Should there be a new terminal in Liverpool?

[Jorge Da Silva]

Knowing their are plans to introduce to a new NPR Line to Liverpool and a new HS2 service to Liverpool (via existing line). How can you accommodate these services as their isn’t much room for these services and little room for expansion. Does Liverpool need a new terminal? If so where would it go?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Knowing their are plans to introduce to a new NPR Line to Liverpool and a new HS2 service to Liverpool (via existing line). How can you accommodate these services as their isn’t much room for these services and little room for expansion. Does Liverpool need a new terminal? If so where would it go?

These will replace existing services, so no, another terminal is not needed. You could probably get an extra couple of short (4-car EMU) platforms in Lime St on the car park (and reinstate 1 as a short platform) if you needed a bit of extra capacity.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

These will replace existing services, so no, another terminal is not needed. You could probably get an extra couple of short (4-car EMU) platforms in Lime St on the car park (and reinstate 1 as a short platform) if you needed a bit of extra capacity.

How would they fit NPR services? Or able to add additional services elsewhere?

Also found this article:

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/more-london-trains-expanded-liverpool-13860131

 

[Bletchleyite]

How would they fit NPR services? Or able to add additional services elsewhere?

NPR services will in my mind replace, not add to, other services.

There is no need to add additional services anywhere else while they are still running short trains around, other than *possibly* a second London service which could be accommodated in the existing platform which is used once an hour. Services should reach 8x20m / 6x23m before such time as any frequency enhancement is considered, which means only the London services could justify this.

 

[8H]

I see what Jorge means, the very minimal approach to solving the increasing use of one remaining station in a city resulted in all right old mess at Birmingham New Street and the reinstatement of through running at Moor Street where only the bays remained, and reopening of Snow Hill, and New Street still struggles. The economic revival of the laughingly titled “City Region” of Liverpool could easily be assisted by actually using some of the available infrastructure current and redundant in other wider parts of the region such as the Wirral, enabling far superior timings to Chester and North Wales than the useful but sluggish Halton Curve offers without spoiling timings to central Liverpool. If it was London we wouldn’t be thinking give em another platform and shut em up.

 

[AndyW33]

and the reinstatement of through running at Moor Street where only the bays remained

It is possible to make a good argument that Birmingham Snow Hill should never have been closed. But your history is wrong. Moor Street as built never had anything but terminal platforms. There were no platforms on the through roads to Snow Hill because in steam days line occupation would never have permitted it. When the lines through the tunnel to Snow Hill closed, the three platforms at Moor Street remained open handling suburban services on the Leamington and Stratford lines, because it was always understood that New Street couldn't cope with this traffic.
Eventually the pressure on New Street increased to the level that it became necessary to rebuild Snow Hill and relay the track through the tunnel (at least nobody infilled the tunnel). At that point through platforms were provided at Moor Street (without using the original concourse as that would have required a footbridge) and the terminal platforms went out of use.
Next, the volume of passengers using the station became too much for the cheap and not particularly cheerful platform access and ticket selling arrangements to cope, and a footbridge (and lifts) was installed to enable the concourse and original ticket office to be reused.
Later still, two of the three terminal platforms at Moor Street were returned to use. Once the Snow Hill platform released by the Metro line changing to street running is fully usable by heavy rail, and the third terminal platform at Moor Street is reinstated, the station infrastructure will be at capacity on this section too.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

It is possible to make a good argument that Birmingham Snow Hill should never have been closed. But your history is wrong. Moor Street as built never had anything but terminal platforms. There were no platforms on the through roads to Snow Hill because in steam days line occupation would never have permitted it. When the lines through the tunnel to Snow Hill closed, the three platforms at Moor Street remained open handling suburban services on the Leamington and Stratford lines, because it was always understood that New Street couldn't cope with this traffic.
Eventually the pressure on New Street increased to the level that it became necessary to rebuild Snow Hill and relay the track through the tunnel (at least nobody infilled the tunnel). At that point through platforms were provided at Moor Street (without using the original concourse as that would have required a footbridge) and the terminal platforms went out of use.
Next, the volume of passengers using the station became too much for the cheap and not particularly cheerful platform access and ticket selling arrangements to cope, and a footbridge (and lifts) was installed to enable the concourse and original ticket office to be reused.
Later still, two of the three terminal platforms at Moor Street were returned to use. Once the Snow Hill platform released by the Metro line changing to street running is fully usable by heavy rail, and the third terminal platform at Moor Street is reinstated, the station infrastructure will be at capacity on this section too.

