Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

[HollyBlack]

Holly - the idea of using the tunnel as some sort of canal is fantastic!

As both tunnels are on an incline I would say that is out of the question. ...

Well, J.C.Everton was the first person (not me ) to suggest "canal", and I'm sure he intended the reference to be metaphorical. Used metaphorically "canal" has a meaning close to "channel" and suggests either a "long open cutting" or "one of a number of routes that are essentially in parallel". I'm still not sure what he was driving at but obviously the reference was not literal. Any floating of boats in the Waterloo tunnel so obviously makes not the slightest sense, that that cannot be what he intended.

... The WCML would be too busy to take Merseyrail. Sefton Pk Station is on the main London line ...

Some people regard the railway line from Weaver Junction to Lime Street via Sefton Park as being part of the WCML. For example the Strategic Rail Authority does in their document "West Coast Main Line strategy"
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/wc...inlinestrategy
The need for Sefton Park station (Wavertree and Ditton Junction too?) to be reopened as a commuter station is self-evident and Merseyrail could be operating the services using dual-voltage rolling stock. It would be nice if a new (turnback) station on the Halton Curve were added and another at Liverpool University deep in the Lime Street Cutting. I think there is a gut reaction against building a station in the Lime Street Cutting because it is seen as competing with other schemes. But building a new station deep in the cutting and served by passenger lifts would be a lot cheaper than any new tunneling. It would complement, rather than compete with, almost all other schemes. It would not overwhelm the four track capacity there, electric commuter trains accelerate much faster than the steam trains the line was designed for.

Whoever mentioned trolleybuses as being the cheapest solution is right, they are the cheapest but solve only noise, pollution and energy problems. The energy problem must be solved, diesel fuel is rapidly becoming unaffordable (as well as contributing to global warming). Trolley bus would definitely be the right solution for urban routes where there is no reusable infrastructure nor much space to expand. For example, trolleybus would definitely be the right way to link Liscard/Egremont with Twelve Quays.

btw, in San Francisco, trolley buses and streetcars (trams) share overhead wires. This is no great feat of engineering - it merely requires that one of the two trolleybus wires be grounded and the tram uses the other one.

[robt]

It would be nice if a new (turnback) station on the Halton Curve were added and another at Liverpool University deep in the Lime Street Cutting. I think there is a gut reaction against building a station in the Lime Street Cutting because it is seen as competing with other schemes. But building a new station deep in the cutting and served by passenger lifts would be a lot cheaper than any new tunneling. It would complement, rather than compete with, almost all other schemes. It would not overwhelm the four track capacity there, electric commuter trains accelerate much faster than the steam trains the line was designed for.

I agree this would be far cheaper, but there is not the track capacity to do it. It may seem like it during off peak periods, but in the peak it is not uncommon for all four tracks to be in use simaltaneously by multiple trains.

[jc_everton]

Holly - the canal reference did have an element of tongue-in-cheek, the idea is fantastic in a comical way. Good stuff.

I suppose a station in Lime St cutting would be ok, but again, who is it serving? Would commuters from Southport, Ormskirk, Kirkby or Hunts Cross be able to access this station? I think not, and that is why I disagree with it. The Waterloo tunnel really should be utilised to provide greater flexibility on the Northern Line.

If 4 trains run from every station on the Northern Line every hour (except for night-times of course), I don't see any harm whatsoever in running 2 trains per hour (peak times) down the Waterloo Tunnel to 2 new University-related stations, down through the tunnel which runs parallel on Crown St (WW: not the tunnel indicated on that Edge Hill Spur map) and down the Wapping Tunnel to King's Dock.

This proposal contrasts with my proposal to link the 3 northern Northern Line branches to Parkway but I'll figure a way around that.

[HollyBlack]

I suppose a station in Lime St cutting would be ok, but again, who is it serving? Would commuters from Southport, Ormskirk, Kirkby or Hunts Cross be able to access this station? ...

Well, Hunts Cross (trains from Widnes). Also Runcorn, Sefton Park etc.. and St. Helens and Huyton. The Canada Dock Branch one day. Basically all the people who could transfer at Edge Hill if necessary. I suspect a LOT of people ride the train to Lime Street each day and walk up to the University/Hospital area. More would if it weren't so far. Good exercise though for people in good health.

As to outbound capacity, the shunting tunnel provides a fifth track on the North side as far as Brownlow St. where it joins the four. So it could be arranged that an outbound train stopped at University would not block the four-track road. These commuter trains would necessarily be much shorter than long distance trains.

As to inbound traffic, those same two inbound tracks are also platform tracks at Edge Hill. Inbound capacity could be increased by more advanced signalling. After all, a terminus platform has to be available before it makes any sense to let a train onto the inbound road.

