Multinational bidder list for Merseyrail stock

[Bletchleyite]

I think this is two services - the Llandudno service mentioned would be via Runcorn.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Can you supply a link to this information showing a proposal for a Wirral Line extension to Llandudno? I doubt that city region partners would be happy having their strategic priorities dictated and their network mutated, solely to take north wales over some electrification BCR finish line.

The consideration of extending Wirral Line services onto any electrified North Wales line didn't go as far as Llandudno, Flint was looked at though, basically commuting distance from Liverpool, as it relates to North Wales and M56/M53 corridor.

The first thing to be abundantly clear about - the city region partners are not having their strategic priorities dictated to by anybody, it's an option that Network Rail had looked at to provide an option to funders, of which the city region partners are considered to be.

Merseytravel, local authorities in North Wales, and the Welsh Government have been working on additional routes and additional capacity from North Wales onto Merseyside. The Halton Chord is the most high profile of this, but work has also looked at what benefits and drawbacks result from extending electric services from the Wirral Line along part of any electrified North Wales Coast line.

It's absolutely not a case of forcing Merseyrail to operate services on any newly electrified route, it's about whether it would benefit them if they wanted to do so. Would it benefit their rail service now, would it deliver modal shift, does it open up new housing and development options and so on. There's never been any suggestion any extension to Merseyrail would be forced upon Merseytravel.

The BCR for the North Wales Coast electrification from Chester to Holyhead is poor, but to improve the business case, the Welsh Government specifically asked that additional train services be modelled, over and above the current services which would convert to electric (those would be the London Euston to Chester/North Wales, Manchester Piccadilly to North Wales and Crewe to Chester services).

The additional services modelled were extending all London Euston to Chester services out to either Bangor or Holyhead, an additional Manchester Piccadilly to Llandudno service and a new direct service between Liverpool and North Wales. The Liverpool to North Wales service proposed is unlikely to be routed via the Wirral Line, of course, but all options have been considered. It might have received a firmer proposal to be put to funders is new rolling stock with known technical capabilities (25kV future capability or delivered with dual voltage capability) was known about when the Draft RUS was drawn up.

If you want specific page numbers in the Draft RUS, just ask.

 

[Camden]

The consideration of extending Wirral Line services onto any electrified North Wales line didn't go as far as Llandudno, Flint was looked at though, basically commuting distance from Liverpool, as it relates to North Wales and M56/M53 corridor.

The first thing to be abundantly clear about - the city region partners are not having their strategic priorities dictated to by anybody, it's an option that Network Rail had looked at to provide an option to funders, of which the city region partners are considered to be.

Merseytravel, local authorities in North Wales, and the Welsh Government have been working on additional routes and additional capacity from North Wales onto Merseyside. The Halton Chord is the most high profile of this, but work has also looked at what benefits and drawbacks result from extending electric services from the Wirral Line along part of any electrified North Wales Coast line.

It's absolutely not a case of forcing Merseyrail to operate services on any newly electrified route, it's about whether it would benefit them if they wanted to do so. Would it benefit their rail service now, would it deliver modal shift, does it open up new housing and development options and so on. There's never been any suggestion any extension to Merseyrail would be forced upon Merseytravel.

The BCR for the North Wales Coast electrification from Chester to Holyhead is poor, but to improve the business case, the Welsh Government specifically asked that additional train services be modelled, over and above the current services which would convert to electric (those would be the London Euston to Chester/North Wales, Manchester Piccadilly to North Wales and Crewe to Chester services).

The additional services modelled were extending all London Euston to Chester services out to either Bangor or Holyhead, an additional Manchester Piccadilly to Llandudno service and a new direct service between Liverpool and North Wales. The Liverpool to North Wales service proposed is unlikely to be routed via the Wirral Line, of course, but all options have been considered. It might have received a firmer proposal to be put to funders is new rolling stock with known technical capabilities (25kV future capability or delivered with dual voltage capability) was known about when the Draft RUS was drawn up.

