Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

[Waterways]

I of course meant Liverpool Waters

Nice to run a line into the docks amongst the new developments, however the Northern line is not that far off. Also elevated trains amongst buildings creates noise problems.

Yes that would be another way of connecting the airport to the city centre - either will do - but the Northern Line doen't pass through Lime Street, and this would be an advantage.

I assume you want a non-stop, non-change, service. The Northern line could be diverted through Lime St. That is just a routing problems, not a physical one.

I don't see what relevance that statement has to my post, but why is it 'best have Merseyrail' do it? It doesn't matter who does it, as long as it is done.

If the idea is to have a non-stop. non-changer Lime St to airport service then Lime St is fine. However this precludes other Merseyrail stations. Could be links London and have local underground and fast main line stations links too.

Yes it did use it in the past of course. But it is highly unlike you would get todays 23 meter coaches around it (The existing Merseyrail units are shorter than this). Speed/stations is not relevant to it - it is the overhang that the coaches cause when going round curves. See bottom of post for more.

I still don't see this as an insurmountable problem.

Not sure what you mean. Any new trains for the north west area are to be diesel, apart from surburban manchester - therefore, they can not pass through the tunnels at all if they have stations in them. It is a done deal - no changing it I'm afraid.

Needs a re-think and selling off this stock when a seamless system is implemented.

Why would other region trains go into Merseyrail underground tunnels?

Wishful thinking I'm afraid. An isolated network is far cheaper to signal than trying to integrate with the rest of the areas signalling for one.

If the aim is to get a seamless system then the signalling will in time need to be upgraded.

Once again, why? Other than you liking the idea? Why should trains be routed away from Lime Street mainline other than to benefit a handful of commuters?

If it is such a brilliant idea to do this, why don't other cities abandon their mainline interchange stations?

Look at London's Tube. A brilliant system being the role model for many others around the world. The tube stations at main line stations are separate to the main line. Yu get of the tube and then go on the main line. Ticketing in some cases means you have the same ticket for both.

The tube should be copied in signage, maps, ticketing, etc. They got all that very right, despite inheriting differing rail systems and merging them.

Any stock (existing or new) for Northern can end up anywhere from Newcastle to Cleethorpes, Barrow to Liverpool. The same units do not operate the same line everyday, apart from in certain circumstances eg electrified units on an electrified route. As far as diesel units go, the same TYPE of unit doesn't necessarily operate on the same ROUTE from day to day.

Liverpool's metro is Liverpool's Metro and should be independent of others - like the Tube.

Why would anyone invest in a small unique fleet for Liverpool that had smaller carriages that could not run anywhere else? The government certainly will not. It creates flexibility and maintenance issues.

Why would Liverpool's Metro rolling stock go elsewhere? Merseyrail is a Merseyside centric local rail network. The rolling stock should seamlessly go only on the Merseyrail network and nowhere else. What others do is their business. What do you want? A train to Sunderland from Brunswick? Look at Munich and other new systems.

[robt]

Nice to run a line into the docks amongst the new developments, however the Northern line is not that far off. Also elevated trains amongst buildings creates noise problems.

Good point about the Northern Line I forgot it was there

Elevated or not, they create noise problems. Come to think of it, I think I read that a monorail was suggested to run throughout Liverpool Waters to the airport.

I assume you want a non-stop, non-change, service. The Northern line could be diverted through Lime St. That is just a routing problems, not a physical one.

Not necessarily non-stop, but quick and efficient. And wrong - it is a physical problem, not a routing one, unless a train coming from Moorfields reverses at Central, then again at James Street just to get to Lime Street, thats without getting back on the Northern Line to continue to the airport. Impractical.

I still don't see this as an insurmountable problem.

It is, potentially, a physical problem that is not able to be overcome without serious cost involved. Besides new stations can not be built on a curve.

Needs a re-think and selling off this stock when a seamless system is implemented.

Why would other region trains go into Merseyrail underground tunnels?

Why should there have to be different trains for different regions to start with?

If the aim is to get a seamless system then the signalling will in time need to be upgraded.

Not relevant to my point.

Look at London's Tube. A brilliant system being the role model for many others around the world. The tube stations at main line stations are separate to the main line. Yu get of the tube and then go on the main line. Ticketing in some cases means you have the same ticket for both.

Liverpool has one mainline station. London has 10+. Merseyside as a whole, let alone Liverpool is not of the scale to support a seperate underground railway.

The tube should be copied in signage, maps, ticketing, etc. They got all that very right, despite inheriting differing rail systems and merging them.

I agree 100%, especially the signage on the stations.

Liverpool's metro is Liverpool's Metro and should be independent of others - like the Tube.

Why?

