Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

Andy, good point about not installing a short length of track. However extra trains and signalling is also a problem. The Olive Mount chord at Edge Hill is essential for the whole rail system, goods and passenger. This is a matter of 500 yards and this has taken far too long to get laid. It takes goods out of the north ends docks seamlessly - currently goods trains have to reverse at Edge Hill. A few hundred yards of track essential to the ports throughput and they humm and ahhh over that. What is amazing is these pieces of track were actually in place and taken up. Madness. No foresight whatsoever.

They seem to get money for big schemes like unneeded trams, but not for small schemes. A scheme needs glitter to get attention. An underground loop - on the cheap - having a dozen stations on it may be enough glitter. A project like this will take a number of years and stretch over various annual budgets, so not that out of the question.

Existing city centre and inner city transports is OK at best. However, as the city is becoming more densely populated transport has to expand and the underground Circle Line is basically there ideal for the job in hand, also regenerating a number of inner city areas along the way. A biggish scheme will attract developers and investors and give out the right messages and image - a city going places.

Big successful cities have comprehensive underground rail systems. That is a big message to put forward. A huge statement to the world that the city is not in decline and the current construction are not just catch up schemes that should have been done over the past 35 years - what one Londoner said to me. We should put forward the image the city is going forwards and not standing still or catching up.

The problem with the city over 50 years is that people left it to go to the outer towns and suburbs. Half the population left in that time. Tunnels and rapid transport systems aided this exodus. The city is attempting to reverse that. So, concentrating on the centre and immediate circling districts is the way to reverse the trend.

Some people will want to live in outer suburbs for many reasons, and that is their choice and nothing wrong with that. However my own view is that the city centre should get priority for the many, many obvious reasons. There are more single people now and there will be more in the future, so city centre and inner city living is essential and right being targetted. Sort it from the centre as the outer parts than benefit too.

It is not rocket science - most is Victorian.

I am in total agreement about city centre regeneration - my course is more-or-less all about urban regeneration. However, you are adamant that without a rapid transit system, the regeneration cannot go ahead, or it will be unsuccessful. Which is totally unfounded.
I would like to see figures of tram vs underground rail, in terms of cost. My argument for trams was for city centre usage only. If other areas were supplied with trams then that can only be a good thing for them areas - improved options of public transport.
But the city centre is in need of trams, not underground, in my view. It is your opinion to say they are ugly, noisy and have obtrusive ovehead wires. I personally like them, and they are a complete success in Europe. If they were as useless as you make out, they wouldn't still be in existence today. Manchester is Manchester. Why do I keep hearing this city in posts? Let them plan their own transport. As far as I'm concerned, the tram system in Manchester is absolutely fine.

You cannot fault tram's convenience, in terms of short journeys, you simply cannot fault them. If I was able to hop on a tram at William Brown St and get off at Mount Pleasant, to use the Aldham Library, I would be absolutely delighted. It gets me to my destination quickly, keeps me sheltered from rain, and I don't have to walk up and down numerous escalators and stairs just to get in and out of the stations.

I'm sorry but for the kind of journeys that I just mentioned above, trams beats metro hands-down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc_everton

I am in total agreement about city centre regeneration - my course is more-or-less all about urban regeneration.

---

Most pressing urban regeneration tends to be around the inner cities. It has been proven in London with the new Jubilee that a rapid rail transit station adjacent attracts investment.

Quote:

---

However, you are adamant that without a rapid transit system, the regeneration cannot go ahead, or it will be unsuccessful. Which is totally unfounded.

---

One thing is clear, inner city regeneration is not happening quickly as it is, and an impetus of a rapid transport rail station would quicken up the process. An example given above.

Quote:

---

I would like to see figures of tram vs underground rail, in terms of cost.

---

Installing trams - you are installing a light railway network, which is not cheap. Busses are very cheap as they use existing roads and carry their own energy in fuel tanks or batteries - no ugly overhead and dangerous wires needed. Trams need overhead wires and the electrical equipment to power that, again not cheap.

Trams can't do more than what buses can do in the centre, and as I have mentioned the city was eco 35 years ago with electric busses running in a loop around the centre - things have moved on in technology and this could be improved on using clean LPG, hybrid power units, or whatever. These eco-busses can be cheaply be re-introduced and distinctive looking, in looks and colours, to grab attention. A tram cannot offer more than what the eco-bus offers around the centre. Both will be stuck in traffic.

Busses offer flexible routing too, which a light rail system like trams cannot.

Trams are:

1. ugly (subjective)
2. noisy (they are)
3. vibrate into adjacent buildings (they do)
4. have obtrusive and ugly overhead wires (they have)
5. Expensive to implement (they are)

That is pretty clear, and only point 1. above is an "opinion", the rest being fact.

Back to basics. Manchester introduced trams because they could not afford a rapid transit underground system. The reason why most are introduced. Manchester is used as shining example of why we must have trams - forgetting they are failing in Sheffield and Croydon. Many trams in Europe were kept on because they were always there. All UK cities dropped trams in the 1950s for good reason. The best transport system in a city by far is an unobtrusive rapid transit underground rail system to shift people around and serve all areas. Eco-busses can fill the gaps between stations.

Now back to Liverpool. I re-iterate, we have an amazing amount of underground rail infrastructure under our feet that just needs re-activating and meshing into Merseyrail. The idea of the Circle Line is sound.

If we are going to spend money on rail networks (that is what a tram is) then spend it on something meaningful, will benefit, is cheap to do and which 80% of it is there - extend the existing underground rapid transit rail system - preferably into a Circle Line of 12 stations.

