Merseyrail Expansion

[AlastairFraser]

Are those "intercities" the trains on the NPR route? If so, surely they would use the fast lanes along the Halebank to Edge Hill section, allowing stopper services to use the slow lanes... and preferably a single-track between Halebank and Garston docks for freight traffic (my crayonista guesstimating seems to think one fits to the south of the current 4-track layout between those places)

Given the wibbly-wobbly nature of the line to the west of Warrington Bank Quay, would a straighter route not be more preferable to intercity traffic and this route used for stoppers? The CLC route is pretty straight, with exception given to the bizarre Warrington Central curve.

What would this route, if set as an intercity line, do when it reaches Broadheath (George Richards Way)? Viaduct over the whole street? Remove the street? Where would the route go after here to get to central Manchester?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 May 2024 ==

Additionally: the majority of services along the CLC Liv-Manc route are already expresses. Adding passing loops and extra platforms at choice stations to enforce priority to expresses and ensure stops without blocking the line for stoppers would be a massive improvement, especially if many stopping services between Liverpool and Warrington could be offset onto the FF line.

They would use the fast lines as described along the Edge Hill to Halebank section and so on.
The CLC is unsuitable for NPR - the desired frequency would mean an end to stopping services, plus you'd require extra tunneling to get out of the Warrington urban area.

The NPR route would be in a tunnel after Latchford viaduct as it heads towards Manchester Airport to at least east of Lymm - the alternative is a tunnel from as far back as Halebank, you'd also lose the useful intermediate stop at Warrington Bank Quay for other regional and intercity connections.

Now, where the Merseyrail improvements come in is that, with an upgraded signalling system + full 4 tracking Edge Hill - Allerton for NPR and intercity services nearly all coming from Liverpool Central via Wapping Tunnel, you could run a more intensive service on the slow lines between Edge Hill and Allerton Jcn ,which means that you could use the CLC for more stoppers from both the Edge Hill and Garston route since the TPE/EMR would likely move over to NPR if possible.

The only thing you'd need to deliver those improvements separately from NPR then is extra stabling space/ more room to terminate at Warrington Central - this shouldn't be too much of an issue, permanently splitting the CLC service here shouldn't be a huge issue as long as the service frequency is high enough.

It would also unlock the potential to convert CLC stoppers east of Warrington into tram trains, which could easily join Metrolink at Cornbrook - taking pressure off Castlefield viaduct, making it easier to add more stations, and giving the eastern CLC stations a better penetration of Manchester city centre.

 

[CaramellDansen]

The CLC runs closer to the centre of the settlements it serves

That's certainly not true for Widnes, at least what people consider the centre (as opposed to the "pure" geographic centre)
Regardless, it's quite meaningless if it's only served by one train per hour per direction. If the stations are so popular and necessary for stoppers, why are there so few in such low quality and punctuality?
The fact of the matter is that the CLC is a mainly-express route. Running express trains down this route is just logical.

Running a Merseyrail service on the FF and upgrading the CLC won't suddenly stop the stoppers from existing along the CLC. It will still be an option, give over.
If anything, the electrification, passing loops and platform loops I'm proposing would increase the potential number of stopper services. We can have both.

Unless you want 75 to 100mph expresses careering around the bends between Warrington Bank Quay and (the now-gone) Sankey Bridges stations, you will just have to agree that the nice and straight CLC route (which is already saturated with express services) is the preferable option for express services.

 

[MarkyT]

Unless you want 75 to 100mph expresses careering around the bends between Warrington Bank Quay and (the now-gone) Sankey Bridges stations, you will just have to agree that the nice and straight CLC route (which is already saturated with express services) is the preferable option for express services.

I don't believe NPR will use the old low level route under Warrington Bank Quay. That's low lying, potentially flood prone, twisty and has two level crossings in the Sankey Bridges area. Even the WCML tracks are only ~9m above sea level through the station. I think NPR would be better flying over the WCML on a viaduct then turning a little to the south west and creating a new alignment to Fiddlers Ferry where the old alignment would be rejoined through Widnes.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Unless you want 75 to 100mph expresses careering around the bends between Warrington Bank Quay and (the now-gone) Sankey Bridges stations, you will just have to agree that the nice and straight CLC route (which is already saturated with express services) is the preferable option for express services.

Surely the slow section will only be a major issue heading westbound, as services heading east will be decelerating for a stop at the Warrington Bank Quay NPR Station.
If that wasn't acceptable, you'd be considering a 4 mile max. tunnel from east of Fiddler's Ferry to the station site in Warrington, which is still going to be easier than a tunnel south east from the middle of Warrington near Central station.

