Merseyside: New stations planned

[Camden]

Closing the Helsby to Ellesmere Port line would be a bit short sighted considering the Wirral Waters project. This route used to be well used.

Helsby has always struck me as a perfect place for a major park and ride just off the motorway, we're Ellesmere Port trains extended to serve it. Especially with the Mersey-Dee link approved, even more so.

I also can't see the route being closed.

 

[edwin_m]

1. To extend Merseyrail to Warrington would probably need them to widen part of the line to 4 tracks, providing loops for fast trains to overtake the slower Merseyrail trains - so not a cheap option.

2. Any new Merseyrail stock is likely to be optimised for rapid acceleration, hence a low maximum speed - maybe as low as 60-70 mph. That will make it unsuitable for operation on most parts of the WCML (e.g. to Crewe or Preston via Wigan), because it would reduce the number of available paths.

I don't think it's that bad. The timetable could be revised so an all-stations Merseyrail Warrington service would replace the existing stoppers on that section. The conflict between slower and faster trains would then only be for the shorter distance from Hunts Cross West Junction to Warrington, not all the way into Lime Street, and EMUs with better acceleration would reduce the conflict with faster trains. With the number of stations on that section the maximum speed isn't too important, though I would have thought they would go for 75mph to give reasonable journey times on the Chester route.

 

[Camden]

I don't think it's that bad. The timetable could be revised so an all-stations Merseyrail Warrington service would replace the existing stoppers on that section. The conflict between slower and faster trains would then only be for the shorter distance from Hunts Cross West Junction to Warrington, not all the way into Lime Street, and EMUs with better acceleration would reduce the conflict with faster trains. With the number of stations on that section the maximum speed isn't too important, though I would have thought they would go for 75mph to give reasonable journey times on the Chester route.

I've used the Chester route a few times, by my recollection there are only two very short sections where they get anywhere near top speed (between Hooton and Capenhurst, and Capenhurst and Bache), with only about 3 miles between them. A difference of half a minute each would surely be more than made up by the faster acceleration on those two sections themselves, let alone the hundred and fifty (a slight exaggeration maybe) other stops.

 

[8A Rail]

Closing the Helsby to Ellesmere Port line would be a bit short sighted considering the Wirral Waters project. This route used to be well used.

Bevan stated to "passengers" only - not actually referring to that section of line being closed. Remember, although not what it used to be, freight still transverses the line and will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Bevan stated to "passengers" only - not actually referring to that section of line being closed. Remember, although not what it used to be, freight still transverses the line and will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

Apologies, I did of course mean to passengers only.
There is plenty of scope for more freight once Quinn Glass finally complete their line into the factory. Perhaps Growhow will also start using rail again.

 

[edwin_m]

I've used the Chester route a few times, by my recollection there are only two very short sections where they get anywhere near top speed (between Hooton and Capenhurst, and Capenhurst and Bache), with only about 3 miles between them. A difference of half a minute each would surely be more than made up by the faster acceleration on those two sections themselves, let alone the hundred and fifty (a slight exaggeration maybe) other stops.

Thanks for the info. Hope it doesn't attract any D78s!

I don't know what benefit might result from Merseytravel going for a 60mph unit for any Merseyrail replacement fleet. All current designs for main line operation are 75mph or above so there's probably no cost saving. They might go for a Metro design such as S stock, which has smaller wheels and could allow level boarding. But this would most likely be a DC-only unit anyway.

 

[po8crg]

Ellesmere Port-Helsby might be somewhere that batteries would be useful, if the current operators of the refinery raise the same problems on electrification as Shell did in 1993.

 

[Camden]

Thanks for the info. Hope it doesn't attract any D78s!

I don't know what benefit might result from Merseytravel going for a 60mph unit for any Merseyrail replacement fleet. All current designs for main line operation are 75mph or above so there's probably no cost saving. They might go for a Metro design such as S stock, which has smaller wheels and could allow level boarding. But this would most likely be a DC-only unit anyway.

The Merseyrail lines are fully electric, although I do remember a mention years ago an idea of converting D stock to 3rd rail! Not likely though.

Acceleration is the key, when there are tens of stations 1 and 2 minutes apart and that simply tends to come hand in hand with lower top speed. Seeing how the network is and how it is used, I would be very surprised if it wasn't something almost exactly like the S stock. I rather like the boxy nature of the existing trains myself.