Yes, the bus services into town are very frequent, especially the 79, 86 and 82, but when the 82 takes 15 minutes to crawl from St James Church to Lewis's, you wish you were on a train!

I live exactly on top of Dingle Station, and would love to see it reopen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipG

Yes, the bus services into town are very frequent, especially the 79, 86 and 82, but when the 82 takes 15 minutes to crawl from St James Church to Lewis's, you wish you were on a train!

---

That is why a Circle Line accessing all the city centre's major districts (business, shopping, leisure, park) is essential. From the suburbs, into the loop, around it, accessing all points and back out again. Simple, effective. ...and cheap to implement and most is still there.

That 15 minute wait will get worse as the city centre re-populates

Quote:

---

I live exactly on top of Dingle Station, and would love to see it reopen.

---

Exactly? That is a garage now.

An ex-pat, I live and work permanently in France between Bordeaux and Toulouse (these are the regions two major towns).Toulouse has a two-line light metro-VAL-with a first tram-line actually under construction.
Bordeaux has a three-line tram system, using the revolutuionary APS
'Alimentation Par Le Sol'


"A particular feature of the new Bordeaux tram network is its ground-level power supply system. This was the source of many difficulties and breakdowns when first introduced. Improvements since then, however, have increased reliability and the network is now one of Bordeaux's principal plus points, valued not just for enabling the people of the city to get about easily but also for its contribution to the aesthetics of the city and its quality of life. The new trams are an essential part of Bordeaux's current tourist redynamization strategy. The three lines will be extended in 2007 to reach several housing estates as well as the suburb of Mérignac. The whole system is under video surveillance, with a camera installed inside each vehicle"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramway_de_Bordeaux

Both these systems have been a huge success, taking thousands of cars off the over-congested roads.Bordeaux preferred the tram over a VAL system as it gained four times as much route for the same investment.

A modern forward looking city,Bordeaux preferred a tramway.Admittedly,Liverpool has many useful tunnels and disused track-beds that could be intergrated into a new network,but you cannot dismiss the fact that you get a lot more route for the same investment by choosing a tramway.

Finally, I would just like to add that I really enjoy reading your contributions on this forum(and also Skyscrapercity). Much time and thought goes into their elaboration and it is truly appreciated.

I recently purchased a train 'cab ride' DVD showing the track from Liverpool Lime Street out to Broadgreen/St Helens/Manchester.

This was done in the 1990's but I was amazed at how quickly you got from say Lime Street to Broadgreen - I think I'll have to give it a go next time I'm in town!

Waterways: You keep referring to tram's ugliness and noise, saying that this is FACT! Where are the facts to prove its ugliness? I think they are great. Not great looking, but not bad looking either. They are in place to get one from A to B with minimum fuss.

You talk about trams running into traffic.... well greater pedestrianisation of the city centre would almost certainly help. Congestion charges would deter people... plus there are ways in which trams can be made absolute priority on the roads. I couldn't really care less about the Kirkby line, unless Everton moved there, increasing the need for better public transport. Kirkby station is not close enough in my view. Especially if Liverpool are getting a new station... Bolton have their own station... Arsenal....Man Utd have a matchday-only station... Newcastle.... Sunderland... the list goes on (but definitely not Middlesbrough!).

I believe a metro system (but not Waterways proposal) integrated with city centre trams is the way forward. I have produced a map to show how this can work but I can't bloody use the upload thing (why can't we just copy and paste). Or at least is keeps saying the KB is too big when it clearly isn't.

You said Sheffield's trams are failing, but you did not disagree about the Manchester tram network being absolutely fine.

Britain's cities pulled the plug on trams in the 1950s with good reason. Thats like saying the many disused railways were abandoned with good reason. We all know that past transport policies have left this country lagging behind Europe, so we must reverse this and look at how a successful European city transport system works, such as Nuremburg, or as Andy says, Bordeaux (cheers mate, I'll include that in my c'work!).

Waterways, I actually believe that your proposal is not ruthless enough, because I do not see how city centre access is improved (eg, if I wanted to get from Byrom St to Hardman St), perhaps I should send you a copy of my map to show how trams and metro can integrate without boring more tunnels and creating new stations.

By the way, I am still not convinced light rail would be a lot more expensive than a metro system until I see hard figures. Your proposal is mere speculation let's not forget, so the figures that you may come up with will be purely guesswork. My proposal is at least half-Merseytram, half-metro so at least half of my figures would be accurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andyk

A modern forward looking city,Bordeaux preferred a tramway.Admittedly,Liverpool has many useful tunnels and disused track-beds that could be intergrated into a new network,but you cannot dismiss the fact that you get a lot more route for the same investment by choosing a tramway.

---

Andy, the priority in Liverpool must be reuse of existing underground infrastructure, for obvious reasons. How it can integrate into the existing Merseyrail network was always the problem. The Circle Line solves that, all is used apart from the Wapping Tunnel, which can be used to feed Kings Dock, the university and Chinatown later and branch into the Northern Line

In Liverpool trams ran on the central reservations of the Boulevards: Mather, Menlove etc. Using trams to service outer suburbs which don't have rail access along the boulevards is a sound notion. However the overhead wired trams don't mesh into Merseyrail - unless duel pickup of 3rd rail and overhead wires. The Bordeaux ground third rail trams may be the answer to Merseyrail tram integration.

The third rail....

