Merseyside: New stations planned

[Camden]

Yeah but come on mate. I wanted to give you a list of airlines flying to Manchester compared to Liverpool but it would have taken all night so here is a link. http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/WhichTerminal. On a regular basis Livepool gets Easyjet, Ryanair, Flybe, Wizzair, Blue Air (They are infrequent).

Do you really think Liverpool should have a direct rail link paid for?

Yeah I do. Liverpool's airport does seem rather out on a limb, and if you want to gee up the city's economy you need to start thinking big, start thinking pre-emptive, start thinking spark up, and that needs big ideas. Those services are chicken and egg, and that link to London would come a lot sooner if you could get from the city to the airport without using a bus!

On top of that (and the primary reason for doing it) you then have the effect on business in the city. A directly connected to air city centre (and I mean 20 mins by frequent Merseyrail, not hour and a half by Northern rail from Lime Street passing through one of your rival's city centres on the way) would be a lot more attractive to businesses looking for an alternative to London. I know the time will come within the next 10 years where asked to consider a north move, and I personally would rather that's to Liverpool. But from the looks of things it's not just ringway you're losing out to. If you don't have the appetite to win you surely won't, but be sure to realise that losing out does make a real world difference to your city and everyone in it.

Incidentally, I note that Manchester Airport station only had 1.5m passengers ten years ago, and just 3.3m today. Yet it is getting a fourth platform, and a dedicated Metrolink line built to it. I think you can afford to set your aspirations higher than a bus link, which is never going to work in terms of serving an airport.

 

[Wavertreelad]

The thing is how do you cut and cover anywhere around there without closing the bypass and sending all the road traffic through Garston Village or demolishing new build houses? There is no space at the side of the Northern Line to tunnel deep enough. The cutting isn't deep enough. As soon as you leave the Northern line you are in to the foundations of houses or very busy roads.

You can do the link as proposed without going under housing.

I'd want a flying or burrowing junction just to avoid clogging things up.

The northbound Aigburgh Road end of the bypass could be realigned closer to southbound alignment which would over the majority of the housing development, leaving a short pinch point roughly where the A561 is on the northbound carriageway in Google Maps just to the north of Dock Road.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=ga...aLPrgsAE&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&output=classic&dg=oo

It should then be possible to build a new temporary road surface with narrow lanes, and the usual speed restrictions etc., to allow two lanes in both directions during the construction of the tunnel. Yes the would be some disruption but it would be fairly localised and there are alternative routes via Mather Avenue etc for commuters etc. HGV's except those visiting the Garston Docks and servicing the local area would be reduced if there was no Freightliner traffic, and most would probably use the Knowsley Expressway and M62/M57 to reach the northern end of the City. From a rail point of view the gradients would a lot easier than the curve from LSP enabling and would be better placed for building a station to the rear of the retail park before following the route proposed by Merseytravel.

 

[fowler9]

Yeah I do. Liverpool's airport does seem rather out on a limb, and if you want to gee up the city's economy you need to start thinking big, start thinking pre-emptive, start thinking spark up, and that needs big ideas. Those services are chicken and egg, and that link to London would come a lot sooner if you could get from the city to the airport without using a bus!

On top of that (and the primary reason for doing it) you then have the effect on business in the city. A directly connected to air city centre (and I mean 20 mins by frequent Merseyrail, not hour and a half by Northern rail from Lime Street passing through one of your rival's city centres on the way) would be a lot more attractive to businesses looking for an alternative to London. I know the time will come within the next 10 years where asked to consider a north move, and I personally would rather that's to Liverpool. But from the looks of things it's not just ringway you're losing out to. If you don't have the appetite to win you surely won't, but be sure to realise that losing out does make a real world difference to your city and everyone in it.

Incidentally, I note that Manchester Airport station only had 1.5m passengers ten years ago, and just 3.3m today. Yet it is getting a fourth platform, and a dedicated Metrolink line built to it. I think you can afford to set your aspirations higher than a bus link, which is never going to work in terms of serving an airport.

