Now that we have a splendid new ferry terminal surely it is time to consider the possibilities of a ferry-liner to France or Spain from Liverpool city centre.
Hull ferries do so yet in terms of cost and distance there's not a lot in it. They also have a very small population to draw from.
Liverpool to Cherbourg or Brest for instance. Then on to France by motorway, or go direct to Bilbao or Santander in Spain.
Why go to the enormous expense of creating a trans-Britain rail goods network? Why not decimate the endless convoy of road transported goods from Liverpool in the west to Hull in the east? Go direct.
I can only use guess work but I reckon that the considerable population of the west (over 5 million in Greater Manchester alone) would fill the ferry-liners.
Just turn left at the Bar, south through St George's Channel and what a maritime chill. This would be the ultimate booze cruise.
Has anyone got any theories that would show it to be impractical or otherwise?

Now that we have a splendid new ferry terminal surely it is time to consider the possibilities of a ferry-liner to France or Spain from Liverpool city centre.
Hull ferries do so yet in terms of cost and distance there's not a lot in it. They also have a very small population to draw from.
Liverpool to Cherbourg or Brest for instance. Then on to France by motorway, ...
Has anyone got any theories that would show it to be impractical or otherwise? I'm not sure which terminal you mean.

The cruise liner facility is new, but it's not a terminal, still less ferry terminal, it's for visitors mid-cruise.

The Mersey Ferries' construction at Pier Head is incomplete, it has a way to go yet.

And as to motorways, the "newish" road vehicle terminal is 12 Quays, Birkenhead. Perfectly feasible to run car ferries to France or Spain from there, but it's dubious how much terminal spare capacity there is.

But if you want thoughts, it seems to me that with little or no modification (perhaps some dredging), the Seacombe ferry terminal may be able to accommodate larger vessels than it does today. Heck, even the much-loved Royal Iris III was two and a half times the tonnage of the ex-Birkenhead ferry boats.

I wonder, for example, whether the vessel Ocean Majesty that was recently in Langton Dock could berth at Seacombe? http://www.pagemoy.com/Ocean_Majesty.aspx 10,400 tons, 433ft LOA. The Seacombe stage is about 350ft long and there's plenty of room for mooring dolphins. I can't find the draft at the Seacombe stage on the Internet.

Yes, for the short term that would be the best bet, Merseytravel should seriously look at having medium size ships berth at Seacombe (Woodside and the present Pier Head stages are smaller). The view (and smell) at Seacombe stage is a million times better than the one at Langton Dock. It could be money for old rope for Merseytravel.

Unfortunately passenger ferries no longer make any money, and haven't done so since the end of duty-free sales a few years back. It's the freight which now makes profits for the ferry companies (have you noticed how mosst of the ferries out of Liverpool, and elsewhere now, are designed around freight?) and there simply wouldn't be a demand for such a long crossing to nowhere. Passengers, other than those who are shipping enthusiasts, will now generally fly low-cost and hire a car.

The long routes out of Hull are successful for two reasons - the crossing time is about right for a freight driver to take his/her legal overnight break, and the continental ports are handily placed for industrial Europe - north-west France, Benelux and northern Germany.

A shipping firm recently tried to operate a freight service from Liverpool to Leixoes, Portugal, which folded quickly due to lack of demand. In terms of lorry movements, nobody really wants to go to Western France. Spain would be just too long a crossing - it takes 18 hours from Plymouth, it's be at least 30 hours from Liverpool, and the demand probably isn't there to sustain the existing crossings from Portsmouth and Plymouth plus a new one from Liverpool.

Terminal-wise, any new service would almost certainly operate out of Gladstone Dock (where P&O are now). Norfolkline seem to have a tight grip on Twelve Quays.

wrong end of the telescope?

