Merseyside: New stations planned

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If battery trains are a reality, then the Borderlands Liverpool to Wrexham line can be incorporated into Merseyrail using the Liverpool underground tunnels. The Outer Loop line can also be used with minimal outlay as can extensions to Skelmesdale, Wigan and Warrington. The Burscough curves can be incorporated into Merseyrail.

Have the Welsh Assembly made any comments regarding rail service provision on the part of the Borderlands Line that enters into Wales?

 

[Bevan Price]

I cannot understand why anyone wants to reopen the outer loop to passengers. It was primarily built for CLC freight traffic to reach the docks - passenger traffic was incidental, and probably never profitable. The route to the city centre was too slow & roundabout to compete with trams / buses , e.g. 35 mins from Liverpool Central to West Derby on the single through service in 1955. The Southport extension was a basket case and should probably never have been built. So few passengers used it that by 1955, the service had declined to 3 daily in each direction - all from Aintree in the morning, returning to Aintree at around Midday (SO), or late afternoon (SX) - and most going towards Warrington / Manchester Central rather than Liverpool.

Even with electrification, journey times from Liverpool Central would be unable to compete with high frequency, more direct, bus services, except maybe at Gateacre.

Other suggestions have been some Ormskirk line services running semi-fast to Maghull, then all stations to Ormskirk. It may be a good idea, but it is very unlikely to happen. Merseytravel is mainly interested in stations within the Merseytravel area - it is unlikely to offer financial support for services that mainly benefit stations in other areas. Just consider why there are no fast services between Liverpool & Chester - these would have relatively little benefit to the Merseyrail stations between Liverpool & Eastham Rake, so Merseytravel probably sees little reason to support services that omit many of their own stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Other suggestions have been some Ormskirk line services running semi-fast to Maghull, then all stations to Ormskirk.

I see little or no case for that. There is probably more of a case for upping the frequency base to every 10 minutes, but turning every second train at Maghull, leaving a lower frequency on the much quieter Ormskirk section. Perhaps if they can get DOO past the unions this might be viable when new stock is purchased.

I *definitely* can't see a case for Aughton Park/Town Green to have a more frequent service than Aintree or the Old Roan, say. The only one you could even vaguely sensibly reduce is Walton provided you didn't reduce Rice Lane[1] - everything else south of that is an interchange.

[1] Any scope for closing Rice Lane and building platforms on the Kirkby line at Walton to improve the interchange?

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even with electrification, journey times from Liverpool Central would be unable to compete with high frequency, more direct, bus services, except maybe at Gateacre.

People like trains, though. And unlike in Manchester, Merseyside does not have a heavy premium for using rail over bus.

As for Gateacre, that should never have closed - it should have become the terminus of the Hunts Cross line. I think the reasons for it were very political.

Neil

 

[flypie]

The Southport extension could have been great if it had been connected to Exchange, there was a junction between Aintree and Old Roan unfortunately it was the wrong way. Would have provided a station in west Maghull, then via the LSPJR from Altcar into Southport via Meol Cop.
The way the Outerloop was set up and the way Merseyrail intended to connect it where very different. As a loop it would have allowed lots of travel without changes, if you look at as just ferrying people into town it's not that good, West Derby to Bootle it would be great, with the North Mersey Branch.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Other suggestions have been some Ormskirk line services running semi-fast to Maghull, then all stations to Ormskirk. It may be a good idea, but it is very unlikely to happen. Merseytravel is mainly interested in stations within the Merseytravel area - it is unlikely to offer financial support for services that mainly benefit stations in other areas.

How does Merseyrail therefore view the matter of a proposed Skelmersdale station, as that too is exterior to its administered area?

 

[Bevan Price]

How does Merseyrail therefore view the matter of a proposed Skelmersdale station, as that too is exterior to its administered area?

Not sure. I doubt it would object, but I would be surprised if it contributed much funding to the cost of a new line to Skelmersdale, especially considering the reductions in funds to local authorities by Cameron / Osborne & co.

.