Why would Liverpool's Metro rolling stock go elsewhere? Merseyrail is a Merseyside centric local rail network. The rolling stock should seamlessly go only on the Merseyrail network and nowhere else. What others do is their business.

Again, why should Liverpool have its own special little fleet of trains?

I have already explained this point, I won't bother again.

What do you want? A train to Sunderland from Brunswick?

You know full well that was not implied or suggested.

Once again, you have turned everything round to your way of thinking, manipulated what I have said to rubbish my ideas, ignored practicalities, barriers and other peoples ideas.

[Waterways]

Good point about the Northern Line I forgot it was there

The Waterloo Tunnel is adjacent too.

Elevated or not, they create noise problems. Come to think of it, I think I read that a monorail was suggested to run throughout Liverpool Waters to the airport.

A wish list. The Liverpool Waters looks like NY - again wishful thinking.

Not necessarily non-stop, but quick and efficient. And wrong - it is a physical problem, not a routing one, unless a train coming from Moorfields reverses at Central, then again at James Street just to get to Lime Street, thats without getting back on the Northern Line to continue to the airport. Impractical.

I'm sure a work-around can be done if Lime St is that important and needs a direct Airport link. As said, if a non-stop airport service is to be introduced, then main line Lime St is fine. Merseyrail has to run into the airport too, which may mean a change from Lime St. Like London with Tube and dedicated main line super fast services.

It is, potentially, a physical problem that is not able to be overcome without serious cost involved. Besides new stations can not be built on a curve.

"Mind the Gap!"

Why should there have to be different trains for different regions to start with?

What is best for Merseyrail is best for Merseyrail and others take care of themselves.

Liverpool has one mainline station. London has 10+. Merseyside as a whole, let alone Liverpool is not of the scale to support a seperate underground railway.

It is and just about has one now called Merseyrail

Why?

Every other metro system is run as a separate body and they work better that way. Let others do main line, regional. Merseyrail rolling stock doesn't needed to go elsewhere.

Once again, you have turned everything round to your way of thinking, manipulated what I have said to rubbish my ideas, ignored practicalities, barriers and other peoples ideas.

If Merseyrail is to be a more extended, more complete metro system it has to be run like every other large city Metro system. That means dedicated lines (in all but exceptional cases) and rolling stock and run as one independent body with 100% co-operation with other rail bodies where necessary. Look at London Underground, Paris, etc. If it is to work efficiently it has to be done properly. Merseyrail has to concentrate on Merseyside only (and maybe just beyond, but no more.

[HollyBlack]

If Liverpool Waters is to be a big success it will have to attract wealthy people. That may not be nice to say but that's the way it is.

So what does Liverpool have to attract wealthy people?
Well there's regeneration, the new Pier Head stuff - clean canal, museums, ACC etc.
Most of all there's Liverpool University, world leader in various medical fields. The 21st Century is going to be all about medical science, biotech. Yes, rich people will come, including from overseas, to do research projects at the University and to have their children educated there.

The need for an upmarket link between the Waterloo dock area and the University should be self-evident. Driving is impractical. So the rich-person's link needs to be clean, new, attractive, fast, and, yes, most of all, it should be distinctive.
Re-use of the Waterloo tunnel practically forces itself. It should be financed or subsidised by the Liverpool Waters development. And since John Moore's University is en route (Fontenoy St. cutting), well a stop there makes too much sense to miss out on.

So it's obvious to me that a line, (rail or light-rail) is needed to link Edge Hill, University/Hospital area, John Moores University area and Liverpool Waters (at the Chadwick St./Gt. Howard St. junction).
It can happen independently of almost any other development and benefits commuters (especially students) from far and wide who can interchange at Edge Hill. Edge Hill is also a good place to stable the rolling stock.

Since light-rail is cheaper (for one thing Costco does not have to be bulldozed) and is suitable for later expansion, it should be included in the Liverpool Waters planning proposals. Later expansion can include an interchange with the Northern Line and street-running around the waterfront (even semi-private, limited-stop trains if the money and the will is there).

Not exactly a Co-operative Commonwealth dream, more a practical response to the reality of world overpopulation. Not to mention all the world's other ills.

Most important - that's where new money can come from, a levy on every apartment built within walking distance to pay for the reopening of a "Waterloo line". Something that the Liverpool Waters developers should want to pay for because they directly recoup their money on enhanced apartment selling prices. And the City isn't going to stop them paying for it if that is what they want

[Waterways]

Hollyblack, why isn't it nice to attract wealthy people? Liverpool was second richest city in the world at one time with some of the world's richest living in the city.

Liverpool is attracting many people who see something the locals cannot. They see a city going places and they may assist in that too. They see cheap property to what is in the south east. They see dock waters being made into an Amsterdam creating a water based living environment. If this does not materialise they will stop coming and then go away. They add value to the city bringing entrepreneurial skills.

