Merseyrail Expansion

[daodao]

But the Welsh government and LCR are both committed to developing this line.

The reason the passenger service survived the Beeching axe was very specifically to enable workers from Merseyside to access job opportunities at Shotton steelworks. Of course this is ancient history and Deeside Industrial Park is very inaccessible by public transport.

Llywodraeth Cymru (the Welsh Government) appears to be more interested in rail development in South Wales.

If there hadn't been freight traffic between Birkenhead Docks and Shotton steelworks, I doubt that the line would have been retained north of Shotton in the 1960s for passenger traffic alone.

Hunts Cross to Broadgreen to Aintree.
Obviously.

Hunt's Cross to Gateacre can be justified as an extension of the route from Liverpool city centre to Hunt's Cross, as was originally intended, and I would support this re-opening. North of Gateacre the sparse passenger service on the ex-CLC North Liverpool Extension line was withdrawn in 1960 (pre-Beeching) and never provided a useful direct service to Liverpool city centre; the places served were (and still are) well provided with frequent bus services. There really is no conceivable business case for re-opening this line north of Gateacre.

I would put more stations on the Borderlands Line.

Definite:
Bidston Village: South of Bidston Village Road Overbridge adjacent to Harthill Mews.
Woodchurch: Of course. See previous.

And a remote outsiders:
Deeside / Glandyfrwdy: South of A458 Weighbridge Road. To serve industrial/business area. Just inside Wales though.

Other than at Neston, the route of the Borderlands line is poorly aligned for serving communities within the Wirral peninsula in a useful way.

The Borderlands line is the one with the infamous Class 230 units. There is a long-running thread on this website on that subject which makes "interesting" reading. Timekeeping on that line is bad enough at present, without adding more station stops.

The time-keeping of passenger trains on the Borderline line seems to have improved significantly recently according to Realtime Trains at https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/

The service frequency was increased in December 2023 to every 45 minutes Monday-Saturday daytime run by 3 trains, with a longer layover (and thus increased recovery time) at Wrexham Central. I also presume that the class 230 diesel-electric multiple units are now "run in" with improved reliability.

 

[Djgr]

Llywodraeth Cymru (the Welsh Government) appears to be more interested in rail development in South Wales.

Whilst true they are still interested in developing the line and railways in general in North Wales. Certainly more so than the Westminster "government"

If there hadn't been freight traffic between Birkenhead Docks and Shotton steelworks, I doubt that the line would have been retained north of Shotton in the 1960s for passenger traffic alone.

Again whilst true, I was highlighting why the passenger service Bidston (New Brighton) to Wrexham was maintained whilst that to Chester Northgate was lost. (and wasn't that a huge mistake given traffic congestion getting into Chester?)

Other than at Neston, the route of the Borderlands line is poorly aligned for serving communities within the Wirral peninsula in a useful way.

A bit simplistic but the merit lies in park and ride sites rather than walk to station. Look at how tremendously successful Birkenhead North has been (and to a lesser extent Bidston). Obviously this would require through and frequent service to Liverpool.

The time-keeping of passenger trains on the Borderline line seems to have improved significantly recently according to Realtime Trains at https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/

The service frequency was increased in December 2023 to every 45 minutes Monday-Saturday daytime run by 3 trains, with a longer layover (and thus increased recovery time) at Wrexham Central. I also presume that the class 230 diesel-electric multiple units are now "run in" with improved reliability.

I think that this is as much to do with class 230 performing a much lower percentage of journeys.

Anyway a cracking and quirky line and in particular its views of the Dee Estuary and the English/Welsh border not available by road.

 

[507021]

The problems with the Borderlands Line are its poor frequency, no direct train into Liverpool and a lack of stations for people living around the line to actually use it. There's nothing wrong with its alignment, although I'll agree the location of Heswall station isn't ideal. However, if stations were built at Woodchurch, Beechwood and Deeside in tandem with Merseyrail taking over the line on a 2tph frequency, I'm confident the line's fortunes would improve markedly. As the saying goes: build it and they will come.

 

[CaramellDansen]

There really is no conceivable business case for re-opening this line north of Gateacre.

