Merseyside: New stations planned

[edwin_m]

The rail interface didn't look too clever. 'Why can't the boxes go straight from ship to rail' is what came over to me?

Several reasons I suspect. For example ship timetables don't necessarily match train timetables, and each ship will unload to several trains with different destinations and load from several trains with different origins, not to mention a big slice that will still go by road however good the train service is. Thus if there was direct transfer between ship and train there would be a lot of container wagons standing around in the port or being shunted into different rakes. The likelihood of several train operators complicates this further.

All this waiting and shunting can be done in much less time and space by stacking the containers in a storage area and loading/unloading trains some distance back from the quayside. There might be an exception if all sorting of containers took place in an inland "dry port" such as Port Salford, with shuttles by train or barge on the MSC carrying goods to or from a single ship. But this would add time to the transit of containers going by road (which most time-sensitive containers will use) and possibly also by rail, and is probably only viable if all containers are heading to/from roughly the same direction inland, which clearly isn't the case at Liverpool.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The rail interface didn't look too clever. 'Why can't the boxes go straight from ship to rail' is what came over to me?

There is a very simple answer, customs clearance. All containers moving outside of the EU, or arriving from outside the EU are subject to customs clearance.

In the case of export movements the container must be on the terminal 24 hours prior to loading on board the vessel to allow HMRC including UK Border Force to carryout any mandatory pre-shipment examinations. This requires containers arriving at the terminal to be pre-notified to the terminal by the shipping line. When it is arrived the container is "gated-in" and the container placed into a stack of containers allocated for the booked vessel. The export or agent will complete an electronic customs entry which will quote a unique reference which is given to the shipping line who will either include it in pre-notification to the terminal, or will update the data if the information is received after the container has arrived on the terminal. The HMRC computer system (CHIEF) which is linked to the port inventory system then processes the electronic declaration and either grants permission to progress allowing the container to be shipped, or instructs the port to present the container for a physical examination, or informs the exporter or their agent that a documentation check is required. Once HMRC/UKBA are satisfied with their checks they update Chief and the container is granted permission to be loaded. The port inventory system then confirms shipment to Chief and the status of the customs declaration is updated and a message sent to the exporter or agent to provide official evidence of export primarily for VAT purposes.

On import containers the shipping line download the manifest to the port inventory system which allows UKBA and Port Health to view the complete manifest and select any containers for physical examination, or place them on hold pending completion of documentary checks. HMRC and UKBA will also have been alerted to any containers requiring securing checks from the pre-notification declaration provided prior to loading at origin. Containers requiring physical interventions are then moved to the port safe areas for inspections to take place and will only be released to allow delivery once the necessary checks and usually additional documentation has been provided. Like export movements the importer or their agent provide an electronic declaration to HMRC through Chief either prior to the vessel arrival or up to 45 days after arrival.

Chief processes both export and import declarations based on risk assessment including the profile of the exporter, importer, agent, goods, country of origin or destination etc as well as a host of other factors, and also collects duty, VAT and excise duty on behalf of HMRC. It handles millions of declarations per annum with in excess of 90% being totally processed without any physical intervention, including documentary checks. Export entries are processed immediately upon arrival at the terminal whilst the majority of import containers can clear within 15 minutes of arrival of the vessel, assuming the entries are prelodged. Incidentally this places the UK well ahead of the rest of Europe where the entire process is far less efficient and physical interventions can be as high as 18%. Due to the way all these processes work, it would be impossible for example for import containers to move direct from the ship to rail as until the container is cleared and released of all holds it's not possible to confirm if the container is available for delivery.

The other issue of course is that the railhead would have to be capable of holding all the containers landed from the ships calling at the terminal which would be impractical. The fully automated Liverpool2 will allow containers to be discharged to the stack to minimise movements and ensure maximum capacity of the ship to shore gantries, ensuring the vessel is turned around in the minimum time. The rail mounted cranes operating behind the ship to shore cranes will then move the containers from the "ship" stack to other stacks depending on the customs status of the container, culminating in placing it in the delivery stack when the haulier books the collection in the vehicle booking system. This should reduce turn round times for road vehicles to under 30 minutes, whilst those booked to moved by rail will be delivered other stacks enabling them to be shunted to railhead which on the video is the existing facility at Seaforth. However, I understand there are also plans to extend the rail link to the west side of Seaforth Dock should it been deemed necessary at a later stage.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Several reasons I suspect. For example ship timetables don't necessarily match train timetables, and each ship will unload to several trains with different destinations and load from several trains with different origins, not to mention a big slice that will still go by road however good the train service is. Thus if there was direct transfer between ship and train there would be a lot of container wagons standing around in the port or being shunted into different rakes. The likelihood of several train operators complicates this further.

All this waiting and shunting can be done in much less time and space by stacking the containers in a storage area and loading/unloading trains some distance back from the quayside. There might be an exception if all sorting of containers took place in an inland "dry port" such as Port Salford, with shuttles by train or barge on the MSC carrying goods to or from a single ship. But this would add time to the transit of containers going by road (which most time-sensitive containers will use) and possibly also by rail, and is probably only viable if all containers are heading to/from roughly the same direction inland, which clearly isn't the case at Liverpool.

