Merseyside: New stations planned

[UrbanWorld]

Not the last few miles can be done on existing lines, the lowest height for GC is lower the the required minimum height on the WCML, so provided you don't have any stations or have quad lines and can expand the fast track line platforms to GC it's not a problem.

You could even use the Victoria Tunnel as as single track platform or drop the floor by 2m and construct a new station under lime street or run down to near the old Exchange.

See http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2013/12/hs2-phase-2-liverpool.html

That blog has some good ideas. Boring a single track tunnel from Cavendish Cutting is not one of them. If a tunnel is going to be bored from Edge Hill to Lime St it may as well be a full two track tunnel. Using the Waterloo Tunnel keeps a local asset from local use. A station can be cut into this tunnel for the Royal teaching hospital, that is accessed directly from most of Merseyside.

 

[flypie]

That blog has some good ideas. Boring a single track tunnel from Cavendish Cutting is not one of them. If a tunnel is going to be bored from Edge Hill to Lime St it may as well be a full two track tunnel. Using the Waterloo Tunnel keeps a local asset from local use. A station can be cut into this tunnel for the Royal teaching hospital, that is accessed directly from most of Merseyside.

As I said you can drop the floor of Waterlook by 2M and make it a 2 track tunnel, also using it as an access to a Sub Lime STreet station does not mean you cannot put a local station on it for the hospital or use it for local use, all it means is that that station would have to be GC compatible.

Boring a single track is a viable alternative if it is cheaper than lowering the Waterloo tunnel or digging a new tunnel. Without very detailed analysis of the geology and modern techniques it is impossible to tell which is the cheapest and that is the one which will get done.

20Miles more claim that a station underneath Lime Street is impractical because of Liverpool high water table. Which I see as an advantage, like several buildings in town the water could be used for heating and cooling the station, and should be worth selling to United Utilities to reduce the risk in drought years.

The extra info is in the 2 links at the bottom of the text

From Ditton to Lime Street http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2014/07/from-ditton-to-lime-street.html

East of Lymm http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2014/07/east-of-lymm.html

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

20Miles more claim that a station underneath Lime Street is impractical because of Liverpool high water table.

How does the low level station at Liverpool Lime Street on the loop line address the stated problem of the Liverpool high water table?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

East of Lymm http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2014/07/east-of-lymm.html

I know the area from the former Heatley and Warburton railway station into the Lymm township area quite well and if anyone assumes that the reopening of any railway line in that area will go un-noticed by local civic bodies, residents action groups, parish councils, etc, then they are sadly mistaken.

 

[UrbanWorld]

As I said you can drop the floor of Waterlook by 2M and make it a 2 track tunnel, also using it as an access to a Sub Lime STreet station does not mean you cannot put a local station on it for the hospital or use it for local use, all it means is that that station would have to be GC compatible.

Boring a single track is a viable alternative if it is cheaper than lowering the Waterloo tunnel or digging a new tunnel. Without very detailed analysis of the geology and modern techniques it is impossible to tell which is the cheapest and that is the one which will get done.

20Miles more claim that a station underneath Lime Street is impractical because of Liverpool high water table. Which I see as an advantage, like several buildings in town the water could be used for heating and cooling the station, and should be worth selling to United Utilities to reduce the risk in drought years.

The extra info is in the 2 links at the bottom of the text

From Ditton to Lime Street http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2014/07/from-ditton-to-lime-street.html

East of Lymm http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2014/07/east-of-lymm.html

Firstly, existing mothballed rail infrastructure should not be used for high-speed rail. This is reserved for local metro use, where it is of greater value to the people and city and in promoting economic growth. The city is expanding slowly and this expansion maybe accelerated once the depression falls away. The city was laid out to hold over 2 million.

I doubt HS2 and Merseyrail would share the same short stretch of tracks in the Victoria/Waterloo tunnel as high-speed rail is to be largely separate. A frequent stopping metro service will hinder HS2/HS3 trains of which there will a number of them at peak times entering the city. The Waterloo tunnel emerges at Waterloo Dock in Liverpool Waters. The large complex needs to be on the metro network and the tunnel is right there. The Royal hospital needs its own metro station. People from the likes of Wigan and Chester would have direct access to the regions prime teaching hospital, maybe with direct station access into the hospital itself - it is "their" hospital as well. The Royal is a specialist hospital not a local general hospital, needing top transport links all over the region. A station at the hospital is a priority.

20Miles, who I have a lot of respect, have largely hung their hat on using the Exchange station site using the eastern section of the Outer Loop and the unused Walton tunnels. They do all to divert from Lime St being used.

What is needed is to stand back and look at the whole picture and in relation to where the city is moving. The centre is moving onto the waterfront. The run down state of London Rd behind Lime St station is indicative of that. There are three locations in place for high-speed rail: Lime St from the east, Central from the south and Exchange from the north and south.

