AHBD
Member
Are nice brick Victorian viaducts monstrosities?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway
- Thread starter LNW-GW Joint
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 18,886
They can be.
Bricks still block light and dominate the landscape, although brick construction has become romanticised.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If we arbitrarily selecting the location of the second station entrance as the Enterprise Rent-a-Car carpark on Picadilly (station approach road, I guess a mid-point emergency exit coudl be provided as an angled drift that would emerge off the track of the line. There are a couple of obvious locations, perhaps part of the Store Street Car Park. I don't think there is any strong reason to prefer a vertical shaft over a slant one if there is nothing else in the way (and AFAIK there are no other tunnels in that area).
The way I envisaged it would be a tunnel bored with the largest tunnel boring machine available (Herrenknecht now advertises a capability to bore 19m tunnels in a variety of ground conditions).
If sized for GC loading gauge trains, it appears possible to fit two ~10m wide class platforms in such a tunnel bore, I have attached an image giving a crude overview. It's scaled from some diagrams of the two tunnel proposes for the now underway BART extension in the US.
A ten metre wide platform has an enormous capacity to absorb passengers and to enable an emergency evacuation, which is probably why we want our two station accesses at the extreme ends of the station. Don't want a situation where a point fire can block both directions at once.
I don't think you'd bother providing much of a concourse at the Piccadilly Gardens end, if anyone wants concourse facilities they could be directed to the main station, where the concourse could be under the old station roof. The entrance near the Gardens would be focussed on ticket gates to move lots and lots of people.
If you put station access boxes on the same side of the tunnel, you could leave room for a second two track tunnel bore on the other side of the box.
This layout has the advantage that Y junctions are grade separated by default as the lines are stacked. Whilst double stacking might appear to make the portals much larger, the lines can move around inside the bore and exit near the crown of the tunnel. They would be effectively elevated on a viaduct inside the tunnel bore or TBM launch box.
I believe in Barcelona they put sidings inside the tunnels between stations, but I don't think the fire brigade would be a big fan of that. I'd think it'd impose significantly more complicated evacuation requirements than if there was a continuous walkway on the same side of the tracks throughout. If needed in the stations, mined ramps could be provided to connect the two platforms at intervals to provide a "place of safety". However, in non station areas I'd imagine there is much more scope to put the ramps inside the tunnel bore as they would not be short on room.
EDIT:
In the line drawing, orange is the tunnel structure, red is internal structure, blue represents a 915mm class platform.
Loading gauge is in light blue, PEDs are represented in purple, and the green inside the tunnel represents an arbitrarily selected 1.8m minimum height for usable platform width.
Last edited:
treasury brain
Member
According to the FT - 'billions of pounds' have been allocated to this project in the spending review, to be announced next week
https://www.ft.com/content/9e2dba53-1fb9-46b0-8900-c6b251e3db26
https://www.ft.com/content/9e2dba53-1fb9-46b0-8900-c6b251e3db26
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 9,208
Thanks, but the report's behind a paywall! Just hope, somehow, it links Liverpool and Manchester airports.
faltskog36abba
Member
According to today's Manchester evening news- The line connects both airports. Sorry I have no link.
That doesn't mean the line needs to go significantly out of its way to pass very close to an existing main air terminal. A short shuttle link from a remote terminal placed to suit a rail alignment might be employed.
treasury brain
Member
From the vague map released it shows a station at 'liverpool gateway' which I presume would be a Luton / Birmingham Interchange type situation with a shuttle.
The liverpool gateway station looks like it could be a new town location. The report doesn't say that in any detail but what is currently in the immediate vicinity looks more geared towards freight than needing a fast city centre connection.
BranstonJnc
Member
Unless I'm misreading and misunderstanding, this is a partial construction of HS2 between Manchester Piccadilly, Manchester Airport and across to Thelwall, to get onto the old alignment through Latchford into Warrington. Then, it's via the 'Fiddlers Ferry' freight route through Monks Sidings and down to Ditton, to get onto conventional tracks, of which there are four towards Liverpool South Parkway. Liverpool Gateway appears to just be South Parkway.
There was a lot of work done by Network Rail to basically try and reverse the fast and slow lines at South Parkway, so that stopping trains and stuff from Warrington Central and Hunts Cross wouldn't need to cross anything, and would also be on the 'Eccles' side of Liverpool Lime Street when they got to Edge Hill.
