PDA

View Full Version : Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008



oritelad
02-10-2008, 05:15 PM
Wow just been to look at the waterloo tunnel and wow after all these years since the early 1970s the tunnel and the site of the old hodson street station is clear of all them years off overgrowth and rubbish i got some boss photos, anyone have any updates on the plan to for the new merseyrail line for this tunnel?

http://s153.photobucket.com/albums/s240/oldliverpoolrailways/Hodson/

Kev
02-10-2008, 05:17 PM
urh, hurry up and post your pics!! I would have loved to had seen the tunnel :PDT_Piratz_26::handclap::PDT11

Waterways
02-10-2008, 08:17 PM
Wow just been to look at the waterloo tunnel and wow after all these years since the early 1970s the tunnel and the site of the old hodson street station is clear of all them years off overgrowth and rubbish i got some boss photos, anyone have any updates on the plan to for the new merseyrail line for this tunnel?

Yes, post the pics. "Hodson St" station is still in question. :) Anything from Merseyrail tends to be a wish-list rather than firm plans.

Ged
02-11-2008, 10:58 AM
The 4th pic on your photobucket is way out of date. It was taken during the demolition of Fonney Oy in 1988/89.

PhilipG
02-11-2008, 11:14 AM
Yes, post the pics. "Hodson St" station is still in question. :) Anything from Merseyrail tends to be a wish-list rather than firm plans.

I'm not an expert on railways, but I can't see the point of an intermediate station on what was a Goods line.
The Victoria and the Wapping tunnels were built to transport goods between Edge Hill and the Docks (North and South).
What would an intermediate station be used for, and isn't it significant that there aren't any in the Wapping tunnel?

shoney
02-11-2008, 11:30 AM
i'm way out of contact but is the jist of the story / pics that it has taken 100 years plus to un-improve the place, if so i'm not surprised, stations we needed 100 years ago are useless as we now have cars, lorrys etc... they are nice to see in the regard of the way we used to live but also we used cut up squares of newspaper instead of toilet tissue, nice to remember but nobody's going back to it, maybe you could initiate a book /forum telling us how exactly it used to be, who went there and why coupled up with some more photos for old times sake,

Ged
02-11-2008, 11:38 AM
As i've said before, I lived a stones throw from this site and never knew of a station ever being there, (although of course there could've been many moons earlier) Mike Delamar who comes on this site now and again, is a sort of authority on railways, having the Crown st layout at the last Liverpool railway exhibition show and knows the chaps working on the Lime st one. He's read all the books, got all the pics and is a chum of a very old bloke who worked on the steam engines and if he says there wasn't a station at Hodson Street, I believe him. He reckons the cutting there is only so big as to be an access point for any problems below.

Waterways
02-11-2008, 02:45 PM
As i've said before, I lived a stones throw from this site and never knew of a station ever being there, (although of course there could've been many moons earlier) Mike Delamar who comes on this site now and again, is a sort of authority on railways, having the Crown st layout at the last Liverpool railway exhibition show and knows the chaps working on the Lime st one. He's read all the books, got all the pics and is a chum of a very old bloke who worked on the steam engines and if he says there wasn't a station at Hodson Street, I believe him. He reckons the cutting there is only so big as to be an access point for any problems below.

I could understand the overlarge cutting being at the half-way point, however it is not. It is very near to the Waterloo Dock exit of the tunnel. The Tunnel has two names. and changes name around this point. This may indicate why the cutting is there.

The cutting is overlarge for ventilation purposes and must have had some other purpose. Or it was for another reason and plans changed and it was kept. In London and NY whole underground stations were built and never used as plans changed in mid project.

oritelad
02-11-2008, 05:44 PM
as i have said before i am not saying hodson station was a proper station at all but we should not just ignore it from what i know there was platforms, station building down there and stairs leading down and this station is not listed on any maps but from what i know it was there and never lasted long even my granddad has used it has he lived by it all his life, it was more for access and rail workers ect not for passengers really but this station was built to be a proper station but the plan was scraped remember this line was used by passengers to reach riverside station from edge hill and i cant find any records of alcar rifle range station or millers bridge station or british anka great howard street but we know they where there dont know why everyone is so against hodson station not being there

Waterways
02-11-2008, 06:53 PM
as i have said before i am not saying hodson station was a proper station at all but we should not just ignore it from what i know there was platforms, station building down there and stairs leading down and this station is not listed on any maps but from what i know it was there and never lasted long even my granddad has used it has he lived by it all his life, it was more for access and rail workers ect not for passengers really but this station was built to be a proper station but the plan was scraped remember this line was used by passengers to reach riverside station from edge hill and i cant find any records of alcar rifle range station or millers bridge station or british anka great howard street but we know they where there dont know why everyone is so against hodson station not being there

The station, if it was there, is out of living memory. There is no photographic evidence or written of any sort so far, so people will naturally assume one was not there.

You say your Grandad used it for work purposes. I don't disbelieve you, however a stop for workers is rather different to a full blown passenger station. Also as the cutting is so close to Waterloo why would a stop be in the tunnel? It doesn't make sense. I am not saying it wasn't there, just that nothing logically fits about using the cutting as a station for any reason.

mikewturner
02-11-2008, 08:01 PM
Hi Guys

I thought I cleared up the reason why the cutting was wide here on another thread which I have copied below. I have never found any reference to a station at this place in the various LNWR minute books I have studied at the PRO. Without wishing to disrespectfull memories cloud as we get older. My wife's father often talked about the 14 stations on the overhead railway and wouldn't believe me when I told him he was wrong even when I showed him the book 'Seventeen Stations to Dingle'!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
The cutting is way too large for ventilation and is station sized. This naturally makes people think there was a station there. I have a hunch provision was put for one in case when the tunnel was being cut.

Ah well if that's the reason I can clear this up. The cutting was wide because that was the location of the runaway catch points. The one on the line to Waterloo ran off towards the wall. The one on the line to Edge Hill ran off between the running lines hence they would be set at a wider interval.

Mike Turner

Waterways
02-11-2008, 08:27 PM
Ah well if that's the reason I can clear this up. The cutting was wide because that was the location of the runaway catch points. The one on the line to Waterloo ran off towards the wall. The one on the line to Edge Hill ran off between the running lines hence they would be set at a wider interval.

Mike Turner

I'm not quite sure how that works. Are you saying there was a widening of the tunnel at this point?

mikewturner
02-11-2008, 09:23 PM
I'm not quite sure how that works. Are you saying there was a widening of the tunnel at this point?

Hi

Yes the cutting was wider as effectively it had to accomodate four lines. The two normal running lines plus a runoff to the side of one of them and another into the middle between them like this if you get what I mean.

Edge Hill
>__________________\___________________ Waterloo

<__________________/___________________

The cutting here is close to the base of rising gradients towards Edge Hill and Waterloo.

I will scan an extract of a plan and post when I get a chance.

Regards

Mike

Waterways
02-11-2008, 09:39 PM
Hi

Yes the cutting was wider as effectively it had to accomodate four lines. The two normal running lines plus a runoff to the side of one of them and another into the middle between them like this if you get what I mean.

Edge Hill
>__________________\___________________ Waterloo

<__________________/___________________

The cutting here is close to the base of rising gradients towards Edge Hill and Waterloo.

I will scan an extract of a plan and post when I get a chance.

Regards

Mike

Yes, from Waterloo to Hodson St it is pretty flat then a sharp rise.

jc_everton
02-12-2008, 02:08 PM
Whether there was a station there 100 years ago or not is pretty irrelevant in my eyes.
From a student's point of view, such as myself, a new 'metro' station at Byrom St (or Fontenoy) would be fantastic.
I am at Byrom St, along with around 2000 other students and hundreds of staff. The only car parking is for staff, and this is set to close in the future - I think the uni wants to encourage more 'environmentally sustainable' ways of travelling to Byrom St.
Also near this 'station' are many student flats, the Avril Robarts library, the museum, art gallery, and of course the excellent Ship & Mitre pub!

Another way of looking at this in a 'student' perspective is that this tunnel effectively ends up at Edge Hill. It is around this area that many students live, and if a new station was constructed around Smithdown, access to Byrom St for students would be easier, quicker, more 'sustainable', and help ease road congestion.

One more issue as regards this line and universities, is the even better prospect of opening a new station somewhere around the Liverpool University district, serving even more students. I know the line runs underneath The Dental University, which is more or less in the heart of the university area, but I'm not sure where the exits would be. This shouldn't be a problem though, as some underground exits are so small, you wouldn't know they were.

Waterways
02-12-2008, 02:50 PM
Whether there was a station there 100 years ago or not is pretty irrelevant in my eyes.
From a student's point of view, such as myself, a new 'metro' station at Byrom St (or Fontenoy) would be fantastic.
I am at Byrom St, along with around 2000 other students and hundreds of staff. The only car parking is for staff, and this is set to close in the future - I think the uni wants to encourage more 'environmentally sustainable' ways of travelling to Byrom St.
Also near this 'station' are many student flats, the Avril Robarts library, the museum, art gallery, and of course the excellent Ship & Mitre pub!

Another way of looking at this in a 'student' perspective is that this tunnel effectively ends up at Edge Hill. It is around this area that many students live, and if a new station was constructed around Smithdown, access to Byrom St for students would be easier, quicker, more 'sustainable', and help ease road congestion.

One more issue as regards this line and universities, is the even better prospect of opening a new station somewhere around the Liverpool University district, serving even more students. I know the line runs underneath The Dental University, which is more or less in the heart of the university area, but I'm not sure where the exits would be. This shouldn't be a problem though, as some underground exits are so small, you wouldn't know they were.

I have previously posted this....

If the Shanghai Tower at Princes Half-Tide Dock is approved, Merseyrail has to seriously consider reopening the Waterloo tunnel which emerges adjacent. This tower may have a cascade affect of development from it further inland too and then Byrom St may need a station at Fontenoy cutting in the tunnel.

Get the underground rail infrastructure in place and the rest will follow. This may need serious public money invested in the Merseyrail system - essential.

An outer Liverpool city centre underground circle line should be a priority to regenerate the inner city. As outlined in another thread:


Take the Garston line at Otterspool under Otterspool Park (cut and cover). Easy to do across parkland.

Into Aigburth Vale, and build an underground station here serving that centre.

Down Aigburth Rd to Dingle (cut and cover again) and a station at Lark Lane, serving that centre.

Up to Dingle from Lark Lane and branch into the Dingle tunnel

Re-commission the disused Dingle station serving that centre.

Re-commission the Dingle tunnel and install a gantry that takes the tracks to low level and back into the Garston line at the Herculaneum Dock.

Abandon the St Micheal's Station and the line from Otterspool to Herculaneum.

From the top of Aigburth Rd branch along Ullyet Rd and across Princes Park (cut and Cover), to Lodge Lane/Sefton Pk Rd. Easy to do across parkland.

Build a station at Sefton Park Rd serving the park and that centre.

Take the tunnel up Lodge Lane (cut and cover)

Build a station in Lodge Lane and serve that centre.

Up Tunnel Rd to Edge Hill junction.

Down the Waterloo Tunnel from Edge Hill

Cut out of the tunnel a new station at London Rd serving that centre

Cut out of the tunnel a new station at Byrom St serving that centre
Out at Waterloo Dock

Build a station here serving that centre

Branch onto the northern line and back to the city centre.


This outer city center underground loop serves many centres which would act as a catalyst for regeneration in all of them - re-generate the inner city!!!!! Two existing tunnels, the Waterloo and Dingle, would be re-commissioned alleviating much of the cost with the rest being mainly cut and cover.

It would be quite cheap for what it would offer and the re-birth of the inner city. What city has such a legacy that is easily adapted to provide such a base in which to re-generate the inner city? Most other cities in the world would drool at what Liverpool has which is already in place.

jc_everton
02-14-2008, 04:51 PM
Waterways: a very interesting and detailed post, you should send your ideas off to MerseyRail complete with maps and diagrams. They probably wouldn't take it seriously, but it shows you have more vision than they do.
Unfortunately, I don't know south Liverpool well, so I got a bit lost halfway through your post!
The key word you seem to emphasise is 'regeneration', which I will be doing a masters in next year.
The only problem I've got with your idea then is that although it would massively benefit south Liverpool socio-economically, it would be another case of massive investment in south Liverpool, and something which would not be of benefit to east or north Liverpool - which is where I believe the investment should be being made, and statistically holds some of the most deprived areas in the country.
As the north Liverpool extension line is alive and active, a bit of investment (not an awful lot would be needed in comparison to your plans) in this line, allowing people in the areas around the line to travel to city centre quickly and effectively, whilst as previously discussed, allowing thousands of Everton and Liverpool supporters to travel to a whole host of destinations. And if the North Mersey Branch Line reopened, it would also link in Aintree/Maghull etc.

Perhaps the north Liverpool extension line will reopen at some stage in the future - the reopening of the Olive Mount Chord is a step in the right direction, as so many areas of north Liverpool would be connected to Manchester without having to travel to Central, then Lime St. The chord would also allow for football supporters to travel east.

Technically, you could have trains running from near Walton Lane (the football stop) directly to Lime St (connecting the Wirral), Southport, Ormskirk, Liverpool Parkway (via Edgehill?) Hunts Cross, Warrington, St Helens, Manchester.

Maybe not all of these destinations would have direct services, but the scope is there, and lets not forget, Everton and Liverpool fans travel from all over the place.

Waterways
02-14-2008, 05:59 PM
Waterways: a very interesting and detailed post, you should send your ideas off to MerseyRail complete with maps and diagrams. They probably wouldn't take it seriously, but it shows you have more vision than they do.
Unfortunately, I don't know south Liverpool well, so I got a bit lost halfway through your post!


Follow a map as you are reading. :)



The key word you seem to emphasise is 'regeneration', which I will be doing a masters in next year.


Put the infrastructure there and they will flock in.



The only problem I've got with your idea then is that although it would massively benefit south Liverpool socio-economically, it would be another case of massive investment in south Liverpool, and something which would not be of benefit to east or north Liverpool - which is where I believe the investment should be being made, and statistically holds some of the most deprived areas in the country.


Not so. The loop goes around the centre, south, east and north. Station cut into the Waterloo tunnel serving he north side of the centre. Edge Hill, and connections, serving the east. The loop would be from Waterloo going south: Waterloo into Moorfields/Central stn. On to Parliament st (old underground station already there), Brunswick, Dingle, Sefton Park Rd, Lodge Lane, Edge Hill, Down the waterloo Tunnel, Station cut in at London Rd, Hodgson ST, back to Waterloo. Lark Lane and Aigburth would be off the loop

Peel is investing a lot in Liverpool Waters in the north end, Far more than what the south end will ever get. That will be a catalyst that will spread out.



As the north Liverpool extension line is alive and active, a bit of investment (not an awful lot would be needed in comparison to your plans) in this line, allowing people in the areas around the line to travel to city centre quickly and effectively, whilst as previously discussed, allowing thousands of Everton and Liverpool supporters to travel to a whole host of destinations. And if the North Mersey Branch Line reopened, it would also link in Aintree/Maghull etc.


That is largely intact and needs updating. The loop just needs some mainly cut and cover and the odd tunnel boring leavings stations behind. London Rd is the only station, and maybe the Royal Hosp that needs cutting out.



Perhaps the north Liverpool extension line will reopen at some stage in the future - the reopening of the Olive Mount Chord is a step in the right direction, as so many areas of north Liverpool would be connected to Manchester without having to travel to Central, then Lime St. The chord would also allow for football supporters to travel east.


Worth doing. However an inner city underground loop will befit the city as whole.



Technically, you could have trains running from near Walton Lane (the football stop) directly to Lime St (connecting the Wirral), Southport, Ormskirk, Liverpool Parkway (via Edgehill?) Hunts Cross, Warrington, St Helens, Manchester.

Maybe not all of these destinations would have direct services, but the scope is there, and lets not forget, Everton and Liverpool fans travel from all over the place.

Getting them in and out fast is a priority indeed, however the regeneration of the inner city is paramount. Once done, it will spread out.Get the centre and immediate inner city around the centre sorted and the rest will fall into line.

jc_everton
02-14-2008, 06:47 PM
Ok, but I'm still very confused as to the whereabouts of some these tunnels - there is only so much information on a map - no underground information.

I am aware there is some sort of tunnel in Dingle, but I can't find this on old maps. Is it still intact, and does connect with the Northern Line. I really think that we should start producing maps and diagrams to explain ourselves a little better!

You say about Waterloo connecting with the Northern Line, but doesn't this tunnel run below the Northern Line? Therefore, new tunnels would have to be constructed - heavy investment needed. And as for the loop running down south Liverpool near Sefton Park, are you implying that whole new tunnels need to be constructed too?

I personally believe that the Waterloo Line should be connected to the Northern Line and also to Lime St - but again, a new tunnel would be needed, yes? I really think a definitive tunnels map needs to be made - well the council probably have one, but getting hold of it is another matter.

Come to think of it, your loop idea is smart, but my concern lies with Meseyside as a whole, and if commuters from all over Merseyside can travel to near London Rd, Waterloo, Wapping and other areas you mention, then that can only be of benefit to the city.

But I do believe the area around the North Liverpool Extension Line is in the most need of regenerating, and this line, at least for now, has the potential to link up to Lime St.

As I say though Mr. Waterways, maps and diagrams would be fantastic - indeed, you should write a dissertation like myself!

Waterways
02-15-2008, 12:54 AM
Below: 1913 map:
http://i32.tinypic.com/33avsph.jpg

http://i30.tinypic.com/2ut704k.jpg
above a 1913 map


The proposed loop line is in blue.
The blue and pink are existing disused tunnels
The blue and green is predominantly cut and cover not tunnelling.
The blue only is existing used line.
Tunneling where cut and cover meets existing tunnels.
The red is the existing unused Wapping tunnel.
The new stations are marked


The existing used line from Otterspool station to the end of the Dingle tunnel (blue and pink tunnel) can be taken up and free up this area for development.

The cut and cover of Aigburth Rd can be put back and only the loop formed making the project cheaper. However Aigburth Vale and a new station for Lark Lane would not be built.

Dingle underground station 1906 (toxteth.net)
http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7792&d=1219042388

Dingle underground station still exists:
http://static.flickr.com/120/308696416_019aa03984.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/118/308701110_0b937f3cb9.jpg

Below: the Dingle Tunnel. Tunnel to Dingle station. The south end of the old Overhead Railway. It started underground.
http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7793&d=1219042388

A BIG Outer Loop:

Depending on if a Mersey barrage is built. If so a bridge over the Mersey From Speke/Garston to the Wirral.

Recommission the outer loop from Edge Hill through Walton to the North End Docks. Over the barrage into New Brighton. Down the Wirral on existing Merseyrail and onto the Bridge. Across the Mersey and meet up at South Parkway. Could recommission the Gatacre Line track through Childwall.

Waterways
02-15-2008, 01:36 AM
As I say though Mr. Waterways, maps and diagrams would be fantastic - indeed, you should write a dissertation like myself!

I already have a degree - one is enough. If I write one will they give me another degree?

mikewturner
02-17-2008, 11:10 AM
Whether there was a station there 100 years ago or not is pretty irrelevant in my eyes..... snipped

From a transport plan for the future point of view it makes no odds but from an accurate historical record it is very important.

So far only one person has stated that a station existed here and has not presented any facts to back this up. I am sorry but memories are not good enough. What is required is evidence from primary sources eg plans, maps, minute books, photographs etc. So far these all point to no station at this site.

Further to my previous posting re the actual reason for the wide cutting at Hodson Street here is the gradient diagram for the line taken from a BR signalling plan.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3215/waterloogradientcharthl8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And here is an extract from the same plan showing the catch points intended to derail trains running away on the steep gradients.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/268/hodsonstreetcuttingvc0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Edge Hill (Waterloo Tunnel Mouth) is to the left and Waterloo Goods to the right. The signal is Waterloo Goods Distant shown at 975 yards from the signal box and the concentric circles on posts numbered 32 and 36 are gongs (bells) worked from the signal box to give instructions to shunting trains. The run-off from the bottom line is shown with a sand drag and because it's between the running lines they must be set at a wider interval and therefore the cutting is wider.

Regards

Mike Turner

jc_everton
02-17-2008, 06:15 PM
Mike, where did you get them plans from? Fantastic stuff.

From an objective point of view, the consensus seems to be that there was no passenger station (or any station of note) at Byrom St, so I think it should be a matter of case closed.

The great thing about the cutting though, and the small piece of land next to it (corner of Byrom St and Great Crosshall St), is that it doesn't require an awful lot of imagination to picture a metro-style stop there. Unlike other ear-marked underground stations in Liverpool, this cutting is almost ready made for one. How I would love to have travelled to the JMU building on the train and stopped off at the Byrom St cutting everday! Maybe one day...

Change of subject here... Andrew Makinson, councillor of Smithdown and a member of the MPTE tells me that new stations cost in the region of £12m.

Does anyone else agree that unmanned stations (such as Burscough Junction) or halts would be a much better and cheaper alternative? Stations such as Central and Moorfields have electronic barriers, and the Wigan/Preston trains have ticket inspectors on at all times where you can buy your ticket. Surely a much better idea than paying millions for new station offices etc? Especially at inner city sites such as Tuebrook, where land is limited around the old station. A platform would surely suffice? And a wooden shelter. Naturally.

Kev
02-17-2008, 07:11 PM
Congrats on a great thread, I've just caught up on it. Loved reading the discussions about the new lines :PDT11

Waterways
02-17-2008, 07:46 PM
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3215/waterloogradientcharthl8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


The tunnel looks like it is below sea level at one point. Is that so? Is so, why?

Waterways
02-17-2008, 08:00 PM
The Parliament St station is there virtually intact - well over time platforms have gone and some offices are still there. £12M is probably to cut out a new station in a tunnel like at Conway Park in Birkenhead.

The city centre rail loop I highlighted would be cheap for what it gives, as most of the tunnels are there and even two disused stations too, at Parliament St and Dingle. It is some cut and cover tunnels and some boring at joining points. As far as I know, Merseyrail have never come up with the loop idea - only me. Cheap for what it offers in re-generation.

Stations would need to be manned in Liverpool for security reasons. One the population gathers around the stations because of re-generation they will more than pay for themselves.

The build cost can be clawed back by a property value tax on homes sold around the stations where the stations being there have upped the value - the loop adds value.

jc_everton
02-17-2008, 11:42 PM
Makinson simply said that a new station (such as one in Tuebrook or Anfield) would cost a minimum of £12m, he did not mention the underground. But you'd like to think all the fares they receive, as well as fines, should go some way in terms of the financing! I pay £4.50 return to Liverpool from where I live. Ridiculous.

The loop line you propose does make an awful lot of sense, but I'm finding the issue of 'cut and cover' quite vague - as if it's as simple as digging a hole in the ground and covering it like a roof on a house. Perhaps I should look into this more over the internet, but also, judging by some of the photos of the Dingle Tunnel, there looks like many logistical and physical problems to overcome. And linking all the tunnels together would require new tunnel building, as the Waterloo and Wapping tunnels run underneath the Northern Line, yes? I am confused as to the depths of all these tunnels.

The issue of unmanned stations.... I do not believe this would be a problem if there were major changes in the law and justice systems in this country. For example, massive increases in prison sentencing... armed police... but thats off-topic.

Going back to your loop line... my proposals for the future of the rail network actually involve more direct train services - I believe that trains running from major stations such as Maghull and Ormskirk (Ok, these aren't on the loop line but bear with me) should cut out minor stations such as Walton and Aughton Park (or even all of them) at peak times in order to get the commuters into Liverpool as quickly as possible, allowing the direct trains to get back to Ormskirk quickly to take in the next load. A mixture of indirect and direct services is what I'd like to see, and new stations, like some of the ones you propose on the loop line would actually only slow the journey times down.

I'm not sure if some European underground trains feel faster than Merseyrail's or whether are actually faster. They certainly feel faster, they seem to have much quicker acceleration. More stops would be useful if we had quicker trains, but Merseyrail's trains are slow accelerators.

If the trains do not increase in speed over the next 20 years, then Merseyrail should invest in more carriages, for more frequent journeys and longer trains (6-cars). I find it an insult paying £4.50 for a return when I can't even get a seat on the way home from Moorfields. They only run around two 6-car services at peak time. E.g, the 16.45 arrives 15 minutes before the big commuter rush, but still, the station is packed to the rafters and what pulls up? A 3-car train, bursting to the seams.

Waterways
02-18-2008, 12:18 AM
Makinson simply said that a new station (such as one in Tuebrook or Anfield) would cost a minimum of £12m, he did not mention the underground. But you'd like to think all the fares they receive, as well as fines, should go some way in terms of the financing! I pay £4.50 return to Liverpool from where I live. Ridiculous.


A property value tax on property when sold, that had had its value increase because of the stations is the way to finance. If it had been implemented on the Jubilee Line extension it would have paid for it 4 times over. If someone gains because of a public initiative then they should pay some back.



The loop line you propose does make an awful lot of sense, but I'm finding the issue of 'cut and cover' quite vague - as if it's as simple as digging a hole in the ground and covering it like a roof on a house.


Yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel Paris just cut and cover the boulevards - easy. Aigburth Rd is a boulevard. Cut and cover can go across parkland in Liverpool. Cut a ditch and insert concrete pre-cast curved tunnel walls, then cover.



Dingle Tunnel, there looks like many logistical and physical problems to overcome.


The Dingle Tunnel was originally proposed to be extended but never was. The station is there. Just a gantry at the Herculaneum Dock from the tunnel mouth to the existing line beneath all is needed.



And linking all the tunnels together would require new tunnel building, as the Waterloo and Wapping tunnels run underneath the Northern Line, yes? I am confused as to the depths of all these tunnels.


The Waterloo goes under the Northern Line. Some tunnels to interconnect tunnels, yes. Not a great amount as most of the system is in place.



Going back to your loop line... my proposals for the future of the rail network actually involve more direct train services - I believe that trains running from major stations such as Maghull and Ormskirk (Ok, these aren't on the loop line but bear with me) should cut out minor stations such as Walton and Aughton Park (or even all of them) at peak times in order to get the commuters into Liverpool as quickly as possible, allowing the direct trains to get back to Ormskirk quickly to take in the next load. A mixture of indirect and direct services is what I'd like to see, and new stations, like some of the ones you propose on the loop line would actually only slow the journey times down.


You are proposing a Paris Metro and the to suburbs rapid double-decker RER system. The Liverpool loop is to re-generate the city centre and inner city. It will be like the Circle Line in London. An existing city Centre loop an Outer City Centre Loop (my idea), and lines intersecting these loops that make good connections.

I consider this loop vital to re-generate the city. It will attract investment around the stations.

The Dock Rd has to be abandoned as an urban motorway and cars discouraged forcing people onto the trains. The city must revert back to its human scale and be designed for people again.

BTW, no police with guns.

Sirob
02-18-2008, 10:01 PM
View these blasts from the past(1971)

Waterways
02-18-2008, 10:45 PM
View these blasts from the past(1971)

Fabulous!!! Was that the last train through the Waterloo Tunnel?

Waterways
02-18-2008, 11:28 PM
The Waterloo tunnel is only very short. From the Hodson St cutting to the Docks is the Waterloo Tunnel and from that point back to Edge Hill it is the Victoria Tunnel. All one tunnel with two names along its length.

Ged
02-19-2008, 10:10 AM
I wonder why they done this?

oritelad
02-19-2008, 06:18 PM
View these blasts from the past(1971)

wow these photos are so rare how you get them who is the copyright for them? what are we looking at exactly? is it the docks end of the waterloo tunnel its hard to reconise.

Waterways
02-19-2008, 07:20 PM
wow these photos are so rare how you get them who is the copyright for them? what are we looking at exactly? is it the docks end of the waterloo tunnel its hard to reconise.

That is the dock end. It is 1971 and the tunnel closed in 1972, so not the last train, although it is clear the tunnel is not used much as there is lots of grass growing.

Cadfael
02-19-2008, 07:45 PM
View these blasts from the past(1971)


They look like the pictures from the so called 'we have steam trains under Liverpool still 'ready' incase all electricity is taken from our hands and the local council can escape'!...

mikewturner
02-19-2008, 08:18 PM
Fabulous!!! Was that the last train through the Waterloo Tunnel?

Hi

History of the line which includes date of last train to Riverside (not last train through the tunnel for which I dont have a date)

21/7/1845 Act L&M railway to Waterloo
1/8/1849 Opened Edge Hill to Waterloo for Goods only
27/7/1893 Act MDHB lines to Waterloo
12/6/1895 Opened Edge Hill to Riverside for passenger traffic
30/9/1963 Waterloo Goods Station closed
25/2/1971 Last passenger train to Riverside
1/3/1971 line closed to passenger traffic and out of use beyond Waterloo Road level crossing
12/2/1972 line closed beyond Waterloo yard
19/11/1972 line cut 558yds inside Victoria tunnel to leave headshunt at Edge Hill end.

Mike Turner

mikewturner
02-19-2008, 08:20 PM
Mike, where did you get them plans from? Fantastic stuff. snipped.

They are from my collection of local railway plans and photo's aquired from many sources over the years.

Mike Turner

danensis
02-19-2008, 09:25 PM
Just to add to the discussion about the cost of a station, I know that when the new mail centre in Leeds was being built - right next to the railway line - I asked why they had not provided a siding for the mail rail trains (as then were). I was told that Royal Mail had been quoted £6m for a turn out. Its not just a matter of sticking in a set of points, you have to redo the signalling for many miles in each direction. So if that was the price ten years ago, I hate to think what it would cost now.

John

Sirob
02-19-2008, 10:31 PM
wow these photos are so rare how you get them who is the copyright for them? what are we looking at exactly? is it the docks end of the waterloo tunnel its hard to reconise.

In 1971 an industrial steam loco was restored in Princes Dock MD&HB shed. It was steamed and ran over all accessable dock lines, including an unofficial foray into Waterloo goods yard! Date is July 1971. The MD&HB diesel from Princes Dock used the tunnel shortly afterwards, transfering to the Brunswick.
None of these pictures have ever been seen before. The copyright is mine, but you can copy them

Ged
02-20-2008, 09:29 AM
Great pic. Costco is now near this site. You can see the Graham Gratrix factory on the right with Logan Towers behind it.

Waterways
02-20-2008, 09:49 AM
The MD&HB diesel from Princes Dock used the tunnel shortly afterwards, transfering to the Brunswick.


Sirob, what does this mean?

Waterways
02-20-2008, 09:51 AM
View these blasts from the past(1971)

The arch the train is running under is listed.

Waterways
02-20-2008, 09:59 AM
Great pic. Costco is now near this site. You can see the Graham Gratrix factory on the right with Logan Towers behind it.

Graham Gratrix was not a factory. They were heating and plumbing merchants. I bought the odd heating boiler there.

There were lines all over the Dock Rd from goods depots across the road into the dock estate. Is the train moving from the Waterloo tunnel across the road in that photo?

Ged
02-20-2008, 10:11 AM
I was driving along the dock road last year, up near the Seaforth end when we had to stop for a freight train that was mega long, it seemed like we were there for about 15 mins.

jc_everton
02-20-2008, 08:11 PM
Waterways: I'm guessing that it is coming from the tunnel to the docks because there are flats to the right of the picture, suggesting that the photographer was looking north when he took it.

Ged: What time of day would that have been? I have actually been meaning to ask, what times do they run? Would I be right in saying that there are around 20 train journeys a day? I'm sure I read it somewhere in a MerseyRail document.

On the OldLiverpoolRailways.tk forum, someone suggested that the Aintree-Bootle Line should be used for freight to alleviate the heavy traffic experienced along the A5036 to Switch Island. I am not sure if the eastern end of the line (where Aintree Racecourse station) is feasible to reopen but there is plenty of land around Aintree Station to open a goods yard. Perhaps some might say "Would it be worth it? For such a small distance", but if the freight was moving north then why not double the track on the Ormskirk - Preston Line and get the freight moving north by train?

Sirob
02-20-2008, 09:19 PM
Some more pics;
Waterloo tunnel mouth, signal box on extreme right
Last movement on 28 July 1971 of MD&hb loco from Princes Dock to Brunswick via Edge Hill under its own power! I was on it and the gearbox got rather hot!

Waterways
02-20-2008, 11:44 PM
Sirob, terrific pics indeed!! One pic has an overhead wire gantry in front of the tunnel, while the rest do not.

Last usage of the tunnel was 1972. I like the Lancia or Alpha car in the pic too.

Ged
02-21-2008, 09:38 AM
jc_everton. That was about 11am as i'd had to take paperwork to the docks before a noon cut off. Whilst you might drive down there hoping to see one of these monsters, we were in a rush and it wasn't welcomed :)

However, it was a sight to behold, like back in what I imagine the old days might have been a bit like ;)

More great pics Sirob.

scouseyuppie
02-21-2008, 12:27 PM
Here is one idea for the re-use of the tunnels at Edge lane, part of our 21c Liverpool work (www.21cliverpool.co.uk)

AAo-kQoyxh0

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1291374/9f3.jpg

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1291375/9f3.jpg

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1274967/e13.jpg

http://onfinite.com/libraries/1274968/e13.jpg

jc_everton
02-21-2008, 04:17 PM
Interesting graphics in the proposals, but is this something you will put forward to the City Council? Do you have any more information on this project? It's nice to see the proposals from a Design perspective. The network needs vision and these graphics help bring the project to life.

Ged
02-21-2008, 04:40 PM
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=585575




.

Waterways
02-21-2008, 05:14 PM
Interesting graphics in the proposals, but is this something you will put forward to the City Council? Do you have any more information on this project? It's nice to see the proposals from a Design perspective. The network needs vision and these graphics help bring the project to life.

Nice graphics. Edge Hill needs a decent station there as it is an essential hub. This outer city centre hub doesn't use the Wapping Tunnel, although that tunnel should be used eventually. So any station at Edge Hill has to be designed to suit a through loop (if the loop is built of course as it is all theory now). The Wapping tunnel can never be a part of a through loop, but not using such an asset is criminal.

Waterways
02-21-2008, 05:15 PM
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=585575
.

Nice.

Sirob
02-21-2008, 08:33 PM
Sirob, terrific pics indeed!! One pic has an overhead wire gantry in front of the tunnel, while the rest do not.

Last usage of the tunnel was 1972. I like the Lancia or Alpha car in the pic too.

The gantry picture is at Edge Hill tunnel mouth, the others at Waterloo yard and the diesel is crossing the Dock Road.

mike delamar
02-22-2008, 06:35 PM
Here is one idea for the re-use of the tunnels at Edge lane, part of our 21c Liverpool work (www.21cliverpool.co.uk)



Nice work, looks very smart.

but does this take into account any of the history of Edge hill station, and the fact that the station buildings there are listed structures?

Ill be honest, after studying the history of Liverpools railways for many years and the reasons why they where closed., i cant see the wapping and waterloo tunnels re opened, the wapping tunnel was known for bad water ingress problems, with the result that the LMS and British railways used special built brake vans for sanding the rails.

theres also the fact that you can easily change trains in the city centre and get a train from lime street to Edge hill already, theres one things that the railways hate, and that is doubling up on routes, a main reason why lots where closed in the 1960s.

Mike

Waterways
02-22-2008, 07:13 PM
Nice work, looks very smart.

but does this take into account any of the history of Edge hill station, and the fact that the station buildings there are listed structures?

Ill be honest, after studying the history of Liverpools railways for many years and the reasons why they where closed., i cant see the wapping and waterloo tunnels re opened, the wapping tunnel was known for bad water ingress problems, with the result that the LMS and British railways used special built brake vans for sanding the rails.

theres also the fact that you can easily change trains in the city centre and get a train from lime street to Edge hill already, theres one things that the railways hate, and that is doubling up on routes, a main reason why lots where closed in the 1960s.


Mike, when looking at an underground train system matters are very different. Main line routes are very different to local metro systems and should never be viewed the same. Edge Hill as a part of an underground loop is feasible. There is no need to double up on local rail systems.

Water ingress into the Wapping tunnel can be curded by rendering the offending parts. The tunnel was not lined, just bored through solid soft rock. Only at the ends was it lined with brick.

The Waterloo tunnel can be fully used and it is hard to ignore this tunnel as it emerges at the Liverpool Waters scheme at Central Docks. The outer city centre loop I highlighted would fully use this tunnel.

The Wapping tunnel can at least be used in parts. IT is foolish not to use these tunnels as they both run right under the city centre bypassing the lot. That is great asset in any major city anywhere in the world. New stations can be cut out where necessary in both tunnels.

Waterways
02-22-2008, 07:20 PM
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=585575
.

Ged, I had a look. Not inspired by the vision on that site - never was. There are more objective and creative thinkers on this site.

jc_everton
02-22-2008, 08:03 PM
Just read over that 'Outer Loop' discussion on the skyscraper forum - some very interesting posts and arguments - lots of passion about the subject, which is good. However the whole 'Bay City' - 'Waterways' link was rather comical, it started to turn into an online soap opera!

Lots of ideas on what should (or shouldn't) be done - some from a regeneration perspective, some from a value-for-money perspective. Good stuff.

My 'Urban Planning' view on the topic is that although the outer loop is great in theory, the restoration of the Waterloo tunnel should be the priority. And it is something that does not get one mention on any current MerseyTravel document. I'd love to see evidence of MT 'looking into the tunnels' as so many people would have you believe.

I think all the schemes should be integrated slowly and carfeully. I don't see any risks with the Waterloo tunnel linking up with the Northern Line, enabling direct access from Southport, Ormskirk and Kirkby (and possibly Ford if the NMB reopened) to Byrom St, Liverpool Uni/Hosp, Edge Hill, south Liverpool and ultimately Liverpool South Parkway. No risk whatsoever.

Options are increased, existing infrastructure is being maximised, and 2 key parts of Liverpool City Centre are now accessible by rail. This all complies with MerseyTravel's Rail Strategy, along with many other of their objectives, such as the need to ease over-crowding at Liverpool Central. OK, Byrom St is closer to Moorfields, but if you're a student or worker in the Liverpool Uni area, travelling to Central and walking up Mt Pleasant is a total pain in the arse. Not good enough.

The Wapping tunnel, in my eyes can be used as a sort of siding, or a turn-around point, where the many trains travelling into Central can terminate and side (?), as my proposals would see a significant increase in the amount of trains running into Liverpool. Just a thought, but maybe the tunnel can be better utilised in future years if Liverpool City Centre continues to grow, both economically and physically (eg if more people move into the city to live, work, study etc).

The two schemes that MT are considering are the North Mersey Branch and the Edge Hill to Bootle Branch (the North Liverpool Extension Line? Or was that the name of the Norris Green section of the CLC Line?).

I think these are realistic and again, not very risky. Certainly not the NLE, which would enable parts of the outer city (much more deprived than say, Aigburth, I hasten to add) to access the City Centre by rail - a much better and quicker alternative to the bus.

The Outer Loop is mere speculation, and I've seen how busy St. Michaels can get for myself, so I do not believe it is a waste of space. The area around the Outer Loop is actually well served by bus - if bus service was poor then there would be a much greater public backing for a new rail service.

Yes, transport has a massive role to play in the regeneration of any area, but you cannot just assume that a deprived area will transform into a Chelsea area just because of a new rail service. We must not forget that Liverpool is nowhere near as big as a London or a New York, and for many inner city areas in Liverpool, a bus service will suffice. Half the reason I hate buses is because I find them very uncomfortable, but this is mainly due to poor road surfacing - hence a bumpy ride. But if I want to get from say Aigburth to City Centre, a 10 min bumpy ride isn't bad enough to warrant a whole new rail line. However, a 30 min bumpy ride from say, Netherton to City Centre isn't ideal, and as the NMB line is simply lying there dormant, the case for the NMB is much more realistic.

Waterways
02-22-2008, 10:35 PM
Just read over that 'Outer Loop' discussion on the skyscraper forum - some very interesting posts and arguments - lots of passion about the subject, which is good. However the whole 'Bay City' - 'Waterways' link was rather comical, it started to turn into an online soap opera!


The whole site is a soap opera. It is clique of the same people who all generally agree on the same points and are obsessed with exceptionally high buildings to the point of being blind to any sort of reality - well it is about skyscrapers.



Options are increased, existing infrastructure is being maximised, and 2 key parts of Liverpool City Centre are now accessible by rail. This all complies with MerseyTravel's Rail Strategy, along with many other of their objectives, such as the need to ease over-crowding at Liverpool Central.


The outer city centre loop would alleviate overcrowding.



Yes, transport has a massive role to play in the regeneration of any area, but you cannot just assume that a deprived area will transform into a Chelsea area just because of a new rail service. We must not forget that Liverpool is nowhere near as big as a London or a New York,


It is a hell of a leg up. The idea is to get people back into the centre and the immediate inner city areas. Gentrifying these areas is ideal and rapid transport infrastructure is appealing to developers. Heighsmoor Height at one end Of Lodge Lane is being gentrified, yet yards away is an area that is clearly decrepit. They want to move into Lodge Lane, but they need a reason to.



and for many inner city areas in Liverpool, a bus service will suffice.


For now it might. It is where the city wants to be in 5, 10 years time - having vision. And to get there using existing rapid transport infrastructure is a major lever in that big jump.

mike delamar
02-23-2008, 01:18 AM
Mike, when looking at an underground train system matters are very different. Main line routes are very different to local metro systems and should never be viewed the same. Edge Hill as a part of an underground loop is feasible. There is no need to double up on local rail systems.

Water ingress into the Wapping tunnel can be curded by rendering the offending parts. The tunnel was not lined, just bored through solid soft rock. Only at the ends was it lined with brick.

The Waterloo tunnel can be fully used and it is hard to ignore this tunnel as it emerges at the Liverpool Waters scheme at Central Docks. The outer city centre loop I highlighted would fully use this tunnel.

The Wapping tunnel can at least be used in parts. IT is foolish not to use these tunnels as they both run right under the city centre bypassing the lot. That is great asset in any major city anywhere in the world. New stations can be cut out where necessary in both tunnels.

dont get me wrong, im pro rail, and a massive railway enthusiast and would love to see the tunnels used. but have learned to think how the people who would spend the money would think.

sometimes have to let head rule heart.

If someone lives in Edge hill, they can go to the station now and there is a good quick rail service to the city centre, and a very good underground system specially designed in the 70s that could take them then to either the wirral, south liverpool, or north liverpool.

the ex london and north western railway Bootle branch which is still used today for freight to the docks lost its passenger service and station in the late 1940s, and the ex Cheshire lines north Liverpool line which is now a cycle path lost its passenger service in the 1960s.

main reason is that if you live in areas like tuebrook or Knotty ash, people did not want to get on a train which would take them around the world to get into town, and so took the bus or tram.

I still think this would apply today.

Mike

Waterways
02-23-2008, 01:47 AM
Mike, the Waterloo Tunnel ends right smack in the middle of the Liverpool Waters complex at Central Docks. This will need rapid transport out of the city. Also areas like Byron ST and London Rd are served well and the word "re-generation" always comes up. A prime aim is to get these areas up and running, prosperous and populated. A Station into an integrated rail system will clearly work for these areas. It is the future that counts. People tend to be locked into the present.

Waterways
02-23-2008, 11:23 AM
I think all the schemes should be integrated slowly and carfeully.

What is needed is a master plan. Then prioritise what needs to be integrated - spending excessive millions on trundling trams to assist Everton FC is just plain silly. The club's should go where the transport infrastructure is not the other way around. The same in getting passenger trains on the outer loop again - this is to justify getting Liverpool FC off ground in Anfield. None of these schemes will make any impact at all on the volume of people shifted at the stadia, the stations will just not have the throughput. If EFC & LFC were to share a stadium then it may be worth spending money on a high throughput station, which has knock of affects of modern signaling systems. However, regeneration of the inner cities is paramount and these stadia will not do that despite propaganda saying otherwise.

LFC regenerating Anfield? Yearrrrrr!!!! Sure they will. They have failed to do so in over 100 years and have been one of Europe's top club's for the past 35 years and in all that time total decline in the area.

Liverpool Waters and north end regeneration would be greatly enhanced if the Waterloo Tunnel is brought on-line, merged with the Northern Line and a station at the end of the tunnel.

I see the outer city loop as a mechanism to connect this parts of the city to the east and south and easy connections to the centre and beyond.

Waterways
02-23-2008, 01:06 PM
If someone lives in Edge hill, they can go to the station now and there is a good quick rail service to the city centre, and a very good underground system specially designed in the 70s that could take them then to either the wirral, south liverpool, or north liverpool.


Mike that is true....but.....Edge Hill station is doudy and not in the centre of the district at all. It is out on limb. OK the city should have future planning congregating developments around this station making the station the centre of Edge Hill - the area does need serious regeneration.

The loop serves many inner city areas around the centre and interconnects with many other areas too. These inner city area have the same access as everyone else on the loop.