What a strong imagination you have!! One station, maybe two? Incredible!!!
Sarcasm aside, what are the people in the eastern suburbs to do except drive? The buses are low quality and are not suitable for commuting, and then get caught in the rush hour traffic that getting OUT of cars is meant to solve! Trust me, I've lived through it.
Even if that line makes a slight loss, it's a small price to pay for freeing up Liverpool's roads, cleaning Liverpool's air, and giving everyone an alternative to sitting miserably in their cars; doing this will have more external benefits (monetary, environmental, social) than "how much money can we make the C-suite of Serco-Abellio."
That's ignoring that "it won't make money trust me bro" is complete conjecture.

never provided a useful direct service to Liverpool city centre

Not everyone wants to go directly to Town. I'm not sure how that's a difficult concept to grasp.
Regardless, if a separate suburban line were to run down the South Parkway-to-Broadgreen-to-Aintree line
(Hunts Cross would be a worse terminus than South Parkway if the suburban line through Broadgreen were to be separate)
, interchanges with services at all three of those stations would go directly into the city centre, so passengers basically anywhere in the suburbs would only be one train change away from town... which is a hell of a lot better than no train at all!! Like user "507021" aptly said:

build it and they will come.

 

[8A Rail]

I think there is a case as mentioned previously, in extending the line from Hunts Cross to Gateacre, as it will serve two populated area's including Netherley. However, besides the funds to do it, hinges of the resignalling of the CLC line and comes under Manchester ROC. This would mean Hunts Cross Signal Control Box becomes redundant and it then free's up the trackbed for Gateacre.

The remainder of the former CLC North Extension line to Aintree then could be considered depending on the success of the Gateacre extension but that is a long way off (if ever).

The harsh reality about getting around the City area is partially down to the inability of Liverpool CC many years ago over the fiasco of the proposed tram routes, they simply choose the wrong route to get it off the ground and be paying for it ever since. One thing Liverpool CC are good at over many many years, is how to put a big spanner in the works to get any meaningful works off the ground, they are the 'masters' of doing that!

 

[CaramellDansen]

Here's something I've not seen anyone mention: would it be possible to get a connection from Sandhills (northeast-bound, south of Kirkdale) to the freight-only line going through Clubmoor?
Having a special service to a station near Utting Avenue or something would be great for LFC match days, surely?

Not to mention, that station could be accessed by special services from outside the city via the curves near Wavertree Technology Park!

 

[8A Rail]

Here's something I've not seen anyone mention: would it be possible to get a connection from Sandhills (northeast-bound, south of Kirkdale) to the freight-only line going through Clubmoor?
Having a special service to a station near Utting Avenue or something would be great for LFC match days, surely?

Not to mention, that station could be accessed by special services from outside the city via the curves near Wavertree Technology Park!

Historically there has been no direct connection between Sandhills and the Bootle Branch line anyway. The lines are on different levels for starters. Any lines from the Sandhills area (i.e. Huskisson Goods) went via the former CLC route (Walton on the Hill, West Derby, Gateacre etc). The Bootle Branch line goes North to Alexandra Dock, there has never been any connection because of feeding different locations. Any earthworks in order to attempt to join them up would make it far too expensive to even consider it, let alone anything else.

Passenger service has been discussed previously on the Bootle Branch line especially to serve Clubmoor (for LFC) but again priority is for the freight services to use that line and it must continue to do so. Likewise it would take major investment to introduce a passenger service on that line and I am not sure for what purpose either, it would never ever cover its cost, let alone enough passengers to justify it.

Although I understand on where you are coming from with all your thoughts and idea's but never ever forget it IS important to get as much freight back onto the rails as possible, as that alone would help the environment but not let passenger trains of little value to smoother it, as then you loose all the green / environmental benefits completely. Again, just remember, the railways are not just about carrying passengers from A to B and nothing else!

 

[CaramellDansen]

Historically there has been no direct connection between Sandhills and the Bootle Branch line anyway. The lines are on different levels for starters.

I figured some of the land to the east of the lines between Sandhills and Kirkdale (where it used to be 4 tracks) could be used as a cutting to lower the tracks down!