1. Lime St: This site is near the shopping quarter and on the now edge of the city centre. Not as difficult as the anti-Liverpool people are saying. A dive under tunnel at Queens Dr is the only real major civil investment in gaining access, accommodating two Manchester/TPE tracks and two Merseyrail tracks, reinstating the 4 track at this point, so a win, win all around. HS2/HS3 can use the existing level tracks. Trains can be split in half and use two platforms - it is done elsewhere - which is far more convenient for passengers. Local urban trains can be diverted from the station to the underground section using the Wapping tunnel, releasing platform space. A travelator can be cut to Central station merging the two stations . I see they have installed overhead wire pylons on the unused trackbeds in the Olive Mount cutting. They will use this as an excuse not to make it 4 track in the cutting for sure. No existing, or future, local services will be impeded and would be enhanced by diverting trains from the east into the underground section.
   
   
2. Exchange: This site is near the cruise liner terminal and right in the business quarter. This can be accessed using the original alignment from the north turning it back into 4 track. Access can be via Kirkby or the eastern section of the Outer Loop (old CLC line). HS2/HS3 trains would share Merseyrail tracks for a length from between Kirkby and Wigan to Kirkdale. Sections were 4 track and can be reinstated. The whole section used by HS2/HS3 could be 4 tracked by taking land besides the tracks and altering stations ensuring Merseyrail and high-speed rail do not use the same tracks. It can be accessed from the south using the Northern Line as dedicated HS2/HS3 access route. Tram-trains can operate from South Parkway down Aigburth Rd and the Dock Rd and get back to the Northern line around Leeds St just north of Exchange. A pedestrian tunnel can be cut from Exchange to Moorfields Wirral line platforms.
   
   
3. Central: This site is near the shopping quarter. The line from Central to South Parkway does not run through any major centres, apart from Brunswick station. The lines runs through low population housing, and private housing estate, and is out of the way. The tunnel into Central was built for three tracks and is wide enough for HS2/HS3 two track. A tram-train can replace Merseyrail services running down Aigburth Road serving all the major centres ensuring greater takeup: Lark Lane, Aigburth Vale, Garston, Dingle, etc. It could run down Parliament St and onto the Dock Rd and branch into the docks and up the Wapping tunnel and into underground Central (engineering tunnel works would be needed) and onto the north of the city maintaining the north-south crossrail. The tram-trains could branch up the Waterloo tunnel to serve the Royal hospital and onwards to Edge Hill. It could also branch off at Aigburth Vale and run to the Dock Road serving the old Brunswick station and onto the Pier Head. Central station would be vastly expanded of course for the metro and HS2/HS3. A travelator can be cut to Lime St station connecting the two stations (which is needed right now). Southport and Ormskirk 6 car commuter trains can be terminated at Central. HS2/HS3 will have connection all over the Liverpool City Region.

Nos 1 and 3, means Central and Lime St are merged. Nos 2 and 3 means we have tram-trains that serve major centres better than Merseyrail. For some inexplicable reason Liverpool never builds local centres around metro train stations as all other cities do. Many people in Liverpool have never even been on Merseyrail. A girl I know in London was at Liverpool uni for 4 years, living near Bold St (near Central station) and never knew Liverpool had an underground metro. She would regularly travel to Aigburth by bus not knowing a fast metro line was there. This asset is poorly promoted and ignored by planners.

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

Erm, the one Manchester is?

If a concreter flyover enhances Manchester is doesn't say much for the city.

I suspect relatively few people would want to live in a city that was completely anti-car.

Few want to live in a city in which the car dominates either. The most attractive cities are those that are designed for people not cars. Underground metros hidden from view and do interfere with the surface, can provide the transport.

 

[flypie]

Firstly, existing mothballed rail infrastructure should not be used for high-speed rail. This is reserved for local metro use, where it is of greater value to the people and city and in promoting economic growth. The city is expanding slowly and this expansion maybe accelerated once the depression falls away. The city was laid out to hold over 2 million.

I doubt HS2 and Merseyrail would share the same short stretch of tracks in the Victoria/Waterloo tunnel as high-speed rail is to be largely separate. A frequent stopping metro service will hinder HS2/HS3 trains of which there will a number of them at peak times entering the city. The Waterloo tunnel emerges at Waterloo Dock in Liverpool Waters. The large complex needs to be on the metro network and the tunnel is right there. The Royal hospital needs its own metro station. People from the likes of Wigan and Chester would have direct access to the regions prime teaching hospital, maybe with direct station access into the hospital itself - it is "their" hospital as well. The Royal is a specialist hospital not a local general hospital, needing top transport links all over the region. A station at the hospital is a priority.

