Merseyside: New stations planned

[flypie]

It does sound a better route - serving the centre (near enough) of Widnes and Warrington as a route from Liverpool to London which woujld also speed up WCML as Warrington could be taken off the Scottish services. The (maybe eventual) half hourly Liverpool - London services could alternate via Widnes/Warrington and Runcorn.

Currently there are time when if you ask to go from Liverpool to London you are asked to change at Crewe. Warrington is a bit closer and a lot of the services north of Warrington to Scotland and soon Blackpool stop at Warrington. For peop,e going north from South Liverpool it would avoid having to go to Wigan via Lime Street or Kirkby.

To get to the L&M the route goes via the WCML, which has capacity problems.

Using it as Train-Tram and going on to Latchford would add more users.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Incidentally, from the first post here of 17th June and following loads of the usual Merseytravel waffle what actually ARE the 30 proposed stations ?

 

[flypie]

There are links to the plan in this post. http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-train-to-future.html

 

[edwin_m]

Currently there are time when if you ask to go from Liverpool to London you are asked to change at Crewe. Warrington is a bit closer and a lot of the services north of Warrington to Scotland and soon Blackpool stop at Warrington. For peop,e going north from South Liverpool it would avoid having to go to Wigan via Lime Street or Kirkby.

To get to the L&M the route goes via the WCML, which has capacity problems.

Using it as Train-Tram and going on to Latchford would add more users.

Warrington may be closer to Liverpool but the total distance travelled is longer than changing at Crewe, so given the same connection time the journey time will probably be longer too.

Going north, changing at Wigan gives a choice of both the Virgin Scottish services plus the TPE - Warrington only has the first two. Liverpool and Blackpool are linked directly every hour so it's unlikely anybody would want to make this journey with a change at Warrington.

The Arpley Chord, the proposal mentioned above to link this route directly southwards, would replace the existing tracks from just east of the WCML and would be too tight for platforms, but the line west of the WCML is hemmed in by chemical factories so it's difficult to see how any platforms could be provided.

So all in all it's yet another solution looking for a problem.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Warrington may be closer to Liverpool but the total distance travelled is longer than changing at Crewe, so given the same connection time the journey time will probably be longer too.

.

The distance may be longer but the journey (especially over a newly constructed and upgraded line) would be quicker utilising that route than the slower nature of approaching and crossing the Ethelfleda Bridge.

 

[fowler9]

Currently there are time when if you ask to go from Liverpool to London you are asked to change at Crewe. Warrington is a bit closer and a lot of the services north of Warrington to Scotland and soon Blackpool stop at Warrington. For peop,e going north from South Liverpool it would avoid having to go to Wigan via Lime Street or Kirkby.

To get to the L&M the route goes via the WCML, which has capacity problems.

Using it as Train-Tram and going on to Latchford would add more users.

For people from South Liverpool going via Crewe involves changing platform. Going via Warrington involves walking across Warrington which depending on the person could take 20 mins or longer.

 

[Merseysider]

For people from South Liverpool going via Crewe involves changing platform. Going via Warrington involves walking across Warrington which depending on the person could take 20 mins or longer.

Is there not a free bus link in Warrington between stations, akin to that in Manchester?

 

[fowler9]

Is there not a free bus link in Warrington between stations, akin to that in Manchester?

Yeah if it turns up it is meant to be every 20 mins and if you haven't long missed one you are quicker walking if you are fit. If you aren't fit and have just missed one you could be looking at a 40 odd minute transfer if the roads are busy.

 

[8A Rail]

The distance may be longer but the journey (especially over a newly constructed and upgraded line) would be quicker utilising that route than the slower nature of approaching and crossing the Ethelfleda Bridge.

Approaching the Ethelfleda (Britannia) Bridge from either direction would be a lot faster than approaching Sankey Bridges, Monks Sidings, Littons Mill, Crosfields and under WBQ station (& Vice versa) even with line improvements - you cannot straighten out those curves along with the limited clearance around the industrial complex's regardless.

