Sirob, what does this mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirob
Printable View
Sirob, what does this mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirob
The arch the train is running under is listed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirob
Graham Gratrix was not a factory. They were heating and plumbing merchants. I bought the odd heating boiler there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
There were lines all over the Dock Rd from goods depots across the road into the dock estate. Is the train moving from the Waterloo tunnel across the road in that photo?
I was driving along the dock road last year, up near the Seaforth end when we had to stop for a freight train that was mega long, it seemed like we were there for about 15 mins.
Waterways: I'm guessing that it is coming from the tunnel to the docks because there are flats to the right of the picture, suggesting that the photographer was looking north when he took it.
Ged: What time of day would that have been? I have actually been meaning to ask, what times do they run? Would I be right in saying that there are around 20 train journeys a day? I'm sure I read it somewhere in a MerseyRail document.
On the OldLiverpoolRailways.tk forum, someone suggested that the Aintree-Bootle Line should be used for freight to alleviate the heavy traffic experienced along the A5036 to Switch Island. I am not sure if the eastern end of the line (where Aintree Racecourse station) is feasible to reopen but there is plenty of land around Aintree Station to open a goods yard. Perhaps some might say "Would it be worth it? For such a small distance", but if the freight was moving north then why not double the track on the Ormskirk - Preston Line and get the freight moving north by train?
Some more pics;
Waterloo tunnel mouth, signal box on extreme right
Last movement on 28 July 1971 of MD&hb loco from Princes Dock to Brunswick via Edge Hill under its own power! I was on it and the gearbox got rather hot!
Sirob, terrific pics indeed!! One pic has an overhead wire gantry in front of the tunnel, while the rest do not.
Last usage of the tunnel was 1972. I like the Lancia or Alpha car in the pic too.
jc_everton. That was about 11am as i'd had to take paperwork to the docks before a noon cut off. Whilst you might drive down there hoping to see one of these monsters, we were in a rush and it wasn't welcomed :)
However, it was a sight to behold, like back in what I imagine the old days might have been a bit like ;)
More great pics Sirob.
Here is one idea for the re-use of the tunnels at Edge lane, part of our 21c Liverpool work (www.21cliverpool.co.uk)
[youtube]AAo-kQoyxh0[/youtube]
http://onfinite.com/libraries/1291374/9f3.jpg
http://onfinite.com/libraries/1291375/9f3.jpg
http://onfinite.com/libraries/1274967/e13.jpg
http://onfinite.com/libraries/1274968/e13.jpg
Interesting graphics in the proposals, but is this something you will put forward to the City Council? Do you have any more information on this project? It's nice to see the proposals from a Design perspective. The network needs vision and these graphics help bring the project to life.
Nice graphics. Edge Hill needs a decent station there as it is an essential hub. This outer city centre hub doesn't use the Wapping Tunnel, although that tunnel should be used eventually. So any station at Edge Hill has to be designed to suit a through loop (if the loop is built of course as it is all theory now). The Wapping tunnel can never be a part of a through loop, but not using such an asset is criminal.Quote:
Originally Posted by jc_everton
Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
The gantry picture is at Edge Hill tunnel mouth, the others at Waterloo yard and the diesel is crossing the Dock Road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
Nice work, looks very smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by scouseyuppie
but does this take into account any of the history of Edge hill station, and the fact that the station buildings there are listed structures?
Ill be honest, after studying the history of Liverpools railways for many years and the reasons why they where closed., i cant see the wapping and waterloo tunnels re opened, the wapping tunnel was known for bad water ingress problems, with the result that the LMS and British railways used special built brake vans for sanding the rails.
theres also the fact that you can easily change trains in the city centre and get a train from lime street to Edge hill already, theres one things that the railways hate, and that is doubling up on routes, a main reason why lots where closed in the 1960s.
Mike
Mike, when looking at an underground train system matters are very different. Main line routes are very different to local metro systems and should never be viewed the same. Edge Hill as a part of an underground loop is feasible. There is no need to double up on local rail systems.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike delamar
Water ingress into the Wapping tunnel can be curded by rendering the offending parts. The tunnel was not lined, just bored through solid soft rock. Only at the ends was it lined with brick.
