• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

New platforms for Liverpool Lime Street

Status
Not open for further replies.

pablo

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
606
Location
53N 3W The blue planet
... and this wouldn't be the same at Lime Street?

Maybe by the time HS2 arrives, in twenty year's time, there'll be teletransporters so all you'll have to say is, "beam me (wherever) Scotty".

You'll settle for no HS2 teminus in LPL then? Because one ain't going to fit in Lime Street Stn.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,810
True, the unused infrastucture is there for some way out but GWR? Exchange Stn was never in a 'good position'. L&Y heritage? And Wallgate is only 200m. Ooooh!
I'd plumb for Edge Hill which can easily take a 400m station. There is plenty of room. There used to be four tracks through Olive Mount cutting out to Huyton (St. Helens Jcn?) After that I suppose it's a new route to intersect HS2 ph2 north of the delta junction in Cheshire.
The advantage of EH over LPL JL is that it's quite centrally positioned in the conurbation and Merseyrail can be extended, as intended back in der dem days, to take in the City Line and provide good distribution around the city and beyond.

It was 4 tracks as far as Huyton Junction. Unfortunately, there are obstacles that prevent the restoration of 4 tracks throughout. Firstly, roads & bridges associated with the M62 now occupy part of the trackbed at Broad Green.

Secondly, Wavertree Technology Park station occupies much of the trackbed of the former fast lines.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,559
Using any Liverpool terminus other than Lime Street makes things just as inconvenient as it will be by putting the Birmingham terminal at Curzon Street. Passengers changing between local & HS2 services would have to waste time taking themselves + luggage between two stations, negating much of the benefit of faster journeys on HS2.

The exchange site is adjacent to moorfields, probably making it better connected than Lime Street.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,810
The exchange site is adjacent to moorfields, probably making it better connected than Lime Street.

Whilst it might be possible to create a new Exchange station, getting it connected to anywhere else would be difficult, unless they built a very expensive tunnel under parts of Liverpool. There is now no space to reinstate 4 tracks at Sandhills, and mixing a high speed line with Merseyrail Electric services to Kirkby would mean slow journey times. A connection near Kirkdale to the LBT - Edge Hill line might be feasible, but the junction at Edge Hill faces the wrong way for trains heading for London - and the Wavertree Industrial Estate now blocks any possibility of building a direct line from Edge Lane Junction to Wavertree Junction. Going via Olive Mount Junction & Earlestown to Warrington Bank Quay would create a slow route, as it would be almost impossible to widen the Huyton to Earlestown section, and there would be a mixture of slow & fast services sharing 2 tracks.

Connecting "new Exchange" to the former Liverpool Riverside to Edge Hill line would involve some fairly sharp curves and steepish gradients, and there would be a need to find paths to cross the busy slow lines at Edge Hill.

The easiest place to build any new station in Liverpool might be Crown Street, but some property demolition would be needed, and it is only really convenient for Liverpool University. This route would avoid path conflicts with the slow lines at Edge Hill. A better but very expensive solution might be a new tunnel from the Crown Street line to a "deep level" HS2 terminal adjacent to Lime Street.

So, I suspect we are stuck with utilising the limited capacity at Liverpool Lime Street for HS2 & conventional services - assuming HS2 ever gets built....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
...

Maybe by the time HS2 arrives, in twenty year's time, there'll be teletransporters so all you'll have to say is, "beam me (wherever) Scotty".

.

Teleporting people will never happen. The computer power required to remember & reassemble every atom in a human body in the correct order is horrendously large. (The average body contains in the region of 10 raised to the power of 27 - 28 atoms; the number of feasible arrangements of so many atoms is huge. )

The most that might ever happen is transporting tiny amounts of a single element...
 

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,929
Location
St Neots
Teleporting people will never happen. The computer power required to remember & reassemble every atom in a human body in the correct order is horrendously large. (The average body contains in the region of 10 raised to the power of 27 - 28 atoms; the number of feasible arrangements of so many atoms is huge. )

The most that might ever happen is transporting tiny amounts of a single element...

You're assuming teleportation will involve atom-reconstruction.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,810
You're assuming teleportation will involve atom-reconstruction.
Technically molecule reconstruction rather than atom reconstruction. Just a few molecules incorrectly orientated during reconstruction and your brain / memories could be scrambled. Except that the size of computer memory bank needed to contain your "image" would be impossibly large.