The other problem is the volume of containers, the average feeder ship calling at Liverpool is currently about 800 teu with the largest feeder being the MSC operated Santa Giovanna which is 2061 teu. Even allowing 30 crane moves per hour and two ship to shore gantries, the ship can easily be turned around in 12 hours bearing in mind that the actual number of moves will be substantially less than the teu capacity of vessel because many of the containers will be 40ft units. However, the vessels that will be calling at Liverpool2 will be anything between 4000 teu, the present capacity of Seaforth, and 18000 teu which is the size of vessel being used on the Far East trades, which is just one of the trades Peel is already talking to the ship owners about. The potential number of containers exchanged in a vessel of this size could be excess of 2000 per vessel call, and it would be clearly impossible to load/discharge the percentage sort of volume to rail even if it was possible to determine the customs status in advance.

 

[HowardGWR]

Thanks Wavertreelad and Edwin.

I was not quite so unknowledgeable as I made out but memory fades. I do remember seeing direct transfer to train (or HGV) elsewhere (Low Countries ports) but realise now these were intra-EU shipments. Also, quantity does matter, although clearly, if one knows (and one does know in advance) that an incoming vessel has a train load that can be dealt with immediately, one could benefit by having direct transfer.

Thanks for putting me right though. I imagine that Bristol's planned container port will compete with Liverpool (I had heard there were problems with that development at Avonmouth however).

 

[Wavertreelad]

Thanks Wavertreelad and Edwin.

I was not quite so unknowledgeable as I made out but memory fades. I do remember seeing direct transfer to train (or HGV) elsewhere (Low Countries ports) but realise now these were intra-EU shipments. Also, quantity does matter, although clearly, if one knows (and one does know in advance) that an incoming vessel has a train load that can be dealt with immediately, one could benefit by having direct transfer.

Thanks for putting me right though. I imagine that Bristol's planned container port will compete with Liverpool (I had heard there were problems with that development at Avonmouth however).

The Port of Bristol scheme whilst it has planning permission is several years away at least. The Port of Bristol website quotes "We are currently waiting for global economic conditions to improve. Once construction start the terminal will be ready in about 3 years"

http://dsct.bristolport.co.uk/comments

The problem with Bristol is that apart from MSC's weekly feeder service from Antwerp, there are no regular deep sea container services into Portbury the site of the present container operations in the area. It's therefore difficult to see how the present owners could find backers to construct the new terminal without have a major ocean carrier already calling at Portbury which like Seaforth is limited to Panamax size vessels, about 4000 teu, due to need to navigate the lock into the terminal.

Liverpool on the other hand already has well established deep sea liner services to North America as well as feeder operations serving Antwerp, Rotterdam and Le Havre, with Antwerp being served exclusively by MSC whilst and CMA CGM group operate a weekly service from Rotterdam and Le Havre. These feeder operations are in addition to the three sailings a week from Rotterdam operated by Peel Ports subsidiary BG Freight Lines. Apart from a dedicated Rotterdam to Liverpool service, which also serves Belfast and Dublin Liverpool is usually included in the Felixstowe to Dublin and Belfast service, whilst Peels other subsidiary Coastal Container Line operates a dedicated Liverpool/Dublin/Liverpool/Belfast/Liverpool service and finally X-press container line operates a weekly service to and from Southampton. In addition slot charter agreement with CMA-CGM/Macandrews allows BG to also take slots on the Macandrews services calling at Greenock. Macandrews services three sailings a week from Bilbao and weekly service also carries containers for North Atlantic Carriers, ACL, Hapag Lloyd/CSAV, OOCL and ICL. The BG Freight Line service apart from carrying intra-European traffic, also carries containers for all the deep sea carriers using Liverpool, plus Evergreen, Hamburg Sud, APL, NYK and Maersk, although this is restricted to specific traffic flows for the moment. Interestingly Maersk does not operate any of it's own services to the Irish Sea preferring at the moment to take slots on BG Freight Lines services despite operating it's own intra-European in the Mediterranean under the Seago banner.

This complex mixture of feeder operators and services will likely change dramatically as deep-sea operators adjust their services to operate from Liverpool2 and the terminal becomes a hub for the entire Irish Sea as well as the port of choice for importers and exporters in the North of England and Scotland, making it very difficult from Bristol sandwiched between Liverpool and Southampton to expand in the direction proposed.

.

 

[HowardGWR]

Yes that's what I remember was the holdup (not enough traffic on offer)!

I think the government will want a competitor for Liverpool so I think it will happen. It's also convenient for more inland destinations including South Wales. Writing that reminds me of the infamous cabinet tussle between Jim Callaghan (Cardiff MP) and Anthony Wedgwood Benn (Bristol MP) over Portbury!

A bit off topic then, but I noted from your link that the Avonmouth one would be expected to create 1800 jobs. In connection with the subject of the thread, this is not enormously significant in generation of the need for new local railway services is it?

 

[frodshamfella]

Yeah I would agree with that. Just regarding the rail link Leeds/Bradford doesn't have one but has a BA flight to Heathrow. I think this is important to make an airport part of the hub and spoke network. Liverpool had one for a while with KLM but it didn't take off for some reason. Maybe it wasn't publicised enough, I have a friend in Liverpool who will soon be using a KLM flight to Amsterdam from Manchester to get to New Orleans. If you don't advertise these flights people won't use them. If the big airlines started using JLA as a spoke and actually advertised it it could possibly justify a rail link. At the moment it is a departure point for budget airlines full stop.

