Merseyrail - What's the point of Hunts Cross?

[HSTEd]

The new merseyrail stock is supposed to reduce journey times by ten percent however. And if we are applying that to the whole route due to the rather anaemic performance of much of the diesel stock on the Northern slows (which produced the 20 minute journey time to Hunts Cross) we are looking at about 34 minutes and not 38.

 

[Elecman]

I think the substation(?) building just east of Hunts Cross would have to be relocated to enable Platform 3 to become a through platform - it is too close to the end of the platform at the moment. Then there would be the cost of altering the signalling as well as slewing the tracks. So not cheap.

That's Hunts Cross Signalbox not a substation

 

[MarkyT]

That's Hunts Cross Signalbox not a substation

Here are a couple of images Google found for me:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/43709405@N07/24572419362/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/43709405@N07/24596646991/in/photostream/

It is essentially what I first imagined it to be, a fairly large interlocking relay room, with an operating room also incorporated to make it a signalbox.

My sketch updated to reflect this:
http://www.townend.me/files/huntscross.pdf

 

[Greybeard33]

Here are a couple of images Google found for me:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/43709405@N07/24572419362/in/photostream/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/43709405@N07/24596646991/in/photostream/

It is essentially what I first imagined it to be, a fairly large interlocking relay room, with an operating room also incorporated to make it a signalbox.

My sketch updated to reflect this:
http://www.townend.me/files/huntscross.pdf

Yes, it looks from Google Earth as if the platform may have extended west of the bridge at one time and has since been shortened. A drawback of the new configuration would be that interchanging passengers would have cross the footbridge in both directions, rather than just westbound as now. Still a shorter walk than at South Parkway, though.

Would your proposed curves require a speed restriction for through trains? If the signal box were moved, the Platform 3 line could carry straight on along the disused half of the original four track alignment.

 

[HSTEd]

However, the 'current disaster' wouldn't exist for any future schemes as they would be implemented to the same standards as applied when they were designed.

Even when the schemes go well they still blow the original estimates used in the generation of the Electrification RUS by something like three times (it stated a target of ~£500k/track-km [page 30/120], we are at something like £1.5m and up, even when things are going well).

The fact that almost all bridges will now have to be raised on all new schemes regardless of age (in other words, there is essentially zero pre-clearance for electrification) will only serve to drive up prices further.

Kent Route Study Technical appendix, using the example of the Marshlink line, puts DC electrification at approximately ~£1.8m-£4.3/stkm and AC at £4.3m up to nearly £8.6m/stkm.
It appears huge optimism biases have been added to these figures after the performance in previous projects - but it is interesting that single end feeding for AC schemes is apparently no longer considered acceptable and identical fencing requirements are placed on both schemes.

I'd be interested to know what figures NR are basing DCCR electrification on - East London Line is the only recentish scheme I can think of, and that wasn't exactly typical.

Well I imagine the operations required for DC electrification are carried out rather more often than those for AC electrification - new DC substations are installed fairly regularly as part of power supply upgrades and renewals, and third rail has to be installed whenever track is relaid.

So there is much more of a base of data to go on - the number of overhead line structures installed per year as part of maintenance must be very very much smaller than that required for new projects.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, it looks from Google Earth as if the platform may have extended west of the bridge at one time and has since been shortened. A drawback of the new configuration would be that interchanging passengers would have cross the footbridge in both directions, rather than just westbound as now. Still a shorter walk than at South Parkway, though.

Would your proposed curves require a speed restriction for through trains? If the signal box were moved, the Platform 3 line could carry straight on along the disused half of the original four track alignment.

According to the SA it is 85 both ways through the station as far as Hunts Cross West Jn where it drops to 30 for the divergence towards Edge Hill and 20/50 and 20/60 for the Merseyrail route. I expect there would be a speed restriction for my doglegs. I think the opportunity to do something here would best coincide with resignalling which must be planned at some time in the future. With a clean sheet approach, realignment and junction reconfiguration could be carried out more readily and cost effectively alongside the renewal, and with the current SB building gone as well, the curves could be eased using the spare width of the old alignments as you describe.

I appreciate your point about cross-platform interchange. Another idea for a complete reconfiguration would be to create a single large island with tracks round the outside for the Warrington trains and a new bay to the west of Speke Rd bridge linked on the level through the bridge as per my previous lengthened platfrom #3. Merseyrail trains would use the bay clearly and would only have to cross one of the Cheshire lines (the down direction) to access it. See attached for concept.

 

[QueensCurve]

You could terminate Merseyrail at Liverpool South Parkway and avoid the (upto) 8 crossovers per hour on the mainline before reaching Hunts Cross.

Hunts Cross is served in line with other Northern Rail stations and isn't faraway from Liverpool SP by foot or by bus.