The fact of the matter going via Runcorn and Weaver Junction in a southern direction (and reverse) still be faster than going via WBQ regardless how you do it - in fact its made worst because between WBQ and Weaver Junction it is only two lines and therefore still limited capacity even with HS2!

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Approaching the Ethelfleda (Britannia) Bridge from either direction would be a lot faster than approaching Sankey Bridges, Monks Sidings, Littons Mill, Crosfields and under WBQ station (& Vice versa) even with line improvements - you cannot straighten out those curves along with the limited clearance around the industrial complex's regardless.

The fact of the matter going via Runcorn and Weaver Junction in a southern direction (and reverse) still be faster than going via WBQ regardless how you do it - in fact its made worst because between WBQ and Weaver Junction it is only two lines and therefore still limited capacity even with HS2!

I was thinking of it being more as a HS2 link route utilising the route rather than upgrading the current line. I would imagine it wouild require less expenditure than the Runcorn route.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I could see the Ditton to Warrington Bank Quay route eventually being a Merseyrail route rather more than the CLC route which is always going be electrified first because of it's through route possibilities. Extending the line east of Bank Quay could be an option with a new station sited possibly near Knutsford Road which could serve the large residential area in the area. If the Latchford Viaduct over the Manchester Ship canal could be repaired at economic cost and the line extended at least to Lymm as the rest of the trackbed to Lymm appears to be in place looking at Google maps some "recent" images below show the condition.

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums...tchford-Railway-Viaduct-Warrington-March-2012

The only problem is the line east of Warrington was closed in 1985 due to the high costs of the repairs to the viaduct in the first place but irrespective any return to passenger traffic on this route must be a long way off, if at all.

 

[edwin_m]

The council want to get rid of the railway in the Latchford area and redevelop it. And Network Rail and freight operators want to be rid of the run-round.

 

[8A Rail]

The council want to get rid of the railway in the Latchford area and redevelop it. And Network Rail and freight operators want to be rid of the run-round.

As I stated in post 389 - "There are as I understand been plans to do away with Arpley Junction for quite some time being replaced by a direct connection from the Low Level line to/from Widnes to the Up and Down Arpley Branch lines, there fore eliminating reversal at Latchford Sidings. However, it seems to remain on the back burner".

 

[bluenoxid]

Incidentally, from the first post here of 17th June and following loads of the usual Merseytravel waffle what actually ARE the 30 proposed stations ?

Having gone through it, I got to eighteen stations but some of the articles leave a gap for further new stations in addition to those advised in the document.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Having gone through it, I got to eighteen stations but some of the articles leave a gap for further new stations in addition to those advised in the document.

If I remember correctly the plan was only a list of proposals that could or not happen, each of the schemes was to fully evaluated before any firm proposal were announced. With some of the proposals in the plan being extensions of the existing Merseyrail network involving existing Northern operated routes, it would be reasonable to assume that any plans would need to be approved before the new Northern franchise is announced next year at the absolute latest. Furthermore, any extensions to the network would likely only involve some rebranding of existing structures and bringing them under the control of Merseytravel rather than new constructions in the majority of cases. The other issue to consider is that a decision on the replacement of the 507.508's is also pending as they are due to go off lease in in 2018/2019 so any decision especially on purpose built new builds will need to be taken fairly quickly to ensure service availability in time. A final consideration is the reintroduction of passenger services to current freight only lines, which in reality is probably only the Bootle Branch and the North Mersey Line which in total would account for about six of the thirty stations alluded too in the plan.

With a new station at Maghull North and St James mentioned, and the Halton Curve due for completion in 2017/2018 which could allow a new station on the line, plus a reopened Ditton, with Mossley Hill, West Allerton, Frodsham and Helsby also coming under the Merseyrail banner, whilst a new station at Sefton Park and/or Wavertree have also been mentioned making a total of seven or eight stations. I haven't included Edge Hill because of it's capability to handle other services whilst Runcorn is also serviced by Virgin and LM.

Extending the Kirkby line would likely involve new stations at Kirkby (Headbolt Lane), Rainford, Upholland, Orrell, Pemberton plus potentially Skelmersdale with Wigan Wallgate being operated with TFGM which might give five more.