For anyone interested in Star Trek gadgets, I suggest they look for oldish copies of a book "The Physics of Star Trek" by Lawrence M. Krauss (Harper Collins 1996 / Flamingo paperback 1997)
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
26,646
Location
Nottingham
If we're talking teleporting then why do we need HS2 in the first place?

Any such discussion should surely be on the HS2 thread...
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
34,037
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
Teleporting people will never happen. The computer power required to remember & reassemble every atom in a human body in the correct order is horrendously large. (The average body contains in the region of 10 raised to the power of 27 - 28 atoms; the number of feasible arrangements of so many atoms is huge.)

The most that might ever happen is transporting tiny amounts of a single element...

Well, I will never forget the ORIGINAL film "The Fly" and what happened when a fly happened to be in the transportation chamber at the time of activation...:roll:
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,559
Whilst it might be possible to create a new Exchange station, getting it connected to anywhere else would be difficult, unless they built a very expensive tunnel under parts of Liverpool.

As far as I can tell you need one diveunder to get to wigan and HS2.

There is now no space to reinstate 4 tracks at Sandhills

There appears to be room for at least one extra line, especially since I think that platform is wider than the regulation minimum width for an island platform in the regulations for new construction.

and mixing a high speed line with Merseyrail Electric services to Kirkby would mean slow journey times.

As far as I can tell you could manage an entirely isolated HS2 connection, albeit single line with maybe only one diveunder depending on where you take the intermediate route.

My route would be follows:

1. You head north past the Northern Line tunnel portal with the station approach lines collapsing to one track, you want to end up on the eastern side of the Merseyrail lines as this simplifies things later on.

2. You then end up on the viaduct that leads to Sandhill station (after the merseyrail lines are slewed onto the eastern side of the viaduct) which seems to be wide enough for 4 tracks, so you could double this section if you really wanted although I will assume in my capacity calculations that this is left single.
(If doubled this would primarily provide a place for trains to wait if the station is full or possibly for the stabling of stock if this is required).

3. We now reach Sandhills.
It appears that the platform is enormous, almost 9m wide at its widest point.... whereas the Railway Group Standards (from their website) indicate that the minimum width for a platform on a line with speeds <165km/h is only 4m.

So reconstruction of the station platform would allow for ample space for a single track to pass, even including a noise barrier between the Merseyrail lines and the High Speed track to the east of it.

4. Folowing North from Sandhills we bear east staying with the line towards Kirkdale, there appears to be space here for two tracks but as these sorts of spaces are often used for the placement of equipment and road access we shall restrict ourselves to a single track.
Passing east of the platforms at Kirkdale station and into one of the disused tunnels which I presume could be increased in clearance at fairly reasonable cost (by railway standards) since it most certainly is not on an active railway line.
Regardless it is relatively short.

I am unable to determine if there is a continuous tunnel on the disused line or if they reemerge at the Skylight but it would not appear to make significant amounts of difference to the cost of the project. (Since you could build a big wall between the Merseyrail and high speed lines to make the skylight a non railway site as well).

5. We then approach walton, where the diveunder comes in:
We will dive under the Kirkby line and Walton station's small carpark and appear on the eastern side of the Merseyrail line to Ormskirk.

6. Approaching Orrell Park we have a bit more of a problem:
There appears to be insufficient space to scrape another line through the station, and I propose the following:
Demolish the southbound platform and rebuild it as a one-faced island further up the line (shifting it North seems the more practical), potentially with both lines slewed to the west if insufficent space exists inside the railway boundary to allow it otherwise.

7. You then proceed north with a single line, still on the eastern side of the Merseyrail tracks, which will unfortunately require the reconstruction of some overbridges (although it sort of looks like there were other lines before perhaps this can be avoided).

8. Now approaching Aintree, you will convert the north bound platform into an island with a new face on its western side, with the Merseyrail lines slewed over into it, using what appears to be the alignment of a current siding/loop line.

The current southbound platform would be demolished and the High Speed line would run where its line/platform face is now, the existing footbridge could continue to serve as the bridge to the combined platforms on the newly instated island.

9. And we now approach our final challenge: the Station at Old Roan.
I would propose a similar solution to Orrell Park, with the southbound platform shifted south, with the low speed of the Merseyrail lines (and that all trains are all shacks) allowing for some fairly drastic slewing to make room through the station.