I admit that I probably sound very defeatist but I just don't think the political will exists in this city to force through the kind of massive infrastructure improvements required to make any of this happen. I would vote for anyone who would do it. It could have been done so much more easily years ago but we were too busy selling off land.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The northbound Aigburgh Road end of the bypass could be realigned closer to southbound alignment which would over the majority of the housing development, leaving a short pinch point roughly where the A561 is on the northbound carriageway in Google Maps just to the north of Dock Road.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=ga...aLPrgsAE&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&output=classic&dg=oo

It should then be possible to build a new temporary road surface with narrow lanes, and the usual speed restrictions etc., to allow two lanes in both directions during the construction of the tunnel. Yes the would be some disruption but it would be fairly localised and there are alternative routes via Mather Avenue etc for commuters etc. HGV's except those visiting the Garston Docks and servicing the local area would be reduced if there was no Freightliner traffic, and most would probably use the Knowsley Expressway and M62/M57 to reach the northern end of the City. From a rail point of view the gradients would a lot easier than the curve from LSP enabling and would be better placed for building a station to the rear of the retail park before following the route proposed by Merseytravel.

This is true to an extent, however, Mather Avenue would rapidly become gridlocked. That route already is once you reach Allerton Road at peak times. The road outside my office on Speke Road would become a car park for large parts of the day (This in itself doesn't bother me because I can normally walk home to my mansion in Mossley Hill quicker than getting the bus anyway, ha ha). And again I doubt the political will to force it through exists.

 

[flypie]

Yeah but come on mate. I wanted to give you a list of airlines flying to Manchester compared to Liverpool but it would have taken all night so here is a link. http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/WhichTerminal. On a regular basis Livepool gets Easyjet, Ryanair, Flybe, Wizzair, Blue Air (They are infrequent).

Do you really think Liverpool should have a direct rail link paid for?

This would not simply be about the airport but about the restart of a tram system. It would provide access to Atlantic Park, the Retail Park as well as the residential areas of Speke and possible provide a link to Widnes. The airport would only be one beneficiary.

 

[flypie]

Yeah I do. Liverpool's airport does seem rather out on a limb, and if you want to gee up the city's economy you need to start thinking big, start thinking pre-emptive, start thinking spark up, and that needs big ideas. Those services are chicken and egg, and that link to London would come a lot sooner if you could get from the city to the airport without using a bus!

On top of that (and the primary reason for doing it) you then have the effect on business in the city. A directly connected to air city centre (and I mean 20 mins by frequent Merseyrail, not hour and a half by Northern rail from Lime Street passing through one of your rival's city centres on the way) would be a lot more attractive to businesses looking for an alternative to London. I know the time will come within the next 10 years where asked to consider a north move, and I personally would rather that's to Liverpool. But from the looks of things it's not just ringway you're losing out to. If you don't have the appetite to win you surely won't, but be sure to realise that losing out does make a real world difference to your city and everyone in it.

Incidentally, I note that Manchester Airport station only had 1.5m passengers ten years ago, and just 3.3m today. Yet it is getting a fourth platform, and a dedicated Metrolink line built to it. I think you can afford to set your aspirations higher than a bus link, which is never going to work in terms of serving an airport.

Speke also needs a run way extension t allow longer distance flights and in the Liverpool has one great advantage and that is now land would need to be taken, just a bit of the river marsh. Speke is 2,285 while ringway is 3050.

This is an extension at Madeira https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira_Airport if it can be done into the Atlantic doing it into the Mersey childs play.

 

[WatcherZero]

Causing the river to silt up around the protuberance and causing the river level to rise possibly flooding other areas?

 

[tony_mac]

In fact at two times during the day it goes to hourly and is not overcrowded.

At the moment it is half-hourly throughout the day.

