New platforms for Liverpool Lime Street

[Wavertreelad]

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.


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!!

Interesting, we will wait and see what happens!

Presumably there would be nothing to stop Peel purchasing the land, reopening the rail link across the site to the scrap metal berths in Canada Dock which are presently isolated from the existing rail link to the national network. The rest of the site could be developed as a freight village, which could of course be rail linked.

Peel already recognise there is a shortage of quality dry warehousing in the port which could be vital to attracting some shippers/consignees in what is known as portcentrics as their volume attracts the shipping lines.

http://www.portcentricity.com/

Teesport already hosts Asda amongst others, whilst London Gateway is already building a facility for M&S with others in the pipeline. Incidentally, one of the guys behind portcentricty also used to work for Peel until a few years ago. In the meantime the site of the former Alexandra Dock Station has already been cleared ready to start construction of warehousing on this site although I haven't been that way for some months so don't know the current status of the project.

 

[eps200]

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.

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.

First part is far too true, did you ever see the seven streets post "Birkenhead must die"?

As for where to put a HS2 captive line, you route the current lime street slows to central via the wapping tunnel and join those services to the current central terminators.
Central needs redoing at some point any way due to horrific over crowding so that could all go in at once. a train or two per hour could use the stock interchange line and the spare platform at James street for turn around, run onto Wirral if there is any spare capacity that way.
Then the current slows take the current fasts the current fasts become the captives, would need a lot of work at lime street but again it's going to need a partial rebuild anyway.

 

[Bevan Price]

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 ---


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

I don't think that a reinstated passenger service on the Bootle branch would attract much custom.

Edge Lane, Stanley - much of the former terraced housing near these former stations has gone.
Breck Road - some nearby houses, but probably not enough to justify a rail service.
Spellow - a grim place in a deep cutting.
Canada Dock - local population low, not enough nearby industry / docks to attract lots of working commuters,
Tue Brook, Walton & Anfield - plenty of nearby houses, but very indirect route to city centre. Would probably have problems attracting passengers from frequent, more direct bus services.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I don't think that a reinstated passenger service on the Bootle branch would attract much custom.

Edge Lane, Stanley - much of the former terraced housing near these former stations has gone.
Breck Road - some nearby houses, but probably not enough to justify a rail service.
Spellow - a grim place in a deep cutting.
Canada Dock - local population low, not enough nearby industry / docks to attract lots of working commuters,
Tue Brook, Walton & Anfield - plenty of nearby houses, but very indirect route to city centre. Would probably have problems attracting passengers from frequent, more direct bus services.

I agree it does seem to have a limited appeal, and much will depend on how much freight is generated to and from the Port of Liverpool. However, with a passenger service in mind and subject to the route being electrified, perhaps reopening some stations may be a proposition given the following.
a) The route from Wavertree Technology Park to Towsend Lane is in similar direction to that of the cancelled Merseytram project, perhaps indicating there could be a market.
b) Edge Lane will be next to the retail park and if the planned road is constructed through the present fruit market site to Prescott Road there could be a possibility of building a dedicated park and ride station on a main route into the city centre, relieving pressure on nearby Wavertree Tech Park station which has virtually no parking facilities on site.
c) Tuebrook, plenty of houses again on main route into the city centre.
d) New station to serve Liverpool FC ground with park and ride facility replacing Breck Road probably on Utting Avenue.
e) Walton & Anfield - many local houses, but also the possibility to serve Goodison Park on match days.

On it's own the scheme might fail to attract custom, but if the tunnel from Edge Hill to just north of Moorfields on the Northern Line were reopened with a Y junction it would allow trains from travel both north and south offering a variety of destinations to be served on the Northern Line as well as avoiding the need for trains to reverse at Central. I agree as a route directly into the city centre, buses might offer a more frequent direct link especially as the majority of services operate from the city centre to the suburbs. Comparatively, there are few cross city services which means passengers have to journey into the city centre to access another service which is very expensive and time consuming.

Any reopening is probably quite some years away by which time parts of Anfield will have been rebuilt and hopefully some of those currently deprived areas on the line might have started to prosper, which could alter the dynamics of the scheme again, let alone the freight movements on the line. Time will tell.

