Proposed new Liverpool & Manchester Railway

[8A Rail]

That’s all well and good if we can have our cake and eat it, but I suspect the business case for the NPR will be based on forcing people onto the new route. Providing attractive alternatives on the existing lines will just hurt the BCR for the whole scheme.

That is the point, improvements / enhancements on the present lines is the most important priority as that will benefit far more people over a wider area (away from the immediate city centre populations) and that is were extra money should be going.

 

[HSTEd]

Will there even be line capacity between Lime St and Allerton Junction for better local services when NPR is competing for the Space?

It has been made clear that the Wapping Tunnel isn’t part of these plans, so none of the City Line services are moving to Merseyrail. This means that Lime Street will remain at full capacity and will struggle to cope with any extra local services.

Well in this case you could extend Merseyrail to Warrington, which eliminates the current 4 trains per hour from Lime Street, which would become available for Chat Moss services (of which there are already 3) or to free platforms for a new railway.
And a new railway wouldn't need that much platform space to operate if it was self contained.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just been looking at the population figures of main national settlements in population terms in the Liverpool to Leeds central region and whilst this thread concerns itself with 4th and 6th ones, has there ever been much discussion on similar new rail routes between the 3rd (Leeds) and 5th (Sheffield)?

 

[Nottingham59]

Faster slow trains would do the trick.

Faster acceleration of stopping trains is the key factor. You'd get that with electrification, of course.

And turn the siding at WAC into an eastbound loop.

A short passing loop doesn't help much. The most effective intervention on a mixed-traffic two track railway is quadrupling of the line at the half-way point, long enough to include two adjacent stations. You can then schedule the fast train to pass the stopper when it is between the two stations. With only one station in the loop, the stopping train will usually have to pause while the faster train overtakes.

On the CLC, I'd say there might be space to quad the line from Padgate to Birchwood. The M6 and B5210 overbridges seem to have been built to allow this. If that's possible, then it would roughly double the capacity of the CLC route.

 

[Tremzinho]

Well in this case you could extend Merseyrail to Warrington, which eliminates the current 4 trains per hour from Lime Street, which would become available for Chat Moss services (of which there are already 3) or to free platforms for a new railway.
And a new railway wouldn't need that much platform space to operate if it was self contained.

There are good arguments for extending Merseyrail to Warrington, but getting rid of all through services on the route will be very unpopular.

If, as you also suggest, Metrolink services take over the other half of the route then commuters will be forced to change at Warrington from a slow train to an even slower tram and also buy separate tickets for each half of the journey.

The final question in all this is what happens to Mossley Hill and West Allerton under your proposal? They will be left without any trains, unless you add stops to the Birmingham and Chester services, which then adds to the journey times on those routes. Liverpool South Parkway will also lose all direct trains to Manchester, unless the NPR is going to stop there.

 

[stephen rp]

There are good arguments for extending Merseyrail to Warrington, but getting rid of all through services on the route will be very unpopular.

If, as you also suggest, Metrolink services take over the other half of the route then commuters will be forced to change at Warrington from a slow train to an even slower tram and also buy separate tickets for each half of the journey.

The final question in all this is what happens to Mossley Hill and West Allerton under your proposal? They will be left without any trains, unless you add stops to the Birmingham and Chester services, which then adds to the journey times on those routes. Liverpool South Parkway will also lose all direct trains to Manchester, unless the NPR is going to stop there.

It is hard work, this thread, isn't it?

Faster acceleration of stopping trains is the key factor. You'd get that with electrification, of course.


A short passing loop doesn't help much. The most effective intervention on a mixed-traffic two track railway is quadrupling of the line at the half-way point, long enough to include two adjacent stations. You can then schedule the fast train to pass the stopper when it is between the two stations. With only one station in the loop, the stopping train will usually have to pause while the faster train overtakes.

On the CLC, I'd say there might be space to quad the line from Padgate to Birchwood. The M6 and B5210 overbridges seem to have been built to allow this. If that's possible, then it would roughly double the capacity of the CLC route.

