Merseyside: New stations planned

[pablo]

All sorts can use the airport but some might be weight-limited. It depends on a multitude of factors including ....... pavement bearing capacity, for one!

 

[fowler9]

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.

Sorry mate but I don't agree at all. No way are Aer Lingus going to start to compete with Ryanair for some mad link up to US flights when people in Liverpool can already get a direct one from Manchester. If people on the east coast of the states needed to get to Liverpool quickly they could have done in the past. They never did.

 

[edwin_m]

Sorry mate but I don't agree at all. No way are Aer Lingus going to start to compete with Ryanair for some mad link up to US flights when people in Liverpool can already get a direct one from Manchester. If people on the east coast of the states needed to get to Liverpool quickly they could have done in the past. They never did.

The USA link, with the advantage of clearing US Immigration on Dublin, was mentioned in a piece in the Nottingham Post on Aer Lingus re-starting Dublin flights from East Midlands. In principle I don't see why they couldn't do the same at Liverpool, but the flights in question would be nothing bigger than an ATR (operated by Stobart under the Aer Lingus Regional brand), so not the sort of numbers to justify a rail link! Connecting flights to the USA may be one of the few ways Aer Lingus can compete with Ryanair, who famously don't do connections.

 

[fowler9]

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.

The poster hasn't clarified anything. Long haul flights can fly from Liverpool and don't. There is no restriction. The following civilian aircraft have also flown from Liverpool in the last 12 months, Beluga, A321, 787-900 just for a bit of blurb. There are others of course.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The USA link, with the advantage of clearing US Immigration on Dublin, was mentioned in a piece in the Nottingham Post on Aer Lingus re-starting Dublin flights from East Midlands. In principle I don't see why they couldn't do the same at Liverpool, but the flights in question would be nothing bigger than an ATR (operated by Stobart under the Aer Lingus Regional brand), so not the sort of numbers to justify a rail link! Connecting flights to the USA may be one of the few ways Aer Lingus can compete with Ryanair, who famously don't do connections.

If you live in Liverpool and want to go to the states you are going to get a bus train or taxi to Manchester and fly from there, not a bus train or taxi to JLA, a plane to Dublin or Shannon and then another one to the states. Unless you are mad or the air fare is stupid cheap.

 

[flypie]

The poster hasn't clarified anything. Long haul flights can fly from Liverpool and don't. There is no restriction. The following civilian aircraft have also flown from Liverpool in the last 1 months, Beluga, A321, 787-900 just for a bt of blurb. There are others of course.

I've clarified plenty, you just don't seem to understand what MTOW means and that a plane that is capable of Long Haul can take off, but without a full fuel load and without full fuel they cannot go long haul.
The flights that have been done have been done by medium haul aircraft at the limit of their range. It has been a long time since Transatlantic flights, to the east cost of the US have been considered truly long haul.

You say these aircraft have used Speke but you don't say how much fuel and load they took of with, and therefore you don't know the range. The Beluga range is given as "2,779 km (1,501 nmi) with 40 ton payload" so hardly longhaul.

If a 737-800 takes of at MTOW it has to burn nearly 13 tonnes of fuel before it can land again. You totally failing to understand how much the fuel on these aircraft weighs and what effect it has on field length. http://www.civilaviation.eu/Boeing/737-800.htm

 

[Wavertreelad]

The USA link, with the advantage of clearing US Immigration on Dublin, was mentioned in a piece in the Nottingham Post on Aer Lingus re-starting Dublin flights from East Midlands. In principle I don't see why they couldn't do the same at Liverpool, but the flights in question would be nothing bigger than an ATR (operated by Stobart under the Aer Lingus Regional brand), so not the sort of numbers to justify a rail link! Connecting flights to the USA may be one of the few ways Aer Lingus can compete with Ryanair, who famously don't do connections.