 

[pablo]

As for where to put a HS2 captive line, you route the current Lime Street slows to Central LL via the Wapping tunnel and join those services to the current Central terminators.
Central needs re-doing at some point any way due to horrific over crowding so that could all go in at once. a train or two per hour could use the stock interchange line and the spare platform at James Street for turn around, or run onto Wirral if there is any spare capacity that way.
Then the current slows take the current fasts; the current fasts become the captives. Would need a lot of work at Lime Street but again it's going to need a partial rebuild anyway.

That's the best solution yet put forward here. Diversion of slows would need replacement of the Edge Hill flyover that was demolished.
I would add; a fifth through service from Wirral lines to Lpl South Parkway. That covers Mossley Hill and Allerton West (and a new stn at Wavertree?). Maybe re-instate the 1970s turn-back at B'head Park for City line termination, otherwise James Street is a good in-town distributor. The River Mersey barrier disappears, for rail pax (only)
Then, Lime Street is partially free for fundamental re-building. Adding three 400m platforms extending well into the cutting. It's been opened out like that in the past. You can see where it's occurred. Lots of lolly needed and a determined programme manager.

BTW Paul, that was a pet proj of Merseytravel in the 70s. Then they called it 'The Beltway'. Got nowhere as pointless travelling at 90 degrees to the required direction of travel. On yer 'bus! But a good job creation scheme for those employees who did the dreaming.

 

[Wavertreelad]

That's the best solution yet put forward here. Diversion of slows would need replacement of the Edge Hill flyover that was demolished.
I would add; a fifth through service from Wirral lines to Lpl South Parkway. That covers Mossley Hill and Allerton West (and a new stn at Wavertree?). Maybe re-instate the 1970s turn-back at B'head Park for City line termination, otherwise James Street is a good in-town distributor. The River Mersey barrier disappears, for rail pax (only)
Then, Lime Street is partially free for fundamental re-building. Adding three 400m platforms extending well into the cutting. It's been opened out like that in the past. You can see where it's occurred. Lots of lolly needed and a determined programme manager.

BTW Paul, that was a pet proj of Merseytravel in the 70s. Then they called it 'The Beltway'. Got nowhere as pointless travelling at 90 degrees to the required direction of travel. On yer 'bus! But a good job creation scheme for those employees who did the dreaming.

The route of the Edge Hill flyover is still in place except for the bridge, but it would require demolition of the road bridge access to the technology park. However, the entrance could be re-sited to Rathbone Road without much difficulty.

Surely it would be better to avoid terminators at Central and James Street and run these trains to other distant destinations and use Central as a hub? However, the entire suggestion could all depend on the type of stock that Merseyrail order to replace the existing fleet.

 

[Holly]

Liverpool HS could be a big single track one-way loop. Chester-Birkenhead-New Mersey Tunnel-Liverpool Centre-Edge Hill-Culcheth.

Hooton-Birkenhead right of way designed for four classic tracks can be reused as two classic lines plus one single track HS Captive. Similarly through Rainhill.

The Wapping or Victoria tunnel can be reused as single track HS captive (there is no hope of either being big enough for even two modern classic gauge tracks). A new captive gauge right of way is needed Crewe-Chester, but it's needed anyway for electrification and would benefit Wales enormously.

 

[Gareth]

First part is far too true, did you ever see the seven streets post "Birkenhead must die"?

As for where to put a HS2 captive line, you route the current lime street slows to central via the wapping tunnel and join those services to the current central terminators.
Central needs redoing at some point any way due to horrific over crowding so that could all go in at once. a train or two per hour could use the stock interchange line and the spare platform at James street for turn around, run onto Wirral if there is any spare capacity that way.
Then the current slows take the current fasts the current fasts become the captives, would need a lot of work at lime street but again it's going to need a partial rebuild anyway.

Hi eps, yes I did see that article. Although I agreed with the jist of what it was saying, I felt the title was unfortunate. We don't need Birkenhead to die. Indeed, it's very much in the whole area's interest that significant district centres like Birkenhead prosper. It's 'Wirralism' that must die. The stupid idea that the last council leader had about it being a unified city but totally separate and in rivalry to Liverpool. That stuff's a load of hogwash. Wirral's not a place, it's a borough, taking up about two thirds of the peninsula that it is named after. Birkenhead should be seen as no different from Bootle. People in Bootle identify with Bootle as their home district and also the wider Liverpool area. Sefton is just the regime that empties the bins, paves the roads etc.

