Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 52

Thread: New Undergroud Station in Church Street?

  1. #16
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scouseinmanc View Post
    But central London is huge & actually warrants so many stations & them being close together. Liverpool city centre is tiny in comparison, so I really don't see the need myself.
    You have missed it. In areas of high passenger congestion it is needed irrespective of overall city size. In the City of London on the same road they are only a few hundred yards apart.

    Church St, Liverpool One and around is an area much like parts of London in traffic use.

    In Paris the stations are so close, you can see other stations looking down the tunnel. I once counted 4 stations. They use the Metro like bus stops.

    Although I would like to see a new station round the St James area, serving Upper Parliment St / Park Road & perhaps another in between Moorfields & Sandhills, serving Vauxhall & the waterloo Dock complex.
    St. James' is waiting and there, and earmarked for opening one day. When the area becomes more built up then it will open.

    Also, Waterloo Dock, at the end of the Waterloo Tunnel and Northern Line is a prime candidate.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  2. #17
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
    Aye, what's wrong with Shanks's pony? An able person can walk round central Liverpool in a relatively short time.

    Chris
    The idea is to get those out of town or on the outskirts right to where they want to be. No one wants to carry lots of shopping bags a long way, but if a station is right there...
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  3. #18
    Senior Member robt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    101

    Default

    To avoid any confusion, any new station would be to REPLACE Liverpool Central, not in addition to it.

  4. #19
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by robt View Post
    To avoid any confusion, any new station would be to REPLACE Liverpool Central, not in addition to it.
    The station on the Northern Line at Paradise St was an extra station.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  5. #20
    Senior Member robt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
    The station on the Northern Line at Paradise St was an extra station.
    But this one is not.

  6. #21

    Default

    Talk of replacing is Central is just ridiculous. Its location is still great, after all the developments that have taken place over the last few decades, its location is still important.
    It really isn't that far from Liverpool One, its ideal for Bold Street and the surrounding shops and nightlife, good for students of the Community Colleges and some university buildings such as John Foster, but not great.
    The station simply needs redevelopment. How they go about doing that is their job -but they're probably too lazy to study this. The land above Central, which is still lying derelict, but has potential redevelopment plans, will allow major redevelopment to take place. This should happen sooner rather than later, as that land has been eyed up for a number of years by developers.

    The gaps, such as linkages to Liverpool One, the University district, London Road, Hope St etc should be filled in with trams. Ignore Waterways' anti-tram propaganda - he dislikes them for purely subjective reasons (noisy, vibrating, visually obtrusive - nonsense). We've been through this before, and although monorail would be great for the city centre, actual urban monorail systems are rare, and if we were to get one, we couldn't just get an Alton Towers style one - the city is not a fairground, and city centre monorail systems, which are of higher quality will cost mega millions. They also have wind issues - due to the nature of their design, they are very sensitive to strong winds - not ideal in a city such as Liverpool. But, food for thought nevertheless.
    I agree the other tunnels can be reused in some way - without a shadow of a doubt we should not neglect them. They too can help fill in the gaps. Central's problem is the over-crowding, not its location. And relocating it is not the answer.

  7. #22
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jc_everton View Post
    The station simply needs redevelopment.
    The reason to move it is that it is too small.

    The gaps, such as linkages to Liverpool One, the University district, London Road, Hope St etc should be filled in with trams. Ignore Waterways' anti-tram propaganda - he dislikes them for purely subjective reasons (noisy, vibrating, visually obtrusive - nonsense).
    There is about 4 miles of tunnels awaiting recommission that can service what you outline, so why waste money on trams?

    I agree the other tunnels can be reused in some way - without a shadow of a doubt we should not neglect them. They too can help fill in the gaps. Central's problem is the over-crowding, not its location. And relocating it is not the answer.
    Ahhhh, at last you got it all.

    If inter-city and and other out of Merseyside traffic increases, Lime St will not cope. That may mean re-opening Exchange Station, as Central will be built on. The Circle Line I outlined would take St Helens traffic away from Lime St giving more space, and means even dual pickup Manchester trains could enter Central too. Or take the Manchester trains down the Wapping Tunnel to a station at Kings/Queens Docks.

    Or making Central so big it will cope with Merseyrail and out of region rail traffic too, to assist Lime Street.