The Waterloo tunnel can be fully used and it is hard to ignore this tunnel as it emerges at the Liverpool Waters scheme at Central Docks. The outer city centre loop I highlighted would fully use this tunnel.
The Wapping tunnel can at least be used in parts. IT is foolish not to use these tunnels as they both run right under the city centre bypassing the lot. That is great asset in any major city anywhere in the world. New stations can be cut out where necessary in both tunnels.
Ged, I had a look. Not inspired by the vision on that site - never was. There are more objective and creative thinkers on this site.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ged
Just read over that 'Outer Loop' discussion on the skyscraper forum - some very interesting posts and arguments - lots of passion about the subject, which is good. However the whole 'Bay City' - 'Waterways' link was rather comical, it started to turn into an online soap opera!
Lots of ideas on what should (or shouldn't) be done - some from a regeneration perspective, some from a value-for-money perspective. Good stuff.
My 'Urban Planning' view on the topic is that although the outer loop is great in theory, the restoration of the Waterloo tunnel should be the priority. And it is something that does not get one mention on any current MerseyTravel document. I'd love to see evidence of MT 'looking into the tunnels' as so many people would have you believe.
I think all the schemes should be integrated slowly and carfeully. I don't see any risks with the Waterloo tunnel linking up with the Northern Line, enabling direct access from Southport, Ormskirk and Kirkby (and possibly Ford if the NMB reopened) to Byrom St, Liverpool Uni/Hosp, Edge Hill, south Liverpool and ultimately Liverpool South Parkway. No risk whatsoever.
Options are increased, existing infrastructure is being maximised, and 2 key parts of Liverpool City Centre are now accessible by rail. This all complies with MerseyTravel's Rail Strategy, along with many other of their objectives, such as the need to ease over-crowding at Liverpool Central. OK, Byrom St is closer to Moorfields, but if you're a student or worker in the Liverpool Uni area, travelling to Central and walking up Mt Pleasant is a total pain in the arse. Not good enough.
The Wapping tunnel, in my eyes can be used as a sort of siding, or a turn-around point, where the many trains travelling into Central can terminate and side (?), as my proposals would see a significant increase in the amount of trains running into Liverpool. Just a thought, but maybe the tunnel can be better utilised in future years if Liverpool City Centre continues to grow, both economically and physically (eg if more people move into the city to live, work, study etc).
The two schemes that MT are considering are the North Mersey Branch and the Edge Hill to Bootle Branch (the North Liverpool Extension Line? Or was that the name of the Norris Green section of the CLC Line?).
I think these are realistic and again, not very risky. Certainly not the NLE, which would enable parts of the outer city (much more deprived than say, Aigburth, I hasten to add) to access the City Centre by rail - a much better and quicker alternative to the bus.
The Outer Loop is mere speculation, and I've seen how busy St. Michaels can get for myself, so I do not believe it is a waste of space. The area around the Outer Loop is actually well served by bus - if bus service was poor then there would be a much greater public backing for a new rail service.
Yes, transport has a massive role to play in the regeneration of any area, but you cannot just assume that a deprived area will transform into a Chelsea area just because of a new rail service. We must not forget that Liverpool is nowhere near as big as a London or a New York, and for many inner city areas in Liverpool, a bus service will suffice. Half the reason I hate buses is because I find them very uncomfortable, but this is mainly due to poor road surfacing - hence a bumpy ride. But if I want to get from say Aigburth to City Centre, a 10 min bumpy ride isn't bad enough to warrant a whole new rail line. However, a 30 min bumpy ride from say, Netherton to City Centre isn't ideal, and as the NMB line is simply lying there dormant, the case for the NMB is much more realistic.
