Stadia

[scouse smurf]

Why stint? the man is offensive.

Because, in the main, this is a pretty friendly and pleasant natured forum and I guess we just try and live together in peace putting up with our little ways, whatever they are.

Plus I've hid under the table enough so don't really want any more 'heated' threads

[Waterways]

Why stint? the man is offensive.

No. Direct and assertive and don't suffer fools gladly.

What are these "internal contradictions and inconsistencies" you are on about?

[petromax]

I come here for reasoned debate and for information, not insult or hubris, but since you insist, just take one example - that of the outer loop; you say the outer loop is cheap but suggest that lowering the rail bed is, let's say 'relatively simple' (to be kind to your argument).

To put it simply for you, for every metre drop in level, the bed would need to be lowered for 100m or thereabouts in both directions. So for an approximate 5m drop in bed level (and disregarding engineering to the bridges over) that's 1km of re-engineered levels or not quite going on for 10% of the total length of loop of 15.2km. To say it is cheap and to play down the importance of expensive works is 'contradictory'.

Also remember this is just one issue on the current alignment. I see there are sections that have been built on; I believe there are tunnels in a poor state of repair; junctions at either end but particularly the Hunt's Cross end have disappeared. I am not saying the outer loop can't be done or shouldn't be done. I am saying that it is not cheap and that it is a more expensive and hence LESS realistic way of servicing stadia than the alternative which already has a working alignment, tracks and signalling systems for running trains!

You compare the cost of the outer loop with Canada Dock Branch claiming it only needs 'rails and fences' and you ignore the bulk of the cost in engineering, signalling systems and electrification which the CDB either already has or in the case of electrification will shortly have, at no cost to the stadia (the stadia are after all what this thread is about). This is 'inconsistent'.

Championing causes is all very fine but each much stand on its own merits even within the bigger picture of the city's regeneration. You cannot put your hand in someone else's pocket to pay for your pet cause. Objectivity and respect for alternative opinion is a good place from which to make changes for the better.

[Ged]

There is another forum that WW and I go on which is more of a debating platform when it comes to people in the know on such subjects as the rail network, trams, stadia etc. WW's stance on some of what is lauded on here has been pretty much dismissed. For instance sweeping whole housing estates in Speke or industrial units in Kirkdale away is far more complicated than MrWW would have us believe - Lfc with all their clout couldn't even move a couple of old dears from their house in Kemlyn Road for over a decade.

I wouldn't take to heart too much what this old eccentric says

[Waterways]

I come here for reasoned debate and for information, not insult or hubris,

Can you point to any insult? I am intrigued.

but since you insist, just take one example - that of the outer loop; you say the outer loop is cheap but suggest that lowering the rail bed is, let's say 'relatively simple' (to be kind to your argument).

To dismiss a whole mothballed line because a small height problem is laughable.

To put it simply for you, for every metre drop in level, the bed would need to be lowered for 100m or thereabouts in both directions. So for an approximate 5m drop in bed level (and disregarding engineering to the bridges over) that's 1km of re-engineered levels or not quite going on for 10% of the total length of loop of 15.2km. To say it is cheap and to play down the importance of expensive works is 'contradictory'.

That is not an expensive undertaking when re-commissioning a whole line.

Also remember this is just one issue on the current alignment. I see there are sections that have been built on; I believe there are tunnels in a poor state of repair; junctions at either end but particularly the Hunt's Cross end have disappeared.

The curve at Hunts X is still there - the trackbed. It needs a track and fences.

I am not saying the outer loop can't be done or shouldn't be done. I am saying that it is not cheap and that it is a more expensive and hence LESS realistic way of servicing stadia than the alternative which already has a working alignment, tracks and signalling systems for running trains!

As most is there it can only be cheap. Stop trying be a smartie homing in on cost when you haven't a clue. Most is there, even bridges, so massive savings.

(the stadia are after all what this thread is about). This is 'inconsistent'.