10. Crossing over the main road and passing the Asda we now bear east away from the Merseyrail line and pass between Maghul and Melling, heading out of open country towards Wigan and our rendevous with HS2.

The single track line between the breakaway at Asda and the Moorfields High Level (to emphasise the interchange?) station is approximately 7700m.
Since the high speed alignment could be made fairly straight you could set the speed limit to 230km/h (which is the maximum speed for the swingnose crossings used in the HS2 design assumptions).

A Cl395 could transit the single line section from a standing start (assuming it has the road to Wigan) in approximately 3 minutes reaching a speed of ~ 215km/h. Even though a normal HSR set will be slower of the mark it will likely catch up thanks to its far higher power rating when the test is 0-230km/h as it is here so I think the figure is defensible.
Adding another minute for padding that means the northbound path is 4 minutes. The southbound path would probably take ~5 minutes, leaving us with a 9 minute "cycle time".

That allows ~6 paths per hour, and leaving one free for recovery would allow five pairs of services per hour to operate over the branch, which is more than necessary.

Pathing trains in 2 minutes apart would allow 4 "cycles" to operate, allowing eight services in each direction each hour (if you only flighted trains in pairs).

That is enough to saturate any reasonable demand.

All it took was the reconstruction of the Platforms at Sandhill, new platforms (with the old platforms demolished) at Orrel Park, Aintree and Old Roan, a diveunder under railway land/lines at Walton and a lot of slewing of Merseyrail lines.

While not cheap it is hardly a bank breaking option, especially considering that after this section you only have ~20km of greenfield track over fairly easy terrain to build to reach HS2 somewhere south of Wigan.

Single lines may be an anethema to many around here but with high speed routes they can be made to work.
 
Last edited:

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
731
How about build a connection at Warrington to the CLC line and upgrade that to "semi-high speed" which is would then allow HS2 compatible stock to run on HS2 for the maximum distance at high speed. The existing route to Lime Street could then be followed using compatible stock. Alternatively, if the whole route was cleared for HS2 stock as far as Edge Hill there is still plenty of space for a new station on the south side of the station, or connect one of the existing tunnels on a single line if necessary to a new station at Liverpool Waters as I posted earlier. This would allow at least an hourly HS2 train to London, with a stop at Warrington, whilst compatible stock could still provide an hourly or more service stopping at Runcorn, Crewe and even Birmingham to London. The call at Warrington would put additional bums on seats which would all help pay for seats and provide a premium service for passengers travelling to and from London, whilst the existing routing could offer a more budget price service with plenty of additional options.
 

pablo

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
606
Location
53N 3W The blue planet
Quote: ....
2. You then end up on the viaduct that leads to Sandhill station (after the merseyrail lines are slewed onto the eastern [western?) side of the viaduct) which seems to be wide enough for 4 tracks, ........

Oh, so you propose an even more GWR than through Kirkby and W W?
It looks technically feasable to me and I appreciate the HS route is quick, but trace the path of someone living in, say Allerton, Wavertree, Childwall, West Derby, Norris Green or, even more extreme, Fazackerly and wanting to go darn sarf. They would travel a time-wasting spiral path before heading south. Coming back; a circle to land?
I think most peeps would look for a more direct escape route.

Your proposal is just as feasible out east from EH or even an u/g LS :) Actually, an overhead deck at LS would be more buildable. Gradient easier. Might even get 400m in then!

Wavertreelad; you are using confusing terminology. It's either Captive or Classic Compatible. What does HS2 compatible mean?
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,559
Quote: ....
Oh, so you propose an even more GWR than through Kirkby and W W?
It looks technically feasable to me and I appreciate the HS route is quick, but trace the path of someone living in, say Allerton, Wavertree, Childwall, West Derby, Norris Green or, even more extreme, Fazackerly and wanting to go darn sarf. They would travel a time-wasting spiral path before heading south. Coming back; a circle to land?
I think most peeps would look for a more direct escape route.

At 320/230kph its probably still got the direct route beat for time, which is the important thing more than the actual kilometre-age travelled.

Your proposal is just as feasible out east from EH or even an u/g LS :) Actually, an overhead deck at LS would be more buildable. Gradient easier. Might even get 400m in then!