Back on topic: what you are referring to is the Edge Hill Spur scheme, as I mentioned above. This was the idea that stopper trains on the Chat Moss line would enter the Wapping Tunnel, by means of the flyover that pablo mentions. There would have been a possible new station in the Catherine Street area. This would join the Merseyrail Northern Line south of Central and run into Central and to northward destinations. I believe the junction where the two tunnels meet was already built during the creation of the modern Merseyrail system in the 1970s and I think that is the reason the up and the down lines become grade separated as you head south of Central. Of course, it needed that flyover, as the Wapping Tunnel portal is to the south of the mainline tracks, so that the trains from the Chat Moss could crossover without interfering with other traffic. That's no longer possible, however, there was a later revised scheme where trains entered the northerly Victoria Tunnel. A new section of tunnel would be built which would then link to the Wapping Tunnel and then into the Northern Line as per the original plan. The main reason for this change was that Merseyside County Council wanted the university to be served and a new station would be built on the new link between the two recommissioned tunnels. Of course, now with the flyover gone, this would probably be the best way of doing it. It wouldn't help the stoppers that go down towards Allerton but I believe they were always planned to remain running into Lime Street high level.

As a general rule of thumb, there are 14tph going in and out of the Lime Street-Edge Hill section. The second TransPennine express next year will bump it up to 15tph. Then there's the agreement in principle that there should be a second train via Preston, probably going to Scotland, a talked about second train towards Sheffield and a second London train, which we probably should have already but will definitely have by the time HS2 Phase 1 is online. That's an additional 4tph and that's before even thinking about increasing commuter services. The Edge Hill Spur would take off at least 4tph but this would be cancelled out if all these new services came into being. The latest HS2 document shows this section as at critical capacity and without a captive spur or some other significant infrastructure upgrade, it's going to get worse, not better.

This is where we have problems trying to put captives into the existing cutting. Like I said, the stretch would still have a large mix of traffic, even with the Chat Moss stoppers diverted. Also, I doubt you could make the fast tracks captive gauge without major reconfiguration. The only way there would be a chance would be to rationalise the number of tracks from four down to two, three if we're lucky; as captive gauge requires wider spacing between tracks. The Edge Hill Spur just wouldn't take enough traffic off the mainline in order to justify such a rationalisation.

 

[HowardGWR]

@Gareth
I can't find Catherine St, it keeps sending me up to the one in Bootle. Can you help please (this is very interesting by the way)?

 

[Gareth]

^^ Hi Howard, sorry, I misspelled it. It's Catharine Street.

Anyways, here's a diagram of the plans...

Notice that the 'Metropolitan Line' version is that latter one, including a University station. This uses the Victoria Tunnel and so Chat Moss stoppers would not need the flyover. The original proposal involved entering the southerly Wapping Tunnel via the fly over with a station at or near Catharine Street or the Cavendish cutting.

 

[eps200]

Hi eps, yes I did see that article. Although I agreed with the jist of what it was saying, I felt the title was unfortunate. We don't need Birkenhead to die. Indeed, it's very much in the whole area's interest that significant district centres like Birkenhead prosper. It's 'Wirralism' that must die. The stupid idea that the last council leader had about it being a unified city but totally separate and in rivalry to Liverpool. That stuff's a load of hogwash. Wirral's not a place, it's a borough, taking up about two thirds of the peninsula that it is named after. Birkenhead should be seen as no different from Bootle. People in Bootle identify with Bootle as their home district and also the wider Liverpool area. Sefton is just the regime that empties the bins, paves the roads etc.

Aye it's Wirral council that needs to die. I think they should re mark Liverpool council area as "The city of Liverpool" and the rest as "Greater Liverpool" which would be our new over arching council, we should be on the scale of Glasgow.

