Merseyrail Expansion

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose so... maybe I'd need a month's dictatorship rather than just a day!

When I was a kid I was obsessed about reopening Ormskirk to Skem, but with an adult head even I can accept it's not really viable and the bus service is adequate for the demand.

 

[Topological]

My suggestion on another thread was for TfW to acquire some bi-mode 777s with long-life batteries and extend the Borderlands line to Birkenhead North, but I was informed that a turn-back there would require resignalling and that running round the loop was preferable. This would allow batteries to be recharged. There is a depot at BKN and when I passed it last week it contained a 230 so I assume there is an arrangement for TfW to use it. Bidston is generally agreed to be an awkward place to terminate. Not really "Merseyrail expansion" though unless the trains were jointly owned.......

The geography of the LCR is a little confusing to me, though it does make sense as to why Merseyrail focus on it so much.

However, it always seems to me that the Wrexham line should go to Merseyrail. Where the terminus for the short workings should be is less clear, but it would not be necessary to have a full metro frequency to Wrexham in the way that it does make sense to have one to Chester.

The range of the batteries needs looking at because electrifying the line with overhead would be expensive and 3rd rail would be unlikely. Perhaps a compromise where the proposed terminal for the short workings is the extent of the electrification would work. I note Neston mentioned upthread, but am not sure if that is for any particular reason.

For TfW, the Borderlands is something of an outpost and consistently proves an operational challenge. IF a solution can be found with Merseyrail then it would seem all is good. I am not sure it would be necessary to get TfW acquiring the 777s.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The geography of the LCR is a little confusing to me, though it does make sense as to why Merseyrail focus on it so much

Indeed - Merseyrail is funded to operate in the LCR

. I am not sure it would be necessary to get TfW acquiring the 777s

But as M'rail is funded to operate in the city region, it seems to me that someone would have to pay for 777s to operate mainly outside the LCR. Maybe compromise by TfW/Welsh government giving money to M'rail to acquire/operate stock on their behalf?

 

[Djgr]

Indeed - Merseyrail is funded to operate in the LCR

But as M'rail is funded to operate in the city region, it seems to me that someone would have to pay for 777s to operate mainly outside the LCR. Maybe compromise by TfW/Welsh government giving money to M'rail to acquire/operate stock on their behalf?

Yes.

There appears to be complete naivety about the relevance of the Liverpool City Region. Put simply if it's not in LCR it's not going to happen.

There is also a lack of appreciation of the relevance of the border between the countries of England and Wales. Put simply if it involves Wales (i.e., Hawarden Bridge and south thereof) then the Welsh government needs to be heavily involved.

 

[HSTEd]

There appears to be complete naivety about the relevance of the Liverpool City Region. Put simply if it's not in LCR it's not going to happen.

There is also a lack of appreciation of the relevance of the border between the countries of England and Wales. Put simply if it involves Wales (i.e., Hawarden Bridge and south thereof) then the Welsh government needs to be heavily involved.

The welsh government would probably be happy to make a deal with Westminster if it involved the Borderlands line being taken off their hands.
It is hardly a money spinner for the Welsh railway at the best of times and breaking the line at Hawarden Bridge/Shotton would turn the south end into a complete basket case.

As to Liverpool City Region, the person who plays the piper calls the tune, and LCR doesn't pay the piper - Westminster does.

 

[Topological]

The welsh government would probably be happy to make a deal with Westminster if it involved the Borderlands line being taken off their hands.
It is hardly a money spinner for the Welsh railway at the best of times and breaking the line at Hawarden Bridge/Shotton would turn the south end into a complete basket case.

As to Liverpool City Region, the person who plays the piper calls the tune, and LCR doesn't pay the piper - Westminster does.

Indeed.

I suspect the result is no more, or less, controversial than GMPTE (under whichever guise) running the Glossop trains (or should they ever become tram trains)

 

[Djgr]

The welsh government would probably be happy to make a deal with Westminster if it involved the Borderlands line being taken off their hands.
It is hardly a money spinner for the Welsh railway at the best of times and breaking the line at Hawarden Bridge/Shotton would turn the south end into a complete basket case.

As to Liverpool City Region, the person who plays the piper calls the tune, and LCR doesn't pay the piper - Westminster does.

It does form the basis of the North Wales Metro, which is a key Welsh government initiative.