A point I made was that EFC & LFC should not be granted Planning Permission unless rapid-transit rail is incorporated in the stadia design. Liverpool has a rapid-transit network so it must be used for glaringly obvious reasons. Is there suitable site? Yes! Walton Hall Park with an adjacent mothballed line, the Outer Loop, with also a tunnel that takes the line into the city centre. It gives great connectivity to mainline stations.

Not only is it good for footy traffic, The line runs through large parts of Liverpool unserved by rapid-transit rail, parts that were to have lumbering-transport trams serve them. The money used for trams can fund opening this needed line, which can be improved in the future if the Broad Green 1970s junction is taken up again.

Championing causes is all very fine but each much stand on its own merits even within the bigger picture of the city's regeneration. You cannot put your hand in someone else's pocket to pay for your pet cause. Objectivity and respect for alternative opinion is a good place from which to make changes for the better.

You clearly do not get it. Get the points, see what it does for the socio/economic fabric of the city. The money is there as it was to be used for cancelled trams. You are a typical glass is always half empty Liverpudlian. The city breeds them. Be positive.

[petromax]

I am sorry you can't see an insult even when you are one

[Waterways]

There is another forum that WW and I go on which is more of a debating platform when it comes to people in the know on such subjects as the rail network, trams, stadia etc. WW's stance on some of what is lauded on here has been pretty much dismissed. For instance sweeping whole housing estates in Speke or industrial units in Kirkdale away is far more complicated than MrWW would have us believe - Lfc with all their clout couldn't even move a couple of old dears from their house in Kemlyn Road for over a decade.

I wouldn't take to heart too much what this old eccentric says

I only go on this forum Ged. Sweeping way Speke? Good idea. Lots of it is like a war zone anyone. An isolated estate, surrounded by industry that stands in the way of airport expansion. A good case for winding the place down for the sake of city progress

What industrial units in Kirkdale? I said that Ged? New to me. I can see a good case for getting rid of many and putting them in proper industrial units elsewhere though.

Ged, unfortunately we can't rebuild garden tenements any more. Life moves on. We move on for the better.

Ged, go to other cities and see how they do it. Get around a bit and look.

[Ged]

I think you might be daring/tempting me to post up your other postings on SSC there WW

You don't go on it now because you were banned so a lot of people must have these 'perceived' insults.

Anyway, You've mentioned the ground being in Speke and the housing estate being sacrificed for it citing that the training ground is now in Halewood (want me to show you it to refresh your memory?) - nothing to do with the airport expansion.

You also said that Sandhills industrial units need to be compulsory purchased and demolished for the new stadium going there - i'm looking at in now on SSC - (want me to post that up too as well as their members reference to you as Bay City and JohnMK being the one and same as WW)

Or are you dismissing those claims as stupid now????

[Ged]

As for the Gardens tennies my mate, I don't want them rebuilding, just recounting nostalgic memories and if there wasn't a call for that, then there wouldn't be close on 200,000 hits on my site.

However, you'll find that plenty do still live in them, they're now called Acorn, or Abbeygate or St. Annes apartments though and they're still scattered throughout the city like Toxteth, Wavertree, Everton, Dingle, Old Swan etc.

And believe it not, there's also still people living in a large area of Canning in lovely majestic houses, loads in big villas on Merton Road, Hawthorne Road - Bootle, in beautiful sandstone houses in Crosby and Woolton too - go out and take a look - none of them have died of being cold either

[Waterways]

As for the Gardens tennies my mate, I don't want them rebuilding, just recounting nostalgic memories and if there wasn't a call for that, then there wouldn't be close on 200,000 hits on my site.

However, you'll find that plenty do still live in them, they're now called Acorn, or Abbeygate or St. Annes apartments though and they're still scattered throughout the city like Toxteth, Wavertree, Everton, Dingle, Old Swan etc.

And believe it not, there's also still people living in a large area of Canning in lovely majestic houses, loads in big villas on Merton Road, Hawthorne Road - Bootle, in beautiful sandstone houses in Crosby and Woolton too - go out and take a look - none of them have died of being cold either

Ged, I am fully aware of the old gardens being updated and that some old houses are still occupied. All of the old gardens have high carbon footprints and they should have been demolished. We have moved on in technology since they were built.