 

[UrbanWorld]

Have the Welsh Assembly made any comments regarding rail service provision on the part of the Borderlands Line that enters into Wales?

The Welsh Assembly are the drivers, cost have been assessed to electrify the 27 mile line. It was rejected on costs. Battery trains, charging at each station, precluding expensive electrification maybe the lead into bringing this line onto Merseyrail. They will want fuller details of electric/battery trains before moving of course. The Borderlands line will be heavily used within Wales and at the Birkenhead/Liverpool end. New stations through Birkenhead would be feasible, like Woodchurch.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How does Merseyrail therefore view the matter of a proposed Skelmersdale station, as that too is exterior to its administered area?

It is a serious proposal and will be on Merseyrail if it goes ahead. Merseyrail was supposed to terminate at Wigan and Warrington (by 1991).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I cannot understand why anyone wants to reopen the outer loop to passengers. It was primarily built for CLC freight traffic to reach the docks - passenger traffic was incidental, and probably never profitable. The route to the city centre was too slow

The eastern section of the Outer Loop was to be on Merseyrail forming the full loop, split into two sub loops. The centre of he two loops was the Edge Hill to Broad Green section. At any part of the loop it would be quick to get to the city centre. Look at a map of the full 1970s plan.

The 1970s plan was excellent, except it never had a station at the airport.

 

[edwin_m]

The Welsh are the drivers. Battery trains. charging at each station, precluding expensive electrification and may be the lead into bringing this line onto Merseyrail. They will want fuller details of electric/battery trains before moving. The Borderlands line will be heavily used within Wales and at the Birkenhead/Liverpool end.

Getting enough charge to get to the next station during a station stop is going to be beyond both today's battery technology and the maximum current limits of the third rail system.

 

[UrbanWorld]

Getting enough charge to get to the next station during a station stop is going to be beyond both today's battery technology and the maximum current limits of the third rail system.

The Japanese are doing it right now. At each station the batteries charge from the wires and use mains power to accelerate. The trains also charge up to a full charge quickly at the terminus. Wires could be extended 100 metres out from a station to get the train well up to speed. Acceleration takes a lot of energy to running at a cruising speed. On hills a section of wires could be installed for a mile or two to get the train up the hill and preserve the battery/supercap charge. Supercapacitors will reclaim kinetic braking energy, as they do now in some trains and trams. A combination of advanced batteries and supercaps will be the way forward for now until more advanced graphine supercaps come along. Supecaps charge up very fast and discharge very fast. Supercap/battery trams are in use right now to avoid having overhead lines in sensitive locations. Supercap busses, charging at each bus stop, are in use in Shangai right now. The Chines have a supercap train.

On the Borderlands Wrexham to Liverpool line this is highly feasible, with the battery trains charging from the third rails from Bidston, around the Liverpool loop and back to Bidston.

The overall cost of battery trains will be less than full electrification with accompanying duel voltage rolling stock.

Once graphine supercaps come along we will all be riding around in full EV cars eliminating the filthy internal combustion engine.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Original Merseyrail Plan

It is obvious many do not know the Merseyrail network and what was originally planned and approved and in many cases work started and was stopped. The picture below shows how Merseyrail emerged to what it is now. The City Line was a compromise after work was abandoned, using mainly existing diesel lines running into Liverpool centre run by other operators. When the lines passed through Merseyside they were branded as Merseyrail's City Line using Merseyrail ticketing.

This is a rough clipped map of the original plan. I did a quick Google and there are virtually no maps of the original approved plan in any sort of detail. Warrington and Wigan were to be termini. A line from Southport to Warrington via the Liverpool underground section was possible. The Wigan and St.Helens trains would run into the Liverpool underground section via the existing Wapping tunnel from Edge Hill to Central station, the Edge Hill Spur, giving the possibility of a Wigan to West Kirkby line via Liverpool. The postponement of the Edge Hill Spur has kept the network back and has been detrimental to the city's progress ever since. The Outer Loop is clearly seen from Central to Hunts Cross to Rocket to Aintree and back to the centre via Sandhills. The 6 platform underground parkway station is called Rocket.

