port might therefore only be used for specific grades of fuel to burn or mix with other products to reduce carbon emissions.

5) I agree any marketing information by any organisation is almost certainly likely to contain a certain amount of hype, and whilst Peels plans may look to include elements of this, they are based on what they perceive the market requires based on some considerable research. Only time will tell if this research was right.

 

[8A Rail]

Agree there were several new hotels the LCT at the Pier Head started operations, and for that matter at the Langton Dock facility, partly because there was a shortage of quality facilities in the area in the first place. The trend has continued over recent years since it became clear the Langton Dock facility provided by Peel for Liverpool City Council was totally inadequate for the purpose and hence the latter's decision to use the Pier Head. This decision actually suited Peel because from their point of view the revenue from a cruise ship call is very small and certainly could not justify the building of a permanent facility as well all the hassle that the calls created. The other benefit was that Liverpool City Council could apply for government and EU grants for the scheme provided the Pier Head was not used as a turn round facility. The trick being simply first get the cruise operators interested in making the stop over call and building up the support to build up a business case for launching a turn round facility. The problem was they needed Peel's cooperation as they owned the adjoining land at St Nicholas Place that was needed to provide the marshalling area for the cars and customs/immigration facilities etc. Peel were unwilling to build a permanent facility on the site, so the temporary facility was provided. The timing of decision also suited Peel who had submitted their plans for LW, and so it was probably not a coincidence that both schemes moved forward. The recent decision by Liverpool City Council to restore Cunard Building to it's original purpose as the cruise terminal has been widely acclaimed and whilst it not without problems, it does suit both the Council and Peel from their respective "business" view points. Going back to the hotel issue, the point I was making was that ever since Liverpool City Council announced they intended to convert the Pier Head facility to a turn around terminal, it does seem the pace of new hotel builds and conversions has accelerated although I have no specific figures to prove it either way.

Without being rude, I am fully aware of what has been going on in regards to the CLT as I do have an interest in Mersey shipping and have also used the CLT too.

As you say, you have no specific figures to prove either way but how many hotels have been planned or currently being built since the announcement of the turnaround facilities - not as many as there was prior to the announcement. In fact I suspect there has been a considerable slow down of new hotels as how many hotels can a city have? One thing we can both acknoweldge, that the "turnaround" calls will increase patronage of the exisiting hotels though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To clarify a number of points as follows.
1. There are no intermodal (ie trains carrying containers) out of Seaforth for several reasons,
a) It is widely accepted within the shipping industry that rail/road deliveries and vice versa are not competitive under 100 miles, which due to Liverpool's geographic position means much of it's natural hinterland is best served by road. As a result only Scotland and the South West fall well outside this area.
b) Most container shipping lines operating into Seaforth operate into other UK ports so can position or reposition empties to either Felixstowe, Tilbury or Southampton and shortly London Gateway. Forget Thamesport, because as of next month the port will have no deep sea vessels calling at the port.
c) Due to EU competition rules the shipping lines all have separate haulage tariffs for each different UK Port, usually based on round trip back to the same port, which keeps the cost competitive with a shipper/consignee wishing to handle the movements themselves, although there are exceptions.
d) The majority of container traffic through Seaforth is destined for, or originates in North America a market which traditionally has never been a big user of rail transport in the UK, probably due to the rules that the lines have to follow to comply with their tariffs which are strictly monitored by the US authorities.
e) Freightliner, used to operate a service to and from Seaforth which was tripped to Garston, mainly for Scottish cargo. However, they withdrew the Seaforth train because the daily volume was not consistent to make the trip economical, although they still accept bookings for it and absorb the shunt movement by road to Garston.

Not being rude again, I am fully aware of the above also. By the way Freightliner use to operate at its height 3 days in and out of Seaforth but that is back in the mid 90's. And to add Transrail/EWS used to operate occasional Intermodal trains too. Since then it has decreased to the point of none as of 6/7 years ago, yet I understand, more containers are coming into the port.

2) When the riverside container opens (Liverpool2) the terminal will at least double the container capacity of the port, and more importantly will allow considerably larger vessels to operate into the port. Present limit is Panamax size or about 4000 teu dependent on tides and cargo deadweight. Liverpool2 will offer at least 14000 teu which will enable vessels from the Far East and Asia to call at the port. Of course some of these vessel calls could replace some of the traffic that currently moves on feeder vessels from Antwerp, Rotterdam, Le Havre and Southampton, but Peel will also be looking to attract new users as well developing the terminal into a hub with feeder vessels operating to other smaller ports in the Irish Sea. However, these 14000 teu plus vessels are unlikely to be involved in the North Atlantic trade as the main US Ports on the East Coast and Montreal are unable to handle them for several more years at least. Seaforth will also remain open and some of the container facilities will be upgraded. The introduction of larger vessels will inevitably alter the way some inland destination are served as it will simply not be possible to handle the increased volume by road on the existing road network, even with a planned new bypass to link the terminal to the motorway network. As a result, it may be some locations further afield may be better served by rail/road combination, but it is all a question of the shipping lines attracted to the terminal and their volumes. I also agree that Peel will continue to promote and gain revenue the feeder service up and down the Manchester Ship Canal and they are presently formulating plans to develop the site of the former Bowater Paper Mill into a freight village as well as planned facility Acton Grange Warrington both of which will be rail linked in addition to the existing facility at Irlam. To be fair the feeder on the Canal really is only viable when there importer or exporter is located alongside the Canal and has sufficient volume as the additional lifts to road vehicles and shunts soon negates the cost advantages over a direct road delivery over this distance.