 

[MarkyT]

Surely the slow section will only be a major issue heading westbound, as services heading east will be decelerating for a stop at the Warrington Bank Quay NPR Station.
If that wasn't acceptable, you'd be considering a 4 mile max. tunnel from east of Fiddler's Ferry to the station site in Warrington, which is still going to be easier than a tunnel south east from the middle of Warrington near Central station.

A viaduct solution over the WCML is probably more practical IMO, considering the proximity to tidal water, and that the Unilever site closed in 2020 with great redevelopment potential, as long as the new alignment misses the listed historic transporter bridge. I would remove Wilderspool Causeway road overbridge and replace the road at ground level, allowing the NPR alignment to fly over it on approach from the east.

 

[CaramellDansen]

the desired frequency would mean an end to stopping services

Surely only if you insist on not providing capacity upgrades!

The NPR route would be in a tunnel after Latchford viaduct as it heads towards Manchester Airport to at least east of Lymm - the alternative is a tunnel from as far back as Halebank, you'd also lose the useful intermediate stop at Warrington Bank Quay for other regional and intercity connections.

Where's all this money coming from in this country so famed for its austerity, especially in the north, to build miles-long tunnels?

If that wasn't acceptable, you'd be considering a 4 mile max. tunnel from east of Fiddler's Ferry to the station site in Warrington, which is still going to be easier than a tunnel south east from the middle of Warrington near Central station.

If we're so dead-set on using the FF route (I still don't get it), surely buying up land and straightening the alignment would be easier and cheaper (and less flood-prone) than huge tunnels near bodies of water?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2024 ==

Additionally: In terms of the NPR Liverpool - Manchester route, wouldn't it be wise to use the CLC route (with upgrades to allow for stoppers, of course) along to Glazebrook and then take the historic alignment across the Cadishead viaduct and tunnel under West Timperley (to save money, potentially emerging east of Hale - the one in Manchester, not Liverpool) to end up very close to Manchester Airport and on a similar alignment to the rail just slightly out of Manchester Airport station?

Red = existing route
Blue = new overground
Yellow = new underground
The route east of Glazebrook is approximate, of course. Crayonista moments!

 

[AlastairFraser]

A viaduct solution over the WCML is probably more practical IMO, considering the proximity to tidal water, and that the Unilever site closed in 2020 with great redevelopment potential, as long as the new alignment misses the listed historic transporter bridge. I would remove Wilderspool Causeway road overbridge and replace the road at ground level, allowing the NPR alignment to fly over it on approach from the east.

It's possible - only issue is the NPR Warrington Bank Quay station would be quite a few storeys up.

Surely only if you insist on not providing capacity upgrades!

Difficult on a two track railway with the desired NPR frequency - there's no room for widening without significant very unpopular property acquisition east of Halewood. FF line has less issues on that front.

Where's all this money coming from in this country so famed for its austerity, especially in the north, to build miles-long tunnels?

Loan secured against access fee? Not ideal, but better than nothing.

If we're so dead-set on using the FF route (I still don't get it), surely buying up land and straightening the alignment would be easier and cheaper (and less flood-prone) than huge tunnels near bodies of water?

Fair point - but would have to be cut and cover tunnel if you were to straighten the alignment and route through Sankey Valley Park in Warrington.

Additionally: In terms of the NPR Liverpool - Manchester route, wouldn't it be wise to use the CLC route (with upgrades to allow for stoppers, of course) along to Glazebrook and then take the historic alignment across the Cadishead viaduct and tunnel under West Timperley (to save money, potentially emerging east of Hale - the one in Manchester, not Liverpool) to end up very close to Manchester Airport and on a similar alignment to the rail just slightly out of Manchester Airport station?

Red = existing route
Blue = new overground
Yellow = new underground
The route east of Glazebrook is approximate, of course. Crayonista moments!

Apart from the massive property acquisition along the existing CLC section, unfortunately there's a new housing development east of Partington (53.41887699043022, -2.407623808081111 on Google Maps Satellite) that is too close to allow the alignment to be reopened as heavy rail. Possible for Metrolink though (potentially useful for orbital links).

Upgrades to the CLC, including full electrification, are a decent idea in the meantime though!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Upgrades to the CLC, including full electrification, are a decent idea in the meantime though!

Absolutely. But not putting Merseyrail anywhere near it! Keep it as a Lime St service until it can be fully segregated from Castlefield.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Absolutely. But not putting Merseyrail anywhere near it! Keep it as a Lime St service until it can be fully segregated from Castlefield.

