Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

[jc_everton]

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



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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true.

Tell us the difference.

[Waterways]

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]

Tell us the difference.

I have already explained on the previous page.

[Cadfael]

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]

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]

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!