"APS entirely replaces overhead. Each 8-m long section of powered third rail is controlled by a "coffret" (small metal box) installed in the nearby pavement, and this box contains the electronics that provide the security check analysis and control the system; from each of these boxes power is permitted only to those rail segments above which a tram is actually passing. The standard distance between these "coffrets", which are hardly visible, is 22 m.

The tram collects the electric power each time through skates, installed in the middle underneath the vehicle. This means that at the moment when one skate touches a neutral section, the other skate is drawing power from a powered section. In case of irregularities, the "coffret" is automatically switched off, and the tram continues its journey by switching to battery-generated power. Each "coffret" can also be switched in or out by the central control facility."

Back to the Liverpool Circle Line. The only section not built is from Dingle to Edge Hill. These APS trams can complete the circle using the Merseyrail third rail and out onto the streets using the APS ground 3rd rail pickup. Although the overground part may slow up the rapidness of the system. Also all Merseyrail rolling stock would need to go over to the APS tram rolling stock. It is better to complete such a loop underground. Then existing Merseyrail rolling stock can use the Circle Line and APS trams from rapid outer suburb routes can too.

Say an APS tram down Menlove Ave, it can then access this loop at the Mystery Park at Smithdown Rd (Sefton Pk station) and work its way into Edge Hill along the track there.

New fast APS services down boulevards that can access an underground outer city centre circle line are ideal. That mean all outer suburb line access all main point in the centre.

Quote:

---

Finally, I would just like to add that I really enjoy reading your contributions on this forum

---

Thanks, I like yours too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc_everton

Waterways: You keep referring to tram's ugliness and noise, saying that this is FACT! Where are the facts to prove its ugliness? I think they are great. Not great looking, but not bad looking either. They are in place to get one from A to B with minimum fuss.

---

JC. looks is subjective, although the Bordeaux trams looks swish enough.

Quote:

---

You talk about trams running into traffic.... well greater pedestrianisation of the city centre would almost certainly help. Congestion charges would deter people... plus there are ways in which trams can be made absolute priority on the roads.

---

That could apply to cheaper eco-busess too. Trams are only viaable for long haul route - cheaper than underground rapid transit system.

Quote:

---

I couldn't really care less about the Kirkby line, unless Everton moved there, increasing the need for better public transport. Kirkby station is not close enough in my view. Especially if Liverpool are getting a new station... Bolton have their own station... Arsenal....Man Utd have a matchday-only station... Newcastle.... Sunderland... the list goes on (but definitely not Middlesbrough!).

---

Everton and Liverpool FC can both move to sites with superior rail and road transport links.

Quote:

---

I believe a metro system (but not Waterways proposal) integrated with city centre trams is the way forward. I have produced a map to show how this can work but I can't bloody use the upload thing (why can't we just copy and paste). Or at least is keeps saying the KB is too big when it clearly isn't.

---

Use the image button and make sure the file is .jpg.

Quote:

---

You said Sheffield's trams are failing, but you did not disagree about the Manchester tram network being absolutely fine.

---

Two out of three are not a success. Trams are not a sure-fire success.

Quote:

---

Britain's cities pulled the plug on trams in the 1950s with good reason. That's like saying the many disused railways were abandoned with good reason.

---

The abandonment of much of the railways was a political decision by Dr Beeching. The Road Transport Lobby were funding the Tories.

Quote:

---

We all know that past transport policies have left this country lagging behind Europe, so we must reverse this and look at how a successful European city transport system works, such as Nuremburg, or as Andy says, Bordeaux (cheers mate, I'll include that in my c'work!).

---

We must. But first let's put the infrastructure under our feet to good use.

Quote:

---

Waterways, I actually believe that your proposal is not ruthless enough, because I do not see how city centre access is improved (eg, if I wanted to get from Byrom St to Hardman St), perhaps I should send you a copy of my map to show how trams and metro can integrate without boring more tunnels and creating new stations.

---

The Wapping Tunnel runs close by to Hardman St at Hope St/Blackburn Place.
It also crosses the Northern line tunnel at Gt George St. An underground station could be built here.
http://www.toxteth.net/maps/liverpoo..._mapbw_0x2.gif

Quote:

---

By the way, I am still not convinced light rail would be a lot more expensive than a metro system until I see hard figures. Your proposal is mere speculation let's not forget, so the figures that you may come up with will be purely guesswork. My proposal is at least half-Merseytram, half-metro so at least half of my figures would be accurate.

---

I come up with no figures at all. What is clear is that to build such an underground Circle Line from scratch would be horrendously expensive. 80% is there, so no matter what the cost it will always be cheap. Then look at what it offers in regeneration, access to all major city quarters, great connectivity, etc. Don't lose sight of that - people get bogged down with detail and lose sight of what is important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike delamar

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, That is one hell of a loop. Living in the east of the city will be a long way around, either way, to get to the centre.

The 1960s idea was similar, and was to be built. The Northern Line from Sandhills through the centre to Gatacre. From there around the loop, via Childwall, Broad Green, Anfield, Walton and join back before Sandhills (the Canada Dock branch. Like yours a long way around from the east.

The Edge Hill Spur was supposed to cut this loop into two - a north end loop and a south end loop. From Broad Green to Edge Hill, down the Wapping Tunnel with a branch off this to Central stn. Two loops could be in operation.

As the Line from Gatacre to Broad Green is now a linear Park installing rails again maybe out of the question - although not completely. This leaves the north end loop, which LFC want reinstated. However it would only go as far as Edge Hill - maybe Lime St main line if 3rd rail is installed. So you could have a line from South Parkway to the centre, around the loop via Vauxhall, Walton, Anfield, Broad Green then into Edge Hill/Lime St.