I just don't see the point of all the crossovers to terminate at Hunts Cross.

It was built to provide an interchange with the Warrington Central line at a time when "Liverpool South Parkway" (name makes me cringe) didn't exist.

It would make sense operationally if the bay of the electrics was on the South side at Hunts X so that the electrics did not have to cross over. I suspect this was seen as too expensive a modification at the time the terminus was extended from Garston.

I have never been to Liverpool South Parkway since it ceased to be Allerton. There do appear to be long walking distances between platforms on the two lines.

I personally think some sort of direct rail link to the airport would be worthwhile.

 

[daodao]

It was built to provide an interchange with the Warrington Central line at a time when "Liverpool South Parkway" (name makes me cringe) didn't exist.

It would make sense operationally if the bay of the electrics was on the South side at Hunts X so that the electrics did not have to cross over. I suspect this was seen as too expensive a modification at the time the terminus was extended from Garston.

I have never been to Liverpool South Parkway since it ceased to be Allerton. There do appear to be long walking distances between platforms on the two lines.

I personally think some sort of direct rail link to the airport would be worthwhile.

The Merseyrail DC service should be extended from Hunt's Cross to Gateacre with an intermediate station to serve new housing development. 3rd rail extension to Warrington Central is daft.

The main CLC line should be electrified at 25 kV AC from Trafford Park to Lpl S Parkway.

 

[Greybeard33]

According to the SA it is 85 both ways through the station as far as Hunts Cross West Jn where it drops to 30 for the divergence towards Edge Hill and 20/50 and 20/60 for the Merseyrail route. I expect there would be a speed restriction for my doglegs. I think the opportunity to do something here would best coincide with resignalling which must be planned at some time in the future. With a clean sheet approach, realignment and junction reconfiguration could be carried out more readily and cost effectively alongside the renewal, and with the current SB building gone as well, the curves could be eased using the spare width of the old alignments as you describe.

I appreciate your point about cross-platform interchange. Another idea for a complete reconfiguration would be to create a single large island with tracks round the outside for the Warrington trains and a new bay to the west of Speke Rd bridge linked on the level through the bridge as per my previous lengthened platfrom #3. Merseyrail trains would use the bay clearly and would only have to cross one of the Cheshire lines (the down direction) to access it. See attached for concept.

Interesting idea, but I think your previous concept would have a better BCR because it would eliminate the junction conflicts completely, rather than just reduce them.

A further improvement would be to reconnect the Allerton Depot headshunt with the CLC lines west of Hunts Cross, to simplify ECS moves to/from the depot. The connection was removed when the depot was re-electrified at 25kV AC, I presume in order to avoid the stray return current issues that could arise if the AC and DC electrified lines were interconnected. With the Merseyrail line to the south, it could be electrically isolated from the CLC lines.

According to https://signalbox.org/sectionc.php?year=2025 (not sure if this is up to date), recontrol of the CLC line to the Manchester ROC is scheduled for 2025. That might be an appropriate time to implement changes to the Hunts Cross layout at minimum cost.

It was built to provide an interchange with the Warrington Central line at a time when "Liverpool South Parkway" (name makes me cringe) didn't exist.

It would make sense operationally if the bay of the electrics was on the South side at Hunts X so that the electrics did not have to cross over. I suspect this was seen as too expensive a modification at the time the terminus was extended from Garston.

I have never been to Liverpool South Parkway since it ceased to be Allerton. There do appear to be long walking distances between platforms on the two lines.

I personally think some sort of direct rail link to the airport would be worthwhile.

South Parkway is really two separate stations joined together. Changing between the Merseyrail and mainline platforms involves three staircases/lifts, two sets of ticket barriers and a longish walk. However, it has 4tph to/from Warrington/Manchester, including the two semi-fasts, whereas Hunts Cross has only 1tph (even alternate stoppers skip the station).

 

[HSTEd]

And yet Hunts Cross records 1.4 million entries/exits compared to 1.8 million at Liverpool South Parkway, despite the latter being the 'airport station' and having a superior diesel line service.

Does demonstrate that the current CLC service is almost an irrelevance compared to the traffic on Merseyrail.

Even Ormskirk, a station at the end of the line, with only twelve trains north to preston a day, has a higher usage figure than Warrington Central.

 

[QueensCurve]

The Merseyrail DC service should be extended from Hunt's Cross to Gateacre with an intermediate station to serve new housing development. 3rd rail extension to Warrington Central is daft.

An interesting proposal. No doubt others will comment on how doable it is.

The main CLC line should be electrified at 25 kV AC from Trafford Park to Lpl S Parkway.