It may well be that the outbound and inbound University stations are not co-located, no big deal.

It doesn't have to be seen as instead of re-use of the tunnels, it can be as well as.

[jc_everton]

I agree, I believe the tunnels should be merged/linked, as opposed to using every metre of them just for the sake of it. WW keeps reiterating the point that we have all these tunnels that NEED to be used, but I disagree. I believe some of them should be used, and perhaps connect to existing tunnels. I am also against the idea of changing over, I think it should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Someone e-mailed me the other week saying he knows someone in MerseyTravel who says they are looking into the possibility of opening a new tunnel from Parkway to JLA - rather ambitious, but it makes sense.

You said something about good exercise/health because of the walking - public transport schemes should not be knocked back because of that. We are generally an unhealthy nation and new lines/stations are not going to make us unhealthier and fatter. I believe poor health begins in childhood and poor P.E. in schools.

[Waterways]

I see no reason why the Waterloo and Dingle tunnels cannot be used to serve the city and the wider regions too. The Wapping tunnel is bit more difficult to fit in and would only serve new stations cut in and the Kings Dock.

Where there is excellent public transport and it is difficult to move around by car, people are fitter as they walk more between stations and bus stops.

I can't see what good a station in the Lime St cuttings/tunnels would serve.

[Waterways]

Whoever mentioned trolleybuses as being the cheapest solution is right, they are the cheapest but solve only noise, pollution and energy problems. The energy problem must be solved, diesel fuel is rapidly becoming unaffordable (as well as contributing to global warming). Trolley bus would definitely be the right solution for urban routes where there is no reusable infrastructure nor much space to expand. For example, trolleybus would definitely be the right way to link Liscard/Egremont with Twelve Quays.

It was me who said trollybusses are cheaper. They can have trollybus lanes , like bus lanes in London, that can be used by cars at off peak times. I am against overhead wires in streets. They cause a lot of problems especially when secured to buildings. They are also ugly.

Overhead wires do not solve energy problems at all. They solve local pollution though - no filthy diesel busses around. New power propulsion units, mainly electric motors and new state-of-the-art Lithium batteries look the way forward.

Small powerful motor in wheel hubs, now means batteries can keep a car going for 200 miles, They can have a small ancillary fossil fuel charging motor that also does the heat and a/c, or the batteries charged off the mains. This technology is here right now.

The hybrids like the Toyota Prius have led the way - a great car to drive and super quiet, my favourite car. The Renault Traffic is electric and can be charged off the mains and also has a small on-board charging petrol motor too. The charging motor can be tuned to maximum efficiency at the optimum constant speed.

[Waterways]

...A train from St Helens could run through the centre and onto West Kirkby or Chester if need be...

The commuter demand would be overwhelmingly from and to the Centre so, great as it sounds, there is no real need to connect St Helens with the Wirral

The key words were "if need be". The line in from Wrexham can hit the city centre and divert on to the airport too if and when the full link is in place.

The new connections needed are to where the work will be eg. at 12 Quays on the Wirral, at Vauxhall/Stanley Dock in the North End and to where the new houses/ redeveloped housing will be ie. the loop stations and the trams to the inner boroughs and outer suburbs.

12 Quays is proposed to move to the Langton Dock river wall.

The existing underground stations are well placed as commuter destinations from both sides of the river but they are too close to each other for travelling around the city centre.

I disagree. In Paris, the stations are so close that are at bus stop intervals. You can look down the tunnel and see the next station lit up. I counted three stations in view down the tunnels from one station.

So, an inner local line, not necessarily a loop, is needed to pick up all the local and tourist traffic and would connect Business at Central Docks via Pier Head and the Central Business District to Leisure, Conference and hotel facilties in South Docks. A great business location and a wonderful waterfront attraction.

The existing Northern Line nearly does that. Along the north end docks, around the inner city centre loop and out to Brunswick. It doesn't hit the Pier Head at James St though. If it did it would be perfect with a branch into the Wapping and a station at Kings Dock. The disused parliament St station would be nearly good enough though.

High level elevated railways block out views which has to be taken into account. Overhead wires are ugly and pain too.

[jc_everton]

WW, whilst I was in 3 different German cities last week, I could not help but think of your bitterness towards trams and I'm sorry but I simply could not see the problem. In all 3 cities they were regular, efficient and convenient. Definitely NOT ugly. Someone posted a link to Bordeaux's trams the other week - absolutely fantastic.

I agree with the Paris comparison though, I don't see anything wrong with stations close to each other - the same could be said about other underground networks.

As regards the subject of battery-powered cars etc - I couldn't care less. There is enough evidence to prove that climate change is not 100% man made - far from it. I advocate public transport from a societal point of view, not a lefty/greeny point of view.