I can't see Aer Lingus starting a service from Liverpool because if the Irish Government agrees, it is second biggest shareholder, the Company could be sold to IAG, the same company that owns BA.

http://skift.com/2015/02/14/aer-lingus-ready-to-join-british-airways-parent-iag-says-chairman/

Any trans-Atlantic link would need to established by an organisation with deep pockets and with a business model based on something different to existing market leaders, so your looking at something an industry changing organisation such as Laker, Virgin or Easyjet. Ryanair might be a possibility, but from what I have heard a touch uncomfortable if you have long legs.

 

[fowler9]

I've clarified plenty, you just don't seem to understand what MTOW means and that a plane that is capable of Long Haul can take off, but without a full fuel load and without full fuel they cannot go long haul.
The flights that have been done have been done by medium haul aircraft at the limit of their range. It has been a long time since Transatlantic flights, to the east cost of the US have been considered truly long haul.

You say these aircraft have used Speke but you don't say how much fuel and load they took of with, and therefore you don't know the range. The Beluga range is given as "2,779 km (1,501 nmi) with 40 ton payload" so hardly longhaul.

If a 737-800 takes of at MTOW it has to burn nearly 13 tonnes of fuel before it can land again. You totally failing to understand how much the fuel on these aircraft weighs and what effect it has on field length. http://www.civilaviation.eu/Boeing/737-800.htm

Look mate I do understand what maximum take of weight means, I can count and have a degree in mechanical engineering. Just because you don't doesn't mean many don't consider flights to the east coast of the US long haul. I would consider it long haul and I have flown 12 hours plus to Hong Kong, Buenos Aires and Auckland to Santiago.I would expect all of those flights to be able to land at Liverpool but none to take off unless pretty much empty. I understand physics.

My entire argument is (Ignoring whether or not you think east coast of America is long haul) Liverpool does not need a fortune spending on a purpose built railway line.

 

[ivanhoe]

The poster hasn't clarified anything. Long haul flights can fly from Liverpool and don't. There is no restriction. The following civilian aircraft have also flown from Liverpool in the last 12 months, Beluga, A321, 787-900 just for a bit of blurb. There are others of course.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If you live in Liverpool and want to go to the states you are going to get a bus train or taxi to Manchester and fly from there, not a bus train or taxi to JLA, a plane to Dublin or Shannon and then another one to the states. Unless you are mad or the air fare is stupid cheap.

I've done the route to Chicago from Brum via Dublin.(I currently live in East Midlands) Believe me, clearing US customs prior to sitting in an aluminium tube for 9 hours is better than waiting in line for anything upto 2 hours at Chicago O'hare. I just collected my case and got the train to downtown Chicago. Lots of people who do not live close to Heathrow, choose to fly across the pond via Dublin , Paris and Amsterdam. I know loads of people who follow Liverpool in Europe who will take two flights to get to cities that are only 3hours direct flight away by getting stupid fares. People don't mind changing planes if the deal is good and more importantly convenient.

 

[fowler9]

I've done the route to Chicago from Brum via Dublin.(I currently live in East Midlands) Believe me, clearing US customs prior to sitting in an aluminium tube for 9 hours is better than waiting in line for anything upto 2 hours at Chicago O'hare. I just collected my case and got the train to downtown Chicago. Lots of people who do not live close to Heathrow, choose to fly across the pond via Dublin , Paris and Amsterdam. I know loads of people who follow Liverpool in Europe who will take two flights to get to cities that are only 3hours direct flight away by getting stupid fares. People don't mind changing planes if the deal is good and more importantly convenient.

KLM offered that service very recently and then stopped it. I kind of hoped that when they did then maybe BA, Aer Lingus, hell maybe even Lufthansa and Air France would join in. But no it was badly advertised and the whole thing died out.

 

[8A Rail]

The poster hasn't clarified anything. Long haul flights can fly from Liverpool and don't. There is no restriction. The following civilian aircraft have also flown from Liverpool in the last 12 months, Beluga, A321, 787-900 just for a bit of blurb. There are others of course.

Actually he has. So why are you arguing the point with Flypie as clearly you both basically agree on what is capable to take off from LJL Airport with consideration to weight and fuel. You seem to be arguing for the sake of it! How strange! Anyway, let us get back onto the main subject which is about planning "Merseyrail planning new stations".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Anyway, let us get back onto the main subject which is about planning "Merseyrail planning new stations".

