New platforms for Liverpool Lime Street

[Wavertreelad]

It would be prefabricated sections inside the barrage under the locks a tunnel but no where near the cost of boring one. i was under the assumption band B was prefered the eastham garston proposal.

I didn't read the full report, but any barrage would surely have to have structures anchored to the river bed and in order to main the depth for navigation to be maintained in the ship canal the top of any structure would have to be below the depth of sill of the lock. This is approximately 28 feet at high tide unless the barrage is only constructed as far as the island that separates the canal from the river. Even then a fabricated structure or tunnel would need to drop to an even lower safe depth requiring some extensive excavation to gain the necessary clearance. Given the location, and if it was built, it might be better using the barrage for a road connection which like every other crossing on the lower reaches of the Mersey would no doubt be tolled.

 

[HSTEd]

The suggested services after completion of Phases HS1 & 2 are shown here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...on_of_the_service_patterns__January_2013_.pdf

(Link originally posted by "Recliner" in newsgroup uk.railway)

That pattern is weird, groups the Liverpool services but not others.

 

[edwin_m]

The suggested services after completion of Phases HS1 & 2 are shown here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...on_of_the_service_patterns__January_2013_.pdf

(Link originally posted by "Recliner" in newsgroup uk.railway)

I think the latest HS2 documents include a new version, but it's too late at night to go looking for it.

 

[flypie]

I too have given some thought to the Bank Quay Route and I think there are several advantages.
1. It will free up slots for local services Crewe to Liverpool
2. Trains on HS2 will not be held up by those local trains.
3. The distance on Conventional rail is less.
4. You have to also keep in mind that the currently planned Classic Compatibles will not tilt so this may limit maximum speed beyond Crewe to lower than the current speed.

Liverpool badly needs some new platforms long enough to fit the maximum HS2 trains in but also Channel tunnel compatibles.
If Classic compatible was more like an APT2, with tilting and decent brakes we would gain maximum benefit early.
Anyway I summarised it in a blog with a map. http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2013/12/hs2-phase-2-liverpool.html

 

[HSTEd]

Tilting trains above 155 is probably not going to happen any time soon unless someone ressurects the Tilting TGV project.

 

[flypie]

The logic behind http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/p01.html seems to be the same as I'm suggesting and Altsrom now own Fiat and easier way might be to o up rate a Pendelion. With perhaps so powered boggies on additonal cars. Either way it looks like a well risk reduced project.
Perhaps HS2 Ltd should as for a quote before making it's mind up.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Anyway I summarised it in a blog with a map. http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2013/12/hs2-phase-2-liverpool.html

The Timperley-Garston line:
Badly aligned through Warrington (sharp curves, steep embankments, multiple canal/river bridges, poor clearances).
Cheaply built (many level crossings).
The whole elevated section through Latchford would need rebuilding, including the MSC bridge (the condition of which finally closed the line in 1985).
The original 1960 M6 viaduct left the line untouched but I believe the second span in the 90s blocked the route with a wall of concrete.
The line (now part of the Trans Pennine Trail) runs past lots of new NIMBY housing in Lymm and elsewhere.

 

[fowler9]

The Timperley-Garston line:
Badly aligned through Warrington (sharp curves, steep embankments, multiple canal/river bridges, poor clearances).
Cheaply built (many level crossings).
The whole elevated section through Latchford would need rebuilding, including the MSC bridge (the condition of which finally closed the line in 1985).
The original 1960 M6 viaduct left the line untouched but I believe the second span in the 90s blocked the route with a wall of concrete.
The line (now the Pennine Way) runs past lots of new NIMBY housing in Lymm and elsewhere.

Yeah I've walked and cycled along that part of the Trans Pennine Trail. As soon as you come to the M6 heading east you have to drop right off the old track bed and walk along the edge of the A56 under the motorway. You rejoin the old trackbed on the other side of the M6 but it then immediately dips under what appears to be a new bridge on the A56. I am guessing that this used to be a level crossing and is now a mini footpath cutting. I'll be very surprised if that ever gets turned in to a high speed rail route.

 

[HSTEd]

I still prefer my route

It may be a Great Way Round but when you eat up 4+km every minute this isn't as important as it sounds.