Although I understand on where you are coming from with all your thoughts and idea's but never ever forget it IS important to get as much freight back onto the rails as possible, as that alone would help the environment but not let passenger trains of little value to smoother it, as then you loose all the green / environmental benefits completely. Again, just remember, the railways are not just about carrying passengers from A to B and nothing else!

That's very reasonable.
A lass can dream, eh? Someone has to!

 

[Bevan Price]

Historically there has been no direct connection between Sandhills and the Bootle Branch line anyway. The lines are on different levels for starters.

I figured some of the land to the east of the lines between Sandhills and Kirkdale (where it used to be 4 tracks) could be used as a cutting to lower the tracks down!

That's very reasonable.
A lass can dream, eh? Someone has to!

Such a connection ought to be feasible - but gradients might be as steep as those in the Mersey Tunnel (1 in 26/27). Ideally, you would need a grade-separated junction for the northbound track, commencing just north of the Stanley Road overbridge, to avoid conflicts with southbound trains from Ormskirk/Headbolt Lane.
But the bigger question - is it worth the massive cost. Anfield has what - about 30 home matches per year (League & Cups)? Not enough all year traffic to justify a railway.

 

[RichardAsh1981]

I would put more stations on the Borderlands Line.

Deeside / Glandyfrwdy: South of A458 Weighbridge Road. To serve industrial/business area. Just inside Wales though.

A Deeside station on the Bidston-Wrexham line is firmly on TfW's plan, being on their side of the border.

Station dwell to times and timekeeping are an issue because the existing line is slightly too long for maximum stock utilisation. Making it longer and forcing more stock, whilst expensive, could make it more reliable. The current 45 minute timetable with three trains does this at the cost of an odd timetable.

I believe a good deal could be done with TSRs as well to improve sectional running times.

If you commit to more units rostered, you can consider extending the Bidston end to Birkenhead North where there is a bay platform to lay over in without being in the way of Merseyrail - and better connections to Liverpool because both West Kirkby and New Brighton line trains call there.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Looking at the thread title, would this have occurred when all the franchises were fully operational?

 

[OutdoorM]

A Deeside station on the Bidston-Wrexham line is firmly on TfW's plan, being on their side of the border.

Station dwell to times and timekeeping are an issue because the existing line is slightly too long for maximum stock utilisation. Making it longer and forcing more stock, whilst expensive, could make it more reliable. The current 45 minute timetable with three trains does this at the cost of an odd timetable.

I believe a good deal could be done with TSRs as well to improve sectional running times.

If you commit to more units rostered, you can consider extending the Bidston end to Birkenhead North where there is a bay platform to lay over in without being in the way of Merseyrail - and better connections to Liverpool because both West Kirkby and New Brighton line trains call there.

Taking to Birkenhead North would be a great interim measure until battery 777's can operate the line into the loop.

Re the Birkenhead North platform, I have noticed that the 777's seem to be using that a lot.

 

[CaramellDansen]

Such a connection ought to be feasible - but gradients might be as steep as those in the Mersey Tunnel (1 in 26/27).

Fair enough. I couldn't verify that, or disprove it, without going there myself to measure it!! Haha! It certainly wouldn't be a shallow gradient, that's for sure.

Ideally, you would need a grade-separated junction for the northbound track

Given it's a few-days-per-year service I'm proposing (preferably with passing loops at the single proposed station, to allow freight to easily pass if need be), wouldn't a single-track section between the Bootle branch and the junction off the Northern line (i.e. with an at-grade crossover from the northbound to southbound tracks) be enough? It would hardly be massive levels of traffic as to require such extreme measures, surely!

is it worth the massive cost. [...] Not enough all year traffic to justify a railway.

To be fair, it's a short section of single track, two crossovers, potentially two (if not one) part-time platform(s), and maybe passing loop(s) to ensure minimal freight disruption. Not exactly cheap, but we're not moving Heaven and Earth here either. Most of this route between Central and Anfield has in-use track that would need basically no changes (save for minor S&C). Trains with batteries already exist, so no wires would need to be put up, nor new rolling stock ordered! It certainly could have decent return on investment over the years! Who knows, maybe a little investment from football financial institutions might help push it along...!!

