Could Merseyrail services be extended beyond Hunts Cross towards Warrington?

[185]

....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.

Liverpool Airport should have a people mover of some sort over to Liverpool South Parkway going under/over the retail park, serving Estuary Business Park.

 

[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.

I hope you enjoyed your stay in Southport.

 

[frodshamfella]

Liverpool Airport should have a people mover of some sort over to Liverpool South Parkway going under/over the retail park, serving Estuary Business Park.

Good idea ....I guess could serve the retail park which is a bit of a nightmare traffic wise. Although possibly make it a bit packed for air passengers with luggage.

 

[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.

Is there any connection between Fianna Fail and Northern Fail?

 

[frodshamfella]

I'm sure I read on here about the use of a freight line via Fiddlers Ferry. I have to admit I know nothing about this line but I see from my track atlas it reaches Warrington. What is the state of this line does anyone know and the potential of Merseyrail using this as an eastward extension in the future ?

 

[Chester1]

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.

I thought it was proposed as a battery powered Kirkby to Skelmersdale and DMU Skelmersdale to Wigan. Has the ORR indicated whether or not they would approve a 3rd rail extension?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I'm sure I read on here about the use of a freight line via Fiddlers Ferry. I have to admit I know nothing about this line but I see from my track atlas it reaches Warrington. What is the state of this line does anyone know and the potential of Merseyrail using this as an eastward extension in the future ?

It's the old St Helens & Runcorn Gap railway (1832), which was extended from Widnes east to Warrington and west to Garston Dock c1852.
At Warrington it joined the Warrington & Stockport which initially went via Lymm to Timperley on the MSJ&A and so into Manchester Oxford Road.
At Warrington their station was at Arpley, but low level platforms were built at Bank Quay when the LNWR relocated its station there.
The line between Ditton and Speke became part of the new LNWR direct route from Weaver Jn to Edge Hill c1869, giving a Manchester-Liverpool through route too.
At the eastern end, the line connected well through Stockport to the LNWR, Midland and GC routes across the Pennines.
It was an important line until the CLC built its new route between Manchester and Liverpool, and then stagnated.
Services were slow and limited (some just shuttled between Ditton and Timperley).

The line east of Warrington Arpley closed to passengers in 1963 and to freight in 1984, and now hosts the Trans-Pennine bridleway.
West of Arpley to Ditton was retained for the Fiddler's Ferry power station coal traffic, which was substantial until recently when the power station was mothballed.
It is on standby at the moment, but has to close by 2023.
The line is a poor quality freight line with sharp curves through Widnes (where it was diverted from its original route) and Warrington.
There is a low grade bridge over the Mersey at Arpley, and further east, on the abandoned stretch, the 1890s viaduct over the Manchester Ship Canal is in bad shape.
This was one of the reasons why the line was closed to freight in the 1980s.

Further east, through Lymm, the line has been built on at both ends and there are some massive concrete structures in the trackbed carrying the M6 Thelwall Viaduct.
Some of the route might come into the reckoning for HS2/NPR links.
But don't underestimate the poor quality of the original route.

 

[tbtc]

The current timetable looks to be as many services as you can cram in between Hunts Cross and Oxford Road if you want to have "fast" services doing the journey in under fifty minutes.

The stoppers leave Liverpool three minutes after the fasts and arrive at Oxford Road three or four minutes ahead of the next fast service.

So no chance of increasing the frequency without slowing everything down.

BUT, now that Liverpool - Manchester is so much faster over Chat Moss, this would be the best time to turn the CLC into a "Metro" service (rather than having "fast" services via two routes). The only question is whether its worth slowing Warrington/ Widnes services to Manchester/ Liverpool for the sake of squeezing more services through the line?

I'm not convinced at the idea of an extended Merseyrail service to Warrington and then a Northern Rail "stub" from Warrington towards Manchester. So you'd lose reasonable links like Widnes to Manchester just for the sake of Liverpudlian empire building - the usual stuff about how Merseyside wants/deserves to control train services in the area whilst also complaining about the lack of through links - is it worth losing direct services to Stockport/ South Yorkshire/ East Midlands (and cutting Liverpool South Parkway/ Widnes off from Manchester) for the sake of running your own trains as far as Warrington?