The Edge Hill Spur using the Wapping tunnel, with maybe a station at Catherine St would be essential here to get outlying people to the main districts in the centre: business and shopping.

Then the Circle Line using the Waterloo tunnel would complete the the main Liverpool system. Of course the Burscough curve would enhance (also creating a loop: Kirkdale - Ormskirk - Southport - Kirkdale), as would the Bidston to Wrexham link, bringing people in from North Wales right into the main centre districts.

I had that Idea when I was about 13 and for no other reason than wanting to see trains on the old clc line, I knew nothing of the economics or anything, it was just a way I saw that it could be done, and since ive learned and studied about it, know it wont happen.

also, dont always assume that people want to go into town, they may live in gateacre and want to go to knotty ash or clubmoor for example.

Newcastle has a similar loop railway, check that out

Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike delamar

I had that Idea when I was about 13 and for no other reason than wanting to see trains on the old clc line, I knew nothing of the economics or anything, it was just a way I saw that it could be done, and since ive learned and studied about it, know it wont happen.

also, dont always assume that people want to go into town, they may live in gateacre and want to go to knotty ash or clubmoor for example.

Newcastle has a similar loop railway, check that out

Mike

---

Mike, you are right they don't always want to go into town, however that is the busiest and most in demand of routes. And as the city wants the centre to be the full focus of the city it makes sense to get them in there and out ASAP.

The Canada Dock branch (the loop through Anfield - well the northern loop) looks like it may happen. It is being seriously considered. If LFCs new stadium emerges then I think it will happen. But as I said it needs to be a proper loop and that will only happen with the Edge Hill spur - a small amount of tunnelling from the Wapping tunnel into the Northern Line tunnel just before Central stn. Then a full circular loop giving access to the business, shopping and leisure districts of the centre.

If the Northern loop gets done and is a success, then the southern section may emerge as the track bed is still there. If I had a house built butting onto that track and they said they were going to runs trains through I would be most displeased - so lengthy delays is getting that up and running. The northern loop has no such problems as the line is in use by goods trains.

This does not preclude the Circle Line, which would need tunnelling from Dingle underground station to Edge via Lodge Lane. This would also allow people to travel, say from Brunswick dock to Lodge Lane without hitting the centre. Or Waterloo Dock (Liverpool Waters) to Sefton Park without hitting he centre.

Once a Circle Line, the northern loop and maybe the southern loop are in place, then Liverpool can start with congestion charging and get rid of the Dock Rd Urban motorway. Then it is easy to get to the centre and a pleasure to be there as traffic will be light.

Merseyrail is essential for the city.

Ive always thought Lime Street to Aintree via Bootle Junction would be an interesting addition to the network. Both lines exist, with the Bootle-Aintree branch obviously needing the most work to bring up to passenger spec. But they both pass through densely populated areas that could do with better public transport. It would also allow a link for longer distance trains travelling to Aintree for the races or Anfield, with the Olive Mount Chord work being done.

The two 'interchange' stations that would be created at Oriel Road and Bootle New Strand already have a 3rd platform that has never been scrapped, and it looks as if Merseyrail have thought of this during the planning as Oriel Roads refurbishment appears to be leaving the 3rd platform intact.

Here is an old rail map from a Liverpool rail web site:Here

It shows all the central and north rail link lines very well. Garston, Gatacre, etc missed out.
http://www.lenpentin.20fr.com/liverpool_map_full.jpg

From Mike Royden's site. The South end rail lines:
http://www.btinternet.com/~m.royden/...calnetwork.jpg

Waterways: I believe a fully comprehensive map showing exactly where the loop line will connect with the other lines and how they would connect, would convince me. For instance, the Waterloo tunnel connecting with the Northern Line. I'm confused as to how this would happen.

In the other post which I've just sent, on the Central Station thread, I touched on the subject of Lodge Lane. looking at your original map, it would take ages to get from Lodge Lane to Central via Waterloo dock. And i'm assuming it will be a two-way loop? if it was one-way, it would effectively be pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

...

• Out at Waterloo Dock
• Build a station here serving that centre
• Branch onto the northern line and back to the city centre ...

---

Looking at the available modern and historical photos, googlearth etc. it looks to me that any exit from the Waterloo tunnel would be quite difficult, due mostly to the Costco building to the West and the presence of the Northern line limiting changes to the East. I suppose you could demolish the Costco building to proceed, but ignoring that unlikely scenario then:-

As to heavy rail linking up with the Northern line, this would seem to have space only to hook-up Northbound, and even that would require re-routing Gt. Howard St., a new flyover at least.

More feasible might be light-rail (tram) which could make a tightish right turn and uphill on exiting a slightly changed tunnel portal, perhaps to a tram terminus where the car wash, or whatever it is, presently stands at the corner of Gt. Howard St. and Chadwick St..
Or instead of terminating there, a tram could continue running at street level. For example somehow looping around a few streets by making a series of left turns to end up Northbound on Pall Mall and looping back under the Northern line at Chadwick St. and back down into the tunnel.

Separately, I'm more inclined to think that such an old tunnel might be more suited to the lower forces involved in light-rail than the various demands of modern heavy rail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HollyBlack

Looking at the available modern and historical photos, googlearth etc. it looks to me that any exit from the Waterloo tunnel would be quite difficult, due mostly to the Costco building to the West and the presence of the Northern line limiting changes to the East. I suppose you could demolish the Costco building to proceed, but ignoring that unlikely scenario then:-

As to heavy rail linking up with the Northern line, this would seem to have space only to hook-up Northbound, and even that would require re-routing Gt. Howard St., a new flyover at least.