I would love to see that. Alas we seem to be at one of those points in history where electrification is off the cards for a generation. :cry:

 

[Greybeard33]

The Merseyrail DC service should be extended from Hunt's Cross to Gateacre with an intermediate station to serve new housing development. 3rd rail extension to Warrington Central is daft.

The main CLC line should be electrified at 25 kV AC from Trafford Park to Lpl S Parkway.

In 2015-16 Merseyrail required an operating subsidy of £72.3m, equating to 10.4p per passenger-km. https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/html/html/95218cca-408d-4047-83ce-a542c53b59e6. Only the old Northern Rail franchise had a higher subsidy level at 10.7p, but the current Arriva Rail North franchise agreement promises a substantial reduction in subsidy.

In contrast the Manchester Metrolink system generates a substantial operating surplus, which has enabled extensions to be funded through the "earnback" model.

I think it will be hard to find funding for any extensions to Merseyrail unless operating costs can be reduced and/or farebox revenue increased.

 

[ivanhoe]

In 2015-16 Merseyrail required an operating subsidy of £72.3m, equating to 10.4p per passenger-km. https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/html/html/95218cca-408d-4047-83ce-a542c53b59e6. Only the old Northern Rail franchise had a higher subsidy level at 10.7p, but the current Arriva Rail North franchise agreement promises a substantial reduction in subsidy.

In contrast the Manchester Metrolink system generates a substantial operating surplus, which has enabled extensions to be funded through the "earnback" model.

I think it will be hard to find funding for any extensions to Merseyrail unless operating costs can be reduced and/or farebox revenue increased.

You're comparing apples with oranges in your analysis. Manchester Metrolink would not have existed without substantial Government Investment to begin with. It's a great success for Manchester and good luck to it, but Merseyrail comes from different funding streams and thus for any extensions it would like to do, it has to go cap in hand to Government. Merseyrail is quite irrelevant for many parts of Liverpool and the City Region. If you live in Speke, Netherley, Stockbridge Village, Childwall,Wavertree , and large parts of North East Liverpool, it's the Bus that is the only realistic option of day to day travel. I'm not even sure that extensions within the City itself would ever pass any business case, given the high cost of building railways in the U.K. Merseytram would have been a better bet, but that ain't going to happen in the near future.

 

[HSTEd]

In 2015-16 Merseyrail required an operating subsidy of £72.3m, equating to 10.4p per passenger-km. https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/html/html/95218cca-408d-4047-83ce-a542c53b59e6. Only the old Northern Rail franchise had a higher subsidy level at 10.7p, but the current Arriva Rail North franchise agreement promises a substantial reduction in subsidy.

These figures do not tell the whole story, they make NOrthern look extremely good since the true figure for subsidies for Northern is 35.3p/passenger mile.

Pretending hundreds of miles of track, thousands of signals, dozens of signal boxes and literally hundreds of controlled level crossings, maintained for the sole use of Northern costs nothing to maintain and renew is disingenous in the extreme.

EDIT:

Northern operations between Hunts Cross and Warrington Central move hardly any passengers by Merseyrail standards, whilst requiring the same amount of track (or even more track) than a suitable Merseyrail operation would.
The only additional fixed maintenance cost that Merseyrail would occur would be the third rail infrastructure, whilst they would probably move many times as many passengers.

Variable access charges are a near negligible cost, and they will fill the trains, as they have done elsewhere.

Indeed the current Northern model on this route, operated as a duplicate of a far superior Chat Moss alignment, is the one that is unsustainable.

EDIT:

Fixed access charges are used to divide up the network grant in the stated true subsidy figures (this is the best model available to us really),
[Page 10/26] Shows that:
Northern Rail has 0.6 billion passenger-km/a
Merseyrail has 0.2 billion passenger-km/a

The schedule of fixed charges given here demonstrates that:
Merseyrails 15/16 charges are £2,251,894.21
Northern Rails 15/16 charges are £17,732,621.70

So whilst the network grant for Northern Rail is ~18p/passenger-mile, for Merseyrail it would be ~7p/passenger-mile.

Which means for Northern the value of true public subsidy is ~35p/passenger-mile
For Merseyrail it is ~25p/passenger-mile.

Rather drastic difference there.

 

[Chester1]

There is no chance of NR funding an expansion of Liverpool Central and the last one did every capacity increase short of building 2 new platforms. The station may not be able to handle a significant number of Warrington passengers and even it could it would limit capacity for growth on other services. Diverting Hunts Cross passengers into Lime Street would improve Liverpool Central and would still provide a decent service. Lime Street is less convenient but its perfectly adequate. It is a shame that 769s weren't an option at the time the Northern franchise ITT was written. A Warrington Central - Lime Street tri mode service could have been included. It would allow for the other CLC services to stop only at South Parkway and maybe Widnes west of Warrington Central and east bound passengers at smaller stations would have to change at one of them.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no chance of NR funding an expansion of Liverpool Central and the last one did every capacity increase short of building 2 new platforms. The station may not be able to handle a significant number of Warrington passengers and even it could it would limit capacity for growth on other services.