You can get 400m into the exchange site if you only need three platforms, and an overhead deck would be fairly buildable over such a narrow station (or you could just use the full width of the car park instead of only part of it and put the concourse to the side of the platforms).
And Gradients are fairly irrelevent since High Speed rail trainsets can ascend gradients like 2.5% without braking a sweat or even losing excessive speed.

One line in Germany is built to allow 4% gradients.
If Merseyrail can manage that route (and it seems it can) then High speed rail certainly can.

(Merseyrail can't simply scream POWAH! and charge the slope :D )
 
Last edited:

pablo

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
606
Location
53N 3W The blue planet
I can see how 400m can be shoe-horned into the Exchange site.
My gradient and upper deck/400m comments related to Lime Street.

I was looking at the Crown Street site on Google and what a piece of vandalism? Houses, student accom and a park on the site now.
Back in the mid-fifties the manager at Edge Hill Goods, a neighbour, took me down the line from Edge Hill to Crown Street. Redundant coal wagons blocked Stephenson's single track tunnel so we had to walk down the adjacent unused Wapping tunnel(?) At CS, all the infrastructure from the 1830s was still in place. the small turntables for four-wheeled stock, the platforms and the station offices. More or less as Stephenson had them built.
What an attraction that would make today? Sorry about the drift..........!
 

HowardGWR

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2013
Messages
4,981
I can see how 400m can be shoe-horned into the Exchange site.
My gradient and upper deck/400m comments related to Lime Street.

I was looking at the Crown Street site on Google and what a piece of vandalism? Houses, student accom and a park on the site now.
Back in the mid-fifties the manager at Edge Hill Goods, a neighbour, took me down the line from Edge Hill to Crown Street. Redundant coal wagons blocked Stephenson's single track tunnel so we had to walk down the adjacent unused Wapping tunnel(?) At CS, all the infrastructure from the 1830s was still in place. the small turntables for four-wheeled stock, the platforms and the station offices. More or less as Stephenson had them built.
What an attraction that would make today? Sorry about the drift..........!
Interesting drift Pablo. I got terribly confused trying to locate the goods depot but then realised there are two Crown Streets, one in the north and one past Crown Street Park. The latter is clearly where the depot was. I assume the street got broken in two in times past. They describe the same trajectory.
 

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
731
Quote: ....

Wavertreelad; you are using confusing terminology. It's either Captive or Classic Compatible. What does HS2 compatible mean?

Sorry to clarify the post is corrected appropriately below.

How about build a connection to HS2 at Warrington to the CLC line and upgrade that to "semi-high speed" which is would then at worst allow Classic compatible stock to run on HS2 for the maximum distance at high speed. The existing route to Lime Street could then be followed using Classic compatible stock. Alternatively, if the whole route was cleared for Captive as far as Edge Hill there is still plenty of space for a new station on the south side of the station, or connect one of the existing tunnels on a single line if necessary to a new station at Liverpool Waters as I posted earlier. This would allow at least an hourly Captive stock service to London, with a stop at Warrington, whilst classic compatible stock could still provide an hourly or more service stopping at Runcorn, Crewe and even Birmingham to London or variants of this. The call at Warrington for the Captive service would put additional bums on seats which would all help pay for seats and provide a premium service for passengers travelling to and from London, avoiding the need for travellers to travel into central Manchester creating further congestion, whilst the existing routing could offer a more budget price service with plenty of additional options.

For those readers who may not be aware of the plans for Liverpool Waters, the link below will take you to the website.

http://liverpoolwaters.co.uk/content/home.php

There is a reference to rail access to the scheme, but this is linked to Merseytravel plans which have in the past linked reopening the tunnels from Edge Hill to the scheme as well as existing Merseyrail network. I have merely extended the suggestion as an alternative to the use of Exchange or Edge Hill as the scheme is relatively near the city centre and the entire area which presently is almost entirely industrial is due for extensive redevelopment in the coming years.
 

pablo

Member
Joined
30 Apr 2010
Messages
606
Location
53N 3W The blue planet
Wavertreelad:
I'm with you as far as Edge Hill. Sound proposal, but not onwards to LPL Waters. I think it's called the Victoria tunnel which served Riverside Station in Titanic's days (and until the 50s). Merseytravel have had some impractical ideas over the years.

