MERSEYRAIL PROTEST FOR NEW LINES!!

[oritelad]

COME ON GUYS ITS ABOUT TIME WE ALL GOT TOGETHER INSTED OF TALKING ABOUT IT AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
SINCE MERSEYRAIL TOOK OVER ALL THEY DID WAS CLOSE LINES AND IN NEARLY 40 YEARS NO NEW LINES HAVE OPENED EVEN THOUGH THE TUNNELS AND TRACKBEDAS ARE STILL THERE?
THEY WASTE MONEY ON DAFT THINGS LIKE SPENDIMG MILLIONS ON UPGRADED STATIONS SUCH AS BOOTLE ORREIL ROAD COME ON WAS THAT REALLY NEEDED ITS HARDLY USED AND IT COULD EVEN CLOSE DOWN AS BOOTLE NEW STRAND STATION IS SO NEAR AND ALL THEM MILLIONS SPENT ON JUST PLANNING FOR THE DAFT MERSEYTRAMS! LIVERPOOL USED TO HAVE TRAMS AND THEY GOT RID! SO WHY BRING THEM BACK!
WE NEED THE CITY CENTER TO HAVE MORE STATIONS BY USING THE OLD WATERLOO AND WAPPING TUNNELS THAT RUN UNDER THE CITY ALSO THE CANADA DOCK BRANCH REOPENED TO PASSANGERS AND EVEN THE NEW CITY LOOP THAT WAS BEEN DISCUSED BY MEMEBERS ON THIS SITE.

SO WHO AGREES WITH ME SHALL WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? I AM SURE THE PEOPLE OF LIVERPOOL WOULD BACK US UP AND SIGN A PENTITION SO MERSEYRAIL WILL HAVE TO LISTEN THIS TIME

[robt]

How exactly would a protest or petition help?

[Waterways]

You have to look at the plan for the city and where the city is expending/growing. In an ideal world the transport will follow the districts and cater for the population and give rapid access to anywhere.

But!!! There is disused rail infrastructure in abundance in Liverpool, and much of it runs through where districts are and are to expand. So not much of a problem there relating to disused infrastructure and the districts served - I am not going into new tram lines and the likes only disused infrastructure.

Then it is a matter of merging the disused infrastructure to Merseyrail in the areas that matter most to the city's expansion and regeneration - it must add value. In short the centre and immediate inner city districts are priority - bringing in outer loops before this add little value to the city as a whole.

Then there is the transport policy as whole. No use implementing a rail line and station if new fast roads are to be run through districts - people will not give up their cars unless near forced as is happening in London. The emphasis should be on rail, not cars - unfortunately cars still is far too great a priority. The centre must be congestion charged, predestrianised, the Dock Rd eliminated running through the centres (an urban motorway splitting the dock waterways from the city).

A coherent case then has to be submitted taking all this into account. The case for re-using the tunnels is quite easy though.

[SKie]

Merseyrail never closed down any lines, that was all the good Doctor Beeching. Merseyrail was created when the loop + link was constructed.

Though I do agree that new lines would be nice, I think they should concentrate on areas that arent served by rail currently but can be done on the 'cheap'. Re-open the bootle branch and north mersey branch, as they both pass through densely populated areas and still have tracks/links to the current lines. Then if they prove to be a success, go ahead with a bigger scheme like the re-opening of the disused tunnels (as you have a larger ridership now to help justify the expense)

[Waterways]

Merseyrail never closed down any lines, that was all the good Doctor Beeching. Merseyrail was created when the loop + link was constructed.


They closed the odd one . The Gatacre Line in the early 1970s?



Though I do agree that new lines would be nice, I think they should concentrate on areas that arent served by rail currently but can be done on the 'cheap'. Re-open the bootle branch and north mersey branch, as they both pass through densely populated areas and still have tracks/links to the current lines. Then if they prove to be a success, go ahead with a bigger scheme like the re-opening of the disused tunnels (as you have a larger ridership now to help justify the expense)

If a scheme was put in place to open up these lines and tunnels, it would coincide somewhat to the re-population of the centre. Then car dissuasion, anti-pollution measures (like London have done) have to be in place: congestion charging in the city centre, removal of the urban motorway, the Dock Rd, as it passes through the city centre, stop excessive car park allocation in new blocks, etc. Then people would use the new rapid transport system.