I think Liverpool Airport will continue to grow, on the way it has done, It has attracted new services this year mainly on the low cost airline side ( new services Blue Air, Wizz, Flybe and Easyjet) , but interestingly Czech Airlines in launching a route from Prague to Liverpool. This is a mainline carrier, that left the UK completely a few years back. It is now returning with a Prague - Liverpool service.

Liverpool Airport will also grow as Manchester becomes more congested, and it already is. I arrived there last night from Lisbon to terminal one, and immigrations was bedlam, lots of rude staff barking at arriving passengers, not a great welcome home or welcome to Britain .

If there was to be a direct train link to Liverpool Airport, the attractiveness to use the facility would inevitability grow. This is evident and the now growing Southend Airport, much smaller than Liverpool Airport, but now with a station.

 

[martynbristow]

I think Liverpool Airport will continue to grow, on the way it has done, It has attracted new services this year mainly on the low cost airline side ( new services Blue Air, Wizz, Flybe and Easyjet) , but interestingly Czech Airlines in launching a route from Prague to Liverpool. This is a mainline carrier, that left the UK completely a few years back. It is now returning with a Prague - Liverpool service.

Liverpool Airport will also grow as Manchester becomes more congested, and it already is. I arrived there last night from Lisbon to terminal one, and immigrations was bedlam, lots of rude staff barking at arriving passengers, not a great welcome home or welcome to Britain .

If there was to be a direct train link to Liverpool Airport, the attractiveness to use the facility would inevitability grow. This is evident and the now growing Southend Airport, much smaller than Liverpool Airport, but now with a station.

Bit of a chicken and egg then :/ which came first the airport or the rail link.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Yes that's what I remember was the holdup (not enough traffic on offer)!

I think the government will want a competitor for Liverpool so I think it will happen. It's also convenient for more inland destinations including South Wales. Writing that reminds me of the infamous cabinet tussle between Jim Callaghan (Cardiff MP) and Anthony Wedgwood Benn (Bristol MP) over Portbury!

A bit off topic then, but I noted from your link that the Avonmouth one would be expected to create 1800 jobs. In connection with the subject of the thread, this is not enormously significant in generation of the need for new local railway services is it?

Surely is planning permission has been granted to build the terminal on an existing brown field site, it's difficult to see on what basis the government would want to intervene? Once Liverpool2 opens, UK Port capacity should be more than sufficient for many years to come, London Gateway has still a second phase to come on stream, whilst both Felixstowe and Southampton also have plans for further expansion. Thamesport has been downgraded to handle only intra European traffic, because it was not able to handle the largest containerships and there are still are plans to expand Harwich. Southampton, is already Bristol's competitor in the container and vehicle sector with well established traffic flows so it would take a very brave backer to fund Bristol's terminal.

I think Liverpool Airport will continue to grow, on the way it has done, It has attracted new services this year mainly on the low cost airline side ( new services Blue Air, Wizz, Flybe and Easyjet) , but interestingly Czech Airlines in launching a route from Prague to Liverpool. This is a mainline carrier, that left the UK completely a few years back. It is now returning with a Prague - Liverpool service.

Liverpool Airport will also grow as Manchester becomes more congested, and it already is. I arrived there last night from Lisbon to terminal one, and immigrations was bedlam, lots of rude staff barking at arriving passengers, not a great welcome home or welcome to Britain .

If there was to be a direct train link to Liverpool Airport, the attractiveness to use the facility would inevitability grow. This is evident and the now growing Southend Airport, much smaller than Liverpool Airport, but now with a station.

I also believe and hope Liverpool Airport will continue to grow, but it will likely be in a different market place to Manchester but whether that growth could sustain a direct train or tram link is another matter. I seem to recall the Merseytravel proposal mentioned "a possibility" of an airport link, and at this stage I would suggest this is no more than "a remote possibility."

Bit of a chicken and egg then :/ which came first the airport or the rail link.

The airport station is adjacent to the main commuting rail link from London to Southend on Sea, so unlike Liverpool no major new rail construction was necessary. If I remember correctly the airport is also owned by the Stobbart group, yes those of Stobbart rail and trucks as well as the owner of the Widnes rail terminal near to Ditton Station.

 

[frodshamfella]

Surely is planning permission has been granted to build the terminal on an existing brown field site, it's difficult to see on what basis the government would want to intervene? Once Liverpool2 opens, UK Port capacity should be more than sufficient for many years to come, London Gateway has still a second phase to come on stream, whilst both Felixstowe and Southampton also have plans for further expansion. Thamesport has been downgraded to handle only intra European traffic, because it was not able to handle the largest containerships and there are still are plans to expand Harwich. Southampton, is already Bristol's competitor in the container and vehicle sector with well established traffic flows so it would take a very brave backer to fund Bristol's terminal.



I also believe and hope Liverpool Airport will continue to grow, but it will likely be in a different market place to Manchester but whether that growth could sustain a direct train or tram link is another matter. I seem to recall the Merseytravel proposal mentioned "a possibility" of an airport link, and at this stage I would suggest this is no more than "a remote possibility."