 

[HSTEd]

It does form the basis of the North Wales Metro, which is a key Welsh government initiative.

And the report's proposal for the Borderlands line is to run four trains per hour from Liverpool to Wrexham in close collaboration with Merseyrail.

So the ultimate deal would likely be for Westminster, Wales and LCR to agree that Merseyrial just runs 4 trains per hour (or however many) and undertakes to consult TfW and DfT before any attempt to reduce the service.
In return TfW and Westminster provide the necessary funding to cover some or all of LCR's extra operational costs.

Society overall benefits and it avoids any kind of overcomplex joint venture.

 

[Topological]

And the report's proposal for the Borderlands line is to run four trains per hour from Liverpool to Wrexham in close collaboration with Merseyrail.

So the ultimate deal would likely be for Westminster, Wales and LCR to agree that Merseyrial just runs 4 trains per hour (or however many) and undertakes to consult TfW and DfT before any attempt to reduce the service.
In return TfW and Westminster provide the necessary funding to cover some or all of LCR's extra operational costs.

Society overall benefits and it avoids any kind of overcomplex joint venture.

This is the logical conclusion, especially since the train would go round the Liverpool loop tunnel.

However, it could be said logic and what happens are often devolved.

Presumably the remaining "North Wales Metro" will actually be 196s.

 

[Meerkat]

And the report's proposal for the Borderlands line is to run four trains per hour from Liverpool to Wrexham in close collaboration with Merseyrail.

So the ultimate deal would likely be for Westminster, Wales and LCR to agree that Merseyrial just runs 4 trains per hour (or however many) and undertakes to consult TfW and DfT before any attempt to reduce the service.
In return TfW and Westminster provide the necessary funding to cover some or all of LCR's extra operational costs.

Society overall benefits and it avoids any kind of overcomplex joint venture.

Four tph to Wrexham?! That’s a lot of moving fresh air!

 

[HSTEd]

Four tph to Wrexham?! That’s a lot of moving fresh air!

That's what TfW wants, so if that's what they'd like to pay for!

 

[Djgr]

What have these four stations in common?

Maghull North
Eastham Rake
Halewood
Headbolt Lane?

That's correct. All new stations developed by Merseytravel.

What else do they have in common?

They all lie within Liverpool City Region but around a mile from its boundary.

What do you think that this tells us about which transport schemes Merseytravel/Liverpool City Region are likely to develop in the future?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

What have these four stations in common?

Maghull North
Eastham Rake
Halewood
Headbolt Lane?

That's correct. All new stations developed by Merseytravel.

What else do they have in common?

They all lie within Liverpool City Region but around a mile from its boundary.

What do you think that this tells us about which transport schemes Merseytravel/Liverpool City Region are likely to develop in the future?

What happens if we add Brunswick, Conway Park and (prospectively) Baltic Triangle to the list?

 

[Djgr]

What happens if we add Brunswick, Conway Park and (prospectively) Baltic Triangle to the list?

It highlights the point that Merseytravel/Liverpool City Region exists to promote travel within THIS region.

(The reason for the necessity of this body should be obvious when you look at threads elsewhere on this forum about why Liverpool doesn't deserve any trains to Scotland and Wales and should just stop moaning)

It should be clear that only when all the requirements within LCR are met (i.e., never) will out of region schemes be considered (more than anywhere else I am looking at you, Burscough, which would be more obvious than Headbolt Lane but is held back through being out of region)

 

[HSTEd]

It highlights the point that Merseytravel/Liverpool City Region exists to promote travel within THIS region.

(The reason for the necessity of this body should be obvious when you look at threads elsewhere on this forum about why Liverpool doesn't deserve any trains to Scotland and Wales and should just stop moaning)

It should be clear that only when all the requirements within LCR are met (i.e., never) will out of region schemes be considered (more than anywhere else I am looking at you, Burscough, which would be more obvious than Headbolt Lane but is held back through being out of region)

LCR is only able to afford any of this stuff because it receives a hefty grant from the Treasury.

That means that, ultimately, Westminster has major influence on what schemes are funded.
He who pays the piper calls the tune, and LCR doesn't pay the piper - Westminster does.

EDIT:
Treasury funding is both direct and indirect, but without it Merseytravel could not hope to keep the Merseyrail system operating.