However, the service will be reduced in April and will only serve Liverpool One, making onward connections rather more difficult.

 

[flypie]

Causing the river to silt up around the protuberance and causing the river level to rise possibly flooding other areas?

I doubt it most of the water there is tidal.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Regardless of whether it was possible, you'd be fools to trust them is the problem with that. You might have an eye on a better service, but they won't (not for you anyway).

Better to maintain the separation of the system and actually have one, than have it taken over and frequencies reduced to half-hourly, lines closed, odd service patterns, etc, etc. There's only one thing on these people's minds and that's feeding the supposed Manchester POWERHOUSE (and if you're not included, which trust me Liverpool aint, you're either food or foe. And I think Liverpool is seen as a bit of both).

I can't see Merseyrail being absorbed totally into a "North" franchise centred on Manchester because clearly some routes are centred only on serving Liverpool from the outskirts of Merseyside. Thus assuming there were no extensions to the Merseyrail network, the Northern and Wirral Lines would remain under Merseytravel/Merseyrail control, with the City Lines being operated by "North" with Merseytravel setting fares within the Merseyside area as currently.

It's when extensions to the network are made including OHLE electrification, and they will come eventually in one form or another as dmu working is eliminated within the region. Thus, Kirkby to Wigan would be wholly operated by Merseyrail, as would any extension from Ormskirk to Preston and Bidston to Wrexham.

Electrification of CLC route would potentially allow Merseyrail to reach Warrington from Central, which could then replace the present stopper service from Lime Street. This in turn reduces the number of trains from either Ormskirk or Kirkby having to reverse at Central increasing the capacity fo the station, with trains turning back at either LSP or Hunt Cross.

The Manchester service would then operate as a semi fast to Warrington stopping just at LSP and a stopper to Manchester. A new Lime Street to Chester via the Halton Curve stopper service would serve the all the stations enroute, including potentially a station at Wavertree (Smithdown Road), and a reopened Ditton with all these services operated by "North".

With LM and East Midlands trains all trains stopping at LSP albeit on two levels, it would effectively become a mini hub station allowing passengers the option to reach far more destinations more conveniently.

Whilst I am broadly in favour of the Northern Powerhouse concept, it equally is important that both Liverpool and Manchester and their respective surrounding areas maintain their local identities. However, it also has to be realised the Manchester needs Liverpool and much as Liverpool needs Manchester to maximise on the potential of the concept. Improving the transport links between to the two cities and in fact the rest of the North of England is vital as there little point in "sucking" everything into Manchester, only for the place to become totally congested as this will defeat the object of the entire concept. Having a strong and vibrant Liverpool as the second largest city in the North West is thus vital to Manchester's success, and one the key components to this is a better transport system for Liverpool and Merseyside in general. This has to be coordinated locally, so it makes sense for Merseytravel to remain in control of Merseyrail and thus responsible maintaining a separate system, where it is appropriate to do so.

 

[Camden]

I totally agree with you, however evidence to date suggests your pals down the street don't share your viewpoint.

 

[WatcherZero]

I doubt it most of the water there is tidal.

Even worse for silting then as material is being deposited upriver from the sea not just downriver, if you built out into the river then similar would happen more and more silt build up leading to creation of mud flats even in areas of coastal erosion and narrowing of the river while the opposite side becomes faster and deeper.

The dredging and realignment of the outer estuary in the last century has led to the rapid silting of the inner estuary including shifting channels as well as previous channels being lost or created but that process is now slowing as it finds a new equilibrium. Altering the shape of the estuary will disturb that process.

If you read the paper linked at the bottom you might get a better understanding. Essentially that area from Garston to Hale Head is eroding quickly, between 1.5m and 3m lost over the next 20 years, 2.5m to 7.5m over the next 50 years and 5m to 15m over the next 100 years. That eroded material and the material being washed in is then being caught in the inlet between the Airport and Hale Head (Page 28, 31 and 32). This is being allowed to happen to protect the opposite bank from flooding.