200,000? Terrific. Nostalgia Ged. Few want to return to the Liverpool of their childhoods.

[Waterways]

I think you might be daring/tempting me to post up your other postings on SSC there WW

You don't go on it now because you were banned so a lot of people must have these 'perceived' insults.

Ged I was banned because of of stating political fact, which I did here, which the idiot mod didn't like. Can't account for idiots mods.

I really don't like wall to wall concrete 40 floors high either.

Anyway, You've mentioned the ground being in Speke and the housing estate being sacrificed for it citing that the training ground is now in Halewood (want me to show you it to refresh your memory?) - nothing to do with the airport expansion.

Ged I know exactly where the training ground is. That isolated estate need removing for airport expansion. The greater good of the city comes first, not some run down council estate.

You also said that Sandhills industrial units need to be compulsory purchased and demolished for the new stadium going there

Well if a stadium is to go there then they are CPOd, that is common sense and an industrial units were CPOd for the Emigrates stadium. I know you have no vision or clearly not an ideas man obsessed with the nostalgic past.

You want to keep scruffy old industrial units, other do not. You do not want to progress, others do.

- i'm looking at in now on SSC - (want me to post that up too as well as their members reference to you as Bay City and JohnMK being the one and same as WW)

Or are you dismissing those claims as stupid now????

Not me Ged, I went as Liverpool Playboy and Bay City. Each time banned because the mod didn't like political facts I gave, how it is - not views. Even one of the guys from Manchester complained. As I say you can't account for an idiot mod. 10,000 swords in the hands of young children.
I only went on that forum as the viewing rate is high. To counter the inane garbage they go on about in Liverrpool. Experts? on that forum? Who? There is one lauding trams, who works for rail consultancy - vested interest.

You are getting personal not me. One here accused me insults a few time. I have asked to to show them. None have been shown.

Does this forum breed them?

[petromax]

...Can't account for idiots mods.

...I really don't like wall to wall concrete 40 floors high either...

...for airport expansion...

...if a stadium is to go there then they are CPOd, that is common sense...

...I know you have no vision or clearly not an ideas man obsessed with the nostalgic past.

...scruffy old industrial units...

...You do not want to progress, others do...

...I went as Liverpool Playboy and Bay City...

...Each time banned because the mod didn't like political facts I gave...

...how it is - not views. Even one of the guys from Manchester complained...

...As I say you can't account for an idiot mod...

...10,000 swords in the hands of young children...

...the inane garbage they go on about in Liverrpool. Experts?...

...There is one lauding trams, who works for rail consultancy - vested interest...

...One here accused me insults a few time...

Everybody but you is out of step. You call people fools and you say they have no imagination or intelligence. This is enough; but no need to list your insults or your preconceptions. You do it yourself. It blinds you. Cheers

[petromax]

As for the Gardens tennies my mate, I don't want them rebuilding, just recounting nostalgic memories and if there wasn't a call for that, then there wouldn't be close on 200,000 hits on my site...

...and so there is. I remember being terrified by them as a child - wouldn't go near them, but there's something about community in them that's worth remembering and worth keeping and maybe encouraging in the new.

[petromax]

...All of the old gardens have high carbon footprints and they should have been demolished...

The single largest contributor (including energy in life time useage) to carbon footprint is the energy used in the creation of the building materials and in the building operations themselves. It is thus very signficantly greener to recycle old buildings for new use rather than to demolish them, deal with waste and rebuild.

and before you say it WW, I haven't made this up. I do know what I am talking about and I have no vested interest. It's what you might call a fact.

[Ged]

So in saying you want buildings of high carbon footprint demolishing WW, I take that also to mean the whole of the Canning area - is that correct

I too want to progress and a perfectly good site such as the tunnel loop which is overgrown with weeds in an area that needs regeneration is so easily discounted by you as not big enough when a leading world stadium construction company says it is - who should we believe WW