The question then becomes why NR will not fund an expansion, and how much money would actually be required to improve the station to take the additional passenger loading.

A scheme to extend to Warrington CEntral is sure to be a significant expansion in any case - so it seems likely that resources for a modest adaption of the station would be available.
Additionally there is always Liverpool St James that could potentially be reopened to spread the load a little.
The real problem is the lack of a second or third destination south of the centre of Liverpool to dispose of trains and avoid them having to turn back in the tunnels.

Diverting Hunts Cross passengers into Lime Street would improve Liverpool Central and would still provide a decent service. Lime Street is less convenient but its perfectly adequate. It is a shame that 769s weren't an option at the time the Northern franchise ITT was written. A Warrington Central - Lime Street tri mode service could have been included. It would allow for the other CLC services to stop only at South Parkway and maybe Widnes west of Warrington Central and east bound passengers at smaller stations would have to change at one of them.

Assuming people travelling from these stations and Hunts Cross actually wants to go to Central Liverpool rather than some other location on the Merseyrail Northern Line. I think the core routes are one of the big strengths of the Merseyrail system - you capture a lot of local journeys you might otherwise not be able to get hold of.

 

[birchesgreen]

I have never been to Liverpool South Parkway since it ceased to be Allerton. There do appear to be long walking distances between platforms on the two lines.

Depends what you mean by "long" but it didn't seem very far to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends what you mean by "long" but it didn't seem very far to me.

I think it's about the same as to P13/14 at Manc Picc, the domestic platforms at St P, and a load of other examples.

 

[Chester1]

The question then becomes why NR will not fund an expansion, and how much money would actually be required to improve the station to take the additional passenger loading.

A scheme to extend to Warrington CEntral is sure to be a significant expansion in any case - so it seems likely that resources for a modest adaption of the station would be available.
Additionally there is always Liverpool St James that could potentially be reopened to spread the load a little.
The real problem is the lack of a second or third destination south of the centre of Liverpool to dispose of trains and avoid them having to turn back in the tunnels.


Assuming people travelling from these stations and Hunts Cross actually wants to go to Central Liverpool rather than some other location on the Merseyrail Northern Line. I think the core routes are one of the big strengths of the Merseyrail system - you capture a lot of local journeys you might otherwise not be able to get hold of.

Any significant increase in capacity at Liverpool Central would need to include either 1 or 2 extra platforms which would cost hundreds of millions, which simply will not be funded while there are viable alternatives to divert passengers away from it. The modest adaptations were done during the recent refurbishment. There is a limit to how many passengers both the Northern Line platforms and the station as a whole can handle. There is capacity left but it would be reliant on a Warrington service not being a huge success, which defies the point. Liverpool St James reopening would cost even more than upgradin Central and another option of a station between Central and Moorfields would cost nearly £1bn. People travelling to other Northern Line stations would have to change at South Parkway.

Depends what you mean by "long" but it didn't seem very far to me.

I think it's about the same as to P13/14 at Manc Picc, the domestic platforms at St P, and a load of other examples.

I agree. Its the sort of distance which is annoying if you are struggling to make a connection but it is a viable interchange. I use it to go to Sandhills to catch the Soccer Bus because its more convenient to change there than at Lime Street and Central via Wirral line or walk between the two. Its a bus and airport shuttle stop and an interchange with both WCML services and CLC, its a far more obvious terminus than Hunts Cross. While there is no movement by ORR to allowing expansion of third rail or allowing a section of dual electrification then the status quo or CLC AC electrification and cut back of Merseyrail services to South Parkway are the only options.

 

[urbophile]

Diverting Hunts Cross passengers into Lime Street would improve Liverpool Central and would still provide a decent service. Lime Street is less convenient but its perfectly adequate. It is a shame that 769s weren't an option at the time the Northern franchise ITT was written. A Warrington Central - Lime Street tri mode service could have been included. It would allow for the other CLC services to stop only at South Parkway and maybe Widnes west of Warrington Central and east bound passengers at smaller stations would have to change at one of them.

Would there be enough capacity at Lime Street for a 4tph service to Parkway or Warrington, even after the imminent upgrade? Otherwise it seems like a good idea and would solve the Hunts Cross problem. But why would it need to be tri-mode?

However the imbalance between the south end of the Northern line, and the northern branches, would remain. More through destinations would avoid so many terminating trains at Central. Re-opening the Wapping tunnel seems like a no-brainer. As does re-opening (and hopefully renaming) St James station which is now surrounded by many creative enterprises and, if it finds a viable investor, a whole new housing development.