I am fully aware of some of the points above too but for some of the points/reasons you have written, the reverse can also apply that there is no reason for trains to recommence from Seaforth, as the traffic can be transported to other locations by water. eg: Far East/Asia ships be easier to call at Southampton / Felixstowe accordingly as they have far better rail connections and services to the rest of the UK. As you mentioned previously, if a train is not going more than 100 miles, then it is not worth operating. However, I will except that FL manage to operate feeder services from Garston/Ditton to Crewe and return then I suppose that is possible. I suppose the bottom line will depend on the relevant container companies deciding whether they have sufficient business to operate a block train in and out the docks to make it economical worthwhile and which FOC wishes to operate it. Interestingly the "liner" rail paths are still in the system but to operate via Edge Hill Wapping / Runcorn.

3) As far as bulk flows are concerned, Peel are presently extending the animal feed facilities at Seaforth which will sheds and/or berths elsewhere in the port to be redeveloped to handle other bulk products. In addition the channel between Gladstone Lock and Seaforth is currently being widened to reduce the risk of damage to the increased number of bulk vessels that will be using the port. These bulk vessels up to a maximum of Panamax, (about 63000 tonnes) size will be capable of carrying all sorts of product from grain, coal, scrap, biomass etc to several refurbished berths in the port, whilst other bulk vessels will use the Langton Lock to access existing facilities to the south as far as Canada Dock which also could have it's rail connection restored.

Again I am aware of Peels intentions but coal, scrap and biomass is already a rail carrier at the Docks and the facilities are already there within the port, so they wont be moving elsewhere. As for Grain, no need for rail facilities as Kellogs already have a facility with the resulting transportation by road - dont see that going by rail to other locations as generally speaking in the UK, there is hardly locations that can handle unloading grain from train. The latter can only happen if there is a major shift in organisations wanting to build the facilities / connections and also not forgetting "hoppers" to carry the grain too. Even with "steel", I dont see that changing (would love too) given the present requirements in the UK and where it can be sourced from.

As for Canada Dock, it would need major investment to transform the area in general, let alone any possible rail reconnection. Something that definitely wont happen in my lifetime.

4) As far as LBT coal berth at Gladstone Dock /Fiddlers Ferry movements is concerned, the last I heard was the terminal is leased by EON from Peel and as a result EON have to pay the operating costs even if no ship uses the facility. For this reason, the terminal has, in the past, often handled coal for other power producers so the terminal is certainly not dependant on Fiddlers Ferry as the only outlet. Ellesmere Port is restricted to the size of ship that can navigate the Manchester Ship Canal, which means a length of about 170 mtrs with a beam of 21 mtrs, and a draft of 8 mtrs. This is considerably smaller than the size able to enter Langton or Gladstone lock on the Liverpool dock system. Ellesmere Port might therefore only be used for specific grades of fuel to burn or mix with other products to reduce carbon emissions.

Recently there has been a shift by the Power Generators in attempt to source their coal/biomass from within so to speak. This is why SSE (Fidlers Ferry) will be obtaining its coal from Scotland either via ship or train as basically wishes to support Scottish people / companies along with cost considerations. The coal that arrives at Ellesmere Port is actually from Scotland either via Hunterston (imported) or Scottish coal (open cast?). That is why ships arrive at E/Port and this is likely to increase to the detrament of LBT/Eon. The proposal is two rakes per day to be used on the E/port circuit. The latter has already been happening on Saturdays at the expense of the last same day LBT-FFPS coal (6F84).

With regards to Eon (LBT) the only traffic they will be left with is to serve both Ratfcliffe PS (coal) and Ironbridge PS (Biomass) both owned by Eon. The current Ellesmere Port Biomass traffic will prob finish once the LBT Biomass facility is fully up and running, probably beginning of next year as far as i am aware. So I am really not sure were Eon(LBT) is going to gain extra traffic from especially to other generators - may be the occasional one off/temporary flow?

I must admit if Eon is leasing the LBT facility, then who paid for the new Biomass facility, Eon or Peel Holdings?

5) I agree any marketing information by any organisation is almost certainly likely to contain a certain amount of hype, and whilst Peels plans may look to include elements of this, they are based on what they perceive the market requires based on some considerable research. Only time will tell if this research was right.

At least we agree on this point, however, in defence of Peel Holdings, at least they are attempting to invest in the Docks and associated MSC points. I stlll however not convince with their pro rail arguments, I just believe it is just a front while they concentrate on other area's - sorry.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Thanks guys for taking the time to post all this information. Very interesting.
I think I understand the Mersey ports business a bit better now!

 

[lfc2014uk]

Update!

I spoke to a network rail member of staff at lime street who told me they will widen 6a siding so intercity trains can stop there. This means the track at 6a and 7 will be shifted right. Therefore p7 will be cut back towards the virgin office to accomodate the new layout.

The siding between p5 and p6 will be remodelled so eventually p6 will become a straight platform rather than a curved one.