 

[flypie]

The Merseyrail lines are fully electric, although I do remember a mention years ago an idea of converting D stock to 3rd rail! Not likely though.

Acceleration is the key, when there are tens of stations 1 and 2 minutes apart and that simply tends to come hand in hand with lower top speed. Seeing how the network is and how it is used, I would be very surprised if it wasn't something almost exactly like the S stock. I rather like the boxy nature of the existing trains myself.

The S Stock is design for 750v but is running on 630v, but the suggestion is that even at this lower voltage it out accelerates the A Stock, and suffer no lack of top speed. So I suspect the 62mph is not a physical limit.

The reduced weight of the S and the improvements in electric motors mean it is quiet likely that an S class with a bit more power could get to 75 mph quiet easily, if they cannot already.

Interesting Merseyrails current trains are heavier than the D Class.
What would really improve speed is ETCS level 3 on the network which would allow closer running with the dynamic moving blocks.

The size of the wheels is important for the same installed power, with the same gearing to the wheels smaller wheels will accelerate faster but give a lower top speed.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

Bevan stated to "passengers" only - not actually referring to that section of line being closed. Remember, although not what it used to be, freight still transverses the line and will continue to do for the foreseeable future.

I have just read on the February Helsby Parish Council Minutes that the rail link into Encirc (which was Quinn Glass) is due for completion in June 2015.

 

[edwin_m]

The S Stock is design for 750v but is running on 630v, but the suggestion is that even at this lower voltage it out accelerates the A Stock, and suffer no lack of top speed. So I suspect the 62mph is not a physical limit.

The reduced weight of the S and the improvements in electric motors mean it is quiet likely that an S class with a bit more power could get to 75 mph quiet easily, if they cannot already.

Interesting Merseyrails current trains are heavier than the D Class.
What would really improve speed is ETCS level 3 on the network which would allow closer running with the dynamic moving blocks.

The size of the wheels is important for the same installed power, with the same gearing to the wheels smaller wheels will accelerate faster but give a lower top speed.

I think there are also other factors to do with wheel size that limit speed, but I don't know the details and Google didn't throw up anything useful. Possibly something to do with the wheel-rail contact patch being smaller and therefore having more stresses for the same axle load?

 

[flypie]

I think there are also other factors to do with wheel size that limit speed, but I don't know the details and Google didn't throw up anything useful. Possibly something to do with the wheel-rail contact patch being smaller and therefore having more stresses for the same axle load?

Hertzian theory of non-adhesive elastic contact apparently, big wheels better adhesion.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adhesion_railway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_mechanics#Hertzian_theory_of_non-adhesive_elastic_contact

 

[Wavertreelad]

No that is not the case; Merseytravel would stay as would the Authorities in the other administrative areas that are to be covered by Rail North. The integration of the operator under the consolidated 'Northern' franchise will facilitate rationalisation of back-office/admin services and the more complete integration of services into the Northern Hub.

We come back to the issue that any new "Northern" franchise will still be considerably shorter than the existing Merseyrail franchise or concession. Any attempt to make major changes to this would inevitably cost the taxpayer a fortune for little benefit over the existing arrangement which is likely to be "tweeked" under the new "Northern" franchise in any event. Having said this I'd agree there are certain routes that would benefit from a more integrated approach with "Northern" continuing to operate services on behalf of both all the authorities in the Rail North area.

 

[Camden]

We come back to the issue that any new "Northern" franchise will still be considerably shorter than the existing Merseyrail franchise or concession. Any attempt to make major changes to this would inevitably cost the taxpayer a fortune for little benefit over the existing arrangement which is likely to be "tweeked" under the new "Northern" franchise in any event. Having said this I'd agree there are certain routes that would benefit from a more integrated approach with "Northern" continuing to operate services on behalf of both all the authorities in the Rail North area.

Regardless of whether it was possible, you'd be fools to trust them is the problem with that. You might have an eye on a better service, but they won't (not for you anyway).

Better to maintain the separation of the system and actually have one, than have it taken over and frequencies reduced to half-hourly, lines closed, odd service patterns, etc, etc. There's only one thing on these people's minds and that's feeding the supposed Manchester POWERHOUSE (and if you're not included, which trust me Liverpool aint, you're either food or foe. And I think Liverpool is seen as a bit of both).