 

[flypie]

I'm really only looking for a stop gap measure, cheaper than a totally new line but with a lot of the benefits. If it could only be classic compatible then fine.
It has the advantage of being their. I was envisaging stoping at Warrington so the tight curve round the station would not be a problem.
Is your suggestion similar to http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/3649
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

According to a reliable source Liverpool Lime Street platform 6A (siding) will be brought back into full intercity service use from 2014/15 and will be renamed platform 7. Todays platforms 7,8,9 will be renamed 8,9,10.

This is in response to the upgrade and electrification of the Liverpool - Wigan/Manchester Line.

MerseyTravel have also held talks with TPE and Virgin on new services from Liverpool to Scotland from Jan 2015 once the electrification and new track and platforms at Roby & Huyton have been completed allowing high speed express trains to pass local commuter trains.

I did ask the DfT and Virgin about services to Scotland from Liverpool they said no plans. Virgin said it wasn't up to them. It could be done by extending one of the London services North.
One of the other possibilities that the electrification brings is extending some of the Manchester to London via SoT to Liverpool giving an extra route to London and direct connection to SoT.

 

[Chris125]

Liverpool badly needs some new platforms long enough to fit the maximum HS2 trains in but also Channel tunnel compatibles.

Realistically there is nowhere beyond the dedicated HS1/HS2 network that could justify a cross-channel service, even if there were the paths available. This is especially true given the higher cost of classic-compatible rolling stock plus any modifications they'd need for use under the Channel and in Europe.

If Classic compatible was more like an APT2, with tilting and decent brakes we would gain maximum benefit early.

It's hard to see relatively small time savings beyond the high speed network ever justifying the cost and weight penalty of tilt, especially given the need to develop a suitable design for trainsets that, due to their smaller loading gauge, will be more expensive than their captive equivalents anyway - IIRC HS2 Ltd ruled out tilt following discussions with manufacturers who said high speed tilt was neither in development nor expected to be.

In fact tilt has probably had it's day in this country anyway - the need to maximise track capacity, as well as minimise weight and energy usage to reduce operating costs would make the ordering of further fleets highly unlikely while HS2 and the retirement of the Pendolino fleet may well end it's use on the WCML.

Chris

 

[fowler9]

Trains are going to have to get a hell of a lot faster and cheaper before going to the European mainland on one from Liverpool makes any sense at all beyond people who actually want to do it on a train. That will take a hell of a lot of money on infrastructure.

 

[flypie]

Realistically there is nowhere beyond the dedicated HS1/HS2 network that could justify a cross-channel service, even if there were the paths available. This is especially true given the higher cost of classic-compatible rolling stock plus any modifications they'd need for use under the Channel and in Europe.



It's hard to see relatively small time savings beyond the high speed network ever justifying the cost and weight penalty of tilt, especially given the need to develop a suitable design for trainsets that, due to their smaller loading gauge, will be more expensive than their captive equivalents anyway - IIRC HS2 Ltd ruled out tilt following discussions with manufacturers who said high speed tilt was neither in development nor expected to be.

In fact tilt has probably had it's day in this country anyway - the need to maximise track capacity, as well as minimise weight and energy usage to reduce operating costs would make the ordering of further fleets highly unlikely while HS2 and the retirement of the Pendolino fleet may well end it's use on the WCML.

Chris

Beyond the High speed Network? After Phase 1 that will everywhere that isn't Brum or London. Even when complete it will leave Bristol, all of Wales, Scotland and East Anglia, which is a far chunk of the UK. A Liverpool Paris service would take about as long as the flight, once you take into account checkin times. Extending Liverpool London paths to Paris via OOC would take care of most of the Path issues. The Germans seem keen happy to plan a 5 hour route to London Liverpool Paris would be less. http://www.bahn.com/i/view/GBR/en/about/overview/ice-in-london.shtml this is being done by spliting trains.
As the French managed to modify an ATV then return return it to service, I doubt the modifications are to great.
The ATP design was for 155mph on runs to Scotland that would make a difference, and as ETCS 2 is already in the works would not require re signalling. What is needed is very good brakes. Does any know what the stopping distance required to stay within current blocks is?
A Euro Length Platform would allow longer trains regardless of whether they where Europe bound or not.
The business cases I briefly saw for Regional Eurostar seem to be rather bad post fact justification of a London edition.
A decent classic compatible that was titled and had ATP like braking would be useful on cross country routes. Which are abysmal ATM. Down grading one to 160 mph top end would be relativley simple

 

[Chris125]

Beyond the High speed Network? After Phase 1 that will everywhere that isn't Brum or London. Even when complete it will leave Bristol, all of Wales, Scotland and East Anglia, which is a far chunk of the UK.

