Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
but you'd at least save some grief of Manchester mayor complaining he didn't get the 'perfect' solution in his city paid for by others and either Halifax or Huddersfield complaining the other was favoured...
But no doubt Liverpool would complain about not having a direct service to Manchester to get people to travel from Manchester to Liverpool to work... oh, wait a minute.....
Though in terms of network effectiveness, if as a country we have say £100 billion to spend on high speed rail. That money might have been better spent on a 7km tunnel getting the line into the centre of say Sheffield from the South, than in the middle of nowhere. Elevated sections might be a good way of cost saving in urban areas, such as for a line from Sheffield-Meadowhall, East Manchester (where proposed) and the Southern/NPR access to Leeds. But were they considered for Old Oak Common to the M25, I'm assuming they're not practical for Euston to Old Oak Common. In the case of Liverpool, I actually think Lime Street is ok for size, particularly if extended onto adjacent railway land, the biggest difficulty is the congestion through the Edge Hill Tunnels. Maybe the station upgrades will include and extra bore or 2 though Edge Hill, though there must be a point at which a separate section becomes easier.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Thinking of the Services Liverpool would have Post HS2: This seems roughly the service pattern to expect of have I missed anythin
HS2 2 per hour to London via Warrington BQLL
NPR 4 per hour to Leeds via Warrington BQLL
WCML 1/2 per hour to London via Runcorn (more stops south of Crewe, e.g. Rugby, Milton Keynes) 7/8 tph, dedicated 4 platforms by taxi rank and southern bores of Edge Hill Tunnel direct to Wavertree flyovers.
LNW 2 per hour to Birmingham via Runcorn calling at South Parkway
TPE 1 per hour to Edinburgh/Glasgow via Preston (stopping at Wigan only)
Norther Connect 1/2 per hour to Blackpool via Wigan (stopping at Huyton and St Helens)
EMT/TPE 2 per hour to Sheffield via Manchester (could be semi fast via Newton le Willows) 6/7 tph
CLC 2 per hour, stopper to Manchester (Oxford Road or Piccadilly) via Liverpool South Parkway and Warrington Central
Chat Moss 2 per hour, stopper to Manchester Victoria via Newton le Willows
Wigan 2 per hour stopper via St Helens 6 tph
I think this is probably doable, 12/13 tph down a double track tunnel for the Slows. Wavertree needs some work with flyovers and maybe stealing a bit of the depot and some optimising further along.
I'd probably sooner have the locals integrated into Merseyrail, along with fourtracking (or a new alignment for fasts) along the Chat Moss to accommodate it.
If the capacity issue could be dealt with that way, then the outstanding thing with regards to HS2 would be improving the journey time. I'm not sure how much scope there could be to do this.
How does Liverpool "deserve" better stations ? In what way is Lime Street inferior to Manchester Piccadilly or Birmingham New Street for example?
In what way is Liverpool Central inferior to Birmingham Moor Street or Manchester Victoria ?
Leeds doesn't "need" the MML at all - the quicker route for Leeds *has always been* the East Coast Mainline, heading both north and south - it's why Leeds gets a half-hourly service from Kings Cross which takes pretty much the same time as Euston to Manchester Piccadilly does (about 5 mins difference).
Central is overcrowded, by which I mean people. It isn't fit as the Merseyrail terminus and at the very least needs an overhaul to handle more foot traffic. Especially if you are one of those people that want to run some of the Lime Street services into it. Speaking of which, the reason that idea even exists is Lime Stret doesn't have any capacity right now for extra trains, which needs some form of solution. And don't even ask why it needs more capacity. If you were pro rail you'd know why.
As for your Leeds argument, you ignore a very big and important city. Birmingham. Even someone as London centric as yourself has to admit Birmingham is an important city, that's why HS2 goes through it after all. And guess what the IRP doesn't do but the Eastern Leg did. Provide a better service between Leeds and Birmingham. At the very least they need to take another look at the plans and fix that oversight.
Central is overcrowded, by which I mean people. It isn't fit as the Merseyrail terminus and at the very least needs an overhaul to handle more foot traffic. Especially if you are one of those people that want to run some of the Lime Street services into it.