Seconded.

 

[Bevan Price]

I don't think it's that bad. The timetable could be revised so an all-stations Merseyrail Warrington service would replace the existing stoppers on that section. The conflict between slower and faster trains would then only be for the shorter distance from Hunts Cross West Junction to Warrington, not all the way into Lime Street, and EMUs with better acceleration would reduce the conflict with faster trains. With the number of stations on that section the maximum speed isn't too important, though I would have thought they would go for 75mph to give reasonable journey times on the Chester route.

I suspect that Merseytravel would want a train every 15 minutes if the Merseyrail system was extended to Warrington - and that would be incompatible with retaining express service on the current track layout.

 

[fowler9]

Actually he has. So why are you arguing the point with Flypie as clearly you both basically agree on what is capable to take off from LJL Airport with consideration to weight and fuel. You seem to be arguing for the sake of it! How strange! Anyway, let us get back onto the main subject which is about planning "Merseyrail planning new stations".

Yeah that is a fair comment. Ha ha. Apologies. The most sensible new station to me would be to rebuild the one that used to be by Smithdown Road. There is loads of space to do it and loads of people living around there. The problem being of course that this would further slow the CLC stopping services. Of course it is not impossible at some stage for West Allerton and Mossley hill to be served by trains to Crewe and Chester and the stations from South Parkway to Warrington to be served by an extension of the Northern line.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect that Merseytravel would want a train every 15 minutes if the Merseyrail system was extended to Warrington - and that would be incompatible with retaining express service on the current track layout.

Might just be possible if EMU accelerations speed up the slow by a couple of minutes and the fasts all make the Widnes stop. Then fasts could leave Parkway at say 0000 and 0015, a slow could leave Parkway at about 0003 and get to Warrington at 0025 which would be just ahead of the next fast. Turnback in Warrington would be in the existing siding to the east, or better if this was realigned to put the siding between the running lines.

 

[fowler9]

Might just be possible if EMU accelerations speed up the slow by a couple of minutes and the fasts all make the Widnes stop. Then fasts could leave Parkway at say 0000 and 0015, a slow could leave Parkway at about 0003 and get to Warrington at 0025 which would be just ahead of the next fast. Turnback in Warrington would be in the existing siding to the east, or better if this was realigned to put the siding between the running lines.

I think the Northern line service would have to be half hourly. It would be an almighty mess with anything more frequent. The acceleration of electric units could possibly sort out the current situation. Any more trains would be difficult.

 

[WatcherZero]

Seems to have finally been some movement on the fleet issue. Report into options done and will go before Merseytravel in the near future and options range from do nothing and grind the fleet to dust right through to ordering a brand new fleet straight away for 350 to 400 million. They have 50 million in the bank and think long term borrowing to buy their own fleet rather than leasing through a rosco will save them money.

 

[flypie]

Might just be possible if EMU accelerations speed up the slow by a couple of minutes and the fasts all make the Widnes stop. Then fasts could leave Parkway at say 0000 and 0015, a slow could leave Parkway at about 0003 and get to Warrington at 0025 which would be just ahead of the next fast. Turnback in Warrington would be in the existing siding to the east, or better if this was realigned to put the siding between the running lines.

Of course when the line was built there where two very big passing loops, one to Widnes Central and the other one to Warrington. The Widnes loop is long gone as is the straight avoiding Warrington.
The conflict could be avoided, if the Edge Hill Spur is ever built, by using the Line via Ditton Junction to Warrington BQ.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course when the line was built there where two very big passing loops, one to Widnes Central and the other one to Warrington. The Widnes loop is long gone as is the straight avoiding Warrington.
The conflict could be avoided, if the Edge Hill Spur is ever built, by using the Line via Ditton Junction to Warrington BQ.

But neither loop would be any use in this situation because the fast trains would stop at Warrington and probably Widnes too.