20Miles, who I have a lot of respect, have largely hung their hat on using the Exchange station site using the eastern section of the Outer Loop and the unused Walton tunnels. They do all to divert from Lime St being used.

What is needed is to stand back and look at the whole picture and in relation to where the city is moving. The centre is moving onto the waterfront. The run down state of London Rd behind Lime St station is indicative of that. There are three locations in place for high-speed rail: Lime St from the east, Central from the south and Exchange from the north and south.

1. Lime St: This site is near the shopping quarter and on the now edge of the city centre. Not as difficult as the anti-Liverpool people are saying. A dive under tunnel at Queens Dr is the only real major civil investment in gaining access, accommodating two Manchester/TPE tracks and two Merseyrail tracks, reinstating the 4 track at this point, so a win, win all around. HS2/HS3 can use the existing level tracks. Trains can be split in half and use two platforms - it is done elsewhere - which is far more convenient for passengers. Local urban trains can be diverted from the station to the underground section using the Wapping tunnel, releasing platform space. A travelator can be cut to Central station merging the two stations . I see they have installed overhead wire pylons on the unused trackbeds in the Olive Mount cutting. They will use this as an excuse not to make it 4 track in the cutting for sure. No existing, or future, local services will be impeded and would be enhanced by diverting trains from the east into the underground section.
   
   
2. Exchange: This site is near the cruise liner terminal and right in the business quarter. This can be accessed using the original alignment from the north turning it back into 4 track. Access can be via Kirkby or the eastern section of the Outer Loop (old CLC line). HS2/HS3 trains would share Merseyrail tracks for a length from between Kirkby and Wigan to Kirkdale. Sections were 4 track and can be reinstated. The whole section used by HS2/HS3 could be 4 tracked by taking land besides the tracks and altering stations ensuring Merseyrail and high-speed rail do not use the same tracks. It can be accessed from the south using the Northern Line as dedicated HS2/HS3 access route. Tram-trains can operate from South Parkway down Aigburth Rd and the Dock Rd and get back to the Northern line around Leeds St just north of Exchange. A pedestrian tunnel can be cut from Exchange to Moorfields Wirral line platforms.
   
   
3. Central: This site is near the shopping quarter. The line from Central to South Parkway does not run through any major centres, apart from Brunswick station. The lines runs through low population housing, and private housing estate, and is out of the way. The tunnel into Central was built for three tracks and is wide enough for HS2/HS3 two track. A tram-train can replace Merseyrail services running down Aigburth Road serving all the major centres ensuring greater takeup: Lark Lane, Aigburth Vale, Garston, Dingle, etc. It could run down Parliament St and onto the Dock Rd and branch into the docks and up the Wapping tunnel and into underground Central (engineering tunnel works would be needed) and onto the north of the city maintaining the north-south crossrail. The tram-trains could branch up the Waterloo tunnel to serve the Royal hospital and onwards to Edge Hill. It could also branch off at Aigburth Vale and run to the Dock Road serving the old Brunswick station and onto the Pier Head. Central station would be vastly expanded of course for the metro and HS2/HS3. A travelator can be cut to Lime St station connecting the two stations (which is needed right now). Southport and Ormskirk 6 car commuter trains can be terminated at Central. HS2/HS3 will have connection all over the Liverpool City Region.

Nos 1 and 3, means Central and Lime St are merged. Nos 2 and 3 means we have tram-trains that serve major centres better than Merseyrail. For some inexplicable reason Liverpool never builds local centres around metro train stations as all other cities do. Many people in Liverpool have never even been on Merseyrail. A girl I know in London was at Liverpool uni for 4 years, living near Bold St (near Central station) and never knew Liverpool had an underground metro. She would regularly travel to Aigburth by bus not knowing a fast metro line was there. This asset is poorly promoted and ignored by planners.

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

If a concreter flyover enhances Manchester is doesn't say much for the city. Few want to live in a city in which the car dominates either. The most attractive cities are those that are designed for people not cars. Underground metros hidden from view and do interfere with the surface, can provide the transport.

Still the same Water Spaces/John Burns cant about Metro and looking at the big picture when that is what you totally fail to do.

 

[flypie]

How does the low level station at Liverpool Lime Street on the loop line address the stated problem of the Liverpool high water table?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I know the area from the former Heatley and Warburton railway station into the Lymm township area quite well and if anyone assumes that the reopening of any railway line in that area will go un-noticed by local civic bodies, residents action groups, parish councils, etc, then they are sadly mistaken.

I'm not sure what 20miles more where going on about Lime Street is at an altitude of about 100ft. I thik what they are imagining as a station may be considerably bigger than my thoughts of some some interlinked tunnels.

Never assumed it would go unnoticed. That area could be by passed by by running a spur from HS2 to the disused line just before the M6. Personally HS2 or not I think that line should be restored to provide an extra Liv->Man link.