Yes, I advocate more platform space, which is needed regardless of what you add to the station. I have in the past suggested two islands, but as the issue is people and not paths you could do wide side platforms like St Pancras Thameslink with far less digging, making it look a bit like James St or Hamilton Square. As rail capacity isn't the issue, particularly if you join more services onto the terminators, this is probably the more sensible option and also potentially safer. It would also fit better with the track and tunnel layout, and use wasted space in the corners of the station box.
The downside is that you would need a longer closure to convert to side platforms, but I am sure people could cope with switching to the Loop for a period given the benefits, and it might be possible to do it while retaining a single track as a terminus for Hunts X services.
Speaking of which, the reason that idea even exists is Lime Stret doesn't have any capacity right now for extra trains, which needs some form of solution. And don't even ask why it needs more capacity. If you were pro rail you'd know why.
Yes, and I do advocate the Merseyrail solution as a better use of money than an additional HS2 station.
I have since noticed, by the way, that one of the Liverpool trains is a 200m one throughout, not joined to the Macc. This being the case there is scope for an additional 200m train attached to the Macc. I can't imagine a need for more than 3 x 200m for Liverpool to London, that is not far off three times what it has now.
Yes, I advocate more platform space, which is needed regardless of what you add to the station. I have in the past suggested two islands, but as the issue is people and not paths you could do wide side platforms like St Pancras Thameslink with far less digging, making it look a bit like James St or Hamilton Square. As rail capacity isn't the issue, particularly if you join more services onto the terminators, this is probably the more sensible option and also potentially safer. It would also fit better with the track and tunnel layout, and use wasted space in the corners of the station box.
The downside is that you would need a longer closure to convert to side platforms, but I am sure people could cope with switching to the Loop for a period given the benefits, and it might be possible to do it while retaining a single track as a terminus for Hunts X services.
I know it's not what you meant, but the word terminators reminded me of the reverse sidings in Central. If those were converted to platforms, you can run Ormskirk and Kirby trains into them, and just have Southport to Hunts Cross use the original station. This would not only move people off the original platform, but allow Southport to Hunts Corss trains to more easily pass through without Kirby and Ormskirk trains in the way.
I know it's not what you meant, but the word terminators reminded me of the reverse sidings in Central. If those were converted to platforms, you can run Ormskirk and Kirby trains into them, and just have Southport to Hunts Cross use the original station. This would not only move people off the original platform, but allow Southport to Hunts Corss trains to more easily pass through without Kirby and Ormskirk trains in the way.
There are enough paths with these trains just using the reversing siding to reverse, no need to put platforms on it. Best that long term these are connected to other services, in any case. That would create far more paths if you needed them.
The main island just needs expanding in some way. I'm now fairly convinced that converting to wide side platforms by hollowing out the header tunnel* that runs parallel to the main tunnel and moving the tracks to where the island is now (you can see it on the left as you enter Central from the north) is likely to be the best way to achieve this.
* Can be seen at 26:47 on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrbCo9ndveU&usg=AOvVaw3_LlRCMRhN-FBI-RVVx6N7 - I have somewhere a very old diagram of the layout from when it was built that shows this additional tunnel running part of the length of the platforms. Indeed that video shows just how much wasted space there is in the station box caused by slewing the lines over - side platforms could make better use of it without any expansion. It's a bit of a mystery as to its purpose, but I've heard it suggested it was a siding for locomotives in the early days.
There are enough paths with these trains just using the reversing siding to reverse, no need to put platforms on it. Best that long term these are connected to other services, in any case. That would create far more paths if you needed them.
It's a cost thing. Track is already there. You just need to carve space out for the platform and an exit to the top to join the main exit. Plus you don't have to create a completely new timetable, which means it can enter service faster.
It's a cost thing. Track is already there. You just need to carve space out for the platform and an exit to the top to join the main exit. Plus you don't have to create a completely new timetable, which means it can enter service faster.
Have a look at that video I linked to give you an idea exactly where it is. It would be very costly to bring it up to station standards and connect it to the buildings. Might as well do it properly.
Plenty of land suitable for development at the west end of the Wapping Tunnel, near the south docks and walking distance from Liverpool One
You could easily build a new station there.
Plenty of land suitable for development at the west end of the Wapping Tunnel, near the south docks and walking distance from Liverpool One
You could easily build a new station there.
Building a new station anywhere other than Lime St, Liverpool Central, Moorfields or James St would be madness personified. Why would you want such poor connectivity?
This whole idea smacks of the way places like Thailand build stuff like that for pure pride and with no reference to practicality.