 

[Wavertreelad]

That is not what was envisioned to be the Wirral Waters. This project has been re-located from the New Ferry area, and it is a long way from the close to GBP 10B project it was set out to be. The commercial core of the project is dead, and is not likely to be revived in the near future.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


My understanding is, and that is based on project reports available at the time, that Tesco would have been making a financial contribution to the project, and that the anticipated footfall attracted by the store played a major part in the justification of the project. The costs can be re-worked, and there is also the possibility of a replacement stepping in, but at the moment I suspect that the scope of project will need to be reviewed at the very least.

I suspect with any long term project such as Wirral or Liverpool Waters it was inevitable that it would affected by the recent economic difficulties and that the original plans would be altered many times over the years. I can remember what Salford Docks used be like in the 1960's and see every working day what Peel has achieved at Salford in the last forty to fifty years and who would have expected back then the changes that have been made, albeit be a lot of public money to facilitate the redevelopment of the entire area.


As far as I was aware Tesco were contributing to the rebuilding of the town centre shopping area and the football stadium, but not the station. I'd doubt both schemes if built together would provide sufficient a business case for the construction of the new station.

 

[Camden]

He's also factually incorrect about Wirral Waters, by the way. Wirral skyscrapers might be a while off yet, but a firm part of the plans they still are.

 

[flypie]

The Merseyrail lines are fully electric, although I do remember a mention years ago an idea of converting D stock to 3rd rail! Not likely though.

Acceleration is the key, when there are tens of stations 1 and 2 minutes apart and that simply tends to come hand in hand with lower top speed. Seeing how the network is and how it is used, I would be very surprised if it wasn't something almost exactly like the S stock. I rather like the boxy nature of the existing trains myself.

Any idea why the Box Trains, S Class D class etc have non aerodynamic front and backs, yet no way of linking them into through units?

 

[Wavertreelad]

Connecting the lines via Gartson docks is would be possible but not only is the port there now there is a housing estate nearer town. The original route is now the Gaston bypass.

In there 30 year plan Merseytravel do include a link between CLC and WCML via Liverpool airport, but provide no details. I suspect it would have to be a tunnel just after allerton curve on the CLC.

That was my thinking. There is no room on either side of the line to branch off and tunnel under what is there. I also think the line would not be possible mainly because of the new housing.

I'd agree on the present alignment the Garston Bye pass does cover the path of the original route, but I think it would be possible to realign the short section between the end of Aigburgh Road and Dock Road, if necessary "burying" the link under the Garston Bye Pass with a short cut and cover tunnel. Building a curve from the Northern Line to the WCML near LSP would likely be more difficult and expensive due because as far as I can see it would also require tunnelling under residential areas, whereas building under the Garston Byepass avoids the problem totally.

 

[fowler9]

I'd agree on the present alignment the Garston Bye pass does cover the path of the original route, but I think it would be possible to realign the short section between the end of Aigburgh Road and Dock Road, if necessary "burying" the link under the Garston Bye Pass with a short cut and cover tunnel. Building a curve from the Northern Line to the WCML near LSP would likely be more difficult and expensive due because as far as I can see it would also require tunnelling under residential areas, whereas building under the Garston Byepass avoids the problem totally.

The thing is how do you cut and cover anywhere around there without closing the bypass and sending all the road traffic through Garston Village or demolishing new build houses? There is no space at the side of the Northern Line to tunnel deep enough. The cutting isn't deep enough. As soon as you leave the Northern line you are in to the foundations of houses or very busy roads.

 

[flypie]

I'd agree on the present alignment the Garston Bye pass does cover the path of the original route, but I think it would be possible to realign the short section between the end of Aigburgh Road and Dock Road, if necessary "burying" the link under the Garston Bye Pass with a short cut and cover tunnel. Building a curve from the Northern Line to the WCML near LSP would likely be more difficult and expensive due because as far as I can see it would also require tunnelling under residential areas, whereas building under the Garston Byepass avoids the problem totally.

You can do the link as proposed without going under housing.

I'd want a flying or burrowing junction just to avoid clogging things up.

 

[flypie]

The thing is how do you cut and cover anywhere around there without closing the bypass and sending all the road traffic through Garston Village or demolishing new build houses? There is no space at the side of the Northern Line to tunnel deep enough. The cutting isn't deep enough. As soon as you leave the Northern line you are in to the foundations of houses or very busy roads.