 

[Wavertreelad]

In summary, I think we can all agree the development of the cruise business from Liverpool will have a positive effect to the general local economy including putting more bums on seats on trains too and from Lime Street. How the station and infrastructure copes is another thing.

As far as the Port of Liverpool and intermodal traffic is concerned I also agree that much will depend on the shipping lines, and the type of service they introduce to the Port, post 2015 when the new terminal opens. I totally agree Southampton, Felixstowe and potentially London Gateway will offer more connections to and from key markets in Asia and the Far East simply because of their geographic locations adjacent to the main shipping lanes. However, there are some major local manufacturers and importers in the north west who control volume business which is slowly returning to the port, in part due to special deals that Peel does with cargo owners on free time on the quay. This is something which is not easily achieved in southern ports due to the way the respective port authorities conduct inclusive deals with individual carriers, although there are one or two exceptions, one often quoted being B&Q in Southampton. Of course these local manufacturers and importers are of little interest to the rail industry as nine times out of ten they are too close to be economic to be served by rail, but they can generate volume from key markets which may, and it is a big may, alter the current balance of cargo moving through the port. Whilst Southampton will probably continue to secure the majority of the premium freight and 18000 teu vessels due to it's geographic location, with Felixstowe and London Gateway slogging out a rate war for the remainder, Liverpool will likely be restricted initially to 14000 teu vessels and probably the lower value goods which are more sensitive to UK haulages costs which can hugely favour a northern gateway. It should also be remembered that even when widening of the Panama Canal is completed in 2015, the size of vessel will still be restricted to about 8000 teu which is likely to be size of vessel used in the Europe Transatlantic trade with the USA simply because US Ports on the US East Coast and Gulf will be unable to accept anything much bigger for many years to come.

As far as bulk traffic is concerned, I would clarify that whilst some facilities like LBT will not be moving, I understand from a well placed source that some facilities will be transferred to other areas of the port to maximise on the use of available berths. The existing animal feeds facility is already being extended and a new steel distribution terminal is also under construction whilst scrap, paper, aggregates and biomass are also seen as areas that could be expanded, and reopening a link to Canada Dock is "also under investigation". I also believe there are plans to develop bonded warehouse facilities in the port in same way that facilities have already been built for Asda in Teesport and are being built for M&S at London Gateway to offer an alternative to the supermarkets chains to the Stobbart facility at Widnes which could generate some volume.

I would stress that apart from the early 2015 opening date of Liverpool2 it is difficult to predict if and which flows may materialise given the current market conditions. The fact that Peel has plans is at least encouraging, even if there may be element of hype contained within them. The one thing for almost certain is there is a potential for growth in rail traffic in one form or another from the port in the coming years which can only be good for the industry. I hope we are all still around to see at least some of the outcome of this significant investment by Peel.

 

[Muzer]

Update!

I spoke to a network rail member of staff at lime street who told me they will widen 6a siding so intercity trains can stop there. This means the track at 6a and 7 will be shifted right. Therefore p7 will be cut back towards the virgin office to accomodate the new layout.

The siding between p5 and p6 will be remodelled so eventually p6 will become a straight platform rather than a curved one.

By cut back, do you mean shortened or made narrower? Slight shame if shortened, I know charters usually use 7 because it's the longest platform.

 

[8A Rail]

By cut back, do you mean shortened or made narrower? Slight shame if shortened, I know charters usually use 7 because it's the longest platform.

Reading the post, I think it is safe to say that and looking towards the Signal Box / Junction that Platform 7 and line will move closer to the Virgin Customer Service Ctr but keeping its length, therefore creating space to build a proper platform from the Station supporting pillars for the new Platform / line 6A to be implemented. Simple but effective as there is space available to do that.

(Basically the present Platform 7 line will in effect be the new Platform 6A line and a new Platform 7 (part) line will be layed along side).

 

[Gareth]

I think he's suggesting what I said in the early posts of this thread will happen...

The only way I can see it being done would be to lift the tracks and fill in the siding so it becomes the new Platform 7. Then, a new Platform 8 could be built to the south of that, eating into the large area that was the taxi rank.

Still, I've not heard anything about this plan other than from lfc2014uk and I think I saw it on the station's Wikipedia article, although it appears to have been removed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Picking up on all today's points, I actually agree a HS2 at Liverpool Waters is very unlikely to happen, as LW has outline planning approval and will likely start being constructed before the first sod of HS2 is removed. I can't see a developer leaving sufficient space to build the required station, if there is any doubt if the project will proceed especially given the time frame involved. I have no doubt that Peel will build the LW project in one form or another, as the land has little use for modern port operations and is in a prime location being near the river. We have already seen what Peel has done at Salford Quays, and they are currently building the new Liverpool2 riverside container terminal that will allow large container ships to use the port which in turn will generate a considerable number of new opportunities in the area once it opens in early 2015.

Peel also have plans to build to build a second cruise terminal on the LW site to compete with the Liverpool City Council operated terminal at the Pier Head. I would also add that since the cruise ships returned to the Pier Head there has been a large number of new hotels of all types opened or in the course of construction in the city centre and it therefore not unreasonable to suggest in the coming years the numbers of bums on train seats to and from Liverpool should increase although admittedly not necessarily from the London area. I also agree the site of LW is not in the city centre, but given the present geography I cannot see this extending further to the south or east rather leaving the north as the only suitable area for expansion in the very long term.

It is also very likely the Port of Liverpool will have additional flows of bulk freight in the next few years as some existing facilities are converted to handle the flows all of which are likely to move by rail placing further pressure on the Chat Moss route. Extending the Merseyrail network to Preston or Wigan from Ormskirk and Kirkby could allow freight trains to reach the WCML, and help fund the cost of upgrading the lines to 25kv overhead, which would effectively prevent the route being used by HS2 trains captive or otherwise into the Exchange site.

Edge Hill could remain an option for captive services, but agree the location is not ideal to serve the city centre although is potentially well served by existing bus routes. Of course if the Merseytravel schemes to reopen the Edge Hill tunnels and build connecting tunnels to the Merseyrail services it would make the site potentially more attractive, especially if underground stations could be constructed near the University and or the Liverpool Arena depending which tunnels were selected. I believe that when Exchange closed, a tunnel connection was built to link to the Trafalgar tunnel was constructed for such a connection in a future project, and there is a similar option at Central underground station from the old terminal platform. Network Rail and Merseytravel have also identified that despite the recent upgrade, Central will have to be expanded at some stage to cope with expected passenger levels.

I agree a station on the Wirral is a none starter for Liverpool for all the reasons stated above and there is till the access problem to Liverpool. In any event Liverpudlians only tend to venture on to the dark side only if it is necessary.

The more I think about it a link from HS2 at Warrington using the old St Helens Canal & Railway Company route from Warrington Bank Quay to Ditton might be a better alternative if it was upgraded to 125mph and classic compatible stock used on the "branch". At a distance of give or take 20 miles max, the travelling time from HS2 to Lime Street could be just 20/25 minutes, and it might also allow a spur directly to Liverpool John Lennon airport which would not be possible with the CLC route. Another advantage would be it would allow Merseyrail to be extended to Warrington using the CLC route as part of an overall electrification of the route at 25kv overhead.

I know my response is tardy, so excuse me, but there's a few points in this post that I'd like to address.

I need to get out the way this 'Wirral' thing. People on the right bank of the Mersey don't want their train terminus on the Wirral Peninsula, even if it's in Central Birkenhead, because it's not the centre and therefore less convenient to get to. It's not because people don't want to go to the 'dark side'. That's a provincial mindset that this city (and by 'city', I mean the whole of the urban area) needs to get rid of if it is to have any chance in this century. No one in Manchester refers to Salford as the dark side.

Edge Hill, like I said, is inconvenient for the same reasons. In fact, for most of the city region, it'd be more inconvenient than Birkenhead. Liverpool seriously gets stuffed in the HS2 proposals in terms of competitive journey times and lack of new infrastructure and some people think a captive line ending at Edge Hill is the answer. It solves neither issue. The faster journey time a captive spur would give would be cancelled out by the time taken getting to Edge Hill, which for most people, will be far less convenient than the city centre. The captive spur will take off two paths for London and possibly a service to Birmingham but it's a false solution relieving congestion on existing infrastructure to the centre by stopping trains short on the edge. Transport should take people where they want to go and most people want to go to the centre.

Your idea of classic compatible via Warrington Bank Quay Low Level is not a bad one and I've thought about it myself before. The problem with it is that I'm not sure it'd save much time compared to the current option. I could be wrong on that. Also, WBQ LL is pretty winding, although the route is pretty straight west of Warrington, so the reused section couldn't be captive gauge without some high profile engineering. I know you're suggesting it would be classic gauge but I feel any new or reinstated path towards Liverpool for HS2 should be captive gauge, as even if the services are classic compatible at the beginning, the idea should be that the captive part is eventually extended to the terminus in Central Liverpool. Also, via Liverpool South Parkway, whilst handy for the airport, is far from the most direct route into Central Liverpool as the crow flies, from Warrington.

I agree with extending Merseyrail to Warrington Central. The only problem is the orphaning of West Allerton and Mossley Hill. The Edge Hill Spur is also still desirable and electrification of the Chat Moss route makes it more logical than ever. The latter would certainly take the Wigan and Victoria stoppers (probably scaled back to Newton-le-Willows) off the congested Edge Hill-Lime Street section. This is currently 4tph but should perhaps ideally be double that, more akin to the existing Merseyrail network.

 

[HSTEd]

An Edge Hill terminus appears to have no benefits over a Moorfields one apart from a very marginally reduced journey time to London (probably overcome by the increased time to reach the station from most of liverpool).
70km to main part of HS2 (Moorfields via ~Wigan) at 140mph would take about 19 minutes.
53km to main part of HS2 (Edge Hill crossing the Mersey east of Runcorn) at 200mph would take about ten minutes at least.

So you save less than nine minutes.

Is Moorfields 9 minutes closer to most of Merseyside than Edge Hill?
I reckon so.

 

[rebmcr]

No one in Manchester refers to Salford as the dark side.

Not sure that's entirely true!

 

[Wavertreelad]

I think he's suggesting what I said in the early posts of this thread will happen...



Still, I've not heard anything about this plan other than from lfc2014uk and I think I saw it on the station's Wikipedia article, although it appears to have been removed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I know my response is tardy, so excuse me, but there's a few points in this post that I'd like to address.

I need to get out the way this 'Wirral' thing. People on the right bank of the Mersey don't want their train terminus on the Wirral Peninsula, even if it's in Central Birkenhead, because it's not the centre and therefore less convenient to get to. It's not because people don't want to go to the 'dark side'. That's a provincial mindset that this city (and by 'city', I mean the whole of the urban area) needs to get rid of if it is to have any chance in this century. No one in Manchester refers to Salford as the dark side.

Edge Hill, like I said, is inconvenient for the same reasons. In fact, for most of the city region, it'd be more inconvenient than Birkenhead. Liverpool seriously gets stuffed in the HS2 proposals in terms of competitive journey times and lack of new infrastructure and some people think a captive line ending at Edge Hill is the answer. It solves neither issue. The faster journey time a captive spur would give would be cancelled out by the time taken getting to Edge Hill, which for most people, will be far less convenient than the city centre. The captive spur will take off two paths for London and possibly a service to Birmingham but it's a false solution relieving congestion on existing infrastructure to the centre by stopping trains short on the edge. Transport should take people where they want to go and most people want to go to the centre.

Your idea of classic compatible via Warrington Bank Quay Low Level is not a bad one and I've thought about it myself before. The problem with it is that I'm not sure it'd save much time compared to the current option. I could be wrong on that. Also, WBQ LL is pretty winding, although the route is pretty straight west of Warrington, so the reused section couldn't be captive gauge without some high profile engineering. I know you're suggesting it would be classic gauge but I feel any new or reinstated path towards Liverpool for HS2 should be captive gauge, as even if the services are classic compatible at the beginning, the idea should be that the captive part is eventually extended to the terminus in Central Liverpool. Also, via Liverpool South Parkway, whilst handy for the airport, is far from the most direct route into Central Liverpool as the crow flies, from Warrington.

I agree with extending Merseyrail to Warrington Central. The only problem is the orphaning of West Allerton and Mossley Hill. The Edge Hill Spur is also still desirable and electrification of the Chat Moss route makes it more logical than ever. The latter would certainly take the Wigan and Victoria stoppers (probably scaled back to Newton-le-Willows) off the congested Edge Hill-Lime Street section. This is currently 4tph but should perhaps ideally be double that, more akin to the existing Merseyrail network.

Gareth you are excused.
Personally I have nothing against the Wirral and the residents who live there and have also worked over there myself. Whether we like it or not the fact is the River Mersey does form a physical barrier to the community and inevitably this means that residents on either side of it only tend to visit the other side as and when necessary depending on individual lifestyles.

Surely for the same reasons that Edge Hill is a not ideal for passengers wishing to get to Liverpool City centre, must also apply to any HS2 captive station built outside the city centre thus including Birkenhead?

I totally agree the present HS2 proposals for Liverpool fall far short of ideal when compared to those for Manchester and this is not just a question of local rivalry. I am sure we would all like to see captive services directly into Liverpool city centre, but with the present lack of space, perhaps the only solution would be to build the terminus underground. Bearing in mind Merseytravel has already stated to Central Station will need to be expanded at some point, the golden opportunity to combine to two schemes could solve the problem and thoughts could then turn to the routing to and from HS2. In the meantime, so the Liverpool region is not totally left behind, I think we will have to make do with the compromise of a classic compatible service. I agree Whilst the route for via WBQ LL would require serious engineering for captive services, on a my idea of classic compatible service via the route, trains would be stopping there anyway so the heavily curved sections would might make little difference to timings.

With Merseyrail trains operating via the CLC route to Warrington from Central and beyond, perhaps there would be scope for new local services from Lime Street serving West Allerton and Mossley Hill, Liverpool South Parkway and then on to Widnes or alternatively Runcorn, Chester and/or North Wales assuming further electrification of these additional lines. Just a wild idea.

 

[Gareth]

Hi Wavertreeland (right or wrong side of the clock?),

don't want to get caught up too much on the Wirral thing, as it's essentially off topic, but we're not the only metropolis to have a body of water running through the middle of it. Think Budapest, Istanbul, Hong Kong, even London. We need to get away from this 'dark side' stuff or objecting to a stadium being built in Kirkby because its bins are emptied by Knowsley Council and not the corpy. Otherwise, we're the small crap town by the sea that our many detractors (and you'll find them on here) insist we are. We're a large city, much larger than the corpy area. We need to think like one.

You're right with regards to Manchester and HS2. It isn't about local rivalry in a silly football supporter sense. It's about the city remaining as competitive as it can. HS2 in its current form downgrades Liverpool and will finish it off as a major city once and for all (something Whitehall's been trying to do since the 1940s).

Yes, we ideally need a spur. Failing that, we at least need something that doesn't put us at a half an hour journey time disadvantage to Manchester, Leeds, even Preston etc; a handycap which doesn't exist today. No captive spur also means no released capacity in our area, which is going to become more of an issue over the next 20 years in respect to (re)introduced services and increased freight from the port. The Edge Hill Spur, which I mentioned above, would go some way into addressing these issues. I'm not sure about Central high level. It's a nice idea but you need to think about what the approach would be. Most of that area is dense and built up. Yes, you could build the station underground but with 400m platforms, that's going to be one hell of a station at an astronomical cost. Therefore, I can only forsee either an expansion of Lime Street via a tunnel or Exchange/Moorfields probably also via tunnel. I can't see the roundabout way via Wigan, destroying the Merseyrail lines along the way, being practically or politically acceptable.

