Liverpool Lime St remodelling

[driver_m]

The whole Allerton-Hunt's Cross area sorely needs improvement. I'd suggest making use of the width of.the formation to install 4 tracks (if necessary, taking a bit of land from the depot), 2 for Lime Street-bound trains on the north side, and 2 on the south for Merseyrail trains terminating on the south side at Hunt's Cross (with a crossover to the east to enable them to turn), and 3 / 4 tracks continuing as far east as there is space for. Sadly, any of this will probably have to wait for CLC electrification, which will.probably fail to address the problem completely and set the conflicts at Allerton in stone.

Simplest thing they could do is stop the conflicts with Merseyrail crossing over at Hunts Cross. At least then the CLC trains s could then have a better approach upto Allerton. Still needs serious money but it seems an obvious quick win.

 

[driver_m]

You've also got the ability again to cross slow to fast in the tunnels again. That was causing some problems when the trains were using the Lord Nelson side pre-blockade but headed for Mossley Hill. Edge Hill crossovers were extremely slow .

 

[driver_m]

Just a wonder, but has the old platform 7 (now P6) been shortened in length or something since work was done? Because from what I seem to remember was that what is now Platform 9 was actually too short to hold an 11-car Pendolino during the initial work where platforms were knocked out to make way for new tracks. They had to use the old platforms 7 and 9 instead, yet now it seems the same too-short platform is the designated spot for the London trains. Was some work done or something?

No, 6 is roughly as it was. The old 8 was cut back whilst they added the two new platforms and only a 9 car could go in but was then lengthened again so they could shut the old 9 platform. At that point it (8) was relabelled as platform 9 before all the others were. (The now out of use) 9 was temporarily named line Y or something like that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The 4 tracks/platforms at South Parkway are pointless with all the traffic funnelled on to the Fast (P1/2).
What's the betting the new Liverpool-Chester will be sent on the Slow with a time penalty, as pretty much the only service using P3/4?

 

[notlob.divad]

The 4 tracks/platforms at South Parkway are pointless with all the traffic funnelled on to the Fast (P1/2).
What's the betting the new Liverpool-Chester will be sent on the Slow with a time penalty, as pretty much the only service using P3/4?

Almost certainly, as it will be taking the path that the Blackpool - South Parkway service was taking.

Wavertree Junction to South Parkway, could be improved massively, simply by swapping the nominal 'fast and slow' over. (ie simply upgrade the slow tracks and equivillent signalling). Services via Hunts Cross and Via Runcorn, could then be seperated at Wavertree Junction. Once south beyond south parkway, you would slew the fast tracks on the Garston curve, thus reducing the severity of the curve, and getting the main tracks back on the north side of the formation (away from the freight facilities). Removing Platform 1/2 to Runcorn pointwork, (or reducing it to a single turnout, would give space to allow a southern extension of Platform 3 and along with making the temporary platform 4 extension permenant, could give the option for regular calls on the London services. It would vastly simplify the junction, improve reliability and give greater jounrey oppurtunities, which means the chances of any of it happening are zero.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

No, 6 is roughly as it was. The old 8 was cut back whilst they added the two new platforms and only a 9 car could go in but was then lengthened again so they could shut the old 9 platform. At that point it (8) was relabelled as platform 9 before all the others were. (The now out of use) 9 was temporarily named line Y or something like that.

It all feels very confusing having to work with all the old and new platforms numbers

 

[urbophile]

Simplest thing they could do is stop the conflicts with Merseyrail crossing over at Hunts Cross. At least then the CLC trains s could then have a better approach upto Allerton. Still needs serious money but it seems an obvious quick win.

Presumably when the present arrangement at Hunts Cross was introduced, the plan was still to extend Merseyrail to Gateacre or further. Otherwise the CLC trains could have used the northern platforms at HX (there were originally four in total) and Merseyrail the southern pair. As it is someone has gone and built a brick substation/control room/whatever which would prevent either.

 

[jamesst]

Presumably when the present arrangement at Hunts Cross was introduced, the plan was still to extend Merseyrail to Gateacre or further. Otherwise the CLC trains could have used the northern platforms at HX (there were originally four in total) and Merseyrail the southern pair. As it is someone has gone and built a brick substation/control room/whatever which would prevent either.

Hunts Cross signalbox is blocking it now!
The only cheap option I can see and one that is mooted from time to time is turning Merseyrail back at South Parkway.
The reliability of the Southport line (and Ormskirk/kirkby lines as a knock-on) can be killed at times by delays in the Hunts Cross crossover area.