The whole site is a soap opera. It is clique of the same people who all generally agree on the same points and are obsessed with exceptionally high buildings to the point of being blind to any sort of reality - well it is about skyscrapers.Quote:
Originally Posted by jc_everton
The outer city centre loop would alleviate overcrowding.Quote:
Options are increased, existing infrastructure is being maximised, and 2 key parts of Liverpool City Centre are now accessible by rail. This all complies with MerseyTravel's Rail Strategy, along with many other of their objectives, such as the need to ease over-crowding at Liverpool Central.
It is a hell of a leg up. The idea is to get people back into the centre and the immediate inner city areas. Gentrifying these areas is ideal and rapid transport infrastructure is appealing to developers. Heighsmoor Height at one end Of Lodge Lane is being gentrified, yet yards away is an area that is clearly decrepit. They want to move into Lodge Lane, but they need a reason to.Quote:
Yes, transport has a massive role to play in the regeneration of any area, but you cannot just assume that a deprived area will transform into a Chelsea area just because of a new rail service. We must not forget that Liverpool is nowhere near as big as a London or a New York,
For now it might. It is where the city wants to be in 5, 10 years time - having vision. And to get there using existing rapid transport infrastructure is a major lever in that big jump.Quote:
and for many inner city areas in Liverpool, a bus service will suffice.
dont get me wrong, im pro rail, and a massive railway enthusiast and would love to see the tunnels used. but have learned to think how the people who would spend the money would think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
sometimes have to let head rule heart.
If someone lives in Edge hill, they can go to the station now and there is a good quick rail service to the city centre, and a very good underground system specially designed in the 70s that could take them then to either the wirral, south liverpool, or north liverpool.
the ex london and north western railway Bootle branch which is still used today for freight to the docks lost its passenger service and station in the late 1940s, and the ex Cheshire lines north Liverpool line which is now a cycle path lost its passenger service in the 1960s.
main reason is that if you live in areas like tuebrook or Knotty ash, people did not want to get on a train which would take them around the world to get into town, and so took the bus or tram.
I still think this would apply today.
Mike
Mike, the Waterloo Tunnel ends right smack in the middle of the Liverpool Waters complex at Central Docks. This will need rapid transport out of the city. Also areas like Byron ST and London Rd are served well and the word "re-generation" always comes up. A prime aim is to get these areas up and running, prosperous and populated. A Station into an integrated rail system will clearly work for these areas. It is the future that counts. People tend to be locked into the present.
What is needed is a master plan. Then prioritise what needs to be integrated - spending excessive millions on trundling trams to assist Everton FC is just plain silly. The club's should go where the transport infrastructure is not the other way around. The same in getting passenger trains on the outer loop again - this is to justify getting Liverpool FC off ground in Anfield. None of these schemes will make any impact at all on the volume of people shifted at the stadia, the stations will just not have the throughput. If EFC & LFC were to share a stadium then it may be worth spending money on a high throughput station, which has knock of affects of modern signaling systems. However, regeneration of the inner cities is paramount and these stadia will not do that despite propaganda saying otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by jc_everton
LFC regenerating Anfield? Yearrrrrr!!!! Sure they will. They have failed to do so in over 100 years and have been one of Europe's top club's for the past 35 years and in all that time total decline in the area.
Liverpool Waters and north end regeneration would be greatly enhanced if the Waterloo Tunnel is brought on-line, merged with the Northern Line and a station at the end of the tunnel.
I see the outer city loop as a mechanism to connect this parts of the city to the east and south and easy connections to the centre and beyond.
Mike that is true....but.....Edge Hill station is doudy and not in the centre of the district at all. It is out on limb. OK the city should have future planning congregating developments around this station making the station the centre of Edge Hill - the area does need serious regeneration.Quote:
Originally Posted by mike delamar
The loop serves many inner city areas around the centre and interconnects with many other areas too. These inner city area have the same access as everyone else on the loop.
Look at The Circle Line in London. Look at a London tube map
http://www.afn.org/~alplatt/tubemap.gif
The Circle Line is in yellow. See how main line stations are on it. Lines go out of the centre in a star and the circle line cuts through them. It is a great access line to get around the immediate centre and interconnect to the outer regions very easily.