LPL Waters website is typical of Peel type hype. All the usual buzzwords are there, repeated many times over. Five minutes walk from the development to LPL One bus station? This site is 2 km long and it's well north of the Pier Head!
I can't see any use for the tunnel and certainly not an HS2 station in the docks.
Having worked on the Crown Courts, Chevasse Park, LPL One, the Tram Scheme and Bus station, the Echo Arena and tramped most of the area over the years, I see a need to keep the city centre compact with all the important infrastructure central.
So I see a double deck but smaller version of St. Pancras as the answer to an HS2 terminus in Lime Street but the investment and disruption would be gigantic and prob not justified. So an out-of-town solution on spare land with a Merseyrail extension and road improvements, probably fits the budget and provides wider access.
Since such an extension of HS2, if ever, would follow Phase 2, it's all otoise. That's 2033 onwards and I'll be dead before we see it! So a variation of your scheme is all we're ever likely to see. I don't reckon the GWR route. It's facing the wrong way and ends up in the wrong part of town. Cheers. P.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What about terminating in the Wirral after running north from Chester?

Yes, I've thought that too. It's perfectly possible and would work just the same as above. Twin track from Crewe to Chester and Hooton but north of there, most of the spare trackbed is still available and Birkenhead has the space to accommodate a terminus but you've got the psychological barrier of the Mersey. Scousers don't cross the river if they can help it! :p:)
 
Last edited:

8A Rail

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2012
Messages
1,348
Location
Mars
Wavertreelad:
I'm with you as far as Edge Hill. Sound proposal, but not onwards to LPL Waters. I think it's called the Victoria tunnel which served Riverside Station in Titanic's days (and until the 50s).

Victoria Tunnel was the top part with Waterloo Tunnel (the longer tunnel being at the western end leading into the docks. It closed to traffic in 1972.

If Merseytravel had money to spend from what ever avenues especially with LSP, it would be to extend the third rail to Liverpool John Lennon Airport, as that has always been one of their goals - to be honest a sensible one too. Anything else except probably the extension of the Bidston-Wrexham line and may be extending to Hough Green on the CLC, they would not be interested in as it dont serve the internal needs of Merseyside.

As for Peel Ports, bottom line they are really not interested in Rail traffic - it is just a front for them to get "funds" from what ever source thay can get it from to increase their business in the docks and their ship services up and down the River Mersey and Manchester Ship Canal.

The talk about HS2 being extended into Liverpool by what ever route is just fantasy and the logical route is into the south of the city probably via Warrington too.
 

joeykins82

Member
Joined
24 Jul 2012
Messages
601
Location
London
Let's be realistic here: HS2 is already under threat due to "spiralling costs". Adding a captive HS branch in to Liverpool, requiring either a rebuild of Lime Street or a new station elsewhere is not going to happen because of the price tag. Liverpool will still benefit from the journey time improvements available by running over HS2 as far as Lichfield from phase 1 and then Crewe from phase 2, but you only have to look at the current VT service pattern (3tph Manchester, 1tph Liverpool) to see that the cost:benefit wouldn't stack up.
 

Dunc108

Member
Joined
10 Jun 2013
Messages
270
Location
Morecambe
Let's be realistic here: HS2 is already under threat due to "spiralling costs". Adding a captive HS branch in to Liverpool, requiring either a rebuild of Lime Street or a new station elsewhere is not going to happen because of the price tag. Liverpool will still benefit from the journey time improvements available by running over HS2 as far as Lichfield from phase 1 and then Crewe from phase 2, but you only have to look at the current VT service pattern (3tph Manchester, 1tph Liverpool) to see that the cost:benefit wouldn't stack up.

True, Liverpool is technically on a "Branch" off the WCML, Manchester is on a "Loop" which is probably why it benefits more aswell as still having 2 main line stations, providing flexibility & choice.

HS2 might be a mixed bag for now - however, extending Merseyrail electrics to the RES Platform at Preston could bring Liverpool similar cross city benefits like the Windsor Link brought to Manchester, enabling through EMUs from Preston to Liverpool Central & beyond to Liverpool South Parkway (for the Airport) & connecting to CLC services at Hunt's Cross. Its not hard to envisage a half-hourly Preston - Hunts Cross service (incorporated into the existing freqency) It would also remove another isolated DMU service & free up another unit for use elsewhere. All you'd need to add in is an extra single line from the Ormskirk Branch at Farington Curve Junction to the freight lines futher along so not disrupting existing fast/slow line services. I just think this has phenomenal potential without any significant reconstuction bar track redoubling in places & not to mention provide a far better frequency between Preston & Liverpool alongside the existing hourly DMU via Wigan & St Helens, and I daresay, direct connectional opportunities between Merseyrail EMUs & WCML Intercity main-line services.
 