 

[Trainguy34]

If money wasn't an object, would it be possible to run 4tph to Hawarden, with 2tph to Wrexham and 2tph running along a new branch to Mold via Buckley?

 

[Djgr]

LCR is only able to afford any of this stuff because it receives a hefty grant from the Treasury.

That means that, ultimately, Westminster has major influence on what schemes are funded.
He who pays the piper calls the tune, and LCR doesn't pay the piper - Westminster does.

EDIT:
Treasury funding is both direct and indirect, but without it Merseytravel could not hope to keep the Merseyrail system operating.

And whilst all of this is true, I can't see Westminster saying "you can have this money only if you focus on Burscough"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If money wasn't an object, would it be possible to run 4tph to Hawarden, with 2tph to Wrexham and 2tph running along a new branch to Mold via Buckley?

Is there a known, but unfulfilled, need for 4tph to Hawaden?

 

[Fawkes Cat]

If money wasn't an object, would it be possible to run 4tph to Hawarden, with 2tph to Wrexham and 2tph running along a new branch to Mold via Buckley?

Is there a known, but unfulfilled, need for 4tph to Hawaden?

In fairness, this particular proposal seems to be using Hawarden as the junction for a Wrexham branch and a new Mold via Buckley branch. So the question should be whether there are known but unfulfilled needs for 2 tph to Wrexham and Mold via Buckley.

Although I suspect the answer will be the same…

 

[Djgr]

If money wasn't an object, would it be possible to run 4tph to Hawarden, with 2tph to Wrexham and 2tph running along a new branch to Mold via Buckley?

Although the Liverpool Loop does have capacity constraints, I think that discussions elsewhere on the forum concluded that it could indeed cope with an extra 4tph.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2024 ==

Is there a known, but unfulfilled, need for 4tph to Hawaden?

Hawarden, although an attractive village, is no potential Clapham Junction.

 

[Mr. SW]

Out today.

Baltic teaser video.

Sexy.

It does show platforms extending into the running tunnel so presumably that means some minor track sluing.

 

[frodshamfella]

It highlights the point that Merseytravel/Liverpool City Region exists to promote travel within THIS region.

(The reason for the necessity of this body should be obvious when you look at threads elsewhere on this forum about why Liverpool doesn't deserve any trains to Scotland and Wales and should just stop moaning)

It should be clear that only when all the requirements within LCR are met (i.e., never) will out of region schemes be considered (more than anywhere else I am looking at you, Burscough, which would be more obvious than Headbolt Lane but is held back through being out of region)

And I believe West Lancs council are not particularly forthcoming with the cash to support an extension to Burscough. Which would make a lot of sense. There does appear to be prevalence of posters who seem to think Liverpool should be left undeserved for some strange reason.

 

[HSTEd]

Merseyrail already operates outside of the Liverpool City Region.
It is a regional transport system in the wider area, not constrained by lines drawn on a map.

If we take the boundaries of the full members of the combined authority as the boundary of the City Region, then an awful lot of the current Merseyrail system is outside the City Region already.
Ormskirk, Chester etc etc.
Those stations represent a major source of revenue to Merseyrail that it would lose if it focussed on transport purely within the "City Region".
Extension to Wigan, Warrington and arguably Burscough and Wrexham serve the wider transport policy of the UK and do not inflict any significant inconvenience on LCR.

Indeed, if we take an expansive view of the LCR (including the two secondary members of West Lancashire and Warrington) then Warrington and Burscough are inside the LCR and Wigan is only just outside it (surely stopping at Upholland, <8km from Wigan Wallgate, is silly!).
Wrexham is somewhat further, but an orphaned branch line from Wrexham to the middle of nowhere serves noone.

EDIT: Edited to clean up argument.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Merseyrail already operates outside of the Liverpool City Region. It is a regional transport system in the wider area, not constrained by lines drawn on a map.

If we take the boundaries of the full members of the combined authority as the boundary of the City Region, then an awful lot of the current Merseyrail system is outside the City Region already. Ormskirk, Chester etc etc. an expansive view of the LCR (including the two secondary members of West Lancashire and Warrington) then Warrington and Burscough are inside the LCR and Wigan is only just outside it.