Back on topic: what you are referring to is the Edge Hill Spur scheme, as I mentioned above. This was the idea that stopper trains on the Chat Moss line would enter the Wapping Tunnel, by means of the flyover that pablo mentions. There would have been a possible new station in the Catherine Street area. This would join the Merseyrail Northern Line south of Central and run into Central and to northward destinations. I believe the junction where the two tunnels meet was already built during the creation of the modern Merseyrail system in the 1970s and I think that is the reason the up and the down lines become grade separated as you head south of Central. Of course, it needed that flyover, as the Wapping Tunnel portal is to the south of the mainline tracks, so that the trains from the Chat Moss could crossover without interfering with other traffic. That's no longer possible, however, there was a later revised scheme where trains entered the northerly Victoria Tunnel. A new section of tunnel would be built which would then link to the Wapping Tunnel and then into the Northern Line as per the original plan. The main reason for this change was that Merseyside County Council wanted the university to be served and a new station would be built on the new link between the two recommissioned tunnels. Of course, now with the flyover gone, this would probably be the best way of doing it. It wouldn't help the stoppers that go down towards Allerton but I believe they were always planned to remain running into Lime Street high level.

As a general rule of thumb, there are 14tph going in and out of the Lime Street-Edge Hill section. The second TransPennine express next year will bump it up to 15tph. Then there's the agreement in principle that there should be a second train via Preston, probably going to Scotland, a talked about second train towards Sheffield and a second London train, which we probably should have already but will definitely have by the time HS2 Phase 1 is online. That's an additional 4tph and that's before even thinking about increasing commuter services. The Edge Hill Spur would take off at least 4tph but this would be cancelled out if all these new services came into being. The latest HS2 document shows this section as at critical capacity and without a captive spur or some other significant infrastructure upgrade, it's going to get worse, not better.

This is where we have problems trying to put captives into the existing cutting. Like I said, the stretch would still have a large mix of traffic, even with the Chat Moss stoppers diverted. Also, I doubt you could make the fast tracks captive gauge without major reconfiguration. The only way there would be a chance would be to rationalise the number of tracks from four down to two, three if we're lucky; as captive gauge requires wider spacing between tracks. The Edge Hill Spur just wouldn't take enough traffic off the mainline in order to justify such a rationalisation.

What about sending all Merseyrail city line trains down the tunnel they should be able to all run together with a high frequency if they are the same stock. How many TPH is that.
To really work it needs to reach past the bottleneck that's edge hill onward connected to all three lines out of lime street, this would require an expensive station at edge hill.

What about the High speed being single line from edge hill? how many captives per hour do we really need? Could leave the other three tracks intact?
Out side of that the only way would be insanely costly tunnelling into an upper level like St Pancras.

 

[mr_jrt]

^^ Hi Howard, sorry, I misspelled it. It's Catharine Street.

Anyways, here's a diagram of the plans...

Notice that the 'Metropolitan Line' version is that latter one, including a University station. This uses the Victoria Tunnel and so Chat Moss stoppers would not need the flyover. The original proposal involved entering the southerly Wapping Tunnel via the fly over with a station at or near Catharine Street or the Cavendish cutting.

I don't think the Victoria tunnel option is a goer...those curves are horrendous. Would it not make more sense to either bore a new tunnel from St James Street to Edge Hill via Lime Street with a deviation for the University? Using the Wapping tunnel makes more sense, but then you don't serve the university and introduce a bottleneck between the link line junctions and Central low level. Perhaps it'd be worth simplifying it all into a pair of east-west and north south lines and building a new interchange station where they cross. All 5 sets of platforms would be very close together, but you'd get a lot more capacity...which in a central area isn't always a bad thing as it spreads the load. Ideally you might want Lime Street at the centre...but I think moving/extending the station south would be a bit of a hard sell! ...still, it'd help with more and longer platforms though

 

[HowardGWR]

I don't think the Victoria tunnel option is a goer...those curves are horrendous. Would it not make more sense to either bore a new tunnel from St James Street to Edge Hill via Lime Street with a deviation for the University? Using the Wapping tunnel makes more sense, but then you don't serve the university and introduce a bottleneck between the link line junctions and Central low level. Perhaps it'd be worth simplifying it all into a pair of east-west and north south lines and building a new interchange station where they cross. All 5 sets of platforms would be very close together, but you'd get a lot more capacity...which in a central area isn't always a bad thing as it spreads the load. Ideally you might want Lime Street at the centre...but I think moving/extending the station south would be a bit of a hard sell! ...still, it'd help with more and longer platforms though

Could not the captive HS2 stock run down the Wapping tunnel to a new terminus at the Sankey St Gt George St junction (nice old building there) where the east west lines run into Central. Thus they keep out of the way of the north south suburbans at Edge Hill? This is real stranger-crayonista stuff I warn.