The paper iterates the current policy of no further direct intervention but warns that due to rising sea levels and silt build up the defences are going to be stretched and in the future broken as the volume available for the tidal water to occupy is reduced.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...=kkMCcoJoWUiJKCiMLCQqkw&bvm=bv.85970519,d.d2s

If you also read the airports masterplan to 2030 they don't think expansion is required westwards and indeed the owners Peel propose doubling the size of the Speke Garston Coastal Reserve to make productive use of the land for leisure purposes. They instead propose extending the runway 314m eastwards towards Hale.

Also the landing lights for the airport runway currently extend 100m out into the estuary, if you extended the runway you would have to extend the lights too right into the centre of the river.

 

[fowler9]

Speke also needs a run way extension t allow longer distance flights and in the Liverpool has one great advantage and that is now land would need to be taken, just a bit of the river marsh. Speke is 2,285 while ringway is 3050.

This is an extension at Madeira https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeira_Airport if it can be done into the Atlantic doing it into the Mersey childs play.

This is not true. Speke does not need a runway extension. It has been able to handle C5's, 747's and Antonov 124's for decades. I watched a Beluga take off from Speke airport the other day. XH558 can take off and land there. It may need extending to be a divert for the space shuttle which is no longer in use.

 

[flypie]

Even worse for silting then as material is being deposited upriver from the sea not just downriver, if you built out into the river then similar would happen more and more silt build up leading to creation of mud flats even in areas of coastal erosion and narrowing of the river while the opposite side becomes faster and deeper.

The dredging and realignment of the outer estuary in the last century has led to the rapid silting of the inner estuary including shifting channels as well as previous channels being lost or created but that process is now slowing as it finds a new equilibrium. Altering the shape of the estuary will disturb that process.

If you read the paper linked at the bottom you might get a better understanding. Essentially that area from Garston to Hale Head is eroding quickly, between 1.5m and 3m lost over the next 20 years, 2.5m to 7.5m over the next 50 years and 5m to 15m over the next 100 years. That eroded material and the material being washed in is then being caught in the inlet between the Airport and Hale Head (Page 28, 31 and 32). This is being allowed to happen to protect the opposite bank from flooding.

The paper iterates the current policy of no further direct intervention but warns that due to rising sea levels and silt build up the defences are going to be stretched and in the future broken as the volume available for the tidal water to occupy is reduced.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...=kkMCcoJoWUiJKCiMLCQqkw&bvm=bv.85970519,d.d2s

If you also read the airports masterplan to 2030 they don't think expansion is required westwards and indeed the owners Peel propose doubling the size of the Speke Garston Coastal Reserve to make productive use of the land for leisure purposes. They instead propose extending the runway 314m eastwards towards Hale.

Also the landing lights for the airport runway currently extend 100m out into the estuary, if you extended the runway you would have to extend the lights too right into the centre of the river.

It can be built on stilts.

Regardless of everything else this list aircraft cannot take off from Liverpool at MTOW.

 

[flypie]

This is not true. Speke does not need a runway extension. It has been able to handle C5's, 747's and Antonov 124's for decades.

Not at Max Take of Weight, which will greatly restrict range.

 

[fowler9]

At the moment it is half-hourly throughout the day.

However, the service will be reduced in April and will only serve Liverpool One, making onward connections rather more difficult.

No it isn't. At two times during the day a bus is cut out and it becomes hourly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not at Max Take of Weight, which will greatly restrict range.

How often do you you think A380's are going to leave JLA at max take off weight in the next hundred years? They don't do it from Chek Lap Kok that often.

 

[8A Rail]

It can be built on stilts.
Regardless of everything else this list aircraft cannot take off from Liverpool at MTOW.

Just to clarify that is a list of aircraft that cannot take off from Liverpool John Lennon airport if they are fully loaded and not part loaded?