 

[UrbanWorld]

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

I did mention them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If a concreter flyover enhances Manchester is doesn't say much for the city.

The fact that it's visible neither enhances nor detracts from it. But it is a useful road.

Few want to live in a city in which the car dominates either.

Actually, those who live in Milton Keynes (me included) quite like the fact that it's easy and fast to drive, with cheap and plentiful parking. Though the downside of that is that the public transport is hard to make economically viable, because there is no stick of severe traffic congestion to push people onto it.

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

How does the low level station at Liverpool Lime Street on the loop line address the stated problem of the Liverpool high water table?

By pumping it out. Though over the years it has caused no end of hassle with track circuits and rusting rails. In some ways I can see that Merseytravel might wish they had a Metrolink style tram instead.

Neil

 

[UrbanWorld]

By pumping it out. Though over the years it has caused no end of hassle with track circuits and rusting rails. In some ways I can see that Merseytravel might wish they had a Metrolink style tram instead.
Neil

But the city would not, as its segregated metro is far more useful. The city got rid of one of the largest tram network in 1957. Probably wrong to do so looking at the advances in tram rolling stock. It was not integrated with the rail networks.

Milton Keynes was designed for the car and does what it was design for very well. If you are car-less I assume it would be a poor city to get around.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Milton Keynes was designed for the car and doe what it was design for very well. If you are car-less I assume it would be a poor city to get around.

Indeed so, which doesn't do well for "social mobility" etc. Though for short journeys the mostly segregated system of cycle paths is quite good.

Neil

 

[pablo]

I see today, clearance of thirty/forty-year old growth from the disused adjacent trackbed south of Rock Ferry and each side of Spital stations. What's going on? Are we going to see semi-fasts along the Chester/EP Wirral line? Does Merseytravel have secret plans for this line?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Never assumed it would go unnoticed. That area could be by passed by by running a spur from HS2 to the disused line just before the M6. Personally HS2 or not I think that line should be restored to provide an extra Liv->Man link.

If you make reference to the former Warrington and Stockport Railway here at providing an extra rail link between Liverpool and Manchester, how do you propose to address the problem from Dairyhouse Lane into the Broadheath area, as there has been much in the way of office and factory development since the line was closed. At Broadheath, the embankment was totally removed and a large retail park now exists and this then leads to the problem of how to pass over the A56 there now the embankment that led to the former railway bridge over no longer exists.

The former heavy rail line from the Timperley area that ran via Sale into Manchester is now the Manchester Metrolink Altrincham line, so you would need to avoid that option by going through the Skelton Junction line complex to join the existing Altrincham/Navigation Road heavy rail line to Stockport, that has single line sections and some single line bridges (the one at Roscoe's roundabout in Cheadle being an example), then there is the not inconsiderable problem of paths onward from Stockport to Manchester.

I wonder how much in finance would need to be spent in order to overcome the problems in the small area alone that I have described above notwithstanding any other problems from Liverpool to Lymm on this route?

 

[flypie]

If you make reference to the former Warrington and Stockport Railway here at providing an extra rail link between Liverpool and Manchester, how do you propose to address the problem from Dairyhouse Lane into the Broadheath area, as there has been much in the way of office and factory development since the line was closed. At Broadheath, the embankment was totally removed and a large retail park now exists and this then leads to the problem of how to pass over the A56 there now the embankment that led to the former railway bridge over no longer exists.

The former heavy rail line from the Timperley area that ran via Sale into Manchester is now the Manchester Metrolink Altrincham line, so you would need to avoid that option by going through the Skelton Junction line complex to join the existing Altrincham/Navigation Road heavy rail line to Stockport, that has single line sections and some single line bridges (the one at Roscoe's roundabout in Cheadle being an example), then there is the not inconsiderable problem of paths onward from Stockport to Manchester.

I wonder how much in finance would need to be spent in order to overcome the problems in the small area alone that I have described above notwithstanding any other problems from Liverpool to Lymm on this route?

I'd solve most of them by using tram train(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_model) and running along George Richards Way. Which could either use MetroLink for the leg into Manchester or Go via the round about route via Stockport. If it came to rebuilding the heavy line then at least there are no houses along the route.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'd solve most of them by using tram train(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_model) and running along George Richards Way. Which could either use MetroLink for the leg into Manchester or Go via the round about route via Stockport. If it came to rebuilding the heavy line then at least there are no houses along the route.

An interesting observation. To access the line of the Manchester Metrolink system in the Timperley area or the heavy rail route at Skelton Junction via Stockport, how do you propose to cross the line of the A56 from George Richards Way?

 

[flypie]

An interesting observation. To access the line of the Manchester Metrolink system in the Timperley area or the heavy rail route at Skelton Junction via Stockport, how do you propose to cross the line of the A56 from George Richards Way?