Not sure what you mean about Ditton Junction to Warrington and the Edge Hill spur, and I'm not about to go back through umpteen pages to try and find it...

 

[martynbristow]

Seems to have finally been some movement on the fleet issue. Report into options done and will go before Merseytravel in the near future and options range from do nothing and grind the fleet to dust right through to ordering a brand new fleet straight away for 350 to 400 million. They have 50 million in the bank and think long term borrowing to buy their own fleet rather than leasing through a rosco will save them money.

Sounds sensible.
The current fleet isn't bad and has some good service yet the problem is the number of them is a bit small. Mersey rail sorely needs more stock to enable expansion both geographically and in terms of passenger growth.

 

[WatcherZero]

I always find that argument a bit disingenuous. They had one of the largest surplus fleets in the country, more than they could even use, they just didn't look after them very well treating them as disposable and so their numbers dwindled.

 

[Wavertreelad]

Seems to have finally been some movement on the fleet issue. Report into options done and will go before Merseytravel in the near future and options range from do nothing and grind the fleet to dust right through to ordering a brand new fleet straight away for 350 to 400 million. They have 50 million in the bank and think long term borrowing to buy their own fleet rather than leasing through a rosco will save them money.

Full story in the Liverpool Echo,

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyside-set-new-fleet-trains-8653733


Current fleet of trains are now 37 years old but replacements could cost as much as £400m

Merseyrail passengers could see new trains on the network within five years, if the authorities give the go-ahead.

Transport body Merseytravel has been considering its options for the current rolling stock which, at 37 years old, is among the oldest in the UK.

Carriages underwent a £32m refurbishment in 2002 and the 59-train fleet was ‘refreshed’ last year at a cost of £8.5m.

And while engineers are managing to improve the efficiency of the current fleet, which still manages to provide one of the most punctual services in the country, Merseytravel has spent more than a year looking into the best options for the region’s train network.

The authority is keen to get the most cost effective solution possible after the previous regime was savagely criticised for wasting £70m on yet another failed tram project.

Officers head-hunted former train designer David Powell from Transport for Greater Manchester as Merseytravel’s rolling stock programme director, and he has outlined a range of scenarios for the authority, ranging from the ‘Armageddon’ option of doing nothing and letting the fleet grind to a halt, through further refurbishments until the end of the current Merseyrail franchise in 2028, to buying a completely new and bespoke fleet for the region.

His report should go before transport leaders within months.

The full range of options will first be considered by Merseytravel, and then be submitted to the Liverpool City Region combined authority for its views.

The ECHO understands that once the combined authority agrees on its preferred option, the whole process would then pick up pace.

If the choice was for a new fleet, a tender would be published immediately, and a completely new fleet could be running within five years.

Transport authority chair, Cllr Liam Robinson, told the ECHO: “Merseytravel is working on the business case to present a number of options.

“We are looking to present the business case to members later this year.”

He added: “There is lots of detailed work going on with regards to the future of Merseyside’s railway, and many passengers would prefer a new fleet. But we have to get the best value solution.

“We don’t want to have something that falls on the toes of council tax payers as a huge bill.”

The overall cost of a new train fleet, and its associated infrastructure, could be anything from £350m to more than £400m.

But Merseytravel last year announced it had set aside £50m to cover the start of the process of buying new trains, and with interest rates at an all-time low, borrowing opportunities are probably at their most economical in years.

Also, it is believed that buying and running a bespoke train fleet would save the authority, and council tax payers, hundreds of millions of pounds, compared with the current system of leasing old trains from a provider.

Not sure what you mean about Ditton Junction to Warrington and the Edge Hill spur, and I'm not about to go back through umpteen pages to try and find it...

The proposed Edge Hill would allow trains to and from the City or WCML to reach Central using the tunnels from Edge Hill plus a new connection. I'm not sure how this would solve the suggested problem on the CLC route.

 

[Camden]

I always find that argument a bit disingenuous. They had one of the largest surplus fleets in the country, more than they could even use, they just didn't look after them very well treating them as disposable and so their numbers dwindled.