The airport station is adjacent to the main commuting rail link from London to Southend on Sea, so unlike Liverpool no major new rail construction was necessary. If I remember correctly the airport is also owned by the Stobbart group, yes those of Stobbart rail and trucks as well as the owner of the Widnes rail terminal near to Ditton Station.

Ha...well so you never know, I do remember Ditton Station, i think it was closed, not so long ago, which actually today seems a bit bonkers, I think there has been rumours of it returning, there is quite a bit of housing in the area.

 

[HowardGWR]

My point about Bristol was that of the low number of jobs created whether it went ahead or not. This thread is not about airports and ports but about local transport in Liverpool.

Those developments clearly lead to some local transport need, but surely the main need is for workers, students and shoppers and these are mainly in the centre and fed from the suburbs. The old freight lines around the city do not seem handy to help in providing such services. That was my essential point.

 

[Camden]

My point about Bristol was that of the low number of jobs created whether it went ahead or not. This thread is not about airports and ports but about local transport in Liverpool.

Those developments clearly lead to some local transport need, but surely the main need is for workers, students and shoppers and these are mainly in the centre and fed from the suburbs. The old freight lines around the city do not seem handy to help in providing such services. That was my essential point.

I think it does depend on the configuration of the particular city in question, and the importance of a wider effect on a network and its subsequent support for economic growth shouldn't be overlooked. There's no point in having a line for the sake of it, but at the same time I don't think that blanket dismissal due to assumptions about location and what the lines connect works either. Local knowledge and a local plan is essential. If these are in place and it checks out, then there is no reason why a non city centre line isn't feasible.

 

[8A Rail]

Ha...well so you never know, I do remember Ditton Station, i think it was closed, not so long ago, which actually today seems a bit bonkers, I think there has been rumours of it returning, there is quite a bit of housing in the area.

Not so long ago? Closed to passengers in May 1994 and buildings etc demolished in mid 2005. Just platforms remain - just about. Most of the housing is still there but there has not been much "new" build houses in that area since closure date.

 

[CdBrux]

The airport station is adjacent to the main commuting rail link from London to Southend on Sea, so unlike Liverpool no major new rail construction was necessary. If I remember correctly the airport is also owned by the Stobbart group, yes those of Stobbart rail and trucks as well as the owner of the Widnes rail terminal near to Ditton Station.

Indeed, from the airport website it is also clear who paid for it (and they also now operate it):

The £12 million project is being funded by London Southend Airport and its owner, the Stobart Group

 

[frodshamfella]

Bit of a chicken and egg then :/ which came first the airport or the rail link.

The airport, years ago, Southend Airport used to advertise a bus link from a station up the road called Rochford, probally similar distance to South Parkway id expect. The "real" Airport station has been a good boost for that airport, but as someone said the track has always skirted close to the airfield, so an easier proposition than Liverpool to build, but likely less usage than Liverpool Airport would produce.

When you think back, its only airports in the UK that were lucky to have a rail line already passing by that had stations, thinking of Gatwick, Southampton. All the others are more recent additions, even Heathrow wasn't on the tube.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not so long ago? Closed to passengers in May 1994 and buildings etc demolished in mid 2005. Just platforms remain - just about. Most of the housing is still there but there has not been much "new" build houses in that area since closure date.

Don't make me feel old, that seems recent to me : -)

 

[Wavertreelad]

Ha...well so you never know, I do remember Ditton Station, i think it was closed, not so long ago, which actually today seems a bit bonkers, I think there has been rumours of it returning, there is quite a bit of housing in the area.

Picking up the comments from the Halton Curve thread, the fact that Merseytravel has supported financially the opening of the curve, would seem to suggest that they are interested in increasing services on the WCML or the City Line. Further comments about a reopening Wavertree/Sefton Park Station near Smithdown Road would also suggest that Merseytravel is looking at expanding services towards the southern end of the City. Reopening Ditton would probably follow this plan but is probably more dependant on whether Merseytravel operate services via the Halton Curve.

My point about Bristol was that of the low number of jobs created whether it went ahead or not. This thread is not about airports and ports but about local transport in Liverpool.

Those developments clearly lead to some local transport need, but surely the main need is for workers, students and shoppers and these are mainly in the centre and fed from the suburbs. The old freight lines around the city do not seem handy to help in providing such services. That was my essential point.

I think it all depends on the geography of the area, in Liverpool's case there has never been any requirement for freight lines to radiate out from the centre, ie Lime Street, Central and the Old Exchange Station as all these stations were terminal passenger facilities. The freight lines on these routes either terminated at the their dockside facilities, or Edge Hill and this is perhaps were the two currently unused tunnels could be hugely beneficial in linking the City Line to Central, enabling a perhaps a new station in the University or new Royal Liverpool Hospital area. Potentially this ambitious plan would provide a whole host of new connections, for use by workers, students and shoppers as well as help solving the capacity issue at Central. If you add reopening the North Mersey Branch, and electrifying the Bootle Branch would further enhance the additional opportunities available to the great travelling public.

