Merseyrail Expansion

[CaramellDansen]

Why is Warrington being mentioned in this thread at all? It is outwith Merseyside and some distance from Liverpool city centre.

So are Southport and Chester. Both are served by Merseyrail. Your point makes no sense.

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.

I agree. The Fiddler's Ferry route (via Ditton Junction / Widnes South) would be completely segregated between Edge Hill and Warrington Bank Quay (low level). We can have the best of both worlds with the FF route.

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

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

daodao check this out and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Why is Warrington being mentioned in this thread at all? It is outwith Merseyside and some distance from Liverpool city centre.

So are Southport and Chester. Both are served by Merseyrail. Your point makes no sense.

Just for clarity, Southport is in Merseyside. Ormskirk might be a better comparison (although it is much smaller than Warrington).

The problem is, of course, that the extent of Merseyrail has to make sense not just in local government terms but also in railway operational terms. Which is one of the reasons why the southern part of the Northern Line stops at Hunts Cross rather than extending to the limit of Merseyside at Halewood while one of the northern branches extends to Ormskirk, beyond the county boundary. And as this thread makes very clear, views are divided on whether extended over (shared use) lines to Warrington Central would work in operational terms - however good the political/economic arguments are.

 

[CaramellDansen]

Just for clarity, Southport is in Merseyside.

Fine, I'll give you that on a technicality. Regardless, they're the same distance as the crow flies. (Technically Warrington is closer according to Google Maps.)

Also, Chester still isn't in Merseyside. Neither is Ellesmere Port. I still don't see why this makes the FF line unfeasible.

The problem is, of course, that the extent of Merseyrail has to make sense not just in local government terms but also in railway operational terms. Which is one of the reasons why the southern part of the Northern Line stops at Hunts Cross rather than extending to the limit of Merseyside at Halewood while one of the northern branches extends to Ormskirk, beyond the county boundary.

The problem is that the Northern line was also slated to be axed by Beeching but they didn't get to it before the plan was finalised. It survived by luck, not economic necessity. The south of the city isn't underserved because there's some magic veil over it that makes people take the train less or something. Your reasoning is incredibly reductive and ignores a lot of the historical reasons for the line's decline; the trams (which are no longer around) competing with the lines, as well as the lower population at the time, mean that those reasons are long gone and cannot be used to excuse depriving people of rail access. The rail access in the south of the city is a JOKE.

If the south of the city has bad rail coverage, give it MORE not less.

And as this thread makes very clear, views are divided on whether extended over (shared use) lines to Warrington Central would work in operational terms - however good the political/economic arguments are.

I don't understand what you mean by this. The use of the Fiddler's Ferry line would not be shared use.

 

[Djgr]

Fine, I'll give you that on a technicality. Regardless, they're the same distance as the crow flies. (Technically Warrington is closer according to Google Maps.)
View attachment 159111
Also, Chester still isn't in Merseyside. Neither is Ellesmere Port. I still don't see why this makes the FF line unfeasible.


The problem is that the Northern line was also slated to be axed by Beeching but they didn't get to it before the plan was finalised. It survived by luck, not economic necessity. The south of the city isn't underserved because there's some magic veil over it that makes people take the train less or something. Your reasoning is incredibly reductive and ignores a lot of the historical reasons for the line's decline; the trams (which are no longer around) competing with the lines, as well as the lower population at the time, mean that those reasons are long gone and cannot be used to excuse depriving people of rail access. The rail access in the south of the city is a JOKE.

If the south of the city has bad rail coverage, give it MORE not less.


I don't understand what you mean by this. The use of the Fiddler's Ferry line would not be shared use.

The main issue is that funding is likely to be far harder to come by if it falls outside Liverpool City Region.

On a separate note, the geographical boundaries of Liverpool City Region, under whose auspices Merseytravel lie, are not the same as those of the former Merseyside County Council, abolished over thirty years ago.

 

[AlastairFraser]

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.

Ah I may have missed that re NPR
The cost:benefit ratio of an extension to Latchford alone wouldn't stand up - the area is too low density population-wise, and the distruption to the sidings at Warrington Arpley wouldn't be justified by a short suburban extension with relatively low passenger potential.

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.

The problem mainly is the congestion on the Castlefield corridor - with 2 less stoppers an hour and the upcoming signalling upgrade, it would make punctuality less of a concern.

There's no point running extra 331s into Lime St from Oxford Rd as 1) it would just keep the pressure on the Castlefield Corridor, 2) Northern's track record of actually running a service you can rely on is ****e, so the electrification wouldn't be economically justified by induced demand - contrast that with the prospect of a usually reliable, cheap and modern Merseyrail service and 3) there's no capability for an initial extension on battery to Warrington Central for proof of demand with Northern - Merseyrail can do this and order a few extra trimode OHLE/3rd rail/battery when the CLC gets wires.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Jun 2024 ==

On a separate note, the geographical boundaries of Liverpool City Region, under whose auspices Merseytravel lie, are not the same as those of the former Merseyside County Council, abolished over thirty years ago.