People will not give up cars voluntarilly, they have to be forced out of them. I have relatives who live 5 minutes walk from Spital station. They can get to Liverpool centre in stress free minutes. Each time they go they take the car through the tunnel and pay car parking. That is typical. The recent programme on trying to get people to stop using their cars only for one day in Boston, Lincolnshire showed the mentality of people and their cars - I have paid for it so I will stay in it. They will not pay for public transport when they have paid road tax. People would sit in jams for 45 mins to an hour each day rather than walk which would take them 15 minutes.

[Ged]

I have asked Roger Phillips to keep me informed of when he will next be having the Mersey travel spokesman on his show to answer questions. Perhaps those interested can then put their suggestions to him on air.

[Waterways]

I have asked Roger Phillips to keep me informed of when he will next be having the Mersey travel spokesman on his show to answer questions. Perhaps those interested can then put their suggestions to him on air.

Another thing about the city centre traffic, is that the Birkenhead tunnel pours out cars right into the centre - much of this does not visit the centre using the centre as a thoroughfare. That has to stop. The tunnel entrance should be diverted away from the current portal and into Scotland Rd. While work is ongoing re-boring the small diverted section, the Dock entrance at the Pier Head can be used. The current entrance can be used for emergency vehicle access, emergency vehicle parking.

[Ged]

I agree that there should only be a left turn into Dale st and Scotland Road (I think you need 2 outlets) but not the one into St. Johns lane or Whitechapel but they have now done something about the St. Johns lane outlet by banning cars from it - at Whitechapel cars have to turn right up Crosshall St.

My masterplan submitted to the council a year or two ago (and supposedly entered into a prize draw though I knew nothing about such a scheme) had a large chunk of the city centre pedestrianised - it's mayhem there - always has been.

[Waterways]

I agree that there should only be a left turn into Dale st and Scotland Road (I think you need 2 outlets) but not the one into St. Johns lane or Whitechapel but they have now done something about the St. Johns lane outlet by banning cars from it - at Whitechapel cars have to turn right up Crosshall St.

My masterplan submitted to the council a year or two ago (and supposedly entered into a prize draw though I knew nothing about such a scheme) had a large chunk of the city centre pedestrianised - it's mayhem there - always has been.

Exactly. Re-boring the tunnel exit/entrance so it emerges in Scotland Rd only is the best way. Keep that traffic away from the centre. Get people living, shopping and having fun in the centre and through cars out.

The tunnel was designed in the 1920s and no longer fits the city's needs today - in fact it is a nuisance. . That Wallasey tunnel was a joke. A high road/rail Golden Gate type of bridge from New Brighton to Bootle should have been built.

[Cadfael]

Exactly. Re-boring the tunnel exit/entrance so it emerges in Scotland Rd only is the best way. Keep that traffic away from the centre. Get people living, shopping and having fun in the centre and through cars out.

The tunnel was designed in the 1920s and no longer fits the city's needs today - in fact it is a nuisance. . That Wallasey tunnel was a joke. A high road/rail Golden Gate type of bridge from New Brighton to Bootle should have been built.

We didn't have to wait for another classic. We're still paying for the Birkenhead Tunnel hence why there are toll's there. Do you think that anyone will create a different section of tunnel linking Scotland Road on a whim?

[Ged]

What - and not a barrage? ;)

[Waterways]

What - and not a barrage? ;)

In the 1960s they never thought of a barrage, although the first tidal barrage was at St Malo in France in 1966. In the 1960s the traffic through the river was too intense to direct it through locks. Now that is not the case.

The barrage is still in the reckoning.

[Waterways]

We didn't have to wait for another classic.


It is a good one. Positive thing my boy.



We're still paying for the Birkenhead Tunnel hence why there are toll's there.


Which is meaningless.



Do you think that anyone will create a different section of tunnel linking Scotland Road on a whim?

Yes. It has to be. Just a small diversion, a matter of 100s of metres long, to take traffic away from the centre smoothly. Or get rid of the cars entirely and convert the tunnel to trains, trams or tram-trains. That would stop the cars altogether. You could have three lines in that tunnel, emerging in Birkenhead at two points :) If a barrage is built and a road crossing on that converting the tunnel to rail would be a good option. All it does is clog the centre. Look at the centre of Birkenhead. The whole centre has been widened and ripped apart to get access to that tunnel as the volume of cars increased.

Great rail tunnel with two access points on either side.

[Ged]

No need for a tunnel though to direct traffic out of the tunnel and to the left only - just close the route out to the right by closing off that roundabout exit.

[Waterways]

No need for a tunnel though to direct traffic out of the tunnel and to the left only - just close the route out to the right by closing off that roundabout exit.

Ged, best take traffic right away and develop that part around the there on a more human scale.

[Ged]

Yes and closing off the roundabout exit would do that just as efficiently and effectively and much cheaper and so more likely ;) Since the closing of St. Johns lane to normal traffic, there's no real need to turn right out of the tunnel anymore as heading South down Whitechapel - you can only go right up Crosshall st anyway and onto Dale St so you might as well go left when exiting the tunnel and onto Dale st that way. The only other reason you'd go up the bottom part of Crosshall st is to turn right back onto Victoria st to enter Manchester st for the car parking (otherwise you'd be just doubling back on yourself to go past the tunnel entrance again. I think London Road and Dale st need bringing back into the city centre as they've been dead for years.

[ChrisO]

I think you'd get more people back on the trains if Merseyrail stopped using those awful Class 142's on the City Line. Who on earth thought a 2-axle carriage without bogies would lend itself to a comfortable journey?

[ChrisO]

Here's one:
How about extending the Northern Line from Ormskirk to Skem, using the trackbed of the line from Ormskirk-Rainford-St.Helens. I'm fairly sure the trackbed from Ormskirk through to Skem via Westhead is pretty much intact.

[Ged]

There used to be a line to Skem and a Skem station which is now the Railway pub. Thing is - they close these tracks, stations and cargo tunnels in Liverpool for a reason in the first place.

[Waterways]

I think London Road and Dale st need bringing back into the city centre as they've been dead for years.

You can say that again. That flyover is useless too. An underground station at London Rd on The Waterloo Tunnel would improve matters there no end.

But the centre is moving onto the waterfront/docks, so unless the centre expands, which it should with more apartments, London Rd will be just outside the centre, with Lime St being the defining border.

[Waterways]

There used to be a line to Skem and a Skem station which is now the Railway pub. Thing is - they close these tracks, stations and cargo tunnels in Liverpool for a reason in the first place.

One reason was political, as the policy was to abandon rail unless Inter-City and go to road. Dr Beeching - the Road Transport Lobby was funding the Tories at the time.

[Ged]

This NYJ reporter who visited Liverpool was live on the Roger Phillips phone-in last week. She quickly saw that the Strand was a barrier between the Albert dock and the new L1 development.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120665319668169695.html




.

[Waterways]

This NYJ reporter who visited Liverpool was live on the Roger Phillips phone-in last week. She quickly saw that the Strand was a barrier between the Albert dock and the new L1 development.
.

Ged, it doesn't take too much to figure that out. However the locals can't see it as it is in their face and always been there.

[petromax]

This NYJ reporter who visited Liverpool was live on the Roger Phillips phone-in last week. She quickly saw that the Strand was a barrier between the Albert dock and the new L1 development.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120665319668169695.html




.

On the whole, a very positive report without trying to gloss over problems.

I am surprised you have chosen to pick out this negative note particularly when the writer referes to solutions in the pipeline and you will be aware of the three proposed pedestrian 'super-crossings'

[Waterways]

"Liverpool is small enough that almost everywhere can be reached within less than a 25-minute walk. One drawback, however, is that most of the city's museums are stretched along the waterfront, while the rest of the major attractions are in the center of the city. They're close but separated by a busy, high-speed roadway. Tourism officials say a new shopping and entertainment area, which will have 36 buildings by 25 architects when complete, is part of a solution to merge the two areas."

The only way to merge the two areas is get rid of the Dock Rd at that point. I wonder what their wondrous solution is? Those silly pedestrian crossings! Duh!

[Waterways]

On the whole, a very positive report without trying to gloss over problems.


It wasn't saying, "come here, this is what it is all about". It was saying things are happening and something good may come of it. It also had the tone of, "can they do it, once the hype has died down?" Changing from a largely working class culture, with a very poor image, to sophisticated middle class? It is happening and more top rated apartments need be built - and get the LibDems off the council as they would turn down another Brunswick Quay Tower.

[robt]

I think you'd get more people back on the trains if Merseyrail stopped using those awful Class 142's on the City Line. Who on earth thought a 2-axle carriage without bogies would lend itself to a comfortable journey?

Sadly the train operating compaines do not control what stock they can use, the government do. Northerns franchise expires in 2013, there is no requirement (in the franchise) for new stock before then.

When they are replaced, I suspect a massive order will be placed, as Northern (as a whole) had been allocated 158 extra DMU carriages (and 24 extra electric) in addition to replacing life expired vehicles. These are all to be brand new and not cascaded down from other areas of the country.

The Merseyrail northern and wirral line vehicles are leased until 2014, so I would expect an order for their replacement to be placed in late 2011.

[petromax]

It wasn't saying, "come here, this is what it is all about". It was saying things are happening and something good may come of it. It also had the tone of, "can they do it, once the hype has died down?" Changing from a largely working class culture, with a very poor image, to sophisticated middle class? It is happening and more top rated apartments need be built - and get the LibDems off the council as they would turn down another Brunswick Quay Tower.

Brunswick was called in - effectively taking the decision awa from council. The subsequent central government recommendation was for refusal. In truth, the scheme did little for the area and demonstrated an almost wilful determination to stand alone. The architecture was moribund and lacked any reference to its location - like all Simpson's designs it could have been anywhere (and indeed it turned up later, slightly revised on the South Bank).

Studio Egret West have started a much more responsive scheme which responds to the sense of place. It has echoes of grain silos and the port. It is lower and has some active edge at ground level. It has a better mix of residential units with more scope for a wider ranger of buyers. It works with the city's history, not against it.

[petromax]

"Liverpool is small enough that almost everywhere can be reached within less than a 25-minute walk. One drawback, however, is that most of the city's museums are stretched along the waterfront, while the rest of the major attractions are in the center of the city. They're close but separated by a busy, high-speed roadway. Tourism officials say a new shopping and entertainment area, which will have 36 buildings by 25 architects when complete, is part of a solution to merge the two areas."

The only way to merge the two areas is get rid of the Dock Rd at that point. I wonder what their wondrous solution is? Those silly pedestrian crossings! Duh!

So simple! If only we'd realised that before!. Now where is that magic wand...?

[petromax]

There used to be a line to Skem and a Skem station which is now the Railway pub. Thing is - they close these tracks, stations and cargo tunnels in Liverpool for a reason in the first place.

The reason is that not as many people live here that used to and that the roads have been the brave new world. Times change and we know we have to lose our dependence on the car and encourage people on to public transport. The city is working to reverse the population decline and the demand for these services will grow.

If Liverpool only kept the population it has and are born here, then the population will be a 100,000 more in the next two generations. The effort is there to ensure that we will do better than that.

[Waterways]

Brunswick was called in - effectively taking the decision awa from council.


It was not called in. The council rejected it and Maro appealed. It then went to Whitehall.

See, all is there:
Brunswick Quay Rejection (http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity/BrunswickQuays.html)



In truth, the scheme did little for the area and demonstrated an almost wilful determination to stand alone. The architecture was moribund and lacked any reference to its location - like all Simpson's designs it could have been anywhere (and indeed it turned up later, slightly revised on the South Bank).


You are totally wrong.

The government's own chief architect (planning inspector) was complimentary and recommended acceptance. He said the location was ideal being in a bend on the river and at the end of an escarpment. He said:
"The proposals would be of the highest quality in design terms and would contribute to the skyline of Liverpool without having a damaging effect on the setting of heritage assets. They would also have a beneficial impact on the character, appearance and interest of the immediate locality."

"Application 05F/1009 – Scheme B - was refused by the Planning Committee on 23 August 2005 for the following reasons:"
...
...


He recommended:
"I recommend that the appeal in relation to scheme A be dismissed and that the appeal in relation to scheme B be allowed subject to the conditions in Appendix B."

Scheme B was the rejected Tower.

CABE too gave approval.