The only thing missing here is whether, to improve the capacity, they will then do the battery units to Warrington Central so that there's less stuff going into Lime Street mainline.
Sorry I was referring to the report PDF linked to on this page. It locates 'Liverpool Gateway' to the west of Widnes.
https://www.greatermanchester-ca.go...he LMRB,22,000 jobs during construction alone.
Nottingham59
Established Member
It also says "precise station location to be confirmed"
Connecting the North West to drive national prosperity:
Our prospectus for a modern Liverpool-Manchester Railway - backbone of the Northern Arc
p12 of 60.
JohnRegular
Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 269
I assume it's prohibitively expensive or just not possible to have this line go via South Parkway, but it seems less than ideal to give Liverpool a second parkway-type station in broadly the same area as the existing one, but not close enough to share parking, allow interchange etc..
The article talks about changing spending rules to free up £113bn of investment for infrastructure projects, of which this will be one with other projects also mentioned including:
- new tram extension in Birmingham
- reopen the Leamside line
- West Yorkshire metro system
- new tram extension in Birmingham
- reopen the Leamside line
- West Yorkshire metro system
BranstonJnc
Member
You are right, doing some even deeper research, looks like the intention is for this 'Gateway' to be at Ford / JLR, so off the main roads.
What isn't clear from the maps is if those two dashed lines are the existing route through Mossley Hill, and the existing route into Liverpool on Merseyrail (through whatever those stations are, but the one that will have Baltic on it), or if it's the existing Mossley Hill route and some sort of new track. Almost looks a bit like a hashed version of the line towards Alder Hey from Halewood, before then joining the existing line between Huyton and Liverpool.
That's probably the first time anyone ever said that to me on this forum. Maybe it's time to add a picture (screenshot) to my profile
I had assumed the dotted lines would be new tunneled route as that is how existing services could be expanded. I guess that's a big assumption considering how much extra it would cost.
Another possibility is a new alignment beginning near A562/A5300 Knowsley Expressway junction outside Ditton, crossing over the existing line near Halewood station, then reusing the former Cheshire Lines Committee trackbed (Halewood Park Triangle) continuing via Gateacre as far as Broad Green when it joins the existing line towards Wavertree Technology Park.
The biggest problem would be the loss of a walking and cycling amenity which would cause huge objections locally.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Will the stated investment figure be very much dependent upon the aspirationally forecasted economy growth, as Government ministers seem to state whenever very large sums of finance are required for all types of projects?
BranstonJnc
Member
Well if you overlay the map with the two sets of dotted lines, one definitely looks to me to be the existing route via Mossley Hill. I am relatively certain that the capacity study or whatever Network Rail call it, showed they intend to upgrade, and four-track in entirety South Parkway - Edge Hill, as it would mean putting stopping trains onto the current fast lines, and vice versa. It would also make sense as new fast stuff from Ditton (Warrington / Fiddlers Ferry) on this new route would be on the 'correct' side at Ditton East Jn, so there's clearly some joined-up thinking.That's probably the first time anyone ever said that to me on this forum. Maybe it's time to add a picture (screenshot) to my profile
I had assumed the dotted lines would be new tunneled route as that is how existing services could be expanded. I guess that's a big assumption considering how much extra it would cost.
But you are correct, and looking then at the TFGM papers, it looks like the other alignment is in fact a sort of tunnel or something to get onto the CLC and up towards Wavertree Tech Park, so maybe that's the idea as well. They do mention an upgraded Lime St / Central and tunnels, are they considering reusing the Wapping tunnels in Edge Hill and having some platforms at Central? Seems a costly solution, but of course, Lime Street is probably getting a bit busy.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Lime Street unfortunately is a victim of its geological location.
Snow1964
Established Member
Of course it is sometimes easier to move out local trains, if shorter trains are using longish platforms.
How much old infrastructure can be reused, and possible nearby sites which might be available for redevelopment (where a station could be constructed and site built over) I do not know. Here is an old map of the rail lines some of which might be reusable
File:Liverpool RJD 42.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I wonder how many years we will have aged before taking a trip on the new completed and fully operational line?
daodao
Established Member
I was very disappointed today when listening today to the Week in Westminster programme on BBC Radio 4 (Saturday 21st June 2025, 1102 to 1130) when this topic was being discussed with Ruth Cadbury (MP and chair of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Transport) and Huw Merriman (former chair of this committee and currently chair of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Board).