Look at The Circle Line in London. Look at a London tube map

http://www.afn.org/~alplatt/tubemap.gif

The Circle Line is in yellow. See how main line stations are on it. Lines go out of the centre in a star and the circle line cuts through them. It is a great access line to get around the immediate centre and interconnect to the outer regions very easily.

The proposed Liverpool outer city centre loop will do exactly this. A circle line. It should be implemented ASAP.

mike delamar
02-23-2008, 05:48 PM
I had an idea many years ago for the re opening of the ex cheshire lines, although i have seen several proposals over the years, ive never seen this particular idea, with a branch near hartleys hill Aintree along the old clc to hunts cross, which could also have the lines from walton through kirkdale and sandills (marked yellow) reinstated to 4 tracks if needed.
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z205/lamdelz/map3a.jpg
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z205/lamdelz/map4.jpg

with regards the edge hill tunnels, i think the victoria and waterloo tunnels is a good idea.
i think the wapping tunnel on top of having a stream running nearby which causes water problems, is also built to a very tight loading gauge, Ive been told by ex railway men that 2 trains where not allowed to pass in the tunnel, such was the tightness of it, its one of the oldest railway tunnels ever, and the loading gauge is down to the size of locomotives at the time.

Mike

jc_everton
02-24-2008, 12:39 AM
Mike, interesting proposals there, and good use of map annotation too, I should sometimes use maps to explain things!

Thing is with the CLC is, you have to look at why it closed in the first place. Passenger numbers were so low. It was populated in Knotty Ash/Warbreck 50 years ago, not much more than it is today, so why would this line be of any use to us now? Especially with the massive increase in car usage. As much I advocate rail reopenings, this line really does not serve much purpose.

Sure, it does increase passenger options, and it is making good use of old infrastructure, but it would really need to link in with St Helens line near the A57.

However, following on from my idea of the NMB being used as a freight-line (perhaps with some scope for passenger use), a new link could be created near Aintree Station, taking the NMB onto the old CLC, allowing freight to move south, where most of it seems to go.

This actually makes a lot of sense, as there are time restrictions on the Bootle Branch, and passenger services could be returning in the future, meaning the line will be passenger by day and freight at night.

This is only a plan I've just thought up, but if it could gain some backing (at least on here), it's a start!

Problems? Obviously, the line is a cycle path. But it's not as if the whole CLC is being used for rail. North of Aintree Station, the line would of course remain a cycle path. Perhaps there may be some scope for half rail, half cycle path? It is a compromise.

There is also the problem of depth - the CLC is lower than than the NMB, but there is plenty of land around the site for this to be developed. I drew up a map of what I mean but I can't bloody upload it. I wish I could just copy and paste. If anyone can help, that'd be great.

jc_everton
02-24-2008, 12:57 AM
I actually meant to talk about the Line north of Aintree but got sidetracked with the uploading/faffing around.

A station in Maghull at the old site, by the Snooker Hall, would be fantastic, and there would definitely be high demand, but again, it would have to link in somehow with a Liverpool-bound line for it to have any chance of a consideration. And the fact that Switch Island is slap bang in the middle of the old line would be a major logistical problem.

Other than that, I can't see any purpose for the line. Gateacre maybe has a case, as it is not served by rail and the line is nowhere near as neglected as the Aintree - Maghull section. But again, the train would have to travel south, then west, then north, just to get to town. Would it really be worth it, time-wise? if it was direct, maybe. But indirectly, I can't see it being much quicker than a bus. Unfortunately.

Waterways
02-27-2008, 03:38 PM
The Waterloo and Wapping Tunnels - the red lines. The nearside is the Waterloo Tunnel (well Victoria Tunnel and Waterloo all in one tunnel). These tunnels run under the city centre. In a city that is increasing its city centre population to pretty dense levels, not using them is criminal and gross amateurism by Merseyrail planners.

http://i31.tinypic.com/9po08n.jpg

Ged
02-27-2008, 03:45 PM
And wouldn't that cream topped Bestway building site look just great as the new home of Everton, on Scotland Road - a true city centre peoples club. ;)

Waterways
02-27-2008, 05:38 PM
Below: The Circle Line. 12 stations in all.
The used Brunswick Stn is off picture to the right.
Four stations are already in use, but Edge Hill would probably need a major update.
Two stations are laying there disused being cheap to bring on-line.
One underground station at Byrom St cutting is easy to construct.
Two stations cut in a cut and cover build.
Only one station cut out of the tunnel at London Rd/Royal Hospital.
A new easy to construct overground station at Waterloo Dock

http://i26.tinypic.com/2mczhqa.jpg

Ged, it would be served by Byrom St station, if this Circle Line was ever built of course. The site is really just too small - nice it it was big enough.

Just look at the area just in from Waterloo Dock. Full of ramshackle small companies. This could be cleared and the companies moved to state-of-the-art business parks. What a location. near to the centre, Merseyrail station near, etc.

Waterways
02-29-2008, 05:43 PM
The proposed Circle Line, in Red. Stations at top running clockwise:


Waterloo Dock
Byrom St
London Rd
Edge Hill
Lodge Lane
Sefton Pk Rd
Dingle
Brunswick
St James
Central
Lime St
Moorefields



The black line is the new line in from ST Helens.

It is easy to see the great enhancement it makes to the city's underground. And 80% of the Circle Line is already in place.
http://i25.tinypic.com/10ehcpd.jpg

PhilipG
02-29-2008, 06:35 PM
Seeing it drawn like that reminds me of the 60 bus route.
Fine in theory, but one of the worst bus services in Liverpool, probably because it never attracts many passengers.
You can be waiting up to half an hour for one, and when it finally arrives, there might be only half a dozen people on it!

Waterways
02-29-2008, 07:26 PM
Seeing it drawn like that reminds me of the 60 bus route.
Fine in theory, but one of the worst bus services in Liverpool, probably because it never attracts many passengers.
You can be waiting up to half an hour for one, and when it finally arrives, there might be only half a dozen people on it!

The 60 bus was an outer city circle route, Dingle to Bootle via Old Swan. That line is inner circle catching all the major points in the city..and rapid underground transport.

PhilipG
02-29-2008, 07:54 PM
The 60 bus was an outer city circle route, Dingle to Bootle via Old Swan. That line is inner circle catching all the major points in the city..and rapid underground transport.

Thanks.
I consider my wriists well slapped. :PDT_Aliboronz_11:

andyk
02-29-2008, 09:42 PM
I've been following this thread with great interest. Sadly, I can't see anything like this ever materialising, but you never know,the demise of the private car might provide the necessary impetus.The reinstatement of the south Burscough-curve,is a perfect example of the short-sightedness of our movers and shakers.Requiring very little in the way of capital-investment,the improved access to Ormskirk and Preston from Southport would be considerable.Burscough is growing fast and improved links to Liverpool would make the town very attractive to commuters.When you examen the little frequented D.M.U shuttle-service in operation between Ormskirk and Preston it is hard to believe that the line has a promising future,but studies have clearly shown its' potential.

Waterways
02-29-2008, 10:09 PM
I've been following this thread with great interest. Sadly, I can't see anything like this ever materialising, but you never know,the demise of the private car might provide the necessary impetus.The reinstatement of the south Burscough-curve,is a perfect example of the short-sightedness of our movers and shakers.Requiring very little in the way of capital-investment,the improved access to Ormskirk and Preston from Southport would be considerable.Burscough is growing fast and improved links to Liverpool would make the town very attractive to commuters.When you examen the little frequented D.M.U shuttle-service in operation between Ormskirk and Preston it is hard to believe that the line has a promising future,but studies have clearly shown its' potential.

Andy,

All due respect, but this scheme is the for Liverpool centre which is being targetted as a major development area with an increased more dense population. The Circle Line does make a lot of sense and over 80% is in place. It is beneath our feet. It makes outer suburbs and towns easier to connect onto the the Liverpool centre. The lines hit the circle, go around it, nit all major parts of Liverpool, the business, shopping and tourist districts, and back out up the line.

The reason it will not go ahead are many:


Vested interest in Big Ears, ding dong, trams. (transport consultancies who have made millions from producing sweet FA)
Ignorance in that they have not thought of it.
petty local politics
etc


The reality is that we need it, and most of it is in place.

jc_everton
02-29-2008, 11:05 PM
Waterways: Andyk's post might not have been relevant to the issue of the underground network in Liverpool but it was a bit harsh to just dismiss his comments and reiterate a point you've made almost 100 times. You keep saying the city NEEDS it. The more I think about, the more I think, "no, it doesn't necessarily need it at all." The Waterloo tunnel could be utilised, yes. But all these areas like Lodge Lane and Vauxhall are so close to town you could walk it if you wanted. I know a lad in my old college class who used to walk from town to Allerton (albeit after a night out drinking).
More important issues are out in the suburbs where bus services are poor and infrequent. A lot of people in Merseyside do not have rail access, and indeed, the Burscough Curves help integrate the West Lancashire area (a major Liverpool commuter area) into the Merseyside rail network, and provide commuters with greater flexibility, especially commuters who travelling from Ormskirk to Southport to work and vice versa.

Andy might be better off starting a new thread but the Burscough Curves is something that I have been following closely, and it seems as though the forever-ongoing 'investigation' is now turning to a reality, albeit about 20 years away at the earliest, what with all the funding issues, and planning processes.

Waterways
02-29-2008, 11:31 PM
Waterways: Andyk's post might not have been relevant to the issue of the underground network in Liverpool but it was a bit harsh to just dismiss his comments and reiterate a point you've made almost 100 times.


I didn't dismiss it. It obviously came across as too harsh. From his point it is real.



You keep saying the city NEEDS it. The more I think about, the more I think, "no, it doesn't necessarily need it at all." The Waterloo tunnel could be utilised, yes. But all these areas like Lodge Lane and Vauxhall are so close to town you could walk it if you wanted.


They are not that close to town you could walk. Dingle and Lodge Lane are definitely inner city areas as is Byrom St, although Byrom St is close to the centre. Waterloo Dock has definitely a need for integration.



I know a lad in my old college class who used to walk from town to Allerton (albeit after a night out drinking).


Good for him!! I wouldn't!



More important issues are out in the suburbs where bus services are poor and infrequent. A lot of people in Merseyside do not have rail access, and indeed, the Burscough Curves help integrate the West Lancashire area (a major Liverpool commuter area) into the Merseyside rail network, and provide commuters with greater flexibility, especially commuters who travelling from Ormskirk to Southport to work and vice versa.


The Canada Dock curve via Anfield should be integrated via Edge Hill, so should the St Helens line too which is more imminent. It is a matter priorities. Get the hub done first, which most of is actually there. That is why I stress it. Then all outer lines can mesh into a city centre Circle Line. Work out from the centre.



Andy might be better off starting a new thread but the Burscough Curves is something that I have been following closely, and it seems as though the forever-ongoing 'investigation' is now turning to a reality, albeit about 20 years away at the earliest, what with all the funding issues, and planning processes.

I feel all should be integrated in time, but as I said it is a matter of priorities. And I don't think Burscough is actually in Merseyside. Nice to mesh in, but way down the line.

jc_everton
03-01-2008, 12:45 AM
Well I disagree. I believe you did dismiss his post, as you did not consider the ins and outs of his case. You just moved back on to the Loop Line, which is pure speculation from yourself. It is not on any agenda, and there are people on this forum that oppose your scheme. So Andy's 'Burscough Curve' post is far more real and relevant than any potential scheme that you talk about.
If your scheme was so glaringly obvious as you make out, I'm sure you would not be alone in the promotion of it.

I disagree about starting with the centre and working out to the suburbs. People who live and work in the city centre can generally walk around to everywhere they need to get to - the city has everything. People in the suburbs are integral to the economy of any city, and commuting to cities is part and parcel of suburban life. As you say, the Bootle Branch can play a major part in providing the suburbs with rail access - which has to be a more important issue than linking up somewhere like Lodge Lane to town, where buses are highly frequent and journey time is short.

Which moves me on to your dismissal of 'Big Ears ding ding' trams. I think your dismissal is rubbish to be honest. A tram service in the city centre would be fantastic - they are quick, reliable and convenient. Why else would so many European cities employ them?! And we all know how good Europe is transport-wise! Trams enable you to hop and off, minimum of fuss - and for a relatively small city like Liverpool, trams are ideal. Trams are NEEDED in the city centre, perhaps not to the suburbs - that is where rail comes in.

The Waterloo tunnel basically provides an extra outlet for commuters, it gives more flexibility and options to the people of Merseyside - not just the people of Liverpool which you are so concerned about. As I say, the closer you get to the inner city, the less of a need there is for this loop line.

More direct trains from say, Ormskirk to JLA Airport would be great, and again, the Waterloo tunnel could be utilised for these services, as it diverts traffic away from the Moorfields/Central area.

But, we shall agree to disagree.

Waterways
03-01-2008, 04:24 AM
Burscough is not even in Merseyside and it is not even a big place. Burscough is reasonably affluent too, unlike around inner city Lodge Lane and Dingle, which needs public investment to attract private investment. The Burscough curve is being given attention, although I think funds should be directed to more pressing needs, if funds are tight, like getting disused infrastructure up and running near the city centre.

The Canada Dock loop? Nice to have and largely in place, however the only great need is LFC and their stadium. Those suburbs have high car ownership and not that populated either. A front to give LFC a leg up? Most certainly. LFC officials were on a train last week riding around the loop. Trams to Kirkby to help EFC? Most certainly: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2007/07/31/tram-plan-for-kirkby-stadium-100252-19547082/ Best spend money where it benefits the city as a whole not two rich organisations who can re-locate to where the transport already is.

I think you are missing one of the main aims of such a Circle Line, which is inner city regeneration. Rapid transit underground rail systems will attract investors, it did in London with the Jubilee line. Burscough and the likes hardly need regeneration.

A Circle Line would enable a suburban line to enter the circle and access all major points of the city without a change.

The city literally does not need trams when it has a rapid transit underground system, which has an amazing amount of underground and overground lines and stations waiting to be re-used. I am not saying they would not fill a gap to some outer suburbs. But!! trams are not cheap at all. They are basically railways, with expensive rails and ugly expensive overhead cables. Manchester used trams because they could not afford an underground railways system. Liverpool has one and a lots of it under our feet ready to go...and we are ignoring it. I'm sure Manchester would have used such infrastructure by now. They would have jumped at it. They must be looking at Liverpool thinking the city is mad.

However if all the disused stations and lines are used there is little need for expensive trams in the centre at all. Electric or hybrid powered buses can fill the gap if needed. Liverpool in the 1970s had electric busses running a loop around the centre. Before all this eco hype.

Liverpool centre and surrounding inner city areas is quite big. The centre is set to expand - mainly along the waterfront out to the south and north. The aim is to get it densely populated.

Understand what such a Circle Line brings to the party. All major points in the centre are accessed via a Circle hub:


business district,
shopping district,
north end waterfront,
south end waterfront,
Sefton Park,
Main line station,


..and all without a change from the suburbs. E.g., in the loop at Edge Hill, around it and back out. Quite simple.


Inner cities are accessed promoting regeneration.
A hub for outer suburb lines to access the city.


It is foolish to ignore such almost in place infrastructure. Work out from the centre. Value what we have and use it. If the centre fails the city as a whole fails.

Train/Trams could be used to complete the loop from Dingle up Lodge Lane and to Edge Hill. Then no tunnel boring. They would need to be duel electric pickup of third rail and overhead wires.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

Objections to the trams:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/merseytramliverpoolcitycentr5652?page=9


6.5 In the view of a number of objectors, there is no clear need for Merseytram Line 1 in transportation terms. Passengers between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre are already catered for by the fast, frequent and recently refurbished Merseyrail Electrics trains.

6.12 Merseytravel has demonstrated no transport need for the proposed tram. There is a train service between Kirkby Railway Station and central Liverpool which provides a train every 15 minutes, with a journey time also of only 15 minutes. There is a frequent bus service in the Line 1 corridor. The time saving for most journeys within the line 1 corridor resulting from use of the proposed tram rather than the bus is at most 5 minutes. Even this claimed marginal advantage is misleading because it takes no account of the additional waiting time for the tram or of the longer average walk to the tram stop predicated by the wider tram catchment area compared with that of the bus. There is ample bus capacity: a bus can carry up to 50 passengers, but average use is only 12 to 14 passengers per bus.

6.34 The scheme would meet no identified transport need, and, indeed, would damage competing transport undertakings such as local trains and buses by unfair competition. There is already a train service between Kirkby and Liverpool run by Merseyrail.

there is currently a bus service between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre on average about every two minutes. There is accordingly no need or natural demand for a tram.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (OBJ/269)

The [tram] scheme is poorly targeted and does not represent good value for money. The money could be better spent on other projects, including the provision of a new deepwater harbour and cruise liner terminal, or improvements to local roads and the provision of a rapid rail link to Liverpool Airport.

6.41 It is self-evident that by promoting a tram which is largely to be publicly funded, in direct competition with buses and trains which are in large part without public subsidy, Merseytravel is acting in contravention of EU competition law. Any grant of public money would be challengeable in court or before the European Competition Commissioner.

andyk
03-01-2008, 10:58 AM
I do apologise if my contribution is off-subject,which is the very reason I did not start a new thread.However, how can a huge scheme, such as the one proposed by Waterways ever hope to get off the ground when there is reluctance to reinstate a quarter mile of track, the utility of which has already been shown to exist.

City-centre regeneration is a good thing, but as jc_everton points out, transport needs in the city-centre are already provided for, admittedly,they are not perfect, but they exist.Many affluent people would never even consider living in the city-centre,preferring to commute to Southport or the Wirral.Electrification to Burscough(and beyond)would be an immediate success,as have previous extentions to the network.

Waterways
03-01-2008, 01:12 PM
Andy, good point about not installing a short length of track. However extra trains and signalling is also a problem. The Olive Mount chord at Edge Hill is essential for the whole rail system, goods and passenger. This is a matter of 500 yards and this has taken far too long to get laid. It takes goods out of the north ends docks seamlessly - currently goods trains have to reverse at Edge Hill. A few hundred yards of track essential to the ports throughput and they humm and ahhh over that. What is amazing is these pieces of track were actually in place and taken up. Madness. No foresight whatsoever.

They seem to get money for big schemes like unneeded trams, but not for small schemes. A scheme needs glitter to get attention. An underground loop - on the cheap - having a dozen stations on it may be enough glitter. A project like this will take a number of years and stretch over various annual budgets, so not that out of the question.

Existing city centre and inner city transports is OK at best. However, as the city is becoming more densely populated transport has to expand and the underground Circle Line is basically there ideal for the job in hand, also regenerating a number of inner city areas along the way. A biggish scheme will attract developers and investors and give out the right messages and image - a city going places.

Big successful cities have comprehensive underground rail systems. That is a big message to put forward. A huge statement to the world that the city is not in decline and the current construction are not just catch up schemes that should have been done over the past 35 years - what one Londoner said to me. We should put forward the image the city is going forwards and not standing still or catching up.

The problem with the city over 50 years is that people left it to go to the outer towns and suburbs. Half the population left in that time. Tunnels and rapid transport systems aided this exodus. The city is attempting to reverse that. So, concentrating on the centre and immediate circling districts is the way to reverse the trend.

Some people will want to live in outer suburbs for many reasons, and that is their choice and nothing wrong with that. However my own view is that the city centre should get priority for the many, many obvious reasons. There are more single people now and there will be more in the future, so city centre and inner city living is essential and right being targetted. Sort it from the centre as the outer parts than benefit too.

It is not rocket science - most is Victorian.

jc_everton
03-01-2008, 04:46 PM
I am in total agreement about city centre regeneration - my course is more-or-less all about urban regeneration. However, you are adamant that without a rapid transit system, the regeneration cannot go ahead, or it will be unsuccessful. Which is totally unfounded.
I would like to see figures of tram vs underground rail, in terms of cost. My argument for trams was for city centre usage only. If other areas were supplied with trams then that can only be a good thing for them areas - improved options of public transport.
But the city centre is in need of trams, not underground, in my view. It is your opinion to say they are ugly, noisy and have obtrusive ovehead wires. I personally like them, and they are a complete success in Europe. If they were as useless as you make out, they wouldn't still be in existence today. Manchester is Manchester. Why do I keep hearing this city in posts? Let them plan their own transport. As far as I'm concerned, the tram system in Manchester is absolutely fine.

You cannot fault tram's convenience, in terms of short journeys, you simply cannot fault them. If I was able to hop on a tram at William Brown St and get off at Mount Pleasant, to use the Aldham Library, I would be absolutely delighted. It gets me to my destination quickly, keeps me sheltered from rain, and I don't have to walk up and down numerous escalators and stairs just to get in and out of the stations.

I'm sorry but for the kind of journeys that I just mentioned above, trams beats metro hands-down.

Waterways
03-02-2008, 01:46 PM
I am in total agreement about city centre regeneration - my course is more-or-less all about urban regeneration.


Most pressing urban regeneration tends to be around the inner cities. It has been proven in London with the new Jubilee that a rapid rail transit station adjacent attracts investment.



However, you are adamant that without a rapid transit system, the regeneration cannot go ahead, or it will be unsuccessful. Which is totally unfounded.


One thing is clear, inner city regeneration is not happening quickly as it is, and an impetus of a rapid transport rail station would quicken up the process. An example given above.



I would like to see figures of tram vs underground rail, in terms of cost.


Installing trams - you are installing a light railway network, which is not cheap. Busses are very cheap as they use existing roads and carry their own energy in fuel tanks or batteries - no ugly overhead and dangerous wires needed. Trams need overhead wires and the electrical equipment to power that, again not cheap.

Trams can't do more than what buses can do in the centre, and as I have mentioned the city was eco 35 years ago with electric busses running in a loop around the centre - things have moved on in technology and this could be improved on using clean LPG, hybrid power units, or whatever. These eco-busses can be cheaply be re-introduced and distinctive looking, in looks and colours, to grab attention. A tram cannot offer more than what the eco-bus offers around the centre. Both will be stuck in traffic.

Busses offer flexible routing too, which a light rail system like trams cannot.

Trams are:

1. ugly (subjective)
2. noisy (they are)
3. vibrate into adjacent buildings (they do)
4. have obtrusive and ugly overhead wires (they have)
5. Expensive to implement (they are)

That is pretty clear, and only point 1. above is an "opinion", the rest being fact.

Back to basics. Manchester introduced trams because they could not afford a rapid transit underground system. The reason why most are introduced. Manchester is used as shining example of why we must have trams - forgetting they are failing in Sheffield and Croydon. Many trams in Europe were kept on because they were always there. All UK cities dropped trams in the 1950s for good reason. The best transport system in a city by far is an unobtrusive rapid transit underground rail system to shift people around and serve all areas. Eco-busses can fill the gaps between stations.

Now back to Liverpool. I re-iterate, we have an amazing amount of underground rail infrastructure under our feet that just needs re-activating and meshing into Merseyrail. The idea of the Circle Line is sound.

If we are going to spend money on rail networks (that is what a tram is) then spend it on something meaningful, will benefit, is cheap to do and which 80% of it is there - extend the existing underground rapid transit rail system - preferably into a Circle Line of 12 stations.

PhilipG
03-02-2008, 02:06 PM
Yes, the bus services into town are very frequent, especially the 79, 86 and 82, but when the 82 takes 15 minutes to crawl from St James Church to Lewis's, you wish you were on a train!

I live exactly on top of Dingle Station, and would love to see it reopen.

Waterways
03-02-2008, 02:34 PM
Yes, the bus services into town are very frequent, especially the 79, 86 and 82, but when the 82 takes 15 minutes to crawl from St James Church to Lewis's, you wish you were on a train!


That is why a Circle Line accessing all the city centre's major districts (business, shopping, leisure, park) is essential. From the suburbs, into the loop, around it, accessing all points and back out again. Simple, effective. ...and cheap to implement and most is still there.

That 15 minute wait will get worse as the city centre re-populates



I live exactly on top of Dingle Station, and would love to see it reopen.

Exactly? That is a garage now.

andyk
03-02-2008, 02:43 PM
An ex-pat, I live and work permanently in France between Bordeaux and Toulouse (these are the regions two major towns).Toulouse has a two-line light metro-VAL-with a first tram-line actually under construction.
Bordeaux has a three-line tram system, using the revolutuionary APS
'Alimentation Par Le Sol'


"A particular feature of the new Bordeaux tram network is its ground-level power supply system. This was the source of many difficulties and breakdowns when first introduced. Improvements since then, however, have increased reliability and the network is now one of Bordeaux's principal plus points, valued not just for enabling the people of the city to get about easily but also for its contribution to the aesthetics of the city and its quality of life. The new trams are an essential part of Bordeaux's current tourist redynamization strategy. The three lines will be extended in 2007 to reach several housing estates as well as the suburb of Mérignac. The whole system is under video surveillance, with a camera installed inside each vehicle"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramway_de_Bordeaux

Both these systems have been a huge success, taking thousands of cars off the over-congested roads.Bordeaux preferred the tram over a VAL system as it gained four times as much route for the same investment.

A modern forward looking city,Bordeaux preferred a tramway.Admittedly,Liverpool has many useful tunnels and disused track-beds that could be intergrated into a new network,but you cannot dismiss the fact that you get a lot more route for the same investment by choosing a tramway.

Finally, I would just like to add that I really enjoy reading your contributions on this forum(and also Skyscrapercity). Much time and thought goes into their elaboration and it is truly appreciated.

Cadfael
03-02-2008, 03:12 PM
I recently purchased a train 'cab ride' DVD showing the track from Liverpool Lime Street out to Broadgreen/St Helens/Manchester.

This was done in the 1990's but I was amazed at how quickly you got from say Lime Street to Broadgreen - I think I'll have to give it a go next time I'm in town!

jc_everton
03-02-2008, 08:34 PM
Waterways: You keep referring to tram's ugliness and noise, saying that this is FACT! Where are the facts to prove its ugliness? I think they are great. Not great looking, but not bad looking either. They are in place to get one from A to B with minimum fuss.

You talk about trams running into traffic.... well greater pedestrianisation of the city centre would almost certainly help. Congestion charges would deter people... plus there are ways in which trams can be made absolute priority on the roads. I couldn't really care less about the Kirkby line, unless Everton moved there, increasing the need for better public transport. Kirkby station is not close enough in my view. Especially if Liverpool are getting a new station... Bolton have their own station... Arsenal....Man Utd have a matchday-only station... Newcastle.... Sunderland... the list goes on (but definitely not Middlesbrough!).

I believe a metro system (but not Waterways proposal) integrated with city centre trams is the way forward. I have produced a map to show how this can work but I can't bloody use the upload thing (why can't we just copy and paste). Or at least is keeps saying the KB is too big when it clearly isn't.

You said Sheffield's trams are failing, but you did not disagree about the Manchester tram network being absolutely fine.

Britain's cities pulled the plug on trams in the 1950s with good reason. Thats like saying the many disused railways were abandoned with good reason. We all know that past transport policies have left this country lagging behind Europe, so we must reverse this and look at how a successful European city transport system works, such as Nuremburg, or as Andy says, Bordeaux (cheers mate, I'll include that in my c'work!).

Waterways, I actually believe that your proposal is not ruthless enough, because I do not see how city centre access is improved (eg, if I wanted to get from Byrom St to Hardman St), perhaps I should send you a copy of my map to show how trams and metro can integrate without boring more tunnels and creating new stations.

By the way, I am still not convinced light rail would be a lot more expensive than a metro system until I see hard figures. Your proposal is mere speculation let's not forget, so the figures that you may come up with will be purely guesswork. My proposal is at least half-Merseytram, half-metro so at least half of my figures would be accurate.

Waterways
03-02-2008, 08:37 PM
A modern forward looking city,Bordeaux preferred a tramway.Admittedly,Liverpool has many useful tunnels and disused track-beds that could be intergrated into a new network,but you cannot dismiss the fact that you get a lot more route for the same investment by choosing a tramway.


Andy, the priority in Liverpool must be reuse of existing underground infrastructure, for obvious reasons. How it can integrate into the existing Merseyrail network was always the problem. The Circle Line solves that, all is used apart from the Wapping Tunnel, which can be used to feed Kings Dock, the university and Chinatown later and branch into the Northern Line

In Liverpool trams ran on the central reservations of the Boulevards: Mather, Menlove etc. Using trams to service outer suburbs which don't have rail access along the boulevards is a sound notion. However the overhead wired trams don't mesh into Merseyrail - unless duel pickup of 3rd rail and overhead wires. The Bordeaux ground third rail trams may be the answer to Merseyrail tram integration.

The third rail....

"APS entirely replaces overhead. Each 8-m long section of powered third rail is controlled by a "coffret" (small metal box) installed in the nearby pavement, and this box contains the electronics that provide the security check analysis and control the system; from each of these boxes power is permitted only to those rail segments above which a tram is actually passing. The standard distance between these "coffrets", which are hardly visible, is 22 m.

The tram collects the electric power each time through skates, installed in the middle underneath the vehicle. This means that at the moment when one skate touches a neutral section, the other skate is drawing power from a powered section. In case of irregularities, the "coffret" is automatically switched off, and the tram continues its journey by switching to battery-generated power. Each "coffret" can also be switched in or out by the central control facility."

Back to the Liverpool Circle Line. The only section not built is from Dingle to Edge Hill. These APS trams can complete the circle using the Merseyrail third rail and out onto the streets using the APS ground 3rd rail pickup. Although the overground part may slow up the rapidness of the system. Also all Merseyrail rolling stock would need to go over to the APS tram rolling stock. It is better to complete such a loop underground. Then existing Merseyrail rolling stock can use the Circle Line and APS trams from rapid outer suburb routes can too.

Say an APS tram down Menlove Ave, it can then access this loop at the Mystery Park at Smithdown Rd (Sefton Pk station) and work its way into Edge Hill along the track there.

New fast APS services down boulevards that can access an underground outer city centre circle line are ideal. That mean all outer suburb line access all main point in the centre.



Finally, I would just like to add that I really enjoy reading your contributions on this forum

Thanks, I like yours too.

Waterways
03-02-2008, 11:34 PM
Waterways: You keep referring to tram's ugliness and noise, saying that this is FACT! Where are the facts to prove its ugliness? I think they are great. Not great looking, but not bad looking either. They are in place to get one from A to B with minimum fuss.


JC. looks is subjective, although the Bordeaux trams looks swish enough.



You talk about trams running into traffic.... well greater pedestrianisation of the city centre would almost certainly help. Congestion charges would deter people... plus there are ways in which trams can be made absolute priority on the roads.


That could apply to cheaper eco-busess too. Trams are only viaable for long haul route - cheaper than underground rapid transit system.



I couldn't really care less about the Kirkby line, unless Everton moved there, increasing the need for better public transport. Kirkby station is not close enough in my view. Especially if Liverpool are getting a new station... Bolton have their own station... Arsenal....Man Utd have a matchday-only station... Newcastle.... Sunderland... the list goes on (but definitely not Middlesbrough!).


Everton and Liverpool FC can both move to sites with superior rail and road transport links.



I believe a metro system (but not Waterways proposal) integrated with city centre trams is the way forward. I have produced a map to show how this can work but I can't bloody use the upload thing (why can't we just copy and paste). Or at least is keeps saying the KB is too big when it clearly isn't.


Use the image button and make sure the file is .jpg.



You said Sheffield's trams are failing, but you did not disagree about the Manchester tram network being absolutely fine.


Two out of three are not a success. Trams are not a sure-fire success.



Britain's cities pulled the plug on trams in the 1950s with good reason. That's like saying the many disused railways were abandoned with good reason.


The abandonment of much of the railways was a political decision by Dr Beeching. The Road Transport Lobby were funding the Tories.



We all know that past transport policies have left this country lagging behind Europe, so we must reverse this and look at how a successful European city transport system works, such as Nuremburg, or as Andy says, Bordeaux (cheers mate, I'll include that in my c'work!).


We must. But first let's put the infrastructure under our feet to good use.



Waterways, I actually believe that your proposal is not ruthless enough, because I do not see how city centre access is improved (eg, if I wanted to get from Byrom St to Hardman St), perhaps I should send you a copy of my map to show how trams and metro can integrate without boring more tunnels and creating new stations.


The Wapping Tunnel runs close by to Hardman St at Hope St/Blackburn Place.
It also crosses the Northern line tunnel at Gt George St. An underground station could be built here.
http://www.toxteth.net/maps/liverpool/images/big_toxteth_mapbw_0x2.gif



By the way, I am still not convinced light rail would be a lot more expensive than a metro system until I see hard figures. Your proposal is mere speculation let's not forget, so the figures that you may come up with will be purely guesswork. My proposal is at least half-Merseytram, half-metro so at least half of my figures would be accurate.

I come up with no figures at all. What is clear is that to build such an underground Circle Line from scratch would be horrendously expensive. 80% is there, so no matter what the cost it will always be cheap. Then look at what it offers in regeneration, access to all major city quarters, great connectivity, etc. Don't lose sight of that - people get bogged down with detail and lose sight of what is important.

Waterways
03-06-2008, 01:17 AM
I had an idea many years ago for the re opening of the ex cheshire lines, although i have seen several proposals over the years, ive never seen this particular idea, with a branch near hartleys hill Aintree along the old clc to hunts cross, which could also have the lines from walton through kirkdale and sandills (marked yellow) reinstated to 4 tracks if needed.
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z205/lamdelz/map3a.jpg
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z205/lamdelz/map4.jpg

with regards the edge hill tunnels, i think the victoria and waterloo tunnels is a good idea.
i think the wapping tunnel on top of having a stream running nearby which causes water problems, is also built to a very tight loading gauge, Ive been told by ex railway men that 2 trains where not allowed to pass in the tunnel, such was the tightness of it, its one of the oldest railway tunnels ever, and the loading gauge is down to the size of locomotives at the time.

Mike

Mike, That is one hell of a loop. Living in the east of the city will be a long way around, either way, to get to the centre.

The 1960s idea was similar, and was to be built. The Northern Line from Sandhills through the centre to Gatacre. From there around the loop, via Childwall, Broad Green, Anfield, Walton and join back before Sandhills (the Canada Dock branch. Like yours a long way around from the east.

The Edge Hill Spur was supposed to cut this loop into two - a north end loop and a south end loop. From Broad Green to Edge Hill, down the Wapping Tunnel with a branch off this to Central stn. Two loops could be in operation.

As the Line from Gatacre to Broad Green is now a linear Park installing rails again maybe out of the question - although not completely. This leaves the north end loop, which LFC want reinstated. However it would only go as far as Edge Hill - maybe Lime St main line if 3rd rail is installed. So you could have a line from South Parkway to the centre, around the loop via Vauxhall, Walton, Anfield, Broad Green then into Edge Hill/Lime St.

The Edge Hill Spur using the Wapping tunnel, with maybe a station at Catherine St would be essential here to get outlying people to the main districts in the centre: business and shopping.

Then the Circle Line using the Waterloo tunnel would complete the the main Liverpool system. Of course the Burscough curve would enhance (also creating a loop: Kirkdale - Ormskirk - Southport - Kirkdale), as would the Bidston to Wrexham link, bringing people in from North Wales right into the main centre districts.

mike delamar
03-06-2008, 01:50 PM
I had that Idea when I was about 13 and for no other reason than wanting to see trains on the old clc line, I knew nothing of the economics or anything, it was just a way I saw that it could be done, and since ive learned and studied about it, know it wont happen.

also, dont always assume that people want to go into town, they may live in gateacre and want to go to knotty ash or clubmoor for example.

Newcastle has a similar loop railway, check that out

Mike

Waterways
03-06-2008, 02:15 PM
I had that Idea when I was about 13 and for no other reason than wanting to see trains on the old clc line, I knew nothing of the economics or anything, it was just a way I saw that it could be done, and since ive learned and studied about it, know it wont happen.

also, dont always assume that people want to go into town, they may live in gateacre and want to go to knotty ash or clubmoor for example.

Newcastle has a similar loop railway, check that out

Mike


Mike, you are right they don't always want to go into town, however that is the busiest and most in demand of routes. And as the city wants the centre to be the full focus of the city it makes sense to get them in there and out ASAP.

The Canada Dock branch (the loop through Anfield - well the northern loop) looks like it may happen. It is being seriously considered. If LFCs new stadium emerges then I think it will happen. But as I said it needs to be a proper loop and that will only happen with the Edge Hill spur - a small amount of tunnelling from the Wapping tunnel into the Northern Line tunnel just before Central stn. Then a full circular loop giving access to the business, shopping and leisure districts of the centre.

If the Northern loop gets done and is a success, then the southern section may emerge as the track bed is still there. If I had a house built butting onto that track and they said they were going to runs trains through I would be most displeased - so lengthy delays is getting that up and running. The northern loop has no such problems as the line is in use by goods trains.

This does not preclude the Circle Line, which would need tunnelling from Dingle underground station to Edge via Lodge Lane. This would also allow people to travel, say from Brunswick dock to Lodge Lane without hitting the centre. Or Waterloo Dock (Liverpool Waters) to Sefton Park without hitting he centre.

Once a Circle Line, the northern loop and maybe the southern loop are in place, then Liverpool can start with congestion charging and get rid of the Dock Rd Urban motorway. Then it is easy to get to the centre and a pleasure to be there as traffic will be light.

Merseyrail is essential for the city.

SKie
03-06-2008, 03:51 PM
Ive always thought Lime Street to Aintree via Bootle Junction would be an interesting addition to the network. Both lines exist, with the Bootle-Aintree branch obviously needing the most work to bring up to passenger spec. But they both pass through densely populated areas that could do with better public transport. It would also allow a link for longer distance trains travelling to Aintree for the races or Anfield, with the Olive Mount Chord work being done.

The two 'interchange' stations that would be created at Oriel Road and Bootle New Strand already have a 3rd platform that has never been scrapped, and it looks as if Merseyrail have thought of this during the planning as Oriel Roads refurbishment appears to be leaving the 3rd platform intact.

Waterways
03-06-2008, 05:36 PM
Here is an old rail map from a Liverpool rail web site:Here (http://www.lenpentin.20fr.com/liverpool_map_full.jpg)

It shows all the central and north rail link lines very well. Garston, Gatacre, etc missed out.
http://www.lenpentin.20fr.com/liverpool_map_full.jpg

From Mike Royden's site. The South end rail lines:
http://www.btinternet.com/~m.royden/mrlhp/local/halewood/railway/localnetwork.jpg

jc_everton
03-07-2008, 05:00 PM
Waterways: I believe a fully comprehensive map showing exactly where the loop line will connect with the other lines and how they would connect, would convince me. For instance, the Waterloo tunnel connecting with the Northern Line. I'm confused as to how this would happen.

In the other post which I've just sent, on the Central Station thread, I touched on the subject of Lodge Lane. looking at your original map, it would take ages to get from Lodge Lane to Central via Waterloo dock. And i'm assuming it will be a two-way loop? if it was one-way, it would effectively be pointless.

HollyBlack
03-08-2008, 08:20 AM
... Out at Waterloo Dock
Build a station here serving that centre
Branch onto the northern line and back to the city centre ...
Looking at the available modern and historical photos, googlearth etc. it looks to me that any exit from the Waterloo tunnel would be quite difficult, due mostly to the Costco building to the West and the presence of the Northern line limiting changes to the East. I suppose you could demolish the Costco building to proceed, but ignoring that unlikely scenario then:-

As to heavy rail linking up with the Northern line, this would seem to have space only to hook-up Northbound, and even that would require re-routing Gt. Howard St., a new flyover at least.

More feasible might be light-rail (tram) which could make a tightish right turn and uphill on exiting a slightly changed tunnel portal, perhaps to a tram terminus where the car wash, or whatever it is, presently stands at the corner of Gt. Howard St. and Chadwick St..
Or instead of terminating there, a tram could continue running at street level. For example somehow looping around a few streets by making a series of left turns to end up Northbound on Pall Mall and looping back under the Northern line at Chadwick St. and back down into the tunnel.

Separately, I'm more inclined to think that such an old tunnel might be more suited to the lower forces involved in light-rail than the various demands of modern heavy rail.

Waterways
03-08-2008, 09:51 AM
Looking at the available modern and historical photos, googlearth etc. it looks to me that any exit from the Waterloo tunnel would be quite difficult, due mostly to the Costco building to the West and the presence of the Northern line limiting changes to the East. I suppose you could demolish the Costco building to proceed, but ignoring that unlikely scenario then:-

As to heavy rail linking up with the Northern line, this would seem to have space only to hook-up Northbound, and even that would require re-routing Gt. Howard St., a new flyover at least.

More feasible might be light-rail (tram) which could make a tightish right turn and uphill on exiting a slightly changed tunnel portal, perhaps to a tram terminus where the car wash, or whatever it is, presently stands at the corner of Gt. Howard St. and Chadwick St..
Or instead of terminating there, a tram could continue running at street level. For example somehow looping around a few streets by making a series of left turns to end up Northbound on Pall Mall and looping back under the Northern line at Chadwick St. and back down into the tunnel.

Separately, I'm more inclined to think that such an old tunnel might be more suited to the lower forces involved in light-rail than the various demands of modern heavy rail.


The Costco Building is on the old goods yard. This would have to go of course.
There is enough space to merge the Waterloo Tunnel onto the Northern Line.
The Waterloo Tunnel emerges right on the Northern Line
The Victoria/Waterloo Tunnel was in use with heavy rail for over 120 years. I see no reason why it can't continue.
Introducing trams gives complications in rolling stock
Introducing trams gives complications in platform levels.
Introducing trams gives complications in electric pickup (3rd rail/overhead wires)
Having the Waterloo Tunnel heavy 3rd rail will allow outer suburb trains to enter the city centre.


There is no reason why the Waterloo Tunnel cannot branch onto the Northern Line and seamlessly merge with the rest of Merseyrail.

Forget trundling, expensive trams. An expensive and needless waste of time. If they want something visually different for tourists, then then they should do what Birkenhead is doing and introduce 1800s lookalikes around tourist districts. Expensive fad though, as laying rail lines is not cheap.


.

jc_everton
03-08-2008, 11:24 AM
HollyBlack basically hit the nail on the head when she (or he) said that the Waterloo tunnel will only be able to link up northbound onto the Northern Line heading towards Sandhills. I just don't see how it can link up with the Northern Line without a serious realignment of the Waterloo Tunnel. Good luck in knocking down Costco too, you can't just demolish a large retail store (ok, wholesalers) like you can with a brick wall.
I think your proposals need to be a bit more technical in order for them to be considered feasible, as I don't understand the linkage with Waterloo and Northern.

Perhaps two underground curves could be created - a southern one connecting a Byrom St station to Moorfields, and a northern one linking Byrom St with Sandhills. BUT, in order for the line to extend west toward the docks, a new tunnel would have to be created, and then there's the question of "How many services do you intend to run and is the demand going to be there?"

You are right in saying the city is exapnding, but surely the most important commuter areas that ARE not currently served by rail are the university areas around Mount Pleasant and Paradise Street/Liverpool One. And perhaps the King's Dock area, where a number of offices are located.

I don't think the north docks warrant such extensive tunnelling and demolishing in order to provide them with a station - there are more important areas within the city centre lacking rail access.

Waterways
03-08-2008, 11:52 AM
HollyBlack basically hit the nail on the head when she (or he) said that the Waterloo tunnel will only be able to link up northbound onto the Northern Line heading towards Sandhills. I just don't see how it can link up with the Northern Line without a serious realignment of the Waterloo Tunnel. Good luck in knocking down Costco too, you can't just demolish a large retail store (ok, wholesalers) like you can with a brick wall.
I think your proposals need to be a bit more technical in order for them to be considered feasible, as I don't understand the linkage with Waterloo and Northern.

Perhaps two underground curves could be created - a southern one connecting a Byrom St station to Moorfields, and a northern one linking Byrom St with Sandhills. BUT, in order for the line to extend west toward the docks, a new tunnel would have to be created, and then there's the question of "How many services do you intend to run and is the demand going to be there?"

You are right in saying the city is exapnding, but surely the most important commuter areas that ARE not currently served by rail are the university areas around Mount Pleasant and Paradise Street/Liverpool One. And perhaps the King's Dock area, where a number of offices are located.

I don't think the north docks warrant such extensive tunnelling and demolishing in order to provide them with a station - there are more important areas within the city centre lacking rail access.

Costco can be CPOd. That is not a problem. The Northern Line can be brought down off the embankment to a Waterloo Dock station and then back up. That is just a technicality in the whole scheme of things.

It needs to be looked at holistically. Proposing ad-hoc lines here and there will only screw matters up in the future.

The city is expanding like hell, especially the centres and immediate surrounds.

What is clear is that with some cut and cover tunneling from Dingle to Edge Hill an outer city centre loop is created serving deprived inner-city areas assisting greatly in regeneration (please don't go on about busses running from there). This brings into service the Waterloo Tunnel, Dingle Tunnel and 3 underground stations laying idle.