The scheme was world-class and would have projected the city forwards with a a big leap. the surrounding area would have benefitted greatly. If initially accepted it would have been built by now.

Turning the scheme down was an act of foolishness.

See/ Around post No. 60:
Brunswick Quay (http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1546&highlight=brunswick&page=5)

[Waterways]

So simple! If only we'd realised that before!. Now where is that magic wand...?

Many have realised that from the start - as soon as the Albert Dock was being renovated.

[petromax]

...You are totally wrong...

I have read both Ruth Kelly's report and the planning brief to Maro's new Architects which echoes what I have said. I happen to agree with both and I have seen Studio Egret West's first schemes.

I also believe that the new scheme is leaps and bounds beyond Simpson's scheme which is a copy of a scheme by a French Architect by the name of Perrault who was inspired by the statues on Christmas Island - a long way from relevance to Liverpool or Toxteth or any kind of empathy with the spirit of the place. Simpson doesn't understand this or, as far as I can see, any other city. He produces anonymous and placeless design. His Brunswick Tower was crass and characterless and downright offensive to the surrounding cityscape and hte docks.

I do like towers per se and I look forward to when the city has a a greater skyline but I don't think we shouldn't accept rubbish just because someone wants to build in Liverpool (vide Halifax Building on Strand Street)

Be happy the city will now get the good architecture it warrants.

[HollyBlack]

... The only way to merge the two areas is get rid of the Dock Rd at that point. I wonder what their wondrous solution is? Those silly pedestrian crossings! Duh!Actually in other places they would build a road underpass to make life easy for pedestrians. That is to say the North-South road dips down 15 feet or so and the East-West road is just slightly elevated (perhaps a foot or two just for good drainage) and passes over the top.

The East-West road (buses only?) has no junction there and has WIDE footways both sides of it.

[Waterways]

I have read both Ruth Kelly's report and the planning brief to Maro's new Architects which echoes what I have said. I happen to agree with both and I have seen Studio Egret West's first schemes.


We will have to agree to disagree. The Brunswick Quay Tower was world class and iconic, even the government's top man said so.

Studio Egret West's setups looks appalling. More bland stumps that block views. Tall buildings do not, as there are large gaps at ground level between.

Ruth Kelly is a fool.

[snappel]

People should spend less time in front of VDU's and more time walking...

[Waterways]

People should spend less time in front of VDU's and more time walking...

Yep. A walk around Brunswick Dock and surrounds reveals a lot.

[oritelad]

the big news at the moment is Merseytram again now they want over 300 million after the millions they have already spent on planning for this daft scheme and this is just for ONE line! can u imagine all the road constructions too there will by mayhem in roads for years because lets face it they will take years to do it if it does get started like everything else in Liverpool.

why does no one listen to us the people of Liverpool and what we want we don't want trams back we had them once and we got rid we don't need them what we do need it bloody money from Merseyrail to open more stations and lines but no matter how hard i try contacting mps heads of Mereseyrail ect noone listens i just wish more people like me would hassle them lol

if you look at one of the plans below i have proposed tell me what you think

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s240/oldliverpoolrailways/Maps/newline.jpg

[robt]

My initial thought is that it is doubling the journey time from Kirby to Liverpool, driving people off trains alltogether?

[oritelad]

i thought people may think that but you could get the train to bootle station and catch the kirkby train there if you was in a hurry and vice versa

[robt]

i thought people may think that but you could get the train to bootle station and catch the kirkby train there if you was in a hurry and vice versa

So not only are you inconvienienced by having to change trains, but it might be no quicker if you have to wait there for 10 minutes anyway :)

[MerseysideTransportTrust]

I think you'd get more people back on the trains if Merseyrail stopped using those awful Class 142's on the City Line. Who on earth thought a 2-axle carriage without bogies would lend itself to a comfortable journey?

They are actually 1970s Leyland national buses on rail underframe!

Rob

[gregs dad]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2305/2500879401_45189b9a4b_o.jpg
Old entrance to James St Station in Water St being used more frequently
now as they modernise James St entrance

[PhilipG]

The crowds at rush hour are getting smaller,
and younger! :)

Just inside the entrance is well worth snapping.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1335/1429562908_15f2d85c22_o.jpg

[Broliv]

Nice pics Phil and greg's dad! Thanks for posting them