I believe West Allerton and Mossley Hill were once served by an hourly Crewe service. There were no direct trains (at least stopping ones) from Lime Street to Warrington Central. The idea was that one would get the Merseyrail service to Hunts Cross and change and that this would be a temporary arrangement as Merseyrail would eventually be extended to Warrington Central and Garston. Indeed, the latter erstwhile destination is why the Merseyrail platform at Hunts Cross is the northernmost one, which creates many potential conflicts with the diesel services that have to access the curve at Allerton, whilst the Merseyrail trains have to return to the southerly tracks to get to South Parkway low level. I'm not sure how long this changing arrangement lasted or whether fast services went between Lime Street and Warrington Central but there will be someone on here who knows.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, we ideally need a spur. Failing that, we at least need something that doesn't put us at a half an hour journey time disadvantage to Manchester, Leeds, even Preston etc; a handycap which doesn't exist today. No captive spur also means no released capacity in our area, which is going to become more of an issue over the next 20 years in respect to (re)introduced services and increased freight from the port.

The only way to avoid that handicap is to kill the scheme.
Classic line, which is all you are going to get if a GWR via Wigan is out of the question, is always going to have a major time disadvantage.
Nothing you can do can escape that.

The Edge Hill Spur, which I mentioned above, would go some way into addressing these issues. I'm not sure about Central high level. It's a nice idea but you need to think about what the approach would be. Most of that area is dense and built up. Yes, you could build the station underground but with 400m platforms, that's going to be one hell of a station at an astronomical cost. Therefore, I can only forsee either an expansion of Lime Street via a tunnel or Exchange/Moorfields probably also via tunnel.

And who pays for all that?
You are looking at billions of pounds for all that tunnel work, especially in the outskirts of liverpool if you want a decently high speed alignment with the mess of tracks coming out of Lime Street.

Central High Level seems to be right out since there is essentially no space for a station and certainly no place for an approach, its like Lime Street but worse since it isn't even in existing railway property for part of the construction.

I can't see the roundabout way via Wigan, destroying the Merseyrail lines along the way, being practically or politically acceptable.
.

It doesn't 'destroy' the Merseyrail line, the only changes are a few platforms move around and some speed restrictions are put into station approaches where trains are already moving slowly because of the stop.

It is the only solution that provides Liverpool with a Captive spur at reasonable cost. The only other solution is the proposed classic route via Crewe.
There is certainly no money for a new crossing of the Mersey in the vicinity of, or west of, Runcorn.

EDIT:

And before anyone mentions leaving HS2 further North and approaching Liverpool from the East, that cuts off Crewe and Runcorn passengers without any operational advantages beyond a marginal time saving to Liverpool.
If it means you can run Captive trains to Liverpool the loss of Runcorn traffic and the reconstruction required at Crewe to allow trains to rejoin HS2 north of the station and to gauge clear platforms there would possibly be worth it.
Without that.... not a chance.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I believe West Allerton and Mossley Hill were once served by an hourly Crewe service. There were no direct trains (at least stopping ones) from Lime Street to Warrington Central. The idea was that one would get the Merseyrail service to Hunts Cross and change and that this would be a temporary arrangement as Merseyrail would eventually be extended to Warrington Central and Garston. Indeed, the latter erstwhile destination is why the Merseyrail platform at Hunts Cross is the northernmost one, which creates many potential conflicts with the diesel services that have to access the curve at Allerton, whilst the Merseyrail trains have to return to the southerly tracks to get to South Parkway low level. I'm not sure how long this changing arrangement lasted or whether fast services went between Lime Street and Warrington Central but there will be someone on here who knows.

You are right about West Allerton and Mossley Hill having regular trains to Crewe.
Until Central HL closed there were no trains from the CLC line into Lime St.
There were CLC trains for a time from Central via Hunts Cross to Gateacre (the remaining stub of the loop to Southport).

West Allerton and Mossley Hill are poorly used stations though (so is Edge Hill even with its more frequent services).
I don't know when the direct Crewe services stopped.

The whole layout in the area is ancient and unsuitable.
One of the 2tph LM Liverpool-Birmingham trains actually grinds across to the Slow at Wavertree Jn, stops at South Parkway, and then switches back over to the Fast at Speke.
Just to avoid a conflict at Allerton Jn.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Hi Wavertreeland (right or wrong side of the clock?),

don't want to get caught up too much on the Wirral thing, as it's essentially off topic, but we're not the only metropolis to have a body of water running through the middle of it. Think Budapest, Istanbul, Hong Kong, even London. We need to get away from this 'dark side' stuff or objecting to a stadium being built in Kirkby because its bins are emptied by Knowsley Council and not the corpy. Otherwise, we're the small crap town by the sea that our many detractors (and you'll find them on here) insist we are. We're a large city, much larger than the corpy area. We need to think like one.

You're right with regards to Manchester and HS2. It isn't about local rivalry in a silly football supporter sense. It's about the city remaining as competitive as it can. HS2 in its current form downgrades Liverpool and will finish it off as a major city once and for all (something Whitehall's been trying to do since the 1940s).

