Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by petromax

Are you saying King's dock is not successful? Unfortunately, Peel have not shown themselves to be rocket scientists - I am not about to defend them, they have a long way to go

---

Look at:
Kings Dock How Not To Do It

I was banned off the Liverpool Echo Forum for criticising Peels attempts to fill in West Waterloo Dock.

Quote:

---

I don't deny a loop can be made if you REALLY want to but what are you trying to connect? Edge Hill to Dingle?

---

Yep, across a lot of parkland a station at Sefton Park (major events) and Lodge Lane (regeneration)

Quote:

---

When the Olive Mount Chord is up and running the Anfield loop will be chocka with freight. As previously noted Peel don't do anything for nothing

---

Hopefully the freight will mainly be at night

Quote:

---

80% of what? I don't see any tunnel from Dingle to Edge Hill.

---

That tunnel link is about 80% of the loop.

Quote:

---

The underground system that is there is TINY. This is a contraction, not an expansion.

---

Look at post No. 20 on this thread. The loop proposed shown.

Quote:

---

I have read what you have written and you have just repeated that you expect to force people to go where they don't want to go.

---

I didn't. The planners decide where centres are and what density, etc. They decide where the hot spots are.

Quote:

---

Correct, trams only complete the picture but the 'joke' from Kirkby picks up all the northern wards and connects them to the city.

---

The Tram to Kirby paralleled Merseyrail and buses that ran quicker than it. Read the post on the objections. That was/is a joke.

Quote:

---

Tell me which part of the Jubilee Line or the manchester trams was not making it possible to travel into the city for work.

---

???

Quote:

---

The next priority is the inner suburbs which your proposals do not connect to the centre which is where people want to go.

---

Read what I write. All I have done is gone around in circles saying the same things time after time. What I wrote was clear enough.

WW, quite simply you should but be putting more pressure on the Council and Merseytravel than us, because you are recieving a lot of different objections, and I although I agree with your principles on regeneration etc, you admit you are going round in circles. So why not pressurise those who matter?
Any innovative scheme that is thrown, such as tram-trains, is laughed off as a 'pet fad'. What a load of absolute nonsense. You quoted a very negative quote from that website and I knew you'd pick up on it.
Thing is, that page has no structure, it seems to be a mixture of reports and views. If you read all of it, it goes on to say how more and more cities all over the world are taking it seriously and Mulhouse is set to be the next major city to trial them - which is significant as most areas using them are rather small. Such as Karlsruhe.
Speaking of Karlsruhe, have a wee look at this link

http://www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2000/phy...hysical/07.htm

"The dual-mode tram system of Karlsruhe is regarded by transport professionals internationally as the model of an innovative and high-quality local public transport system, linking local and regional centres directly to the streets of Karlsruhe."

I can already hear the cynics typing negative posts, but the point here is innovation - something that lets Liverpool down enormously. Someone touched on it earlier too.
A tram system would be massively progressive for this city - arguments against it are shabby.
For instance, Line 1 to Kirkby - I have never once mentioned this Line, and even if it went ahead it does not directly follow the train line and if EFC move there, surely this would complement it? One thing is for sure, Kirkby needs massive improvements in public transport if that move goes ahead - trams and trains would work very well.
Other arguments against include cost (I still don't see any figures for the '80% loop'), vibration (ridiculous, petty argument - it's hardly an earthquake), visual obtrusion (yes it is obtrusive, but again it's petty and it's not like a huge wind turbine is being constructed in the middle of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, plus the Bordeaux trams do not use over-head wires so why can't ours?) and noise (yes, trams create noise - so do beggars playing trumpets).

I actually started off sceptical about the tram system but the more I read about them and the more I see the development/expansion of the city centre, the more they make sense. At the same time, I do not dismiss the underground as it certainly can be better used, but only as extensions to the Northern and City Lines, offering more stations, hence more choice and reduced capacities at Central and Moorfields. Simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

When London Underground acquired the Metropolitan Railway in the early 1930s to merge into the underground it had some stations in villages in Oxfordshire. They were on the tube for 5 years then sold off/closed down. Aylesbury in North Bucks was on the Tube until 1960, then closed down. London retreated into the London area and concentrated on London. The outer regions were someone else's responsibility.