The two bits of the 30 year report are

City Line Enhancement
Create a direct fixed rail link to Liverpool Airport, Speke and beyond, served by Merseyrail-type trains and with connections at Liverpool South Parkway.

Halton Curve.
Restore direct connectivity to Wrexham and North Wales from Liverpool and Liverpool Airport;

The interesting bit is it doesn't specify mainline trains, but if Merseyrail was to use train trams then the section through could use that but it would provide connectivity to North Wales.

 

[fowler9]

You can do the link as proposed without going under housing.

I'd want a flying or burrowing junction just to avoid clogging things up.

You have got railway lines on the level with a retail park disappearing underground almost instantly under one of the cities main roads and a load of relatively new business developments. I work minutes away and go for a walk around there most days on my lunch. It is a nice idea but it isn't going to happen without buying loads of land and building a very steep tunnel. I am assuming that you don't think this would ever be done without it being in a tunnel.

 

[flypie]

You have got railway lines on the level with a retail park disappearing underground almost instantly under one of the cities main roads and a load of relatively new business developments. I work minutes away and go for a walk around there most days on my lunch. It is a nice idea but it isn't going to happen without buying loads of land and building a very steep tunnel. I am assuming that you don't think this would ever be done without it being in a tunnel.

Well you might do it overhead.

I'm going mainly on this diagram from Merseytravel 30 year plan.

TBMs can do amazing things.

 

[fowler9]

Well you might do it overhead.

I'm going mainly on this diagram from Merseytravel 30 year plan.

TBMs can do amazing things.

No offence intended because as I said I am around there every day and maybe you aren't but you wouldn't just need amazing TBM's but also amazing trains to run on the profile of the route. I think at the moment you would be looking at DLR type trains rather than the ones running to Southport, Chester etc. The route from the Liverpool spur of the WCML includes a very steep drop or a very steep climb over or under a busy access road to the New Mersey Retail Park. Then over or under one of the major access routes to the city by road. It then follows the route of Estuary Boulevard (I used to work in a building there, and am now not to far away) which is busy 24 hours a day serving B&M's massive warehouses, Prinovis and many other businesses, other sites are being built as I type this. Estuary Boulevard also forms part of the Mersey Forest project which you are either tunnelling under or building over. As you get closer to the river your route then cuts across a shed load of National Trust land by Speke Hall. I can't see a massive railway viaduct being built across there without a fight. All I can say is I don't think it will ever happen.

 

[flypie]

No offence intended because as I said I am around there every day and maybe you aren't but you wouldn't just need amazing TBM's but also amazing trains to run on the profile of the route. I think at the moment you would be looking at DLR type trains rather than the ones running to Southport, Chester etc. The route from the Liverpool spur of the WCML includes a very steep drop or a very steep climb over or under a busy access road to the New Mersey Retail Park. Then over or under one of the major access routes to the city by road. It then follows the route of Estuary Boulevard (I used to work in a building there, and am now not to far away) which is busy 24 hours a day serving B&M's massive warehouses, Prinovis and many other businesses, other sites are being built as I type this. Estuary Boulevard also forms part of the Mersey Forest project which you are either tunnelling under or building over. As you get closer to the river your route then cuts across a shed load of National Trust land by Speke Hall. I can't see a massive railway viaduct being built across there without a fight. All I can say is I don't think it will ever happen.

There are no technical problems building the route, in the end it would need to be find tuned to avoid causing major problems. Whether it follows the boulevard goes under it or to one side is irrelevant. The only bit I can see being on the surface is after the airport.

 

[fowler9]

And to put it another way the Airport Express bus has been cut back from 3 buses an hour to 2 and finishes quite early. In fact at two times during the day it goes to hourly and is not overcrowded. My local airport lost the battle with Ringway a long time ago. We have fantastic services but the only thing I feel is missing is a direct BA flight to Heathrow which for many on Merseyside who don't live where I do would be negated by their direct links to Ringway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are no technical problems building the route, in the end it would need to be find tuned to avoid causing major problems. Whether it follows the boulevard goes under it or to one side is irrelevant. The only bit I can see being on the surface is after the airport.

