Merseyrail Expansion

[Bletchleyite]

Headbolt Lane is on Headbolt lane. We have quite a few stations on Merseyside named in a similar fashion.
Hall Road, Manor Road, Green Lane too name but three are in a similar situation but I don't hear you shouting your mouth off about them. Local people know were Headbolt Lane is and it was built to serve the big housing estates in that area.

The only real issue with Headbolt is it appearing on the PIS at Manchester Victoria. Curiously Merseyrail themselves seem to prefix it but Northern don't!

 

[Djgr]

The only real issue with Headbolt is it appearing on the PIS at Manchester Victoria. Curiously Merseyrail themselves seem to prefix it but Northern don't!

The other stations are not termini.

I think the best thing is for everyone to learn from the mistakes made in the naming of this station so that it doesn't happen again in the future. Given the public discussion around alternative names for Liverpool Baltic I think that the penny has already dropped.

 

[CaramellDansen]

The only major issue would be in West Derby where a Sainsbury’s store has been built obstructing part of the trackbed. Without some demolition I think there’s now only room for a single track in this section, and the cycle route would need to be diverted.

It's Sainsbury's fault for building on land reserved for rail use. Start up the bulldozers, lads!

The best use for this line would probably be to create a proper outer Liverpool loop line, without this the journey times to north Liverpool would be too long to be attractive.

Agreed. There are far too many passengers in the area who have not had a rail link to town for approximately 60 years to NOT build it!

The problem is it looks like the parts of the Huskisson branch needed for this have been filled in. I’m not sure to what extent this would prevent the line reopening.

My guess would be a curve (a sharp one, unfortunately: about 400-450m radius) across the Rice Lane Recreation Ground could be possible. It would involve moving the Tennis Centre, which is a shame, but I'd argue we need to break a few eggs to make this omelette and this is the way to do it with the least amount of eggs cracked, in my opinion.
I would argue for also continuing the original alignment as a single track northwards, over the Ormskirk branch, under the Kirkby branch, and into the abandoned platforms at Aintree, for special race day services coming via the CLC line (via Widnes).

 

[yorkie]

It's Sainsbury's fault for building on land reserved for rail use. Start up the bulldozers, lads!

Do you have a source that states the land is reserved for rail use? Can you please link to, and quote from, a reputable source please?

Are you suggesting planning permission was not granted?

 

[AlastairFraser]

To be completely honest the Merseyrail coming to Widnes may finally give us a reason for being in the LCR as up to now we have had no benefits of being in it.

Definitely. I agree with the person who said Halton should be in the Merseytravel area too - it's all virtually part of the same conurbation.

 

[richard_S]

One solution for problems with trains from Wrexham getting into Bidston station between Mersey rail trains. Would be to build a platform 3 south of the station. There were lines there in the past so I am guessing that the railway still own the land there. Does anyone know when they will be putting in the points for the cement works just North of Penyffordd? When these are done a half hourly clock face timetable will be able to introduced. TfW wants a quarter hourly time table introduced eventually.

 

[WAO]

The only real issue with Headbolt is it appearing on the PIS at Manchester Victoria. Curiously Merseyrail themselves seem to prefix it but Northern don't!

There are of course several aspects to station names. One is geographical and the lane, road, district cognomen etc is relevant. The next is marketing, in that it should sound an attractive place to start and finish a journey, a little snobbery doesn't go amiss here. Another aspect is brevity as illustrated by the famous LLanfairxxxxxx Welsh station.

I suspect "Liverpool Baltic" will soon become just "Baltic" and the horrid HBL will properly become "Simonswood".

Nevertheless HBL's welcome success points the way to other marginal extensions and to battery operation. Halewood, Burscough Jn and Arrowe Park here we come!

WAO

 

[danbarjon]

Definitely. I agree with the person who said Halton should be in the Merseytravel area too - it's all virtually part of the same conurbation.

I think whatever comes under LCR they should be in the Merseytravel area as it's just unfair to 90% of Halton's residents who aren't fortunate enough to live near the start of the zone (Hough Green).

