Liverpool Waterloo Tunnel Update 10th Feb 2008

[robt]

THE DLR was a cheapo system. It was heavily criticized and could not cope once Docklands was populated. The experts said put an extension of the District line through. The Thatcher regime put in a cheapo option to get interest. Only when the Jubilee line was brought into Docklands could rail cope with demand.

The DLR is a prime example of how not to do it. Although the connectivity to other part of the tube are fine at the same stations. No out into the street and walk 10 mins to another station.

When it opened it had 8 miles of track and 11 trains - it now has 19 miles, 149 trains (some are still on order), 39 stations, 2 depots and 60 million journeys a year. 'Cheapo' system or not - that is a success story.

I have been on the DLR many times - it is like being on a fairground ride with driverless trains. Very cute.

Relevance? Does not matter if it has a driver or not if it works?

If Merseyrail is all the same rolling stock then much easier to manage and maintain rolling stock.

What they have now is a luxury, not the norm, and they know that. Trains that run on your 'circle line' would NOT be the same as the Northern and Wirral line trains - they would be heavy rail. If your circle line was built it would be light rail, that is a fact I'm afraid.

I don't see why you are so against light rail - light rail trains can still run on heavy rail systems too.

[Waterways]

The DLR was a cheapo rush job to get investors in the Docklands in London. They came and then the railway was totally inadequate. Then they stopped coming. Only when the government came in and funded the Jubilee Line extension did investment start to return to Docklands.

The short-term looking Thatcher government didn't want to spend to ensure future growth - hence small light trains. There was no direct rapid links to Docklands, that was the problem - the DRL trundled around only the Docklands. Until the Jubilee Line was run in, there was no rapid link. Docklands was in danger of becoming a White Elephant and had to be rescued. The Jubilee line did that. Liverpool should learn from London and implement Merseyrail extensions properly, initially underground, that seamlessly expand as the city expands.

Trains that run on your 'circle line' would NOT be the same as the Northern and Wirral line trains - they would be heavy rail. If your circle line was built it would be light rail, that is a fact I'm afraid.

I don't see why you are so against light rail - light rail trains can still run on heavy rail systems too.

As long as the guage and power pickup is the same, a light train can run on heavy train track. Having the same rolling stock and seamless tracks, means great flexibility in routing as a city expands, otherwise a Docklands situation may arise. Will the government bail out Liverpool with billions in rail infrastructure? Nah! they will not because it is not London or Manchester.

Best get it right from the beginning as all after will easily fall into place. Most of it is there, we must use it.

[robt]

I note with interest that you didn't address any of my points about how successful the DLR is.

The DLR was cheapo rush job to get investors in the Docklands in London. They came and then the railways was totally inadequate. They they stopped coming. Only when the government came in and funded the Jubilee Line extension did investment start to return to Docklands.

Investment never stopped, the Jubilee Line extension just gave it another surge, as you would expect.

The short-term looking Thatcher government didn't want to spend to ensure future growth - hence small light trains. There was no direct rapid links to Docklands, that was the problem - the DRL trundled around only the Docklands.

Wrong. The DLR has served Bank since 1991.

It was short-sightedness not to serve Bank from the start 4 years earlier, as a new fleet of trains was required as the first fleet were not allowed to operate in tunnels due to H&S.

Until the Jubilee Line was run in, there was no rapid link. Docklands was in danger of becoming a White Elephant and had to be rescued. The Jubilee line did that. Liverpool learn from London and implement Merseyrail extensions properly, that seamlessly expand as the city expands.

A bit like the DLR seamlessly expands you mean?

As long as the guage and power pickup is the same, a light train can run on heavy train track.

I know - I told you that, no need to turn it around to (try and) make me look silly

Having the same rolling stock and seamless tracks, means great flexibility in routing as a city expands, otherwise a Docklands situation may arise. Will the government bail out Liverpool with billions in rail infrastructure? Nah! they will not because it is not London or Manchester.

Yes, heaven forbid a 'docklands situation' arises. I mean it is only incredibly successful. Merseyrail (as a whle) carries 100,000 passengers a day. ONE STATION on the DLR handles 70,000 per day.

Let me say it again:

If your circle line was to ever be built (which it won't be - but the tunnels can/will be used in other ways), it would be a light rail system.


You seem to be an expert on every subject under the sun. I also have a feeling that if I had said the DLR was a failure, you would argue it was a success, just for the sake of it.

[Waterways]

Investment never stopped, the Jubilee Line extension just gave it another surge, as you would expect.