Which helps a Merseyrail extension towards Warrington as Widnes is in Halton, a member of Liverpool City Region.

 

[danbarjon]

Which helps a Merseyrail extension towards Warrington as Widnes is in Halton, a member of Liverpool City Region.

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.

 

[CaramellDansen]

The main issue is that funding is likely to be far harder to come by if it falls outside Liverpool City Region.

In theory, couldn't that be easier if the two city regions come to an agreement?
For example: Liverpool pays for the station construction and putting up OLE on the LCR side of the border, and Cheshire does so on their side of the border. Then sort out a deal like infrastructure repairs being done by Chester, and operating services being done by LCR. Obviously that's a massive simplification, but it's not like cooperation is impossible. Then you get effectively twice the budget for an already-cheap rail project!

 

[Djgr]

In theory, couldn't that be easier if the two city regions come to an agreement?
For example: Liverpool pays for the station construction and putting up OLE on the LCR side of the border, and Cheshire does so on their side of the border. Then sort out a deal like infrastructure repairs being done by Chester, and operating services being done by LCR. Obviously that's a massive simplification, but it's not like cooperation is impossible. Then you get effectively twice the budget for an already-cheap rail project!

It's not impossible for neighbouring authorities to cooperate. For example the Welsh government has worked with Merseytravel on Borderlands line and Halton curve. However, Cheshire and Lancashire are not renowned for taking money out of their pockets.

 

[CaramellDansen]

However, Cheshire and Lancashire are not renowned for taking money out of their pockets.

Sad.

You would think "allow LCR/Merseyrail to use railway -> get a free railway you don't need to maintain or run" would be a good trade off that even the stingiest of people would jump at! Ah well.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder how much "speculative Government financial input" would be required to see these thread speculative aspirations "fully funded and costed" (typical Government phrase always wheeled out by all parties at General Election time) by actual Government hand-outs?

 

[8A Rail]

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.

Well you do get free bridge crossings though, which the rest of LCR don't, so there is one benefit for starters.

 

[danbarjon]

Well you do get free bridge crossings though, which the rest of LCR don't, so there is one benefit for starters.

Not totally free though, £10 annual charge.

 

[8A Rail]

Not totally free though, £10 annual charge.

Fair enough but I would gladly pay that annual charge though. In reality though, regardless of this discussion about extending MR lines. Halton BC needs to become part of the existing Merseytravel area which cover all buses and trains, so everyone benefits within the LCR area. In theory as far as I understand, Halton BC are contributing to the LCR budget I assume.

 

[CaramellDansen]

I wonder how much "speculative Government financial input" would be required to see these thread speculative aspirations "fully funded and costed" (typical Government phrase always wheeled out by all parties at General Election time) by actual Government hand-outs?

I hear a lot on this forum from people shouting down people who dare to dream. Isn't that really unhelpful, though? "Our economic system cannot deal with it, so stop thinking about it" is a really dystopian train of thought.

If something can't be done, don't terminate your thoughts about that thing or make excuses as to why you need to accept it; think about what needs to change for things to get better!

(This isn't intended as an attack on you, rather that I worry the thoughts you expressed tend to slide towards the above-mentioned train of thought over time, in my opinion)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I hear a lot on this forum from people shouting down people who dare to dream. Isn't that really unhelpful, though? "Our economic system cannot deal with it, so stop thinking about it" is a really dystopian train of thought.

If something can't be done, don't terminate your thoughts about that thing or make excuses as to why you need to accept it; think about what needs to change for things to get better!

(This isn't intended as an attack on you, rather that I worry the thoughts you expressed tend to slide towards the above-mentioned train of thought over time, in my opinion)

Now let us not be economically silly. "Dare to dream" is fine and well as long as it stays in "dreamland". However, in the real world, hard economic aspirations need hard economic finance to bring them into fruition.

 

[danbarjon]

Fair enough but I would gladly pay that annual charge though. In reality though, regardless of this discussion about extending MR lines. Halton BC needs to become part of the existing Merseytravel area which cover all buses and trains, so everyone benefits within the LCR area. In theory as far as I understand, Halton BC are contributing to the LCR budget I assume.

Yes I agree, for a long time people with Saveaway tickets have to start from Hough Green not Widnes.

 

[Northerngirl]

A very quick solution would be to just add Runcorn & Warrington to the current tickets as another zone (and perhaps use those hydrogen busses on a new route), I'd happily pay £8-9 for a 'saveaway+'

 

[WAO]

Still on the topic of Merseyrail Expansion, wouldn't a link to Halewood, be more practical than Gateacre?