Let others do Wigan and Merseyrail meets the Wigan train at a station for connections, like at Edge Hill or Lime St.

---

I'm not suggesting that Merseyrail incorporate lines as far out as Wigan, but that if Waterloo & Wapping tunnels were to reopen as part of the Northern Line then it must make sense to utilise them for WCML (particularly Wapping, considering how close it exits in proximity to the Echo Arena etc.) access alongside Merseyrail to allow people from all over the country using the WCML to come here, which I say again, must be of benefit to the city economy. I'll say again, I mentioned Wigan in relation to electrification of the City Line for WCML services from the North

And while I'm on the subject of innovation - the dismissals of the Liverpool Overhead are so conservative. What a fantastic addition that would be - and we even get to use the Dingle Tunnel - everyone's a winner.
WW argues that the loop should continue around to Edge Hill and up to Waterloo - but someone rightly argued that is a loop around the city centre - people want to get to Central and Moorfields - let's not forget that. How many people from Dingle would use your loop to travel to Waterloo? On the other hand, how many would use it to travel to Central?
Yes, the overhead does not go to Central but why not extend it so it reaches more central parts of the city? Near enough all of Chicago's city rail is overhead, Brooklyn has a fair share of overhead rail too.

Let me leave you with this image of a 'hanging railway' in Germany - the Schwebebahn Wuppertal.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...er_Strasse.jpg

Absolutely fantastic. :handclap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChrisO

I'm not suggesting that Merseyrail incorporate lines as far out as Wigan, but that if Waterloo & Wapping tunnels were to reopen as part of the Northern Line then it must make sense to utilise them for WCML (particularly Wapping, considering how close it exits in proximity to the Echo Arena etc.) access alongside Merseyrail to allow people from all over the country using the WCML to come here, which I say again, must be of benefit to the city economy. I'll say again, I mentioned Wigan in relation to electrification of the City Line for WCML services from the North

---

So the WCML runs into Queens/Kings Dock to serve the Arena. These people come into Liverpool, to one venue and right back out. The locals are phased out to probably out of town interests siphoning money out of the city. All this on water spaces the local should living and enjoying themselves around.

Best do what Paris and London, etc do. Main line to main stations, local systems take over from there.

Have the tunnels for locals to get around the city fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc_everton

WW, quite simply you should but be putting more pressure on the Council and Merseytravel than us, because you are recieving a lot of different objections, and I although I agree with your principles on regeneration etc, you admit you are going round in circles. So why not pressurise those who matter?

---

The Chamber of Commerce wanted ideas on how to use the unused infrastructure under the city.

Quote:

---

Any innovative scheme that is thrown, such as tram-trains, is laughed off as a 'pet fad'. What a load of absolute nonsense. You quoted a very negative quote from that website and I knew you'd pick up on it.

---

It is a matter of priorities. You do not implement them before the disused underground is brought back into use, as it is of more use and offers great benefits. To implement those trams first is gross planning incompetence.

Quote:

---

"The dual-mode tram system of Karlsruhe is regarded by transport professionals internationally as the model of an innovative and high-quality local public transport system, linking local and regional centres directly to the streets of Karlsruhe."

---

I don't doubt that. However it is not right now what Liverpool needs - as it already has infrastructure waiting to be re-used.

Quote:

---

I can already hear the cynics typing negative posts, but the point here is innovation - something that lets Liverpool down enormously. Someone touched on it earlier too.
A tram system would be massively progressive for this city - arguments against it are shabby.

---

Only when the main city centres tunnels are in use and the Outer loops north and south. Then think implement these things.

Quote:

---

For instance, Line 1 to Kirkby - I have never once mentioned this Line, and even if it went ahead it does not directly follow the train line and if EFC move there, surely this would complement it? One thing is for sure, Kirkby needs massive improvements in public transport if that move goes ahead - trams and trains would work very well.