The only thing I can really see the point of would be if you ran at least four/ hour from Merseyrail to Oxford Road, preferably eight/ hour as far as Warrington (with the terminators soaking up stops at Halewood/ Hough Green/ Sankey) with the remaining four/hour stopping only at Widnes (east of Hunts Cross), then skip stopping Padgate/ Flixton/ Chassen Road/ Humphrey Park/ Trafford Park (everything stopping at Birchwood/ Irlan, Urmston. That way you increase the frequency to local stations, balance up the lopsided timetable, retain through services to both Liverpool and Manchester... the only drawbacks being the lack of connectivity at Piccadilly, but the busy corridor through Oxford Road probably means you'd struggle to find paths for much - plus terminating everything at Oxford Road at least keeps the service pattern fairly simple.

However you would introduce a few fare anomalies, e.g. if Kirkby - Liverpool services were extended via Hunts Cross to Manchester then a Kirkby - Manchester ticket would be valid on the through services that way...

 

[frodshamfella]

It's the old St Helens & Runcorn Gap railway (1832), which was extended from Widnes east to Warrington and west to Garston Dock c1852.
At Warrington it joined the Warrington & Stockport which initially went via Lymm to Timperley on the MSJ&A and so into Manchester Oxford Road.
At Warrington their station was at Arpley, but low level platforms were built at Bank Quay when the LNWR relocated its station there.
The line between Ditton and Speke became part of the new LNWR direct route from Weaver Jn to Edge Hill c1869, giving a Manchester-Liverpool through route too.
At the eastern end, the line connected well through Stockport to the LNWR, Midland and GC routes across the Pennines.
It was an important line until the CLC built its new route between Manchester and Liverpool, and then stagnated.
Services were slow and limited (some just shuttled between Ditton and Timperley).

The line east of Warrington Arpley closed to passengers in 1963 and to freight in 1984, and now hosts the Trans-Pennine bridleway.
West of Arpley to Ditton was retained for the Fiddler's Ferry power station coal traffic, which was substantial until recently when the power station was mothballed.
It is on standby at the moment, but has to close by 2023.
The line is a poor quality freight line with sharp curves through Widnes (where it was diverted from its original route) and Warrington.
There is a low grade bridge over the Mersey at Arpley, and further east, on the abandoned stretch, the 1890s viaduct over the Manchester Ship Canal is in bad shape.
This was one of the reasons why the line was closed to freight in the 1980s.

Further east, through Lymm, the line has been built on at both ends and there are some massive concrete structures in the trackbed carrying the M6 Thelwall Viaduct.
Some of the route might come into the reckoning for HS2/NPR links.
But don't underestimate the poor quality of the original route.

Thanks for the information.

 

[frodshamfella]

The current timetable looks to be as many services as you can cram in between Hunts Cross and Oxford Road if you want to have "fast" services doing the journey in under fifty minutes.

The stoppers leave Liverpool three minutes after the fasts and arrive at Oxford Road three or four minutes ahead of the next fast service.

So no chance of increasing the frequency without slowing everything down.

BUT, now that Liverpool - Manchester is so much faster over Chat Moss, this would be the best time to turn the CLC into a "Metro" service (rather than having "fast" services via two routes). The only question is whether its worth slowing Warrington/ Widnes services to Manchester/ Liverpool for the sake of squeezing more services through the line?

I'm not convinced at the idea of an extended Merseyrail service to Warrington and then a Northern Rail "stub" from Warrington towards Manchester. So you'd lose reasonable links like Widnes to Manchester just for the sake of Liverpudlian empire building - the usual stuff about how Merseyside wants/deserves to control train services in the area whilst also complaining about the lack of through links - is it worth losing direct services to Stockport/ South Yorkshire/ East Midlands (and cutting Liverpool South Parkway/ Widnes off from Manchester) for the sake of running your own trains as far as Warrington?

The only thing I can really see the point of would be if you ran at least four/ hour from Merseyrail to Oxford Road, preferably eight/ hour as far as Warrington (with the terminators soaking up stops at Halewood/ Hough Green/ Sankey) with the remaining four/hour stopping only at Widnes (east of Hunts Cross), then skip stopping Padgate/ Flixton/ Chassen Road/ Humphrey Park/ Trafford Park (everything stopping at Birchwood/ Irlan, Urmston. That way you increase the frequency to local stations, balance up the lopsided timetable, retain through services to both Liverpool and Manchester... the only drawbacks being the lack of connectivity at Piccadilly, but the busy corridor through Oxford Road probably means you'd struggle to find paths for much - plus terminating everything at Oxford Road at least keeps the service pattern fairly simple.