The proposed Liverpool outer city centre loop will do exactly this. A circle line. It should be implemented ASAP.
I had an idea many years ago for the re opening of the ex cheshire lines, although i have seen several proposals over the years, ive never seen this particular idea, with a branch near hartleys hill Aintree along the old clc to hunts cross, which could also have the lines from walton through kirkdale and sandills (marked yellow) reinstated to 4 tracks if needed.
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z...delz/map3a.jpg
http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z...mdelz/map4.jpg
with regards the edge hill tunnels, i think the victoria and waterloo tunnels is a good idea.
i think the wapping tunnel on top of having a stream running nearby which causes water problems, is also built to a very tight loading gauge, Ive been told by ex railway men that 2 trains where not allowed to pass in the tunnel, such was the tightness of it, its one of the oldest railway tunnels ever, and the loading gauge is down to the size of locomotives at the time.
Mike
Mike, interesting proposals there, and good use of map annotation too, I should sometimes use maps to explain things!
Thing is with the CLC is, you have to look at why it closed in the first place. Passenger numbers were so low. It was populated in Knotty Ash/Warbreck 50 years ago, not much more than it is today, so why would this line be of any use to us now? Especially with the massive increase in car usage. As much I advocate rail reopenings, this line really does not serve much purpose.
Sure, it does increase passenger options, and it is making good use of old infrastructure, but it would really need to link in with St Helens line near the A57.
However, following on from my idea of the NMB being used as a freight-line (perhaps with some scope for passenger use), a new link could be created near Aintree Station, taking the NMB onto the old CLC, allowing freight to move south, where most of it seems to go.
This actually makes a lot of sense, as there are time restrictions on the Bootle Branch, and passenger services could be returning in the future, meaning the line will be passenger by day and freight at night.
This is only a plan I've just thought up, but if it could gain some backing (at least on here), it's a start!
Problems? Obviously, the line is a cycle path. But it's not as if the whole CLC is being used for rail. North of Aintree Station, the line would of course remain a cycle path. Perhaps there may be some scope for half rail, half cycle path? It is a compromise.
There is also the problem of depth - the CLC is lower than than the NMB, but there is plenty of land around the site for this to be developed. I drew up a map of what I mean but I can't bloody upload it. I wish I could just copy and paste. If anyone can help, that'd be great.
I actually meant to talk about the Line north of Aintree but got sidetracked with the uploading/faffing around.
A station in Maghull at the old site, by the Snooker Hall, would be fantastic, and there would definitely be high demand, but again, it would have to link in somehow with a Liverpool-bound line for it to have any chance of a consideration. And the fact that Switch Island is slap bang in the middle of the old line would be a major logistical problem.
Other than that, I can't see any purpose for the line. Gateacre maybe has a case, as it is not served by rail and the line is nowhere near as neglected as the Aintree - Maghull section. But again, the train would have to travel south, then west, then north, just to get to town. Would it really be worth it, time-wise? if it was direct, maybe. But indirectly, I can't see it being much quicker than a bus. Unfortunately.
The Waterloo and Wapping Tunnels - the red lines. The nearside is the Waterloo Tunnel (well Victoria Tunnel and Waterloo all in one tunnel). These tunnels run under the city centre. In a city that is increasing its city centre population to pretty dense levels, not using them is criminal and gross amateurism by Merseyrail planners.
http://i31.tinypic.com/9po08n.jpg
And wouldn't that cream topped Bestway building site look just great as the new home of Everton, on Scotland Road - a true city centre peoples club. ;)
Below: The Circle Line. 12 stations in all.
The used Brunswick Stn is off picture to the right.
Four stations are already in use, but Edge Hill would probably need a major update.
Two stations are laying there disused being cheap to bring on-line.
One underground station at Byrom St cutting is easy to construct.
Two stations cut in a cut and cover build.
Only one station cut out of the tunnel at London Rd/Royal Hospital.
