Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

[Waterways]

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.



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.

[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

[Waterways]

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.

[SKie]

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.

[Waterways]

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.


From Mike Royden's site. The South end rail lines:

[jc_everton]

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.

[HollyBlack]

...

• 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.

[Waterways]

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.


.

[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.

[Waterways]

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.
.

[jc_everton]

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.

[robt]

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.

[Waterways]

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.

[robt]

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.

[Waterways]

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.


.