Last edited:

rebmcr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
3,929
Location
St Neots
Liverpool is technically on a "Branch" off the WCML, Manchester is on a "Loop"

For the purposes of London traffic, Manchester is also on a branch — Virgin don't serve P13/P14 except during diversions.
 

Dunc108

Member
Joined
10 Jun 2013
Messages
270
Location
Morecambe
For the purposes of London traffic, Manchester is also on a branch — Virgin don't serve P13/P14 except during diversions.

I'm just thinking of the routes at their basic level, regardless of services. Manchester Piccadilly (and Victoria) are technically through aswell as terminal stations. Liverpool Lime Street is a terminus & nothing more. On the other hand, Liverpool Central does act even now as a through & terminal station.
 
Last edited:

Gareth

Established Member
Joined
10 Mar 2011
Messages
1,505
Scousers don't cross the river if they can help it! :p:)

Two road tunnels, a rail tunnel and a ferry service suggest otherwise.

The reason Birkenhead wouldn't be very acceptable is not because it's not 'Liverpool' (seems pretty Scouse to me whenever I'm over there) but that it's not central enough. It's be great for much of the Wirral and anyone resident in the city centre but the rest of the Liverpool area would require a change of transport in order to access the station. This is why the often tabled Edge Hill HS2 terminus or the one at Liverpool Waters are also no goers. A city's main station has to be in the centre and Liverpool's no different in this regard.
 

chorleyjeff

Member
Joined
3 May 2013
Messages
677
How about this for a Manchester/Liverpool-Scotland Service Pattern (Assuming ICWC don't get Manchester-Scotland).

Manchester and Liverpool to Wigan (2 Separate 4 car units)
Wigan to Carstairs (Single 8 Car)Pres
Carstairs to Glasgow and Edinburgh (2 Separate 4 car units)

I doubt splitting and joining in service would be an issue for the 350s (SWT do it all the time with 444s/450s) and it would allow an hourly service between the 4 end destinations whilst only using a single path between Wigan and Carstairs.

Exactly as I remember when Clans, 5XPs, Scots, Brits and 2Ps were involved except Preston was where the English shunting was done. And to complicate matters restaurant cars were involved.
Cheers
Jeff
 

Wavertreelad

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Messages
731
Picking up on all today's points, I actually agree a HS2 at Liverpool Waters is very unlikely to happen, as LW has outline planning approval and will likely start being constructed before the first sod of HS2 is removed. I can't see a developer leaving sufficient space to build the required station, if there is any doubt if the project will proceed especially given the time frame involved. I have no doubt that Peel will build the LW project in one form or another, as the land has little use for modern port operations and is in a prime location being near the river. We have already seen what Peel has done at Salford Quays, and they are currently building the new Liverpool2 riverside container terminal that will allow large container ships to use the port which in turn will generate a considerable number of new opportunities in the area once it opens in early 2015.

Peel also have plans to build to build a second cruise terminal on the LW site to compete with the Liverpool City Council operated terminal at the Pier Head. I would also add that since the cruise ships returned to the Pier Head there has been a large number of new hotels of all types opened or in the course of construction in the city centre and it therefore not unreasonable to suggest in the coming years the numbers of bums on train seats to and from Liverpool should increase although admittedly not necessarily from the London area. I also agree the site of LW is not in the city centre, but given the present geography I cannot see this extending further to the south or east rather leaving the north as the only suitable area for expansion in the very long term.

It is also very likely the Port of Liverpool will have additional flows of bulk freight in the next few years as some existing facilities are converted to handle the flows all of which are likely to move by rail placing further pressure on the Chat Moss route. Extending the Merseyrail network to Preston or Wigan from Ormskirk and Kirkby could allow freight trains to reach the WCML, and help fund the cost of upgrading the lines to 25kv overhead, which would effectively prevent the route being used by HS2 trains captive or otherwise into the Exchange site.