More feasible might be light-rail (tram) which could make a tightish right turn and uphill on exiting a slightly changed tunnel portal, perhaps to a tram terminus where the car wash, or whatever it is, presently stands at the corner of Gt. Howard St. and Chadwick St..
Or instead of terminating there, a tram could continue running at street level. For example somehow looping around a few streets by making a series of left turns to end up Northbound on Pall Mall and looping back under the Northern line at Chadwick St. and back down into the tunnel.

Separately, I'm more inclined to think that such an old tunnel might be more suited to the lower forces involved in light-rail than the various demands of modern heavy rail.

---

• The Costco Building is on the old goods yard. This would have to go of course.
• There is enough space to merge the Waterloo Tunnel onto the Northern Line.
• The Waterloo Tunnel emerges right on the Northern Line
• The Victoria/Waterloo Tunnel was in use with heavy rail for over 120 years. I see no reason why it can't continue.
• Introducing trams gives complications in rolling stock
• Introducing trams gives complications in platform levels.
• Introducing trams gives complications in electric pickup (3rd rail/overhead wires)
• Having the Waterloo Tunnel heavy 3rd rail will allow outer suburb trains to enter the city centre.

There is no reason why the Waterloo Tunnel cannot branch onto the Northern Line and seamlessly merge with the rest of Merseyrail.

Forget trundling, expensive trams. An expensive and needless waste of time. If they want something visually different for tourists, then then they should do what Birkenhead is doing and introduce 1800s lookalikes around tourist districts. Expensive fad though, as laying rail lines is not cheap.


.

HollyBlack basically hit the nail on the head when she (or he) said that the Waterloo tunnel will only be able to link up northbound onto the Northern Line heading towards Sandhills. I just don't see how it can link up with the Northern Line without a serious realignment of the Waterloo Tunnel. Good luck in knocking down Costco too, you can't just demolish a large retail store (ok, wholesalers) like you can with a brick wall.
I think your proposals need to be a bit more technical in order for them to be considered feasible, as I don't understand the linkage with Waterloo and Northern.

Perhaps two underground curves could be created - a southern one connecting a Byrom St station to Moorfields, and a northern one linking Byrom St with Sandhills. BUT, in order for the line to extend west toward the docks, a new tunnel would have to be created, and then there's the question of "How many services do you intend to run and is the demand going to be there?"

You are right in saying the city is exapnding, but surely the most important commuter areas that ARE not currently served by rail are the university areas around Mount Pleasant and Paradise Street/Liverpool One. And perhaps the King's Dock area, where a number of offices are located.

I don't think the north docks warrant such extensive tunnelling and demolishing in order to provide them with a station - there are more important areas within the city centre lacking rail access.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc_everton

HollyBlack basically hit the nail on the head when she (or he) said that the Waterloo tunnel will only be able to link up northbound onto the Northern Line heading towards Sandhills. I just don't see how it can link up with the Northern Line without a serious realignment of the Waterloo Tunnel. Good luck in knocking down Costco too, you can't just demolish a large retail store (ok, wholesalers) like you can with a brick wall.
I think your proposals need to be a bit more technical in order for them to be considered feasible, as I don't understand the linkage with Waterloo and Northern.

Perhaps two underground curves could be created - a southern one connecting a Byrom St station to Moorfields, and a northern one linking Byrom St with Sandhills. BUT, in order for the line to extend west toward the docks, a new tunnel would have to be created, and then there's the question of "How many services do you intend to run and is the demand going to be there?"

You are right in saying the city is exapnding, but surely the most important commuter areas that ARE not currently served by rail are the university areas around Mount Pleasant and Paradise Street/Liverpool One. And perhaps the King's Dock area, where a number of offices are located.

I don't think the north docks warrant such extensive tunnelling and demolishing in order to provide them with a station - there are more important areas within the city centre lacking rail access.

---

Costco can be CPOd. That is not a problem. The Northern Line can be brought down off the embankment to a Waterloo Dock station and then back up. That is just a technicality in the whole scheme of things.

It needs to be looked at holistically. Proposing ad-hoc lines here and there will only screw matters up in the future.

The city is expanding like hell, especially the centres and immediate surrounds.

What is clear is that with some cut and cover tunneling from Dingle to Edge Hill an outer city centre loop is created serving deprived inner-city areas assisting greatly in regeneration (please don't go on about busses running from there). This brings into service the Waterloo Tunnel, Dingle Tunnel and 3 underground stations laying idle.

Then outer suburbs can enter this Circle Line and run around it and back out. without changing. And that includes the line in Wrexham that the Welsh are partly funding. There may be a through train stropping at Liverpool Central serving John Lennon Airport. So Wrexham - Birkenhead - Liverpool - JLA.

A north end Loop can be accommodated by completing the small amount of tunneling from Central to the Wapping Tunnel, then bringing this tunnel on line. A station can be cut out for the uni, or one at Cavendish cutting.

• Get the Circle Line built (a small amount of cut and cover tunnelling - 80% is in place)
• Get outer suburb lines entering the Circle Line and hitting all major city centre districts without changing.
• Get the Wrexham Line operational into Liverpool Merseyrail and a through airport service.