What about a Eurostar link from the liners, not ferries, at the landing stage via a new rail terminal at the end of Waterloo Tunnel to any point in the European Rail network - re-open a tourism route from North America to Europe (with up to 30 ocean liners booked for 2008 as a start)

What I like about this site; you always get well considered informative replies. Thanks - I just do hope that with the new terminal, and the better one they have in mind something presents itself as having potential. Would love to sail out of the Mersey and across the bar again. Bit too old now to sign on as an AB.

wrong end of the telescope?
What about a Eurostar link from the liners, not ferries, at the landing stage via a new rail terminal at the end of Waterloo Tunnel to any point in the European Rail network - re-open a tourism route from North America to Europe (with up to 30 ocean liners booked for 2008 as a start)If you're talking about passengers then it depends where the cruise terminal(s) is or are. There seems to be a case for a big terminal North of the CLF and also a small one elsewhere to take ships like the Ocean Majesty. In any case a Merseytram circle line to Lime Street would be plenty sufficient for passengers, there's no need for new Riverside Station (unless there's to be whole new West Coast Mainline as some have proposed).

What is needed though is an upgrade of freight rail connection to the Port of Liverpool (Seaforth, Canada docks etc). More than mere Olive Mount Chord reinstatement. 25kV overhead electrification from the West Coast Mainline at Earlestown together with loading gauge clearance of a diversionary route are what is needed - especially for the coming Seaforth post-Panamax stuff. Once the NorthWest passage opens (it won't be long) the container traffic from the Artic will become huge.

A new Riverside with West Coast Line links has strategic benefits for immediate area and the expansion of the city. Lime Street would be out of the loop, literally, and Edge Hill would be re-energised.

If you're talking about passengers then it depends where the cruise terminal(s) is or are. There seems to be a case for a big terminal North of the CLF and also a small one elsewhere to take ships like the Ocean Majesty. In any case a Merseytram circle line to Lime Street would be plenty sufficient for passengers, there's no need for new Riverside Station (unless there's to be whole new West Coast Mainline as some have proposed).

What is needed though is an upgrade of freight rail connection to the Port of Liverpool (Seaforth, Canada docks etc). More than mere Olive Mount Chord reinstatement. 25kV overhead electrification from the West Coast Mainline at Earlestown together with loading gauge clearance of a diversionary route are what is needed - especially for the coming Seaforth post-Panamax stuff. Once the NorthWest passage opens (it won't be long) the container traffic from the Artic will become huge.

Merseytram? It all focused on re-use of the Waterloo and Wapping tunnels and breaking into these at various points to merge tunnels and cut in stations.

A station will be needed at the end of the Waterloo tunnel to cater for the 1000s of flats to be built around the area - maybe with a connection onto the adjacent Northern line. This could also serve any cruise liner terminal etc, if need be, as did the old Riverside station.

Yes, a high throughput for rail to shift containers out of the port fast is needed too.

Arctic traffic? Far eastern traffic!! It lops off a 1000s of miles to Japan, Taiwan, etc. However very little difference from Liverpool to San Francisco vs the Panama Canal. If the Middle East erupted again, and the Suez Canal blocked yet again, then the Arctic passages wold then also serve India as well.

The North West Passage may not be free of ice 100% of the time. Also there is the eastern passage, via the top of Russia and Siberia. These ice free seaways are the reason why Russia, Canada, USA, Norway and Denmark are getting irritated and bolshie over the who own the North Pole. The north Pole is not a land mass, so these people all appear mad to me.

Liverpool should capitalise on the increased traffic via these Arctic passages, as the city is in an ideal position, geographically and with ready made and improving facilities, to accommodate the the shipping.

I fear politics may prevent ships from using the passage. Also, shippers would want some sort of reasonable rescue service in place in case ships hit ice. This may add to the cost, as a fee may be charged to us the passages.

...A station will be needed at the end of the Waterloo tunnel to cater for the 1000s of flats to be built around the area - maybe with a connection onto the adjacent Northern line. This could also serve any cruise liner terminal etc, if need be, as did the old Riverside station...