Also when the third terminal platform is reinstated it will also see a fourth terminal platform constructed.

In regards to Lime Street, a new link could be made between Edge Hill and Central to divert local services to the station but then again an expanded Central would need to be made in order to accommodate the services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Central sorely needs two island platforms. There's the space for it and almost nothing on top of it barring a grotty shopping centre, station buildings and a temporary Network Rail building, but it'd still be hugely costly.

Having said that, if you could find somewhere to send the Ormskirk and Kirkby terminators to so all services operated through, you could probably get away with the existing one.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

You could add two platforms to Central station and build the Edge Hill Link to allow some local services to Preston, Warrington Central, Manchester Victoria and Crewe to be diverted into Central. Would it be possible to reopen Exchange for long distance services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could add two platforms to Central station and build the Edge Hill Link to allow some local services to Preston, Warrington Central, Manchester Victoria and Crewe to be diverted into Central.

I don't think there would be any benefit to overcomplicating things. Warrington Central could be served from Central on the existing line by extending from Hunts Cross, and I am broadly in support of this. Manchester Victoria is too far to make sense as part of Merseyrail, as is Crewe.

TBH, if you added another island platform the terminating services would cease to be a real issue, there would then be two faces used to terminate trains and there would always be a pair of through platforms available.

Would it be possible to reopen Exchange for long distance services?

I fail to see how splitting long distance services between two stations (even two stations that are barely further apart than the concourse to P13/14 at Manchester Piccadilly) would be of any benefit whatsoever.

 

[daikilo]

You could add two platforms to Central station and build the Edge Hill Link to allow some local services to Preston, Warrington Central, Manchester Victoria and Crewe to be diverted into Central. Would it be possible to reopen Exchange for long distance services?

Additional platforms at Central would require cut and cover so clearing anything above, Exchange would just be reconversion of the car park into a station, but probably shortened. How you connect that to the lines coming up from Moorfields could be a challenge.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Additional platforms at Central would require cut and cover so clearing anything above, Exchange would just be reconversion of the car park into a station, but probably shortened. How you connect that to the lines coming up from Moorfields could be a challenge.

Exchange could reopen as a 4 or 5 platformed terminus for services to Scotland and possible for a new NPR line to Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle Via Manchester Airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Bradford ??? And Leeds

 

[Elecman]

Central sorely needs two island platforms. There's the space for it and almost nothing on top of it barring a grotty shopping centre, station buildings and a temporary Network Rail building, but it'd still be hugely costly.

Having said that, if you could find somewhere to send the Ormskirk and Kirkby terminators to so all services operated through, you could probably get away with the existing one.

What temporary Network Rail builingvare you referring to? The modular building in the car park is Merseyrails the Network Rail buildings are at the far end of the site beyond the station fire escape stairwell.

 

[Camden]

Knowing their are plans to introduce to a new NPR Line to Liverpool and a new HS2 service to Liverpool (via existing line). How can you accommodate these services as their isn’t much room for these services and little room for expansion. Does Liverpool need a new terminal? If so where would it go?

There is a clear and in fact forecast need for a new station in Liverpool to handle increased national services, and your mayor has made getting this, next to Lime Street, a red line in his talks with the government/DfT/TfN (finally, someone with balls!)

There are so many reasons why there needs to be an additional station, but that the three new services per hour afforded by the new platform are already spoken for, and that despite this the city will still remain the biggest city with the fewest national connections, means that it is essential to correct this anomaly.

Unfortunately you may find it impossible to have a sensible discussion regarding improving anything for Liverpool, as within minutes it tends to be hijacked by those who will demand that the city has to pass some kind of unique test (usually a moving goal post) in order for anything more than a tuppence to be spent.

They have misled and painted a picture of a city to which no one ever goes, or would want to go, and I'm pleased that at least the void that has allowed weird discrimination to propagate as fact has now slowly started to be filled by normal people speaking sense.

Yes the city needs more platforms for both long distance and metro services, to accommodate and be a catalyst for economy growth, and I will be pleased to help make sure it happens.

 

[Vinnym]

Since the new Merseyrail timetable started last month, Ormskirk trains appear to be terminating at Platform 1, at Liverpool Central then leaving empty in the direction of Hunts Cross and reappearing on Platform 2 for departure to Ormskirk. Is there any benefit in this manoeuvre?