To get the above operational is just mainly cut and cover tunnelling from Dingle to Edge Hill to create a Circle Line

Additional would be to:

• Create a north end loop line by Tunneling from Central to Wapping tunnel, creating a uni station and access to Kings Dock.
• Create a south end loop line by laying track back in the bed from Halewood to Broad Green.

I reiterate get a conceptual model first using the bulk of the disused rail infrastructure.

Then to make people use it, introduce congestion charging in the center and get rid of that urban motorway called the Dock Rd.
.

I am looking at it holistically, and from a regeneration perspective. I am still firmly in the camp of an integrated public transport system involving trains, trams and buses - let's not forget that even with your proposed lines, there will always be some areas that will not have immediate rail access, and buses will always be needed. All cities with undergound systems and tram systems still have buses, so when you say "don't go on about buses", you are again making an unnecessary, sweeping statement. I hate buses, but obviously nowhere near as much as you do.

One station I firmly believe should be reopened is the old Sefton Park station, serving an 'up-and-coming' area of Liverpool, with a heavily student populated area. But even if it was built, demand for buses would not, in my view, fall dramatically, as the further you live away from the station, the more likely you are to jump on a bus, especially if it's raining, and of course, Smithdown Road has regular bus services. What rail does provide, including your proposals, is an attractive and efficient alternative to cars and buses. It should ease congestion, but not eradicate it. As I say, demand for buses will not go away with a new rail service. It may decrease, and some services may be cut back, but I think we'd all agree that's a good thing - a movement from buses to rail.

Another major logistical problem - this time as regards the south loop. I can't ever see the old CLC line reopening, what with it being a linear park, and the number of houses that back onto the line will provide stiff opposition. Then there is the issue of linking that line onto the Broadgreen line. It never did link in with it - it carried on up to Southport, and there is a major motorway running parallel with this line. Realistically, this line is a no-no. Yes the area could do with rail access, but we'd be looking at decades for a project like that to take place. Think about all the ongoing considerations now, such as the Aintree - Anfield lines, Kirkby Headbolt etc. Merseytravel have no intentions of reopening the tunnels for the foreseeable future, nevermind lines to Gateacre and new tunnels under Lodge Lane. You keep saying it's going to be cheap to cut-and-cover, and create new stations, but I'm still to see any figures to back you up. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

We all know the figures involved with Merseytram, and the regional/national governments could easily help fund it if they wanted to, but it's Liverpool, not London, so they couldn't care less. All this talk about the 'Green' Games of London 2012... why can't they adopt that attitude nationwide?

The Transport Investment Priorities in the RTS 2006 are nearly ALL geared towards highway improvements. Millions and millions on highways. Not forgetting the millions going to Manchester's metrolink. Some may argue Merseyside's rail system is not in such dyer need of investment, but certainly missing links such as the Burscough Curves, the NMB, the NLEL and to an extent, the Waterloo Tunnel, could do with investment. Anything more than this would be great, but if the city centre continues to expand, a tram system fits the bill nicely for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jc_everton

You keep saying it's going to be cheap to cut-and-cover, and create new stations, but I'm still to see any figures to back you up. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

---

You looking at a minimum of £75 million per mile and £15 million per station.

Not sure it qualifies as 'cheap' though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

You looking at a minimum of £75 million per mile and £15 million per station.

Not sure it qualifies as 'cheap' though.

---

The Brunswick Quay Tower block was around one billion. To build a Circle Line with 12 stations on it from scratch that is buttons. So just to get the Circle Line tunnelling, complete with stations it is around £200 million. Obviously more to get the disused stations up and running.

That is buttons when looking at figures for transport infrastructure elsewhere.

• Buttons to regenerate inner city areas.
• Buttons to create a comprehensive interconnected rapid transit underground system.

Just buttons. Excellent value for money. Once it is there is is there. Not transient. It is there doing its job for evermore.

You sound like negative Sr Humphrey. A minister would come up with a good sensible productive idea. Humphrey would not like it for whatever snob illogical reason was in his head. Then he would put in place all sorts of small, and illogical objections, mentally making the project a massive unworkable monster. Then the minister would back down, buying the con. Then back to the status quo, where Humphrey is very comfortable. And nothing happens and Humphrey goes home to his tree lined suburban home every night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

So just to get the Circle Line tunnelling, complete with stations it is around £200 million.

---

Based on what industry knowledge is that?

12 stations multiplied by £15million is obviously £180 million before you have even done any tunnelling, relocated beneath ground services, laid any track or signalling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

Based on what industry knowledge is that?

12 stations multiplied by £15million is obviously £180 million before you have even done any tunnelling, relocated beneath ground services, laid any track or signalling.

---

• Central, Lime St, Moorefields. Brunswick, Edge Hill are already there and in use.
• Waterloo Dock is overground, so simple to build.
• Dingle, Parliament St, and to an extent, Byrom St are disused and already there.
• Two new stations left behind in cut & cover at Sefton Pk & Lodge Lane
• Edge Hill to be re-done (it has to anyhow)
• One new station cut into the Victoria/Waterloo tunnel at Royal Hosp (this can be done at a later time if need be).

Most is already there and done too. Just a little looking gives that. The Circle Line is cheap to construct - very cheap indeed because most is there The benefits this small amount of transport infrastructure investment will bring will be enormous.


.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

Central, Lime St, Moorefields. Brunswick, Edge Hill are already there and in use.

---

The first three have insufficient capacity for a new frequent service in addition to what they already handle, so they would need enlargening at considerable cost - More than £15 million each.

The £15 million per station was referring to simple overground stations, I forgot some were to be underground. Double it to £30 million for those.