 

[Holly]

... What about the High speed being single line from edge hill? how many captives per hour do we really need? Could leave the other three tracks intact?
Out side of that the only way would be insanely costly tunnelling into an upper level like St Pancras.

You could interlace the two Captive tracks each onto two of the four existing classic tracks.

That way no tunnelling or new bridges at all would be needed.
In effect a Captive HS train would occupy two classic tracks (from a signalling perspective) each time an HS Captive left or departed but all four classic tracks would be available whenever there was no HS Captive train in motion.

In order to entirely avoid any new digging (tunneling or expanding the cutting) the HS part of Lime Street would have to be built partly on an elevated structure over Saint George's Place.

I think the unidirectional loop through Chester and Rainhill has more going for it. Including the spin-off benefits for Wales.

 

[eps200]

The only captives for Chester idea I've seen that could possibly happen was to include a crossing in the proposed Mersey barrage which gets you from Chester to south parkway via some bits of south Wirral and Gaston, this also leaves room for a warninton-wigan-preston-blackpool classic. along the chester-parkway-limestreet captive this would entail. With north Wales classics being a touch faster.
Be nice if the barage ever gets built to include space for slows and another road link as well some useful stuff to fit there.

Still the reality is classics for everything west of Manchester without some serious money for Liverpool.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Be nice if the barrage ever gets built to include space for slows and another road link as well some useful stuff to fit there. Still the reality is classics for everything west of Manchester without some serious money for Liverpool.

Not being fully up-to-date regarding marine matters in the Liverpool area, save that of the repeated threat to the HM Coastguard establishment at Formby, would this proposed barrage have any implication for the existing docks in the Liverpool area and the trade that is currently generated.

 

[HowardGWR]

You could interlace the two Captive tracks each onto two of the four existing classic tracks.

That way no tunnelling or new bridges at all would be needed.
In effect a Captive HS train would occupy two classic tracks (from a signalling perspective) each time an HS Captive left or departed but all four classic tracks would be available whenever there was no HS Captive train in motion.

In order to entirely avoid any new digging (tunneling or expanding the cutting) the HS part of Lime Street would have to be built partly on an elevated structure over Saint George's Place.

I think the unidirectional loop through Chester and Rainhill has more going for it. Including the spin-off benefits for Wales.

Yes we didn't get much in the way of reply Holly, to your idea, but I see EPS2000 now has. I don't know where insanity comes into it but i haven't seen the idea of which he writes. What do you think of the idea he does think possible (but not preferable).

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Most of what I have read on this thread, while interesting, seems pure fantasy to me.
Why do we think there will be any new works in Liverpool for HS2?
That just plays into the antis hands at the moment ("just bung an extra £2bn on the budget, lads").

I should think the Lime St approaches will be improved by putting faster crossovers in the cutting, about half way down.
This will allow the slow junctions at Edge Hill and Lime St stations to be simplified and all the lines made reversible, with a big increase in efficiency.
The route from Runcorn could also be upgraded around Ditton/Speke.
There could also be some relatively cheap 4-tracking between Rainhill and Earlestown if capacity becomes an issue via Chat Moss.

But who thinks an HS2 extension all the way to Liverpool is realistic?
Crewe-Liverpool via the current route, upgraded somewhat, will be no slower than going via Pickmere and a new route into Liverpool.
That means classic-compatible stock.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The section between Wavertree Junction and Edge Hill is a possible double track bottleneck for any type of HS2 train service. So how about restoring the old double track freight route which which passes over the existing route to Edge Hill behind Tiverton Street so that after crossing Picton Road and new route branches off the west on an elevated curved structure over the existing sidings and mainline before descending on the north side of the Chat Moss line west of the Bootle Branch junction. The new route would allow trains to enter the Victoria Tunnel at Edge Hill branching off the original alignment further to the west of the point shown in the 1970s alignment then gently curving to pass over the loop line and terminating in an extended Central Station between the present site and Lime Street.
This would still allow the Wapping Tunnel to still be directly connected to the Merseyrail system, allowing trains from all directions to pass through Central to and from the north and potentially the Wirral. Adding a connection to the south would allow trains to run in every direction, and could allow the station at St James to reopen reducing the bottleneck between Lime Street and Edge Hill, allowing the former to add additional long distance services.