 

[ivanhoe]

^^
None of this though will help to rejuvenate the North of the City, which is in desperate need of investment. Whereas Merseytram was all about rejuvenating North Liverpool, the opening of the branches will not add value to County Road, Stanley Road, Walton Road ,Anfield and Everton. I do feel that Merseytravel need to get back to basics and recognize that trains only benefit less than 33℅ of Liverpool's inhabitants. There are large swathes of the city that require transport needs that Merseyrail will never be able to provide. I accept that it is important to have aspirations but it should not be just about rail. I do look forward to tramtrain trials in south Yorks which may be a better way forward.

 

[Gareth]

Right so let me clarify
Liverpool has Media City UK?
Liverpool has the headquarters of major international businesses!
It question isn't how much do the people of Liverpool want it, but are the Goverment going to invest in this direction
Manchester already has a healthy economy in sectors relevant to this, partly assisted by the geographic footprint, it has 4 sides on the compass Liverpool has 2.5.
The Liverpool economy is dominated by retail, manufacturing, ports, education and other services.
The figures on GVA are Manchester: £35 billion, Liverpool: £10 billion (source ONS).
Liverpool should focus it provide support to Manchester . So better more reliable services across and better interchange should be the focus.

And when did HS2 benifit freight, I, confused they explicitly state NO friendly operation, but it would open up paths on the classic WCML for more frieght, so HS2 going to Manchester would benifit Liverpool in that regard easily

I'm going to keep this relatively short because Camden and others have covered most of the points in adequate detail: but Media City - so what? Yes, it's another state plantation into Manchester to "serve the north" but Cbeebies coming from Salford Quays is no gamechanger for the vast majority of Mancunian citizens, much less those in Stockton-on-Tees. Secondly, you've got to be careful with the statistics your quoting, especially when they come to Liverpool and things like economy or population; super-especially when you want to compare them with Manchester. It's quite typical to see faux comparisons which consider Wigan as a part of Manchester but Halewood as not Liverpool and convenient for those who insist on the false narrative that the former is several times smaller than the latter and ultimately not a major city, thence justify excluding it from whatever state lollipops Whitehall is giving out on any particular day, such as HS2. Yes, Liverpool may well have a smaller business output than Manchester (you can go back not too far in time when this wasn't the case) but it still has one in its own right and, as one of the country's larger cities (as inconvenient a fact as that appears to be) it's far from insignificant. Manchester's business community is far smaller than London's, (a much larger gap than any difference with Liverpool) so by your logic, Manchester should focus on supporting London and doing nothing in its own right, let alone have money wasted on it via high speed line when the money could just be spent internally in London to greater effect.

If Liverpool doesn't get out of Whitehall's euthanasia programme, it will die. And HS2's the endgame. You might be okay with that but I think it's perverse.

 

[Jonfun]

Get the cameras out, because you won't often hear me say this, but I agree with Martyn.

The killer point, which I notice Gareth doesn't address, is that Manchester's catchment area extends in all directions. Liverpool's extends (to simplify things, effectively) only eastwards - which then overlaps with the catchment area of Manchester.

Liverpool is poor. There's no getting around that. No amount of regeneration or investment in huge, pointless projects is going to change that. Why do I work in Manchester but live in Liverpool? Is it because of the large, extravagant parks? The vibrant nightlife? The friendly people? No. It's because it's cheap. I can afford a two bedroom house here for less than a studio flat would cost in Manchester. A pint costs £1.39 at my local.

Liverpool, along with most places further south, such as in the Midlands, gain the benefits of HS2 via the freed-up capacity on the classic lines.

The biggest failing of Liverpool's rail connections is that we have a train service to Manchester which takes longer than it did in the days of steam. Worry about the basics before we start anything else.

 

[fowler9]

Get the cameras out, because you won't often hear me say this, but I agree with Martyn.

The killer point, which I notice Gareth doesn't address, is that Manchester's catchment area extends in all directions. Liverpool's extends (to simplify things, effectively) only eastwards - which then overlaps with the catchment area of Manchester.

Liverpool is poor. There's no getting around that. No amount of regeneration or investment in huge, pointless projects is going to change that. Why do I work in Manchester but live in Liverpool? Is it because of the large, extravagant parks? The vibrant nightlife? The friendly people? No. It's because it's cheap. I can afford a two bedroom house here for less than a studio flat would cost in Manchester. A pint costs £1.39 at my local.

Liverpool, along with most places further south, such as in the Midlands, gain the benefits of HS2 via the freed-up capacity on the classic lines.

The biggest failing of Liverpool's rail connections is that we have a train service to Manchester which takes longer than it did in the days of steam. Worry about the basics before we start anything else.

I agree with you partially and yes Liverpool is poor. Where I disagree is that you seem to take a very short term view which is a mistake I have made in the past. Liverpool extends way beyond the east, it extends way out in to the sea as well, it is a deep sea port which is something Manchester will never be. Manchester would not even exist in its current form without Liverpool existing as it once did. Manchester has nothing Liverpool doesn't have apart from perhaps more space for an airport, although it has no space for a sea port. Liverpool also has more open parkland than anywhere outside London and also a pretty vibrant nightlife. If you are just after cheap rent check out Irlam, it is a shorter commute as well.

 

[Gareth]

Get the cameras out, because you won't often hear me say this, but I agree with Martyn.