The Borderlands line - not a part of the original Merseyrail approved plan. Most stations are clustered in Wales and this section would be heavily used in commuting, although over half of the line is in England. It can be easily merged into Merseyrail via Bidston making Wrexham a terminus. Battery trains may be the saviour of this 27 mile line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is a rough map of the original plan. I did a quick Google and there are virtually no maps of the original approved plan in any sort of detail.

I have somewhere a 1970s newspaper article from the Echo showing the plan, which is similar to the one posted to the thread.

One very interesting one was the apparent proposal from the map to close Walton, Kirkdale and Rice Lane and open a replacement at "Breeze Hill" half way between the two (underground, I think, looking at Google Maps?). I can see the sense in this - Kirkdale is very close to Bank Hall, and Walton is quite close to Orrell Park. But would it have succeeded?

Neil

 

[HSTEd]

Intermittent electrification would require all the same power supply provisions of continuous electrification.
Batteries are stil very very expensive, don't just believe Tesla propaganda.

The conductor rail costs almost nothing - having a continuous rail between these intermittent stations is not a problem.

 

[flypie]

Intermittent electrification would require all the same power supply provisions of continuous electrification.
Batteries are stil very very expensive, don't just believe Tesla propaganda.

The conductor rail costs almost nothing - having a continuous rail between these intermittent stations is not a problem.

There is also the problem that Batteries or Capacitors have mass and you have to use some of your energy to accelerate them which doesn't apply in the case of stationary electrodes. Some on board batteries might be useful for recoup but then you can also keep them stationary and charge them by pushing the current through the rails. The current Merseyrail trains are capable of recuperative braking but the over all system is not.

 

[UrbanWorld]

Intermittent electrification would require all the same power supply provisions of continuous electrification.
Batteries are stil very very expensive, don't just believe Tesla propaganda.

The conductor rail costs almost nothing - having a continuous rail between these intermittent stations is not a problem.

Having power wires or 3rd rail for 500 metres at 15 stations is minute to the electrification of 27 miles of track. You still need transformers from the grid all along the 27 miles of line if all is electrified. Battery/supercap trains on the Borderlands line would be far cheaper overall. Also battery/supercap technology is progressing at an amazing pace. In 10-15 years time a battery/supercap pack change on a train will greatly improve its performance. This is not wild theory. It is used in the Far East.

Two costing were done; the one for overhead wires was far cheaper than 3rd rail. Duel voltage trains with batteries is easy to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is also the problem that Batteries or Capacitors have mass and you have to use some of your energy to accelerate them which doesn't apply in the case of stationary electrodes. Some on board batteries might be useful for recoup but then you can also keep them stationary and charge them by pushing the current through the rails. The current Merseyrail trains are capable of recuperative braking but the over all system is not.

If the trains use wires/3rd rail to accelerate, no battery storage is used. The weight penalty is not a problem once the train is moving at a decent speed. Accelerations take a lot of energy and that comes from the mains not the battery/supercap bank.

Stationary supercap banks on the trackside is used in Germany a lot. It reduces the thickness of the wires and puts less stress on the electrical system as acceleration energy is largely taken from the supercap banks.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have somewhere a 1970s newspaper article from the Echo showing the plan, which is similar to the one posted to the thread.

One very interesting one was the apparent proposal from the map to close Walton, Kirkdale and Rice Lane and open a replacement at "Breeze Hill" half way between the two (underground, I think, looking at Google Maps?). I can see the sense in this - Kirkdale is very close to Bank Hall, and Walton is quite close to Orrell Park. But would it have succeeded?

Neil

There is a cluster of two stations, Walton and Rice Lane. Despite not building Breeze Hill station, the two stations and Kirkdale have been operative for 40 years. I assume that the plan was linked into redevelopment plans by Liverpool Corporation in that the area was to increase in population. Breeze Hill now appears a rather vacant area to build a station. However, there was a number of tall high rises built near the proposed Breeze Hill station at the time of planning.

Breeze Hill station would have been partially underground in a vent shaft.