Yeah but you already assumed that sticking a mainline style railway line right through that area and across National Trust land is not a problem. I suggest you get on your feet and actually look at the area instead of bits that don't look built up on a map. This is what I am trying to tell you. Think about what it would cost and how much it would actually benefit anyone. And by the way you can't go to one side of Estuary Boulevard to build your dream railway. As for the bits after the airport I presume you mean towards Runcorn, you can't just dig it up and build over it. It belongs to someone. Aside from the fields there are several roads in that area which people use. You can't just stick them all on the Speke Road so a few people can get the train to the airport.

 

[flypie]

And to put it another way the Airport Express bus has been cut back from 3 buses an hour to 2 and finishes quite early. In fact at two times during the day it goes to hourly and is not overcrowded. My local airport lost the battle with Ringway a long time ago. We have fantastic services but the only thing I feel is missing is a direct BA flight to Heathrow which for many on Merseyside who don't live where I do would be negated by their direct links to Ringway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yeah but you already assumed that sticking a mainline style railway line right through that area and across National Trust land is not a problem. I suggest you get on your feet and actually look at the area instead of bits that don't look built up on a map. This is what I am trying to tell you. Think about what it would cost and how much it would actually benefit anyone.

Under and I've made no such assumption, I'm simply looking at the technical possibilities, in the end a cost benefit analysis will be the final determinate, and those costs would have to include compensation and relief for any people or organisations effected.

I have a line going under National trust property, going under roads. If cross rail can be put through with tunnels dug under very densely populated areas then this no problem whatsoever.

The reason London stop using cut and cover was that while the work was cheaper paying compensation to those inconvenienced by the building of the tunnel made it far more expensive.

If Merseyrail had the cash and said build it it would be done, what you are doing is reading in far to much detail into what are basically sketches of a project. Picking holes in detail which is not actually there. If roads have to be dug up temporary relief routes can be provided. The processes of civil engineering are subtle than just turning up with a bull dozer one day it smashing everything on the route down.

I personally think it's not a good plan and using train trams with surface running would be far more sensible and provide the majority of the benefits, for far less cost.

 

[fowler9]

Under and I've made no such assumption, I'm simply looking at the technical possibilities, in the end a cost benefit analysis will be the final determinate, and those costs would have to include compensation and relief for any people or organisations effected.

I have a line going under National trust property, going under roads. If cross rail can be put through with tunnels dug under very densely populated areas then this no problem whatsoever.

The reason London stop using cut and cover was that while the work was cheaper paying compensation to those inconvenienced by the building of the tunnel made it far more expensive.

If Merseyrail had the cash and said build it it would be done, what you are doing is reading in far to much detail into what are basically sketches of a project. Picking holes in detail which is not actually there. If roads have to be dug up temporary relief routes can be provided. The processes of civil engineering are subtle than just turning up with a bull dozer one day it smashing everything on the route down.

I personally think it's not a good plan and using train trams with surface running would be far more sensible and provide the majority of the benefits, for far less cost.

Sorry mate, I can see what you are saying but I am not picking holes, I live and work in the area you are talking about. I would be intrigued to see how you would get tram trains through the area we are talking about at surface level. It took me 5 minutes on lunch today to get across Speke Road. If we are going to have steep climbs to viaducts or steep dives to tunnels then these will not be the trains that do longer services to Southport. And I just don't thing JLA warrants the investment especially when the express bus service has been cut back. Where is the airport going to expand to? Can you see a second runway being built? The current one can take the biggest aircraft on the planet. Passenger numbers aren't being held back by the lack of a direct rail link.

 

[flypie]

I do it the same way Manchester Metrolink does it and run from Lime Street it wouldn't just be serving the Airport but Speke as well.
If you go on the Manchester metro it manges so quiet step climbs to short via ducts http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/lrv_m5000.html come off WCML service start at Lime Street and end at Widnes South, DItton, Warrington or Runcorn.

 

[fowler9]

I do it the same way Manchester Metrolink does it and run from Lime Street it wouldn't just be serving the Airport but Speke as well.
If you go on the Manchester metro it manges so quiet step climbs to short via ducts http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/lrv_m5000.html come off WCML service start at Lime Street and end at Widnes South, DItton, Warrington or Runcorn.

Yeah but come on mate. I wanted to give you a list of airlines flying to Manchester compared to Liverpool but it would have taken all night so here is a link. http://www.manchesterairport.co.uk/manweb.nsf/Content/WhichTerminal. On a regular basis Livepool gets Easyjet, Ryanair, Flybe, Wizzair, Blue Air (They are infrequent).

Do you really think Liverpool should have a direct rail link paid for?