 

[AndrewE]

Wavertree Junction to South Parkway, could be improved massively, simply by swapping the nominal 'fast and slow' over. (ie simply upgrade the slow tracks and equivillent signalling). Services via Hunts Cross and Via Runcorn, could then be seperated at Wavertree Junction. Once south beyond south parkway, you would slew the fast tracks on the Garston curve, thus reducing the severity of the curve, and getting the main tracks back on the north side of the formation (away from the freight facilities). Removing Platform 1/2 to Runcorn pointwork, (or reducing it to a single turnout, would give space to allow a southern extension of Platform 3 and along with making the temporary platform 4 extension permenant, could give the option for regular calls on the London services. It would vastly simplify the junction, improve reliability and give greater jounrey oppurtunities, which means the chances of any of it happening are zero.

Presumably when the present arrangement at Hunts Cross was introduced, the plan was still to extend Merseyrail to Gateacre or further. Otherwise the CLC trains could have used the northern platforms at HX (there were originally four in total) and Merseyrail the southern pair. As it is someone has gone and built a brick substation/control room/whatever which would prevent either.

Hunts Cross signalbox is blocking it now!
The only cheap option I can see and one that is mooted from time to time is turning Merseyrail back at South Parkway.
The reliability of the Southport line (and Ormskirk/kirkby lines as a knock-on) can be killed at times by delays in the Hunts Cross crossover area.

Why does it have to be a cheap option? It's vital transport infrastructure in a major UK city... so let's add a grade-separated junction into the mix if it will help things. Westbound from Hunts Cross could go either straight on to the DC lines or come up through S Parkway "high level." With this much change the location of a signal box is neither here nor there.

 

[B&I]

Hunts Cross signalbox is blocking it now!
The only cheap option I can see and one that is mooted from time to time is turning Merseyrail back at South Parkway.
The reliability of the Southport line (and Ormskirk/kirkby lines as a knock-on) can be killed at times by delays in the Hunts Cross crossover area.

So Hunt's Cross goes from roughly 6 TPH to roughly 2 ? What kind of option is that ?

 

[urbophile]

If the Northern Line turned back at Parkway (with an option to extend to the airport), a Merseyrail service could be established either from Lime Street (capacity?) or the Wapping tunnel to Warrington. It would need some rejigging of the fast and slow lines north of Parkway but would avoid a revolt from the Hunts Cross passengers and give a boost to the stations between there and Warrington.

 

[jamesst]

Why does it have to be a cheap option? It's vital transport infrastructure in a major UK city... so let's add a grade-separated junction into the mix if it will help things. Westbound from Hunts Cross could go either straight on to the DC lines or come up through S Parkway "high level." With this much change the location of a signal box is neither here nor there.

Because it would only ever be the cheap option used, let's be honest here. It's bad enough that a main route between 2 big cities (Cheshire Lines) can only...just about...manage 4 trains an hour

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Depends on your perspective. No doubt many on here with front-line experience as passengers quite reasonably hold the view that gates can be a nuisance if you have luggage or your valid ticket gets rejected (especially if one then has to wait an age for a member of staff to assist, as can often be the case). I can understand the argument that they keep many problem people out, if operational and properly staffed, however this isn't really something the average passenger should have to worry about.

Quite so. Unfortunately the spread of ticket gates has largely been mandated by the DfT with TOCs themselves seeing them as an additional driver of costs due to the need to staff them properly. It does seem that the local managers with responsibility for ticket gates have little interest in the passenger experience side of the equation. And that is a real shame.

If the Northern Line turned back at Parkway (with an option to extend to the airport), a Merseyrail service could be established either from Lime Street (capacity?) or the Wapping tunnel to Warrington. It would need some rejigging of the fast and slow lines north of Parkway but would avoid a revolt from the Hunts Cross passengers and give a boost to the stations between there and Warrington.

Because it would only ever be the cheap option used, let's be honest here. It's bad enough that a main route between 2 big cities (Cheshire Lines) can only...just about...manage 4 trains an hour

This opens up the discussion somewhat. Improved services to Warrington from Liverpool via the CLC route are an obvious step forward but realistically would need a significant rebuild of Warrington Central to accommodate them. It's crying out for additional platforms on loops to allow fast services to overtake there as well as providing turnback facilities (in both directions) but the site is both elevated and largely hemmed in. If TfN ever gets a decent budget it might be possible but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[6Gman]

The 4 tracks/platforms at South Parkway are pointless with all the traffic funnelled on to the Fast (P1/2).

The slow lines are used.

 

[fowler9]

The slow lines are used.

By pretty much nothing at least through Parkway itself. The odd Birmingham service stops at platform 3.

 

[fowler9]

Quite so. Unfortunately the spread of ticket gates has largely been mandated by the DfT with TOCs themselves seeing them as an additional driver of costs due to the need to staff them properly. It does seem that the local managers with responsibility for ticket gates have little interest in the passenger experience side of the equation. And that is a real shame.





This opens up the discussion somewhat. Improved services to Warrington from Liverpool via the CLC route are an obvious step forward but realistically would need a significant rebuild of Warrington Central to accommodate them. It's crying out for additional platforms on loops to allow fast services to overtake there as well as providing turnback facilities (in both directions) but the site is both elevated and largely hemmed in. If TfN ever gets a decent budget it might be possible but I'm not holding my breath.

Pretty much no where to expand at Warrington Central in all honesty.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Pretty much no where to expand at Warrington Central in all honesty.

It'd be another Piccadilly 15/16 monster! Effectively shift the station's centre of gravity eastward by creating a much longer site and concentrating expansion on land immediately to the east of the current station on the north side. There is at least some space there to allow a multi-track layout but if we can't get funding for big projects in Liverpool and Manchester what chance does Warrington have?!

 

[fowler9]

It'd be another Piccadilly 15/16 monster! Effectively shift the station's centre of gravity eastward by creating a much longer site and concentrating expansion on land immediately to the east of the current station on the north side. There is at least some space there to allow a multi-track layout but if we can't get funding for big projects in Liverpool and Manchester what chance does Warrington have?!

Yeah, spot on mate. Cracking idea but in all honesty never going to happen. Physically very possible but like you say if they won't pay for it in Liverpool and Manchester it won't happen in Warrington. We can dream. Like the thinking though.

 

[edwin_m]

This would also move the station away from its convenient position next to the bus station and close to the centre. Possibly even further out than Bank Quay is on the other side!

There are other ways to improve capacity and performance on the CLC route, principally around short workings for the stoppers, that don't need an expensive and disruptive scheme at Warrington Central. These have been discussed at great length recently on other threads.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

This would also move the station away from its convenient position next to the bus station and close to the centre. Possibly even further out than Bank Quay is on the other side!

There are other ways to improve capacity and performance on the CLC route, principally around short workings for the stoppers, that don't need an expensive and disruptive scheme at Warrington Central. These have been discussed at great length recently on other threads.

Perhaps you misunderstand me. Warrington Central would become much longer than now and would still have access points in roughly the same places as now. But it would be much bigger and travellators would be an important facility to include. Unfortunately as mentioned the chance of sufficient funding ever being found for a decent modern station in somewhere like Warrington is very small indeed.

 

[Crossforth]

Platform 1 seems to have a train in it

 

[childwallblues]

319382 was probably testing the OHLE.

 

[AMD]

It formed the 1030 to Wilmslow.

 

[geoffk]

View attachment 53708
Platform 1 seems to have a train in it

I suppose that keeping the old platform 1 would have given two platforms of restricted length so it was taken out.

 

[johnmoly]

View attachment 53708
Platform 1 seems to have a train in it

Your photo seems to me to suggest that is platform 2. The track has been lifted in platform 1.

 

[mcnw35282]

The trackless platform is now redundant...the train is indeed on what is now platform 1. The platforms were all re-numbered after the refurbishment works earlier this year.

 

[johnmoly]

The trackless platform is now redundant...the train is indeed on what is now platform 1. The platforms were all re-numbered after the refurbishment works earlier this year.

You are correct, I obviously didn't engage brain before typing. I did wonder why when it was announced years ago that Lime Street would be getting an extra two platforms making it 11 platforms in all - like it used to be years ago - why we ended up with only another one.

 

[swt_passenger]

You are correct, I obviously didn't engage brain before typing. I did wonder why when it was announced years ago that Lime Street would be getting an extra two platforms making it 11 platforms in all - like it used to be years ago - why we ended up with only another one.

It’s called public relations. They also claimed 5 ‘new’ platforms at Reading for a net increase of 3...

 

[fowler9]

195103 currently sat in new platform 1 at Lime Street along with a pair of 142's.

 

[fowler9]

Oh my god, Failing Grayling is just outside the window of the 323 I am sat on on platform 2. Press everywhere. That explains why there is a pair of pacers parked up with a 195 on the new platform. Trying to make the useless belter look like he has achieved something.