Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

03-09-2008
robt

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.
03-09-2008
Waterways

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! :)
03-09-2008
robt

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.
03-09-2008
robt

Here is another costing to consider.

£7.6 million for a quarter of a mile of SINGLE track (Olive Mount Chord).
03-09-2008
HollyBlack

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.
03-09-2008
Waterways

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.
03-09-2008
Waterways

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.
03-09-2008
robt

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.
03-09-2008
robt

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.
03-09-2008
Waterways

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.
03-10-2008
Nokka

I find this thread fascinating and i love to see old railway stations and buildings...
03-10-2008
robt

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.
03-10-2008
HollyBlack

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.
03-10-2008
Waterways

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.
03-10-2008
robt

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.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page