 

[flypie]

No it isn't. At two times during the day a bus is cut out and it becomes hourly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


How often do you you think A380's are going to leave JLA at max take off weight in the next hundred years? They don't do it from Chek Lap Kok that often.

With the runway this size non. It is sufficient restriction to mean no long haul flights operate from LJL.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to clarify that is a list of aircraft that cannot take off from Liverpool John Lennon airport if they are fully loaded and not part loaded?

They cannot take at MTOW and quiet a lot lower. The weight is a mixture of fuel and passengers so you could take of a virtually empty A380 with a full fuel load or full of people with far less fuel and every permutation in between.

 

[fowler9]

With the runway this size non. It is sufficient restriction to mean no long haul flights operate from LJL.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They cannot take at MTOW and quiet a lot lower. The weight is a mixture of fuel and passengers so you could take of a virtually empty A380 with a full fuel load or full of people with far less fuel and every permutation in between.

Yeah mate but it isn't a restriction on long haul flights from JLA because we have had 757's flying to the US very recently with Flyglobespan, various American carriers use 757's from Heathrow to the states, they aren't a none starter on transatlantic routes. Fully laden 747's can take off going to Istanbul, I have watched it happen. You are of course completely right that you couldn't have a 744 fully laden heading to Hong Kong from Liverpool and I apologise if I gave the impression that is what I thought.

 

[flypie]

Yeah mate but it isn't a restriction on long haul flights from JLA because we have had 757's flying to the US very recently with Flyglobespan, various American carriers use 757's from Heathrow to the states, they aren't a none starter on transatlantic routes. Fully laden 747's can take off going to Istanbul, I have watched it happen. You are of course completely right that you couldn't have a 744 fully laden heading to Hong Kong from Liverpool and I apologise if I gave the impression that is what I thought.

The company to which you refer went bust 5 years ago. A 757-200 can manage to get airborne at MTOW and can make East coast US/probably Chicago & Atlanta, but that is about the maximum range from LJL. West Coast, South America and the Far East(Anything beyond say Pakistan) are all out.

Istanbul is a mere 1694 miles away, so a 747 isn't going to be on max fuel.

The slightly bigger 757-300 cannot make it. In the A320 range only the smaller variants can make it, these aircraft are described as medium range, and some of the larger 737 variants cannot take off at MTOW.

 

[HSTEd]

I am not convinced that itw ould be worth putting long haul into Liverpool - how far are you from MIA?
MIA is far less constrained in terms of runway extensions, and with HS3 will become rather close to Liverpool.

 

[pablo]

This is a fruitless argument. LPL will always play second fiddle to MCR simply because of MCR's position in the country and its conectivity. Aaah, we're back to that again.

Wind speed and ambient temperature also come into the take-off calculation. Some days you can and some others.... you have to dump pax.

 

[Wavertreelad]

I am not convinced that itw ould be worth putting long haul into Liverpool - how far are you from MIA?
MIA is far less constrained in terms of runway extensions, and with HS3 will become rather close to Liverpool.

I doubt it is question of wanting to put long haul into JLA, it more a question of why you want to do it and finding an operator to commit to it for a very long time to enable the cost of the additional infrastructure requirements to be recovered. It's a classic chicken and egg situation I believe. The only way I think it would happen is if the government decided to invest in the airport instead of extending Heathrow which is looks the likely outcome.

Any extension of Merseyrail to JLA is only mentioned in the Merseytravel 30 year scheme as a possibility, so I think it's safe to assume that we can rule the possibility for many decades to come.

 

[fowler9]

To briefly go off topic again the take off roll of an aircraft is very complicated. Based on some figures a 737-800 or A320 couldn't get off the ground at Liverpool but of course temperature, altitude and wind direction come in to it and Liverpool is neither hot nor high and has the wind blowing down the runway from the river.