 

[Djgr]

Definitely. I agree with the person who said Halton should be in the Merseytravel area too - it's all virtually part of the same conurbation.

As far as I can understand Halton is by virtue of being part of LCR.

What I don't understand is why Merseytravel ticket arrangements don't apply?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jun 2024 ==

There are of course several aspects to station names. One is geographical and the lane, road, district cognomen etc is relevant. The next is marketing, in that it should sound an attractive place to start and finish a journey, a little snobbery doesn't go amiss here. Another aspect is brevity as illustrated by the famous LLanfairxxxxxx Welsh station.

I suspect "Liverpool Baltic" will soon become just "Baltic" and the horrid HBL will properly become "Simonswood".

Nevertheless HBL's welcome success points the way to other marginal extensions and to battery operation. Halewood, Burscough Jn and Arrowe Park here we come!

WAO

Absolutely. And as new stations only open "once in a blue moon" there is no excuse for not coming up with a name that offers the most "value".

Arrowe Park is a bit of a stretch. The planned station isn't even in Woodchurch!

 

[AlastairFraser]

I think whatever comes under LCR they should be in the Merseytravel area as it's just unfair to 90% of Halton's residents who aren't fortunate enough to live near the start of the zone (Hough Green).

Agreed

As far as I can understand Halton is by virtue of being part of LCR.

What I don't understand is why Merseytravel ticket arrangements don't apply?

Despite their membership of LCR, it seems they have not been integrated into Merseytravel. I think this is mostly because there is a lot of work to be done.

 

[neilcobbe]

Agreed

Despite their membership of LCR, it seems they have not been integrated into Merseytravel. I think this is mostly because there is a lot of work to be done.

And extra contributions/council tax levy from the local council to Merseytravel?

 

[Djgr]

And extra contributions/council tax levy from the local council to Merseytravel?

I don't think that is how it works. My council tax bill consists of charge from Wirral council, charge from Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner, charge from Merseyside Fire and Rescue authority and charge from Liverpool City Region. There is not a charge from Merseytravel as such.

I think that as with so many things in this country (e.g. hospitals, education, water, transport) the process for sorting it out (Halton and Merseytravel in this case) is just broken and there is no will and/or ability to fix it.

 

[childwallblues]

The other stations are not termini.

I think the best thing is for everyone to learn from the mistakes made in the naming of this station so that it doesn't happen again in the future. Given the public discussion around alternative names for Liverpool Baltic I think that the penny has already dropped.

The discussion is on this thread with people like yourself calling it a mistake. The people that use the trains/station are not complaining or calling it a mistake.

 

[Djgr]

The discussion is on this thread with people like yourself calling it a mistake. The people that use the trains/station are not complaining or calling it a mistake.

What I meant was, before Liverpool Baltic was named a number of naming options had been identified and there was a very public and well publicised local consultation about them and a selection was made taking all these views into consideration and the pros and cons of the alternatives.

Of course, not everyone was happy with the choice made. Mainly out-of-towners who were unaware that the Baltic Triangle was one of the up and coming urban locations in the country. And that's the point. Because of this choice of name perhaps they now are. Perhaps they learn something about how much Liverpool has changed over the past few decades and why it gets continually nominated as a go-to destination. And perhaps they decide to visit for the weekend and put money into the local economy. Because of the choice of name.

None of this happened with HBL and it should have. And that was a clear mistake. Mainly because, and it is worth repeating, nobody knows where it is and what it is.

 

[richard_S]

First thoughts on hearing the term Baltic is cold!!!!

 

[urbophile]

What I meant was, before Liverpool Baltic was named a number of naming options had been identified and there was a very public and well publicised local consultation about them and a selection was made taking all these views into consideration and the pros and cons of the alternatives.

Of course, not everyone was happy with the choice made. Mainly out-of-towners who were unaware that the Baltic Triangle was one of the up and coming urban locations in the country. And that's the point. Because of this choice of name perhaps they now are. Perhaps they learn something about how much Liverpool has changed over the past few decades and why it gets continually nominated as a go-to destination. And perhaps they decide to visit for the weekend and put money into the local economy. Because of the choice of name.