Ideally, you would need a grade-separated junction for the northbound track

I forgot to mention: at Sandhills going northbound (i.e. the exact location and direction we're talking about), literally every single train taking either branch line has to cross over the southbound Southport route at grade! Given this happens 112 (one hundred and twelve!!!) times a day, I'm not bothered about it happening a few more times on rare occasions!

I couldn't verify that, or disprove it, without going there myself to measure it

I can verify one thing: the distance from just north of the canal to just south of the Bootle branch cutting is at least 850m.

gradients might be as steep as those in the Mersey Tunnel (1 in 26/27)

If, to be generous, we say it is 1 in 26: in 850m, that gives a 32 metre height difference. I don't know about you, but I have my doubts the Bootle branch is 32 metres below the Northern line.

 

[AlastairFraser]

A Deeside station on the Bidston-Wrexham line is firmly on TfW's plan, being on their side of the border.

With Deeside, couldn't you use it as a direct replacement for Hawarden Bridge and preserve the timetable that way?

Not everyone wants to go directly to Town. I'm not sure how that's a difficult concept to grasp.
Regardless, if a separate suburban line were to run down the South Parkway-to-Broadgreen-to-Aintree line
(Hunts Cross would be a worse terminus than South Parkway if the suburban line through Broadgreen were to be separate)
, interchanges with services at all three of those stations would go directly into the city centre, so passengers basically anywhere in the suburbs would only be one train change away from town... which is a hell of a lot better than no train at all!! Like user "507021" aptly said:

Well, if you built the Outer Circle up to Aintree, you could extend 3tph that currently go to Hunts Cross to Aintree as an initial timetable, and extend the other 1tph to Warrington Central using batteries to remove the Northern stopper + make the line more reliable.
That would give line users an additional connection at Hunts Cross onto a Merseyrail service towards Warrington (which they could use with their Merseytravel tickets).

The EMR Liverpool-Norwich, the Northern Liverpool to Manchester and the TPE Liverpool to Cleethorpes would still be there, but they'd have more room to keep to time on the Liverpool South Parkway to Lime St section.
Add the Mossley Hill and West Allerton stops to the WMT Liverpool to Birmingham services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

With Deeside, couldn't you use it as a direct replacement for Hawarden Bridge and preserve the timetable that way?

Harwarden Bridge is a railway station with an extremely small passenger footfall. Would a proposed Deeside station be on a site that would attract a much higher passenger footfall?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Harwarden Bridge is a railway station with an extremely small passenger footfall. Would a proposed Deeside station be on a site that would attract a much higher passenger footfall?

Yes, there's a massive industrial estate with lots of big businesses there, including a Toyota engine factory.
Hawarden Bridge is about a mile away from the industrial estate and serves nothing much (the only business nearby is over half a mile away), Shotton over the river is closer to the only nearby residential area.

 

[urbophile]

Add the Mossley Hill and West Allerton stops to the WMT Liverpool to Birmingham services.

It would be much more useful to run a 15-min frequency Merseyrail service between Parkway and the City Centre, and include an additional station at Smithdown Road. Initially to Lime Street if feasible, eventually via the Wapping tunnel.

As for the Hunts Cross to Aintree loop: if potential passenger numbers for a full Merseyrail extension don't add up wouldn't trams be an alternative? Cheaper infrastructure, with the option of extending to the airport running on-street or mostly on the central reservation. The road from the airport to South Parkway is mostly dual carriageway, then it could head up to Hunts Cross via Woolton Road and Hillfoot Road.

 

[CaramellDansen]

extend the other 1tph to Warrington Central using batteries to remove the Northern stopper + make the line more reliable.

As an unrelated aside, I've always thought stations like Hunts Cross, Halewood and other stations with a reasonable amount of potential passengers in their reach should have passing loops added? Basically every station along the CLC line gets a good number of trains passing through, but only once an hour stoppers! At least if there were passing loops, stoppers could let the express services pass, to make up for the lack of quadrupling along the line. Once an hour at stations like that, some of them still within Liverpool city boundaries, is an absolute joke!!
A family member of mine lives in Halewood, and I genuinely prefer to take Merseyrail to Hunts Cross and then walk than gamble on relying on a cramped two- or three-car sprinter that, if missed or cancelled, means an hour's wait.