Quote:

---

Waterloo Dock is overground, so simple to build. Dingle, Parliament St, and to an extent, Byrom St are disused and already there.

---

Yes, a bit cheaper to construct.

Quote:

---

Two new stations left behind at Sefton Pk & Lodge Lane, Edge Hill to be re-done (it has to anyhow) & one new station cut into the Victoria/Waterloo tunnel at Royal Hosp (this can be done at a later time if need be).

---

I'm not sure what you mean - "new stations left behind " ?

Quote:

---

Most is already there and done too. Just a little looking gives that. The Circle Line is cheap to construct - very cheap indeed because most is there.

---

I'm not sure what you call 'cheap', but with no disrespect meant, you clearly have no idea of the costs or complexities of tunnelling or rail infrastructure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

I'm not sure what you mean - "new stations left behind " ?

---

Left behind in the cut & cover - cheap.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure what you call 'cheap', but with no disrespect meant, you clearly have no idea of the costs or complexities of tunnelling or rail infrastructure.

---

I know that to build an underground loop the cost is phenomenal - look at the Jubilee Line in London. Build one when about 80% of the line is still there is a snip and falls into the "buttons" category in comparison.

The cost can be clawed back by a property sales tax that taxes property that had a value increase because of adjacent public transport infrastructure.

Some of the existing city centre stations will need updating anyhow as lines are run in from North Wales. Updating these stations means a knock-on affect in accommodating outer suburb lines seamlessly into the city centre and fast lines to John Lennon airport.

I claim my 5 pounds - you are Sir Humphrey! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

The cost can be clawed back by a property sales tax that taxes property that had a value increase because of adjacent public transport infrastructure.

---

There is no such thing though at the moment, I think the nearest that has ever got is pressure groups wanting it?

Quote:

---

Some of the existing city centre stations will need updating anyhow as lines are run in from North Wales. Updating these stations means a knock-on affect in accommodating outer suburb lines seamlessly into the city centre and fast lines to John Lennon airport.

---

Yep, Central (especially) and Moorfields need upgrade work regardless of any extra services, although I fear this will result in heavy cosmetic work at Central, only for it needing to be rebuilt 5 years down the line.

Here is another costing to consider.

£7.6 million for a quarter of a mile of SINGLE track (Olive Mount Chord).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

Here is another costing to consider.
£7.6 million for a quarter of a mile of SINGLE track (Olive Mount Chord).

---

I believe that is for the total project. Including loading gauge clearance of the entire line to the docks - a significant expense in itself. Hopefully the loading gauge work will make a later feasibility study for (overhead) electrification cheaper and easier.

What I don't understand is why the Olive Mount Chord is to be bi-directional instead of doubled? It seems like the total amount of pointwork needed is about the same for either and the amount of signalling work needed is the same (or even more for bidirectional!?). Unless (possibly) there are some existing crossovers that will be used. Given that The Chord is to be designed for doubling and electrification at a later date it seems silly not to reinstate it to doubled track right away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

Here is another costing to consider.

£7.6 million for a quarter of a mile of SINGLE track (Olive Mount Chord).

---

Billions spent in infrastructure is normal. Whatever they spend on getting Liverpool back to a top level rapid rail transport system, it will be cheap - as most of the important infrastructure is already there - the tunnels and trackbeds. The economic and unquantifiable social gains will outweigh the cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HollyBlack

I believe that is for the total project. Including loading gauge clearance of the entire line to the docks - a significant expense in itself. Hopefully the loading gauge work will make a later feasibility study for (overhead) electrification cheaper and easier.

What I don't understand is why the Olive Mount Chord is to be bi-directional instead of doubled? It seems like the total amount of pointwork needed is about the same for either and the amount of signalling work needed is the same (or even more for bidirectional!?). Unless (possibly) there are some existing crossovers that will be used. Given that The Chord is to be designed for doubling and electrification at a later date it seems silly not to reinstate it to doubled track right away.

---

Penny wise, pound foolish comes to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

Billions spent in infrastructure is normal.

---

I'm perfectly aware of that - it is the point I'm making to you.

Where is the billions for your visions to come from? It isn't going to come from this 'property tax' idea - it doesnt exist apart from in the minds of campaigners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HollyBlack

I believe that is for the total project. Including loading gauge clearance of the entire line to the docks - a significant expense in itself. Hopefully the loading gauge work will make a later feasibility study for (overhead) electrification cheaper and easier.

What I don't understand is why the Olive Mount Chord is to be bi-directional instead of doubled? It seems like the total amount of pointwork needed is about the same for either and the amount of signalling work needed is the same (or even more for bidirectional!?). Unless (possibly) there are some existing crossovers that will be used. Given that The Chord is to be designed for doubling and electrification at a later date it seems silly not to reinstate it to doubled track right away.

---

The branch is gauged at W9 - which is the same (or greater) as all other track in the area. Only W10 is greater, the nearest of which is the WCML - ie it is W9 all the way from the WCML to the chord, so there would be no advantage to making the chord (and branch) W10. Hope that makes sense :).

W10 is planned, but £7.6 million aint gonna do it all the way from the WCML unless they are extremely lucky with not having much work to do on the route.

Unless it is ridicilous penny-pinching, then my only thought is that there is possibly not quite enough room for double track W10 gauge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

I'm perfectly aware of that - it is the point I'm making to you.

Where is the billions for your visions to come from? It isn't going to come from this 'property tax' idea - it doesnt exist apart from in the minds of campaigners.