 

[flypie]

Having power wires or 3rd rail for 500 metres at 15 stations is minute to the electrification of 27 miles of track. You still need transformers from the grid all along the 27 miles of line if all is electrified. Battery/supercap trains on the Borderlands line would be far cheaper overall. Also battery/supercap technology is progressing at an amazing pace. In 10-15 years time a battery/supercap pack change on a train will greatly improve its performance. This is not wild theory. It is used in the Far East.

Two costing were done; the one for overhead wires was far cheaper than 3rd rail. Duel voltage trains with batteries is easy to do.

If it done in the far east provide a link.

For 750 DC you would need about 20->22 substations. There are currently 15 stations on the line with plans for several more. So the difference in numbers is small but with station recharging each substation would need to be bigger and more expensive, plus the weight penalty of carrying the caps.

The weight penalty is a problem because regardless of where it comes from it takes energy to accelerate the mass. So having a heavier train involves using more energy.

Then of course there is the problem of what happens if you have to stop between stations, keeping the lights on and the accelerating away. Caps will have a use but they will not be the primary system, they could possible be used in the same way the flywheel is used in the Parry People Movers but there they are used to smooth out the power from an internal combustion engine.

 

[HSTEd]

Having power wires or 3rd rail for 500 metres at 15 stations is minute to the electrification of 27 miles of track. You still need transformers from the grid all along the 27 miles of line if all is electrified. Battery/supercap trains on the Borderlands line would be far cheaper overall. Also battery/supercap technology is progressing at an amazing pace. In 10-15 years time a battery/supercap pack change on a train will greatly improve its performance. This is not wild theory. It is used in the Far East.

No you don't, the substations would be in the same places, which are the stations.
You would just have a composite steel/aluminium conductor rail over the entire route rather than just at the stations themselves.
And 500m on each track at 15 stations amounts to 15km of rail.

15km of rail already.

There is also the fact there would have to be enormous substations at the stations to supply the amount of power required over a very small fraction of the time the train is on the route.
If you are only over the rail half the time the power must be doubled to supply the same amount of energy.

 

[UrbanWorld]

If it done in the far east provide a link.

For 750 DC you would need about 20->22 substations. There are currently 15 stations on the line with plans for several more. So the difference in numbers is small but with station recharging each substation would need to be bigger and more expensive, plus the weight penalty of carrying the caps.

The weight penalty is a problem because regardless of where it comes from it takes energy to accelerate the mass. So having a heavier train involves using more energy.

Try Google first and do not demand links. I mentioned: Hitachi, battery, trains Japan. Try it. I also mentioned: battery trains bombardier. Try it.

Mr HSTEd, Hitachi are doing battery trains right now in Japan which are operational carrying passengers. I never made it up. The short range of the batteries means the trains are suitable for urban stopping trains.

BTW. the 500 meters of wires is for both tracks. That means 15km on 54 miles of track. The idea is to have the pick-ups at the rear of the trains to have maximum contact with wires or 3rd rail when accelerating. You are on about weight. The idea is to prevent weight being a problem when on battery power.

 

[UrbanWorld]

HMG/DfT delayed many electrification projects as fuel cell technology looked like a real advancement that would materialise. It never quite made it in time although R&D is still ongoing. DfT is waiting for further test results from Bombardier to back up the Japanese claims before making any major decisions. The idea is to use battery trains on lightly used lines. Heavily used lines can justify full electrification.

 

[HSTEd]

Try Google first and do not demand links. I mentioned: Hitachi, battery, trains Japan. Try it. I also mentioned: battery trains bombardier. Try it.

The normal convention is that the person stating facts should be the one who has to provide evidence. But never mind.

Mr HSTEd, Hitachi are doing battery trains right now in Japan which are operational carrying passengers. I never made it up. The short range of the batteries means the trains are suitable for urban stopping trains.