Investment did stop. Many companies were pulling out of Docklands. Companies that were considering moving in stayed away. It was just a pain to get to and when there slow top get around.

Wrong. The DLR has served Bank since 1991.

In the years before it never.

It was short-sightedness not to serve Bank from the start 4 years earlier, as a new fleet of trains was required as the first fleet were not allowed to operate in tunnels due to H&S.

Yep. A screw up, cutting money.

A bit like the DLR seamlessly expands you mean?

That, it didn't do too well. Not sure if the Underground run it. If not it should have and a proper rapid transit system built, merging into the Tube.

Yes, heaven forbid a 'docklands situation' arises. I mean it is only incredibly successful. Merseyrail (as a whle) carries 100,000 passengers a day. ONE STATION on the DLR handles 70,000 per day.

Is that the one where the Jubilee line stops? The DLR carries that amount its elf? In one station? Only if it was a conveyor belt.

Let me say it again:

If your circle line was to ever be built (which it won't be - but the tunnels can/will be used in other ways), it would be a light rail system.

It may be. However not the best way of doing it.

You seem to be an expert on every subject under the sun.

thank you.

I also have a feeling that if I had said the DLR was a failure, you would argue it was a success, just for the sake of it.

It eventually was a success, because it had to be expanded and connected properly with the Tube proper. The Tube also had to have a proper fast link into Docklands to make Docklands work, which eventually came with the Jubilee Line.

The DLR is a success despite its shortcomings - there is no alternative. The system would have been far better with a proper extension of the tube into Docklands, that is for sure. That is what the developers wanted the government to do. Also the DLR was extedned out of Dockland into the East End, to give cheap rail connectivity to these areas to regenerate. It worked - well it stoped teh areas from falingbehind further that was for sure.

The DLR was heavily criticised for the shortsighted approach of the chuggers.

[robt]

In the years before it never.

The railway only opened 4 years earlier - don't try and make it sound like decades to help your cause.

Yep. A screw up, cutting money.

Not serving bank was cutting money (or perhaps just sheer stupidity, or both), not that the stock could not work tunnels, that was a just a byproduct of not serving Bank.

That, it didn't do too well. Not sure if the Underground run it. If not it should have and a proper rapid transit system built, merging into the Tube.

Why do you use only the past tense? It is expanding as we speak, and has been for over a decade.

Is that the one where the Jubilee line stops? The DLR carries that amount its elf? In one station? Only if it was a conveyor belt.

Nope, not where the Jubilee stops.

It may be. However not the best way of doing it.

Only in your opinion.

thank you.

Your welcome. You clearly know very little about the rail industry though.

The DLR is a success despite its shortcomings - there is no alternative.

It doesn't have any shortcomings anymore though.

The system would have been far better with a proper extension of the tube into Docklands, that is for sure. That is what the developers wanted the government to do. Also the DLR was extedned out of Dockland into the East End, to give cheap rail connectivity to these areas to regenerate. It worked - well it stoped teh areas from falingbehind further that was for sure.

Like I already said - tube or heavy rail could not physically do what the DLR does.

[Waterways]

The railway only opened 4 years earlier - don't try and make it sound like decades to help your cause.

I considered moving into Docklands at the time. I could have sold a Central London flat for something cavernous and got change. To get in and out was a nightmare by road. Then Noddy trains about. No thanks.

Not serving bank was cutting money (or perhaps just sheer stupidity, or both), not that the stock could not work tunnels, that was a just a byproduct of not serving Bank.

Even via Bank it was a slow trundle to Docklands. A rapid transit rail system was needed - like extending the tube. Nothing was thought out, they just winged it. That's all light rail is - a cheapo compromise in most cases.

Your welcome. You clearly know very little about the rail industry though.

I know what rail systems are supposed to do. I am no train freak or spotter. We all want a system that works and is fast and easy to use. I also know when I use a good Metro system, like Paris and Munich. Then I look at what makes then better. It is usually quite simple. Seamless throughout in rolling stock, stations at major points. Easy to traverse the city, easy signage (Paris could be better here), fast, etc. I also know that cities with underground rapid rail systems attract investment.

It doesn't have any shortcomings anymore though.

It is a glorified bus service trundling around one area. The Tube does the rapid transit side in and out.

Like I already said - tube or heavy rail could not physically do what the DLR does.

It could do more if it was designed in from the beginning. To be fair the DLR is not that bad now!!! They rectified the major problems with the Jubilee line shifting people in and out fast, and made a connection with the tube at Bank and other points, like Bow Church, Stratford (for Olympics), Tower Hill.

They did it backwards.