The killer point, which I notice Gareth doesn't address, is that Manchester's catchment area extends in all directions. Liverpool's extends (to simplify things, effectively) only eastwards - which then overlaps with the catchment area of Manchester.

Liverpool is poor. There's no getting around that. No amount of regeneration or investment in huge, pointless projects is going to change that. Why do I work in Manchester but live in Liverpool? Is it because of the large, extravagant parks? The vibrant nightlife? The friendly people? No. It's because it's cheap. I can afford a two bedroom house here for less than a studio flat would cost in Manchester. A pint costs £1.39 at my local.

Liverpool, along with most places further south, such as in the Midlands, gain the benefits of HS2 via the freed-up capacity on the classic lines.

The biggest failing of Liverpool's rail connections is that we have a train service to Manchester which takes longer than it did in the days of steam. Worry about the basics before we start anything else.

Oh god, where to start with this...

Okay, catchment area: you say Liverpool's only catchement is eastwards. To me, this insinuates that Liverpool is surrounded by sea on three sides. I thought a simple map here would blow this one out the water but I've added arrows, red ones at that, to emphasise the point, to be safe...




Yes, Liverpool is near the sea if that's what you're trying to say. So is San Francisco. So is Barcelona. So is Melbourne. FFS, so is Newcastle-upon-Tyne! What's your point here exactly? The reason I didn't mention 'catchment' is because it's pretty much a non-argument that I assumed didn't need addressing.

As for the next paragraph: yes, Liverpool is relatively poor. But guess what, [drum roll] so is Manchester, by most realistic indicators. It has similar levels of deprivation, equally dire projections on life expectancy, heart disease rate etc and has more crime. Once you take away the Northern Powerhouse rhetoric, it's not that special, on the grander scale of things. It's just another northern town that, apart from the state trinkets it gets for being Whitehall's regional administrative centre for the North/North West, will never reach its potential so long as it remains in such a ridiculously centralised and London-centric state. Pretty much the same boat every other large UK city is in.

Forgive me, if I take the rest of what you say with a pinch of salt. I'm not accusing you of lying, as no doubt you're a man of integrity but I'm struggling with the concept that you couldn't find anywhere closer to Manchester where you could get a cheaper house or pint of beer. Considering you're not exactly a man of culture, by your own admission, I'm surprised you had to go this far out and that various actual Mancunian satellite towns, if not more the crummy areas of Manchester itself, failed to yield options. Again, pinch of salt with your comparison of a homely two-up-to-down in Liverpool to a trendy studio apartment in Manchester. You couldn't afford a trendy studio compartment in Manchester so just gave up and settled for a two-up-two-down in Liverpool? It's an apples and oranges statement that we can easily reverse: here's a studio flat in Liverpool that's over four times more expensive than this two bedroom house in Manchester.

As for the pint of beer, I'd love to know where your local is. Mine's certainly nowhere near that cheap and I'm not in a particularly posh area. Even so, I'm sure your 70 mile daily commute more than wipes out the discount.

Liverpool needs to be well-connected to the rest of the country, just like every other major city, not just to Manchester. Just because that's the one that most benefits you personally doesn't make all the others unimportant. Liverpool's not going to become a Greater Mancunian satellite town, as much as you and a rather notable minority of the train enthusiast community seem to want it to be. Not only is it not desirable, it's also impractical. Liverpool's too large and not quite close enough. Either that or Manchester isn't large enough and needs to, at least, treble in size. Not going to happen. What Liverpool faces, if this marginalisation continues, is a withering, possibly to nothing. People in the 1.5-2m metropolitan area are not going to commute en masse to Manchester. Even considering the stress on the transport network (and the environment for that matter) Manchester could never support the jobs. They'll simply be forced to leave; some going to the actual Manchester area but most going to the South East no doubt.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Liverpool Airport will also grow as Manchester becomes more congested, and it already is. I arrived there last night from Lisbon to terminal one, and immigrations was bedlam, lots of rude staff barking at arriving passengers, not a great welcome home or welcome to Britain .

I am sorry to hear of your recent arrival at Manchester Airport where the staff appeared rude to arriving passengers. Did you send a letter of complaint into the airport?

Manchester Airport is a good example of an airport that has its ownership vested in the ten local authorities that make up the entity that is now commonly referred to as Greater Manchester and has always ensured that it moved with the times, not just in passenger handling, but also in freight traffic with custom-built facilities and now has two runways and three terminals. It is fortunate to be in the situation of having a great deal of land nearby that can be used for business parks and freight handling and the Chinese are now planning to develop an international business park facility within the environs of the airport.

Manchester Airport railway station is shortly to become a four-platform station and there is, in the same transport complex, the terminal Airport line stop of the Manchester Metrolink system and a modern bus and coach interchange attached which National Express use.

I note comment has been made in the past about Manchester Airport being congested, but that point has been addressed in the past by the building of new runways and new terminals.

 

[WatcherZero]

Gareth, while you might not consider the Mersey Estuary a barrier the rest of the population does, only 20% of people in the Wirral peninsula work in Liverpool, same ratio as west side of St Helens and its nearly non existent once you leave the peninsula.