I never accused you of making it up.
I am well aware of that scheme in Japan - it is not really what you propose in that the trains are not charged up at intermediate stops, only at the ends of the route.
The charging takes a significant amount of time and a significant infrastructure has been arranged at the country-terminus where there is no existing electrification infrastructure to use.
In conception it is actually quite close to the original BR/SSHB backed scheme on the Dee valley line in the 50s.

BTW. the 500 meters of wires is for both tracks. That means 15km on 54 miles of track.
The idea is to have the pick-ups at the rear of the trains to have maximum contact with wires or 3rd rail when accelerating. You are on about weight. The idea is to prevent weight being a problem when on battery power.

500m would mean only 250m of contact rail (25kV would be a terrible idea due to electrical phase loading concerns) per track.
If you want to have all the pickups on the train in contact with the rail to allow units to develop as much power as possible (even if there are two units coupled) that will lead to only 130m of rail being available in front of the train.
(6 x 20m is normal on the Merseyrail network at busy times).
After that you will have power consumption issues due to the front train starting to lose contact with the rail.

Attempting to accelerate to line speed in 130m is going to be problematic in the extreme, and you would want to cut motor power before you run out of rail to prevent absolutely horrific arcing.
You will also have to retract the shoes to avoid them dropping out of gauge and slamming into some piece of trackside kit.

And if that isn't bad enough, you will have to make allowance for a train having to stop between stations for whatever reason - it must always have sufficient power to return to a station from any position after having braked to a stop on emergency friction brakes.

So you will need a large battery mass either way, especially since you will want to be able to do that while preserving things like carriage lighting in the interim.

All this to avoid paying for conductor rail to join the stations up, which is negligible in comparison with the power system costs to support the equipment.

 

[OxtedL]

Try Google first and do not demand links. I mentioned: Hitachi, battery, trains Japan. Try it. I also mentioned: battery trains bombardier. Try it.

I'm not sure you did mention those words, at least not on this thread.

A good rule for life is that if someone asks you to provide a source, you should, or else say why you can't. If it was indeed embarrassingly easy to google then most people also take the opportunity to be smug at that point.

 

[UrbanWorld]

I'm not sure you did mention those words, at least not on this thread.

A good rule for life is that if someone asks you to provide a source, you should, or else say why you can't. If it was indeed embarrassingly easy to google then most people also take the opportunity to be smug at that point.

It was so easy to Google the information.

 

[flypie]

It was so easy to Google the information.

And as pointed out, by someone else earlier, is Google able does not support your claim that system like they one you propose are in use.

 

[UrbanWorld]

The normal convention is that the person stating facts should be the one who has to provide evidence. But never mind.

You know what? If I have never heard of something I immediately Google to get further understanding. But never mind. This is not new stuff. Battery and supercap trains are here. Lots on the web.

I am well aware of that scheme in Japan - it is not really what you propose in that the trains are not charged up at intermediate stops, only at the ends of the route.

I am on about battery and supercaps. The Chinese have a supercap train that runs with no wires or 3rd rails

Urban trains can start off a run on a full battery/supercap charge and get some charge while at a station. They can partially charge batteries by using mains power at stations.
Infrastructure will only be at stations, not all along the line. The length of electrified line at stations is not a big issue, that can be calculated. That is not difficult to understand. Supercaps charge very quickly. Supercaps accept and discharge very quickly but currently do not have great energy density. Graphine supcaps do, but are not yet into commercial production, it is a case of watch this space. Batteries have high density energy storage but charge and discharge slowly. Combining the two currently can answer a lot of problems of charge and range, until commercially available graphine supercaps are available.

Have you conveyed your negative thoughts to the Japanese and Chinese, as they have gone ahead with battery and supercap trains.

BTW, all this is to get the Borderlands line running into the Liverpool underground section. They could have hybrid diesel-electric/electric pickup trains using battery buffers with the diesel being stored in tanks of similar construction to nuclear transportation containers, which are designed to withstand crashes. At Bidston secure the fuel lines from the diesel tank and run the diesel engine until the lines are empty of fuel while running into Birkenhead and Liverpool on electric 3rd rail before entering the tunnels. On exiting the tunnels purge the fuel lines and start up the diesel engine when still running on 3rd rail. It could be used to Skem and other extensions - maybe Wigan via Kirkby. But I doubt they would develop such a train for such low usage lines. Lets face it only four cities have networks with substantial underground sections. So such trains would have a limited market, while batter/supercap tains would have a wide market.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Talking of Gateacre, I was surprised to find that it was not until 1913 when it became fully established as part of Liverpool.