The passing loop would be at Warrington Central, no land take needed, and an express could be in the platform almost before the stopper had stopped in the loop. Only needed, like Glazebrook westbound, when the express is late.

And I think you'd need a good geology survey for peat bogs before you quadrupled near Birchwood.

 

[The Planner]

Faster acceleration of stopping trains is the key factor. You'd get that with electrification, of course.


A short passing loop doesn't help much. The most effective intervention on a mixed-traffic two track railway is quadrupling of the line at the half-way point, long enough to include two adjacent stations. You can then schedule the fast train to pass the stopper when it is between the two stations. With only one station in the loop, the stopping train will usually have to pause while the faster train overtakes.

On the CLC, I'd say there might be space to quad the line from Padgate to Birchwood. The M6 and B5210 overbridges seem to have been built to allow this. If that's possible, then it would roughly double the capacity of the CLC route.

If you are looking at fixing the timetable like this, then you put any overtaking opportunity at the location where the following train doesn't need to be pathed out. It doesnt mean thats at the halfway point.

 

[stephen rp]

What's wrong with TfGM locals?
And even with no other upgrades, electrification of the non-electrified portion fo the CLC isn't going to come in under ~£300m. It's about 80 track kilometres.

Add upgrades and the price rapidly rockets upwards for not much at all.


Attractive service to the likes of Irlam et al is hardly going to be attractive to passengers travelling from Liverpool or Warrington to manchester is it?
Or do you think people would prefer to spend ages on a stopping train rather than travel on a railway not built in the Victorian era?


Would electrification of the CLC actually be necessary?
Assuming you don't go for the conversion of Warrington to Manchester to Metrolink, is there any real need to do so?

CLC electrification was 2nd on the list after the Calder Valley in the Northern Sparks proposals a few years ago. Government now talking about electrifying Stockport-Sheffield so that would be 2tph Liverpool-Sheffield under wires - and instant improvement of the service. Major cost might be track lowering under umpteen overbridges.

Surprise, the Manchester Rail Recovery Group prioritised TfGM services on the Castlefield Corridor, cutting the CLC from 4tph to 3tph (and leaving the new £20m station at Warrington West with 1tph to Manchester off peak).

 

[HSTEd]

There are good arguments for extending Merseyrail to Warrington, but getting rid of all through services on the route will be very unpopular.

If, as you also suggest, Metrolink services take over the other half of the route then commuters will be forced to change at Warrington from a slow train to an even slower tram and also buy separate tickets for each half of the journey.

Or... they would change onto the fast line at Warrington, or double back through Manchester or Liverpool? A connection between the two stations would be a small fraction of the cost of any scheme.
Additionally, a tram will not be substantially slower than the current train, given the low top speed of the route and the frequent stations.

The final question in all this is what happens to Mossley Hill and West Allerton under your proposal? They will be left without any trains, unless you add stops to the Birmingham and Chester services, which then adds to the journey times on those routes. Liverpool South Parkway will also lose all direct trains to Manchester, unless the NPR is going to stop there.

Mossley Hill and West Allerton trains would transfer onto the Birmingham-Liverpool EMU services.
They manage 220,000 passengers between them, compared to the traffic that would be generated from Merseyrail level services on the rest of the line, they are pretty minor losses.

It is hard work, this thread, isn't it?


The passing loop would be at Warrington Central, no land take needed, and an express could be in the platform almost before the stopper had stopped in the loop. Only needed, like Glazebrook westbound, when the express is late.

But.... there is no room for a passing loop at Warrington Central is there?

The station is on a two track viaduct, surrounded by other two track viaducts.

EDIT:
To clarify, no room for a long passing loop. There appears to be room for a short passing loop to the east of Warrington Central, but I'm not sure what good that would do.

 

[Grimsby town]

Or... they would change onto the fast line at Warrington? A connection between the two stations would be a small fraction of the cost of any scheme.
Additionally, a tram will not be substantially slower than the current train, given the low top speed of the route and the frequent stations.

Mossley Hill and West Allerton trains would transfer onto the Birmingham-Liverpool EMU services.
They manage 220,000 passengers between them, compared to the traffic that would be generated from Merseyrail level services on the rest of the line, they are pretty minor losses.