The DLR is not a model of how to re-use Liverpool's disused underground rail infrastructure. How they did it is an example of how not to do it.

You must make money out of light rail junk

[jc_everton]

It must remembered, WW, that both Paris and Munich have a combination of trams and underground. You're views are inconsistent.
There's so many other cities with trams and underground - and how successful they are too.

I still disagree with Robt (or was it Petromax) that the tunnels should be used for light rail, they definitely have the potential to merge into Merseyrail, and I do believe it would be a waste to use light rail. By all means, use light rail overground, and connect other parts of the city, but Liverpool Central is becoming increasingly over-crowded, and more city centre stations would do the city the world of good. Not everyone works/studies/other near Central or Moorfields and it is these people who have a fair walk from them stations that deserve new stations and more options.

And as I have said many times before, the tunnels offer direct conectivity from north-south, north-east, east-north, south-north, and so on. Realistically, my proposals make most sense, I am sorry to sound arrogant. But I'm studying this for my dissertation, not to annoy people.

[Waterways]

It must remembered, WW, that both Paris and Munich have a combination of trams and underground. You're views are inconsistent.

Trams in Paris? Where? I am not against trams they can fill in gaps where the rail lines do not go. However light rail should not be implemented where heavy rail can. The system has to cope with a city expanding.

my proposals make most sense, I am sorry to sound arrogant. But I'm studying this for my dissertation, not to annoy people.

Whats exactly are they?

[petromax]

My assertion is that a cheap mainly cut and cover tunneling from Dingle to Edge Hill brings a cheap aspects that totally changes the completion of the rail system to make it a fully integrated seamless underground metro system, rivalling the likes of Munich.

At the risk of repeating myself - There is no benefit in wasting effort (real effort), not to mention money, in creating an idealised 'seamless' system that doesn't do what IS needed or WILL BE needed. EVERY network works with connections at the seams between different systems used for different purposes.

I don't deny that demand can be created by placing a station or a line wherever you might dream about and run it on what ever mode you particularly like but we need to look very carefully at the plan for the city, identify both where the demand is and where we would like it to be for the most successful (and yes, realistically cost effective) result.

The plan for Liverpool is to recreate the economic power of the docks as a commercial centre contiguous with the existing centre plus a massive boost to the inner suburbs ie to re-create the success of the waterfront, the city's main asset plus the supporting inner suburbs.

A RADIAL system of mainlines (connecting the rest of the region and UK); merseyrail (connecting the outer suburbs to the centre) on the existing alignments plus trams (connecting the inner suburbs) and a resurrected overhead (connecting the waterfront) where they used to be fits this models.

The outer loop has to be there to minimise the in-and-out journey between adjacent suburbs and therefore needs to be far enough out to make a difference ie NOT around the city centre. It is an OUTER loop not an inner underground which is not only stunningly expensive but as I say what is NOT needed.

If this generation get's it wrong; if the city screws up and the system fails (ie is not funded, again) it probably won't ever happen in Liverpool because of the city's recent history. Nothing succeeds like success but nothing smells quite as bad as failure (again).Taking a risk is important to success - we can't be afraid to fail, but we have to give it our best, educated shot. We won't get another chance.

[Waterways]

At the risk of repeating myself - There is no benefit in wasting effort (real effort), not to mention money, in creating an idealised 'seamless' system that doesn't do what IS needed or WILL BE needed. EVERY network works with connections at the seams between different systems used for different purposes.

I agree with you.

I don't deny that demand can be created by placing a station or a line wherever you might dream about and run it on what ever mode you particularly like but we need to look very carefully at the plan for the city, identify both where the demand is and where we would like it to be for the most successful (and yes, realistically cost effective) result.

That is something that has been lacking.

The plan for Liverpool is to recreate the economic power of the docks as a commercial centre contiguous with the existing centre plus a massive boost to the inner suburbs ie to re-create the success of the waterfront, the city's main asset plus the supporting inner suburbs.

The docks are predominantly the far north docks and are well away from the centre. The only docks near the centre will not be used for commercial shipping.

The city is trying to boost the tourist side of the city. How? They really don't know. What to use the existing redundant docks waterways for, they don't really know. They just wait for shark developers to put in proposals and see if they like it. Developers want money making attractions, like Kings Dock, where you can char-banc people in and out and then create a char-banc park on an infilled docks.

A RADIAL system of mainlines (connecting the rest of the region and UK); merseyrail (connecting the outer suburbs to the centre) on the existing alignments plus trams (connecting the inner suburbs) and a resurrected overhead (connecting the waterfront) where they used to be fits this models.