None of this happened with HBL and it should have. And that was a clear mistake. Mainly because, and it is worth repeating, nobody knows where it is and what it is.

I can't see hordes of tourists flocking to a couple of boring housing estates on the edge of Merseyside, whatever exotic name they choose to give the station.

 

[8A Rail]

Despite their membership of LCR, it seems they have not been integrated into Merseytravel. I think this is mostly because there is a lot of work to be done.

And the added complication that residents of Halton BC get almost free travels across the two bridges (£10 per annum charge apparently) were the rest of the LCR have got to pay £1.80/£2.00 per car per crossing on either bridge. So if Halton are integrated in Merseytravel, then you need to integrate the rest of the LCR into the same bridge policy. I have my doubts this would happen!

 

[domcoop7]

I don't think that is how it works. My council tax bill consists of charge from Wirral council, charge from Merseyside Police and Crime Commissioner, charge from Merseyside Fire and Rescue authority and charge from Liverpool City Region. There is not a charge from Merseytravel as such.

I think that as with so many things in this country (e.g. hospitals, education, water, transport) the process for sorting it out (Halton and Merseytravel in this case) is just broken and there is no will and/or ability to fix it.

They could do it tomorrow if they wished, no legal process required as it has already been done - The Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014

The legal arrangements are such (in a convoluted way) that Halton Council had responsibilities for public transport which are transferred by virtue of the Combined Authority Order laid by Parliament to Merseytravel. So (in law) Halton collects public transport money via Council Tax and pays it over to Liverpool City Region. However, Liverpool City Region have then re-delegated responsibility for public transport back to Halton Council within the Halton area. So the exact same pot of money is then re-paid back to Halton. (I guess in reality it never moves anywhere, it's just a button on an accounting system). But Merseyside PTE (i.e. Merseytravel) does legally include Halton within its area. - see articles 8 and 10 of the link above.

In 2015 and 2016 Halton did pay to re-paint all their bus shelters and stops in Merseyrail colours, and bus stop flags (but not bus shelter timetables, oddly) are rebranded as Merseytravel - see the attachments below.

However, they made the political choice not extend PTE ticketing arrangements into Halton. I recall reading when it was all set up this was going to be a transitional arrangement because the susbsidies payable are quite high and the "Merseytravel levy" on Halton Council would be quite high per capita as the population of the borough isn't that high (and is spread over a large area) but the number of tickets they'd sell would be quite low. But I did think the plan was to phase it in over time. Merseytravel's under 18's daily bus ticket "MyTicket" applies to Halton, for example.

When Bus Franchising kicks in, it's going to be even more anomalous if there are two different fare structures operated by the same transport agency, though.

 

[AlastairFraser]

And extra contributions/council tax levy from the local council to Merseytravel?

Maybe they'll wait for when bus franchising is introduced and local authorities/the economic situation are/is in a better place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jun 2024 ==

And the added complication that residents of Halton BC get almost free travels across the two bridges (£10 per annum charge apparently) were the rest of the LCR have got to pay £1.80/£2.00 per car per crossing on either bridge. So if Halton are integrated in Merseytravel, then you need to integrate the rest of the LCR into the same bridge policy. I have my doubts this would happen!

It wouldn't be mandatory to give the rest of the LCR free travel across the bridges - the Mersey Tunnels Liverpool-Wirral are entirely within Merseyside and not free.

There's precedent elsewhere in the country - while this is not directly transport related, London Borough of Newham residents used to get free entry into a tech museum in the Docklands called the Crystal (now City Hall I believe) as Newham contributed towards construction costs ; to the exclusion of other residents of Greater London boroughs.

 

[8A Rail]

It wouldn't be mandatory to give the rest of the LCR free travel across the bridges - the Mersey Tunnels Liverpool-Wirral are entirely within Merseyside and not free.

There's precedent elsewhere in the country - while this is not directly transport related, London Borough of Newham residents used to get free entry into a tech museum in the Docklands called the Crystal (now City Hall I believe) as Newham contributed towards construction costs ; to the exclusion of other residents of Greater London boroughs.