The train tram would just go straight through the junction, like all trams it would have to obey the lights, on to viaduct road, then you would need a bridge over the canal from there you can directly access the Stockport line, and recreate metro link in tram mode through the small business park.

It not that these options cost nothing, it just they are under used and compared with building a whole line link the intact sections of old lines with small tram sections would be cheaper, and require less land take.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The train tram would just go straight through the junction, like all trams it would have to obey the lights, on to viaduct road, then you would need a bridge over the canal from there you can directly access the stock port line, and recreate metro link in tram mode through the small business park.

It not that these options cost nothing, it just they are under used and compared with building a whole line link the intact sections of old lines with small tram sections would be cheaper, and require less land take.

You still have to solve the problem of available paths availability from Stockport to Manchester Piccadilly that has been a problem for many years now. Given the proposed tram-train route from Liverpool to Stockport via heavy rail or your alternative route via Timperley and the Altrincham line (which too would need extra paths for the proposed routing that way), what time period do you envisage for a journey from Liverpool to Manchester using either of your two options.

I also am interested in seeing a list showing exactly which of the existing and new railway stations this tram-train will be calling at.

 

[flypie]

You still have to solve the problem of available paths availability from Stockport to Manchester Piccadilly that has been a problem for many years now. Given the proposed tram-train route from Liverpool to Stockport via heavy rail or your alternative route via Timperley and the Altrincham line (which too would need extra paths for the proposed routing that way), what time period do you envisage for a journey from Liverpool to Manchester using either of your two options.

I also am interested in seeing a list showing exactly which of the existing and new railway stations this tram-train will be calling at.

The the Link via Stockport route may well be limited by paths and would have to hope that HS2 would free up some. There would also be the option to join the Metrolink to Manchester Airport, before getting to Stockport.
There are only 5 trams per hour to Altrincham it should not be a problem to another 2 an hour in.

The Altrincham metro link reverts to Tram at about central station, so perhaps a stop there or at St peters Square Metro or at the Tram Stops at either Victoria or Piccadilly.

Stops along the route could be anywhere LSP, Widnes South, Warrington BQ, Lymm, Timperley, Somewhere in Manchester city centre.

As an express route to Central it was timed at 40 minutes. With stops and road sections that would not be managed today but I'd hope between 1hr and 1:15. The final Metrolink journey would be about 8 miles.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The the Link via Stockport route may well be limited by paths and would have to hope that HS2 would free up some. There would also be the option to join the Metrolink to Manchester Airport, before getting to Stockport.
There are only 5 trams per hour to Altrincham it should not be a problem to another 2 an hour in.

The Altrincham metro link reverts to Tram at about central station, so perhaps a stop there or at St peters Square Metro or at the Tram Stops at either Victoria or Piccadilly.

Stops along the route could be anywhere LSP, Widnes South, Warrington BQ, Lymm, Timperley, Somewhere in Manchester city centre.

As an express route to Central it was timed at 40 minutes. With stops and road sections that would be managed today but I'd hope between 1hr and 1:15. The final Metrolink journey would be about 8 miles.

There is the not inconsiderable matter of the Manchester Metrolink trams stopping at quite a considerable number of stops from Timperley into central Manchester that your tram-train would have to allow for.

I think that the previously-achieved 40 minute express route, allowing for the different routing via Lymm along the line formation that you make reference to, is one that will have to remain forever in the past, unfortunately.

 

[flypie]

There is the not inconsiderable matter of the Manchester Metrolink trams stopping at quite a considerable number of stops from Timperley into central Manchester that your tram-train would have to allow for.

I think that the previously-achieved 40 minute express route, allowing for the different routing via Lymm along the line formation that you make reference to, is one that will have to remain forever in the past, unfortunately.

Sorry I meant would not be matched today.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Sorry I meant would not be matched today.

I had a feeling that this thought was at the back of your mind when you made your posting. Please do not think that my posting responses are unduly critical as that was not the intention. At the age of almost 70, I can remember much changing in the rail line areas between the two cities of both Liverpool and Manchester.

You may be interested to know that the line that we discussed in Broadheath was one that I travelled upon on the "Warcop Wanderer" railtour some 30 years ago and must have been one of the last passenger trains to use the line.

 

[flypie]

I had a feeling that this thought was at the back of your mind when you made your posting. Please do not think that my posting responses are unduly critical as that was not the intention. At the age of almost 70, I can remember much changing in the rail line areas between the two cities of both Liverpool and Manchester.

You may be interested to know that the line that we discussed in Broadheath was one that I travelled upon on the "Warcop Wanderer" railtour some 30 years ago and must have been one of the last passenger trains to use the line.

I didn't think it was overly critical at all, missing out negates is one of the most common writing and reading problems. It good practice to try and never use them but I often forget.

That train went some places, it would have been one of the last Passenger Trains on the Canada Dock Branch. http://www.sixbellsjunction.co.uk/80s/830723di.htm

I may have taken one of last trains on the North Mersey Branch in the early 80s it was still electrified and a blockage on the line between Kirkdale and Aintree meant my train was diverted. Judging by the speed we went it wasn't in good nick even then.

 

[snowball]

There are only 5 trams per hour to Altrincham

10 - five from Piccadilly and from Bury.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

10 - five from Piccadilly and from Bury.

So considering the fact that these trams all stop at every stop, this will do nothing for any proposed express tram-train from Liverpool to Manchester. Even if the four track section that used to be in the Stretford/Old Trafford area were reinstated, the 6 minute stopping tram frequency would still be an unresolved problem.

 

[flypie]

So considering the fact that these trams all stop at every stop, this will do nothing for any proposed express tram-train from Liverpool to Manchester. Even if the four track section that used to be in the Stretford/Old Trafford area were reinstated, the 6 minute stopping tram frequency would still be an unresolved problem.

Journey time from Altrincham to Piccadily is 29 minutes, for this journey take of a bit for starting 2 stops after Altrincham and finishing a few stops before Piccadily near the old Central station. You could get it down to 20 minutes.

There also seems to be some other places where the track has been quaded before most notable the bridge over the Mersey near sale water park and several overly wide foot bridges. These could provide passing loops to reduce the journey time.

While perhaps not express it would a time comparable with a lot of the current timings. Which for stopping trains are up to 1:11. It would also serve a slightly different catchment area. Current Liv->Altrincham is 1:30 with a change at Piccadily. This route you would change at Timperley.

 

[ivanhoe]

Firstly, existing mothballed rail infrastructure should not be used for high-speed rail. This is reserved for local metro use, where it is of greater value to the people and city and in promoting economic growth. The city is expanding slowly and this expansion maybe accelerated once the depression falls away. The city was laid out to hold over 2 million.

I doubt HS2 and Merseyrail would share the same short stretch of tracks in the Victoria/Waterloo tunnel as high-speed rail is to be largely separate. A frequent stopping metro service will hinder HS2/HS3 trains of which there will a number of them at peak times entering the city. The Waterloo tunnel emerges at Waterloo Dock in Liverpool Waters. The large complex needs to be on the metro network and the tunnel is right there. The Royal hospital needs its own metro station. People from the likes of Wigan and Chester would have direct access to the regions prime teaching hospital, maybe with direct station access into the hospital itself - it is "their" hospital as well. The Royal is a specialist hospital not a local general hospital, needing top transport links all over the region. A station at the hospital is a priority.

20Miles, who I have a lot of respect, have largely hung their hat on using the Exchange station site using the eastern section of the Outer Loop and the unused Walton tunnels. They do all to divert from Lime St being used.

What is needed is to stand back and look at the whole picture and in relation to where the city is moving. The centre is moving onto the waterfront. The run down state of London Rd behind Lime St station is indicative of that. There are three locations in place for high-speed rail: Lime St from the east, Central from the south and Exchange from the north and south.

1. Lime St: This site is near the shopping quarter and on the now edge of the city centre. Not as difficult as the anti-Liverpool people are saying. A dive under tunnel at Queens Dr is the only real major civil investment in gaining access, accommodating two Manchester/TPE tracks and two Merseyrail tracks, reinstating the 4 track at this point, so a win, win all around. HS2/HS3 can use the existing level tracks. Trains can be split in half and use two platforms - it is done elsewhere - which is far more convenient for passengers. Local urban trains can be diverted from the station to the underground section using the Wapping tunnel, releasing platform space. A travelator can be cut to Central station merging the two stations . I see they have installed overhead wire pylons on the unused trackbeds in the Olive Mount cutting. They will use this as an excuse not to make it 4 track in the cutting for sure. No existing, or future, local services will be impeded and would be enhanced by diverting trains from the east into the underground section.
   
   
2. Exchange: This site is near the cruise liner terminal and right in the business quarter. This can be accessed using the original alignment from the north turning it back into 4 track. Access can be via Kirkby or the eastern section of the Outer Loop (old CLC line). HS2/HS3 trains would share Merseyrail tracks for a length from between Kirkby and Wigan to Kirkdale. Sections were 4 track and can be reinstated. The whole section used by HS2/HS3 could be 4 tracked by taking land besides the tracks and altering stations ensuring Merseyrail and high-speed rail do not use the same tracks. It can be accessed from the south using the Northern Line as dedicated HS2/HS3 access route. Tram-trains can operate from South Parkway down Aigburth Rd and the Dock Rd and get back to the Northern line around Leeds St just north of Exchange. A pedestrian tunnel can be cut from Exchange to Moorfields Wirral line platforms.
   
   
3. Central: This site is near the shopping quarter. The line from Central to South Parkway does not run through any major centres, apart from Brunswick station. The lines runs through low population housing, and private housing estate, and is out of the way. The tunnel into Central was built for three tracks and is wide enough for HS2/HS3 two track. A tram-train can replace Merseyrail services running down Aigburth Road serving all the major centres ensuring greater takeup: Lark Lane, Aigburth Vale, Garston, Dingle, etc. It could run down Parliament St and onto the Dock Rd and branch into the docks and up the Wapping tunnel and into underground Central (engineering tunnel works would be needed) and onto the north of the city maintaining the north-south crossrail. The tram-trains could branch up the Waterloo tunnel to serve the Royal hospital and onwards to Edge Hill. It could also branch off at Aigburth Vale and run to the Dock Road serving the old Brunswick station and onto the Pier Head. Central station would be vastly expanded of course for the metro and HS2/HS3. A travelator can be cut to Lime St station connecting the two stations (which is needed right now). Southport and Ormskirk 6 car commuter trains can be terminated at Central. HS2/HS3 will have connection all over the Liverpool City Region.

Nos 1 and 3, means Central and Lime St are merged. Nos 2 and 3 means we have tram-trains that serve major centres better than Merseyrail. For some inexplicable reason Liverpool never builds local centres around metro train stations as all other cities do. Many people in Liverpool have never even been on Merseyrail. A girl I know in London was at Liverpool uni for 4 years, living near Bold St (near Central station) and never knew Liverpool had an underground metro. She would regularly travel to Aigburth by bus not knowing a fast metro line was there. This asset is poorly promoted and ignored by planners.

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

Given that Aigburth Station is half way down Mersey Road and well away from where she probably wanted to go, I would recommend the fast and frequent bus service. Its the old adage about how far you live from the commencing station and how far is the destination from the finishing station. Living near Bold Street woyuld suggest she was nearer a 82 bus stop.Why would you use Merseyrail for that journey?

The tram train solutions you suggest have no real business case but remain no more than an enthusiasts dream. The major artery of Park Road, Aigburth Road and St Marys Road are well served with buses and will be for the foreseeable future. Trams left this route in the 1950's and Liverpool is well down the pecking order now for such projects. I would argue that future tram works will be concentrated in systems already established.

We will not know anything about the suitability of tram trains until after the Sheffield Rotherham trial. Liverpool has become dependant on service industries associated with shopping and tourism. It will have to be seen to be car friendly for visitors to the City whilst ensuring that a quality bus network is in place for the local population. Any spare funding available in my opinion should be spent on enhancing the bus network by encouraging better usage with newer buses and traffic priority schemes. I would even encourage trolleybuses on major arterial routes as a way forward. However, the current mayor is not a great fan of bus priority schemes and there lies Liverpool' s problems. Lack of vision in respect of transport schemes for the present and immediate future but good on producing reports that in many cases will not see the light of day.People in Speke ,Netherley ,Woolton and Child wall will not see any advantages in extending Merseyrail. They will not want to catch a bus to catch a train either.The number 84 route experiment in the 70/80' s will back that up.

 

[UrbanWorld]

Given that Aigburth Station is half way down Mersey Road and well away from where she probably wanted to go, I would recommend the fast and frequent bus service. Its the old adage about how far you live from the commencing station and how far is the destination from the finishing station. Living near Bold Street would suggest she was nearer a 82 bus stop.Why would you use Merseyrail for that journey?

She never used Merseyrail as she never knew of it. I have the impression you never read properly. The service is not promoted. In London the first most people think of is the Tube, then others. If Aigburth station was on Aigburth Road using Merseyrail would be the best and quickest option. The 82 bus is nowhere near as fast as Merseyrail to Mersey Rd. Buses are slow and just plain loathsome to ride.

The tram train solutions you suggest have no real business case but remain no more than an enthusiasts dream.

The tram-train solution I gave (one of many options) was to get HS2/HS3 into Liverpool via the route from the south, as a part of HS2, which clearly has no business case. The cost could be paid for out of HS2 funds. HS2 takes the track and replaces it with tram-trains. Quite simple. HMG owes Liverpool a lot in transport funding as they neglected the city and cancelled the stand alone tram network (thank God!). Combine what they owe with HS2 money and tram-trains can be running on the streets.

We will not know anything about the suitability of tram trains until after the Sheffield Rotherham trial.

Tram-train are well established on the Continent. Manchester also uses them running on roads and old rail lines. There is no need to wait for Rotherham as they are far from a new idea.