Extend Merseyrail to Warrington Central and Metrolink (tram-train version) from Manchester - using a junction onto the tram network south of Cornbrook.
Removing the stoppers from Castlefield should make things a bit more fluid - keep the EMR/TPE and Merseyrail should be OK.

To ensure the plan works, perhaps build the spur and run tram train to Warrington first to see how Castlefield performs then?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Extend Merseyrail to Warrington Central and Metrolink (tram-train version) from Manchester - using a junction onto the tram network south of Cornbrook.
Removing the stoppers from Castlefield should make things a bit more fluid - keep the EMR/TPE and Merseyrail should be OK.

To ensure the plan works, perhaps build the spur and run tram train to Warrington first to see how Castlefield performs then?

When you make mention of the Metrolink from Warrington Central to Manchester, surely that will entail an increase in the number of zone areas from the existing number of four to at least five or six, with a rise in zonal fare prices.

 

[AlastairFraser]

When you make mention of the Metrolink from Warrington Central to Manchester, surely that will entail an increase in the number of zone areas from the existing number of four to at least five or six, with a rise in zonal fare prices.

Perhaps, but Metrolink prices are not prohibitive, and it potentially enables Merseyrail expansion to Warrington Central (a major station with a lot of demand for travel to Liverpool city centre) - Warrington has a population of over 200k and travel into Lime St is unreliable and relatively infrequent for the catchment.

You'd also serve the large town of Widnes and sizeable suburb of Halewood with improved service.

 

[CaramellDansen]

there's no room for widening without significant very unpopular property acquisition east of Halewood

With the space either side of the track, surely you could fit 4 tracks between Halewood and Sankey for Penketh? Sure you'd need retaining walls in some places but otherwise you could do it with a few bridges widened and platforms shuffled. My only worry west of Sankey is Hunts Cross, honestly.
Speaking of, Sankey for Penketh probably should be moved to Stocks Lane. It's far too close to Warrington West.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

unfortunately there's a new housing development east of Partington (53.41887699043022, -2.407623808081111 on Google Maps Satellite) that is too close to allow the alignment to be reopened as heavy rail.

God damn it. I swear, the rich build along old rail routes just to spite us, and prevent us from getting transit that works for us.

Fair point - but would have to be cut and cover tunnel if you were to straighten the alignment and route through Sankey Valley Park in Warrington.

I suppose just bridging over the Mersey east of the Quay Fold L.C. will have to do. Oh also get rid of those bloody level crossings!

Loan secured against access fee? Not ideal, but better than nothing.

Oh, I meant politically. We could fund superprojects like never seen, but instead the capitalists subsidise oil barons and fund genocides around the globe.
We're in the North, we get the crumbs up here... if we're lucky. That goes for rail and everything else!

 

[AlastairFraser]

With the space either side of the track, surely you could fit 4 tracks between Halewood and Sankey for Penketh? Sure you'd need retaining walls in some places but otherwise you could do it with a few bridges widened and platforms shuffled. My only worry west of Sankey is Hunts Cross, honestly.
Speaking of, Sankey for Penketh probably should be moved to Stocks Lane. It's far too close to Warrington West.

Not without impinging on house gardens in several locations across Warrington and Widnes.

Agreed on Sankey for Penketh - in effect, it was replaced by Warrington West, but with the coming of Merseyrail, it would be useful to replace it with a Penketh station somewhere near Stocks Lane as described.

 

[CaramellDansen]

east of the Quay Fold L.C.

*east of the west-most Quay Fold L.C.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

Not without impinging on house gardens in several locations across Warrington and Widnes.

Impinging literally or in the "blocking the light" sense?
Would it not be possible to butt right up against them with a retaining wall to maximise space? idk

 

[AlastairFraser]

God damn it. I swear, the rich build along old rail routes just to spite us, and prevent us from getting transit that works for us.

I thought a lot of the old routes were supposed to be safeguarded, clearly a failure of oversight here.

I suppose just bridging over the Mersey east of the Quay Fold L.C. will have to do. Oh also get rid of those bloody level crossings!

Seems prudent.

Oh, I meant politically. We could fund superprojects like never seen, but instead the capitalists subsidise oil barons and fund genocides around the globe.
We're in the North, we get the crumbs up here... if we're lucky. That goes for rail and everything else!

Yeah, we could do all that, but it'd be like waiting for pigs to fly. There are some exciting projects amongst the achievable ones though!

 

[CaramellDansen]

it potentially enables Merseyrail expansion to Warrington Central (a major station with a lot of demand for travel to Liverpool city centre) - Warrington has a population of over 200k and travel into Lime St is unreliable and relatively infrequent for the catchment.