Extending Ormskirk to Preston would involve Merseyrail stations at Burscough, Rufford and Croston adding another three to this list.

On the Wirral the only new opportunities would be on the Bidston to Wrexham line which would bring in Upton, a new station just east of Woodchurch Road, Heswall and Neston adding four more to the list. I'm assuming the Welsh Stations on line remain under Welsh control.

I make that nineteen or twenty stations unless they were also counting existing stations in the Merseyside boundary on the Chat Moss and Wigan routes which would take it nearer thirty stations, but other suggestions are welcome.

 

[wirelessone]

Hi all,

here is the response from the MPTE to my email concerning re-opening the outer loop line to take advantage of Everton FC's move to Walton Park....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your thoughts on reopening the Cheshire Lines Loop Line between Hunts Cross and Aintree and creating a station for Everton at Blackthorne Road. The Long Term Rail Strategy has identified a number of schemes that will need further investigation over the years to come.

We did look at potential stations for the football stadia on the Bootle Branch (which is the existing freight railway between Wavertree Tech Park and Bootle Oriel Road) when both Liverpool and Everton were considering moves nearly ten years ago. Those investigations revealed that the stations could not be justified when used on such few occasions during the year albeit very heavily on each of those occasions.

The justification for reopening the Cheshire Lines Loop would be even more difficult to justify because that route is no longer an active railway line and the cost of track relaying and signalling would have to be added to the project. Furthermore, the number of people needing to get around Liverpool on the loop line is very small when compared with demand to and from the city centre, Lime Street, over to Wirral and other destinations. Time taken on the train passing around the city to the north or south can be balanced against the time by bus directly into the centre.

Again, thank you for contacting us and if we can be of any further assistance then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely

Lesley Howard
Engagement Assistant
Customer Feedback Team
Corporate Engagement Team

 

[pablo]

So, zonk
z
z
z
z
z
splat!

 

[Bletchleyite]

My take on the best way to handle the Burscough Curves remains:-

- Extend the Merseyrail Northern Line from Ormskirk to a new bay at Burscough Bridge via Burscough Junction and the long-talked-about Mill Dam Lane (Burscough South) station. If you only sent 2tph that way and added a reversing/layover siding at Ormskirk it could be done with a single line.

- Change the Preston-Ormskirk line to run into another new bay at Burscough Bridge. This would be able to run 1tph using a single unit, DMU initially but possibly later 25kV if it made sense.

- Mothball the current bridge.

This has big advantages over just electrifying Ormskirk-Preston - it's operationally quite simple, it would I think be cheaper, and it would offer excellent connections to Southport and Wigan/Manchester when compared to walking across Burscough or travel via Liverpool.

Neil

 

[L+Y]

My take on the best way to handle the Burscough Curves remains:-

- Extend the Merseyrail Northern Line from Ormskirk to a new bay at Burscough Bridge via Burscough Junction and the long-talked-about Mill Dam Lane (Burscough South) station. If you only sent 2tph that way and added a reversing/layover siding at Ormskirk it could be done with a single line.

- Change the Preston-Ormskirk line to run into another new bay at Burscough Bridge. This would be able to run 1tph using a single unit, DMU initially but possibly later 25kV if it made sense.

- Mothball the current bridge.

This has big advantages over just electrifying Ormskirk-Preston - it's operationally quite simple, it would I think be cheaper, and it would offer excellent connections to Southport and Wigan/Manchester when compared to walking across Burscough or travel via Liverpool.

Neil

Where would these bays at BCB go? The problem there is the eponymous bridge, which would presumably have to be demolished before you could even think of this.

Much better, if you were to do this, to install a turnback siding to the west of the station, where there used to be a run-round loop anyway up until the 1990s. That said, I think if Merseyrail do go to Burscough, by far the more likely option is to just terminate at Burscough Junction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Where would these bays at BCB go? The problem there is the eponymous bridge, which would presumably have to be demolished before you could even think of this.