There are plenty of houses within walking distance and single track/batteries might do, like Kirkby/HBL. The formation was four track with sidings, even if some has now been lost and there's S&T gear now in the way.

Gateacre really needs a route North West to Broad Green rather than a southern detour, although the Civils work to form a junction there might be Herculean. A terminal and interchange might be simpler.

WAO

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Still on the topic of Merseyrail Expansion, wouldn't a link to Halewood, be more practical than Gateacre?

There are plenty of houses within walking distance and single track/batteries might do, like Kirkby/HBL. The formation was four track with sidings, even if some has now been lost and there's S&T gear now in the way.

Gateacre really needs a route North West to Broad Green rather than a southern detour, although the Civils work to form a junction there might be Herculean. A terminal and interchange might be simpler.

WAO

It does seem to me that the most practical approach for that corridor would be to up the Lime Street to Warrington Central service to 4 all-stations trains an hour. As far as I can make out, this would need no new track and no new signalling: the (types of) trains to run it exist - and by running out of Lime Street the risk of importing delays onto 3rd-rail Merseyrail would be minimised (even reduced if the Northern Line was cut back to South Parkway, so removing the need for M'Rail trains to cross over the Warrington line).

Of course, this might still be unattainable: people with more knowledge will be along shortly to say whether there's capacity at Lime Street (or on the lines out to Warrington Central) to do this. And while DMUs and 25KV electric/diesel MUs exist, I can well imagine there might not be enough going spare to operate such a service.

 

[Djgr]

Still on the topic of Merseyrail Expansion, wouldn't a link to Halewood, be more practical than Gateacre?

There are plenty of houses within walking distance and single track/batteries might do, like Kirkby/HBL. The formation was four track with sidings, even if some has now been lost and there's S&T gear now in the way.

Gateacre really needs a route North West to Broad Green rather than a southern detour, although the Civils work to form a junction there might be Herculean. A terminal and interchange might be simpler.

WAO

Doesn't Halewood have a station?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It does seem to me that the most practical approach for that corridor would be to up the Lime Street to Warrington Central service to 4 all-stations trains an hour. As far as I can make out, this would need no new track and no new signalling: the (types of) trains to run it exist - and by running out of Lime Street the risk of importing delays onto 3rd-rail Merseyrail would be minimised (even reduced if the Northern Line was cut back to South Parkway, so removing the need for M'Rail trains to cross over the Warrington line).

Of course, this might still be unattainable: people with more knowledge will be along shortly to say whether there's capacity at Lime Street (or on the lines out to Warrington Central) to do this. And while DMUs and 25KV electric/diesel MUs exist, I can well imagine there might not be enough going spare to operate such a service.

Capacity on the CLC line itself would be the issue there. It is however a good idea, but would require NPR (Fiddlers Ferry) to be built to take the two expresses per hour off the line to create that capacity.

I think a good pattern would be of two per hour through from Lime St to Manchester (perhaps running semifast west of Warrington, say calling at South Parkway, Hunts X if Merseyrail was cut back from there, Widnes, Warrington W, Warrington C then all stations) and two per hour turning at Warrington (all stations). (4 all the way through would probably not fit on Castlefield).

 

[HSTEd]

Hunts Cross obtains far greater passenger numbers than seen on the adjacent non-Merseyrail stations. 20 times that of Halewood and even far in excess of that obtained at Widnes.

Sure passenger numbers would improve with a higher intensity service to Lime Street, but are we sure cutting back Merseyrail service is really going to be politically tenable?
People seem to fairly consistently vote for their feet - and go to the Merseyrail system wherever possible, in huge numbers.

Would people in Halewood, Widnes etc actually chose a higher intensity service to Lime Street, or would they chose Merseyrail?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hunts Cross obtains far greater passenger numbers than seen on the adjacent non-Merseyrail stations. 20 times that of Halewood and even far in excess of that obtained at Widnes.

Sure passenger numbers would improve with a higher intensity service to Lime Street, but are we sure cutting back Merseyrail service is really going to be politically tenable?
People seem to fairly consistently vote for their feet - and go to the Merseyrail system wherever possible, in huge numbers.

Would people in Halewood, Widnes etc actually chose a higher intensity service to Lime Street, or would they chose Merseyrail?

It's not about whether they would choose Merseyrail, it's about whether Merseyrail would be utterly destroyed by bringing it into significant interaction with probably the least punctual and reliable of the Castlefield services.

Merseyrail to Warrington is fine by me, but it has to come with buffer stops and the removal of all through Castlefield services from the CLC. The CLC isn't just a bit bad, it's terrible and has been for years - the Norwich service is generally the root of the problem as it just interacts with too much over its length.