If you want specific page numbers in the Draft RUS, just ask.

As I say, when you said "we" who are you talking about?

And for the bit in bold, yes, again, can you provide the link please. If you also want to provide the page numbers then great.

As it stands you haven't even specified which draft RUS you're referring to.

 

[WatcherZero]

Camden what theybe been looking at is services from Wigan/St Helens or Manchester/Airport running on the City Line to Edge Hill then diving underground to run round the loop and on to wirral. This has the benefit of increasing direct travel options for merseyside residents and freeing space in Lime Street for HS2/HS3 services. Naturally these trains will need to be capable of higher speeds.

This is the plan that what Anderson jumped the gun on and announced a new rail station for while it was still only at the feasability stage, annoying Merseytravel no end.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

As I say, when you said "we" who are you talking about?

And for the bit in bold, yes, again, can you provide the link please. If you also want to provide the page numbers then great.

As it stands you haven't even specified which draft RUS you're referring to.

Welsh RUS refresh (also referred to as the Welsh route study) from March 2015. It's on the NR website somewhere, you'll need to have a look and find it.

Relevant page numbers would be Page 47 for North Wales Coast electrification and ITSS, Page 88/90 for North Wales coast electrification options. Table J for Halton Chord discussion, and reference to Conditional Output CO28 which considers the old Wrexham to Liverpool via Bidston proposal, appearing to be discounted for now, and favouring the routing via Liverpool South Parkway so as to provide airport connectivity.

CO28 has an obscure reference to incompatibility between diesel and third rail being a barrier to service (as it always has been, and why the Wrexham to Birkenhead North services never happened despite being reviewed in the Merseyside 2009 RUS).

I guess you're well aware of the older proposals (which completely avoided inclusion in the updated Wales RUS) for the Borderlands line to be electrified and merged into the Wirral Line, and operated by new dual voltage rolling stock ?

 

[WatcherZero]

Theres more detail on Merseytravels aspiration for Anglo-welsh services and the current constraints here.

http://moderngov.merseytravel.uk.ne...r the future of Welsh Rail Infrastructure.pdf

 

[Bevan Price]

I see perhaps CLC conflicting with priorities to bring the airport online, and then "city line" electrified services creating issues of duplication. I could well imagine instead the northern line terminating at the airport (calling at liverpool south parkway on the way to it), with instead a vastly improved city line service passing through liverpool south parkway from Warrington Central. Each line having six trains an hour perhaps.

6 Merseyrail trains per hour between South Parkway & Warrington Central would require withdrawal of all the express services. Even 4 trains per hour would be very difficult without building some 4 track sections.

We need to distinguish between Merseytravel "hopes" (e.g. tram systems) and "affordable realities".

 

[Camden]

Welsh RUS refresh (also referred to as the Welsh route study) from March 2015. It's on the NR website somewhere, you'll need to have a look and find it.

Relevant page numbers would be Page 47 for North Wales Coast electrification and ITSS, Page 88/90 for North Wales coast electrification options. Table J for Halton Chord discussion, and reference to Conditional Output CO28 which considers the old Wrexham to Liverpool via Bidston proposal, appearing to be discounted for now, and favouring the routing via Liverpool South Parkway so as to provide airport connectivity.

CO28 has an obscure reference to incompatibility between diesel and third rail being a barrier to service (as it always has been, and why the Wrexham to Birkenhead North services never happened despite being reviewed in the Merseyside 2009 RUS).

I guess you're well aware of the older proposals (which completely avoided inclusion in the updated Wales RUS) for the Borderlands line to be electrified and merged into the Wirral Line, and operated by new dual voltage rolling stock ?

OK, here you go: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/welsh-route-study/

As expected, no mention anywhere that I can see of connecting anywhere in Wales other than Wrexham to the Wirral Line. Would you please point to the page where Flint is specified as a potential end destination for Merseyrail?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

OK, here you go: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/welsh-route-study/

As expected, no mention anywhere that I can see of connecting anywhere in Wales other than Wrexham to the Wirral Line. Would you please point to the page where Flint is specified as a potential end destination for Merseyrail?

