Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

[jc_everton]

Waterways: Andyk's post might not have been relevant to the issue of the underground network in Liverpool but it was a bit harsh to just dismiss his comments and reiterate a point you've made almost 100 times. You keep saying the city NEEDS it. The more I think about, the more I think, "no, it doesn't necessarily need it at all." The Waterloo tunnel could be utilised, yes. But all these areas like Lodge Lane and Vauxhall are so close to town you could walk it if you wanted. I know a lad in my old college class who used to walk from town to Allerton (albeit after a night out drinking).
More important issues are out in the suburbs where bus services are poor and infrequent. A lot of people in Merseyside do not have rail access, and indeed, the Burscough Curves help integrate the West Lancashire area (a major Liverpool commuter area) into the Merseyside rail network, and provide commuters with greater flexibility, especially commuters who travelling from Ormskirk to Southport to work and vice versa.



Andy might be better off starting a new thread but the Burscough Curves is something that I have been following closely, and it seems as though the forever-ongoing 'investigation' is now turning to a reality, albeit about 20 years away at the earliest, what with all the funding issues, and planning processes.

[Waterways]

Waterways: Andyk's post might not have been relevant to the issue of the underground network in Liverpool but it was a bit harsh to just dismiss his comments and reiterate a point you've made almost 100 times.

I didn't dismiss it. It obviously came across as too harsh. From his point it is real.

You keep saying the city NEEDS it. The more I think about, the more I think, "no, it doesn't necessarily need it at all." The Waterloo tunnel could be utilised, yes. But all these areas like Lodge Lane and Vauxhall are so close to town you could walk it if you wanted.

They are not that close to town you could walk. Dingle and Lodge Lane are definitely inner city areas as is Byrom St, although Byrom St is close to the centre. Waterloo Dock has definitely a need for integration.

I know a lad in my old college class who used to walk from town to Allerton (albeit after a night out drinking).

Good for him!! I wouldn't!

More important issues are out in the suburbs where bus services are poor and infrequent. A lot of people in Merseyside do not have rail access, and indeed, the Burscough Curves help integrate the West Lancashire area (a major Liverpool commuter area) into the Merseyside rail network, and provide commuters with greater flexibility, especially commuters who travelling from Ormskirk to Southport to work and vice versa.

The Canada Dock curve via Anfield should be integrated via Edge Hill, so should the St Helens line too which is more imminent. It is a matter priorities. Get the hub done first, which most of is actually there. That is why I stress it. Then all outer lines can mesh into a city centre Circle Line. Work out from the centre.

Andy might be better off starting a new thread but the Burscough Curves is something that I have been following closely, and it seems as though the forever-ongoing 'investigation' is now turning to a reality, albeit about 20 years away at the earliest, what with all the funding issues, and planning processes.

I feel all should be integrated in time, but as I said it is a matter of priorities. And I don't think Burscough is actually in Merseyside. Nice to mesh in, but way down the line.

[jc_everton]

Well I disagree. I believe you did dismiss his post, as you did not consider the ins and outs of his case. You just moved back on to the Loop Line, which is pure speculation from yourself. It is not on any agenda, and there are people on this forum that oppose your scheme. So Andy's 'Burscough Curve' post is far more real and relevant than any potential scheme that you talk about.
If your scheme was so glaringly obvious as you make out, I'm sure you would not be alone in the promotion of it.

I disagree about starting with the centre and working out to the suburbs. People who live and work in the city centre can generally walk around to everywhere they need to get to - the city has everything. People in the suburbs are integral to the economy of any city, and commuting to cities is part and parcel of suburban life. As you say, the Bootle Branch can play a major part in providing the suburbs with rail access - which has to be a more important issue than linking up somewhere like Lodge Lane to town, where buses are highly frequent and journey time is short.

Which moves me on to your dismissal of 'Big Ears ding ding' trams. I think your dismissal is rubbish to be honest. A tram service in the city centre would be fantastic - they are quick, reliable and convenient. Why else would so many European cities employ them?! And we all know how good Europe is transport-wise! Trams enable you to hop and off, minimum of fuss - and for a relatively small city like Liverpool, trams are ideal. Trams are NEEDED in the city centre, perhaps not to the suburbs - that is where rail comes in.

The Waterloo tunnel basically provides an extra outlet for commuters, it gives more flexibility and options to the people of Merseyside - not just the people of Liverpool which you are so concerned about. As I say, the closer you get to the inner city, the less of a need there is for this loop line.

More direct trains from say, Ormskirk to JLA Airport would be great, and again, the Waterloo tunnel could be utilised for these services, as it diverts traffic away from the Moorfields/Central area.

But, we shall agree to disagree.

[Waterways]

Burscough is not even in Merseyside and it is not even a big place. Burscough is reasonably affluent too, unlike around inner city Lodge Lane and Dingle, which needs public investment to attract private investment. The Burscough curve is being given attention, although I think funds should be directed to more pressing needs, if funds are tight, like getting disused infrastructure up and running near the city centre.