    Many options. The tunnels have to be brought onto Merseyrail to regenerate the inner-cities and expand the centre too.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  8. #23

    Default

    Nah that's just defeatist to say Central is too small to redevelop. A bit of engineering craft and innovation would find some sort of solution. Its a typical "cannot do" mentality that holds this country back. Or should I say, "cannot do this unless it is financially viable".
    Central is underground, I'm not an engineer, but its not as if we're building a whole new underground station from scratch here - we're expanding it. Again, how the engineers go about doing this is up to them.
    Closing down Central would be a real loss, and another example of rail transport being pushed aside, unless of course, significant investment was ploughed into a brand new station or reopening the grandiose Exchange Station. But to simply close down Central because its "getting in the way of development" and push it up the road to create a complete underground station smacks of lack of ambition.
    At risk of sounding "traditionalist", what has happened to design standards? Why have we gone so far backward over the past 50 years? To save money, obviously, but pride of place and design standards are so low now, I'd hate to see a new plastic underground station open in place of Central. Ok, Central is not as grand it was 100 years ago, but still, it is fairly unique in principle. In reality, it is stuck in the 1970s, it is dark, smelly and I think Joe Riley hit the nail on the head when he said its like something out of "Ghost-train" ride in a fairground. There has never been any attempt to improve its design. So, the toilets have been renovated... we now have electronic gates... but what of the station itself? It's boring, dark, plastic and has absolutely no character. What I'm saying is unique is the two ideally located entrances and the fact that it is not very "underground", it's very shallow, and is also surrounded by some terrific listed buildings (which could also do with better maintenance and care), although it would be fair to say that wherever the station is located, it will be near some listed buildings!

    One thing I've never been quite sure of though is the old "high level" line... How much higher was the old line (running underneath Berry Street) compared to the line today? The old line must have ran very shallow beneath Berry Street yes? Or was it simply excavated deeper, so now the tunnel is actually quite deep and vertically spacious?
    I'm not sure how possible this suggestion would be - but retaining the old high level and creating a new tunnel underneath Hardman Street to the Wapping tunnel sounds a great idea. This way we'd have three levels of rail, and we can divert some of the easterly traffic onto this new high level. Assuming a tunnel link between Hardman St and the Wapping tunnel is viable, why not give consider this option? It could also open up other regional and national links.

  9. #24
    Living the Dream... Scouseinmanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    37

    Default

    I've suggested on another forum, possibly rebuilding Exchange Station.

    I'm not entirely sure that building another platform at Central would solve the capacity problem. It may possibly do in the short term, but I don't think it would be too long before the station again started experiencing problems. Especially if Merseyrail do act upon their thoughts of expanding their network over the next few years. An extra platform isn't going to be sufficient. If Merseyrail are to go ahead with their expansion, where would they run them into? These new services could also terminate in the new Exchange station.
    I really do think that the 'new Exchange' will alleviate any current & future capacity problems & may also bring a lot more life into the business district of the city centre, which was lost when Exchange closed & Moorfields opened. Especially now that we have so many new buildings along the river front, in the business district & with the opening of Liverpool One.
    Granted, the new station doesn't have to be anywhere near on the same scale as the old station was, but there is an awful lot of vacant land that could be put to much better use.
    Of course, this is only chatter & written in my own humble opinion. Still it would be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts... "
    Last edited by Scouseinmanc; 02-17-2009 at 01:55 PM.

  10. #25
    Member andyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Gers / France
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Expanding Central will be an expensive,long and disruptive task.Given that most of the problems stem from the need for two out of every three trains to run forward before a new departure,perhaps any available funding would be better spent on establishing the link to the Wapping Tunnel ?Trains could then run-through Central on their way to St.Helens /Wigan or even Manchester (dual-voltage ?).Many London tube stations handle a train every few minutes and despite Central being an island platform,I'm sure it could do the same.

    Another idea:An eventual link to John Lennon Airport could use some of the available space on the High Level site.A single platform would probably suffice whatever the configaration chosen,or even as a route for tram-trains to gain access to the City.

  11. #26

    Default

    I take your point, but the only reason why I'd like to see it reopened is because it such a glorious building, both from the inside and the outside.
    Its also a shame the old line (ground-level) has been built on, but then it really would only be a destination, as opposed to a stop like Moorfields.
    But as you're hoping for Exchange to be the site of a new underground station, its a bit pointless, as Moorfields is so close.

    As regards, Central's expansion, a new platform or two would certainly help ease congestion in the station, but what is really needed is more rolling stock - we need longer trains and greater frequency, e.g every 10 mins at peak time, as opposed to every 15. Getting on at Moorfields can sometimes be an absolute nightmare. not only is the platform packed to the rafters, the train itself is already packed from Central. Even when it is 6-car, it can still not be enough. It must also be remembered that the service is not a rapid metro with stops every 10 yards like in Paris (Waterways, 2009), therefore people should expect to be able to sit down, not penned in like a chicken battery, especially as people are paying good money to use this service.

    I really do think that the 'new Exchange' will alleviate any current & future capacity problems & may also bring a lot more life into the business district of the city centre, which was lost when Exchange closed & Moorfields opened.
    Not sure about this. What exactly was lost when Exchange closed? Moorfields is still a thriving business district.