 

[HSTEd]

Any significant increase in capacity at Liverpool Central would need to include either 1 or 2 extra platforms which would cost hundreds of millions, which simply will not be funded while there are viable alternatives to divert passengers away from it. The modest adaptations were done during the recent refurbishment.
There is a limit to how many passengers both the Northern Line platforms and the station as a whole can handle. There is capacity left but it would be reliant on a Warrington service not being a huge success, which defies the point. Liverpool St James reopening would cost even more than upgradin Central and another option of a station between Central and Moorfields would cost nearly £1bn. People travelling to other Northern Line stations would have to change at South Parkway.

'nearly £1bn' is not a dealbreaker if it unlocks significant expansion opportunities for expanding the network - there are several route expansions that could generate large amounts of new traffic.
Any one of the expansion schemes proposed (Wigan Wallgate, Warrington Central etc etc) would cost a hundred million pounds or more each. That is simply what these things cost. One of these schemes is certainly far better value for money than something like Merseytram could ever be.

And if the station is as close as you suggest to saturation (in getting passengers on and off the platforms I assume) it is only a matter of time before natural growth forces the issue regardless.
Passenger-km growth between 15-16 Q1 and 16-17 Q1 was six percent on Merseyrail.

Any capacity left will be swamped in a handful of years at that rate.

This document indicates that a realignment of one of the approach tunnels in Central station would enable the size of the island platform to be expanded significantly - improving passenger capacity and removing a bottleneck to improving services.

It also seriously proposes JAmes Street as a new station - as well as an advertising campaign to encourage use of Moorfields.

While there is no movement by ORR to allowing expansion of third rail or allowing a section of dual electrification then the status quo or CLC AC electrification and cut back of Merseyrail services to South Parkway are the only options.

Then the status quo is the only option that makes any kind of sense.
AC electrification and cutting back Merseyrail service will strangle Hunts Cross.

 

[Chester1]

A billion pounds is a deal breaker. It shouldn't be but it is. Platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly would cost £150m and the proposed rebuild of Oxford Road a similar amount. The benefits of that scheme are equal or greater than a new station in Liverpool but NR is reluctant to spend the much smaller amount required. In my opinion (I am Merseyside born and bred not a cestrian or a manc) Liverpool has a much more "difficult" relationship with the Tories than Manchester, Leeds or Sheffield. I would be surprised if either the Tories trusted Liverpool City regions Labour councils with more than a billion of transport devolution or that the local Labour politicians would be prepared to do things the Tories way. Manchester and GM leaders have built a reputation for competancy on transport and infrastructure and have taken a pragmatic approach to devolution and build good working relationships with people they don't like e.g. George Osborne. I can't imagine Joe Anderson managing to do a joint photo op with Chris Grayling or Phillip Hammond without making a partisan political attack.

The Wigan proposal has never gained real support, Skelmersdale link might actually happen at some point but I won't hold my breath. Most of Merseytravels proposals are a fantasy e.g. taking over Chester to Crewe. Extending and widening the Northern Line island platform at Central would provide some extra capacity but as you have pointed out it could easily be used up by exisiting services. I don't expect real investment, only more making do and altering exisiting infrastructure.

In response to David Emmott - tri mode because 319s are dual volt (although Northerns units have has their DC shoes removed) and South Parkway to Hunts Cross is DC so could be used. Obviously bi model AC and Diesel would be fine too. The work at Lime Street adds 3tph of capacity but I suspect this has been allocated to other services. 2tph extra would been needed as there is already the 2tph stopping service to Oxford Road.

 

[Gathursty]

Many interesting thoughts and replies. I like the post which redesigned Hunts Cross to have the Merseyrail platform on the south side.

Without the crossover, how much more capacity would be released for the CLC line?

I'm drawn to remodelling Hunts Cross with a dedicated bus link to the airport from there, the more I look at Google Maps.

I don't think it's worth pursuing a reopening of the CLC Liverpool perimeter line through Gateacre as it is now a successful tarmac path.

It would be good to see the Wapping tunnel brought back into use and some innovative workaround to allow Merseyrail electric trains to serve Edge Hill, West Allerton and Mossley Hill to lighten the load of all stopping/semi-fast services to Manchester.

 

[fowler9]

Loads of excellent crayon and map comments from people who clearly don't know the area. Some of the ideas are great depending on where you live, a couple would seem to involve closing down my local station at West Allerton unless we can somehow squeeze loads of trains between Runcorn and Frodsham or turn Liverpools replacement for Cross Country trains in to an all shacks to Crewe. It has been interesting to read.