I've already said it was something that was looked at but it's not in the Draft Wales RUS refresh at this stage, it's effectively in the same category as the electrification of the Borderlands Line which was considered as an extension of sorts of the Wirral Line, something that has been looked at and considered, but not brought forward to date.

I can only tell you what we've looked at, not what was progressed through to the route study to present to funders. You'll note earlier, I specifically said it might have been something that would be put forward to funders had the rolling stock strategy being pursued by Merseytravel been further developed at the time.

Now, what else can I help you with, or are you simply out to be contrary for the hell of it, or maybe you're just completely underestimating and failing to understand the work Network Rail put into reviewing the proposed electrification of the North Wales Coast line in order to put the proposal to funders.

 

[Camden]

I've already said it was something that was looked at but it's not in the Draft Wales RUS refresh at this stage, it's effectively in the same category as the electrification of the Borderlands Line which was considered as an extension of sorts of the Wirral Line, something that has been looked at and considered, but not brought forward to date.

I can only tell you what we've looked at, not what was progressed through to the route study to present to funders. You'll note earlier, I specifically said it might have been something that would be put forward to funders had the rolling stock strategy being pursued by Merseytravel been further developed at the time.

Now, what else can I help you with, or are you simply out to be contrary for the hell of it, or maybe you're just completely underestimating and failing to understand the work Network Rail put into reviewing the proposed electrification of the North Wales Coast line in order to put the proposal to funders.

I haven't been contrary, I'm asking for substantiation of your various statements. And following your instructions to find the information you appear to have suggested exists (only to not find anything talking about terminating Merseyrail at Flint). And you still haven't said who you mean when you say "we".

You need to look at the work we've done on electrification of the North Wales Coast, additional electric services are the only way to get a BCR close to what would conventionally be approved. That's why additional services to Llandudno have been modelled and why the extension of some services from the Wirral Line have also been modelled.

There's a bit in the Draft RUS with recommendations to funders.

Not that I could spot. And now I'm a little confused regarding your first sentence above, where you now say it's not in the draft RUS. So why suggest I look in it.

If you want specific page numbers in the Draft RUS, just ask.

I did ask, but on the pages suggested I didn't find anything of note.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Who is wasting whose time here.

I've no idea what I've done to upset you, or why you've been determined to pick fault (or accuse me of lying, if that's the gist of your recent missive) with regards to what I've told you, do carry on if it makes you feel better.

I can only tell you what has been looked at and why. If you really don't wish to believe it, I can't help you further.

 

[Chester1]

My guess is that further electrifcation is more likely to reduce the size of the Merseyrail franchise and not increase it. I doubt electrifcation of the borderlands line, Kirkby-Wigan, Ormskirk or a tunnel linking the city lines to Liverpool Central will happen. However, electrifying the CLC is likely in the next 10 years or so. Current policy is to replace 3rd rail with overhead when sensible and retaining 3rd rail between Liverpool South Parkway and Hunts Cross doesnt make much sense. Its possible that Merserail services could be extended with dual stock but there are already capacity issues on the northern line and it would be easier to cut back Merseyrail services to Liverpool South Parkway and serve Hunts Cross with current and new Northern services and peak time express stops. Southport to LSP is currently 59 minutes and new stock would add enough buffer time. Most services are 6 coaches so this would save 4 x 3 car units.

Edit: 62mph speed limit is possible but it would make a noticable difference to some routes, Bache-Hooton would probably take an extra minute and there is only 3 minutes turn around time in Chester, this section was upgraded from 60mph to 75mph in 2011 to add extra buffer time when Liverpool to Chester went 4tph. 100mph is unnecessary but 75mph is a minimium, politically it would be a hard sell to replace 1970s trains with ones that have a top speed that is signifcantly lower.