 

[HSTEd]

Most of what I have read on this thread, while interesting, seems pure fantasy to me.
Why do we think there will be any new works in Liverpool for HS2?
That just plays into the antis hands at the moment ("just bung an extra £2bn on the budget, lads").

I should think the Lime St approaches will be improved by putting faster crossovers in the cutting, about half way down.
This will allow the slow junctions at Edge Hill and Lime St stations to be simplified and all the lines made reversible, with a big increase in efficiency.
The route from Runcorn could also be upgraded around Ditton/Speke.
There could also be some relatively cheap 4-tracking between Rainhill and Earlestown if capacity becomes an issue via Chat Moss.

But who thinks an HS2 extension all the way to Liverpool is realistic?
Crewe-Liverpool via the current route, upgraded somewhat, will be no slower than going via Pickmere and a new route into Liverpool.
That means classic-compatible stock.

It appears that we are going to be pushed for capacity on the HS2 core almost from the moment it opens.
A Captive route can pack 1300 passengers or more into a path, even a coupled pare of classic compatibles can only manage 800 or so.

Two classic trains per hour to Liverpool eats up two half paths, which is likely to become 1.5 or even 2 actual paths consumed due to the lack of single-CC set destinations on the western leg of HS2. (Pretty much the only single set destinations are Chester and Liverpool).

If Liverpool was to go from 2 CC trains per hour to 2 Captive trains per hour it gets an explosion in capacity, in fact it could go from 2 CC trains per hour to 1 Captive train per hour and still get an explosion in capacity.

Initially it will probably be:
1tph Chester/Liverpool split at Crewe calling at Crewe and Runcorn
1tph Liverpool only calling at Crewe and Runcorn.
Total: 800 seats or so to Liverpool and 400 to Chester.

If we can get a captive route into Liverpool that gets us (in combination with a north facing route to HS2-2W out of Crewe station):
1tph Liverpool calling at Crewe only
1tph Chester/Liverpool split at Crewe calling at Crewe only

Running via the Captive route, giving us 2100 seats or so to Liverpool and the same 400 to Chester.

If you are willing to settle for reverting to one train per hour into Liverpool (at drastically increased capacity compared to the classics) that allows the second half of the Chester path to be reused for somewhere else.

 

[eps200]

Not being fully up-to-date regarding marine matters in the Liverpool area, save that of the repeated threat to the HM Coastguard establishment at Formby, would this proposed barrage have any implication for the existing docks in the Liverpool area and the trade that is currently generated.

None it would be up river from the existing docks with locks around the ship canal entrance, it's not likely unless someone puts up the money it passes CBR but only if you look at it in terms of 50-100 years.

the edge hill spur is a sensible extension in any case if edge hill could be rebuilt so as not to bottle neck anything it solves most of the capacity issues in Liverpool.

The HS2 trains to lime street and Chester (NW coast?) stopping at Crewe helps keep them from being isolated connections wise.

The proposed terminus in Manchester bothers me most, no provision to run through at all it should be in a cutting on the old mayfeild site.

 

[Grumpy]

It appears that we are going to be pushed for capacity on the HS2 core almost from the moment it opens.
A classic compatible route can pack 1300 passengers or more into a path, even a coupled pare of classic compatibles can only manage 800 or so.

.