 

[Greybeard33]

These figures do not tell the whole story, they make NOrthern look extremely good since the true figure for subsidies for Northern is 35.3p/passenger mile.

Pretending hundreds of miles of track, thousands of signals, dozens of signal boxes and literally hundreds of controlled level crossings, maintained for the sole use of Northern costs nothing to maintain and renew is disingenous in the extreme.

Fixed access charges are used to divide up the network grant in the stated true subsidy figures (this is the best model available to us really),
[Page 10/26] Shows that:
Northern Rail has 0.6 billion passenger-km/a
Merseyrail has 0.2 billion passenger-km/a

The schedule of fixed charges given here demonstrates that:
Merseyrails 15/16 charges are £2,251,894.21
Northern Rails 15/16 charges are £17,732,621.70

So whilst the network grant for Northern Rail is ~18p/passenger-mile, for Merseyrail it would be ~7p/passenger-mile.

Which means for Northern the value of true public subsidy is ~35p/passenger-mile
For Merseyrail it is ~25p/passenger-mile.

Rather drastic difference there.

No, the true total 15/16 Government subsidy actually paid to Northern Rail was £249.1m, equating to 10.7p per passenger-km or 17.3p per passenger-mile as shown in the DfT spreadsheet you linked. Northern used part of this subsidy to pay its £17.7m Fixed Track Access Charge to Network Rail, which Network Rail spent on operations and routine maintenance of the track, signalling and level crossings across the Northern network.

Additionally DfT paid the Network Grant of £4000m direct to Network Rail for renewals and enhancements across the whole national network -see p3 of the ORR Annual Statistical Release. ORR terms this grant Direct Rail Support, but DfT choses to call it an additional subsidy that it notionally divides between the TOCs in proportion to their Fixed Track Access Charges, although it is not money that passed across the books of Northern or any other TOC.

The DfT spreadsheet you linked shows that it apportioned £260.7m of the Network Grant to Northern, equating to a notional additional "subsidy" of 18.1p per passenger-mile, for a total of 35.3p.

The DfT spreadsheet does not include Merseyrail, but if part of the Network Grant were apportioned to Merseyrail according to the ratio of its Fixed Track Access Charge to Northern's, Merseyrail's share would be £33.1m. Merseyrail's total 15/16 passenger-km were 695.7m, i.e. 432.3m passenger-miles, so the notional additional subsidy would be 33.1*100/432.3=7.7p per passenger-mile. Adding this to the actual Merseyrail subsidy of 16.7p per passenger-mile gives a notional DfT "total subsidy" of 24.4p, in line with your rough calculation.

But neither the ORR nor Network Rail publish a breakdown of Network Grant expenditure by region, still less by TOC, so DfT's assumption that it is proportional to Fixed Track Access Charges is purely arbitrary. For example, a significant proportion of Network Grant funding is currently going towards projects that are of no benefit to either Northern or Merseyrail, such as GWML and EGIP electrification and London Bridge and Waterloo station upgrades. On the other hand, Merseyrail has recently benefited from the Wirral Loop renewals and Northern from the Northwest Triangle electrification. None of this spending bears any relation to Fixed Track Access Charges, and Government capital expenditure on enhancements and renewals is not normally termed a "subsidy" in other parts of the public sector, e.g. roads.

The published ORR subsidy per passenger-km figures I quoted are based on the real net cash payments to Merseyrail and Northern and so are the best available comparative data. Extensions to Merseyrail would likely yield a negative return on the investment.

 

[fowler9]

No, the true total 15/16 Government subsidy actually paid to Northern Rail was £249.1m, equating to 10.7p per passenger-km or 17.3p per passenger-mile as shown in the DfT spreadsheet you linked. Northern used part of this subsidy to pay its £17.7m Fixed Track Access Charge to Network Rail, which Network Rail spent on operations and routine maintenance of the track, signalling and level crossings across the Northern network.

Additionally DfT paid the Network Grant of £4000m direct to Network Rail for renewals and enhancements across the whole national network -see p3 of the ORR Annual Statistical Release. ORR terms this grant Direct Rail Support, but DfT choses to call it an additional subsidy that it notionally divides between the TOCs in proportion to their Fixed Track Access Charges, although it is not money that passed across the books of Northern or any other TOC.

The DfT spreadsheet you linked shows that it apportioned £260.7m of the Network Grant to Northern, equating to a notional additional "subsidy" of 18.1p per passenger-mile, for a total of 35.3p.

The DfT spreadsheet does not include Merseyrail, but if part of the Network Grant were apportioned to Merseyrail according to the ratio of its Fixed Track Access Charge to Northern's, Merseyrail's share would be £33.1m. Merseyrail's total 15/16 passenger-km were 695.7m, i.e. 432.3m passenger-miles, so the notional additional subsidy would be 33.1*100/432.3=7.7p per passenger-mile. Adding this to the actual Merseyrail subsidy of 16.7p per passenger-mile gives a notional DfT "total subsidy" of 24.4p, in line with your rough calculation.