Then outer suburbs can enter this Circle Line and run around it and back out. without changing. And that includes the line in Wrexham that the Welsh are partly funding. There may be a through train stropping at Liverpool Central serving John Lennon Airport. So Wrexham - Birkenhead - Liverpool - JLA.

A north end Loop can be accommodated by completing the small amount of tunneling from Central to the Wapping Tunnel, then bringing this tunnel on line. A station can be cut out for the uni, or one at Cavendish cutting.


Get the Circle Line built (a small amount of cut and cover tunnelling - 80% is in place)
Get outer suburb lines entering the Circle Line and hitting all major city centre districts without changing.
Get the Wrexham Line operational into Liverpool Merseyrail and a through airport service.


To get the above operational is just mainly cut and cover tunnelling from Dingle to Edge Hill to create a Circle Line

Additional would be to:


Create a north end loop line by Tunneling from Central to Wapping tunnel, creating a uni station and access to Kings Dock.
Create a south end loop line by laying track back in the bed from Halewood to Broad Green.


I reiterate get a conceptual model first using the bulk of the disused rail infrastructure.

Then to make people use it, introduce congestion charging in the center and get rid of that urban motorway called the Dock Rd.
.

jc_everton
03-08-2008, 12:56 PM
I am looking at it holistically, and from a regeneration perspective. I am still firmly in the camp of an integrated public transport system involving trains, trams and buses - let's not forget that even with your proposed lines, there will always be some areas that will not have immediate rail access, and buses will always be needed. All cities with undergound systems and tram systems still have buses, so when you say "don't go on about buses", you are again making an unnecessary, sweeping statement. I hate buses, but obviously nowhere near as much as you do.

One station I firmly believe should be reopened is the old Sefton Park station, serving an 'up-and-coming' area of Liverpool, with a heavily student populated area. But even if it was built, demand for buses would not, in my view, fall dramatically, as the further you live away from the station, the more likely you are to jump on a bus, especially if it's raining, and of course, Smithdown Road has regular bus services. What rail does provide, including your proposals, is an attractive and efficient alternative to cars and buses. It should ease congestion, but not eradicate it. As I say, demand for buses will not go away with a new rail service. It may decrease, and some services may be cut back, but I think we'd all agree that's a good thing - a movement from buses to rail.

Another major logistical problem - this time as regards the south loop. I can't ever see the old CLC line reopening, what with it being a linear park, and the number of houses that back onto the line will provide stiff opposition. Then there is the issue of linking that line onto the Broadgreen line. It never did link in with it - it carried on up to Southport, and there is a major motorway running parallel with this line. Realistically, this line is a no-no. Yes the area could do with rail access, but we'd be looking at decades for a project like that to take place. Think about all the ongoing considerations now, such as the Aintree - Anfield lines, Kirkby Headbolt etc. Merseytravel have no intentions of reopening the tunnels for the foreseeable future, nevermind lines to Gateacre and new tunnels under Lodge Lane. You keep saying it's going to be cheap to cut-and-cover, and create new stations, but I'm still to see any figures to back you up. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

We all know the figures involved with Merseytram, and the regional/national governments could easily help fund it if they wanted to, but it's Liverpool, not London, so they couldn't care less. All this talk about the 'Green' Games of London 2012... why can't they adopt that attitude nationwide?

The Transport Investment Priorities in the RTS 2006 are nearly ALL geared towards highway improvements. Millions and millions on highways. Not forgetting the millions going to Manchester's metrolink. Some may argue Merseyside's rail system is not in such dyer need of investment, but certainly missing links such as the Burscough Curves, the NMB, the NLEL and to an extent, the Waterloo Tunnel, could do with investment. Anything more than this would be great, but if the city centre continues to expand, a tram system fits the bill nicely for me.

robt
03-09-2008, 03:44 AM
You keep saying it's going to be cheap to cut-and-cover, and create new stations, but I'm still to see any figures to back you up. Until then, I remain unconvinced.


You looking at a minimum of £75 million per mile and £15 million per station.

Not sure it qualifies as 'cheap' though.

Waterways
03-09-2008, 10:53 AM
You looking at a minimum of £75 million per mile and £15 million per station.

Not sure it qualifies as 'cheap' though.

The Brunswick Quay Tower block was around one billion. To build a Circle Line with 12 stations on it from scratch that is buttons. So just to get the Circle Line tunnelling, complete with stations it is around £200 million. Obviously more to get the disused stations up and running.

That is buttons when looking at figures for transport infrastructure elsewhere.


Buttons to regenerate inner city areas.
Buttons to create a comprehensive interconnected rapid transit underground system.

Just buttons. Excellent value for money. Once it is there is is there. Not transient. It is there doing its job for evermore.

You sound like negative Sr Humphrey. A minister would come up with a good sensible productive idea. Humphrey would not like it for whatever snob illogical reason was in his head. Then he would put in place all sorts of small, and illogical objections, mentally making the project a massive unworkable monster. Then the minister would back down, buying the con. Then back to the status quo, where Humphrey is very comfortable. And nothing happens and Humphrey goes home to his tree lined suburban home every night.

robt
03-09-2008, 12:12 PM
So just to get the Circle Line tunnelling, complete with stations it is around £200 million.

Based on what industry knowledge is that?

12 stations multiplied by £15million is obviously £180 million before you have even done any tunnelling, relocated beneath ground services, laid any track or signalling.

Waterways
03-09-2008, 02:06 PM
Based on what industry knowledge is that?

12 stations multiplied by £15million is obviously £180 million before you have even done any tunnelling, relocated beneath ground services, laid any track or signalling.


Central, Lime St, Moorefields. Brunswick, Edge Hill are already there and in use.
Waterloo Dock is overground, so simple to build.
Dingle, Parliament St, and to an extent, Byrom St are disused and already there.
Two new stations left behind in cut & cover at Sefton Pk & Lodge Lane
Edge Hill to be re-done (it has to anyhow)
One new station cut into the Victoria/Waterloo tunnel at Royal Hosp (this can be done at a later time if need be).


Most is already there and done too. Just a little looking gives that. The Circle Line is cheap to construct - very cheap indeed because most is there The benefits this small amount of transport infrastructure investment will bring will be enormous.


.

robt
03-09-2008, 02:16 PM
Central, Lime St, Moorefields. Brunswick, Edge Hill are already there and in use.

The first three have insufficient capacity for a new frequent service in addition to what they already handle, so they would need enlargening at considerable cost - More than £15 million each.

The £15 million per station was referring to simple overground stations, I forgot some were to be underground. Double it to £30 million for those.


Waterloo Dock is overground, so simple to build. Dingle, Parliament St, and to an extent, Byrom St are disused and already there.

Yes, a bit cheaper to construct.


Two new stations left behind at Sefton Pk & Lodge Lane, Edge Hill to be re-done (it has to anyhow) & one new station cut into the Victoria/Waterloo tunnel at Royal Hosp (this can be done at a later time if need be).

I'm not sure what you mean - "new stations left behind " ?


Most is already there and done too. Just a little looking gives that. The Circle Line is cheap to construct - very cheap indeed because most is there.

I'm not sure what you call 'cheap', but with no disrespect meant, you clearly have no idea of the costs or complexities of tunnelling or rail infrastructure.

Waterways
03-09-2008, 03:11 PM
I'm not sure what you mean - "new stations left behind " ?


Left behind in the cut & cover - cheap.



I'm not sure what you call 'cheap', but with no disrespect meant, you clearly have no idea of the costs or complexities of tunnelling or rail infrastructure.

I know that to build an underground loop the cost is phenomenal - look at the Jubilee Line in London. Build one when about 80% of the line is still there is a snip and falls into the "buttons" category in comparison.

The cost can be clawed back by a property sales tax that taxes property that had a value increase because of adjacent public transport infrastructure.

Some of the existing city centre stations will need updating anyhow as lines are run in from North Wales. Updating these stations means a knock-on affect in accommodating outer suburb lines seamlessly into the city centre and fast lines to John Lennon airport.

I claim my 5 pounds - you are Sir Humphrey! :)

robt
03-09-2008, 03:37 PM
The cost can be clawed back by a property sales tax that taxes property that had a value increase because of adjacent public transport infrastructure.

There is no such thing though at the moment, I think the nearest that has ever got is pressure groups wanting it?


Some of the existing city centre stations will need updating anyhow as lines are run in from North Wales. Updating these stations means a knock-on affect in accommodating outer suburb lines seamlessly into the city centre and fast lines to John Lennon airport.

Yep, Central (especially) and Moorfields need upgrade work regardless of any extra services, although I fear this will result in heavy cosmetic work at Central, only for it needing to be rebuilt 5 years down the line.

robt
03-09-2008, 04:37 PM
Here is another costing to consider.

£7.6 million for a quarter of a mile of SINGLE track (Olive Mount Chord).

HollyBlack
03-09-2008, 09:07 PM
Here is another costing to consider.
£7.6 million for a quarter of a mile of SINGLE track (Olive Mount Chord).I believe that is for the total project. Including loading gauge clearance of the entire line to the docks - a significant expense in itself. Hopefully the loading gauge work will make a later feasibility study for (overhead) electrification cheaper and easier.

What I don't understand is why the Olive Mount Chord is to be bi-directional instead of doubled? It seems like the total amount of pointwork needed is about the same for either and the amount of signalling work needed is the same (or even more for bidirectional!?). Unless (possibly) there are some existing crossovers that will be used. Given that The Chord is to be designed for doubling and electrification at a later date it seems silly not to reinstate it to doubled track right away.

Waterways
03-09-2008, 09:13 PM
Here is another costing to consider.

£7.6 million for a quarter of a mile of SINGLE track (Olive Mount Chord).

Billions spent in infrastructure is normal. Whatever they spend on getting Liverpool back to a top level rapid rail transport system, it will be cheap - as most of the important infrastructure is already there - the tunnels and trackbeds. The economic and unquantifiable social gains will outweigh the cost.

Waterways
03-09-2008, 09:14 PM
I believe that is for the total project. Including loading gauge clearance of the entire line to the docks - a significant expense in itself. Hopefully the loading gauge work will make a later feasibility study for (overhead) electrification cheaper and easier.

What I don't understand is why the Olive Mount Chord is to be bi-directional instead of doubled? It seems like the total amount of pointwork needed is about the same for either and the amount of signalling work needed is the same (or even more for bidirectional!?). Unless (possibly) there are some existing crossovers that will be used. Given that The Chord is to be designed for doubling and electrification at a later date it seems silly not to reinstate it to doubled track right away.

Penny wise, pound foolish comes to mind.

robt
03-09-2008, 09:19 PM
Billions spent in infrastructure is normal.

I'm perfectly aware of that - it is the point I'm making to you.

Where is the billions for your visions to come from? It isn't going to come from this 'property tax' idea - it doesnt exist apart from in the minds of campaigners.

robt
03-09-2008, 09:44 PM
I believe that is for the total project. Including loading gauge clearance of the entire line to the docks - a significant expense in itself. Hopefully the loading gauge work will make a later feasibility study for (overhead) electrification cheaper and easier.

What I don't understand is why the Olive Mount Chord is to be bi-directional instead of doubled? It seems like the total amount of pointwork needed is about the same for either and the amount of signalling work needed is the same (or even more for bidirectional!?). Unless (possibly) there are some existing crossovers that will be used. Given that The Chord is to be designed for doubling and electrification at a later date it seems silly not to reinstate it to doubled track right away.

The branch is gauged at W9 - which is the same (or greater) as all other track in the area. Only W10 is greater, the nearest of which is the WCML - ie it is W9 all the way from the WCML to the chord, so there would be no advantage to making the chord (and branch) W10. Hope that makes sense :).

W10 is planned, but £7.6 million aint gonna do it all the way from the WCML unless they are extremely lucky with not having much work to do on the route.

Unless it is ridicilous penny-pinching, then my only thought is that there is possibly not quite enough room for double track W10 gauge.

Waterways
03-09-2008, 09:58 PM
I'm perfectly aware of that - it is the point I'm making to you.

Where is the billions for your visions to come from? It isn't going to come from this 'property tax' idea - it doesnt exist apart from in the minds of campaigners.

The figures you pick out of the air appear quite cheap. If they are representative, I can't see the cost being major barrier.

Nokka
03-09-2008, 11:07 PM
I find this thread fascinating and i love to see old railway stations and buildings...

robt
03-09-2008, 11:31 PM
The figures you pick out of the air appear quite cheap. If they are representative, I can't see the cost being major barrier.

You are impossible to reason with, personally I think your just a troll, which would explain why you got banned on SSC.

My figures were not picked out of the air.

Maybe if you think mine are so out, you could explain what experience you have in the rail industry - because I'm sure I have more than you judging from your posts.

HollyBlack
03-09-2008, 11:57 PM
W10 is planned, but £7.6 million aint gonna do it all the way from the WCML unless they are extremely lucky with not having much work to do on the route.
Unless it is ridicilous penny-pinching, then my only thought is that there is possibly not quite enough room for double track W10 gauge.I guess you are right

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documents/4601_Enhancements%20Recent%20Contract%20Awards%20P 807%20-%20P1108.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/373orn
... contracts awarded during periods 8, 9, 10, & 11 (14/10/2007 - 02/02/08) ... First Engineering Ltd - 100377 - Port of Liverpool Improvements (Olive Mount Chord) - The works comprise all temporary/preparatory and permanent works, in connection with the reinstatement of a bi-directional signalled W10 cleared single track. - Jan 08 ...

http://www.nwra.gov.uk/newsletter/?page_id=119&article_id=236
http://tinyurl.com/2pkvmj
... 1st December 2007 ... The project will also enable freight trains to carry larger deep-sea containers on normal wagons by clearing the line between Edge Hill and the West Coast Main Line to "W10" gauge. ... start early next year and be completed by 2011 ...

As best I can interpret that it means The Chord opens December 2008, and the Port route to WCML becomes W10 cleared by 2011. I seem to recall the post-Panamax operation is due to start in December 2010.

What is unclear in all the press releases is any clear indication of whether the £7.6 million is supposed to cover W10 for the entire line or just the Olive Mount Chord. And where else the money is coming from and whether W10 all the way is committed or not. In all the old proposals for funding the two were combined together.

Waterways
03-10-2008, 12:12 AM
You are impossible to reason with, personally I think your just a troll, which would explain why you got banned on SSC.


Your reason is agreeing with you. I like logical explanations. Not such stuff as, it will not happen and trams are better, and no reason given, and I work in trains so I must know better. Yep, been there and seen that before in other industries. I worked in management consultancy and we went to many diverse industries. We invariably came out with better ideas because we looked at matters in a more logical way without the ingrained constraints of their minds. We could think out of the box. We could also see the obvious. They were more concerned with trivial detail unable to see the big picture. They generally hated us. I see that in you.

I left SSC - a clique. A bunch of nutters obsessed with tall buildings and nothing else.



My figures were not picked out of the air.


I'm sure you never worked them out in detail.



Maybe if you think mine are so out, you could explain what experience you have in the rail industry - because I'm sure I have more than you judging from your posts.

I have no experience with the rail industry, which makes me better qualified. Look at the tripe they came up with.

Look at the 70s. This Circle Line I am on about could have been cheaply implemented then. All was there and with a more densely populated city too. All they had to do was tunnel from Exchange to Central, leaving out Lime St to save money (accessed on Merseyrail via Edge Hill) and spend on cut and cover for the Circle. Then outer loops, (which were still there and used), could have been merged with the rest of Merseyrail. Too easy isn't it? I have no faith in the existing rail industry to come out with anything creative. They can't even use needed existing stations and tunnels under our feet. If negative people like you are typical of them God help us.

BTW, inner city regeneration. Heard of that? Get choo-choos out of your head.

robt
03-10-2008, 07:50 AM
Your reason is agreeing with you. I like logical explanations. Not such stuff as, it will not happen and trams are better, and no reason given, and I work in trains so I must know better.

Eh?


Yep, been there and seen that before in other industries. I worked in management consultancy and we went to many diverse industries. We invariably came out with better ideas because we looked at matters in a more logical way without the ingrained constraints of their minds. We could think out of the box. We could also see the obvious. They were more concerned with trivial detail unable to see the big picture. They generally hated us. I see that in you.

Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box - but you still have to think about what is practical otherwise your just a dreamer. I really couldn't care less what you 'see in me', I think my posts speak for themselves.


I'm sure you never worked them out in detail.

No I didn't or claim to, but they are realistic estimates.


I have no experience with the rail industry, which makes me better qualified. Look at the tripe they came up with.

The question was if you think my figures are wrong, explain what experience you have to rubbish them. You couldn't answer it, so have taken it out of context.


Look at the 70s. This Circle Line I am on about could have been cheaply implemented then. All was there and with a more densely populated city too. All they had to do was tunnel from Exchange to Central, leaving out Lime St to save money (accessed on Merseyrail via Edge Hill) and spend on cut and cover for the Circle. Then outer loops, (which were still there and used), could have been merged with the rest of Merseyrail. Too easy isn't it? I have no faith in the existing rail industry to come out with anything creative. They can't even use needed existing stations and tunnels under our feet. If negative people like you are typical of them God help us.

Yes it could of been cheap, but it isn't the 70s now though. I'm not negative - I have said myself elsewehere that your vision would be great, but it is not realistic.


BTW, inner city regeneration. Heard of that? Get choo-choos out of your head.

Any need for rudeness, or is that what you do when the going gets tough and you are out of your depth?

I will be back on this thread, but only for any serious discussion, not childish name calling and remarks.

merseywail
03-10-2008, 08:22 AM
A very interesting debate. The idear of the circle line is a good one, but looking at it historically is doomed to fail. The grand plans of merseyrail in the 60's/70's were for the loop, link, spur. Electric lines to Wigan, Warrington & Chester. North loop via Bootle & west derby, south loop via Belle vale. What happened to these grand plans? The country's financial troubles in the 70's, & a millitant work force, driving up the costs, put paid to most of them. what was built was cut to the bone. such as the escalator at lime st stoping short of the platform to save £100.000. With this global credit crunch and rising costs all round, are we likely to see this the circle line ever built? I have my doubts the proposed Anfield, north mersey re opening or Burscough curves will get of the ground . But you never know , miracle's do happen..

Waterways
03-10-2008, 11:07 AM
A very interesting debate. The idear of the circle line is a good one, but looking at it historically is doomed to fail. The grand plans of merseyrail in the 60's/70's were for the loop, link, spur. Electric lines to Wigan, Warrington & Chester. North loop via Bootle & west derby, south loop via Belle vale. What happened to these grand plans? The country's financial troubles in the 70's, & a millitant work force, driving up the costs, put paid to most of them. what was built was cut to the bone. such as the escalator at lime st stoping short of the platform to save £100.000.


You are saying it is doomed to fail because of the incompetence of the people running the city and the negative attitude prevalent in the city.
The city also lost about half its population about that time - the reason why no rail infrastructure was built, or any building of any note whatsoever.



With this global credit crunch and rising costs all round, are we likely to see this the circle line ever built? I have my doubts the proposed Anfield, north mersey re opening or Burscough curves will get of the ground . But you never know , miracle's do happen..

The money is there, it is putting up a good enough case and then the money will come. Key words and phrases like:


regeneration
Toxteth
inner cities
rapid transit
underground rail
seamless rail connectivity
mini London Tube
knit the city districts together
easy access to Europe's fastest expanding airport
fix existing problems
project the city forwards
create a forward progressive image

They focus the mind and grab attention.

The trams were called in by Darling because there was a feeble business case for them - in fact no business case whatsoever. It was a nice to have scheme - let's spend public money while it is there. There isn't a feeble business case to greatly extend a rapid transit underground system at minimal cost. The intangible social benefits are great. An underground system will attract investment to areas far, far more than Mickey Mouse trams ever will. Bus systems attract nothing. Underground rapid transit systems focus the mind, like no other form of public transport.

What you are saying is you doubt anything will be built.

Putting forward a cheap extension to an underground rail system in a city expanding like crazy and attracting masses of outside investment (and future potential with Dubai with LFC, Peel with Shanghai, etc) will:


Attract investment
Regenerate areas that have failed to regenerate despite many initiatives and masses of public money poured into them (not to mention current day state benefits paid out - governments want that cut down)
Focus the mind of those who hold the purse strings.

Waterways
03-10-2008, 11:25 AM
Eh?
Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box - but you still have to think about what is practical otherwise your just a dreamer.


There is an element of dreaming in any project as you have to look ahead. An underground rail project which is:


Largely in place - 80% of it.
Attract outside investment in the districts it covers
Will greatly assist in regenerating inner city areas
Create seamless connectivity of the whole underground
Easy and cheap to expand further aspects of the underground
Create many underground stations
Give a positive city image
Give an image of a progressive city

Will attract attention to those holding the purse strings.



Any need for rudeness, or is that what you do when the going gets tough

Every project has to have aims and benefits, these could be financially, social, etc. Never lose sight of them. Delving into trivial detail you then lose track of what its all about - like thinking the Burscough Curve is more important. No one has come up any reason whatsoever why this project would not work. Why there would not be benefits to the city. The spin off benefits to the city and area would be enormous.

andyk
03-10-2008, 02:54 PM
I will be back on this thread, but only for any serious discussion, not childish name calling and remarks.

With all due respect, this thread as a whole has generated some very interesting input.Perhaps Waterways is a dreamer,but humanity only advances as one man's dream becomes reality.

merseywail
03-10-2008, 04:28 PM
The money to build the line is there , but for how much longer ? The money to build the full merseyrail network was also there, but central government pulled the plug, due to the state the country was in at the time, (3 day week, power cuts, run away inflation etc.) we were lucky to get what we did. Manchesters pic/vic underground never got anywere, thats why they are stuck with trams. You are right about the attituide in this city . If this line were to go ahead you can bet there would be ,protests, petitions & public enquiry's. Can you imagine the howls of protest when they say they will have to dig a big hole in the parks, & if a single tree has to go !!! The best chance of building this line is to attract private investment ,no risk to local & national government. But they would want to see a return for there money, & they would also have to do battle with the nimby's

Waterways
03-10-2008, 04:48 PM
With all due respect, this thread as a whole has generated some very interesting input.Perhaps Waterways is a dreamer,but humanity only advances as one man's dream becomes reality.

It is a dream based on hard nosed reality. 80% of it is there - I didn't dream that at all.

Waterways
03-10-2008, 05:07 PM
The money to build the line is there , but for how much longer ? The money to build the full merseyrail network was also there, but central government pulled the plug, due to the state the country was in at the time, (3 day week, power cuts, run away inflation etc.) we were lucky to get what we did.


Merseywail, that was the early 1970s, times move on. The country is quite rich and look at the advancements in Liverpool over the past 5 years. Have the right meaningful projects and push for it. Projects that will advance the city. Not any project dreamed up to get public money because it is there - the trams come to mind.



Manchesters pic/vic underground never got anywere, thats why they are stuck with trams. You are right about the attituide in this city . If this line were to go ahead you can bet there would be ,protests, petitions & public enquiry's. Can you imagine the howls of protest when they say they wiil have to dig a big hole in the parks, & if a single tree has to go !!! The best chance of building this line is to attract private investment ,no risk to local & national government. But they would want to see a return for there money, & they would also have to do battle with the nimby's

Manchester would have liked an underground, and given their right arms for one, but was forced into trams. Liverpool has an underground largely in place waiting for re-use, yet wants frigging trams!!! Only in Liverpool. :(

Rapid transport rail systems do not make money in themselves, and never have anywhere in the world. They are a necessary public service. They make money as being the loss leader in promoting the enterprise they serve. The cry in London is why don't large companies in the City pay more towards rapid transport as they are the big gainers.

Digging across a park and leaving it the way it was, if not better, would create no big problems. Demolishing property in Lodge Lane? I can't see any major objections there. Cut and cover up Lodge Lane may have side benefits of new gas water and sewer pipe replacing the old Victorian pipes. Also, boring a tunnel direct instead of cut and cover in soft Liverpool rock may actually be the best and cheapest way of doing it. Then no objections.

Those on the outskirts of Merseyrail may naturally whine about not getting their bit first, however the centre and inner cities is paramount and that must be addressed first. Sort the centre and immediate surrounds and the rest is easy, they will seamlessly mesh in. If the centre prospers so will they.

Waterways
03-10-2008, 05:10 PM
I will be back on this thread, but only for any serious discussion, not childish name calling and remarks.

You started it, not me!! :):)

Waterways
03-10-2008, 05:23 PM
I have said myself elsewehere that your vision would be great, but it is not realistic.


What do you mean? In principle you agree that the scheme has many benefits to the city at large and moreso to some inner city areas. Read the bullets in my posts. All clear and all positive.

"not realistic"? Do you mean the attitude of the politicians? Vested interest? They would kill ir for spite or that they never thought of it? What?

robt
03-10-2008, 05:38 PM
What do you mean? In principle you agree that the scheme has many benefits to the city at large and moreso to some inner city areas. Read the bullets in my posts. All clear and all positive.

"not realistic"? Do you mean the attitude of the politicians? Vested interest? They would kill ir for spite or that they never thought of it? What?

Yes, I agree the scheme would be great, and have all the benefits you have explained - I don't doubt them at all.

merseywail
03-10-2008, 05:41 PM
No problems digging across a park ? Have you seen all the letters of protest about the restoration of sefton park, nimby's at it again! Digging a tunnel in liverpools rock can be difficult, dont forget half of the liverpool loop is now under the water table. The builders of the mersey railway in 1886 actually broke out of the rock mid river and into mud and shale .You also can't just dig a tunnel under property without planning consent, (the risk of subsidence, noise etc). If all the problems can be solved it would be a great asset to the city

Waterways
03-10-2008, 05:43 PM
Yes, I agree the scheme would be great, and have all the benefits you have explained - I don't doubt them at all.

Well what is not realistic? 80% of it there! What a prompter! What an incentive, what a tempter! That in itself will lead people to look at the whole thing very seriously.

The Chamber of Commerce were asking for ideas on how to use the disused tunnels. They are going to get to know.

robt
03-10-2008, 06:58 PM
How about something completely different which would be far cheaper and achieve a similar end result?

From Waterways proposed circular line:
http://i26.tinypic.com/2mczhqa.jpg

Why not build this, standalone, using the existing tunnels, and the rest at street level (or elevated where necessary), using LIGHT RAIL. (I'm not using the word 'tram's so I don't upset anyone ;)). Personally, I would make the line run further into the area of where Liverpool Rivers would be where an additional stop could be built in the future. An additional branch could run to the airport eventually, maybe a city centre - airport shuttle.

Also, at the same time, some work would be done at Lime Street to create an additional three or four platforms. There is certainly space - there are redundant tracks between platforms 1 & 2, 3 & 4 and 5 & 6 to start with, before you even get to the disused platform between 6 and 7, and the large gap between 7 and 8. Also, some slight work to the station throat to enable more flexibility.

Why

1) The loop proposed is totally unsuited to heavy rail in terms of the curvature (and possibly gradients).

2) No diesel trains would be allowed to use it (stations in tunnels) - why lose that option? When Northern start to renew their fleet (no time soon - don't get excited!) they will still be ordering diesel trains for this area - this is a fact and already agreed.

3) FAR cheaper than its heavy rail equivilent, if heavy rail could even be constructed after the points about gradients and curvature

4) Expansion - it is far easier (and cheaper) to extend light rail in the future

5) Light rail would DEFINETLY NOT have gauging issues in the disused tunnels - I suspect heavy rail would (see a post earlier in the thread to see that not all track is gauged the same)

6) There is no need to divert local trains away from Lime Street, especially if it had the alterations mentioned above. It may benefit a few commuters in the morning to be able to get off at Moorfields instead, but it would not benefit the majority at all.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Waterways
03-10-2008, 07:43 PM
Why not build this, standalone, using the existing tunnels, and the rest at street level (or elevated where necessary), using LIGHT RAIL. (I'm not using the word 'tram's so I don't upset anyone ;)).


As tunnel is 80% of the Circle Line already, that only makes the Dingle to Edge Hill section overland using light rail. Elevated where it rises into the Dingle tunnel.



Personally, I would make the line run further into the area of where Liverpool Rivers would be where an additional stop could be built in the future. An additional branch could run to the airport eventually, maybe a city centre - airport shuttle.


Liverpool Rivers? The River Jordan went through Princes Park. I doubt that would meet with acceptance. A rapid transit "direct" airport link can be along the Northern Line ans depending on route taken, via Speke using a flyover or via Garston on the foreshore.



Also, at the same time, some work would be done at Lime Street to create an additional three or four platforms. There is certainly space - there are redundant tracks between platforms 1 & 2, 3 & 4 and 5 & 6 to start with, before you even get to the disused platform between 6 and 7, and the large gap between 7 and 8. Also, some slight work to the station throat to enable more flexibility.


That is taking airport connections via main line. Best have Merseyrail do all local traffic.



1) The loop proposed is totally unsuited to heavy rail in terms of the curvature (and possibly gradients).


Heavy rail used it. The curves are tight at the end of tunnels. As at these points there will be stations, that is not real problem as the trains will have to stop anyhow.



2) No diesel trains would be allowed to use it (stations in tunnels) - why lose that option? When Northern start to renew their fleet (no time soon - don't get excited!) they will still be ordering diesel trains for this area - this is a fact and already agreed.


Diesel engines in an electric underground rail system? Why? I can see why they want shunting trains, nothing else.



3) FAR cheaper than its heavy rail equivilent, if heavy rail could even be constructed after the points about gradients and curvature


Heavy rail did and is still using parts of this Circle Line.



4) Expansion - it is far easier (and cheaper) to extend light rail in the future


Laying rails is laying rails, and any extra cost can't be that great.



5) Light rail would DEFINETLY NOT have gauging issues in the disused tunnels - I suspect heavy rail would (see a post earlier in the thread to see that not all track is gauged the same)


Having Merseyrail all the same guage and 3rd rail electrified mean seamless usage and routing.



6) There is no need to divert local trains away from Lime Street, especially if it had the alterations mentioned above. It may benefit a few commuters in the morning to be able to get off at Moorfields instead, but it would not benefit the majority at all.


Lime St already has a Merseyrail station, best keep the local stations doing local traffic.

Best to have a seamless system and keeping it underground in the centre and immediate centre. Then no problems with routes interchangeable rolling stock or whatever. Do it properly

But! making the Circle connection overground with train/trams may be a start, however any heavy rail trains cannot use the Circle, restricting routes.

.

robt
03-10-2008, 08:24 PM
As tunnel is 80% of the Circle Line already, that only makes the Dingle to Edge Hill section overland using light rail. Elevated where it rises into the Dingle tunnel.

Liverpool Rivers? The River Jordan went through Princes Park. I doubt that would meet with acceptance. A rapid transit "direct" airport link can be along the Northern Line ans depending on route taken, via Speke using a flyover or via Garston on the foreshore.

I of course meant Liverpool Waters :D

Yes that would be another way of connecting the airport to the city centre - either will do - but the Northern Line doen't pass through Lime Street, and this would be an advantage.


That is taking airport connections via main line. Best have Merseyrail do all local traffic.

I don't see what relevance that statement has to my post, but why is it 'best have Merseyrail' do it? It doesn't matter who does it, as long as it is done.


Heavy rail used it. The curves are tight at the end of tunnels. As at these points there will be stations, that is not real problem as the trains will have to stop anyhow.

Yes it did use it in the past of course. But it is highly unlike you would get todays 23 meter coaches around it (The existing Merseyrail units are shorter than this). Speed/stations is not relevant to it - it is the overhang that the coaches cause when going round curves. See bottom of post for more.


Diesel engines in an electric underground rail system? Why? I can see why they want shunting trains, nothing else.

Not sure what you mean. Any new trains for the north west area are to be diesel, apart from surburban manchester - therefore, they can not pass through the tunnels at all if they have stations in them. It is a done deal - no changing it I'm afraid.


Laying rails is laying rails, and any extra cost can't be that great.

Wishful thinking I'm afraid. An isolated network is far cheaper to signal than trying to integrate with the rest of the areas signalling for one.


Lime St already has a Merseyrail station, best keep the local stations doing local traffic.

Once again, why? Other than you liking the idea? Why should trains be routed away from Lime Street mainline other than to benefit a handful of commuters?

If it is such a brilliant idea to do this, why don't other cities abandon their mainline interchange stations?

Any stock (existing or new) for Northern can end up anywhere from Newcastle to Cleethorpes, Barrow to Liverpool. The same units do not operate the same line everyday, apart from in certain circumstances eg electrified units on an electrified route. As far as diesel units go, the same TYPE of unit doesn't necessarily operate on the same ROUTE from day to day.

Why would anyone invest in a small unique fleet for Liverpool that had smaller carriages that could not run anywhere else? The government certainly will not. It creates flexibility and maintenance issues.

Waterways
03-10-2008, 09:07 PM
I of course meant Liverpool Waters :D


Nice to run a line into the docks amongst the new developments, however the Northern line is not that far off. Also elevated trains amongst buildings creates noise problems.



Yes that would be another way of connecting the airport to the city centre - either will do - but the Northern Line doen't pass through Lime Street, and this would be an advantage.


I assume you want a non-stop, non-change, service. The Northern line could be diverted through Lime St. That is just a routing problems, not a physical one.



I don't see what relevance that statement has to my post, but why is it 'best have Merseyrail' do it? It doesn't matter who does it, as long as it is done.


If the idea is to have a non-stop. non-changer Lime St to airport service then Lime St is fine. However this precludes other Merseyrail stations. Could be links London and have local underground and fast main line stations links too.



Yes it did use it in the past of course. But it is highly unlike you would get todays 23 meter coaches around it (The existing Merseyrail units are shorter than this). Speed/stations is not relevant to it - it is the overhang that the coaches cause when going round curves. See bottom of post for more.


I still don't see this as an insurmountable problem.



Not sure what you mean. Any new trains for the north west area are to be diesel, apart from surburban manchester - therefore, they can not pass through the tunnels at all if they have stations in them. It is a done deal - no changing it I'm afraid.


Needs a re-think and selling off this stock when a seamless system is implemented.

Why would other region trains go into Merseyrail underground tunnels?



Wishful thinking I'm afraid. An isolated network is far cheaper to signal than trying to integrate with the rest of the areas signalling for one.


If the aim is to get a seamless system then the signalling will in time need to be upgraded.



Once again, why? Other than you liking the idea? Why should trains be routed away from Lime Street mainline other than to benefit a handful of commuters?

If it is such a brilliant idea to do this, why don't other cities abandon their mainline interchange stations?


Look at London's Tube. A brilliant system being the role model for many others around the world. The tube stations at main line stations are separate to the main line. Yu get of the tube and then go on the main line. Ticketing in some cases means you have the same ticket for both.

The tube should be copied in signage, maps, ticketing, etc. They got all that very right, despite inheriting differing rail systems and merging them.



Any stock (existing or new) for Northern can end up anywhere from Newcastle to Cleethorpes, Barrow to Liverpool. The same units do not operate the same line everyday, apart from in certain circumstances eg electrified units on an electrified route. As far as diesel units go, the same TYPE of unit doesn't necessarily operate on the same ROUTE from day to day.


Liverpool's metro is Liverpool's Metro and should be independent of others - like the Tube.



Why would anyone invest in a small unique fleet for Liverpool that had smaller carriages that could not run anywhere else? The government certainly will not. It creates flexibility and maintenance issues.

Why would Liverpool's Metro rolling stock go elsewhere? Merseyrail is a Merseyside centric local rail network. The rolling stock should seamlessly go only on the Merseyrail network and nowhere else. What others do is their business. What do you want? A train to Sunderland from Brunswick? Look at Munich and other new systems.

robt
03-10-2008, 09:35 PM
Nice to run a line into the docks amongst the new developments, however the Northern line is not that far off. Also elevated trains amongst buildings creates noise problems.

Good point about the Northern Line I forgot it was there :D

Elevated or not, they create noise problems. Come to think of it, I think I read that a monorail was suggested to run throughout Liverpool Waters to the airport.


I assume you want a non-stop, non-change, service. The Northern line could be diverted through Lime St. That is just a routing problems, not a physical one.

Not necessarily non-stop, but quick and efficient. And wrong - it is a physical problem, not a routing one, unless a train coming from Moorfields reverses at Central, then again at James Street just to get to Lime Street, thats without getting back on the Northern Line to continue to the airport. Impractical.


I still don't see this as an insurmountable problem.

It is, potentially, a physical problem that is not able to be overcome without serious cost involved. Besides new stations can not be built on a curve.


Needs a re-think and selling off this stock when a seamless system is implemented.


Why would other region trains go into Merseyrail underground tunnels?

Why should there have to be different trains for different regions to start with?


If the aim is to get a seamless system then the signalling will in time need to be upgraded.

Not relevant to my point.


Look at London's Tube. A brilliant system being the role model for many others around the world. The tube stations at main line stations are separate to the main line. Yu get of the tube and then go on the main line. Ticketing in some cases means you have the same ticket for both.

Liverpool has one mainline station. London has 10+. Merseyside as a whole, let alone Liverpool is not of the scale to support a seperate underground railway.


The tube should be copied in signage, maps, ticketing, etc. They got all that very right, despite inheriting differing rail systems and merging them.

I agree 100%, especially the signage on the stations.


Liverpool's metro is Liverpool's Metro and should be independent of others - like the Tube.

Why?


Why would Liverpool's Metro rolling stock go elsewhere? Merseyrail is a Merseyside centric local rail network. The rolling stock should seamlessly go only on the Merseyrail network and nowhere else. What others do is their business.

Again, why should Liverpool have its own special little fleet of trains?

I have already explained this point, I won't bother again.


What do you want? A train to Sunderland from Brunswick?

You know full well that was not implied or suggested.

Once again, you have turned everything round to your way of thinking, manipulated what I have said to rubbish my ideas, ignored practicalities, barriers and other peoples ideas.

Waterways
03-10-2008, 10:01 PM
Good point about the Northern Line I forgot it was there :D


The Waterloo Tunnel is adjacent too.



Elevated or not, they create noise problems. Come to think of it, I think I read that a monorail was suggested to run throughout Liverpool Waters to the airport.


A wish list. The Liverpool Waters looks like NY - again wishful thinking.



Not necessarily non-stop, but quick and efficient. And wrong - it is a physical problem, not a routing one, unless a train coming from Moorfields reverses at Central, then again at James Street just to get to Lime Street, thats without getting back on the Northern Line to continue to the airport. Impractical.


I'm sure a work-around can be done if Lime St is that important and needs a direct Airport link. As said, if a non-stop airport service is to be introduced, then main line Lime St is fine. Merseyrail has to run into the airport too, which may mean a change from Lime St. Like London with Tube and dedicated main line super fast services.



It is, potentially, a physical problem that is not able to be overcome without serious cost involved. Besides new stations can not be built on a curve.


"Mind the Gap!"



Why should there have to be different trains for different regions to start with?


What is best for Merseyrail is best for Merseyrail and others take care of themselves.



Liverpool has one mainline station. London has 10+. Merseyside as a whole, let alone Liverpool is not of the scale to support a seperate underground railway.


It is and just about has one now called Merseyrail



Why?


Every other metro system is run as a separate body and they work better that way. Let others do main line, regional. Merseyrail rolling stock doesn't needed to go elsewhere.



Once again, you have turned everything round to your way of thinking, manipulated what I have said to rubbish my ideas, ignored practicalities, barriers and other peoples ideas.

If Merseyrail is to be a more extended, more complete metro system it has to be run like every other large city Metro system. That means dedicated lines (in all but exceptional cases) and rolling stock and run as one independent body with 100% co-operation with other rail bodies where necessary. Look at London Underground, Paris, etc. If it is to work efficiently it has to be done properly. Merseyrail has to concentrate on Merseyside only (and maybe just beyond, but no more.

HollyBlack
03-11-2008, 08:58 PM
If Liverpool Waters is to be a big success it will have to attract wealthy people. That may not be nice to say but that's the way it is.

So what does Liverpool have to attract wealthy people?
Well there's regeneration, the new Pier Head stuff - clean canal, museums, ACC etc.
Most of all there's Liverpool University, world leader in various medical fields. The 21st Century is going to be all about medical science, biotech. Yes, rich people will come, including from overseas, to do research projects at the University and to have their children educated there.

The need for an upmarket link between the Waterloo dock area and the University should be self-evident. Driving is impractical. So the rich-person's link needs to be clean, new, attractive, fast, and, yes, most of all, it should be distinctive.
Re-use of the Waterloo tunnel practically forces itself. It should be financed or subsidised by the Liverpool Waters development. And since John Moore's University is en route (Fontenoy St. cutting), well a stop there makes too much sense to miss out on.

So it's obvious to me that a line, (rail or light-rail) is needed to link Edge Hill, University/Hospital area, John Moores University area and Liverpool Waters (at the Chadwick St./Gt. Howard St. junction).
It can happen independently of almost any other development and benefits commuters (especially students) from far and wide who can interchange at Edge Hill. Edge Hill is also a good place to stable the rolling stock.

Since light-rail is cheaper (for one thing Costco does not have to be bulldozed) and is suitable for later expansion, it should be included in the Liverpool Waters planning proposals. Later expansion can include an interchange with the Northern Line and street-running around the waterfront (even semi-private, limited-stop trains if the money and the will is there).

Not exactly a Co-operative Commonwealth dream, more a practical response to the reality of world overpopulation. Not to mention all the world's other ills.

Most important - that's where new money can come from, a levy on every apartment built within walking distance to pay for the reopening of a "Waterloo line". Something that the Liverpool Waters developers should want to pay for because they directly recoup their money on enhanced apartment selling prices. And the City isn't going to stop them paying for it if that is what they want :)

Waterways
03-11-2008, 09:31 PM
Hollyblack, why isn't it nice to attract wealthy people? Liverpool was second richest city in the world at one time with some of the world's richest living in the city.

Liverpool is attracting many people who see something the locals cannot. They see a city going places and they may assist in that too. They see cheap property to what is in the south east. They see dock waters being made into an Amsterdam creating a water based living environment. If this does not materialise they will stop coming and then go away. They add value to the city bringing entrepreneurial skills.

The universities should be catered for in an underground station or two, however the Waterloo Tunnel should serve the wider area, not just them.

Nice to have trams trundling around and in and out the docks, however the underground needs to be a rapid transport system and that is heavy rail. Best do it properly and not some stop-gap cheapo way that will be barely unsuitable now and certainly in the future.

Paying for the re-use of the tunnels and new stations can be done by public funding and sensible taxation on those who benefit from he stations. Property sales tax, levy on apartment sales (similar sort of thing).

Most importantly, the improvements must be seamless into the existing Merseyrail network. This enables flexible routing and rail system expansion as the city re-populates.

jc_everton
03-16-2008, 07:01 PM
The past week has saw some more interesting discussions as regards the 'Loop Lines' and I have just caught up on everything now (been in Bonn for the past week).

Robt - you timed your entrance to perfection - receiving the baton from me, in terms of discussing (or arguing) with Waterways.

Many things I'd like to raise that caught my eye but I want to play down both Robt's and HollyBlack's proposals.

Robt - you say heavy rail will not work due to curvature etc - just look at the Wirral loop line. Any new proposals from Waterways are not going to be as tight and curved as this - the loop is one big curve in a short area m2. I'm not buying that.

HollyBlack - Yes, people who live by the docks may want to travel to university by light rail - but how many? Would the demand really justify a whole new line and 3 new stations? It would be a travesty if them stations could not be integrated with other lines as demand would increase big-time. So yes, re-open the tunnel but not in the way you propose - it is exclusive, not inclusive, and demand simply will not be high enough.

I believe the tunnels have to be integrated into the Northern Line - to provide excellent alternatives to Central and Moorfields - easing their capacities and at the same time, improving flexibility and opening up many new possibilities, such as Liverpool Rivers - Liverpool Parkway etc etc.

HollyBlack
03-16-2008, 08:07 PM
... HollyBlack - Yes, people who live by the docks may want to travel to university by light rail - but how many? Would the demand really justify a whole new line and 3 new stations? It would be a travesty if them stations could not be integrated with other lines as demand would increase big-time. So yes, re-open the tunnel but not in the way you propose - it is exclusive, not inclusive, and demand simply will not be high enough....
You can call me Holly, my friends do :-)

Well, yes, it's true that heavy rail through Waterloo tunnel would be superior. And the line could certainly triangle onto the Northern line to the East of it. It would be great, Heavy rail would be better, but ...

But .. But, what about funding? IMHO, light-rail could get funded where heavy-rail cannot. Also I have a sneaking suspicion that putting heavy rail in that old tunnel, bringing it up to modern standards, could cost a lot more than light rail.

Methinks those who are building the tower apartments would be willing to pay for the line and two University Stations provided they had substantial control of the routing of surface tramways at the Riverside end. They might even want the possibility of sentimental light-rail "Boat trains" from Edge Hill to go with a new cruise terminal. :cha (41): All Peel needs is a nod from the council to suggest that a proposal to reuse the Waterloo tunnel would be welcome.