---

Way down the list in priorities.

Quote:

---

Other arguments against include cost (I still don't see any figures for the '80% loop'),

---

It doesn't matter. It needs to be done and it is cheap.

Quote:

---

vibration (ridiculous, petty argument

---

Been to Amsterdam? When two trams pass each other they shake the buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

When London Underground acquired the Metropolitan Railway in the early 1930s to merge into the underground it had some stations in villages in Oxfordshire. They were on the tube for 5 years then sold off/closed down. Aylesbury in North Bucks was on the Tube until 1960, then closed down. London retreated into the London area and concentrated on London. The outer regions were someone else's responsibility.

Let others do Wigan and Merseyrail meets the Wigan train at a station for connections, like at Edge Hill or Lime St.

---

We are not London, and it is not 1930 - things change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

Hopefully the freight will mainly be at night

---

Ideally it would be, but it won't be. Having said that, there would be plenty of capacity for a 20 or 30 minute interval passenger service on the branch.

Quote:

---

That tunnel link is about 80% of the loop.

---

Everyone (including myself) is assuming that the tunnels are still structially sound enough for frequent operation. After all - your the one who keeps mentioning how much trams vibrate - heavyrail is far more punishing on its surroundings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc_everton

Any innovative scheme that is thrown, such as tram-trains, is laughed off as a 'pet fad'. What a load of absolute nonsense.

---

It is only laughed off by WW because he can't see beyond his scheme.

The reality is if tramtrains have successsful trials they will be introduced in many MANY places in the UK to replace ageing multiple units on lightly used lines. That is regardless of if their 'tram' aspect is used or not.

I'm sure someone will comment on my phrase 'lightly used lines' so let me clarify. They will be used on lightly used lines because they are relatively cheap and lightweight (reducing infrastructure maintenance costs), and would be driver only operation (with roving inspectors), saving staffing costs. That is not to say they could not be used in multiple with an intense service frequency where they are needed to.

Quote:

---

Other arguments against include cost (I still don't see any figures for the '80% loop'), vibration (ridiculous, petty argument - it's hardly an earthquake), visual obtrusion (yes it is obtrusive, but again it's petty and it's not like a huge wind turbine is being constructed in the middle of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, plus the Bordeaux trams do not use over-head wires so why can't ours?) and noise (yes, trams create noise - so do beggars playing trumpets).

---

Well said. And if I have to feel minor vibrations on the street I would much rather they come from a tram than an HGV negotiating city centre streets.

Incidently, modern (electric) trams can be almost silent.

Manchesters trams are ugly - but their design is over 15 years old. Modern designs don't have to be ugly, as shown elsewhere in this thread :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

It is a matter of priorities. You do not implement them before the disused underground is brought back into use, as it is of more use and offers great benefits. To implement those trams first is gross planning incompetence.

---

Again, no reason why tramtrains can not use the tunnels - you are automatically assuming that tram = street running. A tram-train is a train that can also be used for street running *if required to*. It is not a traditional tram.

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter. It needs to be done and it is cheap.

---

If it doesn't matter, why hasn't it already been done?

Because it is not 'cheap' despite how much of the tunnelling is already done.

Quote:

---

Been to Amsterdam? When two trams pass each other they shake the buildings.

---

If they are built properly to modern UK standards, they won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

We are not London, and it is not 1930 - things change.

---

The points....They concentrated on the city..and it worked.

Quote:

---

Everyone (including myself) is assuming that the tunnels are still structially sound enough for frequent operation. After all - your the one who keeps mentioning how much trams vibrate - heavyrail is far more punishing on its surroundings.

---

The tunnels are sound. Water ingress may be a problem in parts of Wapping.

Quote:

---

It is only laughed off by WW because he can't see beyond his scheme.

---

Trams are laughable in Liverpool as a priority - which they were given. I shows no vision or planning.

Quote:

---

Well said. And if I have to feel minor vibrations on the street I would much rather they come from a tram than an HGV negotiating city centre streets.

---

Unnecessary vibrations should be eliminated at all costs. You would like vibrations of rams being a spotter yourself.