Yes, we ideally need a spur. Failing that, we at least need something that doesn't put us at a half an hour journey time disadvantage to Manchester, Leeds, even Preston etc; a handycap which doesn't exist today. No captive spur also means no released capacity in our area, which is going to become more of an issue over the next 20 years in respect to (re)introduced services and increased freight from the port. The Edge Hill Spur, which I mentioned above, would go some way into addressing these issues. I'm not sure about Central high level. It's a nice idea but you need to think about what the approach would be. Most of that area is dense and built up. Yes, you could build the station underground but with 400m platforms, that's going to be one hell of a station at an astronomical cost. Therefore, I can only forsee either an expansion of Lime Street via a tunnel or Exchange/Moorfields probably also via tunnel. I can't see the roundabout way via Wigan, destroying the Merseyrail lines along the way, being practically or politically acceptable.

I believe West Allerton and Mossley Hill were once served by an hourly Crewe service. There were no direct trains (at least stopping ones) from Lime Street to Warrington Central. The idea was that one would get the Merseyrail service to Hunts Cross and change and that this would be a temporary arrangement as Merseyrail would eventually be extended to Warrington Central and Garston. Indeed, the latter erstwhile destination is why the Merseyrail platform at Hunts Cross is the northernmost one, which creates many potential conflicts with the diesel services that have to access the curve at Allerton, whilst the Merseyrail trains have to return to the southerly tracks to get to South Parkway low level. I'm not sure how long this changing arrangement lasted or whether fast services went between Lime Street and Warrington Central but there will be someone on here who knows.

Half a mile to the north of the clock.

Totally agree your comments in the first three paragraphs above although I would just clarify that I was thinking along the lines of an underground HS2 classic compatible Central Station rather than any sort of above ground facility for captive stock. The concept being that the station would be linked to Edge Hill using the Wapping/Waterloo tunnels from Edge Hill when Central was "expanded" for the Merseyrail services which might provide a little more flexibility on the location of the platforms etc. The attraction would be that the station and connection to the south side of Edge Hill could be constructed without disrupting existing services into Lime Street and a huge chunk of tunnelling under Liverpool would be avoided. Whilst still not captive, it would mean the vast majority of the route with branch of HS2 at Warrington could be run at higher speeds perhaps even as far as Wavertree and could release capacity into Lime Street. Whilst HS2 trains would not stop at Edge Hill, potentially, this would also still allow Victoria/Waterloo tunnel to be connected the Northern Line to the north side of Edge Hill allowing Merseyrail trains to and from the south of the city to link to new stations along an electrified Bootle branch and return via Bank Hall and Sandhills and vice versa. I would stress this is just an idea perhaps from "outside the box" without any technical or inside knowledge, but readers may be interested in the link below which formed part of the basis of the idea.

http://localwiki.net/liverpool/Merseyrail#head-98290111eb7bc89d3d827cfe4efc129f0e1efe49

I can remember a school trip to Crewe works in the late 1960's on a 304 which stopped at West Allerton and Mossley Hill and all points south! Happy days! In fact, I was only thinking the other day about the potential for local services along this line and the potential for reopening a station at Wavertree but that is for another time. Cannot comment on the Hunts Cross situation, but always thought the whole idea had all the makings of an idea that had run out of cash.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only way to avoid that handicap is to kill the scheme.
Classic line, which is all you are going to get if a GWR via Wigan is out of the question, is always going to have a major time disadvantage.
Nothing you can do can escape that.



And who pays for all that?
You are looking at billions of pounds for all that tunnel work, especially in the outskirts of liverpool if you want a decently high speed alignment with the mess of tracks coming out of Lime Street.

Central High Level seems to be right out since there is essentially no space for a station and certainly no place for an approach, its like Lime Street but worse since it isn't even in existing railway property for part of the construction.



It doesn't 'destroy' the Merseyrail line, the only changes are a few platforms move around and some speed restrictions are put into station approaches where trains are already moving slowly because of the stop.

It is the only solution that provides Liverpool with a Captive spur at reasonable cost. The only other solution is the proposed classic route via Crewe.
There is certainly no money for a new crossing of the Mersey in the vicinity of, or west of, Runcorn.

EDIT:

And before anyone mentions leaving HS2 further North and approaching Liverpool from the East, that cuts off Crewe and Runcorn passengers without any operational advantages beyond a marginal time saving to Liverpool.
If it means you can run Captive trains to Liverpool the loss of Runcorn traffic and the reconstruction required at Crewe to allow trains to rejoin HS2 north of the station and to gauge clear platforms there would possibly be worth it.
Without that.... not a chance.

I personally don't think killing off HS2 is in anybody's interest, even if it means Liverpool does not share a direct HS2 captive service. In fact I'm quite happy for Manchester to have the link, plus all the traffic congestion and congestion charges that go with it, it will all help Liverpool in the long term. I would be more concerned about increasing capacity not just for passengers but also freight because without it there is a potential that congestion within the M60 will damage the appeal of companies in the north of England routing the seafreight traffic through the Port of Liverpool. Interestingly, this article, or more likely a press release, has appeared in tonight's Liverpool Echo,

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/mayor-insists-rail-plan-vital-6246609

The fact that Peel appears to backing a captive HS2 connection in addition to Liverpool City council is important and with a long way to go yet who knows were this may end up. However, I must admit gaining a captive service to Liverpool is likely to be a huge uphill struggle. Whilst Peel will have their commercial interests at heart, it cannot be denied that at now and probably for the very long term, the economy is going to require private capital to invest in infrastructure projects. After all is this not what the founders of our present rail and port infrastructure did over the last couple of centuries?