Edge Hill could remain an option for captive services, but agree the location is not ideal to serve the city centre although is potentially well served by existing bus routes. Of course if the Merseytravel schemes to reopen the Edge Hill tunnels and build connecting tunnels to the Merseyrail services it would make the site potentially more attractive, especially if underground stations could be constructed near the University and or the Liverpool Arena depending which tunnels were selected. I believe that when Exchange closed, a tunnel connection was built to link to the Trafalgar tunnel was constructed for such a connection in a future project, and there is a similar option at Central underground station from the old terminal platform. Network Rail and Merseytravel have also identified that despite the recent upgrade, Central will have to be expanded at some stage to cope with expected passenger levels.

I agree a station on the Wirral is a none starter for Liverpool for all the reasons stated above and there is till the access problem to Liverpool. In any event Liverpudlians only tend to venture on to the dark side only if it is necessary.

The more I think about it a link from HS2 at Warrington using the old St Helens Canal & Railway Company route from Warrington Bank Quay to Ditton might be a better alternative if it was upgraded to 125mph and classic compatible stock used on the "branch". At a distance of give or take 20 miles max, the travelling time from HS2 to Lime Street could be just 20/25 minutes, and it might also allow a spur directly to Liverpool John Lennon airport which would not be possible with the CLC route. Another advantage would be it would allow Merseyrail to be extended to Warrington using the CLC route as part of an overall electrification of the route at 25kv overhead.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,810
Edge Hill could remain an option for captive services, but agree the location is not ideal to serve the city centre although is potentially well served by existing bus routes. Of course if the Merseytravel schemes to reopen the Edge Hill tunnels and build connecting tunnels to the Merseyrail services it would make the site potentially more attractive, especially if underground stations could be constructed near the University and or the Liverpool Arena depending which tunnels were selected. I believe that when Exchange closed, a tunnel connection was built to link to the Trafalgar tunnel was constructed for such a connection in a future project, and there is a similar option at Central underground station from the old terminal platform. Network Rail and Merseytravel have also identified that despite the recent upgrade, Central will have to be expanded at some stage to cope with expected passenger levels.

.

But which services would use an Edge Hill to Waterfront line ? The vast majority of passengers on the Huyton / St. Helens / Earlestown / Runcorn routes want to go to the city centre, not the Waterfront area. Forcing them to change at Edge Hill to get to Lime St. & the city centre would be hugely unpopular.
 

8A Rail

Established Member
Joined
6 Dec 2012
Messages
1,348
Location
Mars
Peel also have plans to build to build a second cruise terminal on the LW site to compete with the Liverpool City Council operated terminal at the Pier Head. I would also add that since the cruise ships returned to the Pier Head there has been a large number of new hotels of all types opened or in the course of construction in the city centre ........
Not quite true as most of the newer hotels were already completed before the CLT came into being. Cruise ships and new hotels are not linked in that context as you make think as until recently, with the exception of the few that departed /arrived at Langton Dock, no cruises began or finish at the CLT. Because of that extra hotel capacity had directly nothing to do with CLT. This I'm sure will change in the future as the major Cruise lines are now indicating they will commence to start / finish cruises to/from Liverpool.

It is also very likely the Port of Liverpool will have additional flows of bulk freight in the next few years as some existing facilities are converted to handle the flows all of which are likely to move by rail placing further pressure on the Chat Moss route.
Please tell me how you work that out? The traffic is already there but no one wishes to use the rail facilities hence why there is and especially NO intermodal / liner services in / out of the port. Some FOC's would like to operate these trains but there is no demand for them or not financially viable enough to make a complete liner in/out of the port. One of the reasons for this, is that any containers currently arriving / departing Port of Liverpool are being transported by road via the M57/A5300 to/from Garston FLT or Stobarts Terminal at Widnes. You may not realise this but "coal" rail traffic to/from the port is scheduled to drop off sometime in the future as it is planned to come from Scotland as well as possibily more from E/Port too. So the reality of the situation, is remarkably the Port is losing rail traffic and not actually gaining any.

Read the Peel Ports plans as a whole and you will note the idea of moving containers especially is via water to/from the Port to/from other locations especially on the Manchester Ship Canal. The new larger ships for the new river terminal will replace some of the existing flows already using Royal Seaforth Terminal. Yes there will be some new traffic but not as great as Peel Holdings are telling.

As I've said before, take some of Peel Holdings marketing statements as just publicity to make them look "friendly" to the outside world along with saying the "right" words to gain extra funds they need for particular projects.

Dont get me wrong I wish to see new rail flows in and out of the Port and I really hope it does happen but the current vibes etc suggest otherwise. Sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top