 

[UrbanWorld]

Talking of Gateacre, I was surprised to find that it was not until 1913 when it became fully established as part of Liverpool.

Gateacre and Woolton still have that village feel about them. John Lennon was brought up in Woolton. BTW, Woolton was have its own station on the Outer Loop until they shelved the line. All around Woolton and Gateacre are duel carriageways with wide central reservations that did or were supposed to have trams in the centres. A look at google maps shows where the routes where.

 

[fowler9]

Gateacre and Woolton still have that village feel about them. John Lennon was brought up in Woolton. BTW, Woolton was have its own station on the Outer Loop until they shelved the line. All around Woolton and Gateacre are duel carriageways with wide central reservations that did or were supposed to have trams in the centres. A look at google maps shows where the routes where.

Depends what you mean by have that village feel about them. They have some lovely old buildings but most certainly don't feel like villages. I would question whether all of those dual carriageways were intended to have trams down the middle. It was just how John Alexander Brodie did things. Several of those dual carriageways had very old buildings in the middle I don't think there was ever any intention of them being knocked down for trams. Brodie Avenue itself starts as two terraced streets. Most of the ones supposed to have trams had them.

 

[pablo]

Strawbery Fields for Ever! Why Google when you can ask UrbanWorld?

 

[UrbanWorld]

Depends what you mean by have that village feel about them. They have some lovely old buildings but most certainly don't feel like villages. I would question whether all of those dual carriageways were intended to have trams down the middle. It was just how John Alexander Brodie did things. Several of those dual carriageways had very old buildings in the middle I don't think there was ever any intention of them being knocked down for trams. Brodie Avenue itself starts as two terraced streets. Most of the ones supposed to have trams had them.

The houses at the end of Brodie Ave were to be demolished and the dual carriageway continued through the large houses owned by the very wealthy (the owners of the Titanic lived there). onto Sefton Park. Trams were to be run down the centre of all duel carriageways. Kings Dr in Woolton is a duel carriageway that was supposed to have trams. The road looks out of place where it is. Many had trams, Menlove Ave, Aigburth Rd, etc.

Hunts Cross Ave was supposed to continue over the golf course and into Speke Rd and onto Woodend Ave. The other end was to continue into Woolton Rd. All with trams running in them.

The city was laid out to hold over 2 million and has a larger footprint than Paris.

 

[Chester1]

BTW, all this is to get the Borderlands line running into the Liverpool underground section. They could have hybrid diesel-electric/electric pickup trains using battery buffers with the diesel being stored in tanks of similar construction to nuclear transportation containers, which are designed to withstand crashes. At Bidston secure the fuel lines from the diesel tank and run the diesel engine until the lines are empty of fuel while running into Birkenhead and Liverpool on electric 3rd rail before entering the tunnels. On exiting the tunnels purge the fuel lines and start up the diesel engine when still running on 3rd rail. It could be used to Skem and other extensions - maybe Wigan via Kirkby. But I doubt they would develop such a train for such low usage lines. Lets face it only four cities have networks with substantial underground sections. So such trains would have a limited market, while batter/supercap tains would have a wide market.

Bingo!