Quote:

---

Incidently, modern (electric) trams can be almost silent.

---

Vibration is another thing.

Quote:

---

Again, no reason why tramtrains can not use the tunnels - you are automatically assuming that tram = street running. A tram-train is a train that can also be used for street running *if required to*. It is not a traditional tram.

---

Could work if implemented properly.

Quote:

---

If it doesn't matter, why hasn't it already been done?

---

No one has thought of it.

Quote:

---

Because it is not 'cheap' despite how much of the tunnelling is already done.

---

It is cheap. Get these trams out of your head - ding, ding

Quote:

---

If they are built properly to modern UK standards, they won't.

---

I would never take the chance.

Trams are a filler to where the Merseyrail can't get. That's all. Go to the hub and do that - the underground.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

The tunnels are sound. Water ingress may be a problem in parts of Wapping.

---

Oh, your a structual engineer specialising in tunnels?

Quote:

---

Unnecessary vibrations should be eliminated at all costs. You would like vibrations of rams being a spotter yourself.

---

I have no idea what that means but I can only assume your being rude as usual - grow up. If your inferring that I'm a train spotter, your wrong. I have already said previously in this thread (and others), that I know the rail industry, as a professional, very well.

Quote:

---

It is cheap. Get these trams out of your head - ding, ding

---

A bit like I could equally say get your idea out your head because it will never happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

Oh, your a structual engineer specialising in tunnels?

---

Experts walking through see no problems. They were in use for 120 to 140 years, so I doubt if we have had a major earthquake since 1972.

Quote:

---

I have no idea what that means but I can only assume your being rude as usual - grow up. If your inferring that I'm a train spotter, your wrong. I have already said previously in this thread (and others), that I know the rail industry, as a professional, very well.

---

That is the same thing. :)

Quote:

---

A bit like I could equally say get your idea out your head because it will never happen?

---

A hell of good idea isn't it Martin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

Experts walking through see no problems. They were in use for 120 to 140 years, so I doubt if we have had a major earthquake since 1972.

---

As long as the 'experts' weigh the same as a 200 tonne 6 carriage train at 40mph that is fine then :p:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc_everton

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...er_Strasse.jpg

---

That is one hell of an ugly bridge and setup. Give me trams any day that that. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

That is one hell of an ugly bridge and setup. Give me trams any day that that. :(

---

It is ugly indeed, luckily UK H&S would never allow it :D

[QUOTE=Waterways;121506]Look at:
Kings Dock How Not To Do It

Yep, across a lot of parkland a station at Sefton Park (major events) and Lodge Lane (regeneration)...That tunnel link is about 80% of the loop....Look at post No. 20 on this thread. The loop proposed shown..The planners decide where centres are and what density, etc. They decide where the hot spots are...The Tram to Kirby paralleled Merseyrail and buses that ran quicker than it. Read the post on the objections. ...QUOTE]

Do you mean UNDER Sefton Park?... are actually looking at a map?...the loop on no.20 is TINY...You clearly have no uderstanding of how planning works...you do not seem to understand the tram routes now proposed and or the capacities of the different modes.

There is no need to carry on uninformed 'guessing' of what routes might or might not work - it's not even interesting. There has been enough formal work done and the way forward is clear, ie. the reinstatement of as much of the 'old' system as is needed and that includes trams. It's Liverpool's great advantage ( or 'USP') over other UK cities because it can be done the cheapest. If you want to know what it looks like, there have been plans of the old system on this forum before.

I suggest that Waterways draws his system on top of a city map so that he and we can understand what his proposals mean; and if it needs new tunnels between places that don't need it - forget it, because the city loses it's competitive edge.

Of more interest are new ideas, based on the existing or unused system, that will improve service and make the sytem more competitive - anyone?

One thing we are all forgetting here, the Dingle Station is owned by a private company (Roscoe's) who have an extensive set up already there and doubt would ever move out unless they were given a pretty penny. Where else would you find a motor garage with all that space??

You may as well write anything off to do with the Dingle Station.