But.... there is no room for a passing loop at Warrington Central is there?

The station is on a two track viaduct, surrounded by other two track viaducts.

I don't see much opposition to removing the fast services. Most stations will get a far better service than currently even if journey times are slightly slower. Most plans for removing direct services on the CLC include overlap in services through Warrington. So services run from Warrington West to Manchester, and from Birchwood to Liverpool. Some journeys will be worse e.g. Widnes to Manchester, or Urmston to Liverpool but the far bigger flows from Widnes to Liverpool, and Urmston to Manchester will have better services.

 

[frodshamfella]

Or... they would change onto the fast line at Warrington, or double back through Manchester or Liverpool? A connection between the two stations would be a small fraction of the cost of any scheme.
Additionally, a tram will not be substantially slower than the current train, given the low top speed of the route and the frequent stations.

Mossley Hill and West Allerton trains would transfer onto the Birmingham-Liverpool EMU services.
They manage 220,000 passengers between them, compared to the traffic that would be generated from Merseyrail level services on the rest of the line, they are pretty minor losses.


But.... there is no room for a passing loop at Warrington Central is there?

The station is on a two track viaduct, surrounded by other two track viaducts.

EDIT:
To clarify, no room for a long passing loop. There appears to be room for a short passing loop to the east of Warrington Central, but I'm not sure what good that would do.

Not sure it's acceptable to add.more stops to Birmingham to Liverpool, there is enough already. At one time there were Liverpool to Crewe locals that would work.

 

[185]

I see mention of Liverpool Airport. Perhaps a guided bus or fake tram would be suitable for linking this to South Parkway, with a tunnel or bridge under the Garston triangle & through the New Mersey Retail Park.. this would create a 5 minute journey. It's hardly sensible to put LPL Airport on any new NPR heavy rail line given the airport's passenger numbers.

 

[Grimsby town]

I see mention of Liverpool Airport. Perhaps a guided bus or fake tram would be suitable for linking this to South Parkway, with a tunnel or bridge under the Garston triangle & through the New Mersey Retail Park.. this would create a 5 minute journey. It's hardly sensible to put LPL Airport on any new NPR heavy rail line given the airport's passenger numbers.

Another problem is the lack of catchment area at Liverpool John Lennon. There's river to the west and south and not much directly to the east. The only population is to the north and most of that is better served by Liverpool South Parkway. On the other hand, a Manchester Airport station would act as hub for south Manchester as well as the airport.

There's nothing stopping NPR services calling at Liverpool South Parkway if needed. A tram service would be cheaper and a better option to serve Liverpool Airport. That could be achieved by taking over two of the heavy rail tracks between South Parkway and Edge Hill.

 

[MarkyT]

I see mention of Liverpool Airport. Perhaps a guided bus or fake tram would be suitable for linking this to South Parkway, with a tunnel or bridge under the Garston triangle & through the New Mersey Retail Park.. this would create a 5 minute journey. It's hardly sensible to put LPL Airport on any new NPR heavy rail line given the airport's passenger numbers.

So a posh bus with a low level automation of some sort (i.e just steering) over some part of the route, some bus lanes and traffic priority measures! You could also plausibly take a Merseyrail route out that way. A station might be possible In the retail park too, in a trench, but you'd want to make sure to either avoid or go under the old airport building just opposite. The old taxiway might then be followed right round past the back of Speke Hall. Agree it's not sensible to route NPR via the airport itself, adding yet more indirectness. A South Parkway stop is sensible because the station is just north of the most significant curve on the Allerton corridor at ~800m radius (about 75mph?). If all or most trains were to stop there then the curve matters less for its effect on speed capability. Yes the Edge Hill curve is much tighter, but by then you're on final approach only a couple of miles out from the stops at Lime Street.

There's nothing stopping NPR services calling at Liverpool South Parkway if needed. A tram service would be cheaper and a better option to serve Liverpool Airport. That could be achieved by taking over two of the heavy rail tracks between South Parkway and Edge Hill.