On the inclusive side, people who live in the suburbs and beyond would greatly from an interchange at Edge Hill, especially University and Hospital students and workers. Changing from rail to light-rail at Edge Hill should not be an undue burden. Huge spin-off benefits.

WW - what's not nice is letting rich people pay for a development using public infrastructure that significantly benefits them disproportionately. Not nice, but it will work in our brave "New Labour" world. Trickle down economics, sadly. Not as good as the Cooperative Commonwealth envisaged by Tressell but better than the status quo.

There may also be a possibility of some sort of compromise using tram-trains.

petromax
03-16-2008, 08:55 PM
There was a population of 832,000 in 1938 and a magnificent rail system to match the needs of the population and a booming port. Most of that rail system either exists or would take relatively less per capita of population to re-instate.

This includes the three major tunnel links, an inner loop and an outer loop. Even with this comprehensive system the West-east links have always been poor - hence the need for trams. The road system does not and cannot have the same kind of capacity.

If Liverpool wants to be that size of city again, it has to re-instate the system it used to have, which would be relatively less expensive than other cities because half of it already exists.

Waterways
03-16-2008, 09:10 PM
There was a population of 832,000 in 1938 and a magnificent rail system to match the needs of the population and a booming port. Most of that rail system either exists or would take relatively less per capita of population to re-instate.

This includes the three major tunnel links, an inner loop and an outer loop. Even with this comprehensive system the West-east links have always been poor - hence the need for trams. The road system does not and cannot have the same kind of capacity.

If Liverpool wants to be that size of city again, it has to re-instate the system it used to have, which would be relatively less expensive than other cities because half of it already exists.

Good post Petromax. You are looking ahead while others look to now, or next week at the most.

If Liverpool wants to be that size of city again, it has to re-instate the system it used to have, which would be relatively less expensive than other
cities because half of it already exists.

What I have been continually saying. Then there is the intangible matter of image and perception of a seriously go ahead city that means business.

Lay down the rails of infrastructure and private enterprise will run over them, pouring investment into the city. You need the egg before the chicken.

robt
03-17-2008, 08:54 AM
Robt - you say heavy rail will not work due to curvature etc - just look at the Wirral loop line. Any new proposals from Waterways are not going to be as tight and curved as this - the loop is one big curve in a short area m2. I'm not buying that.

I think I said it may not be possible :) (I can't be bothered reading back at the moment, I'm very ill lol).

No one on here knows the loading gauge of the tunnels, therefore lightrail could be made to fit, heavy rail may not fit.

If the wirral line loop was to be constructed today, it would almost certainly be lightrail, it isn't suited to heavy rail.



But .. But, what about funding? IMHO, light-rail could get funded where heavy-rail cannot. Also I have a sneaking suspicion that putting heavy rail in that old tunnel, bringing it up to modern standards, could cost a lot more than light rail.

100% correct.


There may also be a possibility of some sort of compromise using tram-trains.

'Tram-Trains' do exist and are used in a couple of places in Europe - but the government wouldn't be willing to take a risk on them until they are proven technology.

Waterways
03-17-2008, 10:58 AM
No one on here knows the loading gauge of the tunnels, therefore lightrail could be made to fit, heavy rail may not fit.


As heavy rail was used in the tunnels over 30 years ago, I see no reason why it can't used again.



'Tram-Trains' do exist and are used in a couple of places in Europe - but the government wouldn't be willing to take a risk on them until they are proven technology.

But they are prepared to go Maglev.

jc_everton
03-17-2008, 11:28 AM
Holly - the idea of using the tunnel as some sort of canal is fantastic!

Edge Hill seems to be a reoccurring theme on here, and I remember some Liverpool Development company came on here a few weeks back with lots of fancy computer-aided graphics of how they would modernise it. I say leave it in the hands of these guys, but I'm still not convinced about using the tunnels for light rail.

I believe trams should be used over-ground as well as having an underground. My underground proposal is merely an extension, albeit a significant one - linking the Waterloo tunnel with the Wapping tunnel. I have a map, and I don't know where I found it - probably oritelad's site. It shows the old tunnels - including one which runs parallel with Crown Street, branching off the Wapping tunnel - which certainly gives me food for thought.

WW seems adamant that the WCML should not be used by MerseyRail and I think Robt disagreed - so do I.
Liverpool Parkway would be so much more accessible, not forgetting the Smithdown area - which definitely needs a new station on Smithdown itself.

Waterways
03-17-2008, 12:11 PM
Holly - the idea of using the tunnel as some sort of canal is fantastic!


As both tunnels are on an incline I would say that is out of the question.



Edge Hill seems to be a reoccurring theme on here, and I remember some Liverpool Development company came on here a few weeks back with lots of fancy computer-aided graphics of how they would modernise it. I say leave it in the hands of these guys, but I'm still not convinced about using the tunnels for light rail.


Edge Hill is a large junction and would be prominent in any scheme. It is where the main lines would meet Merseyrail.



I believe trams should be used over-ground as well as having an underground. My underground proposal is merely an extension, albeit a significant one - linking the Waterloo tunnel with the Wapping tunnel. I have a map, and I don't know where I found it - probably oritelad's site. It shows the old tunnels - including one which runs parallel with Crown Street, branching off the Wapping tunnel - which certainly gives me food for thought.


Here it is:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v421/Martin_S/Merseyrail/FutureMerseyrail.jpg



WW seems adamant that the WCML should not be used by MerseyRail and I think Robt disagreed - so do I.
Liverpool Parkway would be so much more accessible, not forgetting the Smithdown area - which definitely needs a new station on Smithdown itself.

The WCML would be too busy to take Merseyrail. Sefton Pk Station is on the main London line

What is needed, as Petromax stated, is to get the existing disused lines, trackbed and tunnels up and running and seamlessly merged into heavy rail Merseyrail. A train from St Helens could run through the centre and onto West Kirkby or Chester if need be. That is the proposed inner loop, and the in place outer loops. It needs to be done to project the city forwards and re-generate inner city areas. And to re-instate is a cheap undertaking as most is partially in place. It is a case of having to. It is as simple as that.

The parts of Gtr Liverpool which Merseyrail cannot reach, trams can fill the bill.

robt
03-17-2008, 12:35 PM
As heavy rail was used in the tunnels over 30 years ago, I see no reason why it can't used again.

We have already been over that - no one here knows. You may see no reason why not, but experts may.


But they are prepared to go Maglev.

a) Magelv is proven elsewhere in the world
b) A feasibility study does not mean any maglev will be built, ever, even if the study is successful.


The WCML would be too busy to take Merseyrail. Sefton Pk Station is on the main London line


I know you didn't mention it first, but where does the WCML come into anything to do with Merseyrail (on this thread)?

petromax
03-17-2008, 01:19 PM
[QUOTE=Waterways;118925]
... My underground proposal is merely an extension, albeit a significant one - linking the Waterloo tunnel with the Wapping tunnel....

...A train from St Helens could run through the centre and onto West Kirkby or Chester if need be...

QUOTE]

The commuter demand would be overwhelmingly from and to the Centre so, great as it sounds, there is no real need to connect St Helens with the Wirral and no real need to try to connect electrified Merseyrail with "heavy rail" services. The small proportion that want to travel right across the system will need to change - as they do now.

The new connections needed are to where the work will be eg. at 12 Quays on the Wirral, at Vauxhall/Stanley Dock in the North End and to where the new houses/ redeveloped housing will be ie. the loop stations and the trams to the inner boroughs and outer suburbs.

The existing underground stations are well placed as commuter destinations from both sides of the river but they are too close to each other for travelling around the city centre.

So, an inner local line, not necessarily a loop, is needed to pick up all the local and tourist traffic and would connect Business at Central Docks via Pier Head and the Central Business District to Leisure, Conference and hotel facilties in South Docks. A great business location and a wonderful waterfront attraction.

There are a number of proposed modes, a monorail would have the most capacity; the cheapest woud be a dedicated trolley bus service.

HollyBlack
03-17-2008, 04:41 PM
Holly - the idea of using the tunnel as some sort of canal is fantastic!
As both tunnels are on an incline I would say that is out of the question. ... Well, J.C.Everton was the first person (not me :shock:) to suggest "canal", and I'm sure he intended the reference to be metaphorical. Used metaphorically "canal" has a meaning close to "channel" and suggests either a "long open cutting" or "one of a number of routes that are essentially in parallel". I'm still not sure what he was driving at but obviously the reference was not literal. Any floating of boats in the Waterloo tunnel so obviously makes not the slightest sense, that that cannot be what he intended.
... The WCML would be too busy to take Merseyrail. Sefton Pk Station is on the main London line ... Some people regard the railway line from Weaver Junction to Lime Street via Sefton Park as being part of the WCML. For example the Strategic Rail Authority does in their document "West Coast Main Line strategy"
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/wcml/westcoastmainlinestrategy
The need for Sefton Park station (Wavertree and Ditton Junction too?) to be reopened as a commuter station is self-evident and Merseyrail could be operating the services using dual-voltage rolling stock. It would be nice if a new (turnback) station on the Halton Curve were added and another at Liverpool University deep in the Lime Street Cutting. I think there is a gut reaction against building a station in the Lime Street Cutting because it is seen as competing with other schemes. But building a new station deep in the cutting and served by passenger lifts would be a lot cheaper than any new tunneling. It would complement, rather than compete with, almost all other schemes. It would not overwhelm the four track capacity there, electric commuter trains accelerate much faster than the steam trains the line was designed for.

Whoever mentioned trolleybuses as being the cheapest solution is right, they are the cheapest but solve only noise, pollution and energy problems. The energy problem must be solved, diesel fuel is rapidly becoming unaffordable (as well as contributing to global warming). Trolley bus would definitely be the right solution for urban routes where there is no reusable infrastructure nor much space to expand. For example, trolleybus would definitely be the right way to link Liscard/Egremont with Twelve Quays.

btw, in San Francisco, trolley buses and streetcars (trams) share overhead wires. This is no great feat of engineering - it merely requires that one of the two trolleybus wires be grounded and the tram uses the other one.

robt
03-17-2008, 06:14 PM
It would be nice if a new (turnback) station on the Halton Curve were added and another at Liverpool University deep in the Lime Street Cutting. I think there is a gut reaction against building a station in the Lime Street Cutting because it is seen as competing with other schemes. But building a new station deep in the cutting and served by passenger lifts would be a lot cheaper than any new tunneling. It would complement, rather than compete with, almost all other schemes. It would not overwhelm the four track capacity there, electric commuter trains accelerate much faster than the steam trains the line was designed for.

I agree this would be far cheaper, but there is not the track capacity to do it. It may seem like it during off peak periods, but in the peak it is not uncommon for all four tracks to be in use simaltaneously by multiple trains.

jc_everton
03-17-2008, 10:02 PM
Holly - the canal reference did have an element of tongue-in-cheek, the idea is fantastic in a comical way. Good stuff.

I suppose a station in Lime St cutting would be ok, but again, who is it serving? Would commuters from Southport, Ormskirk, Kirkby or Hunts Cross be able to access this station? I think not, and that is why I disagree with it. The Waterloo tunnel really should be utilised to provide greater flexibility on the Northern Line.

If 4 trains run from every station on the Northern Line every hour (except for night-times of course), I don't see any harm whatsoever in running 2 trains per hour (peak times) down the Waterloo Tunnel to 2 new University-related stations, down through the tunnel which runs parallel on Crown St (WW: not the tunnel indicated on that Edge Hill Spur map) and down the Wapping Tunnel to King's Dock.

This proposal contrasts with my proposal to link the 3 northern Northern Line branches to Parkway but I'll figure a way around that.

HollyBlack
03-17-2008, 11:06 PM
I suppose a station in Lime St cutting would be ok, but again, who is it serving? Would commuters from Southport, Ormskirk, Kirkby or Hunts Cross be able to access this station? ...
Well, Hunts Cross (trains from Widnes). Also Runcorn, Sefton Park etc.. and St. Helens and Huyton. The Canada Dock Branch one day. Basically all the people who could transfer at Edge Hill if necessary. I suspect a LOT of people ride the train to Lime Street each day and walk up to the University/Hospital area. More would if it weren't so far. Good exercise though for people in good health.

As to outbound capacity, the shunting tunnel provides a fifth track on the North side as far as Brownlow St. where it joins the four. So it could be arranged that an outbound train stopped at University would not block the four-track road. These commuter trains would necessarily be much shorter than long distance trains.

As to inbound traffic, those same two inbound tracks are also platform tracks at Edge Hill. Inbound capacity could be increased by more advanced signalling. After all, a terminus platform has to be available before it makes any sense to let a train onto the inbound road.

It may well be that the outbound and inbound University stations are not co-located, no big deal.

It doesn't have to be seen as instead of re-use of the tunnels, it can be as well as.

jc_everton
03-18-2008, 09:21 AM
I agree, I believe the tunnels should be merged/linked, as opposed to using every metre of them just for the sake of it. WW keeps reiterating the point that we have all these tunnels that NEED to be used, but I disagree. I believe some of them should be used, and perhaps connect to existing tunnels. I am also against the idea of changing over, I think it should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Someone e-mailed me the other week saying he knows someone in MerseyTravel who says they are looking into the possibility of opening a new tunnel from Parkway to JLA - rather ambitious, but it makes sense.

You said something about good exercise/health because of the walking - public transport schemes should not be knocked back because of that. We are generally an unhealthy nation and new lines/stations are not going to make us unhealthier and fatter. I believe poor health begins in childhood and poor P.E. in schools.

Waterways
03-18-2008, 12:05 PM
I see no reason why the Waterloo and Dingle tunnels cannot be used to serve the city and the wider regions too. The Wapping tunnel is bit more difficult to fit in and would only serve new stations cut in and the Kings Dock.

Where there is excellent public transport and it is difficult to move around by car, people are fitter as they walk more between stations and bus stops.

I can't see what good a station in the Lime St cuttings/tunnels would serve.

Waterways
03-18-2008, 12:29 PM
Whoever mentioned trolleybuses as being the cheapest solution is right, they are the cheapest but solve only noise, pollution and energy problems. The energy problem must be solved, diesel fuel is rapidly becoming unaffordable (as well as contributing to global warming). Trolley bus would definitely be the right solution for urban routes where there is no reusable infrastructure nor much space to expand. For example, trolleybus would definitely be the right way to link Liscard/Egremont with Twelve Quays.


It was me who said trollybusses are cheaper. They can have trollybus lanes , like bus lanes in London, that can be used by cars at off peak times. I am against overhead wires in streets. They cause a lot of problems especially when secured to buildings. They are also ugly.

Overhead wires do not solve energy problems at all. They solve local pollution though - no filthy diesel busses around. New power propulsion units, mainly electric motors and new state-of-the-art Lithium batteries look the way forward.

Small powerful motor in wheel hubs, now means batteries can keep a car going for 200 miles, They can have a small ancillary fossil fuel charging motor that also does the heat and a/c, or the batteries charged off the mains. This technology is here right now.

The hybrids like the Toyota Prius have led the way - a great car to drive and super quiet, my favourite car. The Renault Traffic is electric and can be charged off the mains and also has a small on-board charging petrol motor too. The charging motor can be tuned to maximum efficiency at the optimum constant speed.

Waterways
03-18-2008, 12:47 PM
...A train from St Helens could run through the centre and onto West Kirkby or Chester if need be...

The commuter demand would be overwhelmingly from and to the Centre so, great as it sounds, there is no real need to connect St Helens with the Wirral



The key words were "if need be". The line in from Wrexham can hit the city centre and divert on to the airport too if and when the full link is in place.



The new connections needed are to where the work will be eg. at 12 Quays on the Wirral, at Vauxhall/Stanley Dock in the North End and to where the new houses/ redeveloped housing will be ie. the loop stations and the trams to the inner boroughs and outer suburbs.


12 Quays is proposed to move to the Langton Dock river wall.



The existing underground stations are well placed as commuter destinations from both sides of the river but they are too close to each other for travelling around the city centre.


I disagree. In Paris, the stations are so close that are at bus stop intervals. You can look down the tunnel and see the next station lit up. I counted three stations in view down the tunnels from one station.



So, an inner local line, not necessarily a loop, is needed to pick up all the local and tourist traffic and would connect Business at Central Docks via Pier Head and the Central Business District to Leisure, Conference and hotel facilties in South Docks. A great business location and a wonderful waterfront attraction.


The existing Northern Line nearly does that. Along the north end docks, around the inner city centre loop and out to Brunswick. It doesn't hit the Pier Head at James St though. If it did it would be perfect with a branch into the Wapping and a station at Kings Dock. The disused parliament St station would be nearly good enough though.

High level elevated railways block out views which has to be taken into account. Overhead wires are ugly and pain too.

jc_everton
03-18-2008, 01:03 PM
WW, whilst I was in 3 different German cities last week, I could not help but think of your bitterness towards trams and I'm sorry but I simply could not see the problem. In all 3 cities they were regular, efficient and convenient. Definitely NOT ugly. Someone posted a link to Bordeaux's trams the other week - absolutely fantastic.

I agree with the Paris comparison though, I don't see anything wrong with stations close to each other - the same could be said about other underground networks.

As regards the subject of battery-powered cars etc - I couldn't care less. There is enough evidence to prove that climate change is not 100% man made - far from it. I advocate public transport from a societal point of view, not a lefty/greeny point of view.

Waterways
03-18-2008, 04:11 PM
WW, whilst I was in 3 different German cities last week, I could not help but think of your bitterness towards trams and I'm sorry but I simply could not see the problem. In all 3 cities they were regular, efficient and convenient. Definitely NOT ugly. Someone posted a link to Bordeaux's trams the other week - absolutely fantastic.


Trams are fine when they fit in and no adverse affects. Currently Liverpool doesn't need them at all when disused underground rail infrastructure is waiting to be used - the priority. Trams may be needed to fill in the gaps that the current, and brought back into use, Merseyrail can't reach.

Best to forget trams and concentrate on the infrastructure legacy we have. I can't believe trams got so far up the agenda, to the point rails were delivered, when we have all this disused infrastructure is waiting to be used - only in Liverpool :( This rapid transport underground system would catapult the city forwards in many respects.



I agree with the Paris comparison though, I don't see anything wrong with stations close to each other - the same could be said about other underground networks.

As regards the subject of battery-powered cars etc - I couldn't care less. There is enough evidence to prove that climate change is not 100% man made - far from it. I advocate public transport from a societal point of view, not a lefty/greeny point of view.

Cities are filthy! A lot of it is due to the dust from brake pads and tyre wear. Tyres can be improved a lot - the technology is already there to prevent excessive wear . The Toyota Prius, and other hybrids, use magnets to stop the car (re-gen braking) , this cuts out brake pad dust too. One reason to use electric/hybrids in towns and cities.

Ken Livingstone in London is getting flak because of congestion and emissions charging. He is charged with cleaning the air of London as it so bad. EU laws, etc. Her has to act in the only ways he can. He can't make manufacturers introduce electric vehicles, etc, tat is for Whitehall.

Liverpool needs the rapid transit rail system to get cars out of the city. Once there get rid of the Dock RD urban motorway and introduce London types of charging. Then no excuse to use a car.

Man has clearly influenced climate change - all top scientists in the world say so.

petromax
03-18-2008, 06:07 PM
[QUOTE=Waterways;119256]The key words were "if need be". The line in from Wrexham can hit the city centre and divert on to the airport too if and when the full link is in place...QUOTE]

I didn't post this. There is little need to cross from one side of the system to the other.

My point is that it is relatively less expensive for Liverpool to have a mass transit network because most of it is there already.

But, there would still be gaps.

The city centre stations ARE too close together to TRAVEL BETWEEN THEM. I wouldn't dream of going down into James Street Station to climb up from Lime Street, Central, or Moorfields. It's quicker, cheaper and less effort to walk. No tickets are sold to travel between these stations.

So it follows, a link IS needed to connect all the new development on the waterfront to make it work as a location attractive to business (and tourists). This needs to be above ground to be viable. This is what the Overhead used to do (and more). This is what the DLR does for London.

Even with ALL the train lines and stations put back there are massive gaps in the system particularly in the inner wards like Everton for example.

The trams used to deal with these gaps. More people got cars and the roads were the 'thing' so the trams were withdrawn and buses became the vogue. But the roads simply cannot handle the capacity of trams or trains because trams and trains have an impeded run ie no crossing traffic. The numbers are overwhelmingly convincing.

The two currently disused tunnels were for freight, serving Park Road and Waterloo Goods Depots but the Port has moved North. The Olive Mount Chord re-instatement will give a huge boost to the efficiency of the port and goods movement by rail and no doubt reduce dependency on the M57 which save carbon emissions from trucks, so great.

There is a marginal case for using the Waterloo Tunnel (which has been kept for heavy rail use) with a new mainline terminus on the site of the Waterloo Goods depot to serve Central Docks, even an escalator link to the Northern Line at the former Great Howard Street station and possibly an extension to the liner terminal at a re-instated Riverside Station. Nice sounding but maybe more image than substance

There is a more feeble case for re-instating the Wapping tunnel line because a re-instated St James station makes it redundant (and the site of the terminus is being developed).

There is an acknowledge glitch in the system at Central Station to do with capacity because trains terminate there and clog up the platforms. Through lines are needed to relieve the pressure but not new tunnels.

Sadly the huge ferry traffic has been replaced by the road tunnels but roads can't handle the numbers of a city of a million. The system that we used to have can. It was heavy rail (3 mainline stations), light rail (the Overhead Railway) and Trams.

This is what we need to handle the demand of a big city. Do we want Liverpool to be a big city?

Waterways
03-18-2008, 09:27 PM
A major point is how the disused rail infrastructure is merged into Merseyrail. It has to be well thought out, not light rail, and seamlessly integrated.

jc_everton
03-18-2008, 11:32 PM
I think if there was to be a conclusion to this debate then Petromax has hit the nail on the head.
WW will always be against trams, and my proposals always involved integrating trams with heavy rail, which is basically what Petromax is saying.

I'm not sure about his (Petro) dismissals of the tunnels because although he is being realistic, there is no harm whatsoever in having a vision to redevelop these tunnels and fully integrate them into the system. How this would be possible is not my job, but we all agree there is a bloody good need for improved public transport in the city and the tunnels definitely offer something that a lot of other cities don't have, as WW rightly points out.

I also have to disagree with the whole 'stations are too close to travel' - Our current 'loop' is not designed for travelling short distances, it basically serves the Wirral - giving them more options and flexibility than us Northern Liners. Is that inclusive? I think not.

A lot of underground systems, as WW says, do have short distances, but some of our stations are so deep and unaccessible it takes a good 5 mins to walk down all the escalators and stairs, which is ridiculous. All these new stations need is one long escalator from platform to entrance and we have a more accessible underground. I heard someone say how Merseytravel in the 70s refused to pay £100,000 for the escalator to reach the bottom of one of our stations - unbelievable.

Waterways
03-19-2008, 12:45 AM
I think if there was to be a conclusion to this debate then Petromax has hit the nail on the head.
WW will always be against trams, and my proposals always involved integrating trams with heavy rail, which is basically what Petromax is saying.


Er, er, wrong. :) Petromax and myself largely agree - that the disused rail infrastructure should be heavy rail and brought seamlessly back to use with existing Merseyrail ASAP, with trams covering the areas that Merseyrail cannot cover. The priority being getting the underground infrastructure up and running, then the loops like Canada Dock, etc, merged in and trams on the back burner until this major aspect is done.

Implementing trams first was putting the cart before the horse and trams which competed with Merseyrail? Well I'll leave you to assess the mentality of such madness.


Concentrating on trams first, which were competing with Merseyrail lines was, and is, total and utter madness. No thought , no planning, no nothing. No wonder other cities laugh at do-nothing Liverpool. They can't even get a long term transport plan together and prioitise it.



I'm not sure about his (Petro) dismissals of the tunnels because although he is being realistic, there is no harm whatsoever in having a vision to redevelop these tunnels and fully integrate them into the system. How this would be possible is not my job, but we all agree there is a bloody good need for improved public transport in the city and the tunnels definitely offer something that a lot of other cities don't have, as WW rightly points out.


The city centre Circle Line is a great way to utilise them - this requires some tunnelling from Dingle to Edge Hill of course.



I also have to disagree with the whole 'stations are too close to travel'

Paris was mainly cut & cover of the boulevards, so you walk down a short number of steps. The trains are on rubber wheels to stop vibration to adjacent buildings - and sop smooth to ride in. The Metro is superb and an example of how to do a Metro system.

Any cut and cover should have stations like in Paris. Parli, Byrom St and number of others all are just below the surface. As you say it is also a matter of ease of access from street level to the platforms too.

petromax
03-21-2008, 06:04 PM
Er, er, wrong. :) Petromax and myself largely agree - that the disused rail infrastructure should be heavy rail and brought seamlessly back to use with existing Merseyrail ASAP, with trams covering the areas that Merseyrail cannot cover. The priority being getting the underground infrastructure up and running, then the loops like Canada Dock, etc, merged in and trams on the back burner until this major aspect is done.

Implementing trams first was putting the cart before the horse and trams which competed with Merseyrail? Well I'll leave you to assess the mentality of such madness.


Concentrating on trams first, which were competing with Merseyrail lines was, and is, total and utter madness. No thought , no planning, no nothing. No wonder other cities laugh at do-nothing Liverpool. They can't even get a long term transport plan together and prioitise it.



The city centre Circle Line is a great way to utilise them - this requires some tunnelling from Dingle to Edge Hill of course.



Paris was mainly cut & cover of the boulevards, so you walk down a short number of steps. The trains are on rubber wheels to stop vibration to adjacent buildings - and sop smooth to ride in. The Metro is superb and an example of how to do a Metro system.

Any cut and cover should have stations like in Paris. Parli, Byrom St and number of others all are just below the surface. As you say it is also a matter of ease of access from street level to the platforms too.

We are nearly saying the same thing; the exception being that we (probably) have just about more tunnels than we need.

There is no demand for re-use of the Wapping Tunnel that a Station at St James/ Parliament Street can't handle and the Vic/ Waterloo Tunnel is really only good for bringing mainline traffic down to the Mersey or connecting to a new overhead and/or the Northern Line via escalators at Great Howard Street. The three levels are very different.

The new tunnel to hope for is under the Mersey because in a big city Liverpool the road and rail tunnels (which are nearly full) plus ferries couldn't handle the increased traffic from the Wirral.

To clarify, I do not believe the city stations are too close as destination stations in the centre. But they are too close together to travel BETWEEN them. It's quicker to walk

merseywail
03-21-2008, 07:45 PM
Just a minor point it was not merseytravel that refused to pay £100.000 for the escalator at lime st . It was civil servents acting on government orders, to cut costs to the bone. The same orders also led to the drastic cut back of the proposed merseyrail system.

Waterways
03-21-2008, 08:46 PM
We are nearly saying the same thing; the exception being that we (probably) have just about more tunnels than we need.

There is no demand for re-use of the Wapping Tunnel that a Station at St James/ Parliament Street can't handle


The Wapping Tunnel can be used from Central to Edge Hill with a few stations along the way. Although too late, serve the arena if it was ensibley located at the end of the Wapping Tunnel.



and the Vic/ Waterloo Tunnel is really only good for bringing mainline traffic down to the Mersey or connecting to a new overhead and/or the Northern Line via escalators at Great Howard Street. The three levels are very different.


The difference in elevation is not that great that sensible engineering can't overcome to branch the tunnel onto the Northern Line.



The new tunnel to hope for is under the Mersey because in a big city Liverpool the road and rail tunnels (which are nearly full) plus ferries couldn't handle the increased traffic from the Wirral.


I disagree. Modern signalling can get trains closers together, improving throughput. The only tunnelling worth considering is from Dingle to Edge Hill, creating a Circle Line that would regenerate inner city areas and create superb outer region seamless connectivity.



To clarify, I do not believe the city stations are too close as destination stations in the centre. But they are too close together to travel BETWEEN them. It's quicker to walk

People would travel two stations not one.

robt
03-22-2008, 01:51 AM
I disagree. Modern signalling can get trains closers together, improving throughput. The only tunnelling worth considering is from Dingle to Edge Hill, creating a Circle Line that would regenerate inner city areas and create superb outer region seamless connectivity.

I agree - there is no need for another rail tunnel under the river to be considered for a good 20 years, unless it was to serve totally different areas or for another purpose.

Existing signalling through the loop and to Hamilton Square allows 2 minute headways - the infrastructure is there to meet demand when it needs it.

The Northern Line section from Sandhills to Central allows 1.5 minute headways.

For comparison, Lime Street to Runcorn is 3 minutes, and Edge Hill to Earlestown 4 minutes.

Waterways
03-22-2008, 10:31 AM
I agree - there is no need for another rail tunnel under the river to be considered for a good 20 years, unless it was to serve totally different areas or for another purpose.

Existing signalling through the loop and to Hamilton Square allows 2 minute headways - the infrastructure is there to meet demand when it needs it.

The Northern Line section from Sandhills to Central allows 1.5 minute headways.

For comparison, Lime Street to Runcorn is 3 minutes, and Edge Hill to Earlestown 4 minutes.

The Jubilee Line in London has trains 30 seconds apart. Another tunnel would need to be maybe New Brighton to Bootle. Garston to Bebington is best being a bridge, as was proposed but ditched. A bridge can always take road and rail - a far better way.

If the city expands to its previous population and becomes more dense, a rail and road bridge is the best option. And maybe the Wallasey tunnel converted to rail, as congestion charging, high pedestrianisation, etc takes hold in the city reducing car traffic and increasing rail traffic.

robt
03-22-2008, 01:40 PM
The Jubilee Line in London has trains 30 seconds apart.

Not as a matter of course it doesn't. Besides, it is not heavy rail either. The nature of the trains also means they can have shorter dwell times, otherwise a 30 second headway would be utterly pointless.

HollyBlack
03-22-2008, 03:06 PM
... And maybe the Wallasey tunnel converted to rail, as congestion charging, high pedestrianisation, etc takes hold in the city reducing car traffic and increasing rail traffic.That's not an option. Only Wallasey tunnel is connected to the motorway system and is able to take a large traffic of Heavy Goods Vehicles headed to and from the docks.

It might (?) be possible to convert the Birkenhead tunnel to rail, though my understanding is that in recent years that tunnel went through a big spend on 'upgrades' which result in making such conversion more difficult.

Urban planning with the foresight of the mole. Always fighting the previous war.

As to a rail tunnel for passenger trains, there is a more pressing need for a Dee crossing. There might be a case for a second Mersey rail tunnel primarily to handle freight trains to/from the docks.

Waterways
03-22-2008, 10:54 PM
That's not an option. Only Wallasey tunnel is connected to the motorway system and is able to take a large traffic of Heavy Goods Vehicles headed to and from the docks.


They can go around the M57, what it was made for. The last thing Liverpool needs is a motorway pouring into the city centre - and that is what the Wallasey tunnel does.



It might (?) be possible to convert the Birkenhead tunnel to rail, though my understanding is that in recent years that tunnel went through a big spend on 'upgrades' which result in making such conversion more difficult.


I see why not.



As to a rail tunnel for passenger trains, there is a more pressing need for a Dee crossing. There might be a case for a second Mersey rail tunnel primarily to handle freight trains to/from the docks.

There may be a need for another Clyde crossing but that is no more our business than the Dee. We are not the Dee.

There is no need for a freight tunnel at all, as existing overland rail tracks/bed are still available.

petromax
03-23-2008, 09:41 AM
The Wapping Tunnel can be used from Central to Edge Hill with a few stations along the way. Although too late, serve the arena if it was ensibley located at the end of the Wapping Tunnel.



The difference in elevation is not that great that sensible engineering can't overcome to branch the tunnel onto the Northern Line.



I disagree. Modern signalling can get trains closers together, improving throughput. The only tunnelling worth considering is from Dingle to Edge Hill, creating a Circle Line that would regenerate inner city areas and create superb outer region seamless connectivity.



People would travel two stations not one.

you can't put trains where the demand isn't or won't be there

1. the traffic to the arena is from around the city; hotels; offices etc and from the mainline at Lime Street = the 'overhead' option

2. waterloo tunnel is level with the dock road. You look DOWN on the entrance from the road over. The Northern line is elevated but descends to go underground after passing over the tunnel. The alignments between would need a big curve in cut or tunnel between the two. But again, where is the demand to go from stations east of Edge Hill to say Sandhills?

3. this route doesn't go through the inner suburbs of Everton, Kirkdale, Anfield, Picton - the areas that need regeneration. Dingle would be better connected to Kirkdale on the old overhead alignment and back around the outerloop.

4. they might travel two stations but they simply don't. Because it's a loop, a two-station destination is closer than one! It's quicker to walk.

Waterways
03-23-2008, 11:40 AM
you can't put trains where the demand isn't or won't be there


You can put a station somewhere and it will create demand - a part of an overall planning policy. The London DRL was put in when the demand was negligible. It should have been seamless with some Underground lines not the little chugga trains it now has.



1. the traffic to the arena is from around the city; hotels; offices etc and from the mainline at Lime Street = the 'overhead' option


If the arena was sensibly put at the end of the Wapping Tunnel, traffic would have been primarily by train via its own station. It was much more sensible to put the arena at the end of rapid transit rail tunnel. Even park and ride at Edge Hill for outsiders. Too easy wasn't. So they put it in the worst location. As the arena stands, in an inappropriate location, other means of transport have to be put in place. Currently they put a chara-banc park on an in-filled historic dock for access. Hotels will be around the arena.



2. waterloo tunnel is level with the dock road. You look DOWN on the entrance from the road over. The Northern line is elevated but descends to go underground after passing over the tunnel. The alignments between would need a big curve in cut or tunnel between the two. But again, where is the demand to go from stations east of Edge Hill to say Sandhills?


It is a matter of building infrastructure for the future and infrastructure that matters improves image in a massive way, gives out the right progressive messages and will bring in investment. Roads & busses and trams don't do that.



3. this route doesn't go through the inner suburbs of Everton, Kirkdale, Anfield, Picton - the areas that need regeneration. Dingle would be better connected to Kirkdale on the old overhead alignment and back around the outerloop.


Kirkdale is on the Northern Line and connected to the Undergound. Picton is near Edge Hill and other overground stations can be built too in suitable locations. Anfield can be got at via the outer loop. Dingle needs to be a through route not an end of line.



4. they might travel two stations but they simply don't. Because it's a loop, a two-station destination is closer than one! It's quicker to walk.


Yo don't get it. People will go from any station on the loops to the next but one or whatever - that is any of the loops, inner or outer.

Don't loose sight of the big picture. The idea is to:

Regenerate areas
Create a comprehensive, underground where possible, rapid transport rail system
Lift image of the City in a big way
Attract investment


Don't delve into trivial perceived detail.

Priority should be:


The city centre section (Circle Line built as most is already in place)
The outer loops, via Anfield

After the above, the city sections not reached by rail can be accessed by trams like parts of Everton. Most areas are not far from a rail line if the track bed though Childwall to Broad Green is brought back to use. Lines hit most areas of the city and beyond. They need to be seamlessly integrated into the Merseyrail system.

If need be, the Wapping Tunnel can be branched into from Central.

Once a Circle Line is created by a new tunnel from Dingle to Edge Hill and the Wapping Tunnel branched into, the scope and flexibility is enormous to what was there - fully fit for an expanding city.

Circle Line - click here (http://tinyurl.com/Extend-Merseyrail-CLICK-HERE)

jc_everton
03-23-2008, 03:51 PM
I don't understand the debate surrounding demand. New stations near the North Docks and one near the King's Dock might not be absolutely necessary but if they were there, access to them improves very significantly - that is fact, not opinion. They are areas of growth and attract investment - new stations would do them the world of good - there would be no harm at all.

It is a matter of accessibility - demand from the area of say, Aughton to King's Dock may not be high, but factor in the whole of Merseyside and factor in the number of new jobs that have been created in the area over the past 5 years or so, and all of a sudden the issue of demand changes. I think the demand-doubters are being way too pessimistic.

If I have a job near King's Dock, I shouldn't have to get off at Central and walk - especially when some infrastructure is in place. That is not laziness, I am not lazy - it is just very inconvenient.
Also, you questioned demand from Edge Hill to Sandhills - thats not the point though - it is a matter of increasing flexibility and options to the people of Merseyside - I have friends who live near Mossley Hill - but getting there via train and bus is a joke. I am just one of many people who would welcome better rail links between north and south Liverpool, as well as new stations at Byrom St and Crown St. Ok I don't have the stats to back me up but who does?

WW - King's Dock in an inappropriate place as regards Wapping tunnel - are you serious?! If a station was placed at the end of that tunnel think about how short the walk would be to the arena. Do you expect the station to be inside the arena?!

petromax
03-23-2008, 04:37 PM
You can put a station somewhere and it will create demand - a part of an overall planning policy. The London DRL was put in when the demand was negligible. It should have been seamless with some Underground lines not the little chugga trains it now has.



If the arena was sensibly put at the end of the Wapping Tunnel, traffic would have been primarily by train via its own station. It was much more sensible to put the arena at the end of rapid transit rail tunnel. Even park and ride at Edge Hill for outsiders. Too easy wasn't. So they put it in the worst location. As the arena stands, in an inappropriate location, other means of transport have to be put in place. Currently they put a chara-banc park on an in-filled historic dock for access. Hotels will be around the arena.



It is a matter of building infrastructure for the future and infrastructure that matters improves image in a massive way, gives out the right progressive messages and will bring in investment. Roads & busses and trams don't do that.



Kirkdale is on the Northern Line and connected to the Undergound. Picton is near Edge Hill and other overground stations can be built too in suitable locations. Anfield can be got at via the outer loop. Dingle needs to be a through route not an end of line.



Yo don't get it. People will go from any station on the loops to the next but one or whatever - that is any of the loops, inner or outer.

Don't loose sight of the big picture. The idea is to:

Regenerate areas
Create a comprehensive, underground where possible, rapid transport rail system
Lift image of the City in a big way
Attract investment


Don't delve into trivial perceived detail.

Priority should be:


The city centre section (Circle Line built as most is already in place)
The outer loops, via Anfield

After the above, the city sections not reached by rail can be accessed by trams like parts of Everton. Most areas are not far from a rail line if the track bed though Childwall to Broad Green is brought back to use. Lines hit most areas of the city and beyond. They need to be seamlessly integrated into the Merseyrail system.

If need be, the Wapping Tunnel can be branched into from Central.

Once a Circle Line is created by a new tunnel from Dingle to Edge Hill and the Wapping Tunnel branched into, the scope and flexibility is enormous to what was there - fully fit for an expanding city.

The BIG picture is that Liverpool can be as GREAT a city as it was without reinventing the wheel at less cost than ANY other city in the UK by using the system that is still rather, than playing trains with pet schemes.

1. Mainline connections as is
2. Overhead railway along the waterfront
3. Trams

Just as was. Back to the future.

robt
03-23-2008, 06:22 PM
You can put a station somewhere and it will create demand - a part of an overall planning policy. The London DRL was put in when the demand was negligible. It should have been seamless with some Underground lines not the little chugga trains it now has.

Firstly, why 'should' it have been seamless with the existing undeground? Are you saying that they should of made the tunneled sections tube gauge which are cramped?

Secondly, no heavyrail or tube infrastructure could achieve the curvature and gradients that the DLR does. This is what light rail does best. Incidently, the DLR stock has a maximum speed of 50mph - not especially slow, considering the maximum line speed on Merseyrail is 60mph.

I have been trying to find a picture (not for you WW, for anyone who has not seen the DLR before )to illustrate what light rail does well (and cheaply) - tight curves and gradients. I couldn't find the picture I wanted, so this one will have to do. You can see the flyovers and unders to the left of the train.

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/2131/img44475sn7.jpg


It is a matter of building infrastructure for the future and infrastructure that matters improves image in a massive way, gives out the right progressive messages and will bring in investment. Roads & busses and trams don't do that.

Lightrail does exactly that.


Yo don't get it. People will go from any station on the loops to the next but one or whatever - that is any of the loops, inner or outer.

In *your opinion*.

I would certainly not use any loop line unless I was going three or four stops, or it was pouring down.

Waterways
03-23-2008, 11:22 PM
I don't understand the debate surrounding demand. New stations near the North Docks and one near the King's Dock might not be absolutely necessary but if they were there, access to them improves very significantly - that is fact, not opinion. They are areas of growth and attract investment - new stations would do them the world of good - there would be no harm at all.


Exactly. And the infrastructure is largely there.



It is a matter of accessibility - demand from the area of say, Aughton to King's Dock may not be high, but factor in the whole of Merseyside and factor in the number of new jobs that have been created in the area over the past 5 years or so, and all of a sudden the issue of demand changes. I think the demand-doubters are being way too pessimistic.


Those people have little visions - short term thinkers.



If I have a job near King's Dock, I shouldn't have to get off at Central and walk - especially when some infrastructure is in place. That is not laziness, I am not lazy - it is just very inconvenient.
Also, you questioned demand from Edge Hill to Sandhills - thats not the point though - it is a matter of increasing flexibility and options to the people of Merseyside - I have friends who live near Mossley Hill - but getting there via train and bus is a joke. I am just one of many people who would welcome better rail links between north and south Liverpool, as well as new stations at Byrom St and Crown St. Ok I don't have the stats to back me up but who does?


A Circle Line would make it easy to get from north, east and south to to each other.

Mossley Hill? It has a station, however on the London Main line. Dual pick-up rolling stock may help.



WW - King's Dock in an inappropriate place as regards Wapping tunnel - are you serious?! If a station was placed at the end of that tunnel think about how short the walk would be to the arena. Do you expect the station to be inside the arena?!

Yes. Underneath. The Amsterdam Arena has a motorway running underneath it. The perfect place for a station.

Waterways
03-23-2008, 11:29 PM
The BIG picture is that Liverpool can be as GREAT a city as it was without reinventing the wheel at less cost than ANY other city in the UK by using the system that is still rather, than playing trains with pet schemes.

1. Mainline connections as is
2. Overhead railway along the waterfront
3. Trams

Just as was. Back to the future.

The underground infrastructure inc' existing rail and disused track beds too, is there and can be reused in short order.

My assertion is that a cheap mainly cut and cover tunneling from Dingle to Edge Hill brings a cheap aspects that totally changes the completion of the rail system to make it a fully integrated seamless underground metro system, rivalling the likes of Munich.

Waterways
03-23-2008, 11:39 PM
Firstly, why 'should' it have been seamless with the existing undeground? Are you saying that they should of made the tunneled sections tube gauge which are cramped?


THE DLR was a cheapo system. It was heavily criticized and could not cope once Docklands was populated. The experts said put an extension of the District line through. The Thatcher regime put in a cheapo option to get interest. Only when the Jubilee line was brought into Docklands could rail cope with demand.

The DLR is a prime example of how not to do it. Although the connectivity to other part of the tube are fine at the same stations. No out into the street and walk 10 mins to another station.

I have been on the DLR many times - it is like being on a fairground ride with driverless trains. Very cute.

If Merseyrail is all the same rolling stock then much easier to manage and maintain rolling stock.

robt
03-24-2008, 12:11 AM
THE DLR was a cheapo system. It was heavily criticized and could not cope once Docklands was populated. The experts said put an extension of the District line through. The Thatcher regime put in a cheapo option to get interest. Only when the Jubilee line was brought into Docklands could rail cope with demand.

The DLR is a prime example of how not to do it. Although the connectivity to other part of the tube are fine at the same stations. No out into the street and walk 10 mins to another station.

When it opened it had 8 miles of track and 11 trains - it now has 19 miles, 149 trains (some are still on order), 39 stations, 2 depots and 60 million journeys a year. 'Cheapo' system or not - that is a success story.


I have been on the DLR many times - it is like being on a fairground ride with driverless trains. Very cute.

Relevance? Does not matter if it has a driver or not if it works?


If Merseyrail is all the same rolling stock then much easier to manage and maintain rolling stock.

What they have now is a luxury, not the norm, and they know that. Trains that run on your 'circle line' would NOT be the same as the Northern and Wirral line trains - they would be heavy rail. If your circle line was built it would be light rail, that is a fact I'm afraid.

I don't see why you are so against light rail - light rail trains can still run on heavy rail systems too.

Waterways
03-24-2008, 12:47 PM
The DLR was a cheapo rush job to get investors in the Docklands in London. They came and then the railway was totally inadequate. Then they stopped coming. Only when the government came in and funded the Jubilee Line extension did investment start to return to Docklands.

The short-term looking Thatcher government didn't want to spend to ensure future growth - hence small light trains. There was no direct rapid links to Docklands, that was the problem - the DRL trundled around only the Docklands. Until the Jubilee Line was run in, there was no rapid link. Docklands was in danger of becoming a White Elephant and had to be rescued. The Jubilee line did that. Liverpool should learn from London and implement Merseyrail extensions properly, initially underground, that seamlessly expand as the city expands.