[Waterways]

WW, whilst I was in 3 different German cities last week, I could not help but think of your bitterness towards trams and I'm sorry but I simply could not see the problem. In all 3 cities they were regular, efficient and convenient. Definitely NOT ugly. Someone posted a link to Bordeaux's trams the other week - absolutely fantastic.

Trams are fine when they fit in and no adverse affects. Currently Liverpool doesn't need them at all when disused underground rail infrastructure is waiting to be used - the priority. Trams may be needed to fill in the gaps that the current, and brought back into use, Merseyrail can't reach.

Best to forget trams and concentrate on the infrastructure legacy we have. I can't believe trams got so far up the agenda, to the point rails were delivered, when we have all this disused infrastructure is waiting to be used - only in Liverpool This rapid transport underground system would catapult the city forwards in many respects.

I agree with the Paris comparison though, I don't see anything wrong with stations close to each other - the same could be said about other underground networks.

As regards the subject of battery-powered cars etc - I couldn't care less. There is enough evidence to prove that climate change is not 100% man made - far from it. I advocate public transport from a societal point of view, not a lefty/greeny point of view.

Cities are filthy! A lot of it is due to the dust from brake pads and tyre wear. Tyres can be improved a lot - the technology is already there to prevent excessive wear . The Toyota Prius, and other hybrids, use magnets to stop the car (re-gen braking) , this cuts out brake pad dust too. One reason to use electric/hybrids in towns and cities.

Ken Livingstone in London is getting flak because of congestion and emissions charging. He is charged with cleaning the air of London as it so bad. EU laws, etc. Her has to act in the only ways he can. He can't make manufacturers introduce electric vehicles, etc, tat is for Whitehall.

Liverpool needs the rapid transit rail system to get cars out of the city. Once there get rid of the Dock RD urban motorway and introduce London types of charging. Then no excuse to use a car.

Man has clearly influenced climate change - all top scientists in the world say so.

[petromax]

[QUOTE=Waterways;119256]The key words were "if need be". The line in from Wrexham can hit the city centre and divert on to the airport too if and when the full link is in place...QUOTE]

I didn't post this. There is little need to cross from one side of the system to the other.

My point is that it is relatively less expensive for Liverpool to have a mass transit network because most of it is there already.

But, there would still be gaps.

The city centre stations ARE too close together to TRAVEL BETWEEN THEM. I wouldn't dream of going down into James Street Station to climb up from Lime Street, Central, or Moorfields. It's quicker, cheaper and less effort to walk. No tickets are sold to travel between these stations.

So it follows, a link IS needed to connect all the new development on the waterfront to make it work as a location attractive to business (and tourists). This needs to be above ground to be viable. This is what the Overhead used to do (and more). This is what the DLR does for London.

Even with ALL the train lines and stations put back there are massive gaps in the system particularly in the inner wards like Everton for example.

The trams used to deal with these gaps. More people got cars and the roads were the 'thing' so the trams were withdrawn and buses became the vogue. But the roads simply cannot handle the capacity of trams or trains because trams and trains have an impeded run ie no crossing traffic. The numbers are overwhelmingly convincing.

The two currently disused tunnels were for freight, serving Park Road and Waterloo Goods Depots but the Port has moved North. The Olive Mount Chord re-instatement will give a huge boost to the efficiency of the port and goods movement by rail and no doubt reduce dependency on the M57 which save carbon emissions from trucks, so great.

There is a marginal case for using the Waterloo Tunnel (which has been kept for heavy rail use) with a new mainline terminus on the site of the Waterloo Goods depot to serve Central Docks, even an escalator link to the Northern Line at the former Great Howard Street station and possibly an extension to the liner terminal at a re-instated Riverside Station. Nice sounding but maybe more image than substance

There is a more feeble case for re-instating the Wapping tunnel line because a re-instated St James station makes it redundant (and the site of the terminus is being developed).

There is an acknowledge glitch in the system at Central Station to do with capacity because trains terminate there and clog up the platforms. Through lines are needed to relieve the pressure but not new tunnels.

Sadly the huge ferry traffic has been replaced by the road tunnels but roads can't handle the numbers of a city of a million. The system that we used to have can. It was heavy rail (3 mainline stations), light rail (the Overhead Railway) and Trams.

This is what we need to handle the demand of a big city. Do we want Liverpool to be a big city?

[Waterways]

A major point is how the disused rail infrastructure is merged into Merseyrail. It has to be well thought out, not light rail, and seamlessly integrated.

[jc_everton]

I think if there was to be a conclusion to this debate then Petromax has hit the nail on the head.
WW will always be against trams, and my proposals always involved integrating trams with heavy rail, which is basically what Petromax is saying.