You'd have to knock down the new bus station thingummy and a few messy industrial units, but there would be space to make the two current platforms islands. Though to get to them it would be necessary for the terminating services to use a short section of the main line (would have to be bidirectional) through said bridge.

Another option, if it would be viable to modify the bridge to add a pedestrian tunnel on each side, would be to put them on the east side of the bridge.

Or a third would be to play with the layout in a way I've seen in Germany - lengthen the current platforms and install a central pair of crossovers and bi-directional working, thus allowing a through service to pass a terminating service in the same platform. (The Preston service wouldn't be there for more than a few minutes in each hour)

Much better, if you were to do this, to install a turnback siding to the west of the station, where there used to be a run-round loop anyway up until the 1990s. That said, I think if Merseyrail do go to Burscough, by far the more likely option is to just terminate at Burscough Junction.

Which would be a massive missed opportunity to connect the whole of West Lancashire.

Neil

 

[Brian1947]

You'd have to knock down the new bus station thingummy and a few messy industrial units, but there would be space to make the two current platforms islands. Though to get to them it would be necessary for the terminating services to use a short section of the main line (would have to be bidirectional) through said bridge.

Another option, if it would be viable to modify the bridge to add a pedestrian tunnel on each side, would be to put them on the east side of the bridge.

Or a third would be to play with the layout in a way I've seen in Germany - lengthen the current platforms and install a central pair of crossovers and bi-directional working, thus allowing a through service to pass a terminating service in the same platform. (The Preston service wouldn't be there for more than a few minutes in each hour)


Which would be a massive missed opportunity to connect the whole of West Lancashire.

Neil

It is not practical to add platforms east of the bridge as there are now gardens on the north side, and a bowling green on the south side. I could never support the removal of any bowling green!

It is interesting to read Lancashire County Council's latest (and final?) view on the Preston line on their updated West Lancs Masterplan. They are advocating electrification from BCB through to Preston in conjunction with Merseyrail (voltage not specified), but how they can justify such a statement is baffling. Replacing a single car DMU with a 3 car EMU does not make economic sense unless LCC are aware of a massive housing development near to the line - they could be guilty of a bit of forward thinking for a change.

The current car park at BCB could be the site of a turnback siding for the Liverpool services, with the car park relocated further west. All interchanges should be on the Southport platform as there are limited through S'port to Preston journeys to justify using the Wigan platform for this purpose.

The negative side of creating an interchange at BCB would be an increase in through journey times from Ormskirk to Preston as an extra station would be included compounded by low speed limits on the curves.

I assume quite costly to reopen both curves, but what a great opportunity was lost when all the land adjacent to Burscough Junction station was sold for housing development. This now prevents any significant increase in car park spaces and prevents the creation of a "proper" interchange facility.

 

[bluenoxid]

It is not practical to add platforms east of the bridge as there are now gardens on the north side, and a bowling green on the south side. I could never support the removal of any bowling green!

It is interesting to read Lancashire County Council's latest (and final?) view on the Preston line on their updated West Lancs Masterplan. They are advocating electrification from BCB through to Preston in conjunction with Merseyrail (voltage not specified), but how they can justify such a statement is baffling. Replacing a single car DMU with a 3 car EMU does not make economic sense unless LCC are aware of a massive housing development near to the line - they could be guilty of a bit of forward thinking for a change.

The current car park at BCB could be the site of a turnback siding for the Liverpool services, with the car park relocated further west. All interchanges should be on the Southport platform as there are limited through S'port to Preston journeys to justify using the Wigan platform for this purpose.

The negative side of creating an interchange at BCB would be an increase in through journey times from Ormskirk to Preston as an extra station would be included compounded by low speed limits on the curves.

I assume quite costly to reopen both curves, but what a great opportunity was lost when all the land adjacent to Burscough Junction station was sold for housing development. This now prevents any significant increase in car park spaces and prevents the creation of a "proper" interchange facility.