I think that you really have to take the history of the area in to context. It's only recent history that Merseyrail is the shining beacon. I imagine that pre 2004 it was probably unimaginable that Merseyrail would be what it is today, and you need money to maintain trains, let alone ones you think you're never going to use. I myself remember walking from Lime Street down past James Street for a meeting, with it all dingy and shuttered up. When I casually remarked how silly it was that I couldn't use that station when it's round the corner the person I was meeting actually told me to never use it. I don't know if you'd ever been on a Merseyrail train pre the present era, but the difference all round is pretty remarkable.

 

[flypie]

I think that you really have to take the history of the area in to context. It's only recent history that Merseyrail is the shining beacon. I imagine that pre 2004 it was probably unimaginable that Merseyrail would be what it is today, and you need money to maintain trains, let alone ones you think you're never going to use. I myself remember walking from Lime Street down past James Street for a meeting, with it all dingy and shuttered up. When I casually remarked how silly it was that I couldn't use that station when it's round the corner the person I was meeting actually told me to never use it. I don't know if you'd ever been on a Merseyrail train pre the present era, but the difference all round is pretty remarkable.

When was this? James Street has always been old mainly because it is. I know some people don't like it because of the long lifts but it's never been unpleasant. I can remember when it had it's old lifts in the 80s, wood panelled inside, it was like travelling in a wardrobe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If you look at this it might give a better idea of what Merseyrail can hope for rather than the S Class. ABout 10 minutes in http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b052g7cv/north-west-tonight-19022015

 

[Olaf]

That was being talked about a few years back, with the electric reversing at Shotton and the diesel reversing at a new station north of Hawarden Bridge to serve the industrial estate better. Thus both ends would have a through train to the stations in the middle serving the main employment area. The timetable would have provided connections with a short wait on the same platform at one of these stations.

Part of the problem with the line at present is that the end-to-end is a shade under an hour, so turnarounds are very tight to maintain an hourly service with two units. Unfortunately with electrification to Shotton only, the residual diesel service takes a shade under 30min...

Spot-on, that is my understanding too, though I have not looked at what would be offered at the southern end of the line.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The problem with an all North service is it will not service any area. If the services between adjoining city regions are left to those city regions to sort out, then each city should get it's own say. There may need to be some access rights in each adjoining region and perhaps some form of arbitration court. What we would see with a all North system would be the longer routes preferred over the shorter routes and the intra city service compromised.

I get the gist of what you are saying, but is that not the role of Rail North to address? The concept around the extension of the Northern Hub to cover the regions is in part to break-down these barriers between the various administrations. If it is not going to work because of conflicts between regional interests, then it's best to halt the investment now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And I think that it's daft comments like this which show why it's a bad idea.

I am sorry, but you are missing the point by focusing on the now.

The purpose of the various investments, not just transport, are to re-establish a northern economic centre in the UK at a future date. They are not principally to address current demands nor the current set-up.

Whether you accept it or not, that centre will be Manchester - it is the only centre outside of London that has the necessary services and possibility of scale to compete globally. Part of the purpose of the Manchester/Northern Hub is to make the centre more accessible and that will necessarily be to the detriment of it's neighbours to a degree.

Think of it as the natural progression on from the consolidation of local authorities at the end of the 60s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We come back to the issue that any new "Northern" franchise will still be considerably shorter than the existing Merseyrail franchise or concession. Any attempt to make major changes to this would inevitably cost the taxpayer a fortune for little benefit over the existing arrangement which is likely to be "tweeked" under the new "Northern" franchise in any event. Having said this I'd agree there are certain routes that would benefit from a more integrated approach with "Northern" continuing to operate services on behalf of both all the authorities in the Rail North area.

Yes, the contracts are one of the primary issues, however they can also be re-negotiated when the benefits are apparent.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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).
.