However you would introduce a few fare anomalies, e.g. if Kirkby - Liverpool services were extended via Hunts Cross to Manchester then a Kirkby - Manchester ticket would be valid on the through services that way...

But the idea is for the the Northern Line to terminate somewhere more useful than Hunts Cross. I don't know about what the line can cope with, but I'm sure the passengers at Hough Green and Widnes would welcome a swifter metro service.

 

[tbtc]

But the idea is for the the Northern Line to terminate somewhere more useful than Hunts Cross. I don't know about what the line can cope with, but I'm sure the passengers at Hough Green and Widnes would welcome a swifter metro service.

Sure, but if you want to run four/hour stopping at all stations as far as Warrington then there's not going to be space for the current two "fast" services per hour along the route - the current stoppers take thirty five to forty minutes to get as far as Warrington whilst the current fast services are doing it in under half an hour. So if you want Widnes to get a "Metro" frequency towards Liverpool then I can't see the space for the current fasts from Widnes to Manchester (that do the journey in under half an hour).

There also seems to be little point for the bulk of passengers at the busy stations (South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington, Birchwood) if they see their services slowed down without much of an increase in frequency. e.g. if your plan is only to replace the current four/hour from Warrington Central to Liverpool (two fast, two slow) with four slow services per hour to Liverpool then there's not much benefit for them.

If you have to tinker with things then the options seem to be either:

* - Cut through services at Warrington (e.g. Merseyrail extension from Hunts Cross to Warrington, Northern DMUs from Warrington to Manchester). So you'd lose through services (e.g. Widnes to Manchester), you'd lose fast services from the line - Warrington Central would become like Kirkby.

* - Extend Merseyrail services through to Oxford Road. That would mean the loss of fast services, it'd mean Merseyrail having some complicated pattern of skip-stopping (Humphrey Park, Glazebrook and Chassen Road don't require every service to stop there), it'd retain a service from Widnes etc to *Manchester* but not as far as Piccadilly.

Either option seems to contain a lot of negatives as well as positives - both would presumably mean Liverpool losing its direct service to Manchester Airport/ South Yorkshire/ East Midlands.

(there's also the issue of what stops at Edge Hill/ MossleyHill/ WestAllerton, if the stoppers from Lime Street high level platforms are replaced by extended Northern Line services from the low level platforms)

If the desired option is something that gives the Scouse Diaspora a better frequency into Liverpool then fair enough - it's not my neck of the woods - if that's what the locals would prefer then go for it - it keeps things simpler and more "local" - but it comes at the cost of removing services towards Manchester (i.e. creating another divide like at Kirkby or Ormskirk).

 

[frodshamfella]

Sure, but if you want to run four/hour stopping at all stations as far as Warrington then there's not going to be space for the current two "fast" services per hour along the route - the current stoppers take thirty five to forty minutes to get as far as Warrington whilst the current fast services are doing it in under half an hour. So if you want Widnes to get a "Metro" frequency towards Liverpool then I can't see the space for the current fasts from Widnes to Manchester (that do the journey in under half an hour).

There also seems to be little point for the bulk of passengers at the busy stations (South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington, Birchwood) if they see their services slowed down without much of an increase in frequency. e.g. if your plan is only to replace the current four/hour from Warrington Central to Liverpool (two fast, two slow) with four slow services per hour to Liverpool then there's not much benefit for them.

If you have to tinker with things then the options seem to be either:

* - Cut through services at Warrington (e.g. Merseyrail extension from Hunts Cross to Warrington, Northern DMUs from Warrington to Manchester). So you'd lose through services (e.g. Widnes to Manchester), you'd lose fast services from the line - Warrington Central would become like Kirkby.

* - Extend Merseyrail services through to Oxford Road. That would mean the loss of fast services, it'd mean Merseyrail having some complicated pattern of skip-stopping (Humphrey Park, Glazebrook and Chassen Road don't require every service to stop there), it'd retain a service from Widnes etc to *Manchester* but not as far as Piccadilly.

Either option seems to contain a lot of negatives as well as positives - both would presumably mean Liverpool losing its direct service to Manchester Airport/ South Yorkshire/ East Midlands.

(there's also the issue of what stops at Edge Hill/ MossleyHill/ WestAllerton, if the stoppers from Lime Street high level platforms are replaced by extended Northern Line services from the low level platforms)

If the desired option is something that gives the Scouse Diaspora a better frequency into Liverpool then fair enough - it's not my neck of the woods - if that's what the locals would prefer then go for it - it keeps things simpler and more "local" - but it comes at the cost of removing services towards Manchester (i.e. creating another divide like at Kirkby or Ormskirk).

I guess what's needed is more track capacity.

 

[urbophile]

Doesn't a lot depend on the promised HS2 link? If there was a new line from HS2 via Warrington towards Liverpool, this would presumably take over many or all of the long-distance services for beyond Manchester that currently use the CLC line. That in turn could become a metro-style commuter route entirely. I suspect planners tend to see commuter services as a mini-version of London, which is not appropriate in the Northern Poorhouse belt: commuter patterns cross boundaries and are not all into the nearest city centre geographically. Merseyrail works, and Metrolink works, but there needs to be the additional layer of a regional system which crosses boundaries and inevitably will involve complications like sharing tracks with express trains, 'skip-stop' patterns, and of course trains with toilets.

 

[Tomnick]

Sure, but if you want to run four/hour stopping at all stations as far as Warrington then there's not going to be space for the current two "fast" services per hour along the route - the current stoppers take thirty five to forty minutes to get as far as Warrington whilst the current fast services are doing it in under half an hour. So if you want Widnes to get a "Metro" frequency towards Liverpool then I can't see the space for the current fasts from Widnes to Manchester (that do the journey in under half an hour).

A very quick calculation, but there should be just about enough capacity for the existing two ‘fast’ trains to fit between 4tph extended from Hunts Cross on current timings? 14’ vs 23’ between passing Hunts Cross West Jn and arriving at Warrington Central, so a fast train 3’ in front of a stopper at Hunts Cross will be 4’ behind the preceding one arriving at Warrington. Obviously there’s a bit more to it than that (not least the arrangements for turning back everything at Warrington!) but I think it’s a pretty sound principle. Widnes would keep its link to Manchester through the existing fasts that stop there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The current timetable looks to be as many services as you can cram in between Hunts Cross and Oxford Road if you want to have "fast" services doing the journey in under fifty minutes.

The stoppers leave Liverpool three minutes after the fasts and arrive at Oxford Road three or four minutes ahead of the next fast service.

So no chance of increasing the frequency without slowing everything down.

BUT, now that Liverpool - Manchester is so much faster over Chat Moss, this would be the best time to turn the CLC into a "Metro" service (rather than having "fast" services via two routes). The only question is whether its worth slowing Warrington/ Widnes services to Manchester/ Liverpool for the sake of squeezing more services through the line?

I still think 25kV electrification using 75mph high acceleration EMUs (maybe regear a dedicated subset of 319s, or order new) to operate a pattern of alternating "semifast to Warrington, stopper to Manchester" and "stopper to Warrington, semifast to Manchester" of as many trains per hour as can be crammed in using that method of operation, and moving the Nottingham service to Chat Moss, would be the best approach to serving the line with few significant disadvantages.

Semifasts would serve (where applicable) Hunts Cross and Widnes on the Liverpool side (possibly also the new Warrington West station or whatever it's called) and on the Manchester side would serve Birchwood and either Urmston or Irlam (or both) then Oxford Road, Picc and wherever (Airport? Stockport bay?)

If you did that you could get away with truncating Merseyrail to South Parkway without upsetting too many people - Hunts Cross could perhaps be served by all trains.

 

[Urban-Savage]

Is anything using the Fiddlers Ferry Line these days?

 

[edwin_m]

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.

I think extending the third rail would be very short sighted (even leaving aside the ORR concerns about new third rail). It would make it very difficult to make the case to extend the OLE over the short distance between Warrington and Allerton Junction, thus forcing longer-distance trains to be bi-mode or diesel. The Merseyrail units are reported to have capacity for OLE or battery operation.

 

[edwin_m]

There also seems to be little point for the bulk of passengers at the busy stations (South Parkway, Widnes, Warrington, Birchwood) if they see their services slowed down without much of an increase in frequency. e.g. if your plan is only to replace the current four/hour from Warrington Central to Liverpool (two fast, two slow) with four slow services per hour to Liverpool then there's not much benefit for them.

If you have to tinker with things then the options seem to be either:

* - Cut through services at Warrington (e.g. Merseyrail extension from Hunts Cross to Warrington, Northern DMUs from Warrington to Manchester). So you'd lose through services (e.g. Widnes to Manchester), you'd lose fast services from the line - Warrington Central would become like Kirkby.

* - Extend Merseyrail services through to Oxford Road. That would mean the loss of fast services, it'd mean Merseyrail having some complicated pattern of skip-stopping (Humphrey Park, Glazebrook and Chassen Road don't require every service to stop there), it'd retain a service from Widnes etc to *Manchester* but not as far as Piccadilly.

Either option seems to contain a lot of negatives as well as positives - both would presumably mean Liverpool losing its direct service to Manchester Airport/ South Yorkshire/ East Midlands.

The option discussed further back, of having stopping services from Manchester and Liverpool not running through but overlapping in the Warrington area, resolves all these problems. There would still be a fast service, and those travelling into Manchester or Liverpool from the far side of Warrington would have a quick same-platform connection onto it at one of the stations in the overlapping section. So although those passengers would have to change trains their overall journey time would remain about the same.

 

[B&I]

I hope you enjoyed your stay in Southport.

Perhaps a line from somewhere in the vicinity of South Parkway, through the airport, over to Ditton Junction, then an implausible re-opening of part of the Widnes loop to connect to the CLC.

 

[B&I]

I think extending the third rail would be very short sighted (even leaving aside the ORR concerns about new third rail). It would make it very difficult to make the case to extend the OLE over the short distance between Warrington and Allerton Junction, thus forcing longer-distance trains to be bi-mode or diesel. The Merseyrail units are reported to have capacity for OLE or battery operation.

Exactly. I would suggest removing 3rd rail east of the Northern Line crossover at South Parkway. Combined with the removal of the terminating platform at Hunt's Cross, this would permit a stretch of 4 tracks with OHLE east of Allerton Junction.

 

[B&I]

Doesn't a lot depend on the promised HS2 link? If there was a new line from HS2 via Warrington towards Liverpool, this would presumably take over many or all of the long-distance services for beyond Manchester that currently use the CLC line. That in turn could become a metro-style commuter route entirely. I suspect planners tend to see commuter services as a mini-version of London, which is not appropriate in the Northern Poorhouse belt: commuter patterns cross boundaries and are not all into the nearest city centre geographically. Merseyrail works, and Metrolink works, but there needs to be the additional layer of a regional system which crosses boundaries and inevitably will involve complications like sharing tracks with express trains, 'skip-stop' patterns, and of course trains with toilets.

What would be the capacity of a high speed spur to Liverpool ? I assume that, with all trains stopping in a standard pattern at Warrington only, it could easily absorb the current 2 TPH to London, 2 TPH to Birmingham, and 3 TPH fast to Manchester and beyond, with room for plenty more. It would allow metro-type services on the Crewe line as well, although at the risk of losing long-distance connectivity at So7th Parkway

 

[B&I]

I guess what's needed is more track capacity.

Careful now

 

[B&I]

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.

You are quite right, I had somehow forgotten the 2 gos at getting the loop line right

 

[37 418]

Is there any connection between Fianna Fail and Northern Fail?

I wouldn't have thought so Paul

 

[frodshamfella]

Perhaps a line from somewhere in the vicinity of South Parkway, through the airport, over to Ditton Junction, then an implausible re-opening of part of the Widnes loop to connect to the CLC.

Was Ditton earmarked to reopen ? The airport certainly needs a rail link for the future.

 

[tbtc]

It sounds okay in theory but there are various problems.



Firstly, if it’s just a case of extending the existing four/hour Northern Line services from Southport – Hunts Cross to Warrington/ Manchester (in place of existing services from Lime Street) then that’s a lot of extra passengers to put on the existing Merseyrail service.



Secondly, if it’s just a case of extending the existing four/hour Northern Line services from Southport – Hunts Cross to Warrington/ Manchester (in place of existing services from Lime Street) then that’s no increase in frequency for Warrington (and only a marginal increase for Widnes) – at the cost of much slower journeys towards Liverpool. If you want to increase the service at Widnes it’d be much simpler to just stop the EMT service there each hour. The Merseyrail service is every fifteen minutes, the Metrolink service tends to be every twelve minutes – that’s not a significant enough improvement on four trains an hour to justify it for me. Great if you live near one of the lightly used stations, that only get an hourly service at the moment, but you are inconveniencing the majority of current passengers by slowing down their journeys without the trade-off of much increased frequency (at the busy stations).



Thirdly, I can’t see any room for any “fast” services on the route if you want to flood it with “metro” frequencies (whether that’s a Merseyrail “metro” service west of Warrington and a Metrolink “metro” service east of Warrington, or one through service). You’ve already got the Liverpool – Nottingham (Norwich) service struggling for a path alongside the stopper in the Hope Valley, trying to squeeze this long distance service into the brief window between a Merseyrail service leaving Liverpool South Parkway/ Hunts Cross and the one in front arriving at Warrington/ Oxford Road (and vice versa) seems wildly optimistic. Most days you’d have a westbound service stuck behind the stopper (at least at the moment the “stoppers” do skip a few stops, but if the plan is for them to stop everywhere then that’s probably going to add another ten minutes on to the time your EMT service is stuck behind them).



Fourthly, given how busy Chat Moss is, and how much money we’ve spent electrifying it, I don’t like the idea of diverting the diesel Liverpool – Nottingham (Norwich) service that way. I don’t like the Liverpool – Calder Valley service either, for similar reasons. Keep Chat Moss as simple (and as EMU-based) as possible). It’d become Manchester – Nottingham (Norwich), which would see more complaints from Merseyside about the lack of direct services to places further afield.



Fifthly, whilst we are talking on another thread about the benefits of through services into central Liverpool for passengers at Wrexham/ Shotton (and also Llandudno etc), the bulk of the proposals on here seem to be about cutting through trains so that Merseyside can control more “local” trains, creating problems like Bidston/ Ormskirk/ Kirkby (that we are wanting to “solve” on other lines). Especially if you are trying to co-ordinate the Northern Line (every fifteen minutes) and Metrolink (which would have to be every twelve minutes to fit in amongst other Metrolink services). Great way to put passengers off (but it does give both Liverpool and Manchester more power over “their” side of the line, so I can see local politicians being keen, at the expense of some passengers).



Sixthly, this should have been an electrification commitment – fast accelerating EMUs would be great on this route, without the need to complicate things (e.g. running toiletless trams). But, given the backlog on schemes that have already been committed to (e.g. Bolton – Wigan), I can’t see the CLC getting wires any time soon. A real shame.



Lastly, how big are people wanting to make Warrington Central? A couple of through platforms, a couple of terminating platforms for the (Metro frequency) Liverpool terminators and a couple of platforms for the (Metro frequency) Manchester terminators)? It’s already on a viaduct with a busy road parallel. Or are there some complicated manoeuvres for how you cope with four(?) terminating services from each side without disrupting the existing “fast” services? There seems to be no room for the kind of frequencies discussed on here (given the need for terminating trains to layover and for them to cross back to the appropriate track.

 

[edwin_m]

Firstly, if it’s just a case of extending the existing four/hour Northern Line services from Southport – Hunts Cross to Warrington/ Manchester (in place of existing services from Lime Street) then that’s a lot of extra passengers to put on the existing Merseyrail service.

What's the loading like on these trains? There are others terminating from the north at Central which could be extended if necessary. There might also need to be an extra train out of Liverpool to serve the intermediate stations to Parkway, which would take some of the load from there too but would use the slow lines with much less conflict than the existing service.

Secondly, if it’s just a case of extending the existing four/hour Northern Line services from Southport – Hunts Cross to Warrington/ Manchester (in place of existing services from Lime Street) then that’s no increase in frequency for Warrington (and only a marginal increase for Widnes) – at the cost of much slower journeys towards Liverpool. If you want to increase the service at Widnes it’d be much simpler to just stop the EMT service there each hour. The Merseyrail service is every fifteen minutes, the Metrolink service tends to be every twelve minutes – that’s not a significant enough improvement on four trains an hour to justify it for me. Great if you live near one of the lightly used stations, that only get an hourly service at the moment, but you are inconveniencing the majority of current passengers by slowing down their journeys without the trade-off of much increased frequency (at the busy stations).

Even if both stopping services remain at 2TPH the improvement is for them to make more calls at some of the smaller stops, and also have better performance, because they only need to keep ahead of the fasts for about half the distance. If electrified their better performance helps with this as well. The busy stations get about the same frequency as now, - or most staitons get more if the timetable allows a more frequent stopping service.