Tunnels and Liverpool Central I have elaborated on earlier as part of my classic compatible concept, which does approach from the east but includes a stop a Warrington, which geographically is far better located to serve a wider area than Runcorn even with a new Mersey road crossing built.

 

[fowler9]

A few people mentioned earlier in the thread about the local service to West Allerton and Mossley Hill. Well, West Allerton is my local station and I remember the service pretty well. We did have an hourly service to Crewe with originally a 4 car, then later 3 car class 304. We also had some irregular trains coming from Warrington throughout the day from a mixed bag of the fleet available.

In the mid to late 80's I think the 304's stopped running along with the service to Crewe of course and there was a beefed up service to Warrington and Manchester using the newer units. Half hourly at peak times and hourly through the rest of the day (Half hourly throughout at Mossley Hill). Mossley Hill also had a number of the services from Liverpool to Nottingham and beyond stopping there using Class 158's and Class 170's I think belonging to Central Trains. At the same time we also had the Cardiff service stopping which was normally hauled by a 37/4 but sometimes attracted more rare traction (Always a personal favourite, 17:14 off Lime Street I think it was, a lovely way to get home).

Back on subject and no offence to anyone but pretty much every idea I have seen for HS2 to Liverpool is pretty much a none starter. The new electric trains for the Liverpool to Manchester route are class 319 cast offs from London. There is no way the government is going to sanction the building of new stations at Central or the old Exchange site or anywhere else and all the other infrastructure involved. Private enterprise isn't going to pay for it either. Sorry for sounding so negative.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A few people mentioned earlier in the thread about the local service to West Allerton and Mossley Hill. Well, West Allerton is my local station and I remember the service pretty well. We did have an hourly service to Crewe with originally a 4 car, then later 3 car class 304. We also had some irregular trains coming from Warrington throughout the day from a mixed bag of the fleet available.

Good to see the four-car Class 304 units getting a mention. I remember the small first-class compartment with its own toilet on these units where those with the finance to purchase first-class season tickets had their very own version of comfortable three-facing-three seating with a corridor connection.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Reopening a link to Canada Dock is "also under investigation".

Has that matter been quietly simmering away on the back boiler for some years now. I did make a posting earlier in the thread with regards to the former railway stations on this line in the hope that someone knowledgeable of local decision making in both local authority and rail authority organisations could evaluate the reopening of these closed railways stations as something to add to the transport infrastructure of the area concerned.

From Edge Hill, the stations were:-
Edge Lane
Stanley
Tue Brook
Breck Road
Walton and Anfield
Spellow
Canada Dock

 

[Wavertreelad]

Has that matter been quietly simmering away on the back boiler for some years now. I did make a posting earlier in the thread with regards to the former railway stations on this line in the hope that someone knowledgeable of local decision making in both local authority and rail authority organisations could evaluate the reopening of these closed railways stations as something to add to the transport infrastructure of the area concerned.

From Edge Hill, the stations were:-
Edge Lane
Stanley
Tue Brook
Breck Road
Walton and Anfield
Spellow
Canada Dock

As far as Canada Dock in concerned I would have thought it is an ideal candidate given the current use of Canada Dock for handling scrap metal, which is unlikely to change at least in the near future. Yes it has some challenges, but is probably achievable and I believe the scheme is "active."

The last time I heard about the Bootle Branch stations being reopened was a few years ago when Liverpool FC were planning on relocating to Stanley Park, but since this scheme was dropped nothing. Depending on the type and destination of services of the line, it could open up a large area of Liverpool that currently has no rail access to a population that is relatively low on car ownership. However, if the volume of freight along the line increases, it could be difficult to run any sort of decent passenger service during the day. The alternative would be reroute freight via the a more northerly route to the WCML, but that might not be easy.

 

[8A Rail]

As far as Canada Dock in concerned I would have thought it is an ideal candidate given the current use of Canada Dock for handling scrap metal, which is unlikely to change at least in the near future. Yes it has some challenges, but is probably achievable and I believe the scheme is "active."

The site is currently being put for tender via a third party agency on behalf of the "Homes & Community Agency". The brief is for industrial use including small business units put also to reserve the land for possible reinstatement of rail link with a review after three years to see if the restriction should continue. Return of tenders by December 13 and site purchased by bidder July 14.

The alternative would be reroute freight via the a more northerly route to the WCML, but that might not be easy.

I will say this for you, you have some imagination in thinking of possible rail links but this one would be the whackiest so far!!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Having just read the Atkins report on alternatives to HS2, in every option there is a proposal to double the frequency to 2tph between Euston and both Glasgow and Liverpool.
The second service would be achieved by running a double 6-car 390 and splitting it at Warrington.
The Liverpool unit would run via St Helens Jn and the Glasgow would pick up current north-west stops and allow the other service to run fast.

 

[joeykins82]

Would it run fast to Warrington then or does the capability exist to run 12 car 390s? I assumed 11 was the definite max.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Would it run fast to Warrington then or does the capability exist to run 12 car 390s? I assumed 11 was the definite max.

Yes. It says Slow line platform extension at Warrington would be needed.
If Virgin do go for 6-car 390s they would want to double up and split like they do with Voyagers now.
12 is already viable at many places.