 

[Ianno87]

Central sorely needs two island platforms. There's the space for it and almost nothing on top of it barring a grotty shopping centre, station buildings and a temporary Network Rail building, but it'd still be hugely costly.

Having said that, if you could find somewhere to send the Ormskirk and Kirkby terminators to so all services operated through, you could probably get away with the existing one.

The island platform at Central is so congested (particularly on Saturdays) that having the Ormskirks and Kirkbys sitting in the platform (rather than going on through) actually helps reduce platform congestion around its pinch points (i.e. bottom of the escalators) by having a train sat in the platform available to board. Send them through somewhere and you make crowding in the critical areas worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What temporary Network Rail builingvare you referring to? The modular building in the car park is Merseyrails the Network Rail buildings are at the far end of the site beyond the station fire escape stairwell.

OIC, I thought the station was longer than it is. Still wouldn't be a big overhead to remove a modular building.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Since the new Merseyrail timetable started last month, Ormskirk trains appear to be terminating at Platform 1, at Liverpool Central then leaving empty in the direction of Hunts Cross and reappearing on Platform 2 for departure to Ormskirk. Is there any benefit in this manoeuvre?

Using the reversing siding, I guess...interesting, that hasn't been done in normal service for years. Has serving Maghull North necessitated an extra unit and therefore a longer layover?

 

[GreatAuk]

Just to drop this here, the 20 miles more campaign group considered a few options for hs2 stations in report they produced, including expanding Lime Street and reopening Exchange. May be of interest: http://www.20milesmore.com/report/

Personally I think Lime Street makes most sense as part of an integrated public transport system, but can only imagine how expensovd it would be to put a proper future-proof solution in!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As far as High Speed Rail is concerned, additional dedicated platforms could be placed underground providing that there's space to fit them around the low-level station and access shafts.
Sending the Ormskirk and Kirkby services beyond Central makes sense on paper, but where do you send 8tph without causing congestion at the junction with the "big" railway? Warrington BQ would be a candidate but even with the 3/4-tracking along the Liverpool and Manchester, 4tph to all-shacks would be a squeeze especially with the single track and platform on that side of the Earlestown triangle.
If there was a way of creating the capacity, Runcorn or Helsby/Ellesmere Port or Chester via the Halton curve would be an ideal destination for the other 4tph- thinking Ormskirk to Warrington and Kirkby to Runcorn/beyond.

The 777 order would need quite a few additional units, mind!

 

[AndrewE]

As far as High Speed Rail is concerned, additional dedicated platforms could be placed underground providing that there's space to fit them around the low-level station and access shafts.
Sending the Ormskirk and Kirkby services beyond Central makes sense on paper, but where do you send 8tph without causing congestion at the junction with the "big" railway? Warrington BQ would be a candidate but even with the 3/4-tracking along the Liverpool and Manchester, 4tph to all-shacks would be a squeeze especially with the single track and platform on that side of the Earlestown triangle.
If there was a way of creating the capacity, Runcorn or Helsby/Ellesmere Port or Chester via the Halton curve would be an ideal destination for the other 4tph- thinking Ormskirk to Warrington and Kirkby to Runcorn...

The new Central Low Level (Northern Line) was built with a big cavern just to the south to accommodate a grade-separated junction for services to somewhere to the east, as well as the turnback siding (in fact I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread.) Quite a few trains per hour could use the turnback siding, I don't know why it isn't used.
A new chord at Liverpool S Parkway might let trains go to Runcorn and Chester, but if you were to spend some money on railway tunnels outside London then who knows what useful infrastructure the new junction might produce?!

Ianno87, sorry I missed your post. Maybe a more frequent northbound service would be the answer?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The new Central Low Level (Northern Line) was built with a big cavern just to the south to accommodate a grade-separated junction for services to somewhere to the east, as well as the turnback siding (in fact I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread.) Quite a few trains per hour could use the turnback siding, I don't know why it isn't used.

Post #15 highlights that the turnback siding *is* now being used for Ormskirk trains, but I'm not clear as to why when it hasn't been used in normal service, so far as I'm aware, in the entire 30 odd years that the station has been used for Northern Line rather than Wirral trains. In post #16 I muse if an additional unit has been added to the Ormskirk circuit (having been lopped out in the 1990s) due to Maghull North, meaning the layover is too long to block a platform, but I don't know.