It was stated incorrectly that the current journey time between the 2 cities is 53 minutes, which would be reduced to 30 minutes with the new line. However, the current journey time between the 2 principal stations of Lime Street and Victoria is less than 35 minutes with 1 intermediate stop, which could easily be reduced to 30 minutes nonstop; there is currently a half-hourly service.
The politicians promoting this new line appear to be promoting falsehoods in order to justify building an expensive new line at a cost currently in excess of £12 billion, when the UK's finances are desperate. If an improvement is needed, the current service could be made nonstop, taking 30 minutes, with the train length increased to 8-10 carriages, at minimal cost. It is preferable to serve Victoria than Piccadilly station in Manchester as it enables linkage to the existing fast Transpennine service to Leeds and beyond, which is currently being upgraded under the TRU scheme.
It was stated incorrectly that the current journey time between the 2 cities is 53 minutes, which would be reduced to 30 minutes with the new line. However, the current journey time between the 2 principal stations of Lime Street and Victoria is less than 35 minutes with 1 intermediate stop, which could easily be reduced to 30 minutes nonstop; there is currently a half-hourly service.
The politicians promoting this new line appear to be promoting falsehoods in order to justify building an expensive new line at a cost currently in excess of £12 billion, when the UK's finances are desperate. If an improvement is needed, the current service could be made nonstop, taking 30 minutes, with the train length increased to 8-10 carriages, at minimal cost. It is preferable to serve Victoria than Piccadilly station in Manchester as it enables linkage to the existing fast Transpennine service to Leeds and beyond, which is currently being upgraded under the TRU scheme.
Last edited:
And what do you suggest the passengers that currently use those intermediate stations should do? The whole purpose of the project is to provide a dedicated line for limited stop express trains that is largely segregated from more local traffic. That dramatically increases overall system capacity for both, and provides flexibility and resilience for both service tiers. The limited stops en route are all chosen as major hubs and while the best city centre to city centre time won't change much, the trains will be able to make a few more calls in that time to increase commercial income and transport utility. The big spending on this project will likely not occur for another decade at least. Should we stop planning for the future completely because of this year's financial woes?
faltskog36abba
Member
They are probably quoting the running time from Piccadilly -Which is pretty poor considering the short distance. I think the chat moss route is fine end to end and quick, Surely space can be found for passing loops for more stoppers? Like the siding at Eccles. It's the CLC line that needs speeding up- Also the local stations like [Humphrey Park] only get a two hourly service, or skip stop service. The advantage of a new line would be connecting the Airports in both cities and more stoppers on the existing lines, But WOW what a cost.
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who felt disappointment (and anger) at that blatant lie. The politicians are trying to prepare us all for a very poor 30-minute city-to-city time over a brand new railway by keeping quiet about timings that have already been within spitting distance of 30 minutes on a slightly-modernised 200-year-old line.
Topological
Established Member
Just the standard aversion to talking about capacity again.
IF the way it is presented is through the Piccadilly to Lime Street time then so be it. If necessary the Victoria time can be rebuffed by the need to walk to Piccadilly from Victoria.
The Liverpool to Manchester fast line is a very important piece of infrastructure.
But why the need to not frame it as a capacity upgrade? Do they not think the layman can understand it? This is HS2’s terrible marketing all over again.
Topological
Established Member
I think speed sells.
If there were promises of new stations on the CLC/Chat Moss and improved suburban services then there could be more to go at. However, whilst there should improved services for the populations on those routes it is unlikely that there has already been a plan to quote (or probably that there would even be a new plan).
I did wonder why more was not said about the types of services that could run on the WCML once HS2 opens, but that is a different matter.
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 18,886
Loops would either require substantial demolition to include at least two stations, or they would extend the stopper journey time to the point that it becomes hopelessly unattractive.
fishwomp
Member
And so the cycle begins. Shocking to begin this on a lie. Honesty is how to start this, and if it doesn't wash its face, stop.
Perhaps they could locate a Liverpool terminus 10 mins walk from Lime Street to help maximize the analogies, and delay the tunnel to Man Pic when they're two years in..
Having a reason to exist matters more.
Speed is not the motivation: https://greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk...ailway-plan-could-unlock-90bn-economic-boost/
It's actually about bringing more workforce to within 30 minutes of Manc/Liverpool. From that webpage:
I don't see why 30 minutes is a goal - 45 minutes would also work, but I also don't see why it needs to go to Manchester airport to achieve that goal either