I accept that but if Halton BC residents want the benefits of 'Merseytravel' then they will have to accept they have to pay for the bridge crossings is the alternative policy. I would object if Halton BC residents want their cake and eat it too. The daft thing I live closer to the bridge than some of the residents do, yet I have to pay! Unfortunately, Merseyside is the only area in the country were we pay to use the FOUR crossings, I think everywhere else is free for the main crossings with the exception of a least one tunnel under the River Thames. (are there any others?)

 

[AlastairFraser]

I accept that but if Halton BC residents want the benefits of 'Merseytravel' then they will have to accept they have to pay for the bridge crossings is the alternative policy. I would object if Halton BC residents want their cake and eat it too. The daft thing I live closer to the bridge than some of the residents do, yet I have to pay! Unfortunately, Merseyside is the only area in the country were we pay to use the FOUR crossings, I think everywhere else is free for the main crossings with the exception of a least one tunnel under the River Thames. (are there any others?)

1) I suspect Halton BC subsidise the free bridge tolls for residents - you could request an additional sum per head, compared to the other Merseyside boroughs, towards Merseytravel to compensate if they joined the Merseytravel area. Abolition of tolls on the Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee Bridge for LCR residents would probably be too far as the bridge's financial model would be undermined.
2) You could mention the Humber Bridge as well, but unfortunately Humberside has been mostly abolished.

 

[domcoop7]

1) I suspect Halton BC subsidise the free bridge tolls for residents - you could request an additional sum per head, compared to the other Merseyside boroughs, towards Merseytravel to compensate if they joined the Merseytravel area. Abolition of tolls on the Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee Bridge for LCR residents would probably be too far as the bridge's financial model would be undermined.
2) You could mention the Humber Bridge as well, but unfortunately Humberside has been mostly abolished.

The tunnels are owned by Merseytravel. I'm not exactly sure how or why, I'm guessing that when Merseyside County Council was set up in 1974 they got ownership "by default", because the County Council would have been highway authority for the major roads, and when it was abolished in 1986 it made sense for the infrastructure to stay with Mersyside PTE rather than be transferred to some sort of new joint body between Liverpool and Wirral councils. Regional transport authorities owning road tunnels is not a normal situation and standard legislation does not allow for this. There is, for example, a special Tyne Tunnels Act to enable the Tyne Tunnels to be owned by Nexus. The Humber Bridge is run by the "Humber Bridge Board", again set up by its own Act of Parliament.

When the Runcorn Bridges became tolled, the relevant highways authority was (and is) Halton Council. Mersytravel has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Without an Act of Parliament, which Merseytravel would have had to promote and pay for themselves, there is no reason for them to be involved in running roads - either Highways England or the local council run roads.

Halton is in the Merseytravel area, it's just that Merseytravel have opted not to extend their systems and processes to Halton Borough and instead delegate their powers back to Halton council. If Merseytravel wanted to take control of Halton public transport they could do so tomorrow and there's nothing Halton can do to stop them.

But either way the bridges have nothing to do with Merseytravel, the toll arrangements aren't set by Merseytravel and whom they choose to charge and how much has no connection with ticketing arrangements for buses and trains in Liverpool City Region.

 

[Djgr]

I accept that but if Halton BC residents want the benefits of 'Merseytravel' then they will have to accept they have to pay for the bridge crossings is the alternative policy. I would object if Halton BC residents want their cake and eat it too. The daft thing I live closer to the bridge than some of the residents do, yet I have to pay! Unfortunately, Merseyside is the only area in the country were we pay to use the FOUR crossings, I think everywhere else is free for the main crossings with the exception of a least one tunnel under the River Thames. (are there any others?)