A new easy to construct overground station at Waterloo Dock
http://i26.tinypic.com/2mczhqa.jpg
Ged, it would be served by Byrom St station, if this Circle Line was ever built of course. The site is really just too small - nice it it was big enough.
Just look at the area just in from Waterloo Dock. Full of ramshackle small companies. This could be cleared and the companies moved to state-of-the-art business parks. What a location. near to the centre, Merseyrail station near, etc.
The proposed Circle Line, in Red. Stations at top running clockwise:
- Waterloo Dock
- Byrom St
- London Rd
- Edge Hill
- Lodge Lane
- Sefton Pk Rd
- Dingle
- Brunswick
- St James
- Central
- Lime St
- Moorefields
The black line is the new line in from ST Helens.
It is easy to see the great enhancement it makes to the city's underground. And 80% of the Circle Line is already in place.
http://i25.tinypic.com/10ehcpd.jpg
Seeing it drawn like that reminds me of the 60 bus route.
Fine in theory, but one of the worst bus services in Liverpool, probably because it never attracts many passengers.
You can be waiting up to half an hour for one, and when it finally arrives, there might be only half a dozen people on it!
The 60 bus was an outer city circle route, Dingle to Bootle via Old Swan. That line is inner circle catching all the major points in the city..and rapid underground transport.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipG
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterways
I consider my wriists well slapped. :PDT_Aliboronz_11:
I've been following this thread with great interest. Sadly, I can't see anything like this ever materialising, but you never know,the demise of the private car might provide the necessary impetus.The reinstatement of the south Burscough-curve,is a perfect example of the short-sightedness of our movers and shakers.Requiring very little in the way of capital-investment,the improved access to Ormskirk and Preston from Southport would be considerable.Burscough is growing fast and improved links to Liverpool would make the town very attractive to commuters.When you examen the little frequented D.M.U shuttle-service in operation between Ormskirk and Preston it is hard to believe that the line has a promising future,but studies have clearly shown its' potential.
Andy,Quote:
Originally Posted by andyk
All due respect, but this scheme is the for Liverpool centre which is being targetted as a major development area with an increased more dense population. The Circle Line does make a lot of sense and over 80% is in place. It is beneath our feet. It makes outer suburbs and towns easier to connect onto the the Liverpool centre. The lines hit the circle, go around it, nit all major parts of Liverpool, the business, shopping and tourist districts, and back out up the line.
The reason it will not go ahead are many:
- Vested interest in Big Ears, ding dong, trams. (transport consultancies who have made millions from producing sweet FA)
- Ignorance in that they have not thought of it.
- petty local politics
- etc
The reality is that we need it, and most of it is in place.
Waterways: Andyk's post might not have been relevant to the issue of the underground network in Liverpool but it was a bit harsh to just dismiss his comments and reiterate a point you've made almost 100 times. You keep saying the city NEEDS it. The more I think about, the more I think, "no, it doesn't necessarily need it at all." The Waterloo tunnel could be utilised, yes. But all these areas like Lodge Lane and Vauxhall are so close to town you could walk it if you wanted. I know a lad in my old college class who used to walk from town to Allerton (albeit after a night out drinking).
More important issues are out in the suburbs where bus services are poor and infrequent. A lot of people in Merseyside do not have rail access, and indeed, the Burscough Curves help integrate the West Lancashire area (a major Liverpool commuter area) into the Merseyside rail network, and provide commuters with greater flexibility, especially commuters who travelling from Ormskirk to Southport to work and vice versa.
Andy might be better off starting a new thread but the Burscough Curves is something that I have been following closely, and it seems as though the forever-ongoing 'investigation' is now turning to a reality, albeit about 20 years away at the earliest, what with all the funding issues, and planning processes.
I didn't dismiss it. It obviously came across as too harsh. From his point it is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by jc_everton
They are not that close to town you could walk. Dingle and Lodge Lane are definitely inner city areas as is Byrom St, although Byrom St is close to the centre. Waterloo Dock has definitely a need for integration.Quote:
You keep saying the city NEEDS it. The more I think about, the more I think, "no, it doesn't necessarily need it at all." The Waterloo tunnel could be utilised, yes. But all these areas like Lodge Lane and Vauxhall are so close to town you could walk it if you wanted.