Trains that run on your 'circle line' would NOT be the same as the Northern and Wirral line trains - they would be heavy rail. If your circle line was built it would be light rail, that is a fact I'm afraid.

I don't see why you are so against light rail - light rail trains can still run on heavy rail systems too.

As long as the guage and power pickup is the same, a light train can run on heavy train track. Having the same rolling stock and seamless tracks, means great flexibility in routing as a city expands, otherwise a Docklands situation may arise. Will the government bail out Liverpool with billions in rail infrastructure? Nah! they will not because it is not London or Manchester.

Best get it right from the beginning as all after will easily fall into place. Most of it is there, we must use it.

robt
03-24-2008, 02:31 PM
I note with interest that you didn't address any of my points about how successful the DLR is.



The DLR was cheapo rush job to get investors in the Docklands in London. They came and then the railways was totally inadequate. They they stopped coming. Only when the government came in and funded the Jubilee Line extension did investment start to return to Docklands.

Investment never stopped, the Jubilee Line extension just gave it another surge, as you would expect.


The short-term looking Thatcher government didn't want to spend to ensure future growth - hence small light trains. There was no direct rapid links to Docklands, that was the problem - the DRL trundled around only the Docklands.

Wrong. The DLR has served Bank since 1991.

It was short-sightedness not to serve Bank from the start 4 years earlier, as a new fleet of trains was required as the first fleet were not allowed to operate in tunnels due to H&S.



Until the Jubilee Line was run in, there was no rapid link. Docklands was in danger of becoming a White Elephant and had to be rescued. The Jubilee line did that. Liverpool learn from London and implement Merseyrail extensions properly, that seamlessly expand as the city expands.

A bit like the DLR seamlessly expands you mean?



As long as the guage and power pickup is the same, a light train can run on heavy train track.

I know - I told you that, no need to turn it around to (try and) make me look silly :rolleyes:



Having the same rolling stock and seamless tracks, means great flexibility in routing as a city expands, otherwise a Docklands situation may arise. Will the government bail out Liverpool with billions in rail infrastructure? Nah! they will not because it is not London or Manchester.

Yes, heaven forbid a 'docklands situation' arises. I mean it is only incredibly successful. Merseyrail (as a whle) carries 100,000 passengers a day. ONE STATION on the DLR handles 70,000 per day.

Let me say it again:

If your circle line was to ever be built (which it won't be - but the tunnels can/will be used in other ways), it would be a light rail system.


You seem to be an expert on every subject under the sun. I also have a feeling that if I had said the DLR was a failure, you would argue it was a success, just for the sake of it.

Waterways
03-24-2008, 02:59 PM
Investment never stopped, the Jubilee Line extension just gave it another surge, as you would expect.


Investment did stop. Many companies were pulling out of Docklands. Companies that were considering moving in stayed away. It was just a pain to get to and when there slow top get around.



Wrong. The DLR has served Bank since 1991.


In the years before it never.



It was short-sightedness not to serve Bank from the start 4 years earlier, as a new fleet of trains was required as the first fleet were not allowed to operate in tunnels due to H&S.


Yep. A screw up, cutting money.



A bit like the DLR seamlessly expands you mean?


That, it didn't do too well. Not sure if the Underground run it. If not it should have and a proper rapid transit system built, merging into the Tube.



Yes, heaven forbid a 'docklands situation' arises. I mean it is only incredibly successful. Merseyrail (as a whle) carries 100,000 passengers a day. ONE STATION on the DLR handles 70,000 per day.


Is that the one where the Jubilee line stops? The DLR carries that amount its elf? In one station? Only if it was a conveyor belt.



Let me say it again:

If your circle line was to ever be built (which it won't be - but the tunnels can/will be used in other ways), it would be a light rail system.


It may be. However not the best way of doing it.



You seem to be an expert on every subject under the sun.


thank you.



I also have a feeling that if I had said the DLR was a failure, you would argue it was a success, just for the sake of it.

It eventually was a success, because it had to be expanded and connected properly with the Tube proper. The Tube also had to have a proper fast link into Docklands to make Docklands work, which eventually came with the Jubilee Line.

The DLR is a success despite its shortcomings - there is no alternative. The system would have been far better with a proper extension of the tube into Docklands, that is for sure. That is what the developers wanted the government to do. Also the DLR was extedned out of Dockland into the East End, to give cheap rail connectivity to these areas to regenerate. It worked - well it stoped teh areas from falingbehind further that was for sure.

The DLR was heavily criticised for the shortsighted approach of the chuggers.

robt
03-24-2008, 04:04 PM
In the years before it never.

The railway only opened 4 years earlier - don't try and make it sound like decades to help your cause.


Yep. A screw up, cutting money.

Not serving bank was cutting money (or perhaps just sheer stupidity, or both), not that the stock could not work tunnels, that was a just a byproduct of not serving Bank.


That, it didn't do too well. Not sure if the Underground run it. If not it should have and a proper rapid transit system built, merging into the Tube.

Why do you use only the past tense? It is expanding as we speak, and has been for over a decade.



Is that the one where the Jubilee line stops? The DLR carries that amount its elf? In one station? Only if it was a conveyor belt.

Nope, not where the Jubilee stops.


It may be. However not the best way of doing it.

Only in your opinion.


thank you.

Your welcome. You clearly know very little about the rail industry though.


The DLR is a success despite its shortcomings - there is no alternative.

It doesn't have any shortcomings anymore though.



The system would have been far better with a proper extension of the tube into Docklands, that is for sure. That is what the developers wanted the government to do. Also the DLR was extedned out of Dockland into the East End, to give cheap rail connectivity to these areas to regenerate. It worked - well it stoped teh areas from falingbehind further that was for sure.

Like I already said - tube or heavy rail could not physically do what the DLR does.

Waterways
03-24-2008, 05:01 PM
The railway only opened 4 years earlier - don't try and make it sound like decades to help your cause.


I considered moving into Docklands at the time. I could have sold a Central London flat for something cavernous and got change. To get in and out was a nightmare by road. Then Noddy trains about. No thanks.



Not serving bank was cutting money (or perhaps just sheer stupidity, or both), not that the stock could not work tunnels, that was a just a byproduct of not serving Bank.


Even via Bank it was a slow trundle to Docklands. A rapid transit rail system was needed - like extending the tube. Nothing was thought out, they just winged it. That's all light rail is - a cheapo compromise in most cases.



Your welcome. You clearly know very little about the rail industry though.


I know what rail systems are supposed to do. I am no train freak or spotter. We all want a system that works and is fast and easy to use. I also know when I use a good Metro system, like Paris and Munich. Then I look at what makes then better. It is usually quite simple. Seamless throughout in rolling stock, stations at major points. Easy to traverse the city, easy signage (Paris could be better here), fast, etc. I also know that cities with underground rapid rail systems attract investment.



It doesn't have any shortcomings anymore though.


It is a glorified bus service trundling around one area. The Tube does the rapid transit side in and out.



Like I already said - tube or heavy rail could not physically do what the DLR does.

It could do more if it was designed in from the beginning. To be fair the DLR is not that bad now!!! They rectified the major problems with the Jubilee line shifting people in and out fast, and made a connection with the tube at Bank and other points, like Bow Church, Stratford (for Olympics), Tower Hill.

They did it backwards.

The DLR is not a model of how to re-use Liverpool's disused underground rail infrastructure. How they did it is an example of how not to do it.

You must make money out of light rail junk :)

jc_everton
03-24-2008, 07:00 PM
It must remembered, WW, that both Paris and Munich have a combination of trams and underground. You're views are inconsistent.
There's so many other cities with trams and underground - and how successful they are too.

I still disagree with Robt (or was it Petromax) that the tunnels should be used for light rail, they definitely have the potential to merge into Merseyrail, and I do believe it would be a waste to use light rail. By all means, use light rail overground, and connect other parts of the city, but Liverpool Central is becoming increasingly over-crowded, and more city centre stations would do the city the world of good. Not everyone works/studies/other near Central or Moorfields and it is these people who have a fair walk from them stations that deserve new stations and more options.

And as I have said many times before, the tunnels offer direct conectivity from north-south, north-east, east-north, south-north, and so on. Realistically, my proposals make most sense, I am sorry to sound arrogant. But I'm studying this for my dissertation, not to annoy people.

Waterways
03-24-2008, 07:43 PM
It must remembered, WW, that both Paris and Munich have a combination of trams and underground. You're views are inconsistent.


Trams in Paris? Where? I am not against trams they can fill in gaps where the rail lines do not go. However light rail should not be implemented where heavy rail can. The system has to cope with a city expanding.


my proposals make most sense, I am sorry to sound arrogant. But I'm studying this for my dissertation, not to annoy people.

Whats exactly are they?

petromax
03-24-2008, 09:19 PM
My assertion is that a cheap mainly cut and cover tunneling from Dingle to Edge Hill brings a cheap aspects that totally changes the completion of the rail system to make it a fully integrated seamless underground metro system, rivalling the likes of Munich.



At the risk of repeating myself - There is no benefit in wasting effort (real effort), not to mention money, in creating an idealised 'seamless' system that doesn't do what IS needed or WILL BE needed. EVERY network works with connections at the seams between different systems used for different purposes.

I don't deny that demand can be created by placing a station or a line wherever you might dream about and run it on what ever mode you particularly like but we need to look very carefully at the plan for the city, identify both where the demand is and where we would like it to be for the most successful (and yes, realistically cost effective) result.

The plan for Liverpool is to recreate the economic power of the docks as a commercial centre contiguous with the existing centre plus a massive boost to the inner suburbs ie to re-create the success of the waterfront, the city's main asset plus the supporting inner suburbs.

A RADIAL system of mainlines (connecting the rest of the region and UK); merseyrail (connecting the outer suburbs to the centre) on the existing alignments plus trams (connecting the inner suburbs) and a resurrected overhead (connecting the waterfront) where they used to be fits this models.

The outer loop has to be there to minimise the in-and-out journey between adjacent suburbs and therefore needs to be far enough out to make a difference ie NOT around the city centre. It is an OUTER loop not an inner underground which is not only stunningly expensive but as I say what is NOT needed.

If this generation get's it wrong; if the city screws up and the system fails (ie is not funded, again) it probably won't ever happen in Liverpool because of the city's recent history. Nothing succeeds like success but nothing smells quite as bad as failure (again).Taking a risk is important to success - we can't be afraid to fail, but we have to give it our best, educated shot. We won't get another chance.

Waterways
03-25-2008, 08:55 AM
At the risk of repeating myself - There is no benefit in wasting effort (real effort), not to mention money, in creating an idealised 'seamless' system that doesn't do what IS needed or WILL BE needed. EVERY network works with connections at the seams between different systems used for different purposes.


I agree with you.



I don't deny that demand can be created by placing a station or a line wherever you might dream about and run it on what ever mode you particularly like but we need to look very carefully at the plan for the city, identify both where the demand is and where we would like it to be for the most successful (and yes, realistically cost effective) result.


That is something that has been lacking.



The plan for Liverpool is to recreate the economic power of the docks as a commercial centre contiguous with the existing centre plus a massive boost to the inner suburbs ie to re-create the success of the waterfront, the city's main asset plus the supporting inner suburbs.


The docks are predominantly the far north docks and are well away from the centre. The only docks near the centre will not be used for commercial shipping.

The city is trying to boost the tourist side of the city. How? They really don't know. What to use the existing redundant docks waterways for, they don't really know. They just wait for shark developers to put in proposals and see if they like it. Developers want money making attractions, like Kings Dock, where you can char-banc people in and out and then create a char-banc park on an infilled docks.



A RADIAL system of mainlines (connecting the rest of the region and UK); merseyrail (connecting the outer suburbs to the centre) on the existing alignments plus trams (connecting the inner suburbs) and a resurrected overhead (connecting the waterfront) where they used to be fits this models.


Firstly an overhead railway is impractical and a nostalgic expense - a dream. Looks good on a model, but it will block views. It will also have to merge with Merseyrail and by nature will be light rail. Best spend the money on something more useful. For tourists a Birkenhead type of tram system running around the docks is enough.



The outer loop has to be there to minimise the in-and-out journey between adjacent suburbs and therefore needs to be far enough out to make a difference ie NOT around the city centre. It is an OUTER loop not an inner underground which is not only stunningly expensive but as I say what is NOT needed.


The northern outer loop is there. It just needs to be connected at Edge Hill, the expensive bit. The southern loop is there, but only the track bed.

An inner loop is easy to implement as 80% is there. It is needed for better passenger connections and to serve inner city areas for re-generation. Implementing the INNER loop will also complete the OUTER loop.

Merseyrail has to be run as a Merseyside Centric railway. Beyond is not an issue for Merseyrail. Connections to it via the same stations what is needed.

It appears you don't understand the seamless system. It makes it easy to expand the Metro rail system and great flexibility to plan routes for an expanding city.



If this generation get's it wrong; if the city screws up and the system fails (ie is not funded, again) it probably won't ever happen in Liverpool because of the city's recent history. Nothing succeeds like success but nothing smells quite as bad as failure (again).Taking a risk is important to success - we can't be afraid to fail, but we have to give it our best, educated shot. We won't get another chance.

Exactly.

jc_everton
03-25-2008, 05:57 PM
For Paris trams see:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Paris-tramway.jpg

Or just:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramways_in_Paris

Yes, this is off-topic, but how you can say they look ugly is beyond me.

Waterways
03-25-2008, 06:43 PM
I spent a lot of time in Paris in the late 1980s/early 90s. The first was 1992 in the north east of the city - which I never went into. The next 1997.

The overhead wires are ugly as are the tracks. The amount of work to lay the track is the same as heavy rail.

Trams should never have been considered over extending Merseyrail in Liverpool. How it got to the stage that rails were delivered amazes me. Where is the vision? There is is just too much infrastructure and value in upgrading the existing tunnels and underground stations.

jc_everton
03-25-2008, 07:33 PM
Point is: You look at Paris and Munich as fine examples of well-integrated urban public transport.

Well, both have trams and both have underground. You think they're ugly. I don't. That argument is irrelevant.

The point is, trams quite clearly DO work.

I do agree that the underground can be used better but I've spent a long time studying how it can be better used and unfortunately, only parts of the tunnels could be used successfully in conjunction with new tunnels linking them to the Northern Line and City Line. If someone can come with a plan that uses every inch of the tunnels and believes they can be fully integrated into the network I'd be delighted to hear about it.

WW, even your plans do not involve the Wapping tunnel, so although '80%' of your system is already in place, you are also leaving out around 40% of the underground network? (If Wapping is around 40, Waterloo around 40, and Dingle, say 20... that's where I'm getting my rough estimate from)
You want to use them for the sake of it and yes I agree, the lack of vision is pathetic from Merseytravel but I would go one step further than you and say that brand new tunnels should be created and where appropriate, use the existing tunnels. Of course, you will argue your proposal is cheap because of the infrastructure but new tunnels would be better for the long-term. In my opnion.
Reason being - the existing tunnels dictate where the trains must go and I do not believe a station near Waterloo Dock is necessary at all. Ok, there are couple of large apartment blocks nearby but I don't see how the Waterloo tunnel can have a new station at Costco AND connect to the Northern Line.

Now a station at more Central and Southern docks would be much more sensible - the South docks especially - their expansion has been the most significant.

Also, a station around Catherine St would be pretty pointless and I've already explained why, whilst one near Crown St (north) would be good for students of Liverpool Uni but apart from that....?

So in conclusion, yes, use the tunnels to an extent, but lets put stations in appropriate places (in the city centre) - even if it means building new tunnels. And lets get better connections between north and south, north and east, etc etc.

Public transport alone will not rescue poor areas such as Lodge Lane - new stations on Smithdown and Picton Roads are sound ideas and a new line for Anfield is also sound. But... do you want a station for every street in inner city Liverpool? That area is so close to town, perhaps my city centre tram proposal (which is basically the same as Merseytram's) could extend to that area.

Waterways
03-25-2008, 08:34 PM
Point is: You look at Paris and Munich as fine examples of well-integrated urban public transport.

Well, both have trams and both have underground. You think they're ugly. I don't. That argument is irrelevant.

The point is, trams quite clearly DO work.


I never said they don't. In Liverpool the priority is the re-use of the valuable legacy left to us - with disused underground tunnels and stations to get back into action. That is where energy should be directed - that is the priority not trams. Trams are way down the line - pardon the pun. The cart was put before the horse and trams were the priority. Amazing!!!! Totally amazing!!!



I do agree that the underground can be used better but I've spent a long time studying how it can be better used and unfortunately, only parts of the tunnels could be used successfully in conjunction with new tunnels linking them to the Northern Line and City Line. If someone can come with a plan that uses every inch of the tunnels and believes they can be fully integrated into the network I'd be delighted to hear about it.


I gave the Circle Line which used the Waterloo and Dingle Tunnels - and three underground stations (if Byron St can be classed as one). That is a lot of ready made tunnel and cheap tunnelling to cut to connect the Circle up. This also allows outer loops and lines connectivity at Edge Hill to the rest of the Merseyrail.

The Northern Line tunnel near Central Stn can branch into the Wapping Tunnel to create a line to Edge Hill completing the North End Outer Loop via Anfield and Kirkdale. That is only the dock side of the Wapping Tunnel is not used.

The whole system is totally transformed by:


Tunneling from Dingle to Edge Hill
Branch the Northern line into the Wapping Tunnel




WW, even your plans do not involve the Wapping tunnel, so although '80%' of your system is already in place, you are also leaving out around 40% of the underground network?


See above.

My priority is:

get the Circle Line done first as there is so much of it in place.
Then completing the North End Outer Loop, using most of the Wapping Tunnel.
Then the South End Outer Loop - more contentious as track bed needs lines re-laid and people who live backing up to the bed may kick up about this.

Why the hell millions are being spent on trams when all that is mainly in place is mind-boggling.



You want to use them for the sake of it


Nothing is used for the sake of it. Only the docks side of the Wapping tunnel would ever be used for the sake of it as there appears no real demand for a station there as the King Dock Arena was put in the wrong place.



and yes I agree, the lack of vision is pathetic from Merseytravel but I would go one step further than you and say that brand new tunnels should be created and where appropriate, use the existing tunnels. Of course, you will argue your proposal is cheap because of the infrastructure but new tunnels would be better for the long-term. In my opnion.


Mine has new tunnel from Dingle to Edge Hill (cheaper cut and cover along much of the route), and stations left along the way.



Reason being - the existing tunnels dictate where the trains must go and I do not believe a station near Waterloo Dock is necessary at all. Ok, there are couple of large apartment blocks nearby but I don't see how the Waterloo tunnel can have a new station at Costco AND connect to the Northern Line.


A station there is essential. Liverpool Waters is right there. Connecting the tunnel and the Northern Line is not a great act of engineering.



Now a station at more Central and Southern docks would be much more sensible - the South docks especially - their expansion has been the most significant.


Brunswick is already there and Parliament St not far away. The end of the Wapping Tunnel could be used if demand eventually is there.



So in conclusion, yes, use the tunnels to an extent, but lets put stations in appropriate places (in the city centre) - even if it means building new tunnels. And lets get better connections between north and south, north and east, etc etc.


The Circle Line and branching into the Wapping Tunnel does give the connections.



Public transport alone will not rescue poor areas such as Lodge Lane - new stations on Smithdown and Picton Roads are sound ideas and a new line for Anfield is also sound. But... do you want a station for every street in inner city Liverpool? That area is so close to town, perhaps my city centre tram proposal (which is basically the same as Merseytram's) could extend to that area.

That area is not that close to town. And underground stations right in the district centres, like in London, will be a real attraction for investors. Trams are the last in line - to fill the gaps where rail does not run.

After the tunnels are up and running (or simultaneously), extend the Parkway into John Lennon. Then directly trains from Wrexham, the Wirral and the North and East Ends can reach the centre and directly into the airport - via Central Stn, up the Wapping Tunnel, Edge Hill and on to Parkway and the airport. Then most of Merseyside and beyond has direct access to the airport.

Then trams a can fill the gaps and mesh into the overground stations - so just a platform change for many and onto the fast Merseyrail trains to the centre and airport.

andyk
03-26-2008, 04:35 PM
I'm still enjoying the debate despite it becoming a slanging-match between Robt and Waterways. I still doubt that heavy-rail is a solution for inner-city Liverpool,the need just can't be proven and massive investment requires more than envisaging an eventual benefit.I suspect that outside the morning and evening rush, any new inner-city stations would be lightly used.

The existing infrastructure,such as the Waterloo tunnel,could be intergrated into a tram/light-rail system allowing for a swift entry/exit from the City centre.The question of a seamless system is not that important,for example most of the commuters using the D.L.R will make one or more changes before they arrive at their place of work.Is that such an inconvenience?

Keep the ideas flowing guys!

jc_everton
03-26-2008, 09:28 PM
Andyk, considering Liverpool is a heck of a lot smaller than London and a heck of a lot different in terms of its layout etc etc, then I would say yes, a daily change-over is a little bit inconvenient.
If you work near Waterloo and have to get a tram to Edge Hill just to go to Mossley Hill is a bit unprofessional - especially after reading into the development of tram-trains today. And no, all the reading was not done over Wikipedia but of course it is a good starting point as it points me in various directions, such as the Karlsruhe Model - the first system to integrate trams and trains to varying degrees of success (which WW will be glad to hear), however they are developing and a number of European cities are beginning to adopt them - learning from Karlsruhe's teething problems in the process.
More info can be found on (I think) www.lightrail.nl/tramtrain

http://www.lightrail.nl/TramTrain/tt-pics/tt-graz-Murgasse.jpg

I love the above streetscape, how I long for that sort of scene in Liverpool...

I don't necessarily believe change-overs should hold any future schemes (similar to our schemes) back but I really think there should be an emphasis on avoiding them where possible. On a daily basis, changing over can become a chore and if one train is late/early etc, your journey is knocked out of sync - there should be an emphasis on convenience. Liverpool does not require a mega public transport system like Paris' where every form of transport under the sun is used. By all means, learn from Paris and implement trams/metro where necessary but yes, I do believe change-overs are an inconvenience.

WW will of course pick holes here, but greater pedestrianisation combined with trams, or even tram-trains provides the best way to move around the city centre - not metro. It simply isn't big enough to warrant one. Yes, your loop does extend into the inner city but I don't believe it is as necessary as my 'scheme' as you already know.

Let the ideas flow, as Andyk says!

ChrisO
03-26-2008, 11:45 PM
Surely it would make sense, however it gets done, to have the whole system integrated into the current Merseyrail network, rather than have two separate systems: 1) Light rail/trams & 2) current heavy rail

Waterways
03-26-2008, 11:57 PM
Surely it would make sense, however it gets done, to have the whole system integrated into the current Merseyrail network, rather than have two separate systems: 1) Light rail/trams & 2) current heavy rail

Of course it would make sense.

robt
03-27-2008, 01:29 AM
especially after reading into the development of tram-trains today.

I assume your referring to tramtrain trials on the Penistone line in Yorkshire - if so, it was announced last week :)

If it is a success in the UK trials then it is *exactly* what should be implemented in any new surburban system in Liverpool, or indeed many other cities. WW has said many times that rail track costs the same whether it is light rail or heavy rail and it is just not true. Tramtrains do not require any signalling systems on sections used exclusively by tramtrains - they can be 'driven on sight'. Signalling, and connecting it to existing signalling is a massive chunk of the cost of new rail infrastructure. They can also be diesel operated, so can run on existing lines without them first being electrified, which is another massive cost. That is not to say that lines should not be electrified, it is just a bonus.



Surely it would make sense, however it gets done, to have the whole system integrated into the current Merseyrail network, rather than have two separate systems: 1) Light rail/trams & 2) current heavy rail

The two can be integrated and indeed run on the same track - don't be led into believing otherwise :)

ChrisO
03-27-2008, 08:17 AM
I apologise if this has been mentioned before ( I am new to the forum). I can understand wanting to link the Waterloo tunnel into the Merseyrail Northern Line, but I (and this is a personal opinion, of course) see much more benefit in re-opening the Wapping tunnel and placing a new station at its end to serve the new waterfront developments, such as the Echo Arena. This would allow current WCML services to access the waterfront. However, I am no economist and don't know the cost and I also don't know whether the site at Wapping could handle Virgin Pendolinos. Wouldn't it also be an advantage to electrify the City line through St Helens Central to allow it to connect to the WCML at Springs Branch, Wigan and allow WCML services from the North to come straight into Liverpool.
I'd rather see something like that than a light rail system where trains would have to stop at Edge Hill for passengers to switch to light rail for the journey to the waterfront.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 08:58 AM
I apologise if this has been mentioned before ( I am new to the forum). I can understand wanting to link the Waterloo tunnel into the Merseyrail Northern Line, but I (and this is a personal opinion, of course) see much more benefit in re-opening the Wapping tunnel and placing a new station at its end to serve the new waterfront developments, such as the Echo Arena. This would allow current WCML services to access the waterfront. However, I am no economist and don't know the cost and I also don't know whether the site at Wapping could handle Virgin Pendolinos. Wouldn't it also be an advantage to electrify the City line through St Helens Central to allow it to connect to the WCML at Springs Branch, Wigan and allow WCML services from the North to come straight into Liverpool.
I'd rather see something like that than a light rail system where trains would have to stop at Edge Hill for passengers to switch to light rail for the journey to the waterfront.

Chris, best to use other Metro systems as role models. Concentrate on services to get around the city and Merseyside area. Lines from elsewhere can terminate where they already do at Lime St and Edge Hill. Running lines in Wigan or Timbuktoo doesn't help inner city Toxteth.

Cost of track laying is about the same for light and heavy rail - a rail is a rail.

When certain types of trains (tram/trains) can only use restricted lines, this:

makes the system more expensive to maintain as a larger collection of rolling stock has to be serviced.
gives an inflexible system, restricting routing as a city expands


Trams are fine to have but must be the last in line of priorities. It appears some transport/rail consultancies are pushing trams as maybe they are the flavour of the year.

Common sense has to prevail. Extending the system to use existing tunnels, stations and track is by far the most effective approach - not trams. Look at post 20 on this thread for a map of a proposal to use the Dingle and Waterloo tunnels.

The Northern Line can also branch into the Wapping Tunnel just south of Central Station working its way back to Edge Hill. Then all tunnels operational and useful with only tunneling (mainly cut and cover) from Dingle to Edge Hill.

Best concentrate on what matters -a fully integrated metro system and how it aids and regenerates an expanding city. A system which is largely in place. Don't allow fads to taint your mind. Some people are more interested in getting a pet fad in place.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 09:17 AM
the Karlsruhe Model - the first system to integrate trams and trains to varying degrees of success (which WW will be glad to hear), however they are developing and a number of European cities are beginning to adopt them - learning from Karlsruhe's teething problems in the process.


Nice to know they work somewhere. Liverpool's priorities are very different with trying regenerate areas and cope for an expanding city and utilising existing underground rail infrastructure.



http://www.lightrail.nl/TramTrain/tt-pics/tt-graz-Murgasse.jpg


Personally I do not like the above streetscape at all. These heavy trams vibrate the buildings they pass. I found it strange that in small streets that a two car train (that is what these big trams are) trundle through. They take up and dominate the street. The transport infrastructure should assist the district not dominate it.

Trams is the last thing Liverpool should be thinking of at the moment - the last in line over the re-use of existing rail infrastructure.

Taken from the tram/train link...

TramTrain, that is, basically trams using heavy railway infrastructure, or the "Karlsruhe model", has been seen for some time as the miraculous solution for railbound regional public transport.
Fact is however that the number of implemented cases is very limited and those projects which came further then the initial feasibility study often have developed in another direction. Fact is also that even in Germany with very supportive regulatory and political structures progress has been much slower then one would have expected.

There is not "the one" explanation, but a deeper look behind the Karlsruhe myth explains already a good deal. The reasons for the "non-progress" of other projects is also helping further. To say it rude: TramTrain is neither cheap nor easy.

Cadfael
03-27-2008, 10:59 AM
I know this would never happen again but the Council arsed up most of the roads in the city centre by paving them.

Is it just me or does anyone else think that paving the whole of say Church Street is a total waste of space? Look at pictures of days gone by how to get through town and you'll see that it was well organised - we don't need trams in Liverpool, we just need our roads back open again.

Silly idea's like closing off William Brown street so to get to the Mersey Tunnel from the bottom of London road could be a 10 second drive, not waste 5 mins more polluting the air trying to get to something you can see!

robt
03-27-2008, 11:19 AM
Cost of track laying is about the same for light and heavy rail - a rail is a rail.


It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 11:27 AM
It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.

Tell us the difference.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 11:28 AM
I know this would never happen again but the Council arsed up most of the roads in the city centre by paving them.

Is it just me or does anyone else think that paving the whole of say Church Street is a total waste of space? Look at pictures of days gone by how to get through town and you'll see that it was well organised - we don't need trams in Liverpool, we just need our roads back open again.

Silly idea's like closing off William Brown street so to get to the Mersey Tunnel from the bottom of London road could be a 10 second drive, not waste 5 mins more polluting the air trying to get to something you can see!

You obviously have thing about cars. :)

robt
03-27-2008, 11:29 AM
Tell us the difference.

I have already explained on the previous page.

Cadfael
03-27-2008, 11:38 AM
You obviously have thing about cars. :)

My car gives me Terry Wogan on the radio. It gives me the exact temperature as I sit in my leather seat. There are no scallies behind me smoking or playing their music loud.

Until someone comes up with a tram/train like that, I'll quite happily use the car :)

Ged
03-27-2008, 12:01 PM
On the contrary, I would have pedestrianised more of the city centre creating a periphery road route around its edge only, served from the main arterial routes with strategically placed multi storey car parks with park and ride buses or trams only using the remaining centre roads to get you to and from your car to the shops/places of interest. This would do away with hundreds of traffic lights, signs and traffic wardens as we know them and allow for pavement cafes and a European feel and you'd actually look up and notice the buildings we take for granted. It would also be disabled friendly with an emphasis on using public transport to enter the city wherever possible. I for one never park right in the centre these days anyway, too much trouble getting in and out - the 1960s photos and 70s memories of Church Street are bad enough without all the extra traffic these days.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 12:06 PM
My car gives me Terry Wogan on the radio. It gives me the exact temperature as I sit in my leather seat. There are no scallies behind me smoking or playing their music loud.

Until someone comes up with a tram/train like that, I'll quite happily use the car :)

..and I am quite happy they ban the pollution machines from city centres.

Terry Wogan? Wow!! Masochist!

Waterways
03-27-2008, 12:14 PM
On the contrary, I would have pedestrianised more of the city centre creating a periphery road route around its edge only, served from the main arterial routes with strategically placed multi storey car parks with park and ride buses or trams only using the remaining centre roads to get you to and from your car to the shops/places of interest. This would do away with hundreds of traffic lights, signs and traffic wardens as we know them and allow for pavement cafes and a European feel and you'd actually look up and notice the buildings we take for granted. It would also be disabled friendly with an emphasis on using public transport to enter the city wherever possible. I for one never park right in the centre these days anyway, too much trouble getting in and out - the 1960s photos and 70s memories of Church Street are bad enough without all the extra traffic these days.

Ged, a man of my own heart. :) The selfishness of car owners has ruined British cities.

A periphery road would not do much as all you could do is ride around it. Edge Hill is superb for park and ride if the Wapping and Waterloo tunnels are brought back into use.

The Dock Rd should go as it acts as big unnecessary barrier preventing the dock areas from merging into the city beyond. A urban motorway running through the centre the city does not need at all, and that is all the Dock Rd is. The Strand should be like the Ramblas in Barcelona with pavement cafes, etc.

Roll on the city centre and dock waters high rises and getting the city populated again.

Bingo Bob
03-27-2008, 12:27 PM
Trams, and for the old, fat or lazy they can then have Segway PTs (vvvvvvvvvmmmmmmmmmm)
That's the way to go.:handclap::handclap::handclap:

I like the way I don't have to avoid cars when I amble around town, especially any boyracer clowns (daft term that stupid people use for themselves):PDT10
:taxi::009:

petromax
03-27-2008, 03:28 PM
The city is trying to boost the tourist side of the city. How? They really don't know. ..

Just because you don't know, don't assume that everyone else is in the same position


Developers want money making attractions, like Kings Dock, where you can char-banc people in and out and then create a char-banc park on an infilled docks..

Yes, people want to make money, that's how you get a dynamic city. As long as they leave the money at the door by way of rates and Section 106 contributions and an increased city economy that's good for the city




Firstly an overhead railway is impractical and a nostalgic expense - a dream. Looks good on a model, but it will block views. It will also have to merge with Merseyrail and by nature will be light rail. Best spend the money on something more useful. For tourists a Birkenhead type of tram system running around the docks is enough. .

Overhead railways are practical and financially feasible solutions all around the world. They create more views for visitors than they block. A reasonably successful tourist destination city can be expected to pull in 20m tourist visitors a year - not to mention business travel. Read back, you will see that I said the link was essential; However, I did not say that it necessairly be overhead. However, overhead systems are quicker, more efficient and are a greater statement of confidence. Something the city is only just realising is what makes a difference, as in 'It'll never happen in Liverpool, they don't believe in themselves. Why should I believe enough to put my money there?"




The northern outer loop is there. It just needs to be connected at Edge Hill, the expensive bit. The southern loop is there, but only the track bed..

The outer loop does not run into Edge Hill. You are thinking of the inner loop via the Olive Mount Chord. The outer loop is outside Queen's Drive and is currently a linear park.


An inner loop is easy to implement as 80% is there. It is needed for better passenger connections and to serve inner city areas for re-generation. Implementing the INNER loop will also complete the OUTER loop...

...It appears you don't understand the seamless system. It makes it easy to expand the Metro rail system and great flexibility to plan routes for an expanding city. .

You do not seem to understand the relative cost of tunnelling and more importantly how people move and the importance of desire lines. You appear determined to force people where they don't want to go now or where they will need to go in the future. Your other posts with respect to trams echo this. The tram routes complete the picture and follow the desire lines at the most effective cost.

An expanded underground is not justified - its just a bit of 'glory'

petromax
03-27-2008, 03:34 PM
.....Don't allow fads to taint your mind. Some people are more interested in getting a pet fad in place.

Yes they are

petromax
03-27-2008, 03:55 PM
My car gives me Terry Wogan on the radio. It gives me the exact temperature as I sit in my leather seat. There are no scallies behind me smoking or playing their music loud.

Until someone comes up with a tram/train like that, I'll quite happily use the car :)

Try:

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story_attachment.asp?storycode=3086598&seq=3&type=P&c=1

Waterways
03-27-2008, 04:48 PM
Yes, people want to make money, that's how you get a dynamic city. As long as they leave the money at the door by way of rates and Section 106 contributions and an increased city economy that's good for the city


But making money at the expense of cutting off your nose to spite your face is a silly way of doing it. The Kings Dock has proven that. And Peel are wanting to fill in West Waterloo Dock again.



Overhead railways are practical and financially feasible solutions all around the world. They create more views for visitors than they block. A reasonably successful tourist destination city can be expected to pull in 20m tourist visitors a year - not to mention business travel. Read back, you will see that I said the link was essential; However, I did not say that it necessairly be overhead. However, overhead systems are quicker, more efficient and are a greater statement of confidence. Something the city is only just realising is what makes a difference, as in 'It'll never happen in Liverpool, they don't believe in themselves. Why should I believe enough to put my money there?"


An overhead from the Waterloo Tunnel, along and through the docks and running though the Dingle Tunnel would be a great asset. If the tunnel link from Dingle to Edge Hill was made it would be a superb Circle Line linking up at the Northern Line at Waterloo, the Wirral Line at James St via a separate staircase down the to station beneath, and other lines at Edge Hill.



The outer loop does not run into Edge Hill. You are thinking of the inner loop via the Olive Mount Chord. The outer loop is outside Queen's Drive and is currently a linear park.


No. The loop via Anfleld can run into Edge Hill. Then it can run down the Wapping Tunnel and into the Northern Line and into Central Stn. The branch between the two tunnels has to be made.

The southern loop, which was proposed in the 1970s, was to be done with work at Broad Green, but was not completed.



You do not seem to understand the relative cost of tunnelling


I don't need to. When 80% of something is already there and it is something which we need, then the cost is not great, whatever it costs - that I do know.



and more importantly how people move and the importance of desire lines.


The city is expanding, so the transport infrastructure must match the areas of expansion. Quite simple really. But what areas need to expand? Well best follow the existing underground rail infrastructure as it is there. There again - quite simple.



You appear determined to force people where they don't want to go now or where they will need to go in the future.


Please read what I write. People will go where the planners make them go - quite simple. Creating an outer city centre Circle Line, a North End Outer Loop and South End Outer Loop, together with the existing system, will cover vast part of Liverpool and the Wirral and make it easy to travel around this network too.



Your other posts with respect to trams echo this. The tram routes complete the picture and follow the desire lines at the most effective cost.


Trams only complete the picture, they are not the focal point of the picture. The current tram proposals are a little more than a joke. For e.g., the line Kirkby parallels the Merseyrail line - how dumb! Trams can fill in the gaps the Merseyrail does not cover, but only after existing underground infrastructure is brought back into use.

An underground line can regenerate an area (look at the Jubilee Line in London - fantastic), I doubt trams will make such an impact. Manchester trams are working well, however Sheffield and Croydon are clearly not. The Manchester trams are hardly comprehensive either:
http://www.metrolink.co.uk/pdf/route_map.pdf

If Manchester had what we have under our streets, they would not have implemented trams. They wanted an underground, but building one from scratch was way too expensive for them, so they went for trams.



An expanded underground is not justified - its just a bit of 'glory'


As a lot of it is actually there and running through areas that matter it is 110% justified. The bit of 'glory' is an overhead railway and trams, which are really back burner items to the prime underground rapid transit system, which will make a difference to the city, the area as whole and regeneration of inner city areas.

"Nice" to have trams and overhead railways, and they complete a picture, however let's not put the cart before the horse. Get the priorities right - a system that will benefit he city and greatly assist in its future growth.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 05:00 PM
Liverpool has:

numerous disused rail tunnels under its streets (some amongst the oldest in the world)
a collection of disused underground stations.
more disused overground stations than any other British city, complete with lines.


These disused stations and lines just need seamlessly merging into the system. The city should concentrate and prioritise on its rapid transit rail system and extending it, not wasting money on unneeded trams - which is another rail system. The rail system system is already there.

Trams and light rail may compete the picture, however in Liverpool they are waste of expensive time and resources at the present, as the infrastructure for extending the existing rapid transit rail system is already largely there.

Objections to the trams:Objections (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/merseytramliverpoolcitycentr5652?page=9)


6.5 In the view of a number of objectors, there is no clear need for Merseytram Line 1 in transportation terms. Passengers between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre are already catered for by the fast, frequent and recently refurbished Merseyrail Electrics trains.

6.12 Merseytravel has demonstrated no transport need for the proposed tram. There is a train service between Kirkby Railway Station and central Liverpool which provides a train every 15 minutes, with a journey time also of only 15 minutes. There is a frequent bus service in the Line 1 corridor. The time saving for most journeys within the line 1 corridor resulting from use of the proposed tram rather than the bus is at most 5 minutes. Even this claimed marginal advantage is misleading because it takes no account of the additional waiting time for the tram or of the longer average walk to the tram stop predicated by the wider tram catchment area compared with that of the bus. There is ample bus capacity: a bus can carry up to 50 passengers, but average use is only 12 to 14 passengers per bus.

6.34 The scheme would meet no identified transport need, and, indeed, would damage competing transport undertakings such as local trains and buses by unfair competition. There is already a train service between Kirkby and Liverpool run by Merseyrail.

there is currently a bus service between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre on average about every two minutes. There is accordingly no need or natural demand for a tram.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (OBJ/269)

The [tram] scheme is poorly targeted and does not represent good value for money. The money could be better spent on other projects, including the provision of a new deepwater harbour and cruise liner terminal, or improvements to local roads and the provision of a rapid rail link to Liverpool Airport.

6.41 It is self-evident that by promoting a tram which is largely to be publicly funded, in direct competition with buses and trains which are in large part without public subsidy, Merseytravel is acting in contravention of EU competition law. Any grant of public money would be challengeable in court or before the European Competition Commissioner.

robt
03-27-2008, 06:32 PM
I don't need to. When 80% of something is already there and it is something which we need, then the cost is not great, whatever it costs - that I do know.

How do you know a cost is 'not great' when you have no idea whether it is millions or billions?




Objections to the trams:Objections (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/merseytramliverpoolcitycentr5652?page=9)

<snipped to save space>

I don't think anyone (on this thread) has suggested that the tramline to Kirby was a good idea - I can't speak for others I think it was pure stupidity duplicating existing rail and bus links.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 06:49 PM
How do you know a cost is 'not great' when you have no idea whether it is millions or billions?


If it need to be done it needs to be done and we would not be paying the full price, whatever that is.

ChrisO
03-27-2008, 07:06 PM
Concentrate on services to get around the city and Merseyside area. Lines from elsewhere can terminate where they already do at Lime St and Edge Hill. Running lines in Wigan or Timbuktoo doesn't help inner city Toxteth.

I completely understand about extending services within the city, but surely it makes sense to link with national services if at all possible (wouldn't that benefit the entire city, not just Toxteth?) And I mentioned Wigan purely in case other readers didn't understand what I was getting at, and it's hardly Timbuktoo is it?




Trams are fine to have but must be the last in line of priorities. It appears some transport/rail consultancies are pushing trams as maybe they are the flavour of the year.

I apologise if you misunderstood my thread entry, but I am not advocating the use of light rail/trams

Common sense has to prevail. Extending the system to use existing tunnels, stations and track is by far the most effective approach - not trams. Look at post 20 on this thread for a map of a proposal to use the Dingle and Waterloo tunnels.


Best concentrate on what matters -a fully integrated metro system and how it aids and regenerates an expanding city. A system which is largely in place. Don't allow fads to taint your mind. Some people are more interested in getting a pet fad in place.

I don't think it's a fad at all, does anyone else?

petromax
03-27-2008, 07:10 PM
But making money at the expense of cutting off your nose to spite your face is a silly way of doing it. The Kings Dock has proven that. And Peel are wanting to fill in West Waterloo Dock again..

Are you saying King's dock is not successful? Unfortunately, Peel have not shown themselves to be rocket scientists - I am not about to defend them, they have a long way to go




An overhead from the Waterloo Tunnel, along and through the docks and running though the Dingle Tunnel would be a great asset. If the tunnel link from Dingle to Edge Hill was made it would be a superb Circle Line linking up at the Northern Line at Waterloo, the Wirral Line at James St via a separate staircase down the to station beneath, and other lines at Edge Hill...

I don't deny a loop can be made if you REALLY want to but what are you trying to connect? Edge Hill to Dingle?



No. The loop via Anfleld can run into Edge Hill. Then it can run down the Wapping Tunnel and into the Northern Line and into Central Stn. The branch between the two tunnels has to be made. ...

When the Olive Mount Chord is up and running the Anfield loop will be chocka with freight. As previously noted Peel don't do anything for nothing


I don't need to. When 80% of something is already there and it is something which we need, then the cost is not great, whatever it costs - that I do know....

80% of what? I don't see any tunnel from Dingle to Edge Hill.


The city is expanding, so the transport infrastructure must match the areas of expansion. Quite simple really. But what areas need to expand? Well best follow the existing underground rail infrastructure as it is there. There again - quite simple.....

The underground system that is there is TINY. This is a contraction, not an expansion.


Please read what I write. People will go where the planners make them go - quite simple. .....

I have read what you have written and you have just repeated that you expect to force people to go where they don't want to go.


Trams only complete the picture, they are not the focal point of the picture. The current tram proposals are a little more than a joke. For e.g., the line Kirkby parallels the Merseyrail line - how dumb! Trams can fill in the gaps the Merseyrail does not cover, but only after existing underground infrastructure is brought back into use. .....

Correct, trams only complete the picture but the 'joke' from Kirkby picks up all the northern wards and connects them to the city.


An underground line can regenerate an area (look at the Jubilee Line in London - fantastic), I doubt trams will make such an impact. Manchester trams are working well....

Tell me which part of the Jubilee Line or the manchester trams was not making it possible to travel into the city for work.



...Get the priorities right - a system that will benefit he city and greatly assist in its future growth.

The next priority is the inner suburbs which your proposals do not connect to the centre which is where people want to go.

petromax
03-27-2008, 07:13 PM
If it need to be done it needs to be done and we would not be paying the full price, whatever that is.