Firstly an overhead railway is impractical and a nostalgic expense - a dream. Looks good on a model, but it will block views. It will also have to merge with Merseyrail and by nature will be light rail. Best spend the money on something more useful. For tourists a Birkenhead type of tram system running around the docks is enough.

The outer loop has to be there to minimise the in-and-out journey between adjacent suburbs and therefore needs to be far enough out to make a difference ie NOT around the city centre. It is an OUTER loop not an inner underground which is not only stunningly expensive but as I say what is NOT needed.

The northern outer loop is there. It just needs to be connected at Edge Hill, the expensive bit. The southern loop is there, but only the track bed.

An inner loop is easy to implement as 80% is there. It is needed for better passenger connections and to serve inner city areas for re-generation. Implementing the INNER loop will also complete the OUTER loop.

Merseyrail has to be run as a Merseyside Centric railway. Beyond is not an issue for Merseyrail. Connections to it via the same stations what is needed.



It appears you don't understand the seamless system. It makes it easy to expand the Metro rail system and great flexibility to plan routes for an expanding city.

If this generation get's it wrong; if the city screws up and the system fails (ie is not funded, again) it probably won't ever happen in Liverpool because of the city's recent history. Nothing succeeds like success but nothing smells quite as bad as failure (again).Taking a risk is important to success - we can't be afraid to fail, but we have to give it our best, educated shot. We won't get another chance.

Exactly.

[jc_everton]

For Paris trams see:



Or just:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramways_in_Paris

Yes, this is off-topic, but how you can say they look ugly is beyond me.

[Waterways]

I spent a lot of time in Paris in the late 1980s/early 90s. The first was 1992 in the north east of the city - which I never went into. The next 1997.

The overhead wires are ugly as are the tracks. The amount of work to lay the track is the same as heavy rail.

Trams should never have been considered over extending Merseyrail in Liverpool. How it got to the stage that rails were delivered amazes me. Where is the vision? There is is just too much infrastructure and value in upgrading the existing tunnels and underground stations.

[jc_everton]

Point is: You look at Paris and Munich as fine examples of well-integrated urban public transport.

Well, both have trams and both have underground. You think they're ugly. I don't. That argument is irrelevant.

The point is, trams quite clearly DO work.

I do agree that the underground can be used better but I've spent a long time studying how it can be better used and unfortunately, only parts of the tunnels could be used successfully in conjunction with new tunnels linking them to the Northern Line and City Line. If someone can come with a plan that uses every inch of the tunnels and believes they can be fully integrated into the network I'd be delighted to hear about it.

WW, even your plans do not involve the Wapping tunnel, so although '80%' of your system is already in place, you are also leaving out around 40% of the underground network? (If Wapping is around 40, Waterloo around 40, and Dingle, say 20... that's where I'm getting my rough estimate from)
You want to use them for the sake of it and yes I agree, the lack of vision is pathetic from Merseytravel but I would go one step further than you and say that brand new tunnels should be created and where appropriate, use the existing tunnels. Of course, you will argue your proposal is cheap because of the infrastructure but new tunnels would be better for the long-term. In my opnion.
Reason being - the existing tunnels dictate where the trains must go and I do not believe a station near Waterloo Dock is necessary at all. Ok, there are couple of large apartment blocks nearby but I don't see how the Waterloo tunnel can have a new station at Costco AND connect to the Northern Line.

Now a station at more Central and Southern docks would be much more sensible - the South docks especially - their expansion has been the most significant.

Also, a station around Catherine St would be pretty pointless and I've already explained why, whilst one near Crown St (north) would be good for students of Liverpool Uni but apart from that....?

So in conclusion, yes, use the tunnels to an extent, but lets put stations in appropriate places (in the city centre) - even if it means building new tunnels. And lets get better connections between north and south, north and east, etc etc.

Public transport alone will not rescue poor areas such as Lodge Lane - new stations on Smithdown and Picton Roads are sound ideas and a new line for Anfield is also sound. But... do you want a station for every street in inner city Liverpool? That area is so close to town, perhaps my city centre tram proposal (which is basically the same as Merseytram's) could extend to that area.

[Waterways]

Point is: You look at Paris and Munich as fine examples of well-integrated urban public transport.

Well, both have trams and both have underground. You think they're ugly. I don't. That argument is irrelevant.

The point is, trams quite clearly DO work.

I never said they don't. In Liverpool the priority is the re-use of the valuable legacy left to us - with disused underground tunnels and stations to get back into action. That is where energy should be directed - that is the priority not trams. Trams are way down the line - pardon the pun. The cart was put before the horse and trams were the priority. Amazing!!!! Totally amazing!!!