You'd also serve the large town of Widnes and sizeable suburb of Halewood with improved service.

Merseyrail wants to use its own reserved routes. If only there were an unused railway between Warrington and Liverpool that went parallel to the route you're talking about and served the commercial centre of Widnes with brownfield sites along its route for depot(s) and train storage! (cough cough)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/e...ll=53.389461863863424,-2.836470022113744&z=12

 

[AlastairFraser]

Impinging literally or in the "blocking the light" sense?
Would it not be possible to butt right up against them with a retaining wall to maximise space? idk

I think the issue is that a house has to be a certain distance from a rail line by law.
E.g. in this planning application in Sussex, the relevant Network Rail policy was stated (at least 2 metres from the railway boundary + 3m from any OHLE/3rd rail).

https://westsussex.planning-register.co.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=1804&planId=73435&imageId=23&isPlan=False&fileName=Network%20Rail.pdf

 

[CaramellDansen]

I thought a lot of the old routes were supposed to be safeguarded, clearly a failure of oversight here.

It's a pattern I've seen too often. Whether it's malice or the govt selling the land off super cheap, there are loads of long-and-thin warehouses, housing developments and general land use (often in basically empty areas) making the route unusable... Killing our railways, as usual.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

I think the issue is that a house has to be a certain distance from a rail line by law.
E.g. in this planning application in Sussex, the relevant Network Rail policy was stated (at least 2 metres from the railway boundary + 3m from any OHLE/3rd rail).

https://westsussex.planning-register.co.uk/Document/Download?module=PLA&recordNumber=1804&planId=73435&imageId=23&isPlan=False&fileName=Network%20Rail.pdf

Fair enough. Thanks for the fact check!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would it not be possible to butt right up against them with a retaining wall to maximise space? idk

Perhaps you might wish to visit the affected areas for that aspiration and put your point of view to the residents who will be affected.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

I think the issue is that a house has to be a certain distance from a rail line by law.

Presumeably those dwellings of quite some age that are just exterior to Mossley railway station were built long before such a law reached the statute book.

 

[CaramellDansen]

Fair enough. Thanks for the fact check!

You still could get away with it... It's 3m from the house, not the property!

 

[AlastairFraser]

Merseyrail wants to use its own reserved routes. If only there were an unused railway between Warrington and Liverpool that went parallel to the route you're talking about and served the commercial centre of Widnes with brownfield sites along its route for depot(s) and train storage! (cough cough)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1M0olt_l3EfVj4hXWNtwTlYS7YxPMkSk&ll=53.389461863863424,-2.836470022113744&z=12

Fairly decent idea, but not as good as the existing routes as it doesn't serve Warrington Central (where the bus interchange and big shopping centre is) and there's not much property or significant commuting potential in Widnes town centre sadly (unfortunately the railway is hemmed in between the A533, A557 adb the A562 Ashley Way town centre bypass).

 

[CaramellDansen]

Perhaps you might wish to visit the affected areas for that aspiration and put your point of view to the residents who will be affected.

My god! A wall instead of a fence! In doing so, turning the smelly and loud diesel trains to quiet electric ones! What villains we are.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It's a pattern I've seen too often. Whether it's malice or the govt selling the land off super cheap, there are loads of long-and-thin warehouses, housing developments and general land use (often in basically empty areas) making the route unusable... Killing our railways, as usual.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==


Fair enough. Thanks for the fact check!

Indeed an unfortunate pattern!
I saw your further comment below - unfortunately the Network Rail boundary may be much further from the actual railway (and therefore closer to the building) than the actual tracks themselves.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

Presumeably those dwellings of quite some age that are just exterior to Mossley railway station were built long before such a law reached the statute book.

I think this is the classic case of the utilization of grandfather rights to bypass the law!

 

[CaramellDansen]

unfortunately the railway is hemmed in between the A533, A557 adb the A562 Ashley Way town centre bypass

I don't mean to sound rude, but... let's build a bridge! (or more likely a pedestrian subway)
Plus, with all the parking, why not Park & Ride it?

not as good as the existing routes as it doesn't serve Warrington Central (where the bus interchange and big shopping centre is)

"Walk 15 minutes" is better than "untenable and unreliable service down an already-cramped rail line that (by your own admission) might not be able to receive capacity upgrades"

unfortunately the Network Rail boundary may be much further from the actual railway (and therefore closer to the building) than the actual tracks themselves.

Would the boundary have to be much wider than the tracks, if quadrupled?

 

[Efini92]

The single line is a constraint, but I wonder if you could path an hourly Preston to Croston shuttle alongside an hourly Preston to Southport without doubling anything?