I was referring to both phases of HS2, not that it makes much difference - even major cities like Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds would struggle to fill a daily service to Paris based on those currently going by air.

A Liverpool Paris service would take about as long as the flight, once you take into account checkin times. Extending Liverpool London paths to Paris via OOC would take care of most of the Path issues.

Unless there's a relaxation of border and security controls you can't simply extend a domestic service through the channel from either side as all passengers have to go through check-in - this is the problem facing any new international service.

The Germans seem keen happy to plan a 5 hour route to London Liverpool Paris would be less

A plan for which there are precious few details - it is likely to require London-bound passengers to leave the train at Brussels to go through border and security checks, as those on Eurostar services from the south of France currently do at Lille.

It should also be noted that the proposed service between London and Amsterdam/Cologne/Frankfurt is just three trains a day despite these being some of the busiest air-routes in Europe.

As the French managed to modify an ATV then return return it to service, I doubt the modifications are to great.

ATV? If your referring to the tilt prototype, only the unpowered trailers tilted.

What you want is a 225mph+ design with distributed traction to both tilt and fit the UK loading gauge. Not that used by the Eurostar, but an even more restrictive tilt-profile like those used by Voyagers and Pendolinos.

Even if that was practical, you have to consider the development risks and costs involved, and the inevitable downsides - a heavier and therefore slower design of train causing greater track wear than one without tilt. The extra complexity will also increase maintenance costs and reduce reliability, while the tilt-profile will also compromise the interior space - it doesn't make sense.

The ATP design was for 155mph on runs to Scotland that would make a difference, and as ETCS 2 is already in the works would not require re signalling. What is needed is very good brakes.

The railway network is a lot busier these days and will only become more so - there simply aren't the paths for trains doing 155mph, they'd just catch up conventional services - 'better brakes' is also easier said than done, those used on the ATP were not widely adopted.

Chris

 

[flypie]

The lines may be busier these days, but the busiest area will be relieved by HS2.

The development risk are negligible as all of the components exists, there will be no firsts. Some costs yes but again limited.

I hope border retrictions are improved by joining Schengen for instance.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The lines may be busier these days, but the busiest area will be relieved by HS2.

The development risk are negligible as all of the components exists, there will be no firsts. Some costs yes but again limited.

I hope border retrictions are improved by joining Schengen for instance.

Overall the lifetime cost of just building a new high-speed alignment will probably be lower. You need a large fleet for a new-ish train design to be economical to build and run but there are simply not enough places on HS2 which will need them. Church Fenton to Newcastle includes the wonderful straight between Thirsk and Northallerton and then between Darlington and Newcastle the trains are timetabled to stop so they won't be much faster than they are today. Glasgow/Edinburgh to Bamfurlong is the only route which would make any sense physically being served by tilting trains but even then there is only going to be a small number of services per hour so there's not going to be a large fleet needed. After Phase 2 the only way to increase capacity over this section for London-Central Belt trains is to continue the HSR route further as there will be no space on Phase 1 for extra trains so the tilting trains might not be needed for very long at all. We don't know what the proposals will be to get the journey time under 3 hours but if it includes HSR bypasses of the most curvy bits of the route then the case for tilting trains will drop even more. More advanced tilting isn't going to make the northern WCML much faster than it is today - the Pendolinos are faster also because they are EMUs rather than the loco-hauled or HST stock which ran the InterCity duties before them.

I think you underestimate the difficulty in simultaneously achieving two very specialist goals on the railway at one time. Tilting systems are very complicated and add a lot of extra weight. Complexity and weight are things which do not go well with normal high-speed rail. Effectively an HS2 tilting train would have to be the same size as a Pendolino but simultaneously be at least twice as powerful. The only way I see that happening is with power cars, which would massively reduce capacity if the sets were the HS2 standard of 200m long, or make them completely non-standard and unable to join up if they are any longer.