---

The figures you pick out of the air appear quite cheap. If they are representative, I can't see the cost being major barrier.

I find this thread fascinating and i love to see old railway stations and buildings...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

The figures you pick out of the air appear quite cheap. If they are representative, I can't see the cost being major barrier.

---

You are impossible to reason with, personally I think your just a troll, which would explain why you got banned on SSC.

My figures were not picked out of the air.

Maybe if you think mine are so out, you could explain what experience you have in the rail industry - because I'm sure I have more than you judging from your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

W10 is planned, but £7.6 million aint gonna do it all the way from the WCML unless they are extremely lucky with not having much work to do on the route.
Unless it is ridicilous penny-pinching, then my only thought is that there is possibly not quite enough room for double track W10 gauge.

---

I guess you are right

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/documen...0-%20P1108.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/373orn

Quote:

---

... contracts awarded during periods 8, 9, 10, & 11 (14/10/2007 - 02/02/08) ... First Engineering Ltd - 100377 - Port of Liverpool Improvements (Olive Mount Chord) - The works comprise all temporary/preparatory and permanent works, in connection with the reinstatement of a bi-directional signalled W10 cleared single track. - Jan 08 ...

---

http://www.nwra.gov.uk/newsletter/?p...article_id=236
http://tinyurl.com/2pkvmj

Quote:

---

... 1st December 2007 ... The project will also enable freight trains to carry larger deep-sea containers on normal wagons by clearing the line between Edge Hill and the West Coast Main Line to "W10" gauge. ... start early next year and be completed by 2011 ...

---

As best I can interpret that it means The Chord opens December 2008, and the Port route to WCML becomes W10 cleared by 2011. I seem to recall the post-Panamax operation is due to start in December 2010.

What is unclear in all the press releases is any clear indication of whether the £7.6 million is supposed to cover W10 for the entire line or just the Olive Mount Chord. And where else the money is coming from and whether W10 all the way is committed or not. In all the old proposals for funding the two were combined together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robt

You are impossible to reason with, personally I think your just a troll, which would explain why you got banned on SSC.

---

Your reason is agreeing with you. I like logical explanations. Not such stuff as, it will not happen and trams are better, and no reason given, and I work in trains so I must know better. Yep, been there and seen that before in other industries. I worked in management consultancy and we went to many diverse industries. We invariably came out with better ideas because we looked at matters in a more logical way without the ingrained constraints of their minds. We could think out of the box. We could also see the obvious. They were more concerned with trivial detail unable to see the big picture. They generally hated us. I see that in you.

I left SSC - a clique. A bunch of nutters obsessed with tall buildings and nothing else.

Quote:

---

My figures were not picked out of the air.

---

I'm sure you never worked them out in detail.

Quote:

---

Maybe if you think mine are so out, you could explain what experience you have in the rail industry - because I'm sure I have more than you judging from your posts.

---

I have no experience with the rail industry, which makes me better qualified. Look at the tripe they came up with.

Look at the 70s. This Circle Line I am on about could have been cheaply implemented then. All was there and with a more densely populated city too. All they had to do was tunnel from Exchange to Central, leaving out Lime St to save money (accessed on Merseyrail via Edge Hill) and spend on cut and cover for the Circle. Then outer loops, (which were still there and used), could have been merged with the rest of Merseyrail. Too easy isn't it? I have no faith in the existing rail industry to come out with anything creative. They can't even use needed existing stations and tunnels under our feet. If negative people like you are typical of them God help us.

BTW, inner city regeneration. Heard of that? Get choo-choos out of your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waterways

Your reason is agreeing with you. I like logical explanations. Not such stuff as, it will not happen and trams are better, and no reason given, and I work in trains so I must know better.

---

Eh?

Quote:

---

Yep, been there and seen that before in other industries. I worked in management consultancy and we went to many diverse industries. We invariably came out with better ideas because we looked at matters in a more logical way without the ingrained constraints of their minds. We could think out of the box. We could also see the obvious. They were more concerned with trivial detail unable to see the big picture. They generally hated us. I see that in you.

---

Nothing wrong with thinking outside the box - but you still have to think about what is practical otherwise your just a dreamer. I really couldn't care less what you 'see in me', I think my posts speak for themselves.

Quote:

---

I'm sure you never worked them out in detail.

---

No I didn't or claim to, but they are realistic estimates.

Quote:

---

I have no experience with the rail industry, which makes me better qualified. Look at the tripe they came up with.

---

The question was if you think my figures are wrong, explain what experience you have to rubbish them. You couldn't answer it, so have taken it out of context.

Quote:

---

Look at the 70s. This Circle Line I am on about could have been cheaply implemented then. All was there and with a more densely populated city too. All they had to do was tunnel from Exchange to Central, leaving out Lime St to save money (accessed on Merseyrail via Edge Hill) and spend on cut and cover for the Circle. Then outer loops, (which were still there and used), could have been merged with the rest of Merseyrail. Too easy isn't it? I have no faith in the existing rail industry to come out with anything creative. They can't even use needed existing stations and tunnels under our feet. If negative people like you are typical of them God help us.

---

Yes it could of been cheap, but it isn't the 70s now though. I'm not negative - I have said myself elsewehere that your vision would be great, but it is not realistic.

Quote:

---

BTW, inner city regeneration. Heard of that? Get choo-choos out of your head.

---

Any need for rudeness, or is that what you do when the going gets tough and you are out of your depth?

I will be back on this thread, but only for any serious discussion, not childish name calling and remarks.