 

[HSTEd]

It's not about whether they would choose Merseyrail, it's about whether Merseyrail would be utterly destroyed by bringing it into significant interaction with probably the least punctual and reliable of the Castlefield services.

Merseyrail to Warrington is fine by me, but it has to come with buffer stops and the removal of all through Castlefield services from the CLC.

I'd argue that buffer stops at Warrington is the best option, followed by the status quo, followed by any solution that cuts back Merseyrail from Hunts Cross.
In my view, building a Merseyrail bay at Deansgate is probably better than cutting back!

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my view, building a Merseyrail bay at Deansgate is probably better than cutting back!

Definitely not. It would still interact with Castlefield services. It should go no further than Birchwood/Warrington C but only if parallel CLC services are removed.

Merseyrail should absolutely not be operating inter-regional services. That's Northern's job. It is a local service for the Liverpool City Region and needs to remain as such. I even question Preston to be honest - I think an interchange and Parkway at Burscough would be a better northern destination. The one exception I'd say is Wigan where it could be pretty much self contained.

 

[HSTEd]

Definitely not. It would still interact with Castlefield services. It should go no further than Birchwood/Warrington C but only if parallel CLC services are removed.

Well..... would it?
That, semi serious, suggestion was to hand over the CLC entirely to Merseyrail with a separate bay at Deansgate.

Merseyrail should absolutely not be operating inter-regional services. That's Northern's job.

I don't think there is really any clear delineation of what an "inter-regional" service even is.
We don't really have such clean distrinctions in the UK, as we see with Thameslink, Crossrail, and indeed Merseyrail itself on its other lines.

We shouldn't force such distinctions onto the UK railway when they are not really a feature of how the UK railway has operated for decades.

But in all seriousness, I think the simplest answer is buffer stops at Warrington.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well..... would it?
That, semi serious, suggestion was to hand over CLC entirely to Merseyrail with a separate bay at Deansgate.

Yes, it would need to cross Castlefield Junction which is a big source of the issue.

And who would want a 1.5 hour stopping journey sat on a piece of sheet metal with no legroom and crossed legs due to no toilet? This just isn't what it should be doing. If Northern is rubbish (and it is), fix Northern.

I don't think there is really any clear delineation of what an "inter-regional" service even is.
We don't really have such clean distrinctions in the UK, as we see with Thameslink, Crossrail, and indeed Merseyrail itself on its other lines.

Merseyrail is not Thameslink, nor is it Crossrail. It's more like the Underground. That distinction does exist in this context - Merseyrail is a self contained local railway for Liverpool and its commuter hinterland.

OK, let's put it this way - under no circumstances should Merseyrail serve the city of Manchester, nor indeed anywhere that wouldn't be considered the commuter hinterland of Liverpool.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Hunts Cross obtains far greater passenger numbers than seen on the adjacent non-Merseyrail stations. 20 times that of Halewood and even far in excess of that obtained at Widnes.

How much is this from people driving to Hunts Cross rather than their local station, because of the better level of service?*

So if their local station had that better level of service, how many would change to using their local station instead?

*yes, I know that Hunts Cross has minimal parking for the station. I don't know how much people park on the streets to get the train - and how many people now drive to South Parkway to then get the train to Liverpool.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, it would need to cross Castlefield Junction.

Would it?
If we put the bay on the south side of the tracks at Deansgate station it wouldn't have to.
The only things going into the junction would be the handful of freight trains.

And who would want a 1.5 hour stopping journey sat on a piece of sheet metal with no legroom and crossed legs due to no toilet?

Would anyone do that?
From Liverpool they would just use the other Mancheser-Liverpool line.
From Warrington they would go to Bank Quay, and in any case that journey wouldn't take an hour and a half!

Either way, I was only semi seriously proposing that as an answer to complaints about people travelling across Warrington.

The best case is just to break the line in half at Warrington Central.

Merseyrail is not Thameslink, nor is it Crossrail. It's more like the Underground.

Well people already sit for 40 minutes on Merseyrail for the journey out to Chester, and apparently do it in huge numbers. That more or less gets you to Padgate on the CLC.
I think if Merseyrail is the London Underground, it at least has some of the Metropolitan line in it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would it?
If we put the bay on the south side of the tracks at Deansgate station it wouldn't have to.

I'd suggest you look at a map because you don't know where Castlefield Junction is

Clue: it's a fair way west of Deansgate station. Or are you suggesting building another viaduct to carry the CLC and then adding a new elevated bay to Deansgate over the road? That would be extraordinarily expensive, and be disadvantageous to most users of the route who mostly want to go to Oxford Road or Piccadilly.

I think if Merseyrail is the London Underground, it at least has some of the Metropolitan line in it.

It does a bit, yes. And that doesn't interact with very much - only other LU lines and 1/2 trains per hour of Chiltern.