WRONG!!! If it needs to be done it has to be VIABLE or it won't get funded

ChrisO
03-27-2008, 07:19 PM
Apologies for my last entry, as I say, I 'm new to this forum and haven't got the hang of quoting previous entries yet

Waterways
03-27-2008, 07:37 PM
I completely understand about extending services within the city, but surely it makes sense to link with national services if at all possible (wouldn't that benefit the entire city, not just Toxteth?) And I mentioned Wigan purely in case other readers didn't understand what I was getting at, and it's hardly Timbuktoo is it?


When London Underground acquired the Metropolitan Railway in the early 1930s to merge into the underground it had some stations in villages in Oxfordshire. They were on the tube for 5 years then sold off/closed down. Aylesbury in North Bucks was on the Tube until 1960, then closed down. London retreated into the London area and concentrated on London. The outer regions were someone else's responsibility.

Let others do Wigan and Merseyrail meets the Wigan train at a station for connections, like at Edge Hill or Lime St.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 07:40 PM
WRONG!!! If it needs to be done it has to be VIABLE or it won't get funded

Quote what it would cost building from scratch and then what it would cost building with 80% in place. State the great benefits, which will assist in transforming the city. Let them know they are getting a bargain. If you don't tell them they will not know. That will win over the politicos. They like bargains.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 07:58 PM
Are you saying King's dock is not successful? Unfortunately, Peel have not shown themselves to be rocket scientists - I am not about to defend them, they have a long way to go


Look at:
Kings Dock How Not To Do It (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/KingsDock.html)

I was banned off the Liverpool Echo Forum for criticising Peels attempts to fill in West Waterloo Dock.



I don't deny a loop can be made if you REALLY want to but what are you trying to connect? Edge Hill to Dingle?


Yep, across a lot of parkland a station at Sefton Park (major events) and Lodge Lane (regeneration)



When the Olive Mount Chord is up and running the Anfield loop will be chocka with freight. As previously noted Peel don't do anything for nothing


Hopefully the freight will mainly be at night



80% of what? I don't see any tunnel from Dingle to Edge Hill.


That tunnel link is about 80% of the loop.



The underground system that is there is TINY. This is a contraction, not an expansion.


Look at post No. 20 on this thread. The loop proposed shown.



I have read what you have written and you have just repeated that you expect to force people to go where they don't want to go.


I didn't. The planners decide where centres are and what density, etc. They decide where the hot spots are.



Correct, trams only complete the picture but the 'joke' from Kirkby picks up all the northern wards and connects them to the city.


The Tram to Kirby paralleled Merseyrail and buses that ran quicker than it. Read the post on the objections. That was/is a joke.



Tell me which part of the Jubilee Line or the manchester trams was not making it possible to travel into the city for work.


???



The next priority is the inner suburbs which your proposals do not connect to the centre which is where people want to go.

Read what I write. All I have done is gone around in circles saying the same things time after time. What I wrote was clear enough.

jc_everton
03-27-2008, 08:27 PM
WW, quite simply you should but be putting more pressure on the Council and Merseytravel than us, because you are recieving a lot of different objections, and I although I agree with your principles on regeneration etc, you admit you are going round in circles. So why not pressurise those who matter?
Any innovative scheme that is thrown, such as tram-trains, is laughed off as a 'pet fad'. What a load of absolute nonsense. You quoted a very negative quote from that website and I knew you'd pick up on it.
Thing is, that page has no structure, it seems to be a mixture of reports and views. If you read all of it, it goes on to say how more and more cities all over the world are taking it seriously and Mulhouse is set to be the next major city to trial them - which is significant as most areas using them are rather small. Such as Karlsruhe.
Speaking of Karlsruhe, have a wee look at this link

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2000/physical/physical/07.htm

"The dual-mode tram system of Karlsruhe is regarded by transport professionals internationally as the model of an innovative and high-quality local public transport system, linking local and regional centres directly to the streets of Karlsruhe."

I can already hear the cynics typing negative posts, but the point here is innovation - something that lets Liverpool down enormously. Someone touched on it earlier too.
A tram system would be massively progressive for this city - arguments against it are shabby.
For instance, Line 1 to Kirkby - I have never once mentioned this Line, and even if it went ahead it does not directly follow the train line and if EFC move there, surely this would complement it? One thing is for sure, Kirkby needs massive improvements in public transport if that move goes ahead - trams and trains would work very well.
Other arguments against include cost (I still don't see any figures for the '80% loop'), vibration (ridiculous, petty argument - it's hardly an earthquake), visual obtrusion (yes it is obtrusive, but again it's petty and it's not like a huge wind turbine is being constructed in the middle of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, plus the Bordeaux trams do not use over-head wires so why can't ours?) and noise (yes, trams create noise - so do beggars playing trumpets).

I actually started off sceptical about the tram system but the more I read about them and the more I see the development/expansion of the city centre, the more they make sense. At the same time, I do not dismiss the underground as it certainly can be better used, but only as extensions to the Northern and City Lines, offering more stations, hence more choice and reduced capacities at Central and Moorfields. Simple.

ChrisO
03-27-2008, 08:44 PM
When London Underground acquired the Metropolitan Railway in the early 1930s to merge into the underground it had some stations in villages in Oxfordshire. They were on the tube for 5 years then sold off/closed down. Aylesbury in North Bucks was on the Tube until 1960, then closed down. London retreated into the London area and concentrated on London. The outer regions were someone else's responsibility.

Let others do Wigan and Merseyrail meets the Wigan train at a station for connections, like at Edge Hill or Lime St.

I'm not suggesting that Merseyrail incorporate lines as far out as Wigan, but that if Waterloo & Wapping tunnels were to reopen as part of the Northern Line then it must make sense to utilise them for WCML (particularly Wapping, considering how close it exits in proximity to the Echo Arena etc.) access alongside Merseyrail to allow people from all over the country using the WCML to come here, which I say again, must be of benefit to the city economy. I'll say again, I mentioned Wigan in relation to electrification of the City Line for WCML services from the North

jc_everton
03-27-2008, 08:45 PM
And while I'm on the subject of innovation - the dismissals of the Liverpool Overhead are so conservative. What a fantastic addition that would be - and we even get to use the Dingle Tunnel - everyone's a winner.
WW argues that the loop should continue around to Edge Hill and up to Waterloo - but someone rightly argued that is a loop around the city centre - people want to get to Central and Moorfields - let's not forget that. How many people from Dingle would use your loop to travel to Waterloo? On the other hand, how many would use it to travel to Central?
Yes, the overhead does not go to Central but why not extend it so it reaches more central parts of the city? Near enough all of Chicago's city rail is overhead, Brooklyn has a fair share of overhead rail too.

Let me leave you with this image of a 'hanging railway' in Germany - the Schwebebahn Wuppertal.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Schwebebahn_ueber_Strasse.jpg

Absolutely fantastic. :handclap:

Waterways
03-27-2008, 08:52 PM
I'm not suggesting that Merseyrail incorporate lines as far out as Wigan, but that if Waterloo & Wapping tunnels were to reopen as part of the Northern Line then it must make sense to utilise them for WCML (particularly Wapping, considering how close it exits in proximity to the Echo Arena etc.) access alongside Merseyrail to allow people from all over the country using the WCML to come here, which I say again, must be of benefit to the city economy. I'll say again, I mentioned Wigan in relation to electrification of the City Line for WCML services from the North

So the WCML runs into Queens/Kings Dock to serve the Arena. These people come into Liverpool, to one venue and right back out. The locals are phased out to probably out of town interests siphoning money out of the city. All this on water spaces the local should living and enjoying themselves around.

Best do what Paris and London, etc do. Main line to main stations, local systems take over from there.

Have the tunnels for locals to get around the city fast.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 09:05 PM
WW, quite simply you should but be putting more pressure on the Council and Merseytravel than us, because you are recieving a lot of different objections, and I although I agree with your principles on regeneration etc, you admit you are going round in circles. So why not pressurise those who matter?


The Chamber of Commerce wanted ideas on how to use the unused infrastructure under the city.



Any innovative scheme that is thrown, such as tram-trains, is laughed off as a 'pet fad'. What a load of absolute nonsense. You quoted a very negative quote from that website and I knew you'd pick up on it.


It is a matter of priorities. You do not implement them before the disused underground is brought back into use, as it is of more use and offers great benefits. To implement those trams first is gross planning incompetence.



"The dual-mode tram system of Karlsruhe is regarded by transport professionals internationally as the model of an innovative and high-quality local public transport system, linking local and regional centres directly to the streets of Karlsruhe."


I don't doubt that. However it is not right now what Liverpool needs - as it already has infrastructure waiting to be re-used.



I can already hear the cynics typing negative posts, but the point here is innovation - something that lets Liverpool down enormously. Someone touched on it earlier too.
A tram system would be massively progressive for this city - arguments against it are shabby.


Only when the main city centres tunnels are in use and the Outer loops north and south. Then think implement these things.



For instance, Line 1 to Kirkby - I have never once mentioned this Line, and even if it went ahead it does not directly follow the train line and if EFC move there, surely this would complement it? One thing is for sure, Kirkby needs massive improvements in public transport if that move goes ahead - trams and trains would work very well.


Way down the list in priorities.



Other arguments against include cost (I still don't see any figures for the '80% loop'),


It doesn't matter. It needs to be done and it is cheap.



vibration (ridiculous, petty argument


Been to Amsterdam? When two trams pass each other they shake the buildings.

robt
03-27-2008, 09:30 PM
When London Underground acquired the Metropolitan Railway in the early 1930s to merge into the underground it had some stations in villages in Oxfordshire. They were on the tube for 5 years then sold off/closed down. Aylesbury in North Bucks was on the Tube until 1960, then closed down. London retreated into the London area and concentrated on London. The outer regions were someone else's responsibility.

Let others do Wigan and Merseyrail meets the Wigan train at a station for connections, like at Edge Hill or Lime St.

We are not London, and it is not 1930 - things change.



Hopefully the freight will mainly be at night

Ideally it would be, but it won't be. Having said that, there would be plenty of capacity for a 20 or 30 minute interval passenger service on the branch.


That tunnel link is about 80% of the loop.

Everyone (including myself) is assuming that the tunnels are still structially sound enough for frequent operation. After all - your the one who keeps mentioning how much trams vibrate - heavyrail is far more punishing on its surroundings.



Any innovative scheme that is thrown, such as tram-trains, is laughed off as a 'pet fad'. What a load of absolute nonsense.

It is only laughed off by WW because he can't see beyond his scheme.

The reality is if tramtrains have successsful trials they will be introduced in many MANY places in the UK to replace ageing multiple units on lightly used lines. That is regardless of if their 'tram' aspect is used or not.

I'm sure someone will comment on my phrase 'lightly used lines' so let me clarify. They will be used on lightly used lines because they are relatively cheap and lightweight (reducing infrastructure maintenance costs), and would be driver only operation (with roving inspectors), saving staffing costs. That is not to say they could not be used in multiple with an intense service frequency where they are needed to.


Other arguments against include cost (I still don't see any figures for the '80% loop'), vibration (ridiculous, petty argument - it's hardly an earthquake), visual obtrusion (yes it is obtrusive, but again it's petty and it's not like a huge wind turbine is being constructed in the middle of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, plus the Bordeaux trams do not use over-head wires so why can't ours?) and noise (yes, trams create noise - so do beggars playing trumpets).

Well said. And if I have to feel minor vibrations on the street I would much rather they come from a tram than an HGV negotiating city centre streets.

Incidently, modern (electric) trams can be almost silent.

Manchesters trams are ugly - but their design is over 15 years old. Modern designs don't have to be ugly, as shown elsewhere in this thread :)



It is a matter of priorities. You do not implement them before the disused underground is brought back into use, as it is of more use and offers great benefits. To implement those trams first is gross planning incompetence.

Again, no reason why tramtrains can not use the tunnels - you are automatically assuming that tram = street running. A tram-train is a train that can also be used for street running *if required to*. It is not a traditional tram.



It doesn't matter. It needs to be done and it is cheap.

If it doesn't matter, why hasn't it already been done?

Because it is not 'cheap' despite how much of the tunnelling is already done.


Been to Amsterdam? When two trams pass each other they shake the buildings.

If they are built properly to modern UK standards, they won't.

Waterways
03-27-2008, 10:04 PM
We are not London, and it is not 1930 - things change.


The points....They concentrated on the city..and it worked.



Everyone (including myself) is assuming that the tunnels are still structially sound enough for frequent operation. After all - your the one who keeps mentioning how much trams vibrate - heavyrail is far more punishing on its surroundings.


The tunnels are sound. Water ingress may be a problem in parts of Wapping.



It is only laughed off by WW because he can't see beyond his scheme.


Trams are laughable in Liverpool as a priority - which they were given. I shows no vision or planning.



Well said. And if I have to feel minor vibrations on the street I would much rather they come from a tram than an HGV negotiating city centre streets.


Unnecessary vibrations should be eliminated at all costs. You would like vibrations of rams being a spotter yourself.



Incidently, modern (electric) trams can be almost silent.


Vibration is another thing.



Again, no reason why tramtrains can not use the tunnels - you are automatically assuming that tram = street running. A tram-train is a train that can also be used for street running *if required to*. It is not a traditional tram.


Could work if implemented properly.



If it doesn't matter, why hasn't it already been done?


No one has thought of it.



Because it is not 'cheap' despite how much of the tunnelling is already done.


It is cheap. Get these trams out of your head - ding, ding



If they are built properly to modern UK standards, they won't.

I would never take the chance.

Trams are a filler to where the Merseyrail can't get. That's all. Go to the hub and do that - the underground.

robt
03-27-2008, 10:15 PM
The tunnels are sound. Water ingress may be a problem in parts of Wapping.

Oh, your a structual engineer specialising in tunnels?


Unnecessary vibrations should be eliminated at all costs. You would like vibrations of rams being a spotter yourself.

I have no idea what that means but I can only assume your being rude as usual - grow up. If your inferring that I'm a train spotter, your wrong. I have already said previously in this thread (and others), that I know the rail industry, as a professional, very well.


It is cheap. Get these trams out of your head - ding, ding

A bit like I could equally say get your idea out your head because it will never happen?

Waterways
03-27-2008, 10:24 PM
Oh, your a structual engineer specialising in tunnels?


Experts walking through see no problems. They were in use for 120 to 140 years, so I doubt if we have had a major earthquake since 1972.



I have no idea what that means but I can only assume your being rude as usual - grow up. If your inferring that I'm a train spotter, your wrong. I have already said previously in this thread (and others), that I know the rail industry, as a professional, very well.


That is the same thing. :)



A bit like I could equally say get your idea out your head because it will never happen?


A hell of good idea isn't it Martin?

robt
03-27-2008, 10:33 PM
Experts walking through see no problems. They were in use for 120 to 140 years, so I doubt if we have had a major earthquake since 1972.

As long as the 'experts' weigh the same as a 200 tonne 6 carriage train at 40mph that is fine then :p:D

Waterways
03-27-2008, 10:39 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Schwebebahn_ueber_Strasse.jpg


That is one hell of an ugly bridge and setup. Give me trams any day that that. :(

robt
03-27-2008, 10:46 PM
That is one hell of an ugly bridge and setup. Give me trams any day that that. :(

It is ugly indeed, luckily UK H&S would never allow it :D

petromax
03-28-2008, 10:45 AM
[QUOTE=Waterways;121506]Look at:
Kings Dock How Not To Do It (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/KingsDock.html)

Yep, across a lot of parkland a station at Sefton Park (major events) and Lodge Lane (regeneration)...That tunnel link is about 80% of the loop....Look at post No. 20 on this thread. The loop proposed shown..The planners decide where centres are and what density, etc. They decide where the hot spots are...The Tram to Kirby paralleled Merseyrail and buses that ran quicker than it. Read the post on the objections. ...QUOTE]

Do you mean UNDER Sefton Park?... are actually looking at a map?...the loop on no.20 is TINY...You clearly have no uderstanding of how planning works...you do not seem to understand the tram routes now proposed and or the capacities of the different modes.

There is no need to carry on uninformed 'guessing' of what routes might or might not work - it's not even interesting. There has been enough formal work done and the way forward is clear, ie. the reinstatement of as much of the 'old' system as is needed and that includes trams. It's Liverpool's great advantage ( or 'USP') over other UK cities because it can be done the cheapest. If you want to know what it looks like, there have been plans of the old system on this forum before.

I suggest that Waterways draws his system on top of a city map so that he and we can understand what his proposals mean; and if it needs new tunnels between places that don't need it - forget it, because the city loses it's competitive edge.

Of more interest are new ideas, based on the existing or unused system, that will improve service and make the sytem more competitive - anyone?

Cadfael
03-28-2008, 11:01 AM
One thing we are all forgetting here, the Dingle Station is owned by a private company (Roscoe's) who have an extensive set up already there and doubt would ever move out unless they were given a pretty penny. Where else would you find a motor garage with all that space??

You may as well write anything off to do with the Dingle Station.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 11:35 AM
One thing we are all forgetting here, the Dingle Station is owned by a private company (Roscoe's) who have an extensive set up already there and doubt would ever move out unless they were given a pretty penny. Where else would you find a motor garage with all that space??

You may as well write anything off to do with the Dingle Station.

I don't know if they own or lease the station. A CPO will bring it back into use. The public need comes before a garage.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 11:59 AM
Do you mean UNDER Sefton Park?... are actually looking at a map?...the loop on no.20 is TINY...You clearly have no uderstanding of how planning works...you do not seem to understand the tram routes now proposed and or the capacities of the different modes.


It is clear you lack the intelligence to grasp the points I put across so clearly.

The Loop is NOT tiny at all, it goes around the city centre, suing the Waterloo and Dingle tunnels running through inner city areas that require regeneration. If you had read and understood the posts you would have grasped this long ago. About 80% of its tunnels are in place now. From Dingle to Edge Hill can take the tunnel across parts Princes Park, which is easy to do by cut and cover. Do you understand that? I ask as you keep coming back with the same misunderstandings.



There is no need to carry on uninformed 'guessing' of what routes might or might not work


That I have not done, only stating the capability of flexible routing is a great bonus and pretty essential in an expanding city.



There has been enough formal work done and the way forward is clear, ie. the reinstatement of as much of the 'old' system as is needed and that includes trams.


There is NO firm plan ahead. Everything is off the cuff. The implementing of trams (the lines were delivered) was asinine, when essential disused rail infrastructure was laying there waiting to be used, which would bring far more benefits to an expanding and growing city. Trams figure - but only back burner. They foolishly brought to the front burner.



It's Liverpool's great advantage ( or 'USP') over other UK cities because it can be done the cheapest. If you want to know what it looks like, there have been plans of the old system on this forum before.


Yes. our legacy is a great advantage - and it is not being utilised. Putting in trams schemes is not using existing infrastructure.



I suggest that Waterways draws his system on top of a city map so that he and we can understand what his proposals


Post No. 20 is on a city map.



Of more interest are new ideas, based on the existing or unused system, that will improve service and make the sytem more competitive - anyone?


That is exactly what I proposed. Look at the posts. It is what it does to serve the people and project the city that matters - never lose sight of that.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 12:27 PM
Here it is again...

Circle Line - click here (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Merseyrail-Extensions.html)

http://i30.tinypic.com/2ut704k.jpg
above a 1913 map showing the rail lines very well - the reason it is used.


The proposed Circle Line loop line is in blue.
The blue and pink are existing disused tunnels
The blue and green is predominantly cut and cover not tunnelling.
The blue only is existing used line.
Tunneling where cut and cover meets existing tunnels.
The red is the existing unused Wapping tunnel, which is not on the Circle Line. This can be used to link the Wirral with Edge Hill and beyond if need be.
The new stations are marked


Below: the Dingle Tunnel. Tunnel to Dingle station. The south end of the old Overhead Railway. It started underground. The Northern Line runs just off shot to the left.
http://www.toxteth.net/places/liverpool/general/images/tunnel%201.jpg

Below, the proposed Circle Line, in Red. Stations at top running clockwise:


Waterloo Dock
Byrom St
London Rd
Edge Hill
Lodge Lane
Sefton Pk Rd
Dingle
Brunswick
St James
Central
Lime St
Moorefields


The black line is the new line in from St Helens.

It is easy to see the great enhancement it makes to the city's underground. And 80% of the Circle Line is already in place. The line would be better presented if totally re-drawn.
http://i25.tinypic.com/10ehcpd.jpg

jc_everton
03-28-2008, 12:32 PM
You keep suggesting that 'all the infrastructure is in place'. Well, are all the original tracks still there waiting to be used, like the NMB or Bootle Branch? I think not.
Either way, whether trams or metro is implemented, tracks will have to be laid.

Tram tracks will have to be laid on the streets or even in the tunnels and train tracks will have to be laid in the old run-down tunnels as well as the boring of a new tunnel.

As most trams use roads, whether they be pedestrianised roads or shared, doesn't that mean 100% of tram infrastructure is in place as opposed to your 80%? You may argue that laying down tram tracks on roads is going to cause wide-spread disruption. My answer is, so what? If it frustrates the car user, that can only be a good thing. After all, the aim is to reduce the need to travel by car.

As I say, if the tracks were lying there waiting to be used, your case would be perfectly justifiable.
But just because there are tunnels, it doesn't mean to say we can have a system up-and-running immediately and with minimum fuss.

And as for my 'suspension railway' picture, I knew it would be greeted with conservative contempt. The reason why I put that on was to show the sheer uniquity and individuality that the system has. The bridge may have been slightly obtrusive and dominant but this city really should be striving for a world-class, unique transport system that we can all be proud of. If it means copying the Bordeaux model, then great. Ok, it won't be unique but it certainly would be in the UK.
What's wrong with a bit of vision/ambition anyway?

petromax
03-28-2008, 12:47 PM
It is clear you lack the intelligence to grasp the points I put across so clearly.

The Loop is NOT tiny at all, it goes around the city centre, suing the Waterloo and Dingle tunnels running through inner city areas that require regeneration. If you had read and understood the posts you would have grasped this long ago. About 80% of its tunnels are in place now. From Dingle to Edge Hill can take the tunnel across parts Princes Park, which is easy to do by cut and cover. Do you understand that? I ask as you keep coming back with the same misunderstandings.



That I have not done, only stating the capability of flexible routing is a great bonus and pretty essential in an expanding city.



There is NO firm plan ahead. Everything is off the cuff. The implementing of trams (the lines were delivered) was asinine, when essential disused rail infrastructure was laying there waiting to be used, which would bring far more benefits to an expanding and growing city. Trams figure - but only back burner. They foolishly brought to the front burner.



Yes. our legacy is a great advantage - and it is not being utilised. Putting in trams schemes is not using existing infrastructure.



Post No. 20 is on a city map.



That is exactly what I proposed. Look at the posts. It is what it does to serve the people and project the city that matters - never lose sight of that.

I have understood you perfectly well. Perhaps when you grow up, you will understand that you should give credit for people being somewhat brighter than you at first imagine - particularly when you don't know who you are talking to or indeed in this case, what you are talking about.

I am afraid I won't bother to reply to you again as I have better things to do, thank you

Cadfael
03-28-2008, 12:54 PM
I don't know if they own or lease the station. A CPO will bring it back into use. The public need comes before a garage.

Sorry, I forgot that someone's business and livelyhood comes 2nd :rolleyes:

Waterways
03-28-2008, 01:10 PM
You keep suggesting that 'all the infrastructure is in place'. Well, are all the original tracks still there waiting to be used, like the NMB or Bootle Branch? I think not.


Use a little common sense now. Around in circles again. Here I go again....The most expensive part is the tunneling and that is mainly in place - well 80% of it is. Parts of it are used - the Northern line.

I am not going into needless trams when an underground is waiting to be re-used - you and Martin have a thing about these vibrating lumps. Martin may make his living out of such things.

I fear your disitation will not be up to scratch. You fail to understand what rail systems can bring to an expanding re-populating city with inner city areas begging for regeneration. You appear to be wanting to implement technology for the sake of it - that always fails.


What are you trying solve?
What are you trying to generate in the future?
What benefits will the people gain?
Will it assist in future city growth?
Will it benefit existing city districts?
What are the stages of implementation?
What are the priorities of implementation?


You must never lose sight of the above - you clearly are by your ramblings here. Of course it has to be done as economically as possible. Using existing infrastructure, will this give the solution and the economy? You will find it does. Then it is a matter of merging the old existing infrastructures with existing Merseyrail Network - and that is not expensive either for what the final result gives. Then when the economical part is complete (using existing infrastructure) then outline the enhancements to fill in where Merseyrail cannot.



And as for my 'suspension railway' picture, I knew it would be greeted with conservative contempt.

That is hideous and we should never build such scrap. I would rather re-build the Piggeries than build that.

Ged
03-28-2008, 01:11 PM
Kev posted this up in May last year, just in case any of the newer posters haven't seen it. Don't know if it's moved on any but it gives you some idea of the work required and what rolling stock they'd use in them and what the plans were/are to link them to:


Disused Waterloo and Wapping Railway Tunnels 'may be reopened'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TWO disused rail tunnels opened more than 150 years ago could be brought out of retirement to ease Liverpool’s transport headache.

A report compiled by Merseytravel’s chief executive Neil Scales is calling for studies into reopening the Waterloo and Wapping tunnels out of Edge Hill, built in the early days of steam to cater for dock-bound traffic.

Both tunnels were closed in the early 1970s, but may now have a new lease of life as part of a 21st-century transport infrastructure.

Last night, Liverpool Chamber of Commerce transport spokesman Stephen Pearse welcomed the move and called for imaginative ideas to make full use of the redundant underground routes.

He said one scheme could be a futuristic monorail to link Edge Hill Station with the new arena and convention centre at Kings Dock and the Grosvenor development.

Merseytravel’s rails services committee is to study a report detailing the reopening of the tunnels at a meeting early next month.

Reopening them could open up new links to Manchester and St Helens from Southport.

Wapping Tunnel opened in 1829 to directly link the main Liverpool to Manchester line to the south docks.

The Waterloo tunnel opened 20 years later to link the main line to the north docks, close to the site now occupied by the giant Costco wholesale warehouse.

The report describes the state of both tunnels, which both start at Edge Hill station, as being in some disrepair. But it adds that, with extensive repair work, they could feasibly be reopened for railway use.

Merseytravel is talking to the city council about protecting the sites to enable the tunnel heads to have space to link to the existing City Line. Wapping would be easier to return to use because preparation work was carried out in 1974 when the original Merseyrail system was built.

Last night, Mr Scales said: “The reopening of the tunnels would provide for a number of potential additional, or modified rail services.

“Both tunnels link into the City Line network in the Edge Hill area.”

Mr Scales said it was envisaged the tunnels would both use electric trains to enable them to integrate into the electrified Northern Line services.

He added: “The Waterloo tunnel may be particularly important in terms of the developing economy.

“Merseytravel is in discussions with the Liverpool Land Development Company regarding the potential development of the north shore area which the Waterloo Tunnel could provide a direct link to for current City Line services.” The cost of reopening the tunnels has not yet been assessed, but it is likely to be a multi-million pound project.

Mr Pearse added: “We welcome discussions about improved transport links in and around Liverpool. There are many imaginative solutions that could be proposed, using the tunnels. If train services are not feasible, they could be used for transport modes such as a monorail. It would be a good solution for people heading to the arena and the Liverpool One development, as well as the waterfront.”

A spokesman for Merseytravel said last night: “With the consequent rise in popularity of rail services nationwide, and the ever- increasing congestion on roads, there will be continuing pressure to provide public transport options which allow a shift from private car to the railway.

“The reopening of either the Waterloo or Wapping tunnels for passenger services could well provide a solution to potential transport problems in the future.”

FOR more news from the Liverpool Daily Post - click here

Waterways
03-28-2008, 01:27 PM
Sorry, I forgot that someone's business and livelyhood comes 2nd :rolleyes:

You are typical Liverpudlian. They always think of half-baked reasons why there should not be progress - the glass is always half empty.

A CPO compensates them :rolleyes:. The greater good of the community at large is paramount.

robt
03-28-2008, 01:32 PM
Who is the 'Martin' you have now referred to twice?

Waterways
03-28-2008, 01:32 PM
I have understood you perfectly well. Perhaps when you grow up, you will understand that you should give credit for people being somewhat brighter than you at first imagine - particularly when you don't know who you are talking to or indeed in this case, what you are talking about.

I am afraid I won't bother to reply to you again as I have better things to do, thank you

You clearly did not understand what was put forward at all. Your analytical skills are poor. You whittered on about trams like a demented train spotter, losing sight of what matters, then started to insult clearly indicating you lost it - if you ever had it in the first place.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 01:34 PM
Who is the 'Martin' you have now referred to twice?

Mmmmm :)

Waterways
03-28-2008, 01:44 PM
Kev posted this up in May last year, just in case any of the newer posters haven't seen it. Don't know if it's moved on any but it gives you some idea of the work required and what rolling stock they'd use in them and what the plans were/are to link them to:

Disused Waterloo and Wapping Railway Tunnels 'may be reopened'


Thanks Ged, I am aware of that. I may get in touch with the Chamber of Commerce. Getting Merseytravel to implement an idea they never thought of would be near impossible. These organisations are supposed to have vision and creativity - and someone from outside having a better idea then them? They will not have that. They were the ones castigated for going through with the trams and not doing basic common research - like running a tram line to Kirkby paralleling the Merseyrail Line and fast bus routes. Madness!!!! And that would cost millions for no reason whatsoever, when the money can be used to get the existing underground up and running and a rail link to John Lennon airport. Projects that will benefit the city now and project it forwards.

I don't have any faith in Merseytravel to deliver whet the city needs in rail infrastructure after the tram debacle.

jc_everton
03-28-2008, 01:51 PM
Would anyone know how to obtain a copy of this report? Merseytravel are such a pain the backside to get in touch with.

Dr. WW PhD, thanks for the kind advice but it is my aim to come up with a number of proposals that are realistic and to also consider the aims of Merseytravel. It seems as if they are considering reopening the tunnels but not in the way you propose. If your proposal was so blatently great, I'm sure someone at Merseytravel would have put the case forward by now and if your scheme does ever go ahead then hat's off to you as your proposals would have been mirrorred by rail experts.
You feel my work will not be up to scratch because I do not agree with you! Is that how dissertations work?!
It is my duty to weigh up every argument and look at the pro's and con's. I see pro's in your loop but I also see con's. I have put forward a number of innovative ideas in order to make us look at the bigger picture and consider all available options. I could have proposed other innovations but it's pointless because they are, of course... pet fads.
I was going to suggest you apply for a lecturer's job at JMU but lecturers need to be open-minded and instil this into their students. Sadly, you fail in this field.

Cadfael
03-28-2008, 01:53 PM
You are typical Liverpudlian. They always think of half-baked reasons why there should not be progress - the glass is always half empty.

A CPO compensates them :rolleyes:. The greater good of the community at large is paramount.

A typical Liverpudlian? So everyone on the forum is from Liverpool?

CPO? Try and give them a bit of cash so they are forced out of their place of business? If the City Council wanted to put a price on buying out the place, they don't only own the garage but the Tunnel too, give that in square foot and then compensate them with today's prices.

jc_everton
03-28-2008, 01:59 PM
Also, who are you to say 'your analytical skills are poor'?! If you hold a Doctorate in Transport Planning, shouldn't you be at work or holding talks with more significant people?! I don't understand how a fascinating discussion on our transport system can turn into petty arguments on 'analytical skills'. What the hell?!

Waterways
03-28-2008, 02:03 PM
A typical Liverpudlian? So everyone on the forum is from Liverpool?


That's even worse :)



CPO? Try and give them a bit of cash so they are forced out of their place of business? If the City Council wanted to put a price on buying out the place, they don't only own the garage but the Tunnel too, give that in square foot and then compensate them with today's prices.

Stop dropping into pedantics.

robt
03-28-2008, 02:08 PM
These organisations are supposed to have vision and creativity - and someone from outside having a better idea then them? They will not have that.

No one, at present, has a better idea, that is feasable.

robt
03-28-2008, 02:13 PM
Who is the 'Martin' you have now referred to twice?


Mmmmm :)

Thank you for that sensible mature answer.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 02:14 PM
Dr. WW PhD, thanks for the kind advice but it is my aim to come up with a number of proposals that are realistic and to also consider the aims of Merseytravel. It seems as if they are considering reopening the tunnels but not in the way you propose.


On past performance they don't know what they want to do.



If your proposal was so blatently great, I'm sure someone at Merseytravel would have put the case forward by now


They don't know about it.



and if your scheme does ever go ahead then hat's off to you as your proposals would have been mirrorred by rail experts.
You feel my work will not be up to scratch because I do not agree with you!


No. You were losing focus. You were dropping into detail losing focus of what your aims were. You were all over the place. You need to re-focus and get it all back together.



It is my duty to weigh up every argument and look at the pro's and con's. I see pro's in your loop but I also see con's. I have put forward a number of innovative ideas in order to make us look at the bigger picture and consider all available options.


Good so far. Have you prioritised the options to achieve the mains aims?



I could have proposed other innovations but it's pointless because they are, of course... pet fads.
I was going to suggest you apply for a lecturer's job at JMU but lecturers need to be open-minded and instil this into their students. Sadly, you fail in this field.


I have done lecturing. One thing is clear - have main aims (what is it for? What is it to achieve?) . Never lose sight of those. If you do, you fail and wallowing about in irrelevancy. Structure it all - important to convey the message - the best ideas in the world will not be taken seriously if not put across properly.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 02:15 PM
No one, at present, has a better idea, that is feasable.

I disagree. Look at the tram debacle.

robt
03-28-2008, 02:16 PM
I have done lecturing. One thing is clear - have main aims (what is it for? What is it to achieve?) . Never lose sight of those. If you do, you fail and wallowing about in irrelevancy. Structure it all - important to convey the message - the best ideas in the world will not be taken seriously if not put across properly.

There is no point in setting aims which are unachievable. Surely you would agree with that in any context, not just this thread?

Waterways
03-28-2008, 02:23 PM
Also, who are you to say 'your analytical skills are poor'?!

The guy clearly didn't know what was being put forward, even after being told where to find it.

Ged
03-28-2008, 02:30 PM
The Mersey travel chief often pops up on Roger Phillips phone-in specials (radio merseyside noon till 2pm) and in fact was on one day last week. He seems very knowledgable on what he's had to answer before, this may stump him though. :) Might be an idea to find out when he's next on.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 02:31 PM
There is no point in setting aims which are unachievable. Surely you would agree with that in any context, not just this thread?

Martin, you clearly refer to my proposal which is fully achievable and cost effective. Aims fully achievable.

This is something you will not understand too much. When at the conceptual level you allow your mind to run free without constraints - think outside and inside the box. The perfect solution must be thought of. Then constraints are added to get a solution as near to the perfect solution as possible.

You think backwards, which always ends up with a half-baked result that invariably does not suit the purpose.

Cadfael
03-28-2008, 02:34 PM
Martin, you clearly refer to my proposal which is fully achievable and cost effective. Aims fully achievable.

This is something you will not understand too much. When at the conceptual level you allow your mind to run free without constraints - think outside and inside the box. The perfect solution must be thought of. Then constraints are added to get a solution as near to the perfect solution as possible.

You think backwards, which always ends up with a half-baked result that invariably does not suit the purpose.

How is it cost effective? Would anyone be able to put a figure on the whole operation? Who will pay for it? Will it be paid by ticket sales? We're still paying off the Mersey Tunnel with fares years later!

jc_everton
03-28-2008, 02:35 PM
Good stuff. Of course it is important to not lose focus, but what I write on this board does not necessarily mean it is in my dissertation! For instance, the 'hanging railway' was a bit of light-hearted fun. There's no way that'd happen in Liverpool in a million years!
The only focus I am losing is spending too much time online! But my main aim was to look at areas of poor access to rail, NOT just Liverpool city centre - which is why I frequently include suburban areas in my posts - important to not forget about these as public transport is less frequent and less reliable the further you go from a city centre. We can't forget how thousands of commuters travel into the city centre every day and these are invaluable to the economy of the city (some might say they are more important because they are likely to be wealthier and more economically active). This is my focus, so whilst I take your advice into account, my aim is not to improve Liverpool - it is to consider all of Merseyside. Being a suburban commuter myself, I of course want to see better services into Liverpool!
And as I work at Sefton Council, I would also love to see the NMB reopen because at present, I must drive. Therefore, get ALL the suburban lines reopened ASAP because not EVERYONE travels into Liverpool. Important to not lose focus of that too.

jc_everton
03-28-2008, 02:39 PM
Interesting to hear about the Roger Phillips phone-in. Will Waterways phone in next time Merseytravel make an appearance?! Good way of putting MT on the spot...

robt
03-28-2008, 02:39 PM
Martin, you clearly refer to my proposal which is fully achievable and cost effective. Aims fully achievable.

This is something you will not understand too much. When at the conceptual level you allow your mind to run free without constraints - think outside and inside the box. The perfect solution must be thought of. Then constraints are added to get a solution as near to the perfect solution as possible.

You think backwards, which always ends up with a half-baked result that invariably does not suit the purpose.

I still have no idea who Martin is. Maybe you should enlighten me, rather than being downright rude. I don't need to insult you, or be rude, to get my point across.

If you aims are achievable, please explain how, using realisitic technologies and funding? You say 80% is already there - 80% of what? There are some old disused tunnels already there and some existing rail lines, that is it. In the grand scale of the whole finished project, that is about 5% already there.

If you idea is so good and achievable, then you are right, you are going round in circles - take it to someone who can do something about it?

Waterways
03-28-2008, 02:45 PM
The Mersey travel chief often pops up on Roger Phillips phone-in specials (radio merseyside noon till 2pm) and in fact was on one day last week. He seems very knowledgable on what he's had to answer before, this may stump him though. :) Might be an idea to find out when he's next on.

Ged, I think this sort of man would talk down an idea they never came up with. Answering simple questions about trams and buses may be quite easy for him.

petromax
03-28-2008, 02:51 PM
I had an idea many years ago for the re opening of the ex cheshire lines...which could also have the lines from walton through kirkdale and sandills (marked yellow) reinstated to 4 tracks if needed.
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z205/lamdelz/map3a.jpg
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z205/lamdelz/map4.jpg

with regards the edge hill tunnels, i think the victoria and waterloo tunnels is a good idea.
i think the wapping tunnel on top of having a stream running nearby which causes water problems, is also built to a very tight loading gauge, Ive been told by ex railway men that 2 trains where not allowed to pass in the tunnel, such was the tightness of it, its one of the oldest railway tunnels ever, and the loading gauge is down to the size of locomotives at the time.

Mike

This is exactly the needed alignment for the loop line. It uses existing alignments. It does not conflict with 24hr freight operations on the Anfield line via Olive Mount Chord and it's a the optimum size at halfway between the outer edge of the system and the centre, thus being the most effective route for transfer between other modal radial routes, as well as a good provider of capacity on short journeys.

Making up to four through Kirkdale will also be much needed providing connection to Northshore (Liverpool part of the Atlantic Gateway Strategic Investment Area) and to Central Docks at a new station at Vauxhall - and there is space on the viaduct.

It can also be used for nodal Park and Ride for strictly local travel by car and into the public transport system. I have heard it said this is good for long car journeys too, but I think once you are in the car for more than say, 10mins, that's where people tend to like to stay.

I have also seen proposal for this to be Merseyrail and so frequent and connected into the existing system. The loop will aso relieve current congestion at Central where too many trais currently reminate by allowing more trains to run through.

Yes, the demand went and that's why it closed but if the population is to come back, it will be much in demand.

This has legs and I am sure we will see more of it.

Interesting stuff on Wapping Tunnel.

Ged
03-28-2008, 02:51 PM
Please all keep to facts and opinions without name calling or calling others' intelligence into question. The fact this scheme hasn't happened yet might have a very good reason for it.

John, I believe it was MT who proposed the idea and the Chamber only got involved secondary if you read the posting I put up of Kevs from last May.

I know you were rumbled by Martin on SSC John, but I don't believe robt to be Martin so again, please stick to what we know for definite and the postings will be given the credibility they deserve then.

;)

Waterways
03-28-2008, 02:52 PM
I still have no idea who Martin is. Maybe you should enlighten me, rather than being downright rude. I don't need to insult you, or be rude, to get my point across.


OK you are not Martin :)



If you aims are achievable, please explain how, using realisitic technologies and funding? You say 80% is already there - 80% of what?


Oh No! You really are not that slow are you? Look at the map.



There are some old disused tunnels already there and some existing rail lines, that is it. In the grand scale of the whole finished project, that is about 5% already there.


Where did you learn to count? :) A part of the Northern line, which is one whole section even has choo, choos running on it.



If you idea is so good and achievable, then you are right, you are going round in circles - take it to someone who can do something about it?

Great idea.

Even you said it was a good idea, but not once said why it should not be implemented, whittering on about trams.

robt
03-28-2008, 02:57 PM
Oh No! You really are not that slow are you? Look at the map.

Don't misquote me to try and make me look foolish. Like I have already said, I don't need to be rude to make a point.


Where did you learn to count? :) A part of the Northern line, which is one whole section even has choo, choos running on it.

See above.


Even you said it was a good idea, but not once said why it should not be implemented, whittering on about trams.

I have not read back, but I believe I said it would be great if it happened, but it never would.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 02:59 PM
Martin on SSC John, but I don't believe robt to be Martin
;)

Ged, he has a very similar style and attitude to him, immediately stating he knew more because he was in the rail industry - that cuts no ice with me. As if we don't understand what rail system do. He was negative as this Martin always is. Martin claims he works for a rail consultancy - figures!

robt
03-28-2008, 03:00 PM
Ged, he has a very similar style and attitude to him, immediately stating he knew more because he was in the rail industry - that cuts no ice with me. As if we don't understand what rail system do. He was negative as this Martin always is. Martin claims he works for a rail consultancy - figures!

I do not need to prove anything, however, if you would like to meet for a friendly drink so you can see I'm not, the offer is there. If you turn that down, I think you should drop the 'Martin thing'

Waterways
03-28-2008, 03:01 PM
Don't misquote me to try and make me look foolish. Like I have already said, I don't need to be rude to make a point.


I am not being rude. You are coming out with nonsense. As I said look at he map. 5%? What map were you looking at?



I have not read back, but I believe I said it would be great if it happened, but it never would.

That is encouraging.

robt
03-28-2008, 03:04 PM
I am not being rude. You are coming out with nonsense. As I said look at he map. 5%? What map were you looking at?

I said 5% of the total project. That would include signalling, stock, and relaying track to name just three.

petromax
03-28-2008, 03:04 PM
Good stuff. Of course it is important to not lose focus, but what I write on this board does not necessarily mean it is in my dissertation! For instance, the 'hanging railway' was a bit of light-hearted fun. ...my main aim was to look at areas of poor access to rail, NOT just Liverpool city centre - ...We can't forget how thousands of commuters travel into the city centre every day and these are invaluable to the economy of the city (some might say they are more important because they are likely to be wealthier and more economically active). ..., get ALL the suburban lines reopened ASAP because not EVERYONE travels into Liverpool. Important to not lose focus of that too.

I agree. Half of the jobs are in Liverpool City centre ie 50% of the jobs in let's say 5% of the area. Not only does that mean that half the working population need to get from a big area into a small area - a significant demand for public transport; but that the other half needs to either travel locally or around the outside of the city in the suburbs and in the wards that surround the centre.

I don't think the hanging railway is so far-fetched for travel along the waterfront linking Central Docks to King's Dock via Pier Head as both a business necessity and a tourist attraction. Others, including the biggest landowner in the city besides the city itself, believe it should go even further.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 03:05 PM
How is it cost effective? Would anyone be able to put a figure on the whole operation? Who will pay for it? Will it be paid by ticket sales? We're still paying off the Mersey Tunnel with fares years later!

All that is not at the conceptual level.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 03:13 PM
the 'hanging railway' was a bit of light-hearted fun. There's no way that'd happen in Liverpool in a million years!


I hope not! The concept of the hanging railway is good. That implementation is very poor.



The only focus I am losing is spending too much time online! But my main aim was to look at areas of poor access to rail, NOT just Liverpool city centre - which is why I frequently include suburban areas in my posts - important to not forget about these as public transport is less frequent and less reliable the further you go from a city centre.


Quite right. But! it is a matter of priorities. I want to see trams fill the gaps an they can via the boulevards that were design to take them in the central reservations.



We can't forget how thousands of commuters travel into the city centre every day and these are invaluable to the economy of the city (some might say they are more important because they are likely to be wealthier and more economically active).


The focus of wealth is moving in the centre and this may be a lot quicker than you think. Catering for the centre - where regeneration and wealth creation would be - maybe should be the focus.



This is my focus, so whilst I take your advice into account, my aim is not to improve Liverpool - it is to consider all of Merseyside. Being a suburban commuter myself, I of course want to see better services into Liverpool!


The council would like to get you living in or near the centre.



