Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

[merseywail]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

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:

1. The city centre section (Circle Line built as most is already in place)
2. 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

[jc_everton]

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]

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:

1. The city centre section (Circle Line built as most is already in place)
2. 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.