A TTWA is defined by where the majority of the population go to work, a TTWA exists and is bounded by Local Super Output Areas where 75% of local population work in same area they live and 75% of local workforce travels in to an area to work rather than out. e.g. if a city B has 40% of its workforce travelling to a neighbouring city to work then it is not a TTWA in its own right and if a combined 75% of city B population travel to city A to work or remain local then it is in city A's TTWA.

Wigan and Warrington (713 square km) actually have a larger sized TTWA than Liverpool does (605 square km). Manchester is 1412 square km.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/geography/beginner-s-guide/maps/travel-to-work-areas-2001.pdf

 

[Gareth]

Interesting how you can speak for the rest of the population. That's a lot of people, WZ. I can't open your link but it's probably more damned statistics. No doubt more Wirral residents work on the Wirral which is the same metropolitan area for goodness sake and some will work in the Chester area. Still, that doesn't stop the tunnels always being packed in mainly one direction in morning rush hour and the opposite in the evening. Anyway, by your definition, Inverness probably has a larger TTWA than Liverpool. Liverpool is larger to start with, even if we pretend it doesn't have a metropolitan area of note. So that's that one out the window.

 

[WatcherZero]

Indeed it does, Inverness and Dingwall 48,334 jobs, 5002 square km.
Job position totals;
Manchester 845,302 employees 88.4% of people who live there (within TTWA boundaries) work there, 80.0% of jobs are filled locally, meaning 20% are filled by people travelling in from neighbouring TTWAs.
Liverpool 386,008 employees 86% of people who live there work there, 81.8% of jobs are filled locally, 18.2% from neighbouring TTWAs.
Warrington and Wigan 320,596 employees 73.6% of people who live there work there, 77.6% of jobs are filled locally, 22.4% from neighbouring TTWAs
Wirral and Ellesmere Port 135,063 employees 70.1% of people who live there work there, 84.4% of jobs are filled locally, 15.6% from neighbouring TTWAs

*Data compiled 2007 by Office for National Statistics and latest iteration, its done each decade. Main observed trend in 2007 iteration, consolidation of smaller TTWAs and greater employment in towns and rural areas counterbalancing the draw of cities.

I can't open your link but it's probably more damned statistics.

Because facts are like Garlic to nationalists.

 

[Camden]

Interesting how you can speak for the rest of the population. That's a lot of people, WZ. I can't open your link but it's probably more damned statistics. No doubt more Wirral residents work on the Wirral which is the same metropolitan area for goodness sake and some will work in the Chester area. Still, that doesn't stop the tunnels always being packed in mainly one direction in morning rush hour and the opposite in the evening. Anyway, by your definition, Inverness probably has a larger TTWA than Liverpool. Liverpool is larger to start with, even if we pretend it doesn't have a metropolitan area of note. So that's that one out the window.

As someone interested in working across numerous northern areas, I do find the insistence of a number of Mancunians that their city is acknowledged as being the largest, the best, the most prosperous and so on quite exasperating to deal with. It does nothing to moving anything forward and you are quite right Gareth that Manchester has very similar problems (and "prosperity" levels to elsewhere in the north).

The use of TWA to define "a city" is childish. While I would question that only 20% of people in the wirral work in Liverpool (Wirral has a High Dependency on Liverpool) it is irrelevant as to whether it constitutes part of the city. In London, if most people live and work within Camden or Hounslow rather than Westminster or the city of London does that make me a non-Londoner?

The statistics posted by the other commenter if to be taken at face value say there are 845,000 jobs in Manchester TWA and 521,000 jobs in Liverpool (Liverpool + Wirral) TWA. Sounds about right and is more jobs per head in Liverpool than Manchester. That would go some way to explaining the seriously low GVA in Greater Manchester North, to which there will never be a suitable answer arrived at for as long as there is this push to present their city as some superior force.

These boundaries and the mersey estuary being a barrier seem to only matter to those who for whatever reason seem absolutely desperate to talk Liverpool down and prevent it from receiving investment appropriate to its collective size. That is a destructive position to take not only for Liverpool but also themselves and doesn't reflect well on those taking it.

 

[Jonfun]

Gareth - are you actually suggesting Fflint is part of Liverpool's catchment area? Even the Wirral is tenuous, it's far better connected down the M53 towards Chester than it is across the water to Liverpool. The significant majority of it's catchment area is to the East - Runcorn, Widnes, St Helens, Kirkby, Ormskirk I suppose too.

Of course there are cheaper and more expensive bits of any city, but for a two bedroom, terraced house, not in perhaps the nicest of areas you're talking 75-80k in Manchester vice 40-50k in Liverpool - and even lower in some areas.

Liverpool's already well connected. Hourly train to London, two trains an hour to the North East, plenty of local trains. The local bus network is also impressive. The airport, whilst modest, is efficient and serves a select few destinations.

I maintain, before we worry about things like massive infrastructure projects to improve national and international connections, Liverpool needs to get it's own economy in gear first. Street after street of pound shops, bars and bookies isn't a sustainable economy. It needs money investing in other places first, such as creating meaningful jobs and large scale retail projects.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Liverpool needs to get it's own economy in gear first. Street after street of pound shops, bars and bookies isn't a sustainable economy.

Haven't you forget to add "take-aways" to your list above?