I'm not sure about his (Petro) dismissals of the tunnels because although he is being realistic, there is no harm whatsoever in having a vision to redevelop these tunnels and fully integrate them into the system. How this would be possible is not my job, but we all agree there is a bloody good need for improved public transport in the city and the tunnels definitely offer something that a lot of other cities don't have, as WW rightly points out.

I also have to disagree with the whole 'stations are too close to travel' - Our current 'loop' is not designed for travelling short distances, it basically serves the Wirral - giving them more options and flexibility than us Northern Liners. Is that inclusive? I think not.

A lot of underground systems, as WW says, do have short distances, but some of our stations are so deep and unaccessible it takes a good 5 mins to walk down all the escalators and stairs, which is ridiculous. All these new stations need is one long escalator from platform to entrance and we have a more accessible underground. I heard someone say how Merseytravel in the 70s refused to pay £100,000 for the escalator to reach the bottom of one of our stations - unbelievable.

[Waterways]

I think if there was to be a conclusion to this debate then Petromax has hit the nail on the head.
WW will always be against trams, and my proposals always involved integrating trams with heavy rail, which is basically what Petromax is saying.

Er, er, wrong. Petromax and myself largely agree - that the disused rail infrastructure should be heavy rail and brought seamlessly back to use with existing Merseyrail ASAP, with trams covering the areas that Merseyrail cannot cover. The priority being getting the underground infrastructure up and running, then the loops like Canada Dock, etc, merged in and trams on the back burner until this major aspect is done.

Implementing trams first was putting the cart before the horse and trams which competed with Merseyrail? Well I'll leave you to assess the mentality of such madness.


Concentrating on trams first, which were competing with Merseyrail lines was, and is, total and utter madness. No thought , no planning, no nothing. No wonder other cities laugh at do-nothing Liverpool. They can't even get a long term transport plan together and prioitise it.

I'm not sure about his (Petro) dismissals of the tunnels because although he is being realistic, there is no harm whatsoever in having a vision to redevelop these tunnels and fully integrate them into the system. How this would be possible is not my job, but we all agree there is a bloody good need for improved public transport in the city and the tunnels definitely offer something that a lot of other cities don't have, as WW rightly points out.

The city centre Circle Line is a great way to utilise them - this requires some tunnelling from Dingle to Edge Hill of course.

I also have to disagree with the whole 'stations are too close to travel'

Paris was mainly cut & cover of the boulevards, so you walk down a short number of steps. The trains are on rubber wheels to stop vibration to adjacent buildings - and sop smooth to ride in. The Metro is superb and an example of how to do a Metro system.

Any cut and cover should have stations like in Paris. Parli, Byrom St and number of others all are just below the surface. As you say it is also a matter of ease of access from street level to the platforms too.

[petromax]

Er, er, wrong. Petromax and myself largely agree - that the disused rail infrastructure should be heavy rail and brought seamlessly back to use with existing Merseyrail ASAP, with trams covering the areas that Merseyrail cannot cover. The priority being getting the underground infrastructure up and running, then the loops like Canada Dock, etc, merged in and trams on the back burner until this major aspect is done.

Implementing trams first was putting the cart before the horse and trams which competed with Merseyrail? Well I'll leave you to assess the mentality of such madness.


Concentrating on trams first, which were competing with Merseyrail lines was, and is, total and utter madness. No thought , no planning, no nothing. No wonder other cities laugh at do-nothing Liverpool. They can't even get a long term transport plan together and prioitise it.



The city centre Circle Line is a great way to utilise them - this requires some tunnelling from Dingle to Edge Hill of course.



Paris was mainly cut & cover of the boulevards, so you walk down a short number of steps. The trains are on rubber wheels to stop vibration to adjacent buildings - and sop smooth to ride in. The Metro is superb and an example of how to do a Metro system.

Any cut and cover should have stations like in Paris. Parli, Byrom St and number of others all are just below the surface. As you say it is also a matter of ease of access from street level to the platforms too.

We are nearly saying the same thing; the exception being that we (probably) have just about more tunnels than we need.

There is no demand for re-use of the Wapping Tunnel that a Station at St James/ Parliament Street can't handle and the Vic/ Waterloo Tunnel is really only good for bringing mainline traffic down to the Mersey or connecting to a new overhead and/or the Northern Line via escalators at Great Howard Street. The three levels are very different.

The new tunnel to hope for is under the Mersey because in a big city Liverpool the road and rail tunnels (which are nearly full) plus ferries couldn't handle the increased traffic from the Wirral.

To clarify, I do not believe the city stations are too close as destination stations in the centre. But they are too close together to travel BETWEEN them. It's quicker to walk