The Canada Dock loop? Nice to have and largely in place, however the only great need is LFC and their stadium. Those suburbs have high car ownership and not that populated either. A front to give LFC a leg up? Most certainly. LFC officials were on a train last week riding around the loop. Trams to Kirkby to help EFC? Most certainly: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liver...0252-19547082/ Best spend money where it benefits the city as a whole not two rich organisations who can re-locate to where the transport already is.

I think you are missing one of the main aims of such a Circle Line, which is inner city regeneration. Rapid transit underground rail systems will attract investors, it did in London with the Jubilee line. Burscough and the likes hardly need regeneration.

A Circle Line would enable a suburban line to enter the circle and access all major points of the city without a change.

The city literally does not need trams when it has a rapid transit underground system, which has an amazing amount of underground and overground lines and stations waiting to be re-used. I am not saying they would not fill a gap to some outer suburbs. But!! trams are not cheap at all. They are basically railways, with expensive rails and ugly expensive overhead cables. Manchester used trams because they could not afford an underground railways system. Liverpool has one and a lots of it under our feet ready to go...and we are ignoring it. I'm sure Manchester would have used such infrastructure by now. They would have jumped at it. They must be looking at Liverpool thinking the city is mad.

However if all the disused stations and lines are used there is little need for expensive trams in the centre at all. Electric or hybrid powered buses can fill the gap if needed. Liverpool in the 1970s had electric busses running a loop around the centre. Before all this eco hype.

Liverpool centre and surrounding inner city areas is quite big. The centre is set to expand - mainly along the waterfront out to the south and north. The aim is to get it densely populated.

Understand what such a Circle Line brings to the party. All major points in the centre are accessed via a Circle hub:

• business district,
• shopping district,
• north end waterfront,
• south end waterfront,
• Sefton Park,
• Main line station,

..and all without a change from the suburbs. E.g., in the loop at Edge Hill, around it and back out. Quite simple.

• Inner cities are accessed promoting regeneration.
• A hub for outer suburb lines to access the city.

It is foolish to ignore such almost in place infrastructure. Work out from the centre. Value what we have and use it. If the centre fails the city as a whole fails.

Train/Trams could be used to complete the loop from Dingle up Lodge Lane and to Edge Hill. Then no tunnel boring. They would need to be duel electric pickup of third rail and overhead wires.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

Objections to the trams:http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/twa/ir/mer...ntr5652?page=9

6.5 In the view of a number of objectors, there is no clear need for Merseytram Line 1 in transportation terms. Passengers between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre are already catered for by the fast, frequent and recently refurbished Merseyrail Electrics trains.

6.12 Merseytravel has demonstrated no transport need for the proposed tram. There is a train service between Kirkby Railway Station and central Liverpool which provides a train every 15 minutes, with a journey time also of only 15 minutes. There is a frequent bus service in the Line 1 corridor. The time saving for most journeys within the line 1 corridor resulting from use of the proposed tram rather than the bus is at most 5 minutes. Even this claimed marginal advantage is misleading because it takes no account of the additional waiting time for the tram or of the longer average walk to the tram stop predicated by the wider tram catchment area compared with that of the bus. There is ample bus capacity: a bus can carry up to 50 passengers, but average use is only 12 to 14 passengers per bus.

6.34 The scheme would meet no identified transport need, and, indeed, would damage competing transport undertakings such as local trains and buses by unfair competition. There is already a train service between Kirkby and Liverpool run by Merseyrail.

there is currently a bus service between Kirkby and Liverpool city centre on average about every two minutes. There is accordingly no need or natural demand for a tram.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (OBJ/269)

The [tram] scheme is poorly targeted and does not represent good value for money. The money could be better spent on other projects, including the provision of a new deepwater harbour and cruise liner terminal, or improvements to local roads and the provision of a rapid rail link to Liverpool Airport.

6.41 It is self-evident that by promoting a tram which is largely to be publicly funded, in direct competition with buses and trains which are in large part without public subsidy, Merseytravel is acting in contravention of EU competition law. Any grant of public money would be challengeable in court or before the European Competition Commissioner.

[andyk]

I do apologise if my contribution is off-subject,which is the very reason I did not start a new thread.However, how can a huge scheme, such as the one proposed by Waterways ever hope to get off the ground when there is reluctance to reinstate a quarter mile of track, the utility of which has already been shown to exist.

City-centre regeneration is a good thing, but as jc_everton points out, transport needs in the city-centre are already provided for, admittedly,they are not perfect, but they exist.Many affluent people would never even consider living in the city-centre,preferring to commute to Southport or the Wirral.Electrification to Burscough(and beyond)would be an immediate success,as have previous extentions to the network.

[Waterways]

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.

[jc_everton]

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.

[Waterways]

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.

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.

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.

[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!

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

[Waterways]

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

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

Exactly? That is a garage now.

[andyk]

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.

[Cadfael]

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!

[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.

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.

[Waterways]

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.

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

Thanks, I like yours too.

[Waterways]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.