As was recently proved under the tranche expanded-area implementation of the TfGM Bee Network of "Greater Manchester". I cite the example of what had been for many years, an Arriva operated 362 Chorley to Wigan (via Coppull) service which from the border at Standish to Chorley, ran in the area of Lancashire County Council. TfGM took the decision that route, in its entirety, was to be part of the first tranche of services out for tender under a franchise system and when the results of that tranche tender were known, Arriva were no longer the operator and to add insult to injury, the long-established 362 service number was changed to 632.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

an awful lot of the current Merseyrail system is outside the City Region already.
Ormskirk, Chester etc etc.

’Etc etc’ can be fully expanded to Town Green, Aughton Park, Hooton, Capenhurst, Bache, Little Sutton, Overpool and Ellesmere Port. So (with Chester and Ormskirk) 10 out of 69 stations are outwith the full members of the LCR.

Those stations represent a major source of revenue to Merseyrail that it would lose if it focussed on transport purely within the "City Region".

Isn’t it more plausible to argue operational convenience as the reason for them being served by Merseyrail?

 

[frodshamfella]

My view is Merseyrail should take over these oddity lines, so from Ormskirk to Preston, indeed, I'd like to see a Southport to Preston via Burscough. The service from Liverpool could predominantly terminate there, maybe with an hourly projection, plus an hourly Southport to Preston. Something like that.
I think the service should continue from Headbolt Lane to Wigan
Ellesmere Port to Helsby
Take over the Borderlands line.
Hunts X to Gateacre and Widnes or Warrington
I also think that some sort of improvement is needed to reach the airport. This has been talked about a lot. So a line could branch from near the end of the A5300 , and continue to airport with a stop at Hale and Speke before arriving at the airport. Some sort of tram instead could be a quicker option and cheaper, but ultimately something needs to be done to allow easier and faster access to the airport.

I also think funding can not be just from.LCR If it is out.of the region,.so other authorities, central government will.have to step up too.

 

[Djgr]

Merseyrail already operates outside of the Liverpool City Region.
It is a regional transport system in the wider area, not constrained by lines drawn on a map.

If we take the boundaries of the full members of the combined authority as the boundary of the City Region, then an awful lot of the current Merseyrail system is outside the City Region already.
Ormskirk, Chester etc etc.
Those stations represent a major source of revenue to Merseyrail that it would lose if it focussed on transport purely within the "City Region".
Extension to Wigan, Warrington and arguably Burscough and Wrexham serve the wider transport policy of the UK and do not inflict any significant inconvenience on LCR.

Indeed, if we take an expansive view of the LCR (including the two secondary members of West Lancashire and Warrington) then Warrington and Burscough are inside the LCR and Wigan is only just outside it (surely stopping at Upholland, <8km from Wigan Wallgate, is silly!).
Wrexham is somewhat further, but an orphaned branch line from Wrexham to the middle of nowhere serves noone.

EDIT: Edited to clean up argument.

What you write here doesn't reflect political reality. It is ludicrous to suggest that the border between England and Wales is simply a line on a map.

The bits of Merseyrail outside of LCR are legacy and reflect operational convenience.

We already know the priorities for LCR for the foreseeable and they are Liverpool Baltic and the stations announced by Steve Rotheram. There will be no money for schemes outside of LCR, unless another party contributes funding.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There will be no money for schemes outside of LCR, unless another party contributes funding.

Indeed, why should they and their ratepayers contribute towards the transport plans of another area.

 

[WAO]

AIUI, transport spending by local government usually comes from discretionary transport supplementary grants from government, not from council tax payers. It is open for authorities to combine to bid for such funding. Unrealistic and expensive bids won't get funded. (the Kirkby trams, Skelmersdale branch etc). Watch how the Mayors now try to push Starmer to spend the cash on their pet schemes!

The boundaries of local authorities are often arbitrary, the result of history and administrative reorganisation.

Railway services tend to be the result of the patterns of economic activity, crossing administrative boundaries

Active, imaginative local MP's can bring wayward local and national government together. Incremental, modest advance was the key to Merseyrail's growth in the past and may be a guide to the future. These gains should be future proofed so as to allow easy further advance, unlike at Hunts Cross or Headbolt Lane.

WAO

 

[HSTEd]

There will be no money for schemes outside of LCR, unless another party contributes funding.

I never suggested otherwise!
In any case, Merseytravel is not in a position to do much rail-related without funding from outside. The combined authorities don't really have those kinds of resources at the end of the day.

EDIT: edited to be less strident