Before Exchange Station opened, Great Howard Street Station (at the same level as the Northern Line) had a pedestrian connection to Waterloo Goods Depot at Dock Road Level below.

When Exchange opened GHS became a Goods depot as well.

Verging slightly off topic here, but:

Last week I was trying to research how I could get to Dublin as a foot passenger, preferably from Liverpool, but drew a blank - all that I got was for a car booking. Does anybody know if you can get a foot passenger ticket from Liverpool to Dublin?

... Arctic traffic? Far eastern traffic!! It lops off a 1000s of miles to Japan, Taiwan, etc. However very little difference from Liverpool to San Francisco vs the Panama Canal.
...
I fear politics may prevent ships from using the passage. Also, shippers would want some sort of reasonable rescue service in place in case ships hit ice. This may add to the cost, as a fee may be charged to us the passages.1. As to San Francisco, post-Panamax ships can use the NorthWest Passage but not the Panama canal.

2. As to politics, the Canadians just possibly might be smart enough to see the light and offer a "service" for a fixed fee (to NorthWest passage users) to include "safety" monitoring by the Canadian coastguard and (attempted) icebreaker or other rescue in the unlikely event that should prove necessary. The Canadians can use the Panama Canal fees as a guide for what the market will bear and the shippers can save face by saying that buying Canadian "safety services" is just good economic sense, gets them a break on insurance prices.

Everyone gets to save face, the Canadians Coastguard gets to order ships about (for their safety) and monitor (spy on) their passage, no-one is "obliged" to get permission from the Canadians (you just look stupid to Lloyds if you don't). Everyone wins. The Canadians can even offer a Pilotage service if they want their costs to go way up.

1. As to San Francisco, post-Panamax ships can use the NorthWest Passage but not the Panama canal.


But!!! would there be a need for post-Panamax vessels using one long runs using only two ports. Although a post-Panamax could stop at a number of west coast US ports. I see Rotterdam - Felixstowe to west coast via the passage if UK demand is not there, by-passing Liverpool. If UK demand is there then Liverpool may scrape it the ports is nearer to the industrial and population heartland - it cost more to transport a container in the UK from the port than to take it across the Atlantic by ship. Land transportation cost may bight as fuel gets more expensive.

Is there enough UK - West coast US demand for such traffic? The route may create it though. I see north eastern US vessels using the north west passage to sail to SF. Thee should be enough Fart east - UK traffic to justify Liverpool running post-Panamax ships through the passage.

If the US has its head screwed on they could take a ship canal from western point of the Great Lakes to the Pacific - the lakes must go about 2,000 miles inland, alas no super large vessels can get down the St. Lawrence Seaway, although they can sail in the lakes though. There are very large vessels in the lakes that cannot get out. Any canal would be lonnnnnng though, although ports could be built along its length making it a commercial/industrial corridor.

1. As to San Francisco, post-Panamax ships can use the NorthWest Passage but not the Panama canal.


The passage is not free of ice all year around. This year was the first year it was ice free all summer that is all. So only a half year route.

GET ONE TO GO TO SANTANDER:PDT_Piratz_26:

i would love to go there, but it is so expensive to make the journey.
all the way down south, then the ferry trip. its too long.

A nice relaxing cruise from Liverpool :cha (41)::wynar::RAP_1::PDT_Xtremez_28:yes please.

...
If the US has its head screwed on they could take a ship canal from western point of the Great Lakes to the Pacific - ...
Canada is really in the driver's seat on the NorthWest passage.

If they want to open the NorthWest passage up (albeit only seasonally for the first decade or so) and make money on it and gain prestige and have their coastguard have a big presence in the waters then they will. The Panama canal provides great business data on what the market will bear.

But they prefer to be obstructionist and make the world hate them, and make no money out of it, well that is in their power also.

If the NorthWest passage container trade is initially seasonal rather than year-round that can work to Liverpool's advantage.