 

[flypie]

Overall the lifetime cost of just building a new high-speed alignment will probably be lower. You need a large fleet for a new-ish train design to be economical to build and run but there are simply not enough places on HS2 which will need them. Church Fenton to Newcastle includes the wonderful straight between Thirsk and Northallerton and then between Darlington and Newcastle the trains are timetabled to stop so they won't be much faster than they are today. Glasgow/Edinburgh to Bamfurlong is the only route which would make any sense physically being served by tilting trains but even then there is only going to be a small number of services per hour so there's not going to be a large fleet needed. After Phase 2 the only way to increase capacity over this section for London-Central Belt trains is to continue the HSR route further as there will be no space on Phase 1 for extra trains so the tilting trains might not be needed for very long at all. We don't know what the proposals will be to get the journey time under 3 hours but if it includes HSR bypasses of the most curvy bits of the route then the case for tilting trains will drop even more. More advanced tilting isn't going to make the northern WCML much faster than it is today - the Pendolinos are faster also because they are EMUs rather than the loco-hauled or HST stock which ran the InterCity duties before them.

I think you underestimate the difficulty in simultaneously achieving two very specialist goals on the railway at one time. Tilting systems are very complicated and add a lot of extra weight. Complexity and weight are things which do not go well with normal high-speed rail. Effectively an HS2 tilting train would have to be the same size as a Pendolino but simultaneously be at least twice as powerful. The only way I see that happening is with power cars, which would massively reduce capacity if the sets were the HS2 standard of 200m long, or make them completely non-standard and unable to join up if they are any longer.

It is possible I am underestimating lots of things but I have yet to find a proper cost benefit analysis of a Tilting Classic compatible, like I've never seen a cost benefit for the reuse of the line I mention in http://peterirate.blogspot.com/2013/12/hs2-phase-2-liverpool.html several of the HS2 assumptions like the rebuild of Euston seem not to be thought out, the reasons for not using OOC as the main station or distributing some terminals down HS1. I totally back the main spine it the various bits at the and that look like they have been designed to satisfy politicians.
It should be easy for HS2/HMG to come up with a proper analysis, then we can all be happy.

 

[BantamMenace]

As for a Euston rebuild would crossrail 3 (I think it is), providing a link between Euston and Waterloo not add more capacity at Euston due to the vast majority of commuter services not terminating there anymore. As a side point this would solve capacity issues at Waterloo as well. If I were in power I'd be pushing this new cross city link like mad. Add to that new dual voltage stock to run from places like Portsmouth/Guildford to Milton Keynes/Northampton would free up LM's upto date AC commuter units to go up north and to the valleys after electrification.

 

[flypie]

As far as I can tell London measures its virility in terms of trains the terminate there. The lack of a proper HS1->HS2 link is perhaps the most illogical bit of the entire plan.

 

[HSTEd]

And where will these trains go.

There is nowhere capable of dispersing anything near 18 trains per hour along HS1.

So then we would pay for a through station that noone would use.

If anything the proposed link is over specification.

 

[flypie]

Some would stop at OOC and some would stop further down HS1. I wasn't proposing not building OOC.

 

[joeykins82]

Merging the SWT and LM franchises wouldn't free up any stock. They're both principally run with Desiro variants but the two franchises in question operate some of the most congested outer-suburban services in the country. If anything the transfer of WCML fasts to HS2 will mean more 110mph outer suburban stock is required for the post-HS2 "LM" franchise. It's possible that this would be done with one giant order a la Thameslink's c700 stock but given that the first tranche of the HS2 captive and compatible stock manufacture would be underway at the same time I think it's unlikely.

Also, it's almost a certainty that platform capacity at Euston will be provided by connecting the WCML slow lines to Crossrail 1 at OOC, and rerouting the LO Euston-WatfordJn services "somewhere" (probably Camden Road but in my ideal world they'd run to New Cross with Camden Road to Highbury & Islington 4-tracked). The Crossrail 2 route that went out for consultation recently connects the Lea Valley lines to the SWML slows at Wimbledon, releasing capacity at Waterloo.

Crossrail 3 wouldn't necessarily have anywhere to go north of London: St Pancras and King's Cross are covered by Thameslink, Euston probably by CR1, Liverpool St by CR1 & 2, Paddington by CR1 and Marylebone doesn't operate frequent enough services to justify a cross-London link on its own.

Terminating the trains in central London is nothing to do with virility: it's because that's where the majority of passengers want to go! If everything terminated at OOC it'd lead to 18tph of people transferring on to Crossrail to get to their intended destination. Stopping at OOC and terminating at Euston distributes the onward load between Crossrail, the 2 branches of the Northern Line, the Victoria Line, the SSR at Euston Square, the bus interchange at Euston and foot passengers on to St Pancras or the vicinity of Euston Station.