But neither the ORR nor Network Rail publish a breakdown of Network Grant expenditure by region, still less by TOC, so DfT's assumption that it is proportional to Fixed Track Access Charges is purely arbitrary. For example, a significant proportion of Network Grant funding is currently going towards projects that are of no benefit to either Northern or Merseyrail, such as GWML and EGIP electrification and London Bridge and Waterloo station upgrades. On the other hand, Merseyrail has recently benefited from the Wirral Loop renewals and Northern from the Northwest Triangle electrification. None of this spending bears any relation to Fixed Track Access Charges, and Government capital expenditure on enhancements and renewals is not normally termed a "subsidy" in other parts of the public sector, e.g. roads.

The published ORR subsidy per passenger-km figures I quoted are based on the real net cash payments to Merseyrail and Northern and so are the best available comparative data. Extensions to Merseyrail would likely yield a negative return on the investment.

No one is going to read that. You could have just said that Hunts Cross is a pretty busy station and the way things are probably the best place to terminate services.

 

[HSTEd]

A billion pounds is a deal breaker. It shouldn't be but it is. Platforms 15 and 16 at Piccadilly would cost £150m and the proposed rebuild of Oxford Road a similar amount. The benefits of that scheme are equal or greater than a new station in Liverpool but NR is reluctant to spend the much smaller amount required. In my opinion (I am Merseyside born and bred not a cestrian or a manc) Liverpool has a much more "difficult" relationship with the Tories than Manchester, Leeds or Sheffield. I would be surprised if either the Tories trusted Liverpool City regions Labour councils with more than a billion of transport devolution or that the local Labour politicians would be prepared to do things the Tories way.

Honestly I think that is why they have a good chance - Liverpool is so distrustful of Tories that it is difficult to place the motive of party political advantage on such a scheme.
They can sell as it as "for the good of the nation" etc etc, at that point the party political ramblings of the Labour local politicians actually help them.

But they would need a good fixer to sort it out.

The Wigan proposal has never gained real support, Skelmersdale link might actually happen at some point but I won't hold my breath. Most of Merseytravels proposals are a fantasy e.g. taking over Chester to Crewe.

Honestly I think the Wigan proposal and the Warrington ones are the strongest of the lot. The Preston one seems to be extending the trains into the middle of nowhere and requiring an interface with a major main line (we can guarantee someone would notice about that many crossing moves on the WCML! Even if on the CLC it doesn't matter). Its a major step away from the Merseyrail operational philosophy of trying to run like the London Underground (as little interface with the rest of the railway as possible).

I can't see the people who path the WCML being willing to surrender the Down Goods (from Farringonton Curve/Skew Bridge into Preston) to essentially dedicated Merseyrail use!

Extending and widening the Northern Line island platform at Central would provide some extra capacity but as you have pointed out it could easily be used up by exisiting services. I don't expect real investment, only more making do and altering exisiting infrastructure.

Theres only a limit to how long this can go on for though.

The work at Lime Street adds 3tph of capacity but I suspect this has been allocated to other services. 2tph extra would been needed as there is already the 2tph stopping service to Oxford Road.

The problem is everyone is going to be screaming for those paths - we can make cases for any number of services, for example another stopper to Crewe, stuff like that.

 

[fowler9]

Honestly I think that is why they have a good chance - Liverpool is so distrustful of Tories that it is difficult to place the motive of party political advantage on such a scheme.
They can sell as it as "for the good of the nation" etc etc, at that point the party political ramblings of the Labour local politicians actually help them.

But they would need a good fixer to sort it out.


Honestly I think the Wigan proposal and the Warrington ones are the strongest of the lot. The Preston one seems to be extending the trains into the middle of nowhere and requiring an interface with a major main line (we can guarantee someone would notice about that many crossing moves on the WCML! Even if on the CLC it doesn't matter). Its a major step away from the Merseyrail operational philosophy of trying to run like the London Underground (as little interface with the rest of the railway as possible).

I can't see the people who path the WCML being willing to surrender the Down Goods (from Farringonton Curve/Skew Bridge into Preston) to essentially dedicated Merseyrail use!



Theres only a limit to how long this can go on for though.



The problem is everyone is going to be screaming for those paths - we can make cases for any number of services, for example another stopper to Crewe, stuff like that.

All good and pretty much nothing at all to do with Hunts Cross.

 

[HSTEd]

The published ORR subsidy per passenger-km figures I quoted are based on the real net cash payments to Merseyrail and Northern and so are the best available comparative data. Extensions to Merseyrail would likely yield a negative return on the investment.

