Should there be a new terminal in Liverpool?

[Gareth]

Does it really need 400m platforms? Are they planning on sending whole trains into Liverpool?

Are they with Birmingham, Manchester & Leeds? The tentative service patterns tend to be ambiguous about it.

 

[Gareth]

Unless you are proposing that the legacy WCML should become dedicated to Merseyrail?

Some four-tracking towards St Helens would be nice. Either that or a new alignment for the mainline stuff.

 

[Chester1]

No, no, no and no. Merseyrail is reliable because it's self-contained. Anything that's connected to the "spare" 8tph at Central (any more than that would need a new platform) needs to be something that becomes dedicated to Merseyrail. The only one I can think of that makes sense there is the CLC to Warrington, though that could be done as an extension of the present Hunts Cross service.

Merseyrail does NOT need turning into a Northern or LNR-style mess.

Unless you are proposing that the legacy WCML should become dedicated to Merseyrail?

I am suggesting the LNWR service be split if Liverpool - Birmingham HS services start. Liverpool to Crewe as a Merseyrail service. Liverpool to Wigan via St Helens and Liverpool to Warrington Bank Quay as the other services added to Merseyrail. I can see your point about importing risk, Bank Quay would be the riskiest. The line through St Helens could be handed entirely to Merseyrail with a 4tph service. I would have a link from Lime Street approaching new platforms at Central from the north therefore not merging with existing Merseyrail services, risking their reliability.

 

[Gareth]

Wigan NW via St Helens Central could be possible if the Blackpool/Scotland fasts could be rerouted via Newton-le-Willows.

You'd operationally separate the four-track section through Huyton and Roby so Merseyrail have exclusive use of the northern pair. You'd need to provide more four-tracking between Roby and Edge Hill though. Perhaps tunnel the mainline trains through Broadgreen, coming up to the surfice around Wavertree.

 

[edwin_m]

Are they [400m HS2 sets] with Birmingham, Manchester & Leeds? The tentative service patterns tend to be ambiguous about it.

All the new HS2 stations are planned to have 400m platforms and I think also to receive 400m trains. London-Manchester currently gets 3TPH of 240m Pendolinos and its planned HS2 service is also 3TPH, so if worked with single 200m units there would be little room for growth even allowing for the greater space efficiency of an HS2 set compared with a Pendolino. Birmingham and Leeds aren't so busy but it seems reasonable to assume a need for 400m sets at some time in the multi-decade life of the new stations.

Liverpool may be a bit different. Clearly current HS2 planning doesn't include running 400m sets there, as it's based on use of Lime Street which isn't big enough. Historic and current demand suggests Liverpool generates fewer London passengers than Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds so a 200m station might be adequate with frequency increased to provide extra capacity (which would be more attractive to passengers than running longer trains less often). East-west NPR services are unlikely to need 400m sets, as their market is more suited to shorter but more frequent services, and I don't believe HS2 is expecting to need 400m on the services between Birmingham and the north.

 

[Gareth]

London-Manchester currently supports several intermediate flows; not least Stoke-Manchester and Stoke-London. 3tph 400m trains which pretty much serve just the London-Manchester market will be a massive Day One increase in capacity.

Leeds has 2tph to London, also serving intermediate flows involving places like Doncaster and Peterborough. Again, 3tph 400m trains would be a massive Day One increase.

Liverpool, meanwhile, will have 2tph 200m trains which largely call at the same places the existing trains do. 2tph is already overdue and should already be long in place by the time HS2 Phase 2b happens.

London demand to/from Liverpool is about half that of Manchester and in a similar ballpark to Leeds. The level of provision planned doesn't seem at all proportional. Either Manchester and, especially, Leeds are getting massive overprovision or Liverpool is getting shafted. Or a bit of both.

 

[HSTEd]

Liverpool, meanwhile, will have 2tph 200m trains which largely call at the same places the existing trains do. 2tph is already overdue and should already be long in place by the time HS2 Phase 2b happens.

London demand to/from Liverpool is about half that of Manchester and in a similar ballpark to Leeds. The level of provision planned doesn't seem at all proportional. Either Manchester and, especially, Leeds are getting massive overprovision or Liverpool is getting shafted. Or a bit of both.

Well Liverpool passengers are hurt by not being on the captive line.
They don't actually lose much travel time by taking the classic train to Crewe and boarding HS2 trains there (the ones going to places like Warrington etc).

Not really much can be done here.
ALso later specs indicate that Leeds might be expected to share one or more of it's trainsets.

 

[Gareth]

Yes, Liverpool is at a severe disadvantage, it appears; no matter how much advocates may try to play it down.

You've reminded me that the more recent service patterns proposed shows one Leeds services joining with a Sheffield at Toton. This is partly why I was assuming 200m trains on Day One. Yes, they're shorter than Pendolinos but I'm led to believe the new trains will have not much less capacity despite being shorter. This could make 3tph between Manchester & London with no intermediate markets served somewhat plausible. I assumed the 400m thing was to comply with European standards and to allow for future growth.

If anyone knows whether or not 400m trains are planned on the captive services on Day One, I'd love to hear from them.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, they're shorter than Pendolinos but I'm led to believe the new trains will have not much less capacity despite being shorter. This could make 3tph between Manchester & London with no intermediate markets served somewhat plausible.

Pendos have rather terrible interiors in terms of getting people into them.
4 First class carriages was probably excessive, even on the 11-car trains.

Liverpool only got 2tph ICWC relatively recently though.
So I'm not sure the comparison is entirely fair.