    Regardless of all this "What do we about capacity" business, the whole network needs to change. There is a reluctance to really move things forward - the whole "if its not broke, dont fix it" mentality. In reality, the network isn't that bad, but capacity is an issue, which is a result of rising rail patronage. Merseytravel have an excellent opportunity to take the network by the scruff of the neck and take it up to another level, but they'll point to a lack of funds. Therefore, the issue of rail travel needs to be moved higher up local and national government agendas. Again, there is a reluctance to do this, as the government believe everything is hunky-dory, so don't mess with it until it becomes a real problem.
    But this is the problem, the culture today is purely "reactive". Planning is not pro-active, transport is not pro-active, and so on. Everything is a reaction to a lack of quality planning and vision. Urban renewal is a reaction to years of poor leadership and poor planning.
    There are many areas of land and buildings in Liverpool which need to go, but everything is so slow and jobsworth.... like the Concourse Tower, delayed by over 6 months because of the spider? Come on, get a grip. Where do their priorities lie? In culture and tourism? Its an insult.

  12. #27
    Living the Dream... Scouseinmanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Manchester
    Posts
    37

    Smile

    JCE - I can understand why Both Central High Level & Exchange were closed back in the 70's, but to echo your point, we do live in a reactive way & not proactive. There was no thought for increasing numbers & traffic congestion which we are now having to deal with & of course, will only get worse. So because of long distance trains being diverted to Lime Street in the 60's, both stations became more or less redundant & it was only a matter of time before they were closed. Central would have closed a lot earlier, had it not been for the remaining Gateacre service (which incidentally, was supposed to be reinstated after completion of the Loop & Link).

    I'm not sure if the old Central High Level site could ever revert back to its former use, as I'm sure I read somewhere that the tunnel at the back of the site doesn't actually go anywhere now (due to the development of the Loop & Link). You can walk to the end of it, but then it stops & you can actually see the Northern Line tunnel running below.

    So this only leaves the land at the back of Mercury Court that could be utilised & hence my suggestion for the rebuild of Exchange.

    In response to your question re. the thriving business district, I personally think that it's now a shadow of it's fomer self. When Exchange was open, it brought a great deal more life to the area. It now feels quite desolate. Reopening it would bring a lot more life back.
    Last edited by Scouseinmanc; 02-17-2009 at 03:14 PM.

  13. #28
    Senior Member robt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jc_everton View Post
    I take your point, but the only reason why I'd like to see it reopened is because it such a glorious building, both from the inside and the outside.
    That is the worst possible reason to reopen a station.

    As regards, Central's expansion, a new platform or two would certainly help ease congestion in the station, but what is really needed is more rolling stock - we need longer trains and greater frequency, e.g every 10 mins at peak time, as opposed to every 15. Getting on at Moorfields can sometimes be an absolute nightmare. not only is the platform packed to the rafters, the train itself is already packed from Central. Even when it is 6-car, it can still not be enough.
    I don't think you realise how lucky you are, you really should try some other cities transport systems in the rush hour - or even 2 car units out of Lime Street than you can't actually get on because it is full. I have never ever once seen that level of over crowding at Moorfields, let alone every single day!

    At the very most, all Central needs is two new bay platforms for trains terminating there. More stock is a totally different sibject and one that is being sorted out both in the short and long terms.

    Regardless of all this "What do we about capacity" business, the whole network needs to change. There is a reluctance to really move things forward - the whole "if its not broke, dont fix it" mentality. In reality, the network isn't that bad, but capacity is an issue, which is a result of rising rail patronage. Merseytravel have an excellent opportunity to take the network by the scruff of the neck and take it up to another level, but they'll point to a lack of funds. Therefore, the issue of rail travel needs to be moved higher up local and national government agendas. Again, there is a reluctance to do this, as the government believe everything is hunky-dory, so don't mess with it until it becomes a real problem.
    Whilst I don't agree with the majority of things the Government do, I don't think that is entirely fair. Trains are being ordered to replace some which are not life expired, and as we speak there are people measuring sidings and calculating where overhead gantry masts will do within depots. Things the public don't hear about because the media is so negative about rail transport.

  14. #29
    Senior Member merseywail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Litherland
    Posts
    172

    Default

    There is room at central low level for extra platforms, but it would need major rebuilding, & a few years of closure, as would a station at Paradise St. A more simple option is to have staggered platforms & better passenger flow. Extending the Garston bound platform beyond the emergency exit. with a new exit for passengers leaving central. And extending the southport platform beyond where the lift is, with a better entrance for passengers for the north end services, would split passenger flow. Also have a passenger holding area. This works very well at Manchester piccadilly station's platform's 13 & 14.
    These things take time, Rome wasn't built in a day you know.
    Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/merseywail/

  15. #30
    Senior Member robt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by merseywail View Post
    There is room at central low level for extra platforms, but it would need major rebuilding, & a few years of closure, as would a station at Paradise St. A more simple option is to have staggered platforms & better passenger flow. Extending the Garston bound platform beyond the emergency exit. with a new exit for passengers leaving central. And extending the southport platform beyond where the lift is, with a better entrance for passengers for the north end services, would split passenger flow. Also have a passenger holding area. This works very well at Manchester piccadilly station's platform's 13 & 14.
    That is a suggestion made in the latest RUS.


Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. St. Peter's Church, Church Street
    By Emmanuel Goldstein in forum Liverpool City Center Architecture
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 11-26-2011, 02:43 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 09:47 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •