Could Merseyrail services be extended beyond Hunts Cross towards Warrington?

[B&I]

Ideally, I'd like to see a similar approach taken on all long distance lines into Liverpool, and other cities, particularly post-HS3 and other necessary improvements (eg the Edge Hill spur, reinstating 4 tracks Edge Hill to Broad Green when the M62 flyover comes up for replacement, some 4 tracking between St Helens and Wigan). For example, there could be 4 TPH stopping to Newton-le-Willows, with 2 from there to Bank Quay and 2 to Manchester, and 2 TPH semi-fast to Bradford via the Calder Valley: 4 TPH stopping to Wigan, with 2 TPH semi-fast to Blackpool / Windermere: and 4 TPH stoppers to Runcorn, with 2 over the Halton Curve to Chester, 2 on to Northwich and 2 TPH semi-fast covering the current stops from the Birmingham train to Crewe and terminating at Stoke. I appreciate these plans may be a tad ambitious.

 

[edwin_m]

While the Sheffield service would eventually transfer to HS3, and hopefully increase in frequency in the process, I suspect the CLC line would still require some 4 tracking to enable 4 TPH stoppers plus a continued semi-fast. Would 4 tracking as far as possible east of Hunt's Cross, a vit in the open country between Widnes and Warrington, and 1 or 2 stretches between Warrington and Manchester (perhaps west of Birchwood then somewhere close to Cadishead) be sufficient ?

To avoid delays, this sort of "dynamic overtaking loop" would have to be long enough to reach from where the fast train is a mile or so behind the slow one until it is a mile or so ahead plus some more to prevent one slightly late train collapsing the service as it does today. To achieve this it would have to include several stations. However stations tend to be in the built-up areas where it's difficult to build extra tracks, and I think the only place where it's remotely possible to build something long enough would be between west of Birchwood and somewhere east of Glazebrook.

However as soon as you do this, regular commuters will start changing between the slow and the overtaking fast at any station on their journey where that is possible. Thus the slows will be really empty and the fasts fuller than they are today. Once this happens you might as well go to an option where the slows don't travel the entire route.

 

[Gareth]

The live rail has long suffered from poor voltage that way meaning Merseyrail trains can operate in series past South Parkway.

I thought there was also a problem with the DC causing issues with the AC OHLE around Allerton Depot. Not sure of the science exactly but I've read something along those lines on here several times before.

 

[B&I]

To avoid delays, this sort of "dynamic overtaking loop" would have to be long enough to reach from where the fast train is a mile or so behind the slow one until it is a mile or so ahead plus some more to prevent one slightly late train collapsing the service as it does today. To achieve this it would have to include several stations. However stations tend to be in the built-up areas where it's difficult to build extra tracks, and I think the only place where it's remotely possible to build something long enough would be between west of Birchwood and somewhere east of Glazebrook.

However as soon as you do this, regular commuters will start changing between the slow and the overtaking fast at any station on their journey where that is possible. Thus the slows will be really empty and the fasts fuller than they are today. Once this happens you might as well go to an option where the slows don't travel the entire route.

That's kind of what i had in mind. The length of the journey, and the capacity constraints at the Manchester end, make splitting the stopping services at Warrington, and enabling easy connection with faster services, a sensible option.

 

[Chester1]

That's kind of what i had in mind. The length of the journey, amd the capacity constraints at the Manchester end, make splitting the stopping services at Warrington, and enabling easy connection with faster services, a sensible option.

Tram trains from Bank Quay to Central to join Metrolink near Pomona would free paths into Manchester Oxford Road and Piccadilly. A 60mph top speed would be countered by superior acceleration compared with DMUs. Its unlikely especially as Warrington is joining a Cheshire Combined Authority after Greater Manchester CA did not respond to its offer of talks to join it.

 

[B&I]

Tram trains from Bank Quay to Central to join Metrolink near Pomona would free paths into Manchester Oxford Road and Piccadilly. A 60mph top speed would be countered by superior acceleration compared with DMUs. Its unlikely especially as Warrington is joining a Cheshire Combined Authority after Greater Manchester CA did not respond to its offer of talks to join it.

It's also unlikely because 60 mph tram trains on that line would wipe out capacity for everything else. And why would someone sit on a 60 mph tram the whole way from Bank Quay to Manchester via Central when they could travel on a 90 mph train via Newton le Willows instead ?

 

[edwin_m]

The line is on viaduct all the way from east of Warrington Central to the WCML crossing, and for the part where any tram-train would diverge west of Central there is a road on another viaduct next to it. It would be extremely difficult to bring a tram-train off heavy rail anywhere in this area.

 

[B&I]

The line is on viaduct all the way from east of Warrington Central to the WCML crossing, and for the part where any tram-train would diverge west of Central there is a road on another viaduct next to it. It would be extremely difficult to bring a tram-train off heavy rail anywhere in this area.

This is why I thought any link in the area would be physically impossible, unless you replaced the road with another set of tracks

 

[Chester1]

It's also unlikely because 60 mph tram trains on that line would wipe out capacity for everything else. And why would someone sit on a 60 mph tram the whole way from Bank Quay to Manchester via Central when they could travel on a 90 mph train via Newton le Willows instead ?

Warrington Central to Trafford Park is much shorter than the current 2 track and platform section between Hunts Cross and Oxford Road. Also, light rail only passing loops and making sure that tram trains where held if they miss their path. A 60mph tram train would be faster than a 75mph pacer because of superior acceleration and 2 express services can be pathed around 2tph of pacers. 5tph of tram trains and 2tph express heavy rail would be possible. I would extend Merseyrail east to terminate at Warrington Central rebuilding it with a bay platform. Such a split would free up capacity in Liverpool and Manchester for long distance services and provide a better frequency. I admit its fantasy idea, Manchester to Marple/Altrincham and Stockport to Manchester Airport/Altrincham are the only routes being seriously considered and are very much dependant on a successful introduction of tram trains elsewhere in the UK. Sheffield-Rotherham has already been a disaster but South Wales Metro might be success.

The line is on viaduct all the way from east of Warrington Central to the WCML crossing, and for the part where any tram-train would diverge west of Central there is a road on another viaduct next to it. It would be extremely difficult to bring a tram-train off heavy rail anywhere in this area.

Tram Trains are basically just trams that meet HR safety regs and can climb steep gradients like the slope next next to Manchester Central on Metrolink. I would diverge just east of Warrington Central put a stop nearby and street run through to Bank Quay. It would need to be 2 sets of one way single track for part of the way but there are no obstacles that have not been solved elsewhere in the UK.

 

[frodshamfella]

Warrington Central to Trafford Park is much shorter than the current 2 track and platform section between Hunts Cross and Oxford Road. Also, light rail only passing loops and making sure that tram trains where held if they miss their path. A 60mph tram train would be faster than a 75mph pacer because of superior acceleration and 2 express services can be pathed around 2tph of pacers. 5tph of tram trains and 2tph express heavy rail would be possible. I would extend Merseyrail east to terminate at Warrington Central rebuilding it with a bay platform. Such a split would free up capacity in Liverpool and Manchester for long distance services and provide a better frequency. I admit its fantasy idea, Manchester to Marple/Altrincham and Stockport to Manchester Airport/Altrincham are the only routes being seriously considered and are very much dependant on a successful introduction of tram trains elsewhere in the UK. Sheffield-Rotherham has already been a disaster but South Wales Metro might be success.



Tram Trains are basically just trams that meet HR safety regs and can climb steep gradients like the slope next next to Manchester Central on Metrolink. I would diverge just east of Warrington Central put a stop nearby and street run through to Bank Quay. It would need to be 2 sets of one way single track for part of the way but there are no obstacles that have not been solved elsewhere in the UK.

I like the idea of extending Merseyrail east to Warrington Central.

 

[B&I]

Warrington Central to Trafford Park is much shorter than the current 2 track and platform section between Hunts Cross and Oxford Road. Also, light rail only passing loops and making sure that tram trains where held if they miss their path. A 60mph tram train would be faster than a 75mph pacer because of superior acceleration and 2 express services can be pathed around 2tph of pacers. 5tph of tram trains and 2tph express heavy rail would be possible. I would extend Merseyrail east to terminate at Warrington Central rebuilding it with a bay platform. Such a split would free up capacity in Liverpool and Manchester for long distance services and provide a better frequency. I admit its fantasy idea, Manchester to Marple/Altrincham and Stockport to Manchester Airport/Altrincham are the only routes being seriously considered and are very much dependant on a successful introduction of tram trains elsewhere in the UK. Sheffield-Rotherham has already been a disaster but South Wales Metro might be success.



Tram Trains are basically just trams that meet HR safety regs and can climb steep gradients like the slope next next to Manchester Central on Metrolink. I would diverge just east of Warrington Central put a stop nearby and street run through to Bank Quay. It would need to be 2 sets of one way single track for part of the way but there are no obstacles that have not been solved elsewhere in the UK.

No obstacles, except for running 60 mph vehicles on a busy main line, including a long stretch with no stations

 

[modernrail]

Having just taken a look at the map, the potential re-use of the Fiddlers Ferry line appears to be very interesting in terms of rationalising services into something really good. However, I am not sure I would use it for NPR. Maybe instead as part of a HS2 spur into Liverpool by bringing London - Liverpool trains off HS2 at a new junction east of Warrington and then along the CLC for a short stretch and then into a tunnel just before Warrington Central to pop out and connect into the Fiddlers Ferry route so that you move to:

- The NPR rail route taking fast duties between Liverpool and Manchester via the Chat Moss Route - Which is the most direct, recently electrified and least congested route with potential to get line speed highest? Two trains per hour - one to Newcastle and one to Scarborough (or Sheffield which I think would be more sensible for reasons described below)

- A spur coming from HS2 to connect onto the Fiddlers Ferry route so that London to Liverpool trains leave HS2 east of Warrington to connect into the CLC line for a short time but then moving into the new tunnel at Warrington and stopping at the new Warrington underground station, giving Warrington a HS2 station. This would also answer the Liverpool has been left out of HS2 debate.

- 2 Semi-fast per hour Liverpool to Manchester concentrating on the urban areas and so running Liverpool - Liverpool South Parkway - Widnes (Fiddlers Ferry) and Warrington (new underground) via Fiddlers Ferry route and then - Birchwood - Trafford Park - Manchester via CLC. This gives commuters a good quick option.

- 2 trains per hour all stations service between Liverpool and Manchester running Liverpool Central (new underground platform) or Lime Street, existing CLC route through Widnes (existing) and Warrington Central through to Manchester.

- existing Merseyrail northern line services terminating at Hunts Cross as they do now as you have removed sufficient conflicts at Allerton through other moves.

- North Wales to Manchester trains coming off the WCML immediately prior to Warrington BQ and entering a second tunnel portal that curves in to the same Warrington Underground station, meaning Chester and North Wales services run fast from Warrington (new underground) to Manchester. This gets rids of the current slow section on those services up through Newton-le-Willows.

- EMT trains from Liverpool to Sheffield and Nottingham are either terminated at Manchester, run via Chat Moss to release capacity on CLC for stoppers or you change the route completely so you move to a Liverpool - Runcorn - Crewe - Stoke - Derby - Nottingham service (with Sheffield passengers using the NPR/TPEX route described above). This would provide a useful new Midlands service for Liverpool which also fits in better with the EMT franchise and also helps Runcorn.

There would remain a few challenges, namely:

- Would you need to carry out some grade separation work on the Chat Moss route to get NPR line speed up sufficiently? For instance, stations like Eccles might need slow and fast lines so stopping services on Chat Moss can stay clear of NPR trains. There does appear to be space in places.

- Would the CLC line between Warrington and Manchester Oxford road be too congested and if so what could be done to add capacity at a reasonable cost. A quick look at the map tells me it would be hard to increase to 4 tracks anywhere east of Glazebrook. If this is a real problem then maybe you need to keep north wales services on the chat moss route.

In terms of electrification, I would look at:

- Electrify route from Allerton to Warrington via Fiddlers Ferry;
- Semi-fasts (electric hybrid) run OHL to Warrington (new-underground) and then battery to Manchester.
- Liverpool to Manchester trains (electric hybrid) run OHL Liverpool to Allerton and then super-capacitor charging at some intermediate stations to maintain charge to Manchester.

This would mean the only new electrification would also be supporting HS2 into Liverpool.

You could play around with how you create an integrated transport hub at Warrington. My instinct is that HS2 trains are so long that if you start the underground platforms in the new tunnel around Warrington Central you almost get an underground connection between Warrington Central and Warrington BQ by accident as they would naturally run almost that far?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd just wire the CLC and run new high acceleration metro-style EMUs. There is barely a single local line in the country that is as justifying of it, having as it does a huge number of local stations, many of which are quite well used, and the only one you could really justify closure of being Glazebrook. I reckon it'd have *at least* 10 minutes off an end to end journey if it was run using such EMUs using driver door release.

 

[B&I]

Having just taken a look at the map, the potential re-use of the Fiddlers Ferry line appears to be very interesting in terms of rationalising services into something really good. However, I am not sure I would use it for NPR. Maybe instead as part of a HS2 spur into Liverpool by bringing London - Liverpool trains off HS2 at a new junction east of Warrington and then along the CLC for a short stretch and then into a tunnel just before Warrington Central to pop out and connect into the Fiddlers Ferry route so that you move to:

- The NPR rail route taking fast duties between Liverpool and Manchester via the Chat Moss Route - Which is the most direct, recently electrified and least congested route with potential to get line speed highest? Two trains per hour - one to Newcastle and one to Scarborough (or Sheffield which I think would be more sensible for reasons described below)

- A spur coming from HS2 to connect onto the Fiddlers Ferry route so that London to Liverpool trains leave HS2 east of Warrington to connect into the CLC line for a short time but then moving into the new tunnel at Warrington and stopping at the new Warrington underground station, giving Warrington a HS2 station. This would also answer the Liverpool has been left out of HS2 debate.

- 2 Semi-fast per hour Liverpool to Manchester concentrating on the urban areas and so running Liverpool - Liverpool South Parkway - Widnes (Fiddlers Ferry) and Warrington (new underground) via Fiddlers Ferry route and then - Birchwood - Trafford Park - Manchester via CLC. This gives commuters a good quick option.

- 2 trains per hour all stations service between Liverpool and Manchester running Liverpool Central (new underground platform) or Lime Street, existing CLC route through Widnes (existing) and Warrington Central through to Manchester.

- existing Merseyrail northern line services terminating at Hunts Cross as they do now as you have removed sufficient conflicts at Allerton through other moves.

- North Wales to Manchester trains coming off the WCML immediately prior to Warrington BQ and entering a second tunnel portal that curves in to the same Warrington Underground station, meaning Chester and North Wales services run fast from Warrington (new underground) to Manchester. This gets rids of the current slow section on those services up through Newton-le-Willows.

- EMT trains from Liverpool to Sheffield and Nottingham are either terminated at Manchester, run via Chat Moss to release capacity on CLC for stoppers or you change the route completely so you move to a Liverpool - Runcorn - Crewe - Stoke - Derby - Nottingham service (with Sheffield passengers using the NPR/TPEX route described above). This would provide a useful new Midlands service for Liverpool which also fits in better with the EMT franchise and also helps Runcorn.

There would remain a few challenges, namely:

- Would you need to carry out some grade separation work on the Chat Moss route to get NPR line speed up sufficiently? For instance, stations like Eccles might need slow and fast lines so stopping services on Chat Moss can stay clear of NPR trains. There does appear to be space in places.

- Would the CLC line between Warrington and Manchester Oxford road be too congested and if so what could be done to add capacity at a reasonable cost. A quick look at the map tells me it would be hard to increase to 4 tracks anywhere east of Glazebrook. If this is a real problem then maybe you need to keep north wales services on the chat moss route.

In terms of electrification, I would look at:

- Electrify route from Allerton to Warrington via Fiddlers Ferry;
- Semi-fasts (electric hybrid) run OHL to Warrington (new-underground) and then battery to Manchester.
- Liverpool to Manchester trains (electric hybrid) run OHL Liverpool to Allerton and then super-capacitor charging at some intermediate stations to maintain charge to Manchester.

This would mean the only new electrification would also be supporting HS2 into Liverpool.

You could play around with how you create an integrated transport hub at Warrington. My instinct is that HS2 trains are so long that if you start the underground platforms in the new tunnel around Warrington Central you almost get an underground connection between Warrington Central and Warrington BQ by accident as they would naturally run almost that far?

While I'd be happy with anything improving services on the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester corridor, I hope you don't mind me saying that that may be about the most complicated way of doing it imaginable !

'All' (I use the term advisedly) that's needed is a new line from Liverpool to the HS2 spur, served by HS2 and Transpennine spur. (While my own preference would be for this line to continue directly to central Manchester, piggy-backing onto the Manchester HS2 spur, while indirect does at least get you to where you're going). It seems unnecessary to have 2 high speed lines when 1 can do both jobs. It also seems sensible to run this if possible via Warrington, by far the biggest place between Liverpool and Manchester, not least because using the Liverpool trains to serve Warrington seems a good use of HS2 paths.

If trains from Liverpool to London, Birmingham, Newcastle, Scarborough, Sheffield and Norwich (whether via the existing route or diverted via Crewe and Derby, an idea I also like) are taken off the Chat Moss and CLC lines, and the latter electrified, it should be possible to have a fairly dense service of stopping EMUs and a residual service of semi-fasts on both.

 

[daodao]

I never quite understood why the Chat Moss route was chosen for electrification rather than the CLC line, which is wired at both ends. Most trains on the Chat Moss route, at least east of Newton-le-Willows, will have to remain diesel-powered for a long-time hence given that they start from or continue on non-electrified routes. 25 kV electrification of the CLC line would speed up the stopping service and make it easier to run semi-fast trains without delays. However, now that plans for rolling electrification schemes have been killed off by Grayling, I don't expect the CLC line to be electrified any time soon. It is interesting to compare the service on the CLC line with that provided in 1910. End-to-end journey times were better then, with a regular hourly service (plus some extras) taking 40 minutes (non-stop) or 45 minutes (if calling at Warrington Central).

 

[frodshamfella]

Interesting article in Liverpool Business Post by John Irving CEO of Liverpool Airport, mentions rail connection to airport a bit. Hunts Cross I think maybe closer to airport than South Parkway.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If, as the title of this thread seems to suggest, that the Merseyrail franchise be extended into part of the Northern franchise, what would the legal requirements have to show in respect of compensation by Merseyrail to the Northern Rail franchisee for this to happen?

Also, what was the last official statement made on the matter of the future expansion of the Merseyrail 3rd rail system?

 

[frodshamfella]

I hadn't realised Hough Green was the Merseytravel border which is part of Widnes, so only two more stops to Warrington Central anyway.

 

[apk55]

If, as the title of this thread seems to suggest, that the Merseyrail franchise be extended into part of the Northern franchise, what would the legal requirements have to show in respect of compensation by Merseyrail to the Northern Rail franchisee for this to happen?

Also, what was the last official statement made on the matter of the future expansion of the Merseyrail 3rd rail system?

Northern Fail are going to have enough to worry about at present and the loss of (in a few years time) of a bit of their franchise is probably their least concern.
Most users could not care less what logo is on the side of their trains, more concern is reliability, good timetable and reasonable fares.
Mersey rail new stock has passive provision for conversion to duel voltage operation (lowered roof and mounting points for a transformer/rectifier) so future so extensions could be on AC.
I still go along with my original suggestion of just an all station stopping service with something like a Southport, Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester Oxford road service being run. Running an express service would take more platform capacity at Manchester (as a slow train would immediately follow a fast one out of Manchester OR) as well as the complexity of loops or turn-backs on the line.
Commuting patterns along the route are undoubtedly complex and would involve people going in both directions. Even at the Manchester end there are many stations well surrounded by housing as well as several employment nodes such as trafford parh

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Northern Fail are going to have enough to worry about at present and the loss of (in a few years time) of a bit of their franchise is probably their least concern.
Most users could not care less what logo is on the side of their trains, more concern is reliability, good timetable and reasonable fares.
Mersey rail new stock has passive provision for conversion to duel voltage operation (lowered roof and mounting points for a transformer/rectifier) so future so extensions could be on AC.
I still go along with my original suggestion of just an all station stopping service with something like a Southport, Liverpool, Warrington and Manchester Oxford road service being run. Running an express service would take more platform capacity at Manchester (as a slow train would immediately follow a fast one out of Manchester OR) as well as the complexity of loops or turn-backs on the line.
Commuting patterns along the route are undoubtedly complex and would involve people going in both directions. Even at the Manchester end there are many stations well surrounded by housing as well as several employment nodes such as trafford parh

I had hoped that someone would have responded to the legal franchise question that I asked and also to the query that I had raised concerning the matter of official statements concerning future Merseyrail 3rd rail expansion.

 

[edwin_m]

I had hoped that someone would have responded to the legal franchise question that I asked and also to the query that I had raised concerning the matter of official statements concerning future Merseyrail 3rd rail expansion.

It wouldn't happen in the current franchise. If it happens in a future one then either the services can be removed at the start of the franchise or there is a clause that allows them to be removed part way through. No compensation is payable because the franchisee was aware of the fact when putting their bid together.

 

[shadowman]

How many trains per hour does Halewood get, its just the next stop, and an area of a lot of housing, plus still within Merseyside boundary (which I don't believe should be a reason for Merseyrail to curtail any extension)

I believe its 2tph each direction in the peak, reverting to 1tph through the day.

 

[Chester1]

If, as the title of this thread seems to suggest, that the Merseyrail franchise be extended into part of the Northern franchise, what would the legal requirements have to show in respect of compensation by Merseyrail to the Northern Rail franchisee for this to happen?

Also, what was the last official statement made on the matter of the future expansion of the Merseyrail 3rd rail system?

I haven't heard anything official about third rail Merseyrail extension since the Headbolt Lane plan went quiet several years ago. Everything about third rail since then has just been enthusiast wibble. The official talk has been battery powered extensions subject to the new units batteries working fine around the depots. Merseyrail have a follow on order option of 10 units and its straightforward to add pantographs to the new units too. I would very much expect any extension to Warrington would be replacing the third rail between South Parkway and Hunts Cross and overhead between South Parkway and Warrington. The limited range batteries would mean neutral sections could be used to reduce the cost.

 

[robertclark125]

Interesting article in Liverpool Business Post by John Irving CEO of Liverpool Airport, mentions rail connection to airport a bit. Hunts Cross I think maybe closer to airport than South Parkway.

Last year, after a holiday in Southport, I did email Merseyrail about a possible extension to the airport. I had looked at a street atlas of Liverpool, and suggested a route with a new station at Speke, and then on to a terminal station at the airport. That would be built in a style similar to Airport station on the Tyne and Wear Metro.

The link Merseyrail sent me had suggested a different approach to the airport, with trains extending to and then beyond the Airport, with Widnes an objective as well. I don't have the link to hand, but I think it was either a Liverpool City Council or Merseytravel document about future plans.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

Do people really still holiday in Southport ?

More seriously, a number of years ago I came up with the idea ( on the old Yo Liverpool site) of providing a plaform or two on the site of Liverpool Central High level for a tram-train connection to John Lennon. Certainly not impossible, the land is there and has been lying desolate for 40 years. The tunnel is wide enough ( three tracks ) to continue a single line to High Level on trestles above the tracks that plunge into Central Low Level. At present, one of the tracks is a reversing siding. Such an arrangement could also be used for terminating trains on the C.L.C route to Warrington and Manchester. It would make better use of the land than yet more retail space that Liverpool simply does not need.

P.S

I was born and grew up in Southport !

 

[The Planner]

I haven't heard anything official about third rail Merseyrail extension since the Headbolt Lane plan went quiet several years ago. Everything about third rail since then has just been enthusiast wibble.

Skem is talked about as an extension, in early GRIP stages apparently.

 

[Pyreneenguy]

Skem is talked about as an extension, in early GRIP stages apparently.

The Skem proposal is in quite an advanced stage with funding ( the figure of £6 million comes to mind ) being provided by Lancashire County Council / Merseytravel to build the case for expansion.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Apart from Maghull North, the renovation of the underground stations, and work on Kirkdale depot, I struggle to think of any infastructure work performed since 2008. Still, this probably outstrips the infrastructure developments in many other parts of England

NR has relaid all the slab track on the Wirral loop, and the track under the river (with another long spell of bustitution).
I guess this was the reason Merseytravel suddenly turned tail and decided infrastructure ownership wasn't a good idea after all.
More Merseyrail infrastructure upgrades are in the pipeline for the new Stadler stock.

 

[frodshamfella]

Last year, after a holiday in Southport, I did email Merseyrail about a possible extension to the airport. I had looked at a street atlas of Liverpool, and suggested a route with a new station at Speke, and then on to a terminal station at the airport. That would be built in a style similar to Airport station on the Tyne and Wear Metro.

The link Merseyrail sent me had suggested a different approach to the airport, with trains extending to and then beyond the Airport, with Widnes an objective as well. I don't have the link to hand, but I think it was either a Liverpool City Council or Merseytravel document about future plans.

Thanks that's interesting. I use Iiverpool airport a lot and a rail link would be good. As you mentioned a new station in Speke would also be most welcome to an area of the city with poor transport.

 

[185]

I've always considered the 3rd rail should extend to Warrington Cen and then electrify OHL Warrington to Trafford Park, to form two quick, high frequency (15min) services. The connection should be a straightforward one - walking further up the platform for the other service. Splitting the service to raise reliability is never popular, but if they are often enough, there shouldn't be much of a complaint.

Seeing the use on these services and the potential for growth, I think the two relatively short electrification projects would push growth.