And as I work at Sefton Council, I would also love to see the NMB reopen because at present, I must drive. Therefore, get ALL the suburban lines reopened ASAP because not EVERYONE travels into Liverpool. Important to not lose focus of that too.

All a part of the overall system when complete.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 03:20 PM
I don't think the hanging railway is so far-fetched for travel along the waterfront linking Central Docks to King's Dock via Pier Head as both a business necessity and a tourist attraction. Others, including the biggest landowner in the city besides the city itself, believe it should go even further.

If this hanging railway can't integrate into the existing system, it will be mainly a tourist railway. Nice to have, however, that is a lot of expense, that can be better used elsewhere to project the city forwards.

Ged
03-28-2008, 03:30 PM
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/src/webroot/liverpoolpost/liverpool-news/regional-news/2007/03/05/monorail-project-could-be-a-21st-century-version-of-overhead-railway-50061-18708392/


.

Ged
03-28-2008, 03:34 PM
Remember this

http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk/icliverpool/CentralDocks.wmv


.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 04:02 PM
http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/src/webroot/liverpoolpost/liverpool-news/regional-news/2007/03/05/monorail-project-could-be-a-21st-century-version-of-overhead-railway-50061-18708392/


Many versions of Monorail have been thought of - along the south docks was first. They say...
With 25,000 homes planned, along with four hotels, restaurants, bars and leisure facilities, Peel has included a rapid monorail link to the city centre waterfront, and onwards to Liverpool John Lennon Airport

I always wondered how they were going to get to the airport, as Garston Docks and Grassendale are in the way. Also when you leave the docks, the monorail will parallel the Northern Line. They could go up Jericho Lane and down Aigburth Rd - where people live.

I think this is just wish list from Peel - to get the scheme noticed.

andyk
03-28-2008, 04:10 PM
Thanks for those links Ged.Very interesting indeed !

As a country-dweller, I couldn't survive in a city such as Liverpool,in fact I wonder how anyone can !The wealthier members of society who prefer to live in leafier surroundings will continue commuting and for this reason improved links to the Liverpool hinterland are essential and probavly more important than any inner-city project. Extentions to the Merseyrail electric network could result in thousands of cars being left in the garage,something that inner-city improvements would not provide.

andyk
03-28-2008, 04:15 PM
I always wondered how they were going to get to the airport, as Garston Docks and Grassendale are in the way. Also when you leave the docks, the monorail will parallel the Northern Line. They could go up Jericho Lane and down Aigburth Rd - where people live.

I think this is just wish list from Peel - to get the scheme noticed.

I do not know the area well, despite having used John Lennon Airport regularly. Would it not be possible to run tram-trains from the airport to Liverpool Central with a link at Cressington Jnc ? Perhaps recent urban developement in the Garston area exclude this possibilty.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 04:21 PM
Remember this

http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk/icliverpool/CentralDocks.wmv


Nice Ged. There wasn't much water, just a canal. They even have West Waterloo Dock filled in here, just under the helicopter. The locals are fighting it...again!!!

http://i25.tinypic.com/e665wy.jpg

Waterways
03-28-2008, 04:31 PM
Thanks for those links Ged.Very interesting indeed !

As a country-dweller, I couldn't survive in a city such as Liverpool,in fact I wonder how anyone can !The wealthier members of society who prefer to live in leafier surroundings will continue commuting and for this reason improved links to the Liverpool hinterland are essential and probavly more important than any inner-city project. Extentions to the Merseyrail electric network could result in thousands of cars being left in the garage,something that inner-city improvements would not provide.

I disagree. As transport communications became better, the wealthy moved to the outskirts deserting the city. The city then became a rather working class place with wealth on the rims. The road tunnels did no good to the city as the wealthy could drive to villages in the Wirral, so more moved out.

Best do what Ken Livingstone is doing with London. Fed up with people who live in Surrey being given excellent transports links and the inner cities ignored, he went to improve the quality of life for those living in London. The right way to go.

Liverpool should do the same. Concentrate on the city centre and inner cities and work out. Get the wealthy back in the city, instead of just being their work place.

Cadfael
03-28-2008, 05:41 PM
Get the wealthy back in the city, instead of just being their work place

You show me somewhere in Liverpool City Centre that offers as much land and garden as say Fulwood Park or Sandfield Park and we'll all move back to Liverpool like a shot.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 05:44 PM
You show me somewhere in Liverpool City Centre that offers as much land and garden as say Fulwood Park or Sandfield Park and we'll all move back to Liverpool like a shot.

You assume a garden is the prime criteria. A well laid out large flat with superb views would suit many people, in or near the centre. Many squares in London, as they were in Liverpool, have gardens in the centre of the squares for the residents.

robt
03-28-2008, 06:00 PM
You assume a garden is the prime criteria. A well laid out large flat with superb views would suit many people, in or near the centre. Many squares in London, as they were in Liverpool, have gardens in the centre of the squares for the residents.

I agree - I have no reason to want a garden that I have to maintain.

A reasonable balcony (from a decent sized flat/apartment) is quite ample for myself, having public greenery is just a bonus.

Of course everyone is different, and I appreciate those with children may want a garden etc.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 06:14 PM
I agree - I have no reason to want a garden that I have to maintain.

A reasonable balcony (from a decent sized flat/apartment) is quite ample for myself, having public greenery is just a bonus.

Of course everyone is different, and I appreciate those with children may want a garden etc.

Our population is getting older and more people are living alone via divorces, etc. Many of these people are not poor and want suitable accommodation. The centre beckons.

Cadfael
03-28-2008, 06:52 PM
Each to their own naturally but as Liverpool expanded, the Gentry moved out where they had cleaner air and parks and gardens.

jc_everton
03-28-2008, 07:53 PM
I prefer the suburbs over the city. I don't have children but I'd still like a garden. You can't just expect people to move into the city because of all these modern developments. If people like myself want to stay in a leafy area then so be it.
One of the points I've been trying to make is that it is us suburbanites who have rubbish public transport links into town, whereas people in the inner city can get different buses taking them to different parts of the city, where there's a bus stop on every street. It is us suburbanites who have to travel the furthest and if we do not study or work near Central or Moorfields then we may have a fair walk. In this respect, I can understand why many choose to travel by car. Hence, my aims to improve the suburban public transport system.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 09:20 PM
Suburbanites tend to shun public transport in favour of cars. They want it ti commute but not for anything else.

In highly populated city centre and inner city areas they may use public transport for everyday needs.

Harder to justify lines to the outer parts, when they only use them to go to work.

ChrisO
03-28-2008, 10:30 PM
Good stuff. Of course it is important to not lose focus, but what I write on this board does not necessarily mean it is in my dissertation! For instance, the 'hanging railway' was a bit of light-hearted fun. There's no way that'd happen in Liverpool in a million years!
The only focus I am losing is spending too much time online! But my main aim was to look at areas of poor access to rail, NOT just Liverpool city centre - which is why I frequently include suburban areas in my posts - important to not forget about these as public transport is less frequent and less reliable the further you go from a city centre. We can't forget how thousands of commuters travel into the city centre every day and these are invaluable to the economy of the city (some might say they are more important because they are likely to be wealthier and more economically active). This is my focus, so whilst I take your advice into account, my aim is not to improve Liverpool - it is to consider all of Merseyside. Being a suburban commuter myself, I of course want to see better services into Liverpool!
And as I work at Sefton Council, I would also love to see the NMB reopen because at present, I must drive. Therefore, get ALL the suburban lines reopened ASAP because not EVERYONE travels into Liverpool. Important to not lose focus of that too.

I have to say I agree completely, and it is what I was driving at with my suggestions of running the WCML through Wapping to the waterfront and electrification of the City Line. All this must be of benefit to the entire city, not just specific districts

robt
03-28-2008, 10:35 PM
I have to say I agree completely, and it is what I was driving at with my suggestions of running the WCML through Wapping to the waterfront and electrification of the City Line. All this must be of benefit to the entire city, not just specific districts

I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean just trains to and from London should run there, or those from places such as Norwich, Birmingham and Yorkshire too ie abandoning Lime Street?

ChrisO
03-28-2008, 10:37 PM
Suburbanites tend to shun public transport in favour of cars. They want it ti commute but not for anything else.

In highly populated city centre and inner city areas they may use public transport for everyday needs.

Harder to justify lines to the outer parts, when they only use them to go to work.

How do you know this? I would be what you so affectionately call a suburbanite and if the infrastructure was there, I would use the train rather than cars and not just for work. You seem to have a rather unappealing habit of judging people and their circumstances when you know little about them

ChrisO
03-28-2008, 10:40 PM
I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean just trains to and from London should run there, or those from places such as Norwich, Birmingham and Yorkshire too ie abandoning Lime Street?

Yes, make the place accessible to national, regional and local services. As I said before surely, it must be of benefit to the City.
No, I don't propose the closure of Lime Street, but use Wapping as another outlet to allow people to access services closer to the waterfront such as the Arena, Albert Dock etc. I don't know how feasible it really is, I just think it's a good idea, really

robt
03-28-2008, 10:44 PM
Yes, make the place accessible to national, regional and local services. As I said before surely, it must be of benefit to the City.

I don't see the advantage of one over the other, other than the massive expense of building a new mainline station and tunneling to it (I don't think the existing tunnel is quad+ track)

Am I missing something - is it not just shifting a station from one part of the city to another a bit further out of the centre?

jc_everton
03-28-2008, 11:12 PM
WW just assumed that us suburbanites shun public transport for the car - which is just a sweeping statement AND that we only use the city to go to work!!!! We obviously do not have very active lives, in the leafy suburbs!!

Ridiculous.

Firstly, the bus system in the suburbs is poor, journey times are too long, services infrequent, unreliable and uncomfortable. If you don't live near a train station you must park and ride. If the car park is full you must drive. Or leave your car on the side of a road - not an attractive proposition. Also, if your office or uni/other is not near a station, there is another incentive to drive.
It is your attitude that ensures us suburbanites will continue to drive to the city because you just assume we all want to drive and we don't care about public transport.

And as for your remark about us only using the city for work.... how narrow-minded is that???

Maybe you're right... Burscough has far better shops, restaurants, bars, clubs etc etc etc!!! So why would I want to go to Liverpool?!

Again, ridiculous.

Your counter-argument will include the word 'needs'. So in the inner city, do they not have basic food stores and supermarkets? If you lived near County Road or Smithdown Road, would you really have to go to the city to buy your 'needs'? People in the inner cities use the city for exactly the same reasons as suburbanites, so why do you keep separating the two? You have no consideration of the word 'integration'.

Trams will not fill the gaps of the suburbs, the lines would be too long and unnecessary. Trams are for the city. Therefore, open the NMB and Bootle Branch ASAP, as well as the Burscough Curves and Gateacre extension. Fill the suburban gaps with rail, fill the city centre gaps with some sort of innovative system - overhead, metro, trams, whatever - the key is getting people in (and out) and when they are there they should expect a nice rapid system for them. I say pedestrianise Ranelagh St altogether and create a tram station outside of Central, whisking people off in all sorts of directions. Good stuff.

Speaking of Gateacre, I don't know why people have been talking about the old CLC Line - that is long gone, except for the curve to Gateacre where we have the potential to create a large car park for park and ride. Anywhere north of there is too close to houses and it's a well used cycle path. It's like the old 'Get Rid of the Garage at Dingle Tunnel and Sod the Workers' attitude. As much as it'd be great it's not an over-riding priority. However, I do agree that the areas around that line, from Gateacre through West Derby, right up to Lydiate could do with a train service.

Waterways
03-28-2008, 11:56 PM
I don't see the advantage of one over the other, other than the massive expense of building a new mainline station and tunneling to it (I don't think the existing tunnel is quad+ track)

Am I missing something - is it not just shifting a station from one part of the city to another a bit further out of the centre?

At one time the second mainline station was at Brunswick at the corner of Northumberland St, just along the Dock Rd. Then they bored the tunnel to Central Stn taking over and the station was closed down. The station building was there until the mid to late 1970s. It reopened with the new recent Brunswick station - not exactly in the same position.

petromax
03-29-2008, 11:05 AM
If this hanging railway can't integrate into the existing system, it will be mainly a tourist railway. Nice to have, however, that is a lot of expense, that can be better used elsewhere to project the city forwards.

Yes, it will have a big tourist use linking the attractions of the waterfront (Stanley Dock, Pier Head, Albert/ Kings) together. It will also link offices to hotels to conference centre.

Suitable passenger transfers from Merseyrail would be the new station at Stanley Dock ('Vauxhall') and at St James St ('Cathedral') because there are both at elevated levels - Vauxhall on the viaduct and Cathedral up the hill.

Waterways
03-29-2008, 11:21 AM
WW just assumed that us suburbanites shun public transport for the car


Most do.



And as for your remark about us only using the city for work.... how narrow-minded is that???


True most only use the centre for work or for the odd shopping trip.



Maybe you're right... Burscough has far better shops, restaurants, bars, clubs etc etc etc!!! So why would I want to go to Liverpool?!


Burscough? I haven't been around there for years. Las Vegas eat your heart out :)



Your counter-argument will include the word 'needs'. So in the inner city, do they not have basic food stores and supermarkets? If you lived near County Road or Smithdown Road, would you really have to go to the city to buy your 'needs'? People in the inner cities use the city for exactly the same reasons as suburbanites, so why do you keep separating the two? You have no consideration of the word 'integration'.


Proximity is the key. My mother would occasionally, just "pop into town", those relative in West Derby went occasionally as it was an effort to get there.



Trams will not fill the gaps of the suburbs, the lines would be too long and unnecessary.


That is exactly what they were used for. The boulevards were designwide wide reservations to take them.



Speaking of Gateacre, I don't know why people have been talking about the old CLC Line - that is long gone, except for the curve to Gateacre where we have the potential to create a large car park for park and ride.


The track bed is still there.



Anywhere north of there is too close to houses and it's a well used cycle path. It's like the old 'Get Rid of the Garage at Dingle Tunnel and Sod the Workers' attitude.


The workers and a small business can move . It is not the Jaguar factory.

The CLC track bed? Well it can go underground :) :)

Bringing the line back into use, the benefits to the local community have to be assessed against those who will back onto the railway. The track beds were deliberately not built upon, in case of re-use. The people who bought there must have known that.



As much as it'd be great it's not an over-riding priority. However, I do agree that the areas around that line, from Gateacre through West Derby, right up to Lydiate could do with a train service.

The 1970s idea was to get to Edge Hill at Broad Green, which would have been extensive works. Then a southern loop was formed using the Wapping Tunnel and then branch into the Northern Line tunnel and through Central Stn and back to Hunts X, Gatacre, etc.

The Gatacre Line closing was a big thing in the 1970s. It was to close then public pressure stopped it, then it closed - on temporary basis I recall (maybe why the track bed was left). It was always in the Echo. If the line was temporarily taken out of action, ten anyone buying house backing onto the trackbed would have known a rail line could be re-introduced as a search would bring that up. So, they would have no gripe if a the line was re-used.

Waterways
03-29-2008, 11:27 AM
Yes, it will have a big tourist use linking the attractions of the waterfront (Stanley Dock, Pier Head, Albert/ Kings) together. It will also link offices to hotels to conference centre.

Suitable passenger transfers from Merseyrail would be the new station at Stanley Dock ('Vauxhall') and at St James St ('Cathedral') because there are both at elevated levels - Vauxhall on the viaduct and Cathedral up the hill.

The "Cathedral" station is still there and is "underground". Well in a cutting. It would be difficult to merge the two to change in the same station. Brunswick would be better - dropping the train to platform level.

Nice to have but hardly a priority for money allocation.

petromax
03-29-2008, 11:28 AM
...Trams will not fill the gaps of the suburbs, ...Fill the suburban gaps with rail, fill the city centre gaps with some sort of innovative system - overhead, metro, trams, whatever...Speaking of Gateacre, I don't know why people have been talking about the old CLC Line - that is long gone, the areas around that line, from Gateacre through West Derby, right up to Lydiate could do with a train service.

The tram network proposes single lines into the suburbs, splitting into multiple lines in the inner wards (Anfield, Everton, Picton...) that surround the centre. You are right that it is a long, long journey on a tram even from Huyton (let alone Kirkby) to the centre, where as the train is light-speed in comparison.

I can see your point that with more lines in the suburbs with more stations, there would be more parking available for parking at the station and travel into the centre would be so much quicker and so it would be used more.

People are talking about the CLC because although it would ultimately form a complete loop into the city (but a long way around for some) it would also be a short journey service between different lines. So if you want to go from the Hunt's Cross to Huyton say, you need not go all the way into the centre to do it by rail. Also there is a lack of capacity on the existing rail alignments for these journeys and as you say Gateacre etc need a train service.

The whole alignment is still there apart from a short section in the north

petromax
03-29-2008, 11:48 AM
The "Cathedral" station is still there and is "underground". Well in a cutting. It would be difficult to merge the two to change in the same station. Brunswick would be better - dropping the train to platform level.

Nice to have but hardly a priority for money allocation.


Assuming that you look at the levels, it would be understood that that cutting is a lot higher than the bottom of Parliament Street because it is up the hill; running level (or even up hill) would bring you into St James Street on the level and would bring the Anglican Cathedral into the tourist loop.

A connection at Brunswick is useful but for different reasons (going on to the south even the airport)

Presenting the city in a world market place as a great place to visit and an attractive and a competitive, convenient business location is the city's top priority without which none of these systems will see the light of day and is thus more than a nice-to-have.

Waterways
03-29-2008, 12:06 PM
Assuming that you look at the levels, it would be understood that that cutting is a lot higher than the bottom of Parliament Street because it is up the hill; running level (or even up hill) would bring you into St James Street on the level and would bring the Anglican Cathedral into the tourist loop.


That is expensive tunelling and opening out the cutting.



A connection at Brunswick is useful but for different reasons (going on to the south even the airport)


Brunswick is only one station away from Parliament St.



Presenting the city in a world market place as a great place to visit and an attractive and a competitive, convenient business location is the city's top priority without which none of these systems will see the light of day and is thus more than a nice-to-have.


Image is very important. That is why the image of a comprehensive underground system which promotes regeneration of inner city areas is important. Lodge Lane is an embarrassment to the City - it looks like a war zone. An underground station there will greatly assist in quickly eradicating that blight.

An overhead railway will not be feasible until the centre and docks area become more populated. The Brunswick Quay Tower would have assisted here (and would have been built by now, in the city did not foolishly turn it down), The King Edward Tower will assist too - if CABE don't stop it. Commercial building should be restricted in the docks waters as this will not generate that much traffic. Dense populations do.

jc_everton
03-29-2008, 12:43 PM
As you say yourself, quality public transport systems attract people to live and work so why not get an overhead by the docks put in place immediately and watch the population increase... which is something you have touched on many a time. I don't see no harm at all in putting one in without 'waiting to see what happens', the city needs to be bolder and more positive.

Gateacre... my othe gripe with it is journey time. Just look at where it is on a map and look how the CLC line has the potential to take it north and then west on to the St Helens line, then compare this to the CLC line going south, then west, then north... I honestly don't believe it would be much quicker than a car trip - the key would be to cut-and-cover that line (meaning the cycle path will remain) and link in with Broadgreen. But to go south, west, north and then west to Lime St would be a bit silly and even if it went via Brunswick it wouldn't be much quicker.

Also, consideration must be given to the CLC physically connecting with the St Helens line - the motorway is slap bang in the middle of where the two lines meet but I think I'm right in saying there is a bit of green space to play around with so yea, maybe there is hope...

jc_everton
03-29-2008, 12:51 PM
I had to laugh at the Lodge Lane 'war zone' reference. That area is just one of many areas that are on its knees in the city - have you not seen Gilmoss/Croxteth? Parts of Kirkdale and Bootle? Loads of Toxteth... parts of Netherton... Broadway/Norris Green... Anfield... Kenny...Huyton.... Speke... the list goes on... I don't understand your persistent references to Lodge Lane. Public transport will not rescue these places single-handedly - the people need to learn some respect and discipline - instil DISCIPLINE into the kids - this has to be priority no.1 before them areas can even think about progressing - they will only take absue the public transport system anyway. I've touched on armed police before but some lefty dismissed it. The scum need to be taught some respect - if shots need to be fired so be it - as you say, some parts resemble a war zone already. Hugging a hoodie.... makes me sick. What a pratt Cameron is.

Waterways
03-29-2008, 12:58 PM
As you say yourself, quality public transport systems attract people to live and work so why not get an overhead by the docks put in place immediately and watch the population increase... which is something you have touched on many a time. I don't see no harm at all in putting one in without 'waiting to see what happens', the city needs to be bolder and more positive.


An overhead is a luxury and will not be popular with people elsewhere who will shout they are being neglected so big business can make money out of he waterfront and docks - that is what is happening at Kings Dock - little of that will benefit many local people. We should be living around those quays, not using them for a chara-banc parks.



Gateacre... my othe gripe with it is journey time. Just look at where it is on a map and look how the CLC line has the potential to take it north and then west on to the St Helens line, then compare this to the CLC line going south, then west, then north...


It is a loop :) It would serve the outer areas as well as getting to the centre via two directions.



I honestly don't believe it would be much quicker than a car trip - the key would be to cut-and-cover that line (meaning the cycle path will remain) and link in with Broadgreen.


At great expense and would it be worth it? I would rather cut and cover from Dingle to Edge Hill and expand a true underground system. The link from Dingle to Edge Hill could be met by tram/trains at a push.

Waterways
03-29-2008, 01:38 PM
Gatacre station:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/g/gateacre/index.shtml

Belle Vale Bridge is still there. This gives the impression the track bed may be reused. If it was gone forever the bridge would be demolished. They requires periodic structural surveys and maintenance. Why would they foot this expence for a needless bridge?

jc_everton
03-29-2008, 02:04 PM
Because it is a popular cycling/walking path - part of the Trans-Pennine Trail. It wouldn't set the council back by millions of pounds a year.

Broliv
03-29-2008, 04:53 PM
I think A station at St James Place/Parliment Street/Great George Street would go down well in years to come. Seeing as the site has been ear marked to be re-developed as a mixed use development and done by Urban splash and within walking distance to Cains, the Cathedral, the Quarter which is currently being developed, the Buddleia Building and a little walk further to the arena. Would Increase the access to that part of town on the edge of Toxteth. The cutting is already in place, All it needs is to develop the platforms, access bridge/s and car parking fa****ies which can be done by using currently unused wasteland.

Broliv
03-29-2008, 05:59 PM
<Cut because its boring and pointless>

An Airport link is needed more than the outer City or inner cty link. Either way, we're talking about the workings of a scheme which may or may not go ahead. I agree that we need an Inner city link of some sort that is quick and sustainable, that we need an outer city link that is quick and sustainable. We also need a rail link directly to the airport.

The Innter city link i feel would best be achieved with better management of the infrastructure that is already available. I.e. bus and rail. If people don't want to bus it to town, bus em to the nearest train station and give them a discount for using it. Opening Stations up at viable central hubs along the line. Yes we have existing inrastructure which is not used, but why spend lots of money re developing it when we can re-organise our existing infrstructure and bus routes to perform much better to meet the same end.

Waterways
03-29-2008, 07:19 PM
An Airport link is needed more than the outer City or inner cty link.


It is debatable that direct links to the airport benefit the city, or more outsiders. People go through the city and out via the airport. Like Terminal 5 at Heathrow. Many passenger are transit passenger and never leave Heathrow, yet the locals have to put up with the pollution of planes.



Either way, we're talking about the workings of a scheme which may or may not go ahead. I agree that we need an Inner city link of some sort that is quick and sustainable, that we need an outer city link that is quick and sustainable. We also need a rail link directly to the airport.


It is prioritising it that matters.



The Innter city link i feel would best be achieved with better management of the infrastructure that is already available. I.e. bus and rail. If people don't want to bus it to town,

Busses will not improve image and attract investment to inner cities, or move people around quickly or quickly give connections to other parts of the city - an underground station will. Look at what the Jubilee Line did in London.

petromax
03-29-2008, 08:11 PM
[QUOTE=Waterways;122145]It is debatable that direct links to the airport benefit the city, or more outsiders. QUOTE]

I really think we need to dispense with any prejudices against 'outsiders'. It's outsiders we need to re-populate the city. It is outsiders we need to invest in the city to make it better for the 'insiders'. It is outsiders that we want to become insiders.

After all more Liverpudlians have left than live in this city. Are they all outsiders? If you think the insiders can generate the kind of city you want then good luck because all will walk away. I thought we had learnt that making ourselves an island doesn't work. perhaps we should ask Derek Hatton?

If you make it hard for outsiders to invest; if you make them unwelcome, they will go elsewhere and take their money with them. It doesn't grow on trees.

References other posts:

there is no need to dig or tunnel to be actually level with the platforms at St James Street. In many ways it would be better if it were not level because of the capacity or width at platform level. It is none the less still possible and at reasonable cost - somewhat less than other options;

Yes, Parliament Street is only one stop from 'cathedral' but I wouldn't walk it if I had the choice;

and thirdly, the 'charabanc' trade at King's Dock is part of an overall offer, bringing investment into the city.

Profit is not a dirty word - it's the only word that makes prosperity and a good standard of life possible - vide the history of Liverpool.

Look at how successful the rejuvenated dock systems of Cape Town (V&A Watewrfront), Sydney (Darling Harbour) and Baltimore (Inner Harbor) are. They have blazed a trail for Liverpool to follow. Of course Liverpool should have been the leader but it is by far bigger an opportunity than these three examples and at least we can learn from their mistakes

petromax
03-29-2008, 08:24 PM
I think A station at St James Place/Parliment Street/Great George Street would go down well in years to come. Seeing as the site has been ear marked to be re-developed as a mixed use development and done by Urban splash and within walking distance to Cains, the Cathedral, the Quarter which is currently being developed, the Buddleia Building and a little walk further to the arena. Would Increase the access to that part of town on the edge of Toxteth. The cutting is already in place, All it needs is to develop the platforms, access bridge/s and car parking fa****ies which can be done by using currently unused wasteland.

There is more residential development coming on the Toxteth side of Parliament Street. There is Chinatown which will grow south. As you say there is Urban Splash and 700 new homes on Great George Street ad there is the Cathedral. It will increase conectivity for both places to live, our own leisure/ nights out/ access to a growing cultrue quarter. It might be moved a little further in from the existng location (some of the existing platforms have been compromised and are in any event are quite narrow). It's a great idea.

Cadfael
03-29-2008, 08:46 PM
Gatacre station:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/stations/g/gateacre/index.shtml

Belle Vale Bridge is still there. This gives the impression the track bed may be reused. If it was gone forever the bridge would be demolished. They requires periodic structural surveys and maintenance. Why would they foot this expence for a needless bridge?

The council don't own the bridge - sustrans do.

Waterways
03-29-2008, 09:08 PM
It is debatable that direct links to the airport benefit the city, or more outsiders.

I really think we need to dispense with any prejudices against 'outsiders'.


No prejudice. People not even stopping in the city and using the airport to go elsewhere, may not be such a benefit to the people of the city - It may be to Peel the owners. Manchester based. We need a direct airport link for sure. The priority in rail should be the centre and the inner city, which it can make most impact for least money.



and thirdly, the 'charabanc' trade at King's Dock is part of an overall offer, bringing investment into the city.


It is, but what great benefit is it to the people of the city? Historic docks filled in to make char-banc park for outside companies to make money from. The local councilor that covered Kings Dock was totally against the scheme, wanting residential and leisure development that benefit the people and get them living around the quays. I agreed with him.

The money making part, the arena could have been on the ranshakle businesses on the land side of the Kings/Queens Docks



Look at how successful the rejuvenated dock systems of Cape Town (V&A Watewrfront), Sydney (Darling Harbour) and Baltimore (Inner Harbor) are. They have blazed a trail for Liverpool to follow.


Liverpool should follow Amsterdam and Hamburg, where people live around the quays in vibrant communities together with appealing leisure facilities. Toxteth and Harrington Docks are how not to use redundant docks.



Of course Liverpool should have been the leader but it is by far bigger an opportunity than these three examples and at least we can learn from their mistakes


Or learn from the successes, which don't do what Liverpool is doing. Liverpool just does what Peel want to do. They keep referring to Central Docks. What docks? There are few docks left there now. Like Kings Dock just large areas of filled-in water space. And there will be fewer when they fill in West Waterloo.

petromax
03-29-2008, 10:02 PM
No prejudice. People not even stopping in the city and using the airport to go elsewhere, may not be such a benefit to the people of the city - It may be to Peel the owners. Manchester based. We need a direct airport link for sure. The priority in rail should be the centre and the inner city, which it can make most impact for least money. .

Where will people go from Liverpool airport? It is no hub. It's a destination. If you make your city competitive and available, you will attract business. let's say you have many millions to spend on the relocation of a major international bank bring in many more millions of secondary investment and making any city you go to a better place to be. Which would you choose - Liverpool afraid of outsiders or Manchester with the welcome mat out? QED




It is, but what great benefit is it to the people of the city? Historic docks filled in to make char-banc park for outside companies to make money from. The local councilor that covered Kings Dock was totally against the scheme, wanting residential and leisure development that benefit the people and get them living around the quays. I agreed with him.

The money making part, the arena could have been on the ranshakle businesses on the land side of the Kings/Queens Docks


Liverpool should follow Amsterdam and Hamburg, where people live around the quays in vibrant communities together with appealing leisure facilities. Toxteth and Harrington Docks are how not to use redundant docks. .

If you haven't been or know of the revitalised docks in Sydney, Cape Town or Baltimore or any other of these stellar success stories - just say so. In all of these places and yes including Amsterdam and Hamburg (on a smaller scale) 'people live around the quays in vibrant communities together with appealing leisure facilities'.




Or learn from the successes, which don't do what Liverpool is doing. Liverpool just does what Peel want to do. They keep referring to Central Docks. What docks? There are few docks left there now. Like Kings Dock just large areas of filled-in water space. And there will be fewer when they fill in West Waterloo.

Liverpool was a basket-case before 1999. Everything that has been achieved thus far within the city boundaries has been achieved without Peel. Peel is a great opportunity that is at the start of the road. But being outsiders, we should turn them away and let them invest in anywhere other than here because they are 'Manchester-based'. Perhaps you should learn from Manchester's successes and embrace the outsider.

Waterways
03-29-2008, 10:48 PM
Where will people go from Liverpool airport? It is no hub. It's a destination. If you make your city competitive and available, you will attract business. let's say you have many millions to spend on the relocation of a major international bank bring in many more millions of secondary investment and making any city you go to a better place to be. Which would you choose - Liverpool afraid of outsiders or Manchester with the welcome mat out? QED


True that an airport with many destinations will attract business. But right now most passenger leaving and arriving at JLA don't stop and spend in he city - they are people from outside the city. So, any immediate rail priority should be to regenerate the city, not make matters better for outsiders. Manchester was described as an airport with a city attached - we don't want that.



If you haven't been or know of the revitalised docks in Sydney, Cape Town or Baltimore or any other of these stellar success stories - just say so. In all of these places and yes including Amsterdam and Hamburg (on a smaller scale) 'people live around the quays in vibrant communities together with appealing leisure facilities'.


I know all about these places. Amsterdam is not small. Have you been there?



Liverpool was a basket-case before 1999. Everything that has been achieved thus far within the city boundaries has been achieved without Peel. Peel is a great opportunity that is at the start of the road. But being outsiders, we should turn them away and let them invest in anywhere other than here because they are 'Manchester-based'. Perhaps you should learn from Manchester's successes and embrace the outsider.

My point is clear. Peel only care about Peel and making money. They don't care about our history or heritage. I was banned of the Liverpool Echo forum for daring to oppose Peels wanting to fill in West Waterloo Dock. They appear to have the council and local media in their pocket. Money they make is taken out of the city.

petromax
03-29-2008, 11:53 PM
...But right now most passenger leaving and arriving at JLA don't stop and spend in he city - they are people from outside the city. ..

Why do you think they come here? For their health?


...I know all about these places. Amsterdam is not small. Have you been there?..

Yes, and Cape Town and Sydney. I have worked in the latter two. I know them rather well. I know the relative size of Liverpool rather well too which was my point.


...My point is clear. Peel only care about Peel and making money. They don't care about our history or heritage. I was banned of the Liverpool Echo forum for daring to oppose Peels wanting to fill in West Waterloo Dock. They appear to have the council and local media in their pocket. Money they make is taken out of the city.

You are very clear.

You do not appreciate that the pound in your pocket is worth exactly the same as the pound in Peel's pocket.

I imagine you were banned for a bit more than voicing your opinion - maybe there are just a few people who disagree with you and the way in which you put your opinions over.

Maybe if someone told you what to do with your property you would get upset.

The council and local media support investment in the city. Yes, Peel take their money home wherever that may be, just like you. But on the way they bring jobs and investment, pay rates and development contributions, create opportunities for secondary investment, pay taxes and increase the profile of the city making our city a more propsperous place - and you?

petromax
03-29-2008, 11:57 PM
...and you?

On reflection, I'd rather not know, thanks; and I hope someone else can bring this back on-topic

Waterways
03-30-2008, 12:31 AM
Why do you think they come here? For their health?


I clearly made the point they do not come here - they go straight to the airport. So a direct line from Wrexham will sail though the city to JLA.



Yes, and Cape Town and Sydney. I have worked in the latter two. I know them rather well. I know the relative size of Liverpool rather well too which was my point.


I know Cape Town - I was married there.



You do not appreciate that the pound in your pocket is worth exactly the same as the pound in Peel's pocket.


And their pounds are taken away form the city.



I imagine you were banned for a bit more than voicing your opinion - maybe there are just a few people who disagree with you and the way in which you put your opinions over.


After 4 posts I never had time put across much of an opinion at all. Ever thought of your offensive manner? And how it would be better to get the odd point before responding.

I know exactly what Peel may bring to the party. However they want to rip us off for all they can get. As I said "Peel only care about Peel and making money. They don't care about our history or heritage." We have to call the shots, not them. The tail wags the dog.

Broliv
03-30-2008, 10:47 AM
[i]"Peel only care about Peel and making money.


Thats busisness.

By introducting a rail link from LSP going to the airport taking in the estuary busisness park, the airport and speke. Peel get a direct rail link to their airport. More money for them, we get peel to contribute to the rail link amungst other things. Speke gets a train station which it needs and we'd get extra cash to invest in other areas.

Thats Politics

Peel should be welcomed with open arms, after all they just want to make as much money as they can. They'll bring jobs, other busisnesses who will bring more jobs. More Graduates (which the city is desperate for its economy) will need to stay in the city as there will be an availablity in the job market. We'd be able to afford the circle lines from the increased revenue both in council tax and fares as well as the rates from busisnesses.

What the council should be doing is liasing with them now to say "look guys, sure build there but filling in of the docks is not allowed. In fact while your there can you dig out trafalger dock. It is after all something as important to the world as the pyramids. We'll try and do something to help you (i.e try and get the government to give us powers to create a Land value tax area within the city say the world heritage areas (Trafagla dock would have to be out filled to meet the criteria), this would also attract other busisnesses and allow them to re-develop grade listed buildings at a lesser price than today. Making Liverpool even more attractive for investment)" Instead of stringing them along. Peel will get a nasty shock when they submit the design proposal If they go along with the current plan.

If Labour win the next election they're going to have a nice big headache in how to solve this issue.

And yes we're way off topic. Perhaps this should all go in a seperate thread.

Cadfael
03-30-2008, 10:53 AM
Thats busisness.

By introducting a rail link from LSP going to the airport taking in the estuary busisness park, the airport and speke. Peel get a direct rail link to their airport. More money for them, we get peel to contribute to the rail link amungst other things. Speke gets a train station which it needs and we'd get extra cash to invest in other areas.

Thats Politics

Peel should be welcomed with open arms, after all they just want to make as much money as they can. They'll bring jobs, other busisnesses who will bring more jobs. More Graduates (which the city is desperate for its economy) will need to stay in the city as there will be an availablity in the job market. We'd be able to afford the circle lines from the increased revenue both in council tax and fares as well as the rates from busisnesses.

What the council should be doing is liasing with them now to say "look guys, sure build there but filling in of the docks is not allowed. In fact while your there can you dig out trafalger dock. It is after all something as important to the world as the pyramids. We'll try and do something to help you (i.e try and get the government to give us powers to create a Land value tax area within the city say the world heritage areas (Trafagla dock would have to be out filled to meet the criteria), this would also attract other busisnesses and allow them to re-develop grade listed buildings at a lesser price than today. Making Liverpool even more attractive for investment)" Instead of stringing them along. Peel will get a nasty shock when they submit the design proposal If they go along with the current plan.

If Labour win the next election they're going to have a nice big headache in how to solve this issue.

And yes we're way off topic. Perhaps this should all go in a seperate thread.


That's probably the most sensible thing said on this thread. :handclap:

Waterways
03-30-2008, 11:37 AM
By introducting a rail link from LSP going to the airport taking in the estuary busisness park, the airport and speke. Peel get a direct rail link to their airport. More money for them, we get peel to contribute to the rail link amungst other things. Speke gets a train station which it needs and we'd get extra cash to invest in other areas.


As long as they do contribute. Peel have to be controlled, otherwise they will ruin the city. That is done having as many firm policies in place for them to work inside.



What the council should be doing is liasing with them now to say "look guys, sure build there but filling in of the docks is not allowed.


The council is not doing that at all. They have no firm policy on water spaces. Peel want to charge companies to fill in the docks and then make a killing on the newly created land. They care nothing of history or heritage.



In fact while your there can you dig out trafalger dock. It is after all something as important to the world as the pyramids. We'll try and do something to help you (i.e try and get the government to give us powers to create a Land value tax area within the city say the world heritage areas (Trafagla dock would have to be out filled to meet the criteria), this would also attract other busisnesses and allow them to re-develop grade listed buildings at a lesser price than today. Making Liverpool even more attractive for investment)" Instead of stringing them along. Peel will get a nasty shock when they submit the design proposal If they go along with the current plan.


I fully agree. Clarence Dock is historically important, as 1.3 million starving Irish came through the port via this dock.

Below: Original Clarence Dock:
http://i29.tinypic.com/11sf4pk.jpg

Below: As it is filed in today. The outline of the granite quays can be seen.
http://i29.tinypic.com/in4g3r.jpg

Quite easy to excavate. The pictures shows the level of infilling (land by stealth). Some people are on about how an Irish connection should be in the city, then this could be around an excavated Clarence Dock. The Irish Dock.
http://i31.tinypic.com/2zqv6n6.jpg

jc_everton
03-30-2008, 01:01 PM
Yep, that is definitely off-topic.

Quick word on JLA Airport - more sweeping assumptions that "People not even stopping in the city and using the airport to go elsewhere, may not be such a benefit to the people of the city"

True, I don't stop off in town before I use the airport but what about the people who use the airport to come and visit/stay in Liverpool? Surely a better rail link for these people can be only a positive thing for the city - raising its profile etc.

And yes, a new station for Speke - everyone's a winner.

Waterways
03-30-2008, 01:25 PM
Yep, that is definitely off-topic.

Quick word on JLA Airport - more sweeping assumptions that "People not even stopping in the city and using the airport to go elsewhere, may not be such a benefit to the people of the city"

True, I don't stop off in town before I use the airport but what about the people who use the airport to come and visit/stay in Liverpool? Surely a better rail link for these people can be only a positive thing for the city - raising its profile etc.

And yes, a new station for Speke - everyone's a winner.

The point I am making is that an expanded airport is a not a sure fire winner to increase wealth in a city. Manchester airport wasn't that great an asset to the city. Many used the airport, but few went into the city - and the problems of aircraft pollution. That is not such a great problem at Liverpool as the planes come in over the estuary. An airport does promote business connections - eventually.

I would get rid of the isolated Speke housing estate. It needs lots of money spending on it which, with the poor image of the estate, may prove to be a waste of money in the end. The land is best used for airport expansion.

petromax
03-30-2008, 07:49 PM
That's probably the most sensible thing said on this thread. :handclap:

And the most positive :handclap::handclap::handclap:

incentive not censure!!

jc_everton
03-31-2008, 01:51 PM
Yes, I agree with the 'getting rid of Speke' principle, but come on, let's be realistic here!
By all means, get rid of any derelict housing, of which there is quite a bit, no-one wants to move there so there's no point in maintaining them.

Waterways
03-31-2008, 02:16 PM
Yes, I agree with the 'getting rid of Speke' principle, but come on, let's be realistic here!
By all means, get rid of any derelict housing, of which there is quite a bit, no-one wants to move there so there's no point in maintaining them.

Speke is an isolated estate surrounded by industry and an airport. It is quite a way from Garston. A large airport and industrial estate separate the two.

Building new, or renovating homes there is futile. It will always be a sink estate and and be a bottomless pit for public money in benefits, vandalism repair, etc. It is an embarrassing eyesore right next to the airport - the front window of the city.

It is right in the way of expansion too. The city does want the airport t be bigger.

Cadfael
03-31-2008, 03:24 PM
Speke is an isolated estate surrounded by industry and an airport. It is quite a way from Garston. A large airport and industrial estate separate the two.

Building new, or renovating homes there is futile. It will always be a sink estate and and be a bottomless pit for public money in benefits, vandalism repair, etc. It is an embarrassing eyesore right next to the airport - the front window of the city.

It is right in the way of expansion too. The city does want the airport t be bigger.

Hopefully there will be someone on the forum from Speke to put you right. It sounds like you've never been down there? Isolated? It's right on the boundary to Hale Village - why not knock that down too as well as paving over all of Speke? And not forgetting Speke Hall - knock that down as well!

You don't see any part of Speke when you are exiting the airport, apart from the main duel carriageway which brings you to a nice church on the corner.

As for expansion, drive down Oglet Lane one day and see how much wasteland there is if you think there is no room for expansion.

:rolleyes:

Waterways
03-31-2008, 03:48 PM
Hopefully there will be someone on the forum from Speke to put you right. It sounds like you've never been down there? Isolated? It's right on the boundary to Hale Village - why not knock that down too as well as paving over all of Speke? And not forgetting Speke Hall - knock that down as well!

You don't see any part of Speke when you are exiting the airport, apart from the main duel carriageway which brings you to a nice church on the corner.

As for expansion, drive down Oglet Lane one day and see how much wasteland there is if you think there is no room for expansion.

:rolleyes:

I know Speke very well, when it half decent. It has always had very rough parts. The last time I went the, a few years ago, It amazed how the place become a half decent place to a full sink estate. Quite dire. It is in the way and better spending the money to put people elsewhere.

Hale village does not border Speke, the are a number of fields between. Also Hale is in Cheshire not Liverpool, a different admin. And Hale looks nice, which Speke does not.

Cadfael
03-31-2008, 03:59 PM
I know Speke very well, when it half decent. It has always had very rough parts. The last time I went the, a few years ago, It amazed how the place become a half decent place to a full sink estate. Quite dire. It is in the way and better spending the money to put people elsewhere.

Hale village does not border Speke, the are a number of fields between. Also Hale is in Cheshire not Liverpool, a different admin. And Hale looks nice, which Speke does not.

What's speke in the way of? Liverpool Airport? Seeing as the old airport was brought in after Speke was developed.

So far on this thread, you've wanted to turf someone out of their business, (Dingle Station), construct a new network of tunnels by excavating between Dingle and Edge Hill, open up the Wapping/Waterloo tunnel without any real business plan and idea on excavation in an emergency and now you want to demolish the whole of Speke just because the masses that used to work at the Dunlop factory don't live there anymore.

I can't wait for the next gem :wtf:

Waterways
03-31-2008, 04:23 PM
What's speke in the way of? Liverpool Airport? Seeing as the old airport was brought in after Speke was developed.


I'm not sure if it was. Speke was first developed in the 1930s, I think just after the airport was setup, otherwise it would have been next to Garston, not remote from it.



So far on this thread, you've wanted to turf someone out of their business, (Dingle Station),


Yes. It is a needed station, and the station was there first. The garage can go where industry should be, not at the bottom of a residential street.



construct a new network of tunnels by excavating between Dingle and Edge Hill,


Great idea, competes an underground Circle Line which the city needs.



open up the Wapping/Waterloo tunnel without any real business plan


There is is it called the Circle Line and the needs it.



and idea on excavation in an emergency


??



and now you want to demolish the whole of Speke just because the masses that used to work at the Dunlop factory don't live there anymore.


Yes, and the place is a dump (last time I looked), and not worth spending money on. It is in the way of commercial and industrial expansion.



I can't wait for the next gem :wtf:

They will come. Wait.

robt
03-31-2008, 08:05 PM
One thing we are all forgetting here, the Dingle Station is owned by a private company (Roscoe's) who have an extensive set up already there and doubt would ever move out unless they were given a pretty penny. Where else would you find a motor garage with all that space??

You may as well write anything off to do with the Dingle Station.

I forgot to reply to this a good few days ago when it was posted.

