Both of the current central stations are not particularly suited to high-speed traffic.
I accept what you say above about Warrington Central, but with regards to Warrington Bank Quay that is already on the WCML, have Network Rail ever made proposals to improve the existing railway station on the WCML?
Yes. Yet more evidence it had nothing to do with "rationalisation" and everything to do with destroying the railway to help force people into cars.
Why not just go under the Northern line use the existing platform? Like so:
Liverpool South Parkway is probably the better option if the Northern and "Suburban" lines were to share a terminus.
You're right, that's your opinion.
Why?
How much is that, really?
I've heard many absurd and nonsense things on this website, but this right here might take the cake.
Do they?
Where would you need to reverse on the WCML??
We're talking about cheap, not perfect. With the austere state of this bloody country, especially regarding investments outside of war and automobiles, we're going to have to take what we can get... unless someone wants to uproot our current economic system?
Death to rails-to-trails. Give us our bloody alignments back!
I don't believe they could if they wanted without serious demolition.
1.) Of course you would, but this was within the context of another forum member proposing a tram (which would require a segregated alignment).Yes. Yet more evidence it had nothing to do with "rationalisation" and everything to do with destroying the railway to help force people into cars.
Why not just go under the Northern line use the existing platform? Like so:
View attachment 154002View attachment 154003
Liverpool South Parkway is probably the better option if the Northern and "Suburban" lines were to share a terminus.
You're right, that's your opinion.
Why?
How much is that, really?
I've heard many absurd and nonsense things on this website, but this right here might take the cake.
Do they?
Where would you need to reverse on the WCML??
We're talking about cheap, not perfect. With the austere state of this bloody country, especially regarding investments outside of war and automobiles, we're going to have to take what we can get... unless someone wants to uproot our current economic system?
Death to rails-to-trails. Give us our bloody alignments back!
Fair, my apologies.
How is that different from trains terminating at Central and reversing? Why couldn't one service cross over and terminate at platform 1, and the other service do the same at platform 2 from the other direction? (genuine question)
3rd rail is gone. Sorry! At least the 777s can install pantographs (which is either a happy accident, or a good sign that Merseyrail might actually be capable of planning for the future...)
Did anybody actually ask for this? My idea (likewise with most people, I assume) was that any Merseyrail services going to Bank Quay would access low-level platforms, then change and leave the way it came.
It's a thing of every (modern) 3rd rail unit, at least 1 member of every class had pantograph(s) during testing, and in theory, could have them added back.
Perhaps my memory serves me false, but I think that the closure of the Park Lane goods station in November 1965 left no rail traffic using the Wapping tunnel. I think track lifting in the local rail area soon followed.
Agreed, it's a right shame.
Via Mossley Hill and Speke, of course!
1). Liv Central is dedicated to Merseyrail, while Hunts Cross has the complication of serving other NR services.
Bottom contact is a possibility, but something like APS would be a more securely safe system.
Who was asking for the "Suburban" line / "Outer loop" to stop on the CLC line platforms? I'm so confused.
If we're going to replace the current 3rd rail system with something else (either OLE or this bottom-contact system), why not replace it with the essentially universal technology that A) the current rolling stock already support, B) has vast institutional knowledge, C) has a wide range of rolling stock that already use the technology...? I could go on.
Well, there are no east facing bays at Hunts Cross, so you'd have to stop them on the CLC line platforms.
Park Lane Goods Station closed in 1972 as far as I am aware. As for Wapping Tunnel, it is partially flooded around the half way point.
You are most correct that 1972 was the date of closure. That "November 1965" date I quoted will have been the date of closure of another goods station that for some reason had stuck in my memory.
What's wrong with doing this? Is there something that would stop this at-platform reversal happening here, or (preferably) at South Parkway?
Expensive but necessary if we don't want Merseyrail to continue being a patchwork of short-term decisions to maximise profit.
There's nothing much wrong with it, apart from the single platform for the Suburban line to reverse in lacking resilience.
According to my notes, Wapping Tunnel is partially backfilled between the Saint James Street and Cornwallis Street and then flooded to Nelson Street.
Merseytravel is going to have to forget about expansion for several years. Necessary funding from central government is likely to fall rather than increase.
I disagree. Further devolution is going to mean local "metro mayors" have additional tax raising powers, and a rolling extension program with the profits from extensions covering operating costs could well be feasible.
If you think that bet will pay off, more power to you. We see overhead lines work reliably every day on our network, so I really don't understand the "battery supremacy" attitude. It's a stopgap, a massive limit to expansion, so much less reliable, and a major environmental hazard; which would you rather we replace on a regular basis, batteries or wires? If the only excuse against OLE is "it upsets the rich folk guarding the coffers" then I say it's the obvious choice.
I never said it was cheap. Unlike stopgap solutions like batteries, though: you only have to do it once.
OHLE is the obvious choice for new railways, but in terms of 3rd rail replacement, we're looking at decades before we start on that, and battery improvements in that timespan will make batteries a much better choice than what is presented to us today. With massive infrastructure investment being a barrier to conversion to OHLE on many 3rd rail network, it really does mean alternatives have to be found.
When it's your money, that's a fine gamble for you to make.
Indeed we need to spend now, but Merseyrail extensions powered by battery will save more GHG emissions now, rather than OHLE will later.
More short-term thinking. Also... the trains already have batteries. Merseyrail don't own any DMUs. What are you talking about?? If we're playing the "think about the environment" card, see my comment #295 about battery disposal.
I was talking about extending Merseyrail using battery power that are not due for wires in the next decade e.g. Wrexham. Through services would take a lot of cars off the M53.