I think that capacity will be needed for the residual local traffic once NPR/HS2 takes one pair of the 4-track corridor.

 

[185]

Merseytravel's previous shenanigans with Merseytram effectively resulted in it's leader Mr Snails spending £20M on some consultant friends of his and a nice shiny beware of trams sign at Liverpool One bus station. Was thinking setting the bar a little lower for Merseydrivel would make projects like this more achievable.

 

[gc4946]

Faster acceleration of stopping trains is the key factor. You'd get that with electrification, of course.


A short passing loop doesn't help much. The most effective intervention on a mixed-traffic two track railway is quadrupling of the line at the half-way point, long enough to include two adjacent stations. You can then schedule the fast train to pass the stopper when it is between the two stations. With only one station in the loop, the stopping train will usually have to pause while the faster train overtakes.

On the CLC, I'd say there might be space to quad the line from Padgate to Birchwood. The M6 and B5210 overbridges seem to have been built to allow this. If that's possible, then it would roughly double the capacity of the CLC route.

The only other option using existing lines speeding up Liverpool-Manchester times would be to electrify the remaining diesel-operated section of the CLC route, with selected quadrupling in places.
Before Beeching closed the line, there was a cutoff avoiding Warrington Central, used by express trains, which ran in a straight line from Sankey Brook to just before Padgate.
However I imagine the cost of its reinstatement would be prohibitive.

 

[childwallblues]

Another problem is the lack of catchment area at Liverpool John Lennon. There's river to the west and south and not much directly to the east. The only population is to the north and most of that is better served by Liverpool South Parkway. On the other hand, a Manchester Airport station would act as hub for south Manchester as well as the airport.

There's nothing stopping NPR services calling at Liverpool South Parkway if needed. A tram service would be cheaper and a better option to serve Liverpool Airport. That could be achieved by taking over two of the heavy rail tracks between South Parkway and Edge Hill.

To the north of the Airport is the massive Speke housing estate which only has bus connections to Liverpool South Parkway via Route 80 which takes a cumbersome route around the Garston area.

 

[Grimsby town]

To the north of the Airport is the massive Speke housing estate which only has bus connections to Liverpool South Parkway via Route 80 which takes a cumbersome route around the Garston area.

Yes Speke is not well served and obviously a station at the Airport would improve connectivity for the area. The point I'm making is that a station at the airport would only benefit Speke. The population of Speke is 15k. That's not a large enough catchment to justify spending hundreds of millions if not billions on an NPR station.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Merseytravel's previous shenanigans with Merseytram effectively resulted in it's leader Mr Snails spending £20M on some consultant friends of his and a nice shiny beware of trams sign at Liverpool One bus station. Was thinking setting the bar a little lower for Merseydrivel would make projects like this more achievable.

Was the friendship that you refer to something that was discovered during an investigation in the spending of that capital sum?

 

[snowball]

Before Beeching closed the line, there was a cutoff avoiding Warrington Central, used by express trains, which ran in a straight line from Sankey Brook to just before Padgate.
However I imagine the cost of its reinstatement would be prohibitive.

West of the A49, and a bit to the east of the A49, it appears to be built on.

 

[Tremzinho]

Or... they would change onto the fast line at Warrington, or double back through Manchester or Liverpool? A connection between the two stations would be a small fraction of the cost of any scheme.
Additionally, a tram will not be substantially slower than the current train, given the low top speed of the route and the frequent stations.

Mossley Hill and West Allerton trains would transfer onto the Birmingham-Liverpool EMU services.
They manage 220,000 passengers between them, compared to the traffic that would be generated from Merseyrail level services on the rest of the line, they are pretty minor losses.

This is getting more and more surreal. So thousands of people who now catch a direct train every day instead face longer journeys and either have to double back to catch the NPR or face a 15 minute walk across Warrington. Seems like a great use of £17Bn.

Presumably they will have to find a way to squeeze in the current TPE South and East Midland Trains services on the Chat Moss line, or is Liverpool going to lose even more of its direct services?