People in Speke ,Netherley ,Woolton and Child wall will not see any advantages in extending Merseyrail. They will not want to catch a bus to catch a train either.The number 84 route experiment in the 70/80' s will back that up.

The people in these districts would greatly benefit from Merseyrail installing stations near or in their districts.

I fear you have lost the plot of you think buses are the answer to a city with a metro that can be easily expanded by one third and which has boulevards designed to accommodate tram-trains. And to think tourists would use the ramshackle buses dished up in Liverpool! Are you serious? In London few tourists use buses, they use the Tube. It is easy, with maps very easy to understand. Stations are easily to locate, as most are in the centres of districts, unlike Liverpool. The problem is they do not see the city above as they travel.

Anderson never had the plot to lose it. He has no idea how large cities work. He is more interested in getting the grey Radio Merseyside vote than think ahead.

 

[ivanhoe]

She never used Merseyrail as she never knew of it. I have the impression you never read properly. The service is not promoted. In London the first most people think of is the Tube, then others. If Aigburth station was on Aigburth Road using Merseyrail would be the best and quickest option. The 82 bus is nowhere near as fast as Merseyrail to Mersey Rd. Buses are slow and just plain loathsome to ride.

The tram-train solution was to get HS2/HS3 into Liverpool via that route from the south, as a part of HS2, which clearly has no business case. The cost could be paid for out of HS2 funds. HS2 takes the track and replaces it with tram-trains. Quite simple. HMG owes Liverpool a lot in transport funding as they neglected the city and cancelled the trams. Combine what they owe with HS2 money and tram-trains can be running on the streets.

Tram-train are well established on the Continent. Manchester also uses them running on roads and old rail lines. There is no need to wait for Rotherham as they are far from a new idea.

The people in these districts would greatly benefit from Merseyrail installing stations near or in their districts.

I fear you have lost the plot of you think buses are the answer to a city with a metro that can be easily expanded by one third and which has boulevards designed to accommodate tram-trains. And to think tourists would use the ramshackle buses dished up in Liverpool! Are you serious? In London few tourists use buses, they use the Tube. It is easy, with maps very easy to understand. Stations are easily to locate, as most are in the centres of districts, unlike Liverpool. The problem is they do not see the city above as they travel.

Anderson never had the plot tom lose it. He no idea how large cities work. He is more interested in getting the grey Radio Merseyside vote than think ahead.

Once you try to resort to insult, you have lost your argument but fear not as it has had the effect of being savaged by a dead sheep.

If you would have read my post before you started going off on one, you would have seen that i stated using quality buses with perhaps trolley buses on the main arterial routes. I did not mention ramshackle buses and maybe you associate buses with Thatcher and that bus users are losers.

There is not a cat in hells chance of a tram train to Speke or Chidwall. At best it would go to the Airport but that is of little use if you live in Eastern Avenue. Again, go back to bus route 84 which linked with Garston Station to catch the train to Central. It was in the end used for mainly going to Garston, which was duplicating the 80 route as the 82 was just as quick to town. The metro that you pine for is not needed unless funding was no object. The city of 2015 is a lot smaller than the city of 1965. It will grow again as it is now but not to the levels of 50 years ago.

 

[UrbanWorld]

Once you try to resort to insult,

Will you show me where there is an insult? I would be interested to know.

Buses are a solution when the city can expand its metro by one thirds and introduce tram-trains down boulevards design to take them. They are good as hoppers to main metro and tram-trains stations. I personally loath buses, especially in Liverpool where the quality of buses is poor. The ride is awful. The best ride I have ever had on a bus is on the bendy-buses. The length stopped the awful ride.

The city looks like it will expand to previous levels in the coming decades if all the dominoes are lined up. Key is integrated rail transport.

You have a thing about buses. Great go for it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.

Not a bad idea.
Actually the Welsh section has recently been upgraded (heavy maintenance I think, including some bridge works, certainly around Penyffordd).
I think they are looking at a modest speed increase (40 to 50mph perhaps).
I doubt if 75mph is feasible on such a low-quality route.
Not that that kind of speed is possible with the short station separation south of the Dee.

 

[Camden]

Not a bad idea.
Actually the Welsh section has recently been upgraded (heavy maintenance I think, including some bridge works, certainly around Penyffordd).
I think they are looking at a modest speed increase (40 to 50mph perhaps).
I doubt if 75mph is feasible on such a low-quality route.
Not that that kind of speed is possible with the short station separation south of the Dee.

Connecting at Birkenhead North would certainly improve things for incoming passengers, but for outgoing ones they still have to make sure they're back at Birkenhead North in time for a once hourly service. Even missing a half hourly service is a pain. I doubt that Birkenhead North is a particularly nice station to wait around at either.

Without a proper through service to the city, this line will always struggle for passengers, let alone with an hour's worth of DMU exposure (class 150?)