Right, back on topic.

you could extend 3tph that currently go to Hunts Cross to Aintree as an initial timetable, and extend the other 1tph to Warrington Central using batteries

So would this be the Southport line being extended? It's my person opinion that a separate, OLE-powered service would be much preferred. Given the likely lower level of service, dedicating a 2tph (or more) suburban service using OLE 777s would make much more sense to the commuters than having a weird backwards-J shaped line that hooks back onto its own branch lines, and would prevent the operational annoyances (and even incidents) that power change-overs (3rd rail to battery, or to OLE) can cause.
Since 3rd rail expansion is disallowed, and battery power has significant drawbacks to performance and range, kicking Merseyrail up the arse to start using (and changing over to) OLE would help massively. Not to mention, could the batteries even carry a train up to Aintree from Hunts Cross?
Not to mention that, if my aforementioned (and, in my opinion, much-needed) ideas regarding the airport line (TLDR: reopen Wavertree, Sefton Park and Speke stations, open a Halewood South station, build a curved branch to the airport with an underground station at Hale and the Airport, and shuttle from there to Lime Street) go into place, there would be OLE 777s running that line too, given that the line is already OLE electrified! Plus, a dual-terminus with the Northern line and "Suburban line" makes operational sense for interchanges with the Airport line, the existing CLC City line, existing services via Runcorn and potential future services via the dormant Fiddler's Ferry line.

I definitely don't think extensions down the line, via Southport line services with batteries, would be a bad idea at first (if they were to, for example, build the line gradually and run services further and further up it as it gets built) but, looking at the services overall, it makes operational sense and sense for the passengers for Southport services to terminate at South Parkway and "Suburban" services to go from there to Aintree via Broadgreen.

Additionally, you mention services to Warrington. Given Merseyrail services have done their best to isolate their network from sharing track with external traffic (the only exception being Hunts Cross and the crossover to get to it from South Parkway), would Merseyrail services via Ditton Junction to Warrington using the basically-disused Fiddler's Ferry line make more sense, given it's grade-separated from all other traffic (except freight traffic to the Garston car terminus, but I have my own crayonista ideas for that, too )?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So would this be the Southport line being extended? It's my person opinion that a separate, OLE-powered service would be much preferred. Given the likely lower level of service, dedicating a 2tph (or more) suburban service using OLE 777s would make much more sense to the commuters than having a weird backwards-J shaped line that hooks back onto its own branch lines, and would prevent the operational annoyances (and even incidents) that power change-overs (3rd rail to battery, or to OLE) can cause.

On that basis, do you remember the electrical services on the branch up to Crossens, which originally was the first part of the West Lancashire Railway to Preston? In my much younger days, I travelled a number of times on that line.

 

[CaramellDansen]

On that basis, do you remember the electrical services on the branch up to Crossens, which originally was the first part of the West Lancashire Railway to Preston? In my much younger days, I travelled a number of times on that line.

I'm certainly aware of it, but I'm quite the young'un and I'm not from those parts! Is it hard to look back on the railway of those days, knowing how few remain?
It's shocking that line got done away with. The pretence of Beeching's axe falls away when seeing the Crossens line, I think; the idea a line with 2 million passengers per year is worth closing is honestly hilarious to me.
It was done to destroy the railway as an institution, plain and simple.

 

[Mr. SW]

A few points:
> The Bootle Branch is about 7m below Kirkdale station. So to connect said Branch to the Northern Line at Stanley Road your looking at a gradient of about 1 in 80. And you'll be cutting through sandstone.
> I can't conceive of any real reason why you would ever spend money on doing something like that just for a couple of football matches.
> Any passenger service on the Bootle branch cannot regularly terminate and turn round on the line. The trains will have to go the full length with terminal facilities off the ends and out of the way. But the North London Line and its connections are taking an interest how to deal with the frequent passenger/freight train conflict.
> With new services on the Bootle Branch, and more services out to Parkway and beyond and NPR, this is going to put considerable pressure on Lime Street, which means reopening the Wapping and/or Victoria tunnels will have to be seriously contemplated.
> Having doubts about connecting the Airport by heavy rail. Does an airport that size truly justify investment on that level?
> I've seen a proposal for a line that curves in 180 degrees round the eastern end of Speke to the Airport. You could get to Parkway on the bus in less time it takes to negotiate that curve. This is pure fantasy. Build a Speke station at Woodend Avenue instead and run a bus. It's easier. It really is.
> Stick to simple.