 

[NotATrainspott]

My guess is that further electrifcation is more likely to reduce the size of the Merseyrail franchise and not increase it. I doubt electrifcation of the borderlands line, Kirkby-Wigan, Ormskirk or a tunnel linking the city lines to Liverpool Central will happen. However, electrifying the CLC is likely in the next 10 years or so. Current policy is to replace 3rd rail with overhead when sensible and retaining 3rd rail between Liverpool South Parkway and Hunts Cross doesnt make much sense. Its possible that Merserail services could be extended with dual stock but there are already capacity issues on the northern line and it would be easier to cut back Merseyrail services to Liverpool South Parkway and serve Hunts Cross with current and new Northern services and peak time express stops. Southport to LSP is currently 59 minutes and new stock would add enough buffer time. Most services are 6 coaches so this would save 4 x 3 car units.

Edit: 62mph speed limit is possible but it would make a noticable difference to some routes, Bache-Hooton would probably take an extra minute and there is only 3 minutes turn around time in Chester, this section was upgraded from 60mph to 75mph in 2011 to add extra buffer time when Liverpool to Chester went 4tph. 100mph is unnecessary but 75mph is a minimium, politically it would be a hard sell to replace 1970s trains with ones that have a top speed that is signifcantly lower.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the City line connection tunnel. There's a limited amount of space available at Lime Street and it'll need to handle more and more express train services. Even without other rebuilding/gauge-clearing work for HS2, trains will be longer and more frequent. Building the link tunnel would save you the hassle of needing to keep platform space available for local services which would be better running through the Merseyrail tunnels. It also allows you to dedicate two of the tracks up to Edge Hill to HS2/NPR services, leaving the other two for residual classic line regional and express services.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about the City line connection tunnel. There's a limited amount of space available at Lime Street and it'll need to handle more and more express train services. Even without other rebuilding/gauge-clearing work for HS2, trains will be longer and more frequent. Building the link tunnel would save you the hassle of needing to keep platform space available for local services which would be better running through the Merseyrail tunnels. It also allows you to dedicate two of the tracks up to Edge Hill to HS2/NPR services, leaving the other two for residual classic line regional and express services.

Though you're then shifting the capacity issue to Liverpool Central (higher level) where platform space is at a premium. A solution could be to extend the Ormskirk and Kirkby services onto the City line (Warrington BQ, Wigan, Warrington Central perhaps?) but if extending all 8tph that's a lot of space to find. Chester via Halton Curve is another option as is Ellesmere Port, Crewe via Runcorn and Hartford is probably a step too far though.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Though you're then shifting the capacity issue to Liverpool Central (higher level) where platform space is at a premium. A solution could be to extend the Ormskirk and Kirkby services onto the City line (Warrington BQ, Wigan, Warrington Central perhaps?) but if extending all 8tph that's a lot of space to find. Chester via Halton Curve is another option as is Ellesmere Port, Crewe via Runcorn and Hartford is probably a step too far though.

As you said though, this isn't an insurmountable problem. Solving it would have other benefits for the city as well, unlike just expanding Lime Street. If despite all attempts you end up with an unbalanced service pattern, then you just need to put a turnback siding in some convenient spot. You could have a turnback at Edge Hill, just before the Merseyrail tracks merge into the normal NR network.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As you said though, this isn't an insurmountable problem. Solving it would have other benefits for the city as well, unlike just expanding Lime Street. If despite all attempts you end up with an unbalanced service pattern, then you just need to put a turnback siding in some convenient spot. You could have a turnback at Edge Hill, just before the Merseyrail tracks merge into the normal NR network.

Ideally you'd want a standard service pattern, but there probably isn't capacity for 4tph on any of the City line routes, so perhaps something like alternate Ormskirk services extending to Chester/Ellesmere Port, with Kirkby services alternating between Wigan NW and Warrington BQ. Certainly that could in the longer term lead to oddities such as services from Wigan Wallgate bay via Kirkby and Liverpool Central to Wigan NW, but nobody would travel end to end except a handful of gricers!