Good for him!! I wouldn't!Quote:
I know a lad in my old college class who used to walk from town to Allerton (albeit after a night out drinking).
The Canada Dock curve via Anfield should be integrated via Edge Hill, so should the St Helens line too which is more imminent. It is a matter priorities. Get the hub done first, which most of is actually there. That is why I stress it. Then all outer lines can mesh into a city centre Circle Line. Work out from the centre.Quote:
More important issues are out in the suburbs where bus services are poor and infrequent. A lot of people in Merseyside do not have rail access, and indeed, the Burscough Curves help integrate the West Lancashire area (a major Liverpool commuter area) into the Merseyside rail network, and provide commuters with greater flexibility, especially commuters who travelling from Ormskirk to Southport to work and vice versa.
I feel all should be integrated in time, but as I said it is a matter of priorities. And I don't think Burscough is actually in Merseyside. Nice to mesh in, but way down the line.Quote:
Andy might be better off starting a new thread but the Burscough Curves is something that I have been following closely, and it seems as though the forever-ongoing 'investigation' is now turning to a reality, albeit about 20 years away at the earliest, what with all the funding issues, and planning processes.
Well I disagree. I believe you did dismiss his post, as you did not consider the ins and outs of his case. You just moved back on to the Loop Line, which is pure speculation from yourself. It is not on any agenda, and there are people on this forum that oppose your scheme. So Andy's 'Burscough Curve' post is far more real and relevant than any potential scheme that you talk about.
If your scheme was so glaringly obvious as you make out, I'm sure you would not be alone in the promotion of it.
I disagree about starting with the centre and working out to the suburbs. People who live and work in the city centre can generally walk around to everywhere they need to get to - the city has everything. People in the suburbs are integral to the economy of any city, and commuting to cities is part and parcel of suburban life. As you say, the Bootle Branch can play a major part in providing the suburbs with rail access - which has to be a more important issue than linking up somewhere like Lodge Lane to town, where buses are highly frequent and journey time is short.
Which moves me on to your dismissal of 'Big Ears ding ding' trams. I think your dismissal is rubbish to be honest. A tram service in the city centre would be fantastic - they are quick, reliable and convenient. Why else would so many European cities employ them?! And we all know how good Europe is transport-wise! Trams enable you to hop and off, minimum of fuss - and for a relatively small city like Liverpool, trams are ideal. Trams are NEEDED in the city centre, perhaps not to the suburbs - that is where rail comes in.
The Waterloo tunnel basically provides an extra outlet for commuters, it gives more flexibility and options to the people of Merseyside - not just the people of Liverpool which you are so concerned about. As I say, the closer you get to the inner city, the less of a need there is for this loop line.
More direct trains from say, Ormskirk to JLA Airport would be great, and again, the Waterloo tunnel could be utilised for these services, as it diverts traffic away from the Moorfields/Central area.
But, we shall agree to disagree.
Burscough is not even in Merseyside and it is not even a big place. Burscough is reasonably affluent too, unlike around inner city Lodge Lane and Dingle, which needs public investment to attract private investment. The Burscough curve is being given attention, although I think funds should be directed to more pressing needs, if funds are tight, like getting disused infrastructure up and running near the city centre.
The Canada Dock loop? Nice to have and largely in place, however the only great need is LFC and their stadium. Those suburbs have high car ownership and not that populated either. A front to give LFC a leg up? Most certainly. LFC officials were on a train last week riding around the loop. Trams to Kirkby to help EFC? Most certainly: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-19547082/ Best spend money where it benefits the city as a whole not two rich organisations who can re-locate to where the transport already is.
I think you are missing one of the main aims of such a Circle Line, which is inner city regeneration. Rapid transit underground rail systems will attract investors, it did in London with the Jubilee line. Burscough and the likes hardly need regeneration.