The curent tenants will not been to be bought out as a new station would have to be built. The existing 'station' would never pass H&S (stupid things like minimum platform widths etc).

It would be a lot more cost effective to build a new cheap station nearby, than to enlarge the tunnel aswell as buying out.

Waterways
03-31-2008, 08:55 PM
I forgot to reply to this a good few days ago when it was posted.

The curent tenants will not been to be bought out as a new station would have to be built. The existing 'station' would never pass H&S (stupid things like minimum platform widths etc).

It would be a lot more cost effective to build a new cheap station nearby, than to enlarge the tunnel aswell as buying out.

Where would the new station be built? Enlarging that station must be the most cost effective way.

robt
03-31-2008, 09:12 PM
Where would the new station be built? Enlarging that station must be the most cost effective way.

No idea where it would be built as I don't know the surroundings well enough to comment, before I do, how far into the tunnel mouth was the station?

Cadfael
03-31-2008, 09:14 PM
No idea where it would be built as I don't know the surroundings well enough to comment, before I do, how far into the tunnel mouth was the station?

http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/l/liverpool_overhead_railway/index3.shtml

Waterways
03-31-2008, 09:23 PM
No idea where it would be built as I don't know the surroundings well enough to comment, before I do, how far into the tunnel mouth was the station?

Map on post No. 20 on this thread. It looks like it can only be underground.

robt
03-31-2008, 09:34 PM
Map on post No. 20 on this thread. It looks like it can only be underground.

It's not very clear though - but very roughly what are we talking - 100 meters or a mile?

petromax
03-31-2008, 10:05 PM
...They will come. Wait.


I, for one, don't doubt it.

Waterways
03-31-2008, 10:19 PM
It's not very clear though - but very roughly what are we talking - 100 meters or a mile?

the street map shows the station.

petromax
03-31-2008, 10:19 PM
It's not very clear though - but very roughly what are we talking - 100 meters or a mile?

It's underground on Park Road about 100m from the old cinema at the junction of Park Road and Dingle Lane. That makes it very roughly 800m into the tunnel. I seem to recall seeing a plan which showed at least a portion of track open to the air at the station.

Waterways
03-31-2008, 10:23 PM
It's underground on Park Road about 100m from the old cinema at the junction of Park Road and Dingle Lane. That makes it very roughly 800m into the tunnel. I seem to recall seeing a plan which showed at least a portion of track open to the air at the station.

The station near next to the cinema at Keddleston St. The station was never open to the air, or any part of the tunnel. 100% underground.

robt
03-31-2008, 10:36 PM
They will come. Wait.

An admission you talk out your arse just to get a reaction? :)


the street map shows the station.

If you know the answer, why not just tell me what I asked instead of telling me look at a map with no scale?


It's underground on Park Road about 100m from the old cinema at the junction of Park Road and Dingle Lane. That makes it very roughly 800m into the tunnel.

Thankyou :)

Waterways
03-31-2008, 11:10 PM
An admission you talk out your arse just to get a reaction?


Martin, you just haven't got it. :) No vision, no engineering acumen.



If you know the answer, why not just tell me what I asked instead of telling me look at a map with no scale?
Thankyou :)

Looking at the map and streets gives an idea - yes the station is a mile long. :)

Ged
06-22-2008, 12:28 PM
From www.steamindex.com

The Liverpool dock railway - early developments. John C. Hughes.111-16.
First published in North Western Society for Industrial Archaeology and History No. 4. History of railway access to Liverpool Docks. Liverpool & Manchester Railway acquired access to King's Dock in 1833, to Brunswick Dock in 1835, to Salthouse Dock in 1843 and to Wapping Warehouse in 1856. The LNWR opened its Waterloo Goods Station in 1849 and in 1857 the railway was extended to the docks. The L&YR high level coal railway opened on 23 December 1852 and provided access to Wellington and Bramley Moore Docks. In September 1858 the LNWR reached Stanley. The Mersey Docks & Harbour Board was formed in 1858. There was a bad relationship between the railway companies and the MD&HB and this was fostered by the railways diverting traffic to their own docks. In the 1890s the rise of Southampton and the opening of the Manchester Ship Canal forced changes. Riverside Station was opened in 1895, but the CLC was not permitted to access it. Steam working was permitted on the dock lines, In 1905 the MD&HB introduced its own locomotives. There were further improvements in WW1. In 1927 Gladstone Dock was opened which gave much better rail access. Illus. of MD&HB locomotives (all 0-4-0ST): No. 22 (Avonside); No. 30 (Kerr Stuart) and No. 41 (ex-Woolwich Arsenal: Avonside/1918).

skgogosfan
10-18-2008, 04:38 AM
That's a useful summary and a handy link-thanks!

Dave.

Waterways
03-26-2009, 12:37 PM
Oritelad on his site:
http://www.oldliverpoolrailways.tk/
says:

This tunnel was apparently to be connected to the Merseyrail northern line back in the 1970s and a short connection was apparently made but they idea was scrapped, also tunnels run off the waterloo tunnel near the site of the old hodson station i heard that where made for run away train sidings, quite a few of the vents for this tunnel are long gone but there is one next to the nation express coach station that is still there today.

Many have been down the Waterloo Tunnel and none have reported any tunnelling work from the 1970s, or any tunnels off the main tunnel of any description.

Otitelad also says:

in 2007 it was decided by Merseyrail they will reopen the tunnel from Liverpool Central and then run through the Waterloo tunnel up to Edge Hill and onto the Canada Dock branch which will be reopened again for a new line for passengers again and all the old stations along that line will open up again this is all to happen by 2021.

I have read nothing that this notion is set in concrete.

The Canada Dock Branch line via Anfield and Kirkdale would form a loop from Moorfields, Edge Hill, Anfield, Kirkdale, Sandhills and back to Moorfields. Maybe a line from Hunts X, South Parkway to Moorfields around the north-end loop and back. It would need to be electrified from Edge Hill to Kirkdale.

Also this would mean a loop from South Parkway to Moorfields, up the Waterloo tunnel to Edge Hill and along the London main line to South Parkway. Again Hunts X could be the terminus.

Ged
03-26-2009, 03:11 PM
Further to this piece re-stated above

''This tunnel was apparently to be connected to the Merseyrail northern line back in the 1970s and a short connection was apparently made but they idea was scrapped, also tunnels run off the waterloo tunnel near the site of the old hodson station i heard that where made for run away train sidings, quite a few of the vents for this tunnel are long gone but there is one next to the nation express coach station that is still there today.''

I think it has been confirmed either on this thread or the Hodson Street thread that there was no Hodson street station and having been down the tunnel myself in the late 1970s there are no new tunnels running of it. However, the Byrom Street cutting does widen out and it's here possibly where tracks/sidings were put for runaway trains that somebody else mentioned.

Waterways
03-26-2009, 03:35 PM
It is pretty certain no full passenger station was ever at Hodson St, however that is beside the point that work started on the Waterloo tunnel to branch into Moorfields. As you have walked it Ged, you confirm no work started. Work did start on the branch from Central into the Wapping Tunnel, with tunnel headers at Central cut a number of feet.

The Northern Line tunnel above the Wapping tunnel at Gt George St was dropped into the top of the Wapping tunnel in the 1970s so the Northern line can gradually decline into Central low level. It looks as if trains can move under the tunnel above if the Wapping tunnel is used to take people to the Kings Dock Arena. The Wapping tunnel can be deepened at this point if headroom is a problem.

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9801&d=1238081712

Consultation Document:
Consulation Document (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/merseyside/merseyside%20rus%20draft%20for%20consultation.pdf)

The problem with Meseyrail extensions is that all they do is play about at the peripherals. Skemersdale is muted and isn't even in Merseyside. 100% focus should be on the city centres of Liverpool and Birkenhead and surrounding inner-city, using the tunnels.

The total lack of assessment in not considering the North End Outer Loop, via West Derby, and the city centre and Birkenhead tunnels shows how useless this organisation is.

What they said:


The possibility of running passenger trains
along the North Mersey and Bootle branches
was examined by the RUS and cannot
yet be recommended. However, future
development and regeneration could lead
to increased demand for such services. Any
such passenger services would need to be
implemented in a way that ensures current and
future freight demand can be accommodated.
There is also a possibility in the longer term
of using other infrastructure, including the
disused Wapping and Waterloo tunnels, to
provide new journey opportunities.

That's all.

SKie
04-01-2009, 04:04 PM
Yeah, its a shame more isnt done about the wapping tunnel. Its obviously still viable as people have been down it only recently and it was in fine condition (and the arena makes it more so).

The only work that was done was the provision of the headers for a flying junction south of Liverpool Central. You can even see some of the grade separation on the three lines running from central in that above image.

Waterways
04-01-2009, 05:37 PM
Yeah, its a shame more isnt done about the wapping tunnel. Its obviously still viable as people have been down it only recently and it was in fine condition (and the arena makes it more so).

The only work that was done was the provision of the headers for a flying junction south of Liverpool Central. You can even see some of the grade separation on the three lines running from central in that above image.

It is desirable to get the Northern Line into the Wapping Tunnel and into Edge Hill, as not doing so keeps the Meseyrail system back. Edge Hill is the core of the Liverpool rail system. Getting direct Merseyrail electrification to Edge Hill means it is easy to expand the Meseyrail system onto the extensive disused Liverpool rail infrastructure. It also means the City Line to St. Helens can be electrified and merged into the Mesreyrail metro system with direct access to Liverpool city centre.

Look at the Canada Dock branch Loop which is being considered for passenger re-use for the Liverpool FC stadium. This looks the most likely to be re-used.

The Canada Dock Branch line is currently a busy freight-only diesel line. The line into Edge Hill junction station would terminate at main line Lime Street using diesel trains.

An interchange would have to be placed in a cutting at Kirkdale to connections to the electrified Merseyrail Northern Line. The line would be limited being only from Kirkdale to Lime Street.

The line could be electrified and branch into the Northern Line at Kirkdale giving full direct access to Liverpool city centre and the south of the city to South Parkway. No connecting station then would need to be built in the cutting at Kirkdale.

If the line is electrified, dual pickup trains, third rail and overhead wires, could be used. The trains could run on the third rail Northern Line and from Kirkdale using overhead wires along the Canada Dock Branch line and into Lime Street. Using the main line Lime Street station is not ideal for a commuter train, as they take up valuable long haul train platforms.

If the 1970's scheme to branch into the Wapping Tunnel from Central station and re-commission the tunnel went ahead, then the Canada Dock branch would have direct access to the city centre, and the Wirral if need be from Edge Hill. A loop is then formed via Edge Hill and Kirkdale giving great flexibility of logical line creation and train routing. Also the Wapping Tunnel can give direct access to the Liverpool Arena at Kings Dock.

However, the most essential aspect is getting this up and running: Circle Line (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/Merseyrail-Extensions.html) , as it will regenerate inner-city areas and give so much bang for buck.

Tell a mandarin in Whitehall that you need to spend millions on getting an old tunnel in operation, when passengers can change at Lime St low level rise to the upper level and get a diesel train (badged Merseyrail on the pseudo City Line) to St. Helens. And the same can happen with the Canada Dock Branch line when terminating at main line Lime St if that goes ahead. Well he is going to shake his head. No bang for buck.

Tell him that:


A Circle Line created by one of the old tunnels, running through three inner-city districts, four if you count Byrom St
Giving ease of expansion of the Merseyrail system out into the disused rail infrastructure from Edge Hill
Creating a Loop via Waterloo Tunnel, Edge Hill, Mossley Hill to South Parkway and back via Brunswick and Central, using dual pickup trains and largely existing overhead wires and 3rd rail.


Then his eyes will light up. "regeneration of inner-city districts". They love that.
Also "cleaner environment" as dirty diesel trains are taken off the tracks.
A new line for minimal cost via Mossely Hill Big bang for buck

SKie
04-03-2009, 02:24 PM
If the LFC Stadium station does go ahead, the line will certainly run from Bootle Oriel Road to Lime Street. The disused platform (and track) at Oriel Road was purposely left intact in the recent station refurb for this.

Though I doubt this would be 3rd rail, much more likely to be OHLE or left for diesel services to run on it. Depends on what Merseyrail do with a new order of trains, Hybrids or Dual Voltage (or ust DC if DaFT want to be ****y)

marky
10-05-2009, 12:31 PM
Newspaper extract Sept. 2nd 1867 c)British Library
Byrom Street Station gets a brief mention.

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee262/south_liverpool/Byrom_Street_Sept2nd1867.jpg

Ged
10-05-2009, 12:39 PM
Good find Marky.

Waterways
10-05-2009, 05:18 PM
Byrom St was a runnaway catch and went to 4 line in width. "Station"? Well Oritelad, and others, has been saying it was a station for rail workers. The wagons were to be unloaded at Byrom St? Well the "station" was in a tunnel cutting. "he was about to remove three wagon loaded with coke from a siding to Byrom-Steet station". The siding appears not to be in Byrom St, but either at Waterloo goods Yard or Edge Hill.

The report is a little vague. The accuracy of newspaper reports was always in question in those days. But a mention to Byrom St station.

Still a nice find.

oritelad
10-06-2009, 02:40 PM
see told you that station was there :) noone believed me :( if only there was more info on it and photos

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s240/oldliverpoolrailways/Hodson/fdfv.jpg

if we look at this photo we can clearly see thanks to all the rubbish since the tunnels closed in the 1970s got cleared resantly that there is space both sides where platforms could of been or maybe even room for a siding i did hear there was a siding here

i also think the station was renamed as i heard it was named hodson street station named after the now closed and blocked road that runs over the cutting

the top left of this photo might of been where the stairs leading down where still i can find no evidence of this :(

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s240/oldliverpoolrailways/Hodson/untitledhodson.jpg

Waterways
10-06-2009, 03:27 PM
see told you that station was there :) noone believed me :( if only there was more info on it and photos

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s240/oldliverpoolrailways/Hodson/fdfv.jpg


Oritelad, is that trees growing "inside" the tunnel?

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s240/oldliverpoolrailways/Hodson/fdfv.jpg

Oritelad, no one doubted that there was station of some kind there. It is just that there is no evidence of it being a passenger station. Why would a passenger station be there and not one at the Waterloo Goods Yard? It doesn't make sense. Also the tracks at Edge Hill coming out of the tunnel do not run towards Edge Hill platforms.

Look at posts 11 and 21 on this thread. It explains the runaway at the cutting and drawings.

Mike Turners Post No. 21:


From a transport plan for the future point of view it makes no odds but from an accurate historical record it is very important.

So far only one person has stated that a station existed here and has not presented any facts to back this up. I am sorry but memories are not good enough. What is required is evidence from primary sources eg plans, maps, minute books, photographs etc. So far these all point to no station at this site.

Further to my previous posting re the actual reason for the wide cutting at Hodson Street here is the gradient diagram for the line taken from a BR signalling plan.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3215/waterloogradientcharthl8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

And here is an extract from the same plan showing the catch points intended to derail trains running away on the steep gradients.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/268/hodsonstreetcuttingvc0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Edge Hill (Waterloo Tunnel Mouth) is to the left and Waterloo Goods to the right. The signal is Waterloo Goods Distant shown at 975 yards from the signal box and the concentric circles on posts numbered 32 and 36 are gongs (bells) worked from the signal box to give instructions to shunting trains. The run-off from the bottom line is shown with a sand drag and because it's between the running lines they must be set at a wider interval and therefore the cutting is wider.

Regards

Mike Turner

Ged
10-06-2009, 03:43 PM
see told you that station was there :) no one believed me :( if only there was more info on it and photos


There is still no evidence that a station was there. Where would the access be, those sheer walls that are there now are the same from when it was built, there is no evidence of a platform or stairway though it has been reasoned it was a catching area for runaway trains with sidings, hence it's width at that point. The idea of the terminus being at Waterloo docks and Edge Hill was for cargo not passengers.

Waterways
10-06-2009, 04:54 PM
At Byrom St, how long is the wide cutting of 4 tracks wide?

mikewturner
10-06-2009, 08:48 PM
see told you that station was there :) noone believed me :( if only there was more info on it and photos

snipped



Sorry still don't believe you. The newspaper cutting is a nice snippet but proves nothing on it's own. As others have said reports of this period are often quite inaccurate. I will however check the associated accident report on my next vist to the archives at the NRM.

You may or may not be aware that before a new railway can be brought in to use or an existing line converted from goods to passenger it needs to be inspected. This was undertaken by the board of trade which was a forerunner to todays railway inspectorate. The BoT reports are available at the PRO Kew under classification MT6.

MT6/713/17 dated 1895 refers to the report on the inspection of the goods lines from Edge Hill to Waterloo Goods Station being approved for the use of passenger trains. I have a copy in front of me as I type. No mention is made of any passenger stations other than Edge Hill and Riverside. No passenger trains would have been allowed on the line prior to approval being given and this requirement dates from the early days of the railways. The first letter in the file dated April 29th 1895 from the LNWR to the BoT states

"I am directed to give notice to the board of trade required by the act 5&6 victoria cap 55 of the intention of the LNWR co. to open for the public conveyance of passengers the lines between Edge Hill and Waterloo Liverpool...."

You have in the past stated that little evidence exists of Hodson Street station which implies some does. Please furnish said information to support your claims.

Regards

Mike Turner

Ged
10-07-2009, 09:45 AM
oritelad, I have to applaud your interest in the railways and wish you luck in your endeavours as there are never too many people being interested in all of the city's large heritage and history but you realise we have to have facts so I too welcome Mike Turner's knowledge and expertise in this field and look forward to hearing of any finds he makes on this 'station' - or not.

Waterways
10-07-2009, 10:32 AM
An inspection of the brickwork in the walls that surround the cutting may give an indication if there was ever an entrance to stairs leading down to the cutting for rail workers. There is a brick hut there - signals?. Did the men who used the hut walk up the tunnel from Waterloo or drop down stairs from Hodson St?

The cutting is wide and entailed men being there on a regular, if not daily basis.

I would love it to become a full passenger station

ChrisO
10-07-2009, 11:43 AM
Just had a mooch around on the way back home from town-didn't have the camera-but it doesn't look, to my eye, as if there is any different coloured brickwork, mortar, repointing, or anything to suggest there was an entrance at street level. I'm in no fit state to climb the wall to look into the cutting to look for any signs.

Ged
10-07-2009, 01:51 PM
I've been down there looking up and looked over the wall too though there was vegetation growing out of it and all around back then.

oritelad
10-07-2009, 08:16 PM
i spent a lot of time on this tunnel finding out what i can an it is ture there is hardly any information on this hodson/byrom street station or images but from what i have learnt an seen there was a station there but maybe not for passangers even though i know people that have used it.

also it looks as if the cutting walls have been replaced so maybe the old entrance has long gone

no haha that is not trees in the tunnel that is the old closed hodson street bridge in the photo, yes it would be great to see a station here i would use it for one :) but look how long merseyrail spent on just upgrading sandhills station think we will have a long wait haha

mikewturner
10-07-2009, 09:08 PM
i spent a lot of time on this tunnel finding out what i can an it is ture there is hardly any information on this hodson/byrom street station or images but from what i have learnt an seen there was a station there but maybe not for passangers even though i know people that have used it.

also it looks as if the cutting walls have been replaced so maybe the old entrance has long gone

no haha that is not trees in the tunnel that is the old closed hodson street bridge in the photo, yes it would be great to see a station here i would use it for one :) but look how long merseyrail spent on just upgrading sandhills station think we will have a long wait haha

Hi Oritelad

Yet again you say hardly any info which implies there is some. Please let us know what that info is!

I will be the first to hold my hand up and congratulate you on finding a long forgotten station but for now all evidence points to it not having existed.

The extract from the MT6 report I posted last night also blows holes in the idea of low level platforms at great howard street. It was impossible for passenger trains to run without the consent of the BoT and the LNWR did not request this until 1895.

Regards

Mike Turner

Waterways
10-07-2009, 10:07 PM
Hi Oritelad

Yet again you say hardly any info which implies there is some. Please let us know what that info is!

I will be the first to hold my hand up and congratulate you on finding a long forgotten station but for now all evidence points to it not having existed.

The extract from the MT6 report I posted last night also blows holes in the idea of low level platforms at great howard street. It was impossible for passenger trains to run without the consent of the BoT and the LNWR did not request this until 1895.

Regards

Mike Turner

Mike, the point is "passenger" station. No one disputes that passengers did not use the cutting. The press report does state Byrom Street Station. The report was jumbled in it explanation of the events of the fatality, but the term "Byrom Street station" I'm pretty certain the reporter did not make up. It must have been a stop of some sort. It was a stop of some sort for occasional, or maybe daily, use. How did men get to the cutting? A hut is there. So it was a stop of some sort, as men were there. Did they hitch a ride on a train running through the tunnel? For safety reasons, I doubt they walked through an active dark tunnel to get to the cutting/station.

HollyBlack
10-08-2009, 03:31 AM
What I found significant in the newspaper report is that three "waggons" of coke were to be unloaded there.

So for what purpose was this coke? Three waggons would presumably be perhaps 15 tons or 300 cwt bagfuls - enough to heat a smallish house (or hut or waiting room or perhaps more likely a signal box?) for an entire Winter easily.

Coke was not used to fuel steam locos, at least I don't think it was.

Waterways
10-08-2009, 10:20 AM
What I found significant in the newspaper report is that three "waggons" of coke were to be unloaded there.

So for what purpose was this coke? Three waggons would presumably be perhaps 15 tons or 300 cwt bagfuls - enough to heat a smallish house (or hut or waiting room or perhaps more likely a signal box?) for an entire Winter easily.

Coke was not used to fuel steam locos, at least I don't think it was.

Holly, good point. I was mentally questioning whether the coke was for Byrom St. It is a fair sized cutting now it is cleared it is easy to see.

I always wondered why it was never used for passengers, as the location was ideal. I concluded because it was to be used primarily as a runaway, so no full station was ever built. These days, well from the 1890s onwards, having a station there is no problem.

marky
10-08-2009, 10:34 AM
The article was from the Liverpool Mercury Sept. 2nd 1867. The nearest dated map I have is the 1864 Liverpool (Vauxhall) Reprint c)Alan Godfrey edition. Surveyed in 1848 and updated in 1864 to include new railways. The original large scale map may show more detail of the area, just 1 year before the line opened.
I presume the labels 'L' are lamps. There must be a reason for having a row down one side of the cutting. A Water Tank is shown very close to the cutting, any reason?

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee262/south_liverpool/Waterloo_Tunnel_Byrom_St_1864.jpg

Ged
10-08-2009, 10:41 AM
Great map Marky.

Is the water tank that hut pictured earlier?

Was the deceased unloading the coke from the trains (there was a lot of industry around there) or unloading the trains from the engine to be removed by another engine - unclear in the article.

gregs dad
10-08-2009, 11:00 AM
Was the water tank for steam engines ?

marky
10-08-2009, 11:29 AM
I read the article thus...that the driver was killed preparing to take loaded coke wagons 'TO' Byrom Street from a siding elsewhere (un-named). But the wording of the article is a bit unclear. Looks to me that he was killed during coupling-up the wagons to the engine. There's bound to be a fuller report, somewhere, for this accident.
The previous night he was engaged "REMOVING loaded wagons from Byrom Street"
This suggests to me that the cutting was being used as some sort of pick-up/drop-off point, but I know nothing about the inner workings of railways.

Waterways
10-08-2009, 12:01 PM
Nice one Marky. Edge Hill is to the right, Waterloo Goods Stn to the left. It looks like a full siding to me, not a runaway - well not from Edge it is not.

Cable haulage continued through the Waterloo Tunnel until 1895 when it went over to locomotive haulage and the line was extended to a new passenger station, Riverside, near the pier head, The Wapping Tunnel went over to locomotive haulage the following year.
About the tunnels (http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:lwonARJXXWMJ:www.hows.org.uk/personal/rail/incline/lls.htm+%22waterloo+tunnel%22+engine+windings&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

If a train is hurtling down from Edge Hill, there is no way it can move into any sand trap. Looking at Mike Turner's drawing. The cutting is near the bottom of the incline in the tunnel. The tunnel drops from both ends. Any train running away will hit bottom and then run upwards and slow down, then run backwards down to Byrom St. Probably the reason the cutting was there, to retrieve any runaways. For this to occur the ropes would need to be detached in some manner and the brakes or operator disabled. The Wapping tunnel had brake vans put on some trains right up until the 1950/60s. I am not sure if brake vans were hitched from the start at Waterloo Tunnel.

As the tunnel ran down from both portals there must have been winding engine at both ends. The Cutting may have been the hitch up point. Roll down from any end, hitch up and get pulled up.

Look at the sidings, only big enough for one wagon on one. I assume this was to attach/detach brake vans to trains.

I am no expert in rail working either, but common sense indicates that this siding was well used and had something to do with the rope winding mechanisms.

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/3215/waterloogradientcharthl8.jpg

The cutting is clearly a well used siding, that was used every day.

I doubt there was a platform there, but men had to access this siding and it would be feasible that a wooden staircase came down from the top at Hodson St. Oriteland's assertions are getting meatier.

The water tank? Maybe for the men to use for drinking/washing. No locos used the tunnel at this time, so no need for water for locos or fuel for locos. The tank looks like it is at ground level outside of the cutting. Water ran down into the cutting.

What about drains? Rain entered the cutting and it was near the bottom of dip in the tunnel. Hand pumps to take water out?

Ged
10-08-2009, 12:14 PM
There was a small metal doorway and door cut into the city centre side of the wall surrounding the cutting - only about 4 feet tall, we used to laugh at it thinking was it for midgets or something, might be a pic of it somewhere. I'll look.

Waterways
10-08-2009, 12:17 PM
Was the cutting used as a sand trap runaway after cable haulage was ceased and locos were used? After 1895, the function of the cutting would have changed.

Ged
10-08-2009, 12:17 PM
You can see the small door and in fact a new piece of wall on the 3rd pic on post No. 34 on this thread.

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6278&highlight=hodson+street&page=4




.

Waterways
10-08-2009, 12:26 PM
Ged, I can't actually see where you mean. But there is side tunnels in the cutting, which means they were used for storage, men, etc.

vic synex
10-08-2009, 12:30 PM
I've spoken to an old hand Railwayman about the possibility of a station at Byrom street.
He seems to remember as a boy, the sidings in the cutting were used to stable an engine to bank (push from the back of the train) loaded trains up the inclines either end of the cutting. He said the brick hut was a cabin for the train crews to use inbetween banking duties and the water tower was a watering point for the steam engines that used it.

Still nothing definite but a bit more food for thought?

Waterways
10-08-2009, 12:52 PM
I've spoken to an old hand Railwayman about the possibility of a station at Byrom street.
He seems to remember as a boy, the sidings in the cutting were used to stable an engine to bank (push from the back of the train) loaded trains up the inclines either end of the cutting. He said the brick hut was a cabin for the train crews to use in between banking duties and the water tower was a watering point for the steam engines that used it.

Still nothing definite but a bit more food for thought?

That sounds sensible, after 1895. However the water tank pre 1895 when cable was being used was clearly not for locos. A lager tank may have been fitted after 1895. The side tunnel may have been to house a cable haulage engine. If so, then the tank may have been for the steam engine.

Snappel walked that tunnel and took pictures. I can't find them.

Ged
10-08-2009, 01:09 PM
Ged, I can't actually see where you mean. But there is side tunnels in the cutting, which means they were used for storage, men, etc.

Look at the 3rd pic on post 34 of the other thread ive linked.

Just below the bus and to the right, a small rusted metal door. Go right along to the right and there's brand new brickwork - this wall in part is now the end walls of the back gardens of the houses built there.

Waterways
10-08-2009, 02:08 PM
Well spotted Ged. Clearly a door of some sort.

mikewturner
10-08-2009, 08:22 PM
Mike, the point is "passenger" station. No one disputes that passengers did not use the cutting. The press report does state Byrom Street Station. The report was jumbled in it explanation of the events of the fatality, but the term "Byrom Street station" I'm pretty certain the reporter did not make up. It must have been a stop of some sort. It was a stop of some sort for occasional, or maybe daily, use. How did men get to the cutting? A hut is there. So it was a stop of some sort, as men were there. Did they hitch a ride on a train running through the tunnel? For safety reasons, I doubt they walked through an active dark tunnel to get to the cutting/station.

Hi Waterways

I agree completely the point is 'passenger' station. Problem is people are still implying it was regularly used as a stop off point yourself included. Dropping off say a signalman at his point of duty does not class that place as a station.

You are quite right that the report is very clear in its use of the term Byrom Street Station but for the sake of accuracy we should try our best to qualify this as goods station, loco station or whatever it turns out to be.

Regards

Mike

mikewturner
10-08-2009, 08:24 PM
The article was from the Liverpool Mercury Sept. 2nd 1867. The nearest dated map I have is the 1864 Liverpool (Vauxhall) Reprint c)Alan Godfrey edition. Surveyed in 1848 and updated in 1864 to include new railways. The original large scale map may show more detail of the area, just 1 year before the line opened.
I presume the labels 'L' are lamps. There must be a reason for having a row down one side of the cutting. A Water Tank is shown very close to the cutting, any reason?

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee262/south_liverpool/Waterloo_Tunnel_Byrom_St_1864.jpg

Excellent find Marky. The two sidings are also shown on the 1890 edition 1/500 map held in Liverpool Record Office but by then the watertank appears to have gone. The L's do indeed denote lamps.
The interesting thing to note are the line from the watertank and the rectangle in the track. Could denote a water crane and pit??
Regards

Mike

mikewturner
10-08-2009, 08:27 PM
Great map Marky.

Is the water tank that hut pictured earlier?

Was the deceased unloading the coke from the trains (there was a lot of industry around there) or unloading the trains from the engine to be removed by another engine - unclear in the article.

Hi Ged

The hut appears to be of standard LMS/BR design so post dates the water tank by many years.

Regards

Mike

mikewturner
10-08-2009, 08:45 PM
Hi Guys

There has been some very useful and interesting views posted here following the find of the article in the Liverpool Mercury.

So if I may be so bold to summarise the evidence we have so far...

The 1864 and 1890 maps both show sidings here
The 1864 map also shows a water tank and implies an installation between the rails
The cutting is at the foot of two inclines
The articles mentions Byrom Street station and states that a locomotive was moving wagons to and from the station (but we believe engines did not work the tunnel till 1895?)
Passenger services did not start until 1895 with no intermediate passenger stations on the line
In later years we have a plan that shows runaway catch points
We have what appears to be a very small access door of some sort - too small for frequent use??

To add to the above it can be shown that there was an engine house at Waterloo Bank Head (Edge Hill) associated with the rope. I have not seen mention of one at waterloo end? Illogical though it might seem was their another engine at Byrom Street at the foot of the incline???? Coke+water=steam???? This is pure conjecture and I am even doubtfull myself! Did the rope from Edge Hill end here and was the section on to the docks worked by locomotive?

By the way in an earlier message someone mentioned they didn't think coke was used for steam engines. Actually in the earlier years it was and you often read reports of coking plants for the loco's.

To me the way forward is as follows

We check other contemporary newspapers for further info
We check the accident reports which are available in the NRM and are published in the parliamentary papers (Liverpool Central Library hold a set on micro cards but they are an absolute b###er to read!)
Joseph Hesketh's death certificate may hold further clues but its a long shot - from a quick check on Ancestry.co.uk he appears to have been born in Manchester
What we don't do is imply fact when it is only conjecture

Regards

Mike

HollyBlack
10-08-2009, 11:11 PM
... The interesting thing to note are the line from the watertank and the rectangle in the track. Could denote a water crane ...
Almost certainly I would think.

If cable haulage was used in the Waterloo tunnel but not in the Victoria tunnel it makes perfect sense to keep a little "shunting" engine at the bottom (and to provide for watering it) after hauling a down (Westbound) train and waiting for one going the other way (presumably with empties since the port was used more for export than import).
A cable-hauled up train would "bring" a cable that could be attached to a down train. One reason to station men there, to attach cables (darned dangerous job with the technology of the day I would think). Just think of how much energy is stored up in half a mile of stretched cable should it break loose!

However, sometimes there would be two trains in one direction consecutively, and when that happened there would be a need to run a light engine through the Waterloo tunnel just to carry the cable. It has to be an engine so it can travel without any cable attached and can also move itself out of the way onto the siding.

Of course, sometimes there could be enough traffic to use both Waterloo tunnel lines simultaneously and different working again is needed. I'm not sure quite how that would work, with need for loco runaround etc..

Once you keep a little engine at the bottom you need to keep workers there and to feed and water it. Coke could be used because it was cheap and the engine isn't going to go anywhere in which range on a single load of fuel has any importance.

So I think we can be reasonably sure there were a number of workers at the bottom. But there's still no evidence there was ever any passenger service. In fact it probably would have got in the way of efficient goods working.

Waterways
10-08-2009, 11:45 PM
Illogical though it might seem was their another engine at Byrom Street at the foot of the incline???? Coke+water=steam???? This is pure conjecture and I am even doubtfull myself!

There is a large side tunnel at the cutting.

Coke,
water,
cutting at the bottom of two inclines,
Side tunnel in the cutting


Could mean a steam winding-engine in the side tunnel, as was the case at Edge Hill Cuttings at the Wapping Tunnel head.

The more I look at it the more I am swayed that way.

BTW, the approx size of the water tank can be assessed by the scale of the map.

ChrisO
10-09-2009, 09:08 PM
I don't know if this will work.
The link below is a shot taken in 2009 from approximately where the letter 'W' of 'Water Tank' is on Marky's map. the shot is from the Google street map wotsit

Link: <http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.411928,-2.983711&spn=0,359.99717&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.412015,-2.983716&panoid=oJ09QsQTXRkk7T1Y5WBYUA&cbp=12,83.44,,0,3.15>

Waterways
10-10-2009, 10:12 AM
The cutting.

http://i37.tinypic.com/2ez3hht.jpg

Waterways
10-10-2009, 01:11 PM
The cutting: The tunnel to Edge Hill can be seen. The side tunnel to the bottom right (unseen) in the cutting, above is the water tank location - in someone's side garden now. To me this is where a winding-engine may have been located. The bridge is what is left of Hodson St.

http://i36.tinypic.com/ilg469.jpg

mikewturner
10-11-2009, 02:58 PM
Hi Guys

I have found a reference to an accident report dated 10/07/1872 for Liverpool Byrom Street. Whilst this is highly unlikely to be the Joseph Hesketh event due to the date it may well give details of the installation at this place. They often do..... NRM library here I come.

Mike

vic synex
10-11-2009, 06:59 PM
There's also an accident listed on the Railways Archive for 4 July 1899 involving a runaway train, not much info I'm afraid.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=6130

mikewturner
10-11-2009, 08:12 PM
There's also an accident listed on the Railways Archive for 4 July 1899 involving a runaway train, not much info I'm afraid.

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/eventsummary.php?eventID=6130

Hi

I have a copy of that accident report.... It was a runaway caused by a broken coupling between the 7th and 8th wagon of a train of 23 loaded wagons and a brake van. The train was travelling up the incline from Waterloo to Edge Hill and the runaway rear portion was derailed on the catch points at Byrom Street and unfortunately 2 of the 3 men travelling in the van were killed. The third was trapped under the debris for 2 hours before being released and suffered a broken arm and other injuries.

A train of empty wagons coming down the incline from Edge Hill ran in to the derailed train and 2 or 3 wagons also became derailed.

The report mentions the fact that the catch points had been installed in 1895 and that locomotives regularly worked trains through the tunnel from the autumn of 1894.

Regards

Mike

Ged
10-11-2009, 11:25 PM
Some pics from today.


This is the new outer skin wall, the original inner wall still exists as seen later.

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/4291/waterloocuttingdoorway.jpg (http://img91.imageshack.us/i/waterloocuttingdoorway.jpg/)


http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1769/waterloocutting3111009.jpg (http://img23.imageshack.us/i/waterloocutting3111009.jpg/)




http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/931/waterloocutting111009.jpg (http://img14.imageshack.us/i/waterloocutting111009.jpg/)



http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/7284/waterloocutting2111009.jpg (http://img91.imageshack.us/i/waterloocutting2111009.jpg/)


.

Waterways
10-12-2009, 12:07 AM
Something tells me they have kept the part of the cutting near Byrom St free of development in case a station is built. The RUS mentioned that the lines from Kirkdale to Canada Dock (the original run through the short tunnel) should be kept of any development in case it is needed to run another line into the docks.

Waterways
10-12-2009, 11:21 AM
From Oritelad's site. Looking towards Byrom St. The side tunnel to the right is under the water tank. This to me may have been an engine-winding location, to pull the trains by ropes from the cutting to Waterloo Goods Stn.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s240/oldliverpoolrailways/Hodson/lookingtowardsedgehillcopyrightphil.jpg

This side tunnel marked, approx' position in red, may have been the winding engine for the trains from the cutting to Waterloo. Or a storage area/area for men, etc. If a winding engine, it would have been redundant in 1895. But a small hut was built under Hodson St bridge later (in green). Why build a hut near tracks when it could be in the safety of the side tunnel? Runaway trains could demolish it.

http://i35.tinypic.com/13zo6tu.jpg

What was built at ground level on the top of the side tunnel besides the water tank? It looks like open land. If a steam engine was in the side tunnel, then a smoke stack of some sort would be there. None appears to be indicated on the map, which does not mean it was not there. Cartographers are known to omit detail and make mistakes. What property did the railway company own around the cutting?

Waterways
10-12-2009, 04:00 PM
1885 map. Not even the cutting is shown:

http://i35.tinypic.com/2u8jy9i.jpg

vic synex
10-12-2009, 06:46 PM
The hut pictured in the cutting is a later addition, it's a typical British Railways type structure, I'd date it mid 50's to mid 60's. Apart from being a cabin for Train Crews it could simply have been a mess room for the Permanent-Way gangs who patrolled the line.

One thing that does intrigue me is the placing of a winding engine at the foot of two downward inclines, what's the point? The engine would surely be better placed at the Edge Hill end of the tunnel? The gradient towards Waterloo Goods is not as severe so did it need one at all?

mikewturner
10-12-2009, 08:32 PM
Hi

When I first mentioned the possibility of a stationary engine at this place I did say it was pure conjecture and that I was doubtfull myself. To be honest I just don't believe they would build one in such an awkward place especially when the other end of the tunnel at Waterloo is an open space. Also all the other engines in the area are at the top of the incline ie Edge Hill Waterloo Bank Head, Wapping Bank Head and Edge Hill Station for Lime Street.

Looking at the photos of the cutout it appears to me that the base of this is well above track level - might be how I'm reading the photos??

Regards

Mike

vic synex
10-12-2009, 10:28 PM
Another map I found on this wonderful interweb thing, shows the cutting between the two tunnels but no mention of any station or anything.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v619/e28m5/Liverpool-Railway-Map.jpg

HollyBlack
10-13-2009, 01:05 AM
Hi
When I first mentioned the possibility of a stationary engine at this place I did say it was pure conjecture and that I was doubtfull myself. To be honest I just don't believe they would build one in such an awkward place especially when the other end of the tunnel at Waterloo is an open space. ...
I know there is mention somewhere of the Waterloo tunnel being rope hauled until 1895 or so.

But it seems that there has always been confusion between the Waterloo tunnel and the Victoria tunnel. Perhaps VR was none too popular with the scouse lads who preferred to avoid using the word and referred to the tunnels as one.

Anyway, is it not a possibility that rope haulage was used for the run to Edge Hill but from the bottom of the cutting to Waterloo docks was loco hauled even from earlier times given the gentler gradient. In that case a shunter would be stationed at the bottom of the incline which seems to fit the track layout fairly well. And perhaps the side tunnel was merely a fuel (coke) bunker - it seems vaguely the right size to hold three "waggons" of coke as were to be delivered there according to the newspaper report.

Waterways
10-13-2009, 10:09 AM
I know there is mention somewhere of the Waterloo tunnel being rope hauled until 1895 or so.

But it seems that there has always been confusion between the Waterloo tunnel and the Victoria tunnel. Perhaps VR was none too popular with the scouse lads who preferred to avoid using the word and referred to the tunnels as one.

Anyway, is it not a possibility that rope haulage was used for the run to Edge Hill but from the bottom of the cutting to Waterloo docks was loco hauled even from earlier times given the gentler gradient. In that case a shunter would be stationed at the bottom of the incline which seems to fit the track layout fairly well. And perhaps the side tunnel was merely a fuel (coke) bunker - it seems vaguely the right size to hold three "waggons" of coke as were to be delivered there according to the newspaper report.

That seems feasible. By 1846 when the tunnel opened locos were more powerful than 1829 when Wapping tunnels was opened. And the shorter Waterloo tunnel and shallower rake of would mean a shunter could take the trains from the cutting. The cutting is not actually at the lowest point of the two tunnels. The lowest point is further east towards Edge Hill. Any train unhitched from the rope naturally rolls back to Edge Hill giving a shunter loco driver light in the cutting to hitch up the train.

The much shorter tunnel is the Waterloo tunnel. I would think the term Waterloo Tunnel for both, as in effect they are all one tunnel, may have been because of the Waterloo Goods Depot. It would be natural to call the tunnel all one name.

From Oritelad's web site. The inside of the side tunnel does look rather black - maybe from coke storage. I think coke would have been used on any tunnel loco as it gives off less smoke than coal.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2yvjk42.jpg

HollyBlack
10-13-2009, 04:10 PM
... From Oritelad's web site. The inside of the side tunnel does look rather black - maybe from coke storage. I think coke would have been used on any tunnel loco as it gives off less smoke than coal.

Yes that photo looks blackened and exactly like what you would build as a coke bunker. To the side of, rather than directly beneath, the water tower is where you could water and shovel fuel into a loco both at the same time and the sidings layout fits.
So we can imagine a gang or perhaps four men in Victorian times, tending to an 0-4-0 loco, hitching and unhitching waggons to the rope haulage. And from the newspaper report they improvised a bit on moving wagons, especially in the sidings. We might speculate that the lethal pusher-prop was used to move the three waggons together to the bunker instead of one at a time over many hours using the loco each time.

Would the fatal coke be coming from Edge Hill or from the docks?

Ged
10-13-2009, 04:24 PM
That tunnel can't be the waterloo tunnel, the arch isn't wide enough.

Waterways
10-13-2009, 05:17 PM
That tunnel can't be the waterloo tunnel, the arch isn't wide enough.

I thought that and looked at other pictures and it doesn't look like the ones in the photos. But, is there two side tunnels? The tree in front gives the impression it is in the cutting.

ChrisO
10-14-2009, 09:05 AM
Page 31 of Gordon Suggits book 'Lost Railways of Merseyside & Greater Manchester' mentions that Waterloo Tunnel was worked by a stationary engine (but doesn't mention the location). There is also no mention of any stations at Hodson/Fontenoy St.

Waterways
10-14-2009, 09:49 AM
Page 31 of Gordon Suggits book 'Lost Railways of Merseyside & Greater Manchester' mentions that Waterloo Tunnel was worked by a stationary engine (but doesn't mention the location). There is also no mention of any stations at Hodson/Fontenoy St.

The winding-engine for the Victoria Tunnel (from Byrom St to Edge Hil) was at Edge Hill. I think the buildings are still there - well those that pulled the trains up from Lime St are and the two tunnels are next to each other.

Byrom St Cutting was a place essential in the transit of trains through the two tunnels - well one tunnel with two names.

mikewturner
10-14-2009, 08:02 PM
The winding-engine for the Victoria Tunnel (from Byrom St to Edge Hil) was at Edge Hill. I think the buildings are still there - well those that pulled the trains up from Lime St are and the two tunnels are next to each other.

Byrom St Cutting was a place essential in the transit of trains through the two tunnels - well one tunnel with two names.

The winding engine for the Victoria Tunnel was definately at Edge Hill.

An article appeared in The Railway Magazine May-June 1942 on Cable Operation at Liverpool and London. This says that the Waterloo Tunnel was worked by locos to Byrom St. and the Victoria Tunnel to Edge Hill by rope until 16/02/1895 when the rope broke and was not repaired. (Thanks to Dave Pennington for the info).

I am certain we are looking at loco fueling and watering installation.

Regards

Mike

Waterways
10-14-2009, 08:30 PM
The winding engine for the Victoria Tunnel was definately at Edge Hill.

An article appeared in The Railway Magazine May-June 1942 on Cable Operation at Liverpool and London. This says that the Waterloo Tunnel was worked by locos to Byrom St. and the Victoria Tunnel to Edge Hill by rope until 16/02/1895 when the rope broke and was not repaired. (Thanks to Dave Pennington for the info).

I am certain we are looking at loco fueling and watering installation.


.....and a cable hitching and unhitching point. Mike, it all fits. The water tank over the side tunnel, which would be for coke storage. Watering and fuelling all at one point.

It is inconceivable that there would not be direct access from the top of the cutting, as the bricked up door indicates.