Rail North will have obligations to comply with so that is unlikely to happen. If anything, as an integrated authority with a single 'Northern' contract, it would be easier to fill the gaps that Merseyrail has not been able to deliver on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suspect with any long term project such as Wirral or Liverpool Waters it was inevitable that it would affected by the recent economic difficulties and that the original plans would be altered many times over the years. I can remember what Salford Docks used be like in the 1960's and see every working day what Peel has achieved at Salford in the last forty to fifty years and who would have expected back then the changes that have been made, albeit be a lot of public money to facilitate the redevelopment of the entire area.

Yes I agree that the economic environment will have had an impact, but there has never been a formal agreement from a commercial backer. Peel was close at one point to having a deal, but the counter-party appears to have been using the discussions as a bargaining-chip for elsewhere. There will indeed be possibilities for new partners to come along in the future but there will still be the same obstacles. Time lines shift but they are already close to a third of teh way through the original plan with little to show for it other than Local and National Government backed schemes.

As far as I was aware Tesco were contributing to the rebuilding of the town centre shopping area and the football stadium, but not the station. I'd doubt both schemes if built together would provide sufficient a business case for the construction of the new station.

OK, I do not know - I do not have access to the original documents, but I seem to recall that the Tesco store was the primary justification for the proposal and that Tesco was making a financial contribution towards the project.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He's also factually incorrect about Wirral Waters, by the way. Wirral skyscrapers might be a while off yet, but a firm part of the plans they still are.

Only projects back by Government grants, and small scale developments. All of which is a long way from what was promised.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well you might do it overhead.

I'm going mainly on this diagram from Merseytravel 30 year plan.

TBMs can do amazing things.

I think that diagram is aspirational and that it is a long way from the detailed planning that fowler9 is talking about. It is that gap which will make it rather expensive and unlikely to happen under value for money measures.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Under and I've made no such assumption, I'm simply looking at the technical possibilities, in the end a cost benefit analysis will be the final determinate, and those costs would have to include compensation and relief for any people or organisations effected.

That cost-benefit analysis will also have to cover the significant drop-off in traffic through Liverpool Airport compared with the last time the project was costed. That traffic is unlikely to come-back in volume because it relocated to Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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!

Looking at what is there at the moment, it appears that there is one single-deck express bus every 30 minutes. Even allowing for growth due to provision of rail transport, is there sufficient demand? I think not, and Merseytravel has not come forth with any figures in the past 30 years as far as I am aware.

Plus, that stuff about building up the airport is a repeat of what was proposed in the 60s and it came to nothing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Other than the points already highlighted regarding the contract, there is no reason for the services to continue being provided under a separate operator for a small locality. Liverpool is no more special that Manchester, Leeds, or Newcastle, and the new fleets & infrastructure will facilitate comprehensive integration of the services so that they do not terminate at artificial boundaries such as Warrington, Wigan, or elsewhere.

 

[73001]

Looking at what is there at the moment, it appears that there is one single-deck express bus every 30 minutes. Even allowing for growth due to provision of rail transport, is there sufficient demand? I think not, and Merseytravel has not come forth with any figures in the past 30 years as far as I am aware.

Plus, that stuff about building up the airport is a repeat of what was proposed in the 60s and it came to nothing.

Whilst I don't disagree with any of the reasons not to build a link, it's a little unfair to say that 2 express buses an hour is sufficient for the demand. There are also at least 15 other buses per hour from the airport, most of which have Liverpool on the front. Whilst it's probably a convenient terminus/passing point, it's unlikely that they'd all be empty to and from the airport. Arriva won't go down any road if it won't make money! A friend of mine from North Liverpool uses the train to South Parkway and then gets any bus to the airport when she goes on holiday as I'm sure many others do. When the 500 bus started there were fewer buses to the airport and South Parkway didn't exist. I expect the reduction in demand on there is due in some part to both of these plus the global downturn in travel.

 

[Olaf]

Full story in the Liverpool Echo,

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseyside-set-new-fleet-trains-8653733

This is a bit of a give-away statement:

Also, it is believed that buying and running a bespoke train fleet would save the authority, and council tax payers, hundreds of millions of pounds, compared with the current system of leasing old trains from a provider.

If someone can say that in all seriousness I would be deeply concerned. Clearly not enough auditing of what is going on here.