A Circle Line would enable a suburban line to enter the circle and access all major points of the city without a change.
The city literally does not need trams when it has a rapid transit underground system, which has an amazing amount of underground and overground lines and stations waiting to be re-used. I am not saying they would not fill a gap to some outer suburbs. But!! trams are not cheap at all. They are basically railways, with expensive rails and ugly expensive overhead cables. Manchester used trams because they could not afford an underground railways system. Liverpool has one and a lots of it under our feet ready to go...and we are ignoring it. I'm sure Manchester would have used such infrastructure by now. They would have jumped at it. They must be looking at Liverpool thinking the city is mad.
However if all the disused stations and lines are used there is little need for expensive trams in the centre at all. Electric or hybrid powered buses can fill the gap if needed. Liverpool in the 1970s had electric busses running a loop around the centre. Before all this eco hype.
Liverpool centre and surrounding inner city areas is quite big. The centre is set to expand - mainly along the waterfront out to the south and north. The aim is to get it densely populated.
Understand what such a Circle Line brings to the party. All major points in the centre are accessed via a Circle hub:
- business district,
- shopping district,
- north end waterfront,
- south end waterfront,
- Sefton Park,
- Main line station,
..and all without a change from the suburbs. E.g., in the loop at Edge Hill, around it and back out. Quite simple.
- Inner cities are accessed promoting regeneration.
- A hub for outer suburb lines to access the city.
It is foolish to ignore such almost in place infrastructure. Work out from the centre. Value what we have and use it. If the centre fails the city as a whole fails.
Train/Trams could be used to complete the loop from Dingle up Lodge Lane and to Edge Hill. Then no tunnel boring. They would need to be duel electric pickup of third rail and overhead wires.
We shall have to agree to disagree.
Objections to the trams:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/mer...ntr5652?page=9
6.5 In the view of a number of objectors, there is no clear need for Merseytram Line 1 in transportation terms. Passengers between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre are already catered for by the fast, frequent and recently refurbished Merseyrail Electrics trains.
6.12 Merseytravel has demonstrated no transport need for the proposed tram. There is a train service between Kirkby Railway Station and central Liverpool which provides a train every 15 minutes, with a journey time also of only 15 minutes. There is a frequent bus service in the Line 1 corridor. The time saving for most journeys within the line 1 corridor resulting from use of the proposed tram rather than the bus is at most 5 minutes. Even this claimed marginal advantage is misleading because it takes no account of the additional waiting time for the tram or of the longer average walk to the tram stop predicated by the wider tram catchment area compared with that of the bus. There is ample bus capacity: a bus can carry up to 50 passengers, but average use is only 12 to 14 passengers per bus.
6.34 The scheme would meet no identified transport need, and, indeed, would damage competing transport undertakings such as local trains and buses by unfair competition. There is already a train service between Kirkby and Liverpool run by Merseyrail.
there is currently a bus service between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre on average about every two minutes. There is accordingly no need or natural demand for a tram.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (OBJ/269)
The [tram] scheme is poorly targeted and does not represent good value for money. The money could be better spent on other projects, including the provision of a new deepwater harbour and cruise liner terminal, or improvements to local roads and the provision of a rapid rail link to Liverpool Airport.
6.41 It is self-evident that by promoting a tram which is largely to be publicly funded, in direct competition with buses and trains which are in large part without public subsidy, Merseytravel is acting in contravention of EU competition law. Any grant of public money would be challengeable in court or before the European Competition Commissioner.
I do apologise if my contribution is off-subject,which is the very reason I did not start a new thread.However, how can a huge scheme, such as the one proposed by Waterways ever hope to get off the ground when there is reluctance to reinstate a quarter mile of track, the utility of which has already been shown to exist.
City-centre regeneration is a good thing, but as jc_everton points out, transport needs in the city-centre are already provided for, admittedly,they are not perfect, but they exist.Many affluent people would never even consider living in the city-centre,preferring to commute to Southport or the Wirral.Electrification to Burscough(and beyond)would be an immediate success,as have previous extentions to the network.