And Liverpool will get an even slower Birmingham service to fill in for the local services that will be lost. All to knock a few minutes off Lime Street to Piccadilly journey times.

 

[GJMarshy]

Given the discussion I'm sure this piece will be of interest to a lot of you!

Should we put our neck on the LAMA Line? Clarity sought on proposed new Liverpool and Manchester rail link | Enroute

Blog Llamas are known for their distinctively long necks, and they also share an unexpected connection with the newly proposed Liverpool to Manchester railway, announced yesterday at the UK Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum (UKREiiF). Dubbed the “Liverpool And...

enroutecic.com

Highlight the key questions left unanswered, and suggests alternatives that might also be considered.

Marshy.

 

[HSTEd]

This is getting more and more surreal. So thousands of people who now catch a direct train every day instead face longer journeys and either have to double back to catch the NPR or face a 15 minute walk across Warrington. Seems like a great use of £17Bn.

Examination of adjacent stations suggests Liverpool South Parkway has a few hundred thousand passengers per year not on Merseyrail (although I don't have the ODM matrix to make sure). These passengers are spread across trains north, south and west. I would not be surprised if the number of passengers actually travelling to stations east of Warrington is comparatively small.
Whilst I am not saying noone will lose out, I expect the vastly improved local service to outweigh the comparatively small number.

If the walk turns out to be an issue, comparatively inexpensive solutions are available to improve the links between the two stations.

EDIT:
However, the fastest/slowest train time differential for Warrington Central-Manchester is only ~11 minutes. In essence, we'd be comparing four/five trains/trams per hour at 30 minutes vs two trains per hout at 20. The current stopper takes long enough to barely matter.

For Warrington West, it goes from one train per hour to Manchester now to 4 trains to Warrington Central, then 4/5 from there to Manchester.
For South parkway, there is an hourly 13 minute train direct to Lime Street, or four hourly 19 minute trains (with a walk from Central). They can then board the 25 minute fast train to Manchester and arrive in about ~46-47 minutes. Comparable to the ~40-42 minute current time, but at higher frequency.

Presumably they will have to find a way to squeeze in the current TPE South and East Midland Trains services on the Chat Moss line, or is Liverpool going to lose even more of its direct services?

They could always be squeezed in, but they would have to take the role of the all station stoppers on the Chat Moss.
The journey time advantage of the new line would be substantial and almost everyone would probably take the fast train to Piccadilly and change.

But I guess if people want to, we coudl do that and they could avoid changing trains.

And Liverpool will get an even slower Birmingham service to fill in for the local services that will be lost. All to knock a few minutes off Lime Street to Piccadilly journey times.

The major benefit would be enabling an enormous increase in shorter distance traffic on the Chat Moss and CLC lines, as well as an explosion in intercity traffic between Manchester and Liverpool.

Finally, the train would allow you to do Lime Street to Warrington BQ in a few minutes, at which point the Liverpool-Birmingham direct trains can be supplemented via simply changing at Warrington for southbound trains on the WCML. Depending on the vagaries of the timetable that will likely lead to an effective increase in frequency.

 

[stephen rp]

EDIT:
However, the fastest/slowest train time differential for Warrington Central-Manchester is only ~11 minutes. In essence, we'd be comparing four/five trains/trams per hour at 30 minutes vs two trains per hout at 20. The current stopper takes long enough to barely matter.

It's 16 minutes. And most people at Oxford Road will stand on the fast train rather than get a seat on the slow. (From Piccadilly there's only the fast.)

For Warrington West, it goes from one train per hour to Manchester now to 4 trains to Warrington Central, then 4/5 from there to Manchester.
For South parkway, there is an hourly 13 minute train direct to Lime Street, or four hourly 19 minute trains (with a walk from Central). They can then board the 25 minute fast train to Manchester and arrive in about ~46-47 minutes. Comparable to the ~40-42 minute current time, but at higher frequency.

Er... paths at Castlefield?

That's 25 mins to the airport, not to Manchester. You've just argued that people aren't bothered about slower journeys but why on earth would they go the wrong way and change stations for a slower trip?