 

[frodshamfella]

I am sorry to hear of your recent arrival at Manchester Airport where the staff appeared rude to arriving passengers. Did you send a letter of complaint into the airport?

Manchester Airport is a good example of an airport that has its ownership vested in the ten local authorities that make up the entity that is now commonly referred to as Greater Manchester and has always ensured that it moved with the times, not just in passenger handling, but also in freight traffic with custom-built facilities and now has two runways and three terminals. It is fortunate to be in the situation of having a great deal of land nearby that can be used for business parks and freight handling and the Chinese are now planning to develop an international business park facility within the environs of the airport.

Manchester Airport railway station is shortly to become a four-platform station and there is, in the same transport complex, the terminal Airport line stop of the Manchester Metrolink system and a modern bus and coach interchange attached which National Express use.

I note comment has been made in the past about Manchester Airport being congested, but that point has been addressed in the past by the building of new runways and new terminals.

I am about to send a letter, but I have just fired one off to London Midland due to rude staff, and poor service, so I am a bit concerned I maybe turning into Mr Angry

Hopefully Manchester Airport will get its act together, have also had some terrible waits going through security with hand luggage before Christmas.

I fly to Portugal often and also use Liverpool Airport for this too, which tends to be faster terminal transit.

 

[Camden]

Gareth - are you actually suggesting Fflint is part of Liverpool's catchment area? Even the Wirral is tenuous, it's far better connected down the M53 towards Chester than it is across the water to Liverpool. The significant majority of it's catchment area is to the East - Runcorn, Widnes, St Helens, Kirkby, Ormskirk I suppose too.

Of course there are cheaper and more expensive bits of any city, but for a two bedroom, terraced house, not in perhaps the nicest of areas you're talking 75-80k in Manchester vice 40-50k in Liverpool - and even lower in some areas.

Liverpool's already well connected. Hourly train to London, two trains an hour to the North East, plenty of local trains. The local bus network is also impressive. The airport, whilst modest, is efficient and serves a select few destinations.

I maintain, before we worry about things like massive infrastructure projects to improve national and international connections, Liverpool needs to get it's own economy in gear first. Street after street of pound shops, bars and bookies isn't a sustainable economy. It needs money investing in other places first, such as creating meaningful jobs and large scale retail projects.

Why shouldn't Liverpool press for better links into Wales? There is pressure from the other side to do so, as it means access to jobs. It is a natural catchment area, for want of a better phrase.

Your information seems a little out of date or just a bit skewed. Of all the major cities Liverpool is the most poorly connected. It has only one train per hour to the north east (the other is a tortuous journey to Scarborough or York, in North Yorkshire). It has half of a decent railway system, but the bulk of the city served by poor quality connections at frequencies sometimes as low as one train an hour. As a user I would certainly not call one train an hour to Liverpool "good", and on top of this you say the city needs to produce large scale retail projects, well you don't get much bigger than Liverpool 1!

Anyone can pluck meaningless unrepresentative figures to do an area down, on house prices even more so http://www.manchestereveningnews.co...er-news/street-houses-cost-just-15000-5780479 could be anywhere in 100 towns and cities up and down the country.

If you think that Liverpool needs to get its own economy in gear first before massive infrastructure projects for national/international connections, then I assume you wouldn't mind the cancellation of HS2 into Manchester, since it too has a long way to go before it gets its own economy in gear?

Manchester has improved as a direct result of a series of massive investments of this type, starting a long time ago with the work on reconstruction of the arndale area, the ring road work, picc station and the commonwealth games. Had it not had these things there would be nothing to build on. Since this time it has been one major infrastructure investment after another, of many different types. It's called regeneration.

The correlation between a successful city and such investment, including good quality national connections, is obvious and in fact Liverpool not having these connections is like working with one hand tied behind your back. If these come due to large scale or small scale investments doesn't matter in terms of usage, but large scale infrastructure projects are very good at attracting attention and bringing in subsequent peripheral investment (exactly the type you see now happening in Manchester, and which can be used to alleviate the issues you speak of).

As the HS2 line into Liverpool has a good positive business case, why would anyone not want that for the city? What harm does it do to anything?

Alternatively, you can ignore Liverpool, not put any meaningful money into it, and then just kick it continuously for not doing as well as a city that is being heavily invested in. In the meantime that failure to invest (pretty small sums in the scheme of things) costs UK PLC money every single day, and that's the biggest nonsense of it all.

 

[martynbristow]

I am about to send a letter, but I have just fired one off to London Midland due to rude staff, and poor service, so I am a bit concerned I maybe turning into Mr Angry

Hopefully Manchester Airport will get its act together, have also had some terrible waits going through security with hand luggage before Christmas.

I fly to Portugal often and also use Liverpool Airport for this too, which tends to be faster terminal transit.

Yes very true.
Liverpool airport is impressive with efficiency and connections.
I will gladly get the bus to the airport and seem to misplace my bada temper flying there :P
Manchester - large number of destinations, efficient connections during the day ...
Liverpool: Cheap, efficient, painless and has good all hours buses.
Infant when I last flew back I was waiting for the bus before we were due to land... OK i flew ryainair but still it was a whiz through. Manchester they some how have to summon staff from Gatwick if you arrive after midnight and leave you waiting accordingly. If only they were able to fly to more business oriented destinations.