Discovered this. Take a look.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02690942231206369

 

[Bletchleyite]

> I've seen a proposal for a line that curves in 180 degrees round the eastern end of Speke to the Airport. You could get to Parkway on the bus in less time it takes to negotiate that curve. This is pure fantasy. Build a Speke station at Woodend Avenue instead and run a bus. It's easier. It really is.

But not as good, noting how much has been spent on the Luton Airport people mover. People won't trust buses for time critical things like catching planes. They want a direct train.

 

[urbophile]

Build a Speke station at Woodend Avenue instead and run a bus. It's easier. It really is.
> Stick to simple.

There already is a station at South Parkway with regular bus connections. There's simple! Either build a proper rail or tram connection if it's viable, or make the best use of existing links. A properly integrated fares system would help with this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There already is a station at South Parkway with regular bus connections. There's simple! Either build a proper rail or tram connection if it's viable, or make the best use of existing links. A properly integrated fares system would help with this.

In most cases a Saveaway handles this, but airport journeys are an oddity in an urban network in not being a day return for most. While I'd love to see full German style integration I don't think we will (not least because the £2 thing will be politically very hard to undo now bar increasing it by inflation) but it would be easy enough for Merseyrail to offer an airport special return ticket and promote it, or simply to add a Liverpool Airport destination priced at Anytime Day Single to South Parkway plus £2.

However to make proper inroads there really does need to be a rail connection. It'd be quite difficult to do it from Merseyrail itself, but fairly easy to do it from the barely-used slow lines on the WCML, which could be a half hourly Liverpool Airport Shuttle calling at Edge Hill, Mossley Hill, West Allerton and South Parkway on the way (allowing the Warrington DMU to be sped up by removing the stops, and paving the way for Merseyrail Electrics to Warrington if Fiddlers Ferry is ever built). There are plenty of roads that could be converted to run a railway down it to the airport, but if it's that much hassle it could be run with tram-train units with street running from South Parkway.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Again whilst true, I was highlighting why the passenger service Bidston (New Brighton) to Wrexham was maintained whilst that to Chester Northgate was lost. (and wasn't that a huge mistake given traffic congestion getting into Chester?)

Possibly a bit 'off thread' for Merseyside but Chester Northgate just screamed 'Duplicate Routes'. Chester 'enjoyed' competing/overlapping services to all of Manchester, Birkenhead, Shotton and Wrexham from each of its two main stations, neither of which were particularly well situated for the City Centre. Northgate had a completely duplicate set of facilities, its own depot and a triangle to access the through route with three signalboxes. The prospective traveller never knew where to head to for the 'next train'.

 

[urbophile]

In most cases a Saveaway handles this, but airport journeys are an oddity in an urban network in not being a day return for most. While I'd love to see full German style integration I don't think we will (not least because the £2 thing will be politically very hard to undo now bar increasing it by inflation) but it would be easy enough for Merseyrail to offer an airport special return ticket and promote it, or simply to add a Liverpool Airport destination priced at Anytime Day Single to South Parkway plus £2.

That's overcomplicating things. I don't know how the German system operates, but here as far as I know, a passenger arriving at the airport on an outward journey (ie probably not being a local or familiar with our disintegrated systems) would have to pay £2 for the bus journey to Parkway (ludicrously expensive by continental standards) and then buy a separate ticket to the city centre or wherever. They wouldn't have, or know about, Saveaways. I seem to remember there was a Northern ticket machine at the airport once, but if it sold an integrated ticket it wasn't made clear. As far as I know that machine is no longer there, and there is little clear information about how to pay for onward travel.

It's a comparatively simple transfer which would be made much simpler if it were possible to buy a single journey ticket at the airport, or if pay-as-you go was introduced to the Metro card. A cheap solution compared to building a new rail link.

For the sake of the residents of Speke, and the carbon footprint, I think that a rail line should be built. But if it were for the airport alone I'd leave it alone.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But not as good, noting how much has been spent on the Luton Airport people mover. People won't trust buses for time critical things like catching planes. They want a direct train.