Why are you all talking about bays. Surely the logical step is to run these trains on to Southport, particularly those from Preston.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My solution is intended to be a viable economic one in the context of a DMU shortage

 

[Brian1947]

Why are you all talking about bays. Surely the logical step is to run these trains on to Southport, particularly those from Preston.

If there is a logical business case to extend such trains to Southport then fine, but I would have thought the current 2tph coped adequately. To my knowledge there is no mention of such extensions in the LCC Master Plan. The optimum word there being "PLAN", great on paper but mega years to come to fruition.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Which would be a massive missed opportunity to connect the whole of West Lancashire.

Neil

This highlights a problem (of which the Skelmersdale station proposals reveal) which is the fact that West Lancashire council's and Merseyside's transport ambitions are not always of one and the same mind and West Lancashire, being more of a ruralised entity, may well see other more immediate calls upon its budgetary financial allocations.

 

[bluenoxid]

My solution is intended to be a viable economic one in the context of a DMU shortage

If there is a logical business case to extend such trains to Southport then fine, but I would have thought the current 2tph coped adequately. To my knowledge there is no mention of such extensions in the LCC Master Plan. The optimum word there being "PLAN", great on paper but mega years to come to fruition.

The Bamburgh Curves are unlikely to be installed until later this decade if the government signs on the dotted line today, where we will be looking at a different landscape. I would be surprised if the Southport line is allowed to remain a Diesel Island for very long and once that happens, the main issue would be Preston the Bamburgh, which I would hope would be driven by the jump in traffic that the route would experience with enhanced connections to Southport. The issue with the plan is that it is as you've already stated great on paper but really hasn't had the scrutiny to decide service patterns

 

[Bletchleyite]

The issue with the plan is that it is as you've already stated great on paper but really hasn't had the scrutiny to decide service patterns

My proposal (it's Burscough, not Bamburgh, by the way) is very close to existing service patterns, which is one advantage of it, and it sorts out some of the significant problems with the existing patterns e.g. the single-unit 1h15-ish frequency on the Ormskirk-Preston line, which is a significant disincentive to use; an hourly clockface timetable would I believe significantly increase use, and shortening it to run to/from Burscough would achieve that with the same single DMU.

Neil

 

[martynbristow]

I think the logical solution is to extend Merseyrail from Ormskirk with the introduction of a turn back somewhere. The trains are packed until Maghull with Ormskirk not getting the same volume of use. It would seem logical to me to switch to a 2x10 minute service continuing trains through to Southport and Preston. Its quite a slow line from Liverpool-Preston via Wigan and until the 319's are able to run to Blackpool the journey time won't drop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the logical solution is to extend Merseyrail from Ormskirk with the introduction of a turn back somewhere. The trains are packed until Maghull with Ormskirk not getting the same volume of use. It would seem logical to me to switch to a 2x10 minute service continuing trains through to Southport and Preston. Its quite a slow line from Liverpool-Preston via Wigan and until the 319's are able to run to Blackpool the journey time won't drop.

To me the time to increase frequencies is on stock replacement, where in my view DOO with on-train cameras should be introduced. But instead of seeing it as a cost-cutting opportunity, many of the displaced guards should be retained and retrained as drivers to increase the frequency base from 15 to 10 minutes, with 4-car units used all day (or possibly even 5). What you suggest could well be an option. Though if Maghull-Ormskirk is indeed carrying a lot of fresh air (also my observation, FWIW), an option would be that only 3tph continue past Maghull.

Neil

 

[Merseysider]

To me the time to increase frequencies is on stock replacement, where in my view DOO with on-train cameras should be introduced. But instead of seeing it as a cost-cutting opportunity, many of the displaced guards should be retained and retrained as drivers to increase the frequency base from 15 to 10 minutes, with 4-car units used all day (or possibly even 5). What you suggest could well be an option. Though if Maghull-Ormskirk is indeed carrying a lot of fresh air (also my observation, FWIW), an option would be that only 3tph continue past Maghull.

Neil

As the guards on Merseyrail services are non-commercial and simply operate doors etc, this might be possible if the drivers are to operate them from their own cab. But there would be a fairly sizable cost in retraining guards to drive trains.