 

[Tremzinho]

Though you're then shifting the capacity issue to Liverpool Central (higher level) where platform space is at a premium. A solution could be to extend the Ormskirk and Kirkby services onto the City line (Warrington BQ, Wigan, Warrington Central perhaps?) but if extending all 8tph that's a lot of space to find. Chester via Halton Curve is another option as is Ellesmere Port, Crewe via Runcorn and Hartford is probably a step too far though.

As others have said, Lime Street's capacity problems are only going to get worse, and sooner or later something will have to be done, especially if the reopening of stations on the Bootle Branch eventually happens.

Passive provision was originally made for an extra higher level platform at Liverpool Central to cater for southbound services, which would enable the island platform to be dedicated to all northbound and terminating services.

This is listed as an option in NR's long term strategy for coping with grown at Central. Another option listed is a new Northern Line station between Central and Moorfields (by Whitechapel) which would absorb much of Central's traffic from the Liverpool 1 shopping area.

Either of these options would create enough extra capacity to either run the current 8 tph terminators at Central through the Wapping Tunnel to Edge Hill and beyond. Alternatively you could probably fit in a new 4tph service terminating at James Street.

All this would probably cost about £150 Million, but any alternative option would be likely to be at least as expensive and far more disruptive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ideally you'd want a standard service pattern, but there probably isn't capacity for 4tph on any of the City line routes, so perhaps something like alternate Ormskirk services extending to Chester/Ellesmere Port, with Kirkby services alternating between Wigan NW and Warrington BQ.

Then you make a simple network complicated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Passive provision was originally made for an extra higher level platform

In what form exactly? The existing "low level" platforms are only just below ground. Though there is I believe a small tunnel that runs parallel to the present platforms on the same level, I've seen old diagrams showing it.

 

[Tremzinho]

In what form exactly? The existing "low level" platforms are only just below ground. Though there is I believe a small tunnel that runs parallel to the present platforms on the same level, I've seen old diagrams showing it.

I believe they are just headshunts into a new tunnel at both ends. You can see the northern one from the train shortly before entering the station. As I understand it, a new tunnel would have to be built under the booking hall.

On balance I suspect it will cost almost as much as building the new Whitechapel station, although with probably less passenger benefit. So it will probably depend on whether it can be built without needing to close Central for months.

 

[Camden]

While the above could happen my understanding is that the Liverpool Central of the future (late 2020s) may have capacity issues more acute than those recently alleviated, to such an extent that the solution put forward may be to actually move it rather than jig around with the existing platforms or try to add one, which does nothing about the existing platforms capacity nor capacity of reaching them.

The Wirral Line platform would undoubtedly stay where it is, however new Northern Line platforms might be constructed under Church Street, from where access would then be gained.

I think it's a reasonable assumption to make that this would accommodate the trains diverted away from Lime Street too.

 

[Class 170101]

Edit: 62mph speed limit is possible but it would make a noticable difference to some routes, Bache-Hooton would probably take an extra minute and there is only 3 minutes turn around time in Chester, this section was upgraded from 60mph to 75mph in 2011 to add extra buffer time when Liverpool to Chester went 4tph. 100mph is unnecessary but 75mph is a minimium, politically it would be a hard sell to replace 1970s trains with ones that have a top speed that is signifcantly lower.

Politically it might be great to go for a top speed of 100mph but for how often and for how long would that speed be achieved?

Whilst not so news grabbing its actually better to improve your minimum speeds, its usually cheaper, almost certainly easier to achieve and more trains can make use of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe they are just headshunts into a new tunnel at both ends. You can see the northern one from the train shortly before entering the station. As I understand it, a new tunnel would have to be built under the booking hall.

Quite possibly, though it'd be easier than in some places because, unless something has been built there since they took them, the Google aerial photos show much of the old "high level" station as just a car park and similar temporary stuff, so cut and cover wouldn't be out of the question for some of it. Though a new building seems to have gone in on top of what I think is the current platforms between the older Bing photos and the newer Google ones, it might be cheaper just to buy it and knock it down then rebuild once the new platforms are in place.