The universities should be catered for in an underground station or two, however the Waterloo Tunnel should serve the wider area, not just them.

Nice to have trams trundling around and in and out the docks, however the underground needs to be a rapid transport system and that is heavy rail. Best do it properly and not some stop-gap cheapo way that will be barely unsuitable now and certainly in the future.

Paying for the re-use of the tunnels and new stations can be done by public funding and sensible taxation on those who benefit from he stations. Property sales tax, levy on apartment sales (similar sort of thing).

Most importantly, the improvements must be seamless into the existing Merseyrail network. This enables flexible routing and rail system expansion as the city re-populates.

[jc_everton]

The past week has saw some more interesting discussions as regards the 'Loop Lines' and I have just caught up on everything now (been in Bonn for the past week).

Robt - you timed your entrance to perfection - receiving the baton from me, in terms of discussing (or arguing) with Waterways.

Many things I'd like to raise that caught my eye but I want to play down both Robt's and HollyBlack's proposals.

Robt - you say heavy rail will not work due to curvature etc - just look at the Wirral loop line. Any new proposals from Waterways are not going to be as tight and curved as this - the loop is one big curve in a short area m2. I'm not buying that.

HollyBlack - Yes, people who live by the docks may want to travel to university by light rail - but how many? Would the demand really justify a whole new line and 3 new stations? It would be a travesty if them stations could not be integrated with other lines as demand would increase big-time. So yes, re-open the tunnel but not in the way you propose - it is exclusive, not inclusive, and demand simply will not be high enough.

I believe the tunnels have to be integrated into the Northern Line - to provide excellent alternatives to Central and Moorfields - easing their capacities and at the same time, improving flexibility and opening up many new possibilities, such as Liverpool Rivers - Liverpool Parkway etc etc.

[HollyBlack]

... HollyBlack - Yes, people who live by the docks may want to travel to university by light rail - but how many? Would the demand really justify a whole new line and 3 new stations? It would be a travesty if them stations could not be integrated with other lines as demand would increase big-time. So yes, re-open the tunnel but not in the way you propose - it is exclusive, not inclusive, and demand simply will not be high enough....

You can call me Holly, my friends do :-)

Well, yes, it's true that heavy rail through Waterloo tunnel would be superior. And the line could certainly triangle onto the Northern line to the East of it. It would be great, Heavy rail would be better, but ...

But .. But, what about funding? IMHO, light-rail could get funded where heavy-rail cannot. Also I have a sneaking suspicion that putting heavy rail in that old tunnel, bringing it up to modern standards, could cost a lot more than light rail.

Methinks those who are building the tower apartments would be willing to pay for the line and two University Stations provided they had substantial control of the routing of surface tramways at the Riverside end. They might even want the possibility of sentimental light-rail "Boat trains" from Edge Hill to go with a new cruise terminal. All Peel needs is a nod from the council to suggest that a proposal to reuse the Waterloo tunnel would be welcome.

On the inclusive side, people who live in the suburbs and beyond would greatly from an interchange at Edge Hill, especially University and Hospital students and workers. Changing from rail to light-rail at Edge Hill should not be an undue burden. Huge spin-off benefits.

WW - what's not nice is letting rich people pay for a development using public infrastructure that significantly benefits them disproportionately. Not nice, but it will work in our brave "New Labour" world. Trickle down economics, sadly. Not as good as the Cooperative Commonwealth envisaged by Tressell but better than the status quo.

There may also be a possibility of some sort of compromise using tram-trains.

[petromax]

There was a population of 832,000 in 1938 and a magnificent rail system to match the needs of the population and a booming port. Most of that rail system either exists or would take relatively less per capita of population to re-instate.

This includes the three major tunnel links, an inner loop and an outer loop. Even with this comprehensive system the West-east links have always been poor - hence the need for trams. The road system does not and cannot have the same kind of capacity.

If Liverpool wants to be that size of city again, it has to re-instate the system it used to have, which would be relatively less expensive than other cities because half of it already exists.

[Waterways]

There was a population of 832,000 in 1938 and a magnificent rail system to match the needs of the population and a booming port. Most of that rail system either exists or would take relatively less per capita of population to re-instate.

This includes the three major tunnel links, an inner loop and an outer loop. Even with this comprehensive system the West-east links have always been poor - hence the need for trams. The road system does not and cannot have the same kind of capacity.

If Liverpool wants to be that size of city again, it has to re-instate the system it used to have, which would be relatively less expensive than other cities because half of it already exists.

Good post Petromax. You are looking ahead while others look to now, or next week at the most.

If Liverpool wants to be that size of city again, it has to re-instate the system it used to have, which would be relatively less expensive than other
cities because half of it already exists.

What I have been continually saying. Then there is the intangible matter of image and perception of a seriously go ahead city that means business.