 

[urbophile]

Simple. Divert all local services (Wigan at least if not Preston; stoppers on both Manchester routes; Halton curve services) via the Wapping tunnel onto Merseyrail and you've got a couple of extra platforms at Lime Street at a stroke. Central desperately needs a rebuild and expansion but that would surely be cheaper than doing anything more to Lime Street. The current upgrade is as much as can be done without excavating another tunnel through the rock from Edge Hill. Though it would be a great opportunity to demolish those hideous student flats.

An alternative would be to reopen Wapping tunnel for its full length (not just as far as the junction with the Northern line) and build a cut and cover line from there along the Strand to an interchange station at James Street. I don't know how feasible that would be.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My thinking was that if the inner-suburban services currently classed as Merseytravel's City Line were to be joined onto the Ormskirk and Kirkby services via Wapping tunnel, the remaining services into Lime Street could then be sped up by not having to call anywhere further in than South Parkway or Huyton. The inner-suburban stations (Edge Hill, Wavertree, West Allerton et al) would become Merseyrail stations for the most part.

 

[urbophile]

My thinking was that if the inner-suburban services currently classed as Merseytravel's City Line were to be joined onto the Ormskirk and Kirkby services via Wapping tunnel, the remaining services into Lime Street could then be sped up by not having to call anywhere further in than South Parkway or Huyton. The inner-suburban stations (Edge Hill, Wavertree, West Allerton et al) would become Merseyrail stations for the most part.

That makes a lot of sense. But it won't relieve capacity at Lime Street by much because those trains will still go there. The problem is, what is the furthest point that it is sensible to run an urban metro service to? Is Wigan too far?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That makes a lot of sense. But it won't relieve capacity at Lime Street by much because those trains will still go there. The problem is, what is the furthest point that it is sensible to run an urban metro service to? Is Wigan too far?

They won't go to Lime Street if running via Wapping Tunnel. They'd serve Central sub-surface (Northern line) and avoid Lime Street entirely.
The existing Merseyrail network gives a clue as to where an expanded network would run to. Going beyond Merseyside to the next significant town already happens at Ormskirk, Chester and Ellesmere Port. On that basis, Wigan and Warrington would be sensible candidates as would Runcorn.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They won't go to Lime Street if running via Wapping Tunnel. They'd serve Central sub-surface (Northern line) and avoid Lime Street entirely.
The existing Merseyrail network gives a clue as to where an expanded network would run to. Going beyond Merseyside to the next significant town already happens at Ormskirk, Chester and Ellesmere Port. On that basis, Wigan and Warrington would be sensible candidates as would Runcorn.

But the key difference is that Merseyrail has exclusive use of most of its current infrastructure barring a few minor points. Having it interwork with other services would make it less reliable and more complex. Warrington could be done by handing over the CLC west of Warrington Central to their exclusive use (and wire the other half with a 15 minute frequency EMU service to Manchester), running the expresses another way, but the others couldn't.

 

[stuart100100]

Post #15 highlights that the turnback siding *is* now being used for Ormskirk trains, but I'm not clear as to why when it hasn't been used in normal service, so far as I'm aware, in the entire 30 odd years that the station has been used for Northern Line rather than Wirral trains. In post #16 I muse if an additional unit has been added to the Ormskirk circuit (having been lopped out in the 1990s) due to Maghull North, meaning the layover is too long to block a platform, but I don't know.

There is around a 9 minute layover in Central since the timetable change. The South Parkway service arrives about 5 minutes after the Ormskirk service terminates so would be blocking the platform otherwise

 

[mr_jrt]

The current upgrade is as much as can be done without excavating another tunnel through the rock from Edge Hill.

You sure? There's a four-track railway between Edge Hill and Lime St. That's the same as the one on the approaches to most of the major London termini and I think they handle far more movements. Surely what's needed are more platforms, and that "just" needs widening out the throat and land acquisition alongside the existing platforms...

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

You sure? There's a four-track railway between Edge Hill and Lime St. That's the same as the one on the approaches to most of the major London termini and I think they handle far more movements. Surely what's needed are more platforms, and that "just" needs widening out the throat and land acquisition alongside the existing platforms...

I think it needs more platforms, as you said of which there is little space for so other solutions are needed.