Also Manchester trains will de-facto serve places like Wilmslow and Macclesfield via the Airport station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, Liverpool is at a severe disadvantage, it appears; no matter how much advocates may try to play it down.

It will always be because of its location - services to Lime St are only for going to Liverpool or somewhere else on the Merseyrail network, it is not a useful connectional long-distance node due to being on a bit of a sticky-out bit with a river underneath it. Therefore demand would never reach that of say Manchester Picc even if the economy was to grow to equivalence.

If anyone knows whether or not 400m trains are planned on the captive services on Day One, I'd love to hear from them.

Depends what you mean by day one. If you mean day one of full operations rather than the pilot period or when it's only serving Old Oak, I believe one of the half hourly Liverpools is to be 2 x 200m trains, splitting/joining at Crewe, one of them forming a stopping service to Preston[1] and the other one to Liverpool. I don't know about the other one.

There are not, in my understanding, going to be any 400m EMUs, they will be 200m units which will be run as doubles in most cases.

[1] I expect this will in fact extend to Carlisle in the end because I can't see a complete loss of London services from Lancaster, Oxenholme and Penrith happening without a big fight, and the Glasgow and Edinburgh services are definitely not meant to be stopping between Carlisle and Preston, at least in part because these will be 2x200m trains and so way too long for the platforms at those three stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Liverpool only got 2tph ICWC relatively recently though.

So recently that it hasn't got it yet! It won't have it until the 80x are delivered.

 

[Gareth]

It will always be because of its location - services to Lime St are only for going to Liverpool or somewhere else on the Merseyrail network, it is not a useful connectional long-distance node due to being on a bit of a sticky-out bit with a river underneath it. Therefore demand would never reach that of say Manchester Picc even if the economy was to grow to equivalence.

I think that trope is overplayed. There's, perhaps, an element of truth in it but it's too often wheeled out by people, who tend not to be Liverphiles exactly, to justify excluding the city out of national infrastructure and economic boondoggles often offer to the regional capitals.

What places are people on the WCML changing at Manchester for outside of SELNEC? No one goes from Birmingham to Leeds or Newcastle via Manchester. Places like Stafford and Stoke perhaps but they're going to be a relatively small proportion of passengers than those going to/from Manchester and its environs.

Regardless, I never said anything about Liverpool having the same demand to/from London as Manchester or obtaining such in the foreseeable future. Neither did I state that Liverpool necessarily needs parity of provision with Manchester. Merely, I questioned whether the difference in planned provision between Liverpool and both of Manchester and Leeds was proportional to the respective demand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think that trope is overplayed. There's, perhaps, an element of truth in it but it's too often wheeled out by people, who tend not to be Liverphiles exactly, to justify excluding the city out of national infrastructure and economic boondoggles often offer to the regional capitals.

I'm from Liverpool by birth and may one day move back but I think true "Liverphiles" are often just unrealistic in their demands. Liverpool is going to get 2tph of 200m trains on HS2. That seems both commensurate with demand, and pretty good really.

What places are people on the WCML changing at Manchester for outside of SELNEC? No one goes from Birmingham to Leeds or Newcastle via Manchester. Places like Stafford and Stoke perhaps but they're going to be a relatively small proportion of passengers than those going to/from Manchester and its environs.

To give you one, a significant number of destinations, INCLUDING the two you mentioned, are best accessed via Manchester from MKC due to the service pattern. As is Sheffield. There are simply more such places than there are via Liverpool.

 

[Gareth]

I'm sure there are more such places but do they really tally up to an especially large amount of passengers going into/out of Manchester? I don't know the answer to that and I hazard a guess that you don't either.

Additionally, these places won't be served by HS2 come Phase 2b. So there will be three 400m trains per hour near exclusively serving the Manchester-London market. One might call at Birmingham Interchange but that's about it.

Liverpool, on the other hand, will get two 200m trains. These trains will continue to serve intermediate flows such as Stafford to London. Considering the city's slated to get 2tph in the near future and Phase 2b is going to be some years away, will that really be adequate? Are you sure, Neil?

Then there's Leeds. A city that currently has 2tph to London but will end up with 3tph, possibly some or all at 400m, complete with all the new infrastructure that comes with it. Leeds' London demand is much closer to Liverpool than Manchester, whilst its HS2 provision will be much closer to the latter.

Additionally, Liverpool's metropolitan area is significant in its own right. It's not massively smaller than Manchester's and is similar to Leeds/West Yorkshire's. Thus, I have no truck with the 'out on a limb' seaside town crap.

So is it not the case then, Neil, that perhaps, just perhaps, there's more than just demand for services at play here? As tbtc alluded to on another thread with regards to Sheffield's provision: maybe there's one rule for Whitehall's regional capitals and another for everyone else? If so, and I've long suspected it to be the case, then it's not acceptable and needs reappraising and not just in terms of HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

Additionally, these places won't be served by HS2 come Phase 2b. So there will be three 400m trains per hour near exclusively serving the Manchester-London market. One might call at Birmingham Interchange but that's about it.

Wilmslow and Macclesfield aren't that far from Manchester Airport.

Then there's Leeds. A city that currently has 2tph to London but will end up with 3tph, possibly some or all at 400m, complete with all the new infrastructure that comes with it. Leeds' London demand is much closer to Liverpool than Manchester, whilst its HS2 provision will be much closer to the latter.

The leeds trains will also pick up traffic from Nottingham at Toton (and until the madness of Sheffield struck, would have picked up MEadowhall traffic as well)