Thirdly, I can’t see any room for any “fast” services on the route if you want to flood it with “metro” frequencies (whether that’s a Merseyrail “metro” service west of Warrington and a Metrolink “metro” service east of Warrington, or one through service). You’ve already got the Liverpool – Nottingham (Norwich) service struggling for a path alongside the stopper in the Hope Valley, trying to squeeze this long distance service into the brief window between a Merseyrail service leaving Liverpool South Parkway/ Hunts Cross and the one in front arriving at Warrington/ Oxford Road (and vice versa) seems wildly optimistic. Most days you’d have a westbound service stuck behind the stopper (at least at the moment the “stoppers” do skip a few stops, but if the plan is for them to stop everywhere then that’s probably going to add another ten minutes on to the time your EMT service is stuck behind them).

This is addressed by having the stoppers run only half the distance. The fast runs through the Warrington area behind the stopper that's just terminated and ahead of the one that's just about to start its journey.

Fourthly, given how busy Chat Moss is, and how much money we’ve spent electrifying it, I don’t like the idea of diverting the diesel Liverpool – Nottingham (Norwich) service that way. I don’t like the Liverpool – Calder Valley service either, for similar reasons. Keep Chat Moss as simple (and as EMU-based) as possible). It’d become Manchester – Nottingham (Norwich), which would see more complaints from Merseyside about the lack of direct services to places further afield.

Agreed, except there is no other sensible route available for the Calder Valley service to get to Liverpool, but that's off-topic. Perhaps the Nottingham train could go via Chat Moss if/when NPR takes the fastest services off it.

Fifthly, whilst we are talking on another thread about the benefits of through services into central Liverpool for passengers at Wrexham/ Shotton (and also Llandudno etc), the bulk of the proposals on here seem to be about cutting through trains so that Merseyside can control more “local” trains, creating problems like Bidston/ Ormskirk/ Kirkby (that we are wanting to “solve” on other lines). Especially if you are trying to co-ordinate the Northern Line (every fifteen minutes) and Metrolink (which would have to be every twelve minutes to fit in amongst other Metrolink services). Great way to put passengers off (but it does give both Liverpool and Manchester more power over “their” side of the line, so I can see local politicians being keen, at the expense of some passengers).

Tram-train isnt practicable for this route and doesn't solve any problems except the connection to Bank Quay, which is too small a problem for such a costly solution. So Metrolink frequencies aren't relevant.

Sixthly, this should have been an electrification commitment – fast accelerating EMUs would be great on this route, without the need to complicate things (e.g. running toiletless trams). But, given the backlog on schemes that have already been committed to (e.g. Bolton – Wigan), I can’t see the CLC getting wires any time soon. A real shame.

Agreed on both counts.

Lastly, how big are people wanting to make Warrington Central? A couple of through platforms, a couple of terminating platforms for the (Metro frequency) Liverpool terminators and a couple of platforms for the (Metro frequency) Manchester terminators)? It’s already on a viaduct with a busy road parallel. Or are there some complicated manoeuvres for how you cope with four(?) terminating services from each side without disrupting the existing “fast” services? There seems to be no room for the kind of frequencies discussed on here (given the need for terminating trains to layover and for them to cross back to the appropriate track.

The overlapping service would need no extra facilities at Central. There would be a turnback sidings at or east of Birchwood for trains from Liverpool and probably west of Sankey for those from Manchester. In both places there is space available.

 

[jamesst]

Where on earth Is all the stock meant to be coming from for these ideas? There is going to be less of the new stock for Merseyrail than they have presently with the 507/8s. This means there will barely be any strengthening of existing services let alone any new ones.
And yes there may well be an option for additional units as time goes on but anyone who believes Merseytravel will be quick to use it has there head in the clouds.

 

[Meerkat]

If they don’t extend Merseyrail beyond Hunt’s Cross surely they should at least move the through lines to go either side of the island, or even reopen the fourth platform, so that the two services can be independent? Not cheap as there is some kind of technical building on the abandoned trackbed to the east (and you might have to alter the Allerton TMD layout slightly at the headshunt end) but it can’t he helpful having the electrics crossing right across the through trains?

 

[frodshamfella]

Just spend the money now Austerity is over add a proper rail link to the airport with a station or two in Speke area and another branch up towards Gateacre and Woolton.