I do agree that the underground can be used better but I've spent a long time studying how it can be better used and unfortunately, only parts of the tunnels could be used successfully in conjunction with new tunnels linking them to the Northern Line and City Line. If someone can come with a plan that uses every inch of the tunnels and believes they can be fully integrated into the network I'd be delighted to hear about it.

I gave the Circle Line which used the Waterloo and Dingle Tunnels - and three underground stations (if Byron St can be classed as one). That is a lot of ready made tunnel and cheap tunnelling to cut to connect the Circle up. This also allows outer loops and lines connectivity at Edge Hill to the rest of the Merseyrail.

The Northern Line tunnel near Central Stn can branch into the Wapping Tunnel to create a line to Edge Hill completing the North End Outer Loop via Anfield and Kirkdale. That is only the dock side of the Wapping Tunnel is not used.

The whole system is totally transformed by:

• Tunneling from Dingle to Edge Hill
• Branch the Northern line into the Wapping Tunnel

WW, even your plans do not involve the Wapping tunnel, so although '80%' of your system is already in place, you are also leaving out around 40% of the underground network?

See above.

My priority is:

• get the Circle Line done first as there is so much of it in place.
• Then completing the North End Outer Loop, using most of the Wapping Tunnel.
• Then the South End Outer Loop - more contentious as track bed needs lines re-laid and people who live backing up to the bed may kick up about this.

Why the hell millions are being spent on trams when all that is mainly in place is mind-boggling.

You want to use them for the sake of it

Nothing is used for the sake of it. Only the docks side of the Wapping tunnel would ever be used for the sake of it as there appears no real demand for a station there as the King Dock Arena was put in the wrong place.

and yes I agree, the lack of vision is pathetic from Merseytravel but I would go one step further than you and say that brand new tunnels should be created and where appropriate, use the existing tunnels. Of course, you will argue your proposal is cheap because of the infrastructure but new tunnels would be better for the long-term. In my opnion.

Mine has new tunnel from Dingle to Edge Hill (cheaper cut and cover along much of the route), and stations left along the way.

Reason being - the existing tunnels dictate where the trains must go and I do not believe a station near Waterloo Dock is necessary at all. Ok, there are couple of large apartment blocks nearby but I don't see how the Waterloo tunnel can have a new station at Costco AND connect to the Northern Line.

A station there is essential. Liverpool Waters is right there. Connecting the tunnel and the Northern Line is not a great act of engineering.

Now a station at more Central and Southern docks would be much more sensible - the South docks especially - their expansion has been the most significant.

Brunswick is already there and Parliament St not far away. The end of the Wapping Tunnel could be used if demand eventually is there.

So in conclusion, yes, use the tunnels to an extent, but lets put stations in appropriate places (in the city centre) - even if it means building new tunnels. And lets get better connections between north and south, north and east, etc etc.

The Circle Line and branching into the Wapping Tunnel does give the connections.

Public transport alone will not rescue poor areas such as Lodge Lane - new stations on Smithdown and Picton Roads are sound ideas and a new line for Anfield is also sound. But... do you want a station for every street in inner city Liverpool? That area is so close to town, perhaps my city centre tram proposal (which is basically the same as Merseytram's) could extend to that area.

That area is not that close to town. And underground stations right in the district centres, like in London, will be a real attraction for investors. Trams are the last in line - to fill the gaps where rail does not run.

After the tunnels are up and running (or simultaneously), extend the Parkway into John Lennon. Then directly trains from Wrexham, the Wirral and the North and East Ends can reach the centre and directly into the airport - via Central Stn, up the Wapping Tunnel, Edge Hill and on to Parkway and the airport. Then most of Merseyside and beyond has direct access to the airport.

Then trams a can fill the gaps and mesh into the overground stations - so just a platform change for many and onto the fast Merseyrail trains to the centre and airport.

[andyk]

I'm still enjoying the debate despite it becoming a slanging-match between Robt and Waterways. I still doubt that heavy-rail is a solution for inner-city Liverpool,the need just can't be proven and massive investment requires more than envisaging an eventual benefit.I suspect that outside the morning and evening rush, any new inner-city stations would be lightly used.

The existing infrastructure,such as the Waterloo tunnel,could be intergrated into a tram/light-rail system allowing for a swift entry/exit from the City centre.The question of a seamless system is not that important,for example most of the commuters using the D.L.R will make one or more changes before they arrive at their place of work.Is that such an inconvenience?

Keep the ideas flowing guys!