I must confess I am having real trouble grasping the HS2 project, possibly because I am a bit slow but also because there is so much disinformation flying around.
I think you are having some trouble with your numbers. Thus when you say"A classic compatible route can pack 1300 passengers ", I think you meant to refer to the captive trains. However this assumes double deckers and there are no current proposals to run double deckers that I have read in any official documentation.
If we are talking single deckers then there is no difference between the seating potential of a Captive and a Classic compatible train. It depends on the number of carriages, first/second class mix, seat density/layout, catering provision etc. Being built to a Continental gauge doesn't give you an additional seat.
I believe the platforms on the new line are to be 400m long. Which doesn't of course mean the trains need be that long. Drawings for a 234m IEP show 627 seats. Sticking a few more carriages in to bring it up to 400m approx. and you will get a train of well over 1000 seats. Again this will depend on whether your 400m is one train or 2 or more smaller trains running in multiple.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The proposed terminus in Manchester bothers me most with no provision to run through at all it should be in a cutting on the old Mayfield site.

But the current plan has that line emerging from the tunnel on the OTHER side of the running tracks and running parallel with them to terminate on the OPPOSITE side of Manchester Piccadilly station on the same level, without the expense of having the 400m platforms in the cutting that you describe at the Mayfield site.

 

[HSTEd]

I must confess I am having real trouble grasping the HS2 project, possibly because I am a bit slow but also because there is so much disinformation flying around.
I think you are having some trouble with your numbers. Thus when you say"A classic compatible route can pack 1300 passengers ", I think you meant to refer to the captive trains. However this assumes double deckers and there are no current proposals to run double deckers that I have read in any official documentation.

Yes, sorry about that.

And yes I was assuming double deckers, since the one railway in Europe that deployed them has fallen in love with them, to the extent that not one single deck TGV vehicle has been ordered since the first Duplex sets entered service.
As far as I know there has been very little mention of the projected rolling stock in any documentation at all, and that sort of stuff will likely be decided upon in the last few years prior to the line's opening.

So we are years away from any decision about that, and I hope that if I can keep hammering away about that I can build enough momentum in the public that double decks become the trains ordered (I know it is unlikely I will have any effect but trying costs nothing and I believe I have to try).

If we are talking single deckers then there is no difference between the seating potential of a Captive and a Classic compatible train. It depends on the number of carriages, first/second class mix, seat density/layout, catering provision etc. Being built to a Continental gauge doesn't give you an additional seat.
I believe the platforms on the new line are to be 400m long. Which doesn't of course mean the trains need be that long. Drawings for a 234m IEP show 627 seats. Sticking a few more carriages in to bring it up to 400m approx. and you will get a train of well over 1000 seats. Again this will depend on whether your 400m is one train or 2 or more smaller trains running in multiple.

While the IEP has rather denser seating than the examples I have used to derive my results, the TGV Duplex and Eurostar (the two sets I did use) have similar seating densities to each other, and thus the scaling must be assumed to carry through to the larger seating capacity.

Adding six more standard carriages would gain you a total seat count of roughly 1155.
But my TGV Duplex V-150 derivative that is 400m long would have 1352 seats using TGV seating densities and could be pushed far higher as required.

You could easily break the 1500 mark and push to something like 1600-1700 if you really pack the seats in. (The 1352 figure includes 'play areas' and 'family compartments' as found on SNCF TGVs)

I am assuming that all captive trains would run as unitary 400m trainsets and that all classic trains would be 200m trainsets in formations as required.
(If we have these long platforms we might as well use them, and captive trainset 'cycle times' are so short as to make the idea of Peak strengthening almost absurd).

[EDIT: Note that a Standard Class 19m TGV trailer has 92 seats, whereas a Standard Class 26m IEP vehicle has 88 -the former has 12 tables to the latter's 8 as well as far more luggage space)

 

[Wavertreelad]

The proposed Mersey Barrage would not necessarily solve the HS2 problem either because the preferred site between New Ferry and Eastham across to Dingle and Garston would require a lock to allow ships to access the Manchester Ship Canal. The study can be found here
http://www.merseytidalpower.co.uk/s... 2 Options Report Summary - November 2010.pdf

Getting back to the thread, the issue remains about future capacity at Lime Street irrespective of whether it be captive stock or not and this must be a major concern to the Liverpool region as a whole. The key to the problem would appear to use the Victorian tunnels from Edge Hill in one form or another linked to an expansion of Central Station to accept some of the local services currently using Lime Street.

 

[edwin_m]

But the current plan has that line emerging from the tunnel on the OTHER side of the running tracks and running parallel with them to terminate on the OPPOSITE side of Manchester Piccadilly station on the same level, without the expense of having the 400m platforms in the cutting that you describe at the Mayfield site.