It would beneficial to be considering an order in conjunction with the needs of the Rail North operations as a whole rather having a dedicated fleet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst I don't disagree with any of the reasons not to build a link, it's a little unfair to say that 2 express buses an hour is sufficient for the demand. There are also at least 15 other buses per hour from the airport, most of which have Liverpool on the front. Whilst it's probably a convenient terminus/passing point, it's unlikely that they'd all be empty to and from the airport. Arriva won't go down any road if it won't make money! A friend of mine from North Liverpool uses the train to South Parkway and then gets any bus to the airport when she goes on holiday as I'm sure many others do. When the 500 bus started there were fewer buses to the airport and South Parkway didn't exist. I expect the reduction in demand on there is due in some part to both of these plus the global downturn in travel.

Yes, you are correct. The reason I chose only to look at the express bus service is because that is what would typically be expected to be covered by a rail service with a growth factor for shift to rail. I ignored the other bus services on the assumption that they carry passengers that would not necessarily transfer to the proposed rail service. There would also be potential patronage from Speke, Warrington and other stops along the route if they were linked to the airport too, but the core patronage would most likely be based on the express link. A very rough assessment, but I think that is more than Merseytravel has done.

 

[edwin_m]

Whether you accept it or not, that centre will be Manchester - it is the only centre outside of London that has the necessary services and possibility of scale to compete globally. Part of the purpose of the Manchester/Northern Hub is to make the centre more accessible and that will necessarily be to the detriment of it's neighbours to a degree.

I don't think creating a regional centre in Manchester necessarily disadvantages Liverpool, especially if there is also good rail and other service between the two. For example the Transpennine re-routeing via Victoria gives Liverpool faster and in some cases more frequent journeys to places beyond Manchester.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This is a bit of a give-away statement:


If someone can say that in all seriousness I would be deeply concerned. Clearly not enough auditing of what is going on here.

It would beneficial to be considering an order in conjunction with the needs of the Rail North operations as a whole rather having a dedicated fleet.

They are probably getting at two things:

(1) Government can potentially borrow at lower rates than private bodies, so buying the trains outright would involve lower payments than the capital element of a ROSCO lease.

(2) If they borrow to buy the trains then once the loan is paid back they only have to pay the maintenance costs, not the capital element of the lease which it is widely believed the ROSCO will carry on charging as long as the trains can run.

I do agree though that Merseytravel would have to be very sure of their figures before they decide to do something like this. Rather ironically the DfT shares suspicion (2) and will be watching with interest if Merseytravel try to prove it.

On the subject of non-standard trains, the Merseyrail network needs a high-performance fleet of 20m vehicles with third rail power but maximum speed is not a big issue. Rail North probably needs 12mph 23m vehicles for an electrified Transpennine (possibly some bi-modes), with no need for third rail, and I think cascaded 319s or similar will meet the needs of the other electric routes. Thus the Merseyrail spec has more in common with the South of London fleets than with the rest of what Rail North needs. Going for something totally bespoke would need to bring major benefits as the extra costs would be significant.

 

[fowler9]

This is a bit of a give-away statement:


If someone can say that in all seriousness I would be deeply concerned. Clearly not enough auditing of what is going on here.

It would beneficial to be considering an order in conjunction with the needs of the Rail North operations as a whole rather having a dedicated fleet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes, you are correct. The reason I chose only to look at the express bus service is because that is what would typically be expected to be covered by a rail service with a growth factor for shift to rail. I ignored the other bus services on the assumption that they carry passengers that would not necessarily transfer to the proposed rail service. There would also be potential patronage from Speke, Warrington and other stops along the route if they were linked to the airport too, but the core patronage would most likely be based on the express link. A very rough assessment, but I think that is more than Merseytravel has done.

Because the 500 is only every 30 mins if you have not long missed one you are best getting an 86A or 80A, perhaps changing at Parkway for a train. The 82A is also every 30 mins and doesn't take much longer than the 500 as another option. As long as an airport rail link went through South Parkway there might be a half decent market. You currently see a reasonable number of people getting on and off the 86A's and 80A's at Parkway with their wheely cases.