At the end of the day Long Haul flights are possible from Liverpool but they don't happen and I am not convinced that this is because there is no rail link. The fact Globespan went bust is irrelevant when it comes to the question of can the airport handle long haul flights, unless a fully laden 757 can't take off from JLA. If one can't that is probably part of the reason they went bust, it would be a bad business model.

At the end of the day the crux of my argument is that I cannot see the political will in Liverpool to expand the airport enough or build a railway link with all the cost entailed, especially with Ringway just down the road. At the end of the day Liverpool has more pressing transport needs than a very expensive rail link to the airport and some of these are currently being addressed.

 

[Wavertreelad]

To briefly go off topic again the take off roll of an aircraft is very complicated. Based on some figures a 737-800 or A320 couldn't get off the ground at Liverpool but of course temperature, altitude and wind direction come in to it and Liverpool is neither hot nor high and has the wind blowing down the runway from the river.

At the end of the day Long Haul flights are possible from Liverpool but they don't happen and I am not convinced that this is because there is no rail link. The fact Globespan went bust is irrelevant when it comes to the question of can the airport handle long haul flights, unless a fully laden 757 can't take off from JLA. If one can't that is probably part of the reason they went bust, it would be a bad business model.

At the end of the day the crux of my argument is that I cannot see the political will in Liverpool to expand the airport enough or build a railway link with all the cost entailed, especially with Ringway just down the road. At the end of the day Liverpool has more pressing transport needs than a very expensive rail link to the airport and some of these are currently being addressed.

I'd totally agree, JLA can handle some long haul flights, but with aircraft also getting larger the prospects will also reduce. I'm no aircraft expert but seem to remember reading some time ago that a fully laden and fully fuelled 747 could not take off from JLA because the runway was not long enough and this was deemed to be one of the obstacles for JLA developing the long haul market. I stand corrected if this not the case. The other issue is that the operators of large aircraft will only consider calls at facilities where the volumes be it passengers or freight exist. Clearly Manchester is well ahead in both, but is still dwarfed by the volumes moving through Heathrow which is deemed to be a hub facility. One of the reasons why the next Government will have to make a decision on Heathrow, Boris Island or wherever else, is that in the years ahead the economies of operating these large aircraft will effectively force long haul airlines operating these aircraft to restrict their calling patterns to hub airports in Europe such as Frankfurt, Schipol and Charles De Gaul. It Britain does not have the capacity and infrastructure to handle the aircraft then it will loose the direct access to the markets serviced by the large aircraft that will eventually dominate long haul routes.

Whilst Manchester Airport is very important to the North of England economy, it should be noted that much of the freight moving through the airport arrives and departs by road from Heathrow and other airports including some in mainland Europe, simply because it is more economical for the airline to truck the freight than service the airport with a direct flight. Inevitably the hub concept will eventually limit even Manchester's ability to attract the large aircraft to the airport so there is little chance of Liverpool being able to enter the market successfully to justify a major expansion of the airport including a direct link unless funded by the Government which seems very unlikely. What Liverpool needs more is a direct link on HS2 and perhaps an operator to provide a JLA/LHR service and in the meantime JLA must continue to grow it's existing business which is only way a rail link to the airport is going to be justified in the longer term.

 

[fowler9]

I'd totally agree, JLA can handle some long haul flights, but with aircraft also getting larger the prospects will also reduce. I'm no aircraft expert but seem to remember reading some time ago that a fully laden and fully fuelled 747 could not take off from JLA because the runway was not long enough and this was deemed to be one of the obstacles for JLA developing the long haul market. I stand corrected if this not the case. The other issue is that the operators of large aircraft will only consider calls at facilities where the volumes be it passengers or freight exist. Clearly Manchester is well ahead in both, but is still dwarfed by the volumes moving through Heathrow which is deemed to be a hub facility. One of the reasons why the next Government will have to make a decision on Heathrow, Boris Island or wherever else, is that in the years ahead the economies of operating these large aircraft will effectively force long haul airlines operating these aircraft to restrict their calling patterns to hub airports in Europe such as Frankfurt, Schipol and Charles De Gaul. It Britain does not have the capacity and infrastructure to handle the aircraft then it will loose the direct access to the markets serviced by the large aircraft that will eventually dominate long haul routes.