Indeed so, and the Mayfield site is far too small for a captive high speed station which needs 400m platforms as quoted.

HS2 planning is indeed based on single deck trains. There would be the option of buying double deckers either as an initial purchase or in the subsequent order of more captive sets for phase 2 if it looked as if the demand on phase 1 was greater than predicted. However, as far as I'm aware, only Alstom produces double deck high speed trains and their latest and fastest product (the AGV) is only available as a single decker. The assumption of single deck trains may be due to not wanting to be tied to equipment that is only available from one supplier.

A double deck train within the UK gauge is likely to be impossible in practice (some work was done by BR in the 70s/80s but the resulting designs were hopelessly cramped). So while the current assumptions are for similar seating capacity in the two train types, adoption of double deckers would give the captives a much greater capacity.

 

[HSTEd]

Indeed so, and the Mayfield site is far too small for a captive high speed station which needs 400m platforms as quoted.

HS2 planning is indeed based on single deck trains. There would be the option of buying double deckers either as an initial purchase or in the subsequent order of more captive sets for phase 2 if it looked as if the demand on phase 1 was greater than predicted.

I have a feeling that double decker trainsets would be a useful political ploy because they would maximise the capacity of the line and thus support the "we need more capacity" argument, also Double Deck trains do not have the commuter connotations in Britian that they have on the continent and as such it could be an interesting marketing ploy.

However, as far as I'm aware, only Alstom produces double deck high speed trains and their latest and fastest product (the AGV) is only available as a single decker.

The Japanese sort of have the capability to build one since many Shinkansen sets have been hybrid single-double decks or completely double deck (although the latter are slower and they have all been retired due to age and falling passenger numbers).

As to the top speed of the TGV Duplex, while it is commercially only rated for 320kph the V150 showed that there were no major concerns with running the sets faster if someone wanted it, and since SNCF are probably going to want 360kph running at some point this is likely to happen.

There is talk of a TGV Duplex successor which will be appearing in a few years time, still easily in advance of the opening of HS2, which will feature superior acceleration and a top speed of 360kph.

These sorts of decisions, on rolling stock specifities, will be made sometime in the 2020s in all likelyhood and I have a great deal of hope that we will get the maximum-capacity option.

 

[eps200]

The proposed Mersey Barrage would not necessarily solve the HS2 problem either because the preferred site between New Ferry and Eastham across to Dingle and Garston would require a lock to allow ships to access the Manchester Ship Canal. The study can be found here
http://www.merseytidalpower.co.uk/s... 2 Options Report Summary - November 2010.pdf

It would be prefabricated sections inside the barrage under the locks a tunnel but no where near the cost of boring one. i was under the assumption band B was prefered the eastham garston proposal.

Getting back to the thread, the issue remains about future capacity at Lime Street irrespective of whether it be captive stock or not and this must be a major concern to the Liverpool region as a whole. The key to the problem would appear to use the Victorian tunnels from Edge Hill in one form or another linked to an expansion of Central Station to accept some of the local services currently using Lime Street.

this is needed I was at central today, no way will those northern line platforms take more people. a new pair will be needed to ease congestion.

 

[fowler9]

We are going to need a few more jobs in Liverpool before we need to worry about easing congestion.

 

[Bevan Price]

If Liverpool was to go from 2 CC trains per hour to 2 Captive trains per hour it gets an explosion in capacity, in fact it could go from 2 CC trains per hour to 1 Captive train per hour and still get an explosion in capacity.

Initially it will probably be:
1tph Chester/Liverpool split at Crewe calling at Crewe and Runcorn
1tph Liverpool only calling at Crewe and Runcorn.
Total: 800 seats or so to Liverpool and 400 to Chester.

If we can get a captive route into Liverpool that gets us (in combination with a north facing route to HS2-2W out of Crewe station):
1tph Liverpool calling at Crewe only
1tph Chester/Liverpool split at Crewe calling at Crewe only

.

The suggested services after completion of Phases HS1 & 2 are shown here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...on_of_the_service_patterns__January_2013_.pdf

(Link originally posted by "Recliner" in newsgroup uk.railway)