I suppose though if you did want to do 2tph then Merseyrail to Preston may work better, but in that case I'd like to see a new "West Lancashire Parkway" at the interchange. One option would be to do Merseyrail's 4tph split between Preston and Southport, but I'm not sure that does as much for connectivity as the Curves idea and does mean Merseyrail running alongside unpunctual Castlefield services.

Would the Southport-Preston not be better using the old line at meols cop?

 

[BradK2017]

Merseyrail wants to use its own reserved routes. If only there were an unused railway between Warrington and Liverpool that went parallel to the route you're talking about and served the commercial centre of Widnes with brownfield sites along its route for depot(s) and train storage! (cough cough)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 May 2024 ==

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1M0olt_l3EfVj4hXWNtwTlYS7YxPMkSk&ll=53.389461863863424,-2.836470022113744&z=12

If the line was used for Merseyrail rather the NPR, using your suggestion could there be potential to extend it from Warrington to Statham & Lymm with stations at Latchford & Grappenhall/Thelwall, maybe extending extending every other service as a 15 minute frequency might be overkill for that section, although that could be seen as too far into Cheshire for it to be considered.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I don't mean to sound rude, but... let's build a bridge! (or more likely a pedestrian subway)
Plus, with all the parking, why not Park & Ride it?

"Walk 15 minutes" is better than "untenable and unreliable service down an already-cramped rail line that (by your own admission) might not be able to receive capacity upgrades"

Would the boundary have to be much wider than the tracks, if quadrupled?

1) Possible, but it's all about return on investment with Merseyrail extension. Extending Merseyrail down the CLC would drive passenger numbers massively, without much expenditure at all.
2.) Upgrading for 4tph+ extra intercity service is different to upgrading for 2tph extensions from Hunts Cross replacing existing services.
3.) Possibly not - I'm afraid I'm not enough of an expert to go further than what I've already found, in terms of resources. It's a pertinent question however.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2024 ==

If the line was used for Merseyrail rather the NPR, using your suggestion could there be potential to extend it from Warrington to Statham & Lymm with stations at Latchford & Grappenhall/Thelwall, maybe extending extending every other service as a 15 minute frequency might be overkill for that section, although that could be seen as too far into Cheshire for it to be considered.

Latchford - yes!
Lymm, sadly not possible - the well-established Transpennine Trail is on the stretch after Latchford Railway Bridge!

 

[BradK2017]

1) Possible, but it's all about return on investment with Merseyrail extension. Extending Merseyrail down the CLC would drive passenger numbers massively, without much expenditure at all.
2.) Upgrading for 4tph+ extra intercity service is different to upgrading for 2tph extensions from Hunts Cross replacing existing services.
3.) Possibly not - I'm afraid I'm not enough of an expert to go further than what I've already found, in terms of resources. It's a pertinent question however.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2024 ==


Latchford - yes!
Lymm, sadly not possible - the well-established Transpennine Trail is on the stretch after Latchford Railway Bridge!

I Thought under the NPR plans it was going to continue on the line further than Latchford before it took it's new alignment down to the airport, meaning part of the trail would be lost/rerouted anyway? Even getting to Latchford could provide popular possibly with 2 stations on that section, Latchford being somewhere around back of Priestley college area then Westy & Lachford East being between the Knutsford Road Bridge & Latchford Bridge.

 

[daodao]

Why is Warrington being mentioned in this thread at all? It is outwith Merseyside and some distance from Liverpool city centre. Warrington's rail services are key parts of the national rail network and extending Merseyrail to it is foolish. It would undermine the separateness of Merseyrail as a largely self-contained urban rail system, outside the national rail franchising structure, with train services that don't overlap/conflict with long-distance trains which are prone to delays.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Extend Merseyrail to Warrington Central and Metrolink (tram-train version) from Manchester - using a junction onto the tram network south of Cornbrook.
Removing the stoppers from Castlefield should make things a bit more fluid - keep the EMR/TPE and Merseyrail should be OK.

Absolutely not. Have you seen the appalling punctuality of the EMR? The stoppers aren't the problem.

Merseyrail relies on tight margins, particularly at Liverpool Central. It should not be inter-running with anything on the mainline. Anything it takes over should, as with Metrolink, be segregated with only incidental (or ideally no) overlaps with other operations.

The CLC should absolutely be electrified, but if it isn't exclusive to Merseyrail then it should be a Lime St service using 331s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 May 2024 ==

Would the Southport-Preston not be better using the old line at meols cop?

It no longer exists so the cost of reinstating that would be much, much higher, plus it wouldn't provide other useful connectivity like from Merseyrail changing at Burscough.