Whilst Manchester Airport is very important to the North of England economy, it should be noted that much of the freight moving through the airport arrives and departs by road from Heathrow and other airports including some in mainland Europe, simply because it is more economical for the airline to truck the freight than service the airport with a direct flight. Inevitably the hub concept will eventually limit even Manchester's ability to attract the large aircraft to the airport so there is little chance of Liverpool being able to enter the market successfully to justify a major expansion of the airport including a direct link unless funded by the Government which seems very unlikely. What Liverpool needs more is a direct link on HS2 and perhaps an operator to provide a JLA/LHR service and in the meantime JLA must continue to grow it's existing business which is only way a rail link to the airport is going to be justified in the longer term.

Yeah I would agree with that. Just regarding the rail link Leeds/Bradford doesn't have one but has a BA flight to Heathrow. I think this is important to make an airport part of the hub and spoke network. Liverpool had one for a while with KLM but it didn't take off for some reason. Maybe it wasn't publicised enough, I have a friend in Liverpool who will soon be using a KLM flight to Amsterdam from Manchester to get to New Orleans. If you don't advertise these flights people won't use them. If the big airlines started using JLA as a spoke and actually advertised it it could possibly justify a rail link. At the moment it is a departure point for budget airlines full stop.

 

[HSTEd]

Any idea why the Box Trains, S Class D class etc have non aerodynamic front and backs, yet no way of linking them into through units?

Because through connections are not normally required during operation, but boxy ends are cheaper than aerodynamic ends and also make better use of the train length available.
That latter thing is especially important when you consider that Merseyrail is certainly limited in its train lengths.

 

[flypie]

The reason Globespan gave for with drawing the JFK service was low passanger numbers particularly on the JFK->LPL leg, this was in 2007 before they went bust. It also pre Capital of Culture.

 

[edwin_m]

Because through connections are not normally required during operation, but boxy ends are cheaper than aerodynamic ends and also make better use of the train length available.
That latter thing is especially important when you consider that Merseyrail is certainly limited in its train lengths.

Air resistance is pretty insignificant at the operating speeds of the 507/508 fleet. It increases roughly as the square of speed, so other things being equal it will be getting on for three times more at 100mph than at 60mph.

 

[ivanhoe]

The reason Globespan gave for with drawing the JFK service was low passanger numbers particularly on the JFK->LPL leg, this was in 2007 before they went bust. It also pre Capital of Culture.

What LPL needs is for Aer Lingus to link up again. Aer Lingus morning flights linking up with USA flights from Dublin would be extremely attractive to attracting USA passengers from the likes of Chicago, Boston and New York. Going back on topic, a rail link is at best desirable but not the most pressing need for Merseytravel. its about 8 miles to the City Centre and can easily be served by express coach if the demand is there. The low cost nature of the airport ( and I can't see that changing in the near and intermediate future) does not require a Rolls Royce link. A tram link perhaps, but such a link will have to also serve surrounding areas to be socially justifiable.

 

[8A Rail]

With the runway this size non. It is sufficient restriction to mean no long haul flights operate from LJL.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
They cannot take at MTOW and quiet a lot lower. The weight is a mixture of fuel and passengers so you could take of a virtually empty A380 with a full fuel load or full of people with far less fuel and every permutation in between.

Cheers for clarification. I note the following civil aircraft have used LJL Airport in the last 12 months. B737.300, B737.400, B737.500, B737.800, B757.200, B767.200, A319 and A320. I know that Ryan Air use B737.800 and Easy Jet, use mostly A319's (occasional A320) for their Liverpool flights. Thanks again.