As you have stated in the remainder of your post - the subsidy payments are an abstraction that depend on any number of semi arbitrary selections, we have no real idea if the fixed access charges of the train operators in any way resemble the operating costs of the railway, and we have no idea what specific circumstances cause the subsidy requirements that they do.

For example, does Merseyrail charge lower fares on its pure Merseyrail journeys that comparable northern journeys?
Would this strategy hold for any extensions?

All these depend on the schemes involved.
Operating costs of the route under Merseyrail would be generally comparable to the existing costs or lower (there would be fewer vehicles and drivers in use since the net addition of [Merseyrail] sets, drivers and vehicles is only equal to the distance between Hunts Cross and Warrington, rather than all the way into central liverpool as with the current scheme), they would use electric traction which tends to be lower cost to operate than diesel and the only additional costs would be the electrification equipment itself.

You could even take credit for a reduction in the amount of track maintenance required because fewer train kilometres would actually be run and the section of track between LSP and Hunts Cross on the CLC alignment could be converted into a low speed transfer siding, or even lifted entirely, if you wanted to save money there.

We have to look at any scheme on its own merits, and I can't see how replacing the current Northern service with an extension to Merseyrail could possibly have a negative return on investment:-

• We run fewer train-kms with fewer drivers and fewer vehicles in revenue use than the status quo.
• We replace diesel vehicles with traditionally cheaper to operate electric vehicles
• We increase track costs for the distance between Hunts Cross and Warrington but only marginally and reduce track costs elsewhere.
• With DOO Spreading to Merseyrail, we eliminate guards on that section of line
• We make four paths per hour out of Lime Street available for other projects (stoppers and semi-fast being simply truncated, the EMT train is swapped to the Chat Moss, with a northern semi fast on that route taking its place and being truncated to Warrington Central)

I can't see how this comes out with a net increase in subsidy in all honesty.

 

[158756]

For example, does Merseyrail charge lower fares on its pure Merseyrail journeys that comparable northern journeys?
Would this strategy hold for any extensions?

Merseyrail doesn't, but Merseytravel does (including on Northern services within Merseyside). For example an all areas Saveaway costs £5.20, compared to a £6.30 off peak return to Widnes or Warrington, Merseytravel's most expensive monthly season ticket is £109, allowing travel to all stations on Merseyrail or Merseyside, a (Merseytravel) monthly season to the midpoint of the Chat Moss route is £84 and a Warrington to Liverpool monthly ticket is £145.

Precedent (the Chester, Ellesmere Port and Ormskirk lines) is that an extension to Warrington would be incorporated into the Merseytravel fares system, and it's no further so there's no obvious reason to invent any more zones.

We have to look at any scheme on its own merits, and I can't see how replacing the current Northern service with an extension to Merseyrail could possibly have a negative return on investment:-

• We run fewer train-kms with fewer drivers and fewer vehicles in revenue use than the status quo.
• We replace diesel vehicles with traditionally cheaper to operate electric vehicles
• We increase track costs for the distance between Hunts Cross and Warrington but only marginally and reduce track costs elsewhere.
• With DOO Spreading to Merseyrail, we eliminate guards on that section of line
• We make four paths per hour out of Lime Street available for other projects (stoppers and semi-fast being simply truncated, the EMT train is swapped to the Chat Moss, with a northern semi fast on that route taking its place and being truncated to Warrington Central)

I can't see how this comes out with a net increase in subsidy in all honesty.

You likely gain passengers, but if they pay Merseytravel fares you need a 20% increase in off peak travel and at least 30% on season ticket sales just to break even, and then you inevitably lose some custom from the line being split in half and losing direct services to places.

Train km - you save some between Lime Street and Hunts Cross, true. However, if the service was successful and filled the trains, you'd then need to run more trains between Liverpool Central and South Parkway to make space for existing passengers, cancelling out the savings. If the infrastructure isn't up to it that might require more investment as well.

Paths into Lime Street - might not be worth very much if they can't be used without expensive work elsewhere - Chat Moss must be getting pretty full soon and lacks anywhere obvious to send more trains, and the WCML is supposedly full beyond Weaver Junction. Mossley Hill and West Allerton still need serving as well, and slowing down Birmingham trains or a dedicated shuttle won't have good business cases.

Northern are going to what is DOO in all but name as well, though it might work out that the CLC stoppers aren't among the affected routes for now.

So when weighed against the high initial costs of electrification of the line (maybe including messing about with the WCML where they cross) and buying new trains it doesn't sound particularly straightforward to me. There'll also be some sort of penalty in the analysis for reducing the reliability of Merseyrail (simply by making it longer) and Chat Moss fasts (by loss of the diversionary route) as well.