Other toll crossings that come to mind:

Humber bridge
Tyne Tunnel

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jun 2024 ==

They could do it tomorrow if they wished, no legal process required as it has already been done - The Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral Combined Authority Order 2014

The legal arrangements are such (in a convoluted way) that Halton Council had responsibilities for public transport which are transferred by virtue of the Combined Authority Order laid by Parliament to Merseytravel. So (in law) Halton collects public transport money via Council Tax and pays it over to Liverpool City Region. However, Liverpool City Region have then re-delegated responsibility for public transport back to Halton Council within the Halton area. So the exact same pot of money is then re-paid back to Halton. (I guess in reality it never moves anywhere, it's just a button on an accounting system). But Merseyside PTE (i.e. Merseytravel) does legally include Halton within its area. - see articles 8 and 10 of the link above.

In 2015 and 2016 Halton did pay to re-paint all their bus shelters and stops in Merseyrail colours, and bus stop flags (but not bus shelter timetables, oddly) are rebranded as Merseytravel - see the attachments below.

However, they made the political choice not extend PTE ticketing arrangements into Halton. I recall reading when it was all set up this was going to be a transitional arrangement because the susbsidies payable are quite high and the "Merseytravel levy" on Halton Council would be quite high per capita as the population of the borough isn't that high (and is spread over a large area) but the number of tickets they'd sell would be quite low. But I did think the plan was to phase it in over time. Merseytravel's under 18's daily bus ticket "MyTicket" applies to Halton, for example.

When Bus Franchising kicks in, it's going to be even more anomalous if there are two different fare structures operated by the same transport agency, though.

bit of a dog's dinner then!

 

[AlastairFraser]

The tunnels are owned by Merseytravel. I'm not exactly sure how or why, I'm guessing that when Merseyside County Council was set up in 1974 they got ownership "by default", because the County Council would have been highway authority for the major roads, and when it was abolished in 1986 it made sense for the infrastructure to stay with Mersyside PTE rather than be transferred to some sort of new joint body between Liverpool and Wirral councils. Regional transport authorities owning road tunnels is not a normal situation and standard legislation does not allow for this. There is, for example, a special Tyne Tunnels Act to enable the Tyne Tunnels to be owned by Nexus. The Humber Bridge is run by the "Humber Bridge Board", again set up by its own Act of Parliament.

When the Runcorn Bridges became tolled, the relevant highways authority was (and is) Halton Council. Mersytravel has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Without an Act of Parliament, which Merseytravel would have had to promote and pay for themselves, there is no reason for them to be involved in running roads - either Highways England or the local council run roads.

Halton is in the Merseytravel area, it's just that Merseytravel have opted not to extend their systems and processes to Halton Borough and instead delegate their powers back to Halton council. If Merseytravel wanted to take control of Halton public transport they could do so tomorrow and there's nothing Halton can do to stop them.

But either way the bridges have nothing to do with Merseytravel, the toll arrangements aren't set by Merseytravel and whom they choose to charge and how much has no connection with ticketing arrangements for buses and trains in Liverpool City Region.

Strange that they have no involvement - I guess that the legal landscape for road ownership in the UK is very complex and anyone could own a piece of road infrastructure these days, especially since the advent of PFI schemes

 

[Almyle503]

There’s something to be said for these being done together so that (barring the waste trains) everything west of Wallgate is Merseyrail, giving the benefits of a closed system. Although to do that would lose the through Southport to Manchester service which I can imagine facing some resistance

That’s why I personally would only want the Headbolt Lane line from Wallgate to become part of Merseyrail. Part of me also still kinda wants Skem to get an extension.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s why I personally would only want the Headbolt Lane line from Wallgate to become part of Merseyrail. Part of me also still kinda wants Skem to get an extension.

Strikes me that the better way to do Skem (given its car dependent nature and low density, plus the likely lack of inbound traffic to the town centre as it's not a desirable place to shop and aside from the Co-op Bank mostly offers minimum wage employment available more or less everywhere) is to extend Upholland with a new building and large car park on the Pimbo side and run Merseyrail to Wallgate to serve it.

If anything inbound commuting is more likely to Pimbo than to the Concourse and Asda.