I think that your mention of "time critical" matters would suggest that the prospective airline passengers do not allow themselves enough time to ensure they meet any stated airport minimum time period regulations for travellers requiring flights. These passengers you say want a direct train, but airline passengers would come from a very wide catchment area, many living many miles away from the airport and nowhere near a railway station that has services that go direct to the airport. A cursory view of some of the taxi firms who serve airports suggest by the very fact that the fare to the airport from a wide range of local settlements is clearly shown in their marketing for such travel requirements.

I do believe that some poor deluded souls still believe there is a Ringway airport that is based in the Greater Manchester area and if any of those people want, as you say, a direct train service to that little-known airport that only exists in their confused minds, the costs that would be incurred in building such a new airport, together with approach roads and a new railway station would pose the question of where will the required finance come from to allow such a major aspirational project to take place and I am sure that a major sized area airport affected by such proposals would not be quiet in their expressed views on that matter.

 

[daodao]

I think that your mention of "time critical" matters would suggest that the prospective airline passengers do not allow themselves enough time to ensure they meet any stated airport minimum time period regulations for travellers requiring flights. These passengers you say want a direct train, but airline passengers would come from a very wide catchment area, many living many miles away from the airport and nowhere near a railway station that has services that go direct to the airport. A cursory view of some of the taxi firms who serve airports suggest by the very fact that the fare to the airport from a wide range of local settlements is clearly shown in their marketing for such travel requirements.

I do believe that some poor deluded souls still believe there is a Ringway airport that is based in the Greater Manchester area and if any of those people want, as you say, a direct train service to that little-known airport that only exists in their confused minds, the costs that would be incurred in building such a new airport, together with approach roads and a new railway station would pose the question of where will the required finance come from to allow such a major aspirational project to take place and I am sure that a major sized area airport affected by such proposals would not be quiet in their expressed views on that matter.

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say, but a specially constructed heavy rail link, as distinct from a new station on an existing line as at Inverness Dalcross airport, can only really be justified if the airport usage exceeds 10 million passengers per year. The usage at Liverpool Speke airport is currently only about half that figure, so extension of Merseyrail to serve it can't be justified yet. By contrast, Manchester Ringway airport's usage exceeded this figure by 1990; its heavy rail connection opened in 1993 and the airport station was used by nearly 4 million passengers in 2022/3.

 

[Djgr]

Possibly a bit 'off thread' for Merseyside but Chester Northgate just screamed 'Duplicate Routes'. Chester 'enjoyed' competing/overlapping services to all of Manchester, Birkenhead, Shotton and Wrexham from each of its two main stations, neither of which were particularly well situated for the City Centre. Northgate had a completely duplicate set of facilities, its own depot and a triangle to access the through route with three signalboxes. The prospective traveller never knew where to head to for the 'next train'.

Whilst all true, a direct service from Heswall and Neston to Chester would do a roaring trade today.

I'm certainly aware of it, but I'm quite the young'un and I'm not from those parts! Is it hard to look back on the railway of those days, knowing how few remain?
It's shocking that line got done away with. The pretence of Beeching's axe falls away when seeing the Crossens line, I think; the idea a line with 2 million passengers per year is worth closing is honestly hilarious to me.
It was done to destroy the railway as an institution, plain and simple.

Didn't Beeching want to close the whole Liverpool to Southport line?

I don't quite follow what you are trying to say, but a specially constructed heavy rail link, as distinct from a new station on an existing line as at Inverness Dalcross airport, can only really be justified if the airport usage exceeds 10 million passengers per year. The usage at Liverpool Speke airport is currently only about half that figure, so extension of Merseyrail to serve it can't be justified yet. By contrast, Manchester Ringway airport's usage exceeded this figure by 1990; its heavy rail connection opened in 1993 and the airport station was used by nearly 4 million passengers in 2022/3.

although passenger numbers appear to exceed Newcastle airport, which did have a direct link built, albeit a very short one.

 

[daodao]

although passenger numbers appear to exceed Newcastle airport, which did have a direct link built, albeit a very short one.

My post specified the justification for a "heavy rail" link; there is currently no "light rail" in Liverpool, in contrast to Newcastle-upon-Tyne.