 

[HSTEd]

So would stop at OOC and some would stop further down HS1. I wasn't proposing not building OOC.

OOC is in the middle of nowhere.

You would transfer the entire central London load of passengers onto Crossrail.

Crossrail may be a super-tube line but it is not going to be able to handle all those passengers in addition to its regular traffic loading.

And where would they stop?
There aren't sufficient terminating platforms anywhere down HS1 and they can't go off the route because then you throw away the benefits of Captive Gauge.

This way we have both high speed stations within easy walking distance of one anotehr and have multiple routes available to disperse the collosal passenger load HS2 will bring about.

 

[flypie]

OOC is in the middle of nowhere.

You would transfer the entire central London load of passengers onto Crossrail.

Crossrail may be a super-tube line but it is not going to be able to handle all those passengers in addition to its regular traffic loading.

And where would they stop?
There aren't sufficient terminating platforms anywhere down HS1 and they can't go off the route because then you throw away the benefits of Captive Gauge.

This way we have both high speed stations within easy walking distance of one anotehr and have multiple routes available to disperse the collosal passenger load HS2 will bring about.

The OOC site is fairly well connected. It is hardly the middle of nowhere. There are several groups plans which give numbers like http://pancamdenhs2alliance.org/wp-.../3_HS2-stonewalling-on-OOC-vs-Euston-pdf3.pdf

Adding some terminal platforms on HS1 stations is a viable option. Some of the classic compatibles could run on to DOver.

 

[HSTEd]

Thats a study that says HS2 is a horrendous waste of money.

So forgive me if I don't take its findings at face value.

 

[flypie]

Thats a study that says HS2 is a horrendous waste of money.

So forgive me if I don't take its findings at face value.

Doesn't seem to say that in that paper and there are plenty more, that say OOC not Euston. Plus the connection chart does show how the data was obtained. Then of course you can look on various maps and see the proximity of various lines etc to OOC.

 

[BantamMenace]

There aren't sufficient terminating platforms anywhere down HS1 and they can't go off the route because then you throw away the benefits of Captive Gauge.

Long shot alert!

Terminate them on the continent? You can argue that there's no market for a Scottish Central belt to say Frankfurt but there would be a market for the Scotland to London section, midlands and London to France, London to the continent and a market between cities on the continent. Does a route need to have a market for end to end customers? Surely no one can argue that XC operate services aimed at the end to end market but more so the flows mid journey. E.g. No one travels Dundee to Plymouth but there's plenty of flow between Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham and the south west along the way.

 

[joeykins82]

Which either means security checks at every station served by HS2 captive or compatible services, or detraining everyone at Ashford to go through security before entering the chunnel

 

[flypie]

Which either means security checks at every station served by HS2 captive or compatible services, or detraining everyone at Ashford to go through security before entering the chunnel

Why extra security blowing up a train in the Seven Tunnel would be just as bad, but security is not deemed necessary there. Something like the Liverpool Norwich train which is currently slower than going via London, picks up customers along the way. HS2 entire design is based on a bigger willy for London. Londoners are bemused by the idea that people object to spending an hour crossing London to get on a train to finnish their journey.

 

[HSTEd]

Doesn't seem to say that in that paper and there are plenty more, that say OOC not Euston. Plus the connection chart does show how the data was obtained. Then of course you can look on various maps and see the proximity of various lines etc to OOC.

And I quote from Page 2:

The huge damage that would be done in Camden if the terminus were sited at Euston makes a proper comparison between the two sites imperative. That does not mean that HS2 would be acceptable if the terminus were moved. If HS2 did no damage either in Camden or anywhere else in London, it would still be a very bad scheme, and one for which there is no need. The eminent railway professional Chris Stokes has shown that all the capacity required to meet HS2 Ltd.’s demand forecasts, implausibly high though they are, could be met by selective improvements to the existing line and services. The cost would be a fraction of the cost of HS2 and the work could be done much more quickly, with none of the damage that HS2 would inflict on the countryside and London

So it doesn't seem to say that then?

Why extra security blowing up a train in the Seven Tunnel would be just as bad, but security is not deemed necessary there. Something like the Liverpool Norwich train which is currently slower than going via London, picks up customers along the way. HS2 entire design is based on a bigger willy for London. Londoners are bemused by the idea that people object to spending an hour crossing London to get on a train to finnish their journey.

Because the airline lobby demand those security checks.