I don't think Merseyrail to Southport via Burscough makes much sense. An hourly Northern Southport-Preston service via the North Curve and Merseyrail to Burscough Bridge makes most sense to me. Even to Preston makes little sense - it's a long run on uncomfortable, toiletless units with a very low density population and mass development unlikely, whereas Burscough itself is expanding, looks to Liverpool more than Preston, and likely to become joined to Ormskirk before long.

 

[CaramellDansen]

is to extend Upholland with a new building and large car park on the Pimbo side

Not a bad idea! A bus station would be a must, too! Preferably a new circular bus service(s) too, going through most of Skem and to the station, if not giving more buses to the existing ones (the 312, 740, 742, 744, 746 and 769 all come to mind).

What would be done about the freight service to the SUEZ recycling centre in Kirkby, which takes the route between Wigan Wallgate and Kirkby Headbolt Lane?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What would be done about the freight service to the SUEZ recycling centre in Kirkby, which takes the route between Wigan Wallgate and Kirkby Headbolt Lane?

Nothing at all. Existing reality should always receive preference over unsolicited aspirations.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Strikes me that the better way to do Skem (given its car dependent nature and low density, plus the likely lack of inbound traffic to the town centre as it's not a desirable place to shop and aside from the Co-op Bank mostly offers minimum wage employment available more or less everywhere) is to extend Upholland with a new building and large car park on the Pimbo side and run Merseyrail to Wallgate to serve it.

If anything inbound commuting is more likely to Pimbo than to the Concourse and Asda.

I don't think Merseyrail to Southport via Burscough makes much sense. An hourly Northern Southport-Preston service via the North Curve and Merseyrail to Burscough Bridge makes most sense to me. Even to Preston makes little sense - it's a long run on uncomfortable, toiletless units with a very low density population and mass development unlikely, whereas Burscough itself is expanding, looks to Liverpool more than Preston, and likely to become joined to Ormskirk before long.

The trouble with putting the curves back is that it will cost money - lots of money.

Regardless of what I may have said above, I am continuing to think that 'Skem Parkway' (quite possibly in the form of Upholland with improved access, parking and facilities) and Merseyrail extension to Wallgate is the way to go: for Ormskirk to Preston how about extending M'rail (on batteries) through Burscough Junction to a new platform where the Ormskirk - Preston and Southport - Wigan lines cross? Let's call it Burscough School Lane for the moment.

If School Lane also has Wigan line platforms and good car parking, then it would be a parkway type station with direct trains to Liverpool, Southport, Preston and Manchester - and while not giving through trains apart from the existing Southport to Manchester would allow travel between all pairs of stations (and their suburbs) with only one change.

(N.b. aim to retain Bridge and Junction - although Bridge to School Lane would be very short.)

Cheapish, and by no means perfect - but with gains outweighing the costs?

 

[CaramellDansen]

The trouble with putting the curves back is that it will cost money - lots of money.

Regardless of what I may have said above, I am continuing to think that 'Skem Parkway' (quite possibly in the form of Upholland with improved access, parking and facilities) and Merseyrail extension to Wallgate is the way to go: for Ormskirk to Preston how about extending M'rail (on batteries) through Burscough Junction to a new platform where the Ormskirk - Preston and Southport - Wigan lines cross? Let's call it Burscough School Lane for the moment.

If School Lane also has Wigan line platforms and good car parking, then it would be a parkway type station with direct trains to Liverpool, Southport, Preston and Manchester - and while not giving through trains apart from the existing Southport to Manchester would allow travel between all pairs of stations (and their suburbs) with only one change.

Surely at least the north curve could be put back, to facilitate a Preston to Southport service via Bridge? Especially with Midge Hall reopening, that could be a really valuable service, while effectively just being an extension of the old Preston to Burscough! Two birds, one stone?

Nothing at all. Existing reality should always receive preference over unsolicited aspirations.

I don't understand the opposition to the question.
Firstly, I was after an elaboration on Bletchleyite's part, not a pessimistic complaint. If you let pessimism win and ask for nothing, you'll get nothing. If you ask for everything and get something, you might be disappointed, but you'll be better off than that poor sod with nothing.
Additionally, this is the Speculative Discussion section; don't police people speculating here.