The whole debate is irrelevant in the context of Merseyside. I have argued this before and will argue it again: the only realistic + cost effective solution to improving the Borderlands line is to increase line speeds and run trains into Birkenhead North to double the number of connecting Merseyrail services to Liverpool from 4 to 8 and provide a more punctual service. This wouldn't be difficult to do because the current service has no catchup time (it takes exactly one hour between Wrexham and Bidston so delays are carried to the next service) and because Birkenhead North is 2 mins from Bidston. Wrexham Central to Birkenhead North would be 62 minutes based on current line speeds. The line is nearly equally split between England and Wales with the English section being 50mph and the Welsh section a pathetic 40mph. If the Welsh Assembly paid for relaying a bit of the Welsh section to 75mph then 5 minutes could be cut off allowing both a better Merseyside terminus and 3 minutes catchup time (same as Merseyrail services to Chester). Much cheaper than any kind of electrification and as Merseyrail is all 75mph track it would cut the cost of any future intergration.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If the Welsh Assembly paid for relaying a bit of the Welsh section to 75mph then 5 minutes could be cut off allowing both a better Merseyside terminus and 3 minutes catchup time (same as Merseyrail services to Chester). Much cheaper than any kind of electrification and as Merseyrail is all 75mph track it would cut the cost of any future intergration.

What chance do forum members would there be for that aspiration seeing the political light of day whilst still-unresolved financial matters are decided upon in terms of transport priorities in the Welsh Assembly.

 

[HSTEd]

I am on about battery and supercaps. The Chinese have a supercap train that runs with no wires or 3rd rails

As do the Japanese and British railways.
The fact that no routes have yet gone beyond engineering studies is telling.

Urban trains can start off a run on a full battery/supercap charge and get some charge while at a station. They can partially charge batteries by using mains power at stations.

The problem is the mains power circuits provided at diesel stations would simply not be up to the job of recharging the train in the 90 seconds or less it might actually stand in the station.
This becomes especially problematic on Merseyrail where a station dwell could easily be something like 30 seconds.

A 27 mile route with 15 stations gives us a stop spacing of roughly ~2.6km.
2.6km with a six car set requires something like 34kWh (2.2kWh per vehicle-km).
Recharging 34kWh in 30 seconds would require roughly 4MW of power available.

You only really have two options to deliver this power to a train (plugging is is hopelessly impractical and a cable large enough to carry that kind of power is unlikely to be easy to handle manually).
750V or 25kV.

25kV would reqiure transformers on the train and would also cause massive imbalances in the local electricity supply since it would be an intermittent load on a single phase. You would likely have to run cables the length of the line to support the system, which will cost a lot.

At 750V you would avoid the need for extra voltage kit on the train, reducing its weight, but you would need to be able to deliver a lot of amps, even if you push the standard as high it will go (since there is obviously no need to regenerate) and deliver it at 900V it will still require 4500A or something.

You would end up with 60MW of substation capacity, which would easily be sufficient to run the entire service on the line, and the only cost you would save over continuous 750V electrification would be the conductor rails. (A pair of Class 377/3s in formation have a peak power of roughly 1600kW, so you would have enough power to run 30+ six-car formations even with resistive losses).
(Plain lines don't have much signalling gear, and the kit in the stations will all have to be hardened against the currents anyway as the rail has to be used as a return conductor).

It will end up almost as expensive but without the operatinal benefits of actual electrification.

Infrastructure will only be at stations, not all along the line. The length of electrified line at stations is not a big issue, that can be calculated. That is not difficult to understand. Supercaps charge very quickly. Supercaps accept and discharge very quickly but currently do not have great energy density. Graphine supcaps do, but are not yet into commercial production, it is a case of watch this space. Batteries have high density energy storage but charge and discharge slowly. Combining the two currently can answer a lot of problems of charge and range, until commercially available graphine supercaps are available.

The limit to charging is not the limit of the rate at which you can charge the batteries, it is the limitations of the means to deliver the power to the line.
Additionally you could quite feasibly fully electrify the line with infrastructure only positioned at the stations, with the exception of the conductor rail.

Have you conveyed your negative thoughts to the Japanese and Chinese, as they have gone ahead with battery and supercap trains.

These projects are essentially pilot projects for engineering development.
As far as I know the Japanese haven't even procured additional trainsets for the existing project yet. Diesel trains still form the majority service on the route. Additionally the Japanese trains are recharged primarily while running on an adjacent electrified line.

This means they have battery capacity sufficient for running almost a full round trip, with the terminus charged used for topping up to provide operating margin.