 

[Camden]

And where are you based Olaf? As if I need ask.

No one's stopping you from building a "regional centre" if that's what you want to do, but I think it's quite unreasonable of you to expect another city to pay for it by having their excellent infrastructure dismantled.

The arguments come across as immature empire building slamming everything done in Liverpool as if it's some sort of affront to greater manchester. How about you get on and build up your own city positively instead of thinking you can only do it by destroying or dominating those around you? It's an attitude from your region which has even started to get noticed in the press and isn't exactly edifying.

The issue of rolling stock, for example. These matters are well known which is why rolling stock features in the rail north agenda. The same logic applies if it's merseyrail or rail north, so what if they do it separately?

Economies of scale for a combined fleet only work if the fleet is suitable. You say it should have a combined order and a non-dedicated fleet despite that merseyrail is not only a third rail system but also a system where there is a stop every minute or so (like the tube). It's two totally different use cases for a railway line between towns that has stops every five to twenty minutes versus a railway which is a frequent stop metro in all but frequency (and including in frequency in parts) and totally different priorities when it comes to rolling stock design and efficiency. I assume you don't intend for people to travel across the pennies and a hundred miles up to Newcastle, or onwards to Scotland, in 60mph 3rd rail metro trains, so I can only assume you mean that merseyrail should receive completely inappropriate units to operate its services.

But the reason why you don't see that as a problem is because of course you want to take merseyrail apart and have it "serve the centre" some 30 or so miles away (when it already serves the centre today ie Liverpool and will do in 50, 100 years time, provided people like yourself don't wreck it so it serves no one).

It's an agenda of idiocy and childishness.

 

[flypie]

And where are you based Olaf? As if I need ask.

No one's stopping you from building a "regional centre" if that's what you want to do, but I think it's quite unreasonable of you to expect another city to pay for it by having their excellent infrastructure dismantled.

The arguments come across as immature empire building slamming everything done in Liverpool as if it's some sort of affront to greater manchester. How about you get on and build up your own city positively instead of thinking you can only do it by destroying or dominating those around you? It's an attitude from your region which has started to get noticed in the press and isn't exactly edifying.

The issue of rolling stock, for example. These matters are well known which is why rolling stock features in the rail north agenda. The same logic applies if it's merseyrail or rail north, so what if they do it separately?

Economies of scale for a combined fleet only work if the fleet is suitable. You say it should have a combined order and a non-dedicated fleet despite that merseyrail is not only a third rail system but also a system where there is a stop every minute or so (like the tube). It's two totally different use cases for a railway line between towns that has stops every five to twenty minutes versus a railway which is a frequent stop metro in all but frequency (and including in frequency in parts) and totally different priorities when it comes to rolling stock design and efficiency. I assume you don't intend for people to travel across the pennies and a hundred miles up to Newcastle, or onwards to Scotland, in 60mph 3rd rail metro trains, so I can only assume you mean that merseyrail should receive completely inappropriate units to operate its services.

But the reason why you don't see that as a problem is because of course you want to take merseyrail apart and have it "serve the centre" some 30 or so miles away (when it already serves the centre today ie Liverpool and will do in 50, 100 years time, provided people like yourself don't wreck it so it serves no one).

It's an agenda of idiocy and childishness.

There is quiet a bit of linguistic manipulation in favour of Manchester. The joke is that in Manchester the alphabet goes ABCDEFGHIJKMLNOPQRSTUVWXYZ but you get it with London as well, alphabetically list suddenly break down in the L region.

I've suggested reinstating the MML from Derby via Matlock to Liverpool but as soon as you mention it it gets truncated by commentators to Manchester.

I do think the complete isolation of Merseyrail should end so that the Wirral line could be extended to Warrington and the Northern Line via Wigan to Manchester. I can imagine that Manchester would on occasions like to act as an imperial power to the suzerain Liverpool, so rights and a court of arbitration would need to be set up, but it is perfectly possible for the cities to cooperate and buy and operate some trains for intra region services.