Lay down the rails of infrastructure and private enterprise will run over them, pouring investment into the city. You need the egg before the chicken.

[robt]

Robt - you say heavy rail will not work due to curvature etc - just look at the Wirral loop line. Any new proposals from Waterways are not going to be as tight and curved as this - the loop is one big curve in a short area m2. I'm not buying that.

I think I said it may not be possible (I can't be bothered reading back at the moment, I'm very ill ).

No one on here knows the loading gauge of the tunnels, therefore lightrail could be made to fit, heavy rail may not fit.

If the wirral line loop was to be constructed today, it would almost certainly be lightrail, it isn't suited to heavy rail.

But .. But, what about funding? IMHO, light-rail could get funded where heavy-rail cannot. Also I have a sneaking suspicion that putting heavy rail in that old tunnel, bringing it up to modern standards, could cost a lot more than light rail.

100% correct.

There may also be a possibility of some sort of compromise using tram-trains.

'Tram-Trains' do exist and are used in a couple of places in Europe - but the government wouldn't be willing to take a risk on them until they are proven technology.

[Waterways]

No one on here knows the loading gauge of the tunnels, therefore lightrail could be made to fit, heavy rail may not fit.

As heavy rail was used in the tunnels over 30 years ago, I see no reason why it can't used again.

'Tram-Trains' do exist and are used in a couple of places in Europe - but the government wouldn't be willing to take a risk on them until they are proven technology.

But they are prepared to go Maglev.

[jc_everton]

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

Edge Hill seems to be a reoccurring theme on here, and I remember some Liverpool Development company came on here a few weeks back with lots of fancy computer-aided graphics of how they would modernise it. I say leave it in the hands of these guys, but I'm still not convinced about using the tunnels for light rail.

I believe trams should be used over-ground as well as having an underground. My underground proposal is merely an extension, albeit a significant one - linking the Waterloo tunnel with the Wapping tunnel. I have a map, and I don't know where I found it - probably oritelad's site. It shows the old tunnels - including one which runs parallel with Crown Street, branching off the Wapping tunnel - which certainly gives me food for thought.

WW seems adamant that the WCML should not be used by MerseyRail and I think Robt disagreed - so do I.
Liverpool Parkway would be so much more accessible, not forgetting the Smithdown area - which definitely needs a new station on Smithdown itself.

[Waterways]

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.

Edge Hill seems to be a reoccurring theme on here, and I remember some Liverpool Development company came on here a few weeks back with lots of fancy computer-aided graphics of how they would modernise it. I say leave it in the hands of these guys, but I'm still not convinced about using the tunnels for light rail.

Edge Hill is a large junction and would be prominent in any scheme. It is where the main lines would meet Merseyrail.

I believe trams should be used over-ground as well as having an underground. My underground proposal is merely an extension, albeit a significant one - linking the Waterloo tunnel with the Wapping tunnel. I have a map, and I don't know where I found it - probably oritelad's site. It shows the old tunnels - including one which runs parallel with Crown Street, branching off the Wapping tunnel - which certainly gives me food for thought.

Here it is:

WW seems adamant that the WCML should not be used by MerseyRail and I think Robt disagreed - so do I.
Liverpool Parkway would be so much more accessible, not forgetting the Smithdown area - which definitely needs a new station on Smithdown itself.

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

What is needed, as Petromax stated, is to get the existing disused lines, trackbed and tunnels up and running and seamlessly merged into heavy rail Merseyrail. A train from St Helens could run through the centre and onto West Kirkby or Chester if need be. That is the proposed inner loop, and the in place outer loops. It needs to be done to project the city forwards and re-generate inner city areas. And to re-instate is a cheap undertaking as most is partially in place. It is a case of having to. It is as simple as that.

The parts of Gtr Liverpool which Merseyrail cannot reach, trams can fill the bill.

[robt]

As heavy rail was used in the tunnels over 30 years ago, I see no reason why it can't used again.

We have already been over that - no one here knows. You may see no reason why not, but experts may.

But they are prepared to go Maglev.

a) Magelv is proven elsewhere in the world
b) A feasibility study does not mean any maglev will be built, ever, even if the study is successful.

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

I know you didn't mention it first, but where does the WCML come into anything to do with Merseyrail (on this thread)?

[petromax]

[QUOTE=Waterways;118925]
... My underground proposal is merely an extension, albeit a significant one - linking the Waterloo tunnel with the Wapping tunnel....

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

QUOTE]

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 and no real need to try to connect electrified Merseyrail with "heavy rail" services. The small proportion that want to travel right across the system will need to change - as they do now.

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.

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.

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.

There are a number of proposed modes, a monorail would have the most capacity; the cheapest woud be a dedicated trolley bus service.