Finally, the train would allow you to do Lime Street to Warrington BQ in a few minutes, at which point the Liverpool-Birmingham direct trains can be supplemented via simply changing at Warrington for southbound trains on the WCML. Depending on the vagaries of the timetable that will likely lead to an effective increase in frequency.

They're still quoting 18 mins to Warrington, though no-one's said how they'd improve Lime Street to Ditton (15 mins) or get from Ditton to Warrington in 3 mins

People aren't really going to go from Liverpool to change at Warrington rather than take a direct train that might (subject to vagaries) save 10 mins - or might leave them missing the 1tph connection at Warrington.

 

[CdBrux]

Passengers also want to travel to Liverpool Airport, and better than it is now. We need to build this for the future of the NW, these passengers are not just from LCR either, they come from Manchester and beyond. A simple link be it Merseyrail or from the mainline would do the trick and give stations to 2 other areas too

.If you want to build a super fast train from Liverpool to Manchester via Manchester Airport,.do it, but I think the route is an expensive mistake, when an upgraded and electrified CLC would do the job very well. There is a danger this scheme will never happen due to massive cost

Same as Luton airport who for years had a dedicated shuttle bus from the nearby rail station (every 10 mins or more frequent) and eventually had enough numbers to justify a 'rail' link to replace the busses. Would something like this not work from Liverpool South Parkway?

 

[HSTEd]

It's 16 minutes. And most people at Oxford Road will stand on the fast train rather than get a seat on the slow. (From Piccadilly there's only the fast.)

Er... paths at Castlefield?

That's 25 mins to the airport, not to Manchester. You've just argued that people aren't bothered about slower journeys but why on earth would they go the wrong way and change stations for a slower trip?

A new construction line, like the one I proposed, from Liverpool to Manchester would be able to do end-to-end in 25 minutes, with two intermediate stops at Warrington and Manchester Airport. I wasn't really referring to the rather vague current proposals specifically, as this series of responses started with "we could always go to the extreme".

They would change trains because frequency is freedom. People have been repeatedly shown to prefer frequency over journey times.

They're still quoting 18 mins to Warrington, though no-one's said how they'd improve Lime Street to Ditton (15 mins) or get from Ditton to Warrington in 3 mins

Through new construction, many things are possible.
17 minutes isn't even very aggressive for new construction given the short distance and performance of modern trains.

 

[stephen rp]

Through new construction, many things are possible.

Apart from anything remotely approaching a business case.

 

[Tremzinho]

Examination of adjacent stations suggests Liverpool South Parkway has a few hundred thousand passengers per year not on Merseyrail (although I don't have the ODM matrix to make sure). These passengers are spread across trains north, south and west. I would not be surprised if the number of passengers actually travelling to stations east of Warrington is comparatively small.
Whilst I am not saying noone will lose out, I expect the vastly improved local service to outweigh the comparatively small number.

If the walk turns out to be an issue, comparatively inexpensive solutions are available to improve the links between the two stations.

EDIT:
However, the fastest/slowest train time differential for Warrington Central-Manchester is only ~11 minutes. In essence, we'd be comparing four/five trains/trams per hour at 30 minutes vs two trains per hout at 20. The current stopper takes long enough to barely matter.

For Warrington West, it goes from one train per hour to Manchester now to 4 trains to Warrington Central, then 4/5 from there to Manchester.
For South parkway, there is an hourly 13 minute train direct to Lime Street, or four hourly 19 minute trains (with a walk from Central). They can then board the 25 minute fast train to Manchester and arrive in about ~46-47 minutes. Comparable to the ~40-42 minute current time, but at higher frequency.



They could always be squeezed in, but they would have to take the role of the all station stoppers on the Chat Moss.
The journey time advantage of the new line would be substantial and almost everyone would probably take the fast train to Piccadilly and change.

But I guess if people want to, we coudl do that and they could avoid changing trains.

The major benefit would be enabling an enormous increase in shorter distance traffic on the Chat Moss and CLC lines, as well as an explosion in intercity traffic between Manchester and Liverpool.

Finally, the train would allow you to do Lime Street to Warrington BQ in a few minutes, at which point the Liverpool-Birmingham direct trains can be supplemented via simply changing at Warrington for southbound trains on the WCML. Depending on the vagaries of the timetable that will likely lead to an effective increase in frequency.

I’m starting to think this is a wind up. So people in and visiting Liverpool should expect to change trains if they’re travelling anywhere except Warrington, Manchester or Manchester Airport?

On another thread there is a frequent suggestion of splitting Manchester’s XC services to increase capacity and end diesel running under wires. There is always mass outrage at the suggestion that Manchester doesn’t need a direct service to every corner of the country, but Liverpool should accept losing even more of its direct routes.

A new construction line, like the one I proposed, from Liverpool to Manchester would be able to do end-to-end in 25 minutes, with two intermediate stops at Warrington and Manchester Airport. I wasn't really referring to the rather vague current proposals specifically, as this series of responses started with "we could always go to the extreme".

They would change trains because frequency is freedom. People have been repeatedly shown to prefer frequency over journey times.


Through new construction, many things are possible.
17 minutes isn't even very aggressive for new construction given the short distance and performance of modern trains.

While this is a speculative thread, we are discussing the (admittedly vague) scheme proposed by Mayors Burnham and Rotheram, not our personal high speed line ideas.

Not much can be done to increase line speed between Lime Street and Ditton Junction, which as others have said takes 15 minutes. You can, at great expense, straighten out the kinks on the Fiddler’s Ferry line, but by then you have little time to accelerate before slowing down again to stop at Bank Quay. 18 minutes seems unrealistic, then throw in potential stops at Liverpool South Parkway and/or a new parkway in Halton. You might get to Manchester Airport in 30 minutes, but the full route to Piccadilly will not beat the current 36 minute TPE service to Victoria.

 

[HSTEd]

Not much can be done to increase line speed between Lime Street and Ditton Junction, which as others have said takes 15 minutes.

Why are we going to Ditton Junction in the first place?
The objective is to serve Warrington, not crawl out to Widnes on the existing line?

It would be a bit odd if the proposal for a new fast line began with "crawl along the existing, congested line for 15 minutes", then magically teleport to Warrington.
If the performance claimed cannot be achieved by this route, then the occam's razor solution is that this route is not the one that is being proposed.

I’m starting to think this is a wind up. So people in and visiting Liverpool should expect to change trains if they’re travelling anywhere except Warrington, Manchester or Manchester Airport?

The most succesful railway system in the UK, the London Underground/DLR/Overground is based around large numbers of people regularly changing trains. If the railway is going to gain a large share of the market in the post-carbon transport world, it is going to have to allow painless and easy changing of trains - it simply cannot function otherwise.

And, later, the line would extend to Sheffield, Leeds etc. But we would have to start somewhere with something of relatively small scope or the scheme would simply collapse like HS2 has.

On another thread there is a frequent suggestion of splitting Manchester’s XC services to increase capacity and end diesel running under wires. There is always mass outrage at the suggestion that Manchester doesn’t need a direct service to every corner of the country, but Liverpool should accept losing even more of its direct routes.

Am I those people?
Not everyone outside Liverpool is involved in a giant conspiracy against the city you know.

 

[The Planner]

Not much can be done to increase line speed between Lime Street and Ditton Junction, which as others have said takes 15 minutes. You can, at great expense, straighten out the kinks on the Fiddler’s Ferry line, but by then you have little time to accelerate before slowing down again to stop at Bank Quay. 18 minutes seems unrealistic, then throw in potential stops at Liverpool South Parkway and/or a new parkway in Halton. You might get to Manchester Airport in 30 minutes, but the full route to Piccadilly will not beat the current 36 minute TPE service to Victoria.

Ditton can be done in 12½ now, if you don't stop before Warrington 18 is easily doable.

Why are we going to Ditton Junction in the first place?
The objective is to serve Warrington, not crawl out to Widnes on the existing line?

It would be a bit odd if the proposal for a new fast line began with "crawl along the existing, congested